Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Charlie T Waite

Super Moderators
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Charlie T Waite

  1. When the Democrats who are seeking their party’s nomination to run against Donald Trump in 2020 start talking about guns, anyone who supports our right to keep and bear arms knows to be concerned. Of course, the details regarding how law-abiding gun owners will be targeted by whomever prevails to face Trump vary, depending on who is speaking. But every single one of them can clearly state how much he or she dislikes firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens, and what they will do to try to undermine the Second Amendment and our right to self-defense. Except, perhaps, for Joe. Don’t get us wrong; former Vice President Joe Biden is definitely anti-gun. His voting record while in Congress proved he is anti-gun, as did his service as Vice President in Barack Obama’s administration. But he sets himself apart from the rest of the current field of Democrats in a rather special way when he starts to speak about firearms. Biden’s biggest problem with guns, other than his dislike of them, is an inability to show he has a firm grasp on the topic. Earlier this year, Biden promoted technology that simply doesn’t exist when he discussed his ideas for so-called smart guns. During the presidential debate in June, he stated, “No gun should be able to be sold unless your biometric measure could pull that trigger. It’s within our right to do that.” The former vice president repeated his ludicrous “smart gun” idea during an anti-gun rally in Las Vegas in October. Sandwiched between the June debate and the October rally, Biden said during an interview on September 2 that it was “absolutely mindless” that “we don’t have elimination of assault-type weapons and magazines that can have, hold multiple bullets in them,” adding that such measures are entirely compatible with the Second Amendment. Multiple, of course, means more than one, so it would seem that the candidate wants to effectively ban ALL magazines, as one that holds a single round of ammunition would be pointless. More recently, Biden told a crowd of supporters in New Hampshire, “I believe in the Second Amendment, but nobody says you can have a round…a…a magazine with a hundred clips in it.” What? Now, there is certainly debate within the firearm community over the proper use of the terms “magazine” and “clip.” Some people use the terms interchangeably to refer to any detachable ammunition feeding device. Others prefer using only “magazine” when talking about such things, and using “clip” to describe a device that only holds ammunition and can be utilized to load a magazine. But a “magazine with a hundred clips” is a firearm innovation that, like Joe’s “biometric measures” gun, simply doesn’t exist. To make matters worse, right after he stammered through his comment about hundred-clip magazines, Biden said, “We protect geese more than we protect, no joke you can only have 3 shotgun shells when you go shooting for geese.” What he intended to say with “we” protect more than geese is unclear, as are many things that come out of the candidate’s mouth these days. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, we presume he was referring to the limit on three shotgun shells in a loaded shotgun during many waterfowl seasons. One could classify a number of the things Biden says as simple gaffes, as he has a long history of making odd claims that his defenders chalk up as him simply misspeaking. But considering he has been promoting an anti-gun agenda for so long, shouldn’t he be more adept at it? Perhaps he doesn’t know a great deal about guns. He does have a law degree, though, so he should at least have a semblance of an understanding about what is and is not legal. In spite of his degree, he once allegedly gave what sounded like horrible legal advice to his own wife should she be faced with trouble at home. “I said, ‘Jill, if there’s ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony ... take that double-barrel shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house,”’ Biden claimed. At the time, we pointed out that following Biden’s advice would likely land one in hot water, depending on the circumstances. Unfortunately, we were right. Biden even once suggested that Stephen Willeford, the hero who used his lawfully owned AR-15 to help bring an end to the rampage of a crazed shooter at a Texas church, should not have been armed. The inability for Joe Biden to speak coherently on firearms is shocking, considering how long he has been railing against the Second Amendment. Perhaps more shocking is the fact that he remains the prohibitive favorite to be the Democrat nominee to face President Donald Trump in 2020. And we’ve just covered his gaffes on guns. A quick Internet search for “Joe Biden gaffes” will uncover a veritable cornucopia of inexplicable statements on any number of subjects. Perhaps this is why there are suddenly a number of candidates that could be entering the race to challenge Biden as the frontrunner. Anti-gun billionaire Michael Bloomberg appears to be considering entering the fray, and former Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick—no slouch when it comes to being opposed to firearms—has launched a late bid. And let’s not forget the looming specter of two-time failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton entering the race. Whether or not Biden is the ultimate nominee, sadly, seems immaterial when it comes to the rights of law-abiding gun owners. As we have said before, all of the Democrats in the race have shown time and time again that they do not respect the Second Amendment. And those who have either entered the race late, or are considering doing so, are equally bad.
