Showing posts with label Gun Control. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gun Control. Show all posts
Saturday, August 30, 2025
Friday, September 06, 2024
Saturday, September 23, 2023
Tuesday, December 20, 2022
Wednesday, September 14, 2022
Sunday, June 26, 2022
Saturday, June 09, 2018
Lake Union Youth distribute petition urging fairness and humanity in U.S. immigration and gun control policy
Jun 08, 2018 | Berrien Springs, Michigan | Debbie Michel, Lake Union associate director of communication.
Photo credit: Courtesy Lake Union Conference
(Adventist News Network)
More than 300 participants attending last weekend's Hispanic Youth Congress on the campus of Andrews University signed petitions requesting fairness and humanity in policies pertaining to U.S. immigration and gun control.
According to Carmelo Mercado, Lake Union vice president and director of Multicultural ministries, the decision to circulate the two petitions grew out of discussions leading up to a social justice workshop at the youth congress, as “we wanted to not just talk the theory, but address social justice issues in a practical way.” Mercado explained that the move is startling and unusual because oftentimes Hispanics are fearful of going public about these frightening issues.
In announcing the immigration petition on Saturday evening, Ingrid Slikkers, Andrews University social work professor and Bethany Christian Services’ social worker, shared disturbing stories of children separated from their parents. She detailed traumatic incidents such as a six-month old baby now in their care who was pulled apart from their mother, as well as children asking about their parents’ whereabouts and the agency’s social workers being unable to answer those distressing questions.
Below is a copy of the both petitions drafted with the help of the Lake Union Public Affairs and Religious Director, Nicholas Miller, which will be mailed to the federal congresspersons and senators in Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin.
Saturday, March 31, 2018
Adventist Students Join National Walkout Day
14 March 2018 | Jared Wright
Today students across the United States walked out of their classrooms at 10:00 a.m. in voluntary demonstrations against gun violence in America. The walkouts came one month after the Parkland, Florida shooting of students and teachers at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. Seventeen were killed in the shooting and seventeen more were injured.
At least ten* Seventh-day Adventist schools participated in National Walkout Day events, including La Sierra Academy, Loma Linda Academy, Portland Adventist Academy, Redwood Adventist Academy, Rogers Adventist School, Spencerville Adventist Academy, Takoma Adventist Academy, Walla Walla Valley Academy, Andrews University, Walla Walla University and Washington Adventist University.
I spoke with several students, parents, and faculty members about the events to find out how Adventist schools took part.
High School Walkouts
Ivanna Vargas, the student organizer of Loma Linda Academy’s walkout event and school newspaper editor, said that her concern over mass shooting events began with the 2015 San Bernardino shooting.
“My mom had been working only a block away from where the shooting took place,” Vargas said. “When we found out about the shooting, I was not able to contact her.” Vargas said she felt out of control and angry. Then a month ago while watching a broadcast of the Parkland Shooting, Vargas realized something had to be done to bring about change.
She found out about the National Walkout Day through Instagram and proposed to her communication class that they take part. After her proposal failed to take hold, she again suggested participating to her College English classmates who took charge of the event.
Vargas’s College English teacher Danelle Taylor said that the whole class chose to participate by leading discussions and praying with the students who walked out. “After Ivanna started the event, she explained they would get in small groups to make sure everyone understand why they were walking out today,” Taylor said. “In small groups students talked about their positions on gun control and school safety with each other.”
Taylor estimated that at least 200 students—about half the students in grades 8-12—participated in the event. Student leader Kenda Ukiru closed the event by asking everyone to form a large circle and by praying for victims of school shootings. She also prayed that the walkouts would spur positive change.
Sunday, March 25, 2018
A fake photo of Emma González went viral on the far right, where Parkland teens are villains
The Washington Post
Alex Horton 3 hrs ago
© Noam Galai/WireImage Emma Gonzalez attends March For Our Lives on March 24, 2018 in Washington, DC. Having teenagers act as figureheads for a movement has a certain quality that has not gone unnoticed in the wake of the March for Our Lives rally on Saturday.
Judge too harshly, and you are attacking a kid who has balanced trauma with homework. Amplifying students such as Emma González has injected optimism among liberal activists in the grinding debate about the role of guns in society.
González, 18, has been at the flash point of this dynamic, appearing in newspapers, on magazine covers and in a prominent spot at the anchor rally in Washington, where her speech, which included a prolonged silence, lasted as long as the six minutes it took a gunman at her high school in Parkland, Fla., to kill 17 people on Valentine’s Day.
