You should read the article Brine, it might surprise you. The article is well written.
Meanwhile, I resident Anti-American continues with his vicious hateful smear and Anti-American rhetoric...... On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Brian Bednarek <[email protected]> wrote: > The title negates it: > Guns Don’t Kill People—Liberals Kill PeopleA blanket attack on "liberals" > is never a good way to get your point across!!! > > I do believe that sick people kill and that a responsible person should be > allowed to own a gun, that's where background checks come in!!! We need > better mental health screening, not bans on guns!!! > > On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> I thought this was an excellent column, and worth the read. Dunkin is >> "Spot On' here, although I am quite sure there will be some Progressives >> who will disagree with him: >> >> You think individual left-wing fruitcakes on Ritalin are dangerous? Just >> wait until left-wing government gets into power without a citizenry that is >> broadly and heavily armedGuns Don’t Kill People—Liberals Kill People >> [image: Author] >> By Tim Dunkin -- Bio and Archives >> <http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/members/75831/TimDunkin/467> *October >> 6, 2015* >> 86 Comments <http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article-disqus/75831> >> | Print friendly >> <http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/print-friendly/75831> | Subscribe >> <http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/About-us/> | Email Us >> <[email protected]> >> >> >> By now the reader is well aware of the recent school shooting that took >> place at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon. Another mass >> shooting, another excuse for the left-wing vultures to prey on the >> carcasses of the dead. Another opportunity for Pres__ent Obama to >> grandstand and huff and sigh and affect an air of righteous indignation. >> Another occasion for left-wingers to roll their eyes and complain about >> how, even after this shooting, those dastardly right-wingers still won’t >> support “common sense gun laws.” >> >> The reason we don’t, of course, is because the left-wingers are still >> making the same old, nonsensical, discredited arguments that they always >> do. As always, the ideas they’re floating *yet again* would do nothing >> to stop a mass shooting such as occurred at UCC. They propose universal >> background checks after a case in which the shooter passed the stringent >> background checks that Oregon already imposes. They want to ban “assault >> rifles” and “high-capacity magazines” in response to a shooting spree which >> involved neither. They have literally no new ideas for dealing with these >> mass shootings, so it’s not surprising that normal people will continue to >> reject their “solutions.” Essentially, the left-wing solution is to punish >> millions of people who didn’t commit a crime. >> >> But what we need to understand is that those on the Left *cannot* really >> bring themselves to deal with these shootings in a rational manner, nor can >> they really produce reasonable plans for preventing them in the future, >> simply because the policies and predilections of the*liberals themselves* are >> ultimately root causes of these mass shootings. >> >> First and most obvious is the phenomenon of “gun free zones.” Liberals >> love them. So do mass shooters. Whenever you hear about a mass shooting, >> before you learn anything else about the situation, you can be guaranteed >> that the venue where it took place was a gun-free zone. You don’t see mass >> shootings at gun stores or shooting ranges for the same reason you don’t >> see doughnut shops setting up franchises inside a Gold’s Gym. The whole >> environment would render the attempt completely futile. So instead of >> choosing a tougher nut to crack, people like Chris Harper-Mercer and James >> Holmes choose places that they can be reasonably certain no one will be >> likely to shoot back. >> >> The problem, of course, is that this isn’t just a theoretical argument >> that has no real-world ramifications. People get killed in gun-free zones. >> And the left-wingers who put those zones into place are directly >> responsible for the taking of those innocent lives. They enable people like >> Harper-Mercer to have a target-rich environment. They disable good people >> from being able to defend themselves and other innocents. >> >> Further, the left-wingers have succeeded in inculcating a lot of folks >> with the attitude of, “I shouldn’t defend myself, I should just wait for >> the police to show up.” Let’s remember, though, that even the fastest >> police response is far slower than a pull of the trigger finger. As Umpqua >> was the latest to show, a psycho can shoot dozens before the police get >> there. Gun-free zones only serve to reinforce this sort of >> counter-productive and dangerous attitude because they instill the false >> hope that should something happen, the police will be there to do more than >> just clean up the mess and take statements from the survivors. In most >> cases, however, they will not, which means that for those present with the >> shooter, there is no credible means of defending themselves *in situ*. >> >> One argument for more gun control that the lefties will make is