  2. “[N]othing is more important than ensuring that our fellow students feel safe,” explained the editors of The Daily Northwestern, the campus newspaper at Northwestern University. The statement was part of a lengthy apology published by the editors, after reporters had covered a public speech (and related disruptions and protests) by former Attorney General and current senatorial candidate, Jeff Sessions, at the university. Referring to “a student body that can be very easily and directly hurt by the University,” the editors (apparently laboring in the trenches of woke-ness) acknowledged their reporting of the event “contributed to the harm students experienced” and failed to ensure that readers were “benefitting from our coverage rather than being actively harmed by it.” The photo coverage particularly was one way the newspaper had “harmed many students,” so the editors removed these “retraumatizing” photos. The same kind of overriding need to shield the sensitivities of young adults from discomfort and fear, however occasioned or poorly justified, was behind a decision to abandon an established Veterans Day observance at another institution of higher learning. University of Virginia President Jim Ryan announced that the traditional 21-gun salute used to honor veterans would be discontinued this year due to the “disruption to classes” and “concerns related to firing weapons on the Grounds in light of gun violence that has happened across our nation.” The philosophy underlying these incidents is troubling on many levels. It suggests that it is acceptable (and necessary, even) to distort honest, accurate, fair and truthful journalism to insulate others from exposure to possibly disagreeable material. It implies that America’s youth are less able than ever before to cope with emotional discomfort or distress absent a “safe space.” It relegates honoring patriotism and our nation’s veterans to something between an inconvenient, noisy “disruption” and a potentially harmful “triggering” occurrence. Perhaps worst of all, it legitimizes the notion of an entitlement to a lifetime of freedom from fear, rather than a belief in the value of freedom itself. Small wonder that veterans, many of whom have a direct, personal understanding of the cost, in blood, of our fundamental freedoms, feel unwelcome on many college campuses. Rob Henderson, a former member of the U.S. Air Force, recently described the ideological contrast between those in the armed forces, who swear an oath to defend with their lives the U.S. Constitution, and affluent college activists who “regularly trash the First [Amendment] and seek to dismantle the Second” Amendment. “We keep our love for America to ourselves.” America did not become the awesome country it is today by elevating “feeling safe” to the most important thing. As Benjamin Franklin observed long ago, “those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
  3. As anti-gun as the 2020 Democratic presidential contenders have exposed themselves to be, much of the field still gives lip-service to the Second Amendment and the Constitution. Take for instance Joe Biden. The leading candidate’s campaign has said that Biden will seek to “respect the Second Amendment” and that “as president, Biden will pursue constitutional, common-sense gun safety policies.” However, take a critical look at the vast majority of the Democratic field for any limiting principle that would preclude even the most severe forms of gun control (like gun confiscation) and you will come up wanting. To his credit, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has once again injected some much-needed sanity into a Democratic presidential primary. Speaking at a November 10 campaign rally in Charles City, Iowa, the candidate was asked about his opinion on a “mandatory buyback” (properly understood as confiscation) of commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms like AR-15s. Sanders responded by stating, “I don't support, a mandatory buyback is essentially confiscation, which I think is unconstitutional.” The senator went on to add, “It means that I am going to walk into your house and take something whether you like it or not. I don't think that stands up to constitutional scrutiny.” Unfortunately, Sanders’s moment of lucidity was brief. The candidate went on to express his support for the criminalization of private firearms transfers and a ban on the sale of commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms. The senator also provided unwitting attendees with a misimpression of current law by suggesting an individual could “buy a dozen guns legally” and sell them to criminals without facing legal repercussions. Of course, 18 U.S.C. 922(d) makes it unlawful for “any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person” is prohibited from possessing firearms. A violation of this provision is punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment. However wrong Sanders might be about a slew of gun control measures, he is right about the confiscation of commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms. In the landmark case District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court concluded that the Second Amendment protected ownership of the type of firearms “in common use at the time” for “lawful purposes like self-defense.” The National Shooting Sports Foundation estimates that there are more than 16 million commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms possessed by law-abiding Americans. The AR-15 is the most popular rifle in America, and therefore is in “common use.” Gun control advocates seem to agree that such semi-automatic rifles are common, considering they routinely complain about the “proliferation” of these firearms. Heller opinion author Justice Antonin Scalia later reiterated the fact that the decision precluded bans on commonly-owned semi-automatics when he signed onto a dissent from denial of certiorari in the case of Friedman v. Highland Park. The dissent, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, couldn’t have been clearer: Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. Further, as Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted during his time on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in a dissent in District of Columbia v. Heller, U.S. Supreme Court precedent required gun control measures to be scrutinized in the context of the Second Amendment’s “text, history, and tradition.” A confiscation effort the likes of which has been backed by several of the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates has no validity when examined under this framework. This wasn’t the first time Sanders has brought a measure of reason to a Democratic presidential primary. During a 2016 Democratic primary debate, Sanders was challenged on his vote for the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. The PLCAA was enacted to protect the firearms industry from frivolous lawsuits resulting from a third party’s criminal misuse of a firearm. The act codified long-standing principles of tort law. During the debate, Sanders stated, Well, this is what I say, if I understand it — and correct me if I’m wrong. If you go to a gun store and you legally purchase a gun, and then, three days later, if you go out and start killing people, is the point of this lawsuit to hold the gun shop owner or the manufacturer of that gun liable? If that is the point, I have to tell you I disagree…. what you're really talking about is ending gun manufacturing in America. I don't agree with that. According to USA Today, the Senator later told reporters that permitting frivolous suits against the gun industry could result in “shutting down the entire industry.” Sanders added, “If Secretary Clinton’s position is that there should not be any more guns in America, fine… She should be honest and say that, because that is really what that means.” Sanders is not a champion of gun rights. The senator merely appears to understand that there is some limit to the government’s power to trample upon the Constitutional rights of the American people. The fact that his comment stands out in the 2020 Democratic race is more a testament to his deranged opponents than his love of liberty. It’s a bizarre season when the “Democratic Socialist” is the most centrist Democratic presidential candidate on guns.
  4. Carson City Council will be considering Resolution 19-186, which mirrors the failed attempt from September. Contact the Members of the City Council IMMEDIATELY and respectfully urge them to OPPOSE this unconstitutional resolution. Meeting Information: What: City of Carson, CA: City Council Meeting When: November 19, 2019 Time: 5 p.m. (PST) Location: Helen Kawagoe Council Chambers 701 E Carson Street, Carson, CA 90745 Mayor, City of Carson - Albert Robles Phone: (310) 952-1700 Email: ARobles@carson.ca.us Mayor Pro Tempore - Cedric L. Hicks, Sr. Phone: (310) 952-1700 Ext. 1712 Email: CHicks@carson.ca.us Council Member - Lula Davis-Holmes Phone: (310) 952-1700 Ext. 1000 Email: LHolmes@carson.ca.us Council Member- Jawane Hilton Phone: (310) 952-1700 Ext. 1715 Email: JHilton@carson.ca.us Council Member - Jim Dear Phone: (310) 952-1700 Ext. 1000 Email: JDear@carson.ca.us Resolution 19-186 would: Impose “reasonable” minimum separation distance requirements, “preferably of a radius of one mile,” between gun dealers and the following: schools, churches, day-care centers, recreation facilities, bars, liquor stores, and residential zones; Provide for the elimination of existing gun dealers that would be deemed “nonconforming” by the new resolution. Prohibit the sale and possession of firearms on all City-owned property and public right-of-way, including City Hall and other City-owned buildings and all City parks and recreation facilities, subject to exceptions for possession of firearms by law enforcement officers; and Prohibit or restrict the sale of additional firearm accessories. Continue to check your inbox and the California Stand and Fight webpage for updates on issues impacting your Second Amendment rights and hunting heritage.