Gun-control advocates have held up González as a figurehead of the movement, splashing her trademark shaved head on T-shirts and viral images.
Then, there is another viewpoint of her activism.
A doctored animation of González tearing the U.S. Constitution in half circulated on social media during the rally, after it was lifted from a Teen Vogue story about teenage activists. In the real image, González is ripping apart a gun-range target.
The doctored image mushrooming across social media appeared to confirm the belief among Second Amendment absolutists that calls for stricter gun-control measures are sacrosanct, destroying the very foundation of the United States. The animation bounced around conservative Twitter before it received a signal boost Saturday from actor Adam Baldwin.
He tweeted to a quarter of a million followers with a hashtag reading “#Vorwärts!,” the German word for “forward” and an apparent reference to the Hitler Youth, whose march song included the word.
Tuesday, March 06, 2018
Monday, November 13, 2017
San Diego bishop says gun control is a social justice issue
Inés San Martín
November 13, 2017
VATICAN CORRESPONDENT
Bishop Robert W. McElroy of San Diego passes a banner showing Pope Francis before the start of a conference on building a world free from nuclear weapons, at the Vatican Nov. 10. The conference brought together 11 Nobel laureates, top officials from the United Nations and NATO, diplomats from around the world, experts in nuclear weapons and the disarmament process, scholars, activists and representatives of bishops' conferences. (Credit: CNS photo/Paul Haring.)
Bishop Robert McElroy says gun control is a social justice issue of interest to the US Catholic bishops, and criticized the gun lobby for its "organized opposition to gun control, taking the position that any limitation against guns is a limitation on the core rights of individuals." He also said American military action cannot have any positive role in resolving the current crisis around North Korea.
ROME- Gun control is a social justice issue of concern to America’s Catholic bishops, according to Bishop Robert McElroy of San Diego, who was recently at a Vatican conference to talk about the contributions the Catholic Church can make regarding nuclear disarmament.
“One of the problems is the organized opposition to gun control, taking the position that any limitation against guns is a limitation on the core rights of individuals,” McElroy told Crux on Friday.
Bishop Robert W. McElroy of San Diego passes a banner showing Pope Francis before the start of a conference on building a world free from nuclear weapons, at the Vatican Nov. 10. The conference brought together 11 Nobel laureates, top officials from the United Nations and NATO, diplomats from around the world, experts in nuclear weapons and the disarmament process, scholars, activists and representatives of bishops' conferences. (Credit: CNS photo/Paul Haring.)
Bishop Robert McElroy says gun control is a social justice issue of interest to the US Catholic bishops, and criticized the gun lobby for its "organized opposition to gun control, taking the position that any limitation against guns is a limitation on the core rights of individuals." He also said American military action cannot have any positive role in resolving the current crisis around North Korea.
ROME- Gun control is a social justice issue of concern to America’s Catholic bishops, according to Bishop Robert McElroy of San Diego, who was recently at a Vatican conference to talk about the contributions the Catholic Church can make regarding nuclear disarmament.
“One of the problems is the organized opposition to gun control, taking the position that any limitation against guns is a limitation on the core rights of individuals,” McElroy told Crux on Friday.
Friday, February 26, 2016
Clinton Cites 'Constitutional Right To Life, Liberty & Pursuit Of Happiness' In Gun Control Argument
Published on Feb 25, 2016
Hillary Clinton cited a “constitutional right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” in an interview that aired Wednesday with Steve Harvey, apparently forgetting those words are in the Declaration of Independence. Clinton, who’s taken a hard left turn on gun control in her bid for the Democratic nomination, discussed her stance on the issue and cited popular support for the gun measures she’s pursuing in front of the friendly studio audience. No one will take your gun away if you’re a responsible gun owner, Clinton said. “We’ve got to say to the gun lobby, you know what, there’s a constitutional right for people to own guns, but there’s also a constitutional right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that enables us to have a safe country where we are able to protect our children and others from this senseless gun violence,” Clinton said. “Absolutely,” Harvey said.
Clinton had company up on the stage. Harvey memorably flubbed the true winner of the Miss Universe contest when he hosted it in December, reading out the wrong name before having to correct himself. The 1776 Declaration of Independence reads, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Washington Free Beacon: Clinton Cites ‘Constitutional Right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness’ in Gun Control Argument http://freebeacon.com/politics/clinto...