that we >> need to keep the guns out of the hands of the crazy people. In principle I >> agree—we *should *keep guns out of the hands of crazy people. But the >> problem is that the Left has made it so difficult to identify and interdict >> crazy people before they go off the deep end and actually do something >> crazy, that it is practically impossible to prevent the crazies from doing >> crazy things. >> >> Beginning in the 1960s, the Left made a “cause” out of “destigmatizing” >> mental illness. As a result of this, many institutions—which used to be >> known by the gauche and un-politically correct name of “insane >> asylums”—gradually began shuffling their inmates out the door. One effect >> of this was to vastly increase the number of mentally ill individuals >> living on the streets, or ending up in prison. >> Another long-term effect of this left wing-driven movement against >> institutionalization was to replace genuine care with medication. And this >> is another commonality between all of these mass shootings—each of the >> shooters was a young male who was taking, or had taken, one or more >> behavior-altering psychotropic drug. Instead of investigating and dealing >> with those who begin to show genuine signs of mental illness, the easy and >> politically correct route is simply to “give ‘em meds.” These meds, in >> turn, also carry with them side effects such as depression, anxiety, >> paranoia, and others. Even otherwise healthy young men are given Ritalin, >> Prozac, and other drugs in school under the guise of treating their “ADHD” >> (which most often is not) because the effeminized educational system would >> rather drug them than simply deal with active boys being active boys—female >> teachers in the publik skoolz often seem to want to turn these boys into >> docile little lambs like the little girls are in their classrooms rather >> than do the heavy lifting of shaping, molding, and directing these boys. >> These drugs, however, will often warp the minds of these boys, creating >> mental problems and making them more likely to display the personality >> traits associated with mass shooters. >> >> Having discussed these other areas, let’s turn to the elephant in the >> room that the Left desperately wants to avoid talking about. >> Mass shooters that we have seen have been—(almost) without >> exception—denizens of the Left. >> >> The mass shooters that we have seen have been—(almost) without >> exception—denizens of the Left. Take this latest shooter, Chris >> Harper-Mercer. Here you have a guy who had a well-known hatred of >> “organized religion” and who specifically targeted Christians during his >> rampage. His social media footprint indicates that he supported the Black >> Lives Matter movement and expressed admiration >> <http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/10/01/umpqua-gunman-id-d-as-chris-harper-mercer.html> >> for >> Vester Flanagan, the black supremacist who shot two white reporters dead in >> August. He was a supporter of the marxist IRA (Irish Republican Army), and >> stated on internet forums that he wanted to “strike back” at >> “normals”—which is a sarcastic term sometimes used by socially disaffected >> people on the Left to describe all the people like you and me who don’t >> support “social justice” and political correctness and all the rest. >> >> It’s interesting that the media and the Left seem to have an >> understanding that this is the case, for they initially made some >> underhanded efforts at casting Harper-Mercer as a “right winger”—and did so >> by attempting to hack, alter, and misreport information about him. For >> instance, at one online dating website, Harper-Mercer’s political views >> were listed as “republican, conservative”—yet it was noted that this was >> changed (and indeed, the profile was altered five times) *after* the >> shooter was already dead. Actually, Harper-Mercer was registered >> <http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d79_1443808511> to Oregon’s Independent >> Party, a left-leaning third party that has previously cross-nominated >> liberal Oregon Democrats like Jeff Merkley and Ben Westlund in 2008 and >> John Kitzhaber in 2010. In a rather transparent attempt to distance him >> from ties to Black Lives Matter, the media even altered the image of >> Harper-Mercer (who is mixed race, with a white father and black mother) to >> make him appear more white >> <http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015/10/02/the-curious-case-of-oregon-shooter-chris-harper-mercer-a-social-media-profile-shaped-modified-and-deleted/>. >> Hilariously, the *LA Times* has even attempted to cast >> <http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/10/03/shock-la-times-labels-black-oregon-shooter-as-white-supremacist/> >> Harper-Mercer >> as a “white supremacist,” despite his identification as mixed race, his >> affinity for Vester Flanagan, and his murder of an exclusively white set of >> victims. >> >> The reason they do this is because the Left desperately needs a >> “right-wing killer” to counterbalance all the left-wing crazies who have >> perpetrated massing shootings in recent years. >> >> But there’s no getting around the data. >> >> Jared Laughner, who attempted to assassinate Rep. Gabby Giffords, hated >> George Bush, hated religion, and went after Giffords because she