  5. Gun-control advocates in Maine recently pledged to continue pushing for stricter legislation after the Maine Legislative Council voted against many gun-control proposals on Oct. 23. Rep. Vicki Doudera (D), who proposed a pair of gun-control bills, “is disappointed the bills didn’t move forward,” but believes that proponents of gun control “will regroup,” reported The Associated Press. The Maine chapter of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America criticized the legislative council, saying the results could have “deadly consequences.” Despite having a Democratic majority, the Maine Legislative Council voted against the majority of restrictive gun-control proposals and tabled one other. Each requires approval from the 10-member council, comprised of legislative leadership from both parties, in order to move forward to the full legislative session that begins in January. The proposals included “anti-gun schemes such as banning commonly-owned firearms, requiring gun owners to purchase mandatory liability insurance, expanding arbitrary zones where law-abiding citizens are left defenseless and imposing one-size-fits all storage requirements that render firearms unavailable for self-defense,” as reported by the NRA Institute for Legislative Action. David Trahan, executive director of the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, told the AP “the pushback against new controls shows Maine’s current laws are already working in the state.” Gov. Janet Mills (D) spoke earlier this year about previously proposed gun-control bills, including those regarding background checks, saying that the voters have already spoken. The governor was referencing a 2016 ballot referendum that would have required background checks on virtually all firearms transfers; it was rejected by voters.
  6. RED FLAG LAWS MORE DANGEROUS THAN EXPECTED People declared guilty without trials are left out on the streets Americans don't realize that the safety promised by "red flag" laws will be dangerously lost, if red-flagged people become enraged. They are left free on the streets, where they can terrorize those who assaulted them with the new laws. No grounds or means for locking them up are included, a side effect of dropping traditional due process. Promoters of new red-flag creations, by ignoring the safeguards of due process--well known "innocent unless proven guilty" standards that keep you free--introduced new dangers. By abandoning this fundamental safety net, they lifted restrictions that hold tyrants, bigots and other malfeasants at bay. A recent survey has shown that most Americans cannot even describe what due process is, let alone hold it up as a basic right to be honored or defended. Removing due process allows officials to act as if the public is guilty without the burdens of a trial--or even formal charges. Red flag laws are only expected to be used against supposedly deadly dangerous psychotics, before they act out in spree murders, sort of "pre-crime." Once officials take--without proper paperwork or court orders--firearms they can find in those people's homes, the people are simply left alone. Any weapons officials miss, plus knives, gasoline, or firearms that can be easily obtained on the street--these remain with the flagged people. Nothing stops the supposedly murderous psychotics--if flag laws are applied as intended--to attack their suspected accusers, authorities or ambush anyone, in attempts to rebalance the scales of justice. Experts have been hard pressed to describe a more dangerous legalistic invention. "Eliminating due process, and declaring people guilty without trial or representation, means totally abandoning the U.S. Constitution," said Alan Korwin, author of ten books on gun law and consultant to JPFO. "We know democrats have been ignoring the rule of law, but this shows they know no bounds. Do they expect courts to support this? Or have the courts abandoned the rule of law as well?" When this comes home to roost, he says, you'll really wish you had your right to keep and bear arms intact, as the Founders intended, for your own safety.
  7. What I was trying to do is make everyone think and reason - but the question was still not answered - "Who is to be the judge of when a debt to society is paid in full?
  8. Too often, firearm violence prompts calls for lawmakers to “do something.” This often includes policies that abridge rights and fail to increase public safety.Key points:Texas is the safest it has been in a generation, yet some are calling for stricter gun control.Common gun control proposals often penalize law-abiding gun owners while failing to improve public safety.
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.