.
Saturday, January 09, 2016
CNN: Guns in America town hall with President Obama
Full HD Video - CNN's Guns in America Town Hall - US President Barack Obama Town Hall
World SX
Published on Jan 7, 2016
During CNN's Guns in America town hall, President Barack Obama answers the questions
President Barack Obama rejected the "imaginary fiction" that he wanted to take away the guns of law-abiding Americans during a town hall meeting on his gun policies aired on CNN Thursday night.
"The way it is described, is that we are trying to take away everybody's guns," Obama said, charging that his opponents had twisted his plans on gun safety measures.
"Our position is consistently mischaracterized," Obama said. "If you listen to the rhetoric, it is so over-the-top, it is so overheated."
The town hall was a rare forum for a President who is entering his final full year in office. He fielded questions from those who support his actions, including a priest and victims of gun violence at the "Guns in America" special. But he also heard from a wide range of advocates opposed to his policies, including a gun executive, a sheriff, a rape survivor and a widow who criticized his executive actions that would, among other things, narrow the so-called "gun-show loophole" on background checks.
The President also said that he would be happy to meet with representatives of the National Rifle Association, which declined to take part in the town hall meeting even though other gun rights advocates did attend. But he said the conversation would have to be based on facts, "not some imaginary fiction in which Obama is trying to take away your guns."
He dismissed such accusations as conspiracies, and that the notion that he would be paving the way for eventual martial law as absurd given that he didn't have much time left in the White House.
"I'm only going to be here for another year," he said.
Obama is headlining the "Guns in America" event exclusively on CNN to press for public support for the executive measures he announced on Tuesday. In an interview with Anderson Cooper, Obama attributed some of the tensions over the issue to divergent perceptions on gun ownership between rural and inner city communities.
"Part of the reason, I think, that this ends up being such a difficult issue is because people occupy different realities," he said.
The President opened the event by acknowledging that he himself has never owned a gun and had little experience with them, stemming in part from his upbringing in Hawaii, where he said sport shooting is not as popular as in other parts of the country.
He then disputed the notion that most criminals got guns illegally or through personal connections, making background checks -- a major focus on his policy initiative on guns -- of little utility.
"All of us can agree that It makes sense to do everything we can to keep guns out of the hands of people who would do others harm, or themselves harm," he said.
He called on Congress to set up a system that is "efficient" and doesn't inconvenience lawful gun owners to create a background check system that would stem at least some illegal gun activity.
"The fact that the system doesn't catch every single person ... has to be weighed against the fact that we might be able to save a whole bunch of families from the grief that some of the people in this audience have had to go through," he said.
He made a similar argument in response to a question from Arizona Sheriff Paul Babeu, who said that the executive actions wouldn't have prevented the mass shootings that prompted much of Obama's push for greater gun control.
"How are we going to get them to follow the laws?" Babeu asked of those who commit gun crimes.
After Babeu was introduced as a Republican running for Congress, Obama responded with a hint of sarcasm as he wished him good luck in his race.
.
Tuesday, January 05, 2016
GUN WARS THE FORCE RETAKEN
Posted on January 5, 2016
by Ron Patton
in Articles
GUN WARS THE FORCE RETAKEN
I woke early this morning to the wall-to-wall coverage of the presidential hard sell to the American people that changes to the gun laws and zeroing in on the mentally ill will somehow reduce the risks of gun crimes, terror, and lone nut shooting incidents which become such political footballs, it fuels the speculation that most if not all of these incidents look like false flag events.
A teary-eyed President Obama announced plans to expand background checks and make other changes to America’s gun rules. Once again, Obama used the dreaded pen and phone to use executive action, which of course circumvents Congress and once again fuels allegations of executive overreach.
While most of what he said sounded like the whaa whaa whap sounds heard from parents in a Charlie Brown cartoon, there was a part of his speech that stood out for me because it centered around constitutional rights and how we have somehow accepted over time the idea of surrendering rights for safety.
Obama stated:
What he fails to point out is the reason we are paying this price for living in a so-called civilized society is that we have been fed a diet of fear and thus we see a constitution with conditions that go from reasonable to complete negation of civil liberties.
Obama seems to feel that the people will allow for the weakening of things like the second amendment in order to feel some sort of renewed sense of security.
President Obama wants us to believe that we take comfort in hearing the same worn out and tired tropes of how all of these provisions have somehow prevented “who knows” how many terror attacks.