wasn’t >> liberal enough. Seung-hui Cho, the Virginia Tech shooter, hated George >> Bush, hated Republicans, hated religion. James Holmes, the Aurora theater >> shooter, was connected with the Occupy Wall Street movement, hated >> Christians, and eventually ended up converting to Islam in prison. Adam >> Lanza, the Sandy Hook shooter, was reported to have a website dedicated to >> satan, and hated Christians. Even Craig Stephen Hicks, the atheist who shot >> three Muslims students in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, in February, hated >> “religion” of all kinds and could just as easily have vented his >> frustrations on Christian neighbors. It’s not just shooters, either - >> Andrew Joseph Stack, the guy who flew his Piper Cub into the IRS building >> in Austin, Texas, left behind a rambling screed praising Marxism. The only >> seeming exception to these in recent years would be Dylann Roof, the little >> sicko who shot up the church in Charleston, South Carolina, back in June, >> killing nine black parishioners. But even then, we should note that he *SHOT >> UP A CHURCH* *AND KILLED NINE CHRISTIANS*—not exactly the actions of the >> stereotypical “radical religious righter” boogeyman that the Left always >> warns is hiding just over the horizon. >> >> It’s really starting to look as if the only way to keep Americans safe >> is, instead of banning guns, to ban liberals who don’t like Christians. >> >> But we can’t do that, of course, because there’s some kind of >> constitutional amendment against it. And we wouldn’t want to go overturning >> any constitutional amendments, after all. >> >> Oh wait >> <http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/03/obama-goes-beyond-mere-gun-control-hints-confiscation/> >> . >> >> At this point, the only way the Left is going to be able to achieve its >> dream of a gun-free America (except for police and the military and other >> agents of government, of course) is to overturn the 2ndamendment. They >> can try to do this legally by amending the Constitution, either with an >> Article V convention or the more old-fashioned way that has been employed >> 27 times now. But let’s be realistic—this simply will not happen. They >> could not get anywhere near the support they would need to even begin to >> hope to go this route. >> >> So the more likely route they will take will be to “repeal” the 2nd amendment >> illegally. This could be done by simply legislating a ban and subsequent >> confiscation. It could be achieved via executive order. It could also be >> realized by ginning up lawsuits that would allow them to steer cases >> towards left-wing judges, who would then allow the federal courts to >> “evolve” on this issue and start finding that gun bans and confiscation are >> “constitutional,” hoping that by the time the cases made their way to the >> Supreme Court, at least one of the conservative Justices will have been >> replaced by a liberal. >> >> Any of these methods would be completely unconstitutional and would have >> no legitimacy at all. And should this route be employed, the states and the >> people should be ready to resist such attempts. The states should stand >> ready to nullify any such law or ruling, using their constitutionally >> provided right <http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/dunkin/150904> to >> judge such legislation as unconstitutional, and hence null and void. At the >> same time, the body of the people should simply refuse to obey any order to >> turn in their firearms, as roughly 90% of AR-15 owners in Connecticut >> reportedly did. Further, the body of the people—the militia who stand in >> defense of the liberties of this nation—should also be ready to resist, >> with whatever force is necessary, any violent attempt by our own government >> to confiscate our guns. When a government makes war on its own people in >> such a fashion, it immediately loses any claim to obedience, legitimacy, or >> forbearance on the part of its people. >> >> The reason for this is simple. You think individual left-wing fruitcakes >> on Ritalin are dangerous? Just wait until left-wing *government *gets >> into power without a citizenry that is broadly and heavily armed. You can >> ask any survivor of the Soviet, Nazi, Khmer Rouge, Sandinista, or Maoist >> regimes what happens when the only people who have guns are the agents of >> government. The abundant evidence from these governments shows that the >> radical Left does not mind mass killings at all—provided they’re the ones >> who get to do the killing. >> >> The lesson from the Umpqua college shooting is not that we need fewer >> guns. Instead, it is that we need more of them in the right hands—the hands >> of law-abiding citizens ready and willing to take action to defend >> themselves, those around them, and ultimately, the liberties of their >> nation. >> >> -- >> -- >> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >> >> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ >> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >> >> --- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "PoliticalForum" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > > > -- > brine > http://brineb.blogspot.com/ > > -- > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "PoliticalForum" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