The “who knows” remark can be a vague form of negative logic, for those who are awake but for the police state it is a doublespeak euphemism for a consensus mind numbing where the people can assume that all of their so-called foiled plots are reasons for constitutional tinkering.
I don’t want reduce the various American tragedies to mere statistics – but they are very telling of how afraid we have become and how we now accept government overreach as a way of life.
There have been only 38 Americans that have been killed on American soil by radicalized Islamic terrorism since 9/11.
While that is 38 too many, it is a drop in the bucket compared to those killed in car accidents or those that have died as result of intestinal illnesses brought on by eating in restaurants.
The National Safety Council reports that more than 6,000 Americans die a year from falls; most of them involve people falling off their roof or ladder trying to clean their gutters, put up Christmas lights and the like. That means you’re 353 times more likely to fall to your death doing something idiotic than die in a terrorist attack or even these first person shooter events.
I know that it is hard to persuade a constantly re-frightened American public that the constitution should not be weakened because of gun crimes and terrorism, but the facts are very telling of how easy it has been for the Obama Administration to mislead us on the idea that we need more surveillance and strict gun laws to prevent terrorism and mass shootings.
At the centerpiece of Obama’s plan is a more sweeping definition of gun dealers that the administration hopes will expand the number of gun sales subject to background checks. At gun shows, websites and flea markets, sellers often skirt that requirement by declining to register as licensed dealers, but officials said new federal guidance would clarify that it applies to anyone “in the business” of selling firearms.
Almost all of our homegrown lone gunmen and terrorist shooters trend on Google and their notoriety is pushed through the newsfeeds of Facebook to the point that everyone is under the impression we are breeding trigger-happy unstable miscreants in need of control.
The Obama Administration has now finalized a rule that enables health care providers to report the names of mentally ill patients to an FBI firearms background check system.
While no one wants an unstable person with a gun, the definition of someone who is “mentally ill’ is so broad and expansive. Most of us probably assume a mentally ill person is a violent person. However, a mentally ill person can also be someone overcome by post traumatic stress disorder or one who suffers from high anxiety or one who is depressed. Why should these people who show no indication of intent to harm others be discriminated against and lose their right to own a firearm?
America falsely believes the easy scapegoat is the so-called terrorists, the mentally ill or perhaps even violent T.V. or video games, but the reality is that most of these horrible events are coming from within the political and military complex and are somehow slipping by the national security infrastructure that we have been told is there to protect us from such events.
In fact, if you look at the track record, since all of these so-called safeguards have been employed, we have seen an increase in these “tragic” and “senseless” events and thus, we have become trapped in an unsafe environment.
Regardless of what you are hearing, it is becoming more apparent that these shootings are less random and are actively being planned in order to traumatize us into thinking the state can only protect us with their militarized police forces and our own guns and self-defense skills can’t neutralize an active shooter.
Human sustainability far outweighs the political sphere of influence and yet the political discussions go on incessantly in a country that seems to fixate its tiresome national dialogue about our lack of leadership, our need for more national security and the right to defend one’s own family and property.
The Second Amendment argument should not even be argued. There should be no infringement on the right to bear arms and yet it’s now an issue up for debate, all because of a number of “senseless acts.” Do we not see these shooting incidents as expedient for gun control agendas being proposed by the few and not by the majority who know safety of property and family is a priority in times of crisis?
The most devastating truth facing us in the event of national crisis is that urban areas are the most unsafe places on the planet and the convenience we cherish will become our undoing as the aftermath of a crisis inevitably leads to civil unrest and the armed populace that is constitutional becomes the armed horde who can be your enemy in the face of all resource depletion.
We know now that 2016 is the year designated for “full spectrum” operations, as requiring the military to prepare for internal campaigns against radicalized American citizens.
There will be if necessary, “full spectrum operations in the coming two decades according to the US Army Training and Doctrine Command, The Army Operating Concept 2016 – 2028, TRADOC Pamphlet 525-3-1, dated 19 August 2010.
With this document we learn that the plan for the United States in a major crisis is not for anyone’s benefit but for the continuity of government.
Police and military units are training to deal specifically with urban uprisings and civil unrest because emergency services planners understand that America’s metropolitan death zones, which is military speak for major cities, will be completely devoid of law & order.
These agencies are already planning on the American people to turn into gun toting outlaws if there happens to be a government decapitation, meaning that if a crisis is so dire that the government can’t function, the country will be divided into regions and governed like military territories.
The Obama Administration has demonstrated with all of its political doublespeak that the entire national security infrastructure he defends and lies about has done nothing to insure the safety of the American people.
It is also important to note that no campaigns for disarming Americans or even weakening of the second amendments for stricter background checks will make us any safer in scenarios of national crisis.
All of the lame arguments we are having now for political reasons will amount to nothing but affluent in a future for America that seems to be evolving into a repressive despotism with a militarized foothold that with the help of Executive Orders, will create a battlefield in our backyard.
While the warnings of police state are dismissed by those who have not been in one, it is evident what we are seeing transpire, from deadly force in the open market place, to riots and civil unrest are pretext to a turn in the evolution of how law enforcement restrains the populace and secures the peace.
It must be reiterated that the evolution of the country’s views on social issues are right in your face and if you are not paying attention, you may find yourself in a world more foreign and hostile than you can imagine.
Obama says to all of us that his new gun policies do not infringe on second amendment rights, but we need to understand it does begin the weakening process of the rights of the citizens to bear arms and avoid government entanglements.
We know that the agenda of government is to disarm America, and surprisingly, you may want to wait and realize that the next administration and the administration after that will conduct the gradual process of dismantling the constitution in order to pave the way for a new globalist treaty that we know will be enforced by the year 2030, if not before then.
If we disarm the people or make it harder to obtain a firearm, there will be limited resistance to a hostile takeover of a sophisticated tyrannical criminal element that uses organized crime to sustain their full spectrum control of everything we do.
We all know that in a war or in a crisis, it is a good strategy to disarm your enemies.
Source
by Ron Patton
in Articles
GUN WARS THE FORCE RETAKEN
I woke early this morning to the wall-to-wall coverage of the presidential hard sell to the American people that changes to the gun laws and zeroing in on the mentally ill will somehow reduce the risks of gun crimes, terror, and lone nut shooting incidents which become such political footballs, it fuels the speculation that most if not all of these incidents look like false flag events.
A teary-eyed President Obama announced plans to expand background checks and make other changes to America’s gun rules. Once again, Obama used the dreaded pen and phone to use executive action, which of course circumvents Congress and once again fuels allegations of executive overreach.
While most of what he said sounded like the whaa whaa whap sounds heard from parents in a Charlie Brown cartoon, there was a part of his speech that stood out for me because it centered around constitutional rights and how we have somehow accepted over time the idea of surrendering rights for safety.
Obama stated:
“We all believe in the First Amendment, the guarantee of free speech, but we accept that you can’t yell “fire” in a theater. We understand there are some constraints on our freedom in order to protect innocent people. We cherish our right to privacy, but we accept that you have to go through metal detectors before being allowed to board a plane. It’s not because people like doing that, but we understand that that’s part of the price of living in a civilized society.”
What he fails to point out is the reason we are paying this price for living in a so-called civilized society is that we have been fed a diet of fear and thus we see a constitution with conditions that go from reasonable to complete negation of civil liberties.
Obama seems to feel that the people will allow for the weakening of things like the second amendment in order to feel some sort of renewed sense of security.
President Obama wants us to believe that we take comfort in hearing the same worn out and tired tropes of how all of these provisions have somehow prevented “who knows” how many terror attacks.
The “who knows” remark can be a vague form of negative logic, for those who are awake but for the police state it is a doublespeak euphemism for a consensus mind numbing where the people can assume that all of their so-called foiled plots are reasons for constitutional tinkering.
I don’t want reduce the various American tragedies to mere statistics – but they are very telling of how afraid we have become and how we now accept government overreach as a way of life.
There have been only 38 Americans that have been killed on American soil by radicalized Islamic terrorism since 9/11.
While that is 38 too many, it is a drop in the bucket compared to those killed in car accidents or those that have died as result of intestinal illnesses brought on by eating in restaurants.
The National Safety Council reports that more than 6,000 Americans die a year from falls; most of them involve people falling off their roof or ladder trying to clean their gutters, put up Christmas lights and the like. That means you’re 353 times more likely to fall to your death doing something idiotic than die in a terrorist attack or even these first person shooter events.
I know that it is hard to persuade a constantly re-frightened American public that the constitution should not be weakened because of gun crimes and terrorism, but the facts are very telling of how easy it has been for the Obama Administration to mislead us on the idea that we need more surveillance and strict gun laws to prevent terrorism and mass shootings.
At the centerpiece of Obama’s plan is a more sweeping definition of gun dealers that the administration hopes will expand the number of gun sales subject to background checks. At gun shows, websites and flea markets, sellers often skirt that requirement by declining to register as licensed dealers, but officials said new federal guidance would clarify that it applies to anyone “in the business” of selling firearms.
Almost all of our homegrown lone gunmen and terrorist shooters trend on Google and their notoriety is pushed through the newsfeeds of Facebook to the point that everyone is under the impression we are breeding trigger-happy unstable miscreants in need of control.
The Obama Administration has now finalized a rule that enables health care providers to report the names of mentally ill patients to an FBI firearms background check system.
While no one wants an unstable person with a gun, the definition of someone who is “mentally ill’ is so broad and expansive. Most of us probably assume a mentally ill person is a violent person. However, a mentally ill person can also be someone overcome by post traumatic stress disorder or one who suffers from high anxiety or one who is depressed. Why should these people who show no indication of intent to harm others be discriminated against and lose their right to own a firearm?
America falsely believes the easy scapegoat is the so-called terrorists, the mentally ill or perhaps even violent T.V. or video games, but the reality is that most of these horrible events are coming from within the political and military complex and are somehow slipping by the national security infrastructure that we have been told is there to protect us from such events.
In fact, if you look at the track record, since all of these so-called safeguards have been employed, we have seen an increase in these “tragic” and “senseless” events and thus, we have become trapped in an unsafe environment.
Regardless of what you are hearing, it is becoming more apparent that these shootings are less random and are actively being planned in order to traumatize us into thinking the state can only protect us with their militarized police forces and our own guns and self-defense skills can’t neutralize an active shooter.
Human sustainability far outweighs the political sphere of influence and yet the political discussions go on incessantly in a country that seems to fixate its tiresome national dialogue about our lack of leadership, our need for more national security and the right to defend one’s own family and property.
The Second Amendment argument should not even be argued. There should be no infringement on the right to bear arms and yet it’s now an issue up for debate, all because of a number of “senseless acts.” Do we not see these shooting incidents as expedient for gun control agendas being proposed by the few and not by the majority who know safety of property and family is a priority in times of crisis?
The most devastating truth facing us in the event of national crisis is that urban areas are the most unsafe places on the planet and the convenience we cherish will become our undoing as the aftermath of a crisis inevitably leads to civil unrest and the armed populace that is constitutional becomes the armed horde who can be your enemy in the face of all resource depletion.
We know now that 2016 is the year designated for “full spectrum” operations, as requiring the military to prepare for internal campaigns against radicalized American citizens.
There will be if necessary, “full spectrum operations in the coming two decades according to the US Army Training and Doctrine Command, The Army Operating Concept 2016 – 2028, TRADOC Pamphlet 525-3-1, dated 19 August 2010.
With this document we learn that the plan for the United States in a major crisis is not for anyone’s benefit but for the continuity of government.
Police and military units are training to deal specifically with urban uprisings and civil unrest because emergency services planners understand that America’s metropolitan death zones, which is military speak for major cities, will be completely devoid of law & order.
These agencies are already planning on the American people to turn into gun toting outlaws if there happens to be a government decapitation, meaning that if a crisis is so dire that the government can’t function, the country will be divided into regions and governed like military territories.
The Obama Administration has demonstrated with all of its political doublespeak that the entire national security infrastructure he defends and lies about has done nothing to insure the safety of the American people.
It is also important to note that no campaigns for disarming Americans or even weakening of the second amendments for stricter background checks will make us any safer in scenarios of national crisis.
All of the lame arguments we are having now for political reasons will amount to nothing but affluent in a future for America that seems to be evolving into a repressive despotism with a militarized foothold that with the help of Executive Orders, will create a battlefield in our backyard.
While the warnings of police state are dismissed by those who have not been in one, it is evident what we are seeing transpire, from deadly force in the open market place, to riots and civil unrest are pretext to a turn in the evolution of how law enforcement restrains the populace and secures the peace.
It must be reiterated that the evolution of the country’s views on social issues are right in your face and if you are not paying attention, you may find yourself in a world more foreign and hostile than you can imagine.
Obama says to all of us that his new gun policies do not infringe on second amendment rights, but we need to understand it does begin the weakening process of the rights of the citizens to bear arms and avoid government entanglements.
We know that the agenda of government is to disarm America, and surprisingly, you may want to wait and realize that the next administration and the administration after that will conduct the gradual process of dismantling the constitution in order to pave the way for a new globalist treaty that we know will be enforced by the year 2030, if not before then.
If we disarm the people or make it harder to obtain a firearm, there will be limited resistance to a hostile takeover of a sophisticated tyrannical criminal element that uses organized crime to sustain their full spectrum control of everything we do.
We all know that in a war or in a crisis, it is a good strategy to disarm your enemies.
Source
/
.
Monday, January 04, 2016
Update: #OregonUnderAttack
Published on Jan 4, 2016
Source: https://freedomfightertimes.com/video...
Register: https://freedomfightertimes.com/your-...
.
Source: https://freedomfightertimes.com/video...
Register: https://freedomfightertimes.com/your-...
.
Sunday, January 03, 2016
Back From Hawaiian Vacation, Obama to Focus on Gun Control
U.S. President Barack Obama waves as he walks with first lady Michelle Obama (R) and their daughters Malia (L) and Sasha on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington January 3, 2016. The Obama family returned from Hawaii, the president's home state, after concluding a 15-day holiday vacation.
VOA News
Last updated on: January 03, 2016 2:34 PM
U.S. President Barack Obama returned to Washington Sunday from his holiday vacation, looking immediately to impose new controls on gun sales.
Obama, his wife Michelle and their two daughters departed the U.S. Pacific state of Hawaii late Saturday night after their annual two-week Christmas vacation in the president's birth state.
Obama is entering the last year of his presidency, set to leave office in January 2017 after eight years in the White House.
He plans to meet with Attorney General Loretta Lynch Monday to discuss an impending executive order aimed at expanding background checks on gun sales, which he is taking in response to a series of deadly mass shootings across the United States in recent years, including last month's massacre in San Bernardino, California, that killed 14 people.
He is a planning a televised town hall discussion of his gun control mandates on CNN on Thursday, just days before he delivers his final State of the Union address before a joint session of Congress on January 12.
"I am fired up for the year that stretches out before us," Obama said in his weekly radio address last week.
Like his predecessors, Obama is expected to devote a great deal of the final year of his presidency to foreign affairs.The top items on his agenda include securing congressional passage of the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership free trade agreement, and a possible trip to Cuba.
Obama achieved a diplomatic breakthrough last year by restoring formal relations with the communist-led Caribbean island, ending more than five decades of Cold War-era hostilities.
Source
.
RELATED ARTICLES
VOA News
Last updated on: January 03, 2016 2:34 PM
U.S. President Barack Obama returned to Washington Sunday from his holiday vacation, looking immediately to impose new controls on gun sales.
Obama, his wife Michelle and their two daughters departed the U.S. Pacific state of Hawaii late Saturday night after their annual two-week Christmas vacation in the president's birth state.
Obama is entering the last year of his presidency, set to leave office in January 2017 after eight years in the White House.
He plans to meet with Attorney General Loretta Lynch Monday to discuss an impending executive order aimed at expanding background checks on gun sales, which he is taking in response to a series of deadly mass shootings across the United States in recent years, including last month's massacre in San Bernardino, California, that killed 14 people.
He is a planning a televised town hall discussion of his gun control mandates on CNN on Thursday, just days before he delivers his final State of the Union address before a joint session of Congress on January 12.
"I am fired up for the year that stretches out before us," Obama said in his weekly radio address last week.
Like his predecessors, Obama is expected to devote a great deal of the final year of his presidency to foreign affairs.The top items on his agenda include securing congressional passage of the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership free trade agreement, and a possible trip to Cuba.
Obama achieved a diplomatic breakthrough last year by restoring formal relations with the communist-led Caribbean island, ending more than five decades of Cold War-era hostilities.
Source
.
Monday, March 10, 2014
Sharpton: 'Florida will be ground zero' in Stand Your Ground fight
Tallahassee Democrat 10:42 a.m. EDT March 10, 2014
"It's a flawed law," Sharpton said. "Because you don't need an actual threat. All you've got to do is believe a threat and you can use deadly force."
(Photo: Karl Etters/Democrat)
Hundreds of marchers are joining the Rev. Al Sharpton, the parents of Jacksonville teen Jordan Davis and Miami Gardens teen Trayvon Martin, members of the Dream Defenders and others this morning in opposition to and calling for changes to Florida's hotly contested "Stand Your Ground" law.
In the fashion of the protest the night the not-guilty verdict against Martin's killer was delivered, hundreds made their way less than a mile away from the Leon County Civic Center to the Florida Capitol to again urge lawmakers to address the 2005 law.
"It's a flawed law," Sharpton said. "Because you don't need an actual threat. All you've got to do is believe a threat and you can use deadly force."
Those looking for change have been adamant that self-defense laws are applied disproportionately among minority populations and believe force should be used only after all other options have been exhausted.
It allows individuals to use of force to defend themselves if they feel threatened and has been at the root of two high-profile deaths of 17-year-old teens in Florida over the past two years.
Martin's killer, Sanford neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman, was acquitted of second-degree murder by a Seminole County jury in July. Duval County jurors last month declared a mistrial in the murder charge of Davis' killer, Michael Dunn.
Sharpton said polling Florida legislators in their districts was the first step to national change.
"Florida is the first state to enact the law in 2005," he said. "We came back to where it started to begin where it will end."
A full repeal of the law was shot down by the House Criminal Justice Subcommittee in November; other bills, still potentially in play in the Legislature, would tweak Stand Your Ground to include, primarily, a necessary obligation to retreat, using force only after that option has been exhausted.
Some of them change the situation that put Zimmerman in the position to pursue Martin. SB 130, by Sen. Chris Smith D- Fort Lauderdale, would require the Florida Department of Law Enforcement to develop county or municipal police training programs for neighborhood watch programs and not allow immunity to the aggressor in a situation.
The bill had favorable support in the Senate Judiciary Committee in October and has potential to be heard in the Criminal Justice Committee.
A House bill filed by Orlando Democrat Bruce Antone draws a harder line on self defense.
HB 33 allows the use of force, except deadly force and in the case of thwarting a felony, and removes the bar placed on law enforcement from arresting an individual for using force unless there is probable cause the force used was unlawful.
The bill has two more committee meetings and has yet to be heard in the same House Criminal Justice Subcommittee that voted down a full repeal 11-2 in November.
Source
.
.
Thursday, April 18, 2013
President Obama’s Speech On Gun Control Bill Defeat (Transcript)
Gun Control
By TIME Staff
April 17, 2013
YURI GRIPAS / REUTERS
U.S. President Barack Obama arrives with Vice President Joe Biden to deliver a statement in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington April 17, 2013.
RELATED
Senate Guns Down Background Checks
Remarks provided by the White House Press Office
THE PRESIDENT: A few months ago, in response to too many tragedies — including the shootings of a United States Congresswoman, Gabby Giffords, who’s here today, and the murder of 20 innocent schoolchildren and their teachers –- this country took up the cause of protecting more of our people from gun violence.
Families that know unspeakable grief summoned the courage to petition their elected leaders –- not just to honor the memory of their children, but to protect the lives of all our children. And a few minutes ago, a minority in the United States Senate decided it wasn’t worth it. They blocked common-sense gun reforms even while these families looked on from the Senate gallery.
By now, it’s well known that 90 percent of the American people support universal background checks that make it harder for a dangerous person to buy a gun. We’re talking about convicted felons, people convicted of domestic violence, people with a severe mental illness. Ninety percent of Americans support that idea. Most Americans think that’s already the law.
And a few minutes ago, 90 percent of Democrats in the Senate just voted for that idea. But it’s not going to happen because 90 percent of Republicans in the Senate just voted against that idea.
A majority of senators voted “yes” to protecting more of our citizens with smarter background checks. But by this continuing distortion of Senate rules, a minority was able to block it from moving forward.
I’m going to speak plainly and honestly about what’s happened here because the American people are trying to figure out how can something have 90 percent support and yet not happen. We had a Democrat and a Republican -– both gun owners, both fierce defenders of our Second Amendment, with “A” grades from the NRA — come together and worked together to write a common-sense compromise on background checks. And I want to thank Joe Manchin and Pat Toomey for their courage in doing that. That was not easy given their traditional strong support for Second Amendment rights.
As they said, nobody could honestly claim that the package they put together infringed on our Second Amendment rights. All it did was extend the same background check rules that already apply to guns purchased from a dealer to guns purchased at gun shows or over the Internet. So 60 percent of guns are already purchased through a background check system; this would have covered a lot of the guns that are currently outside that system.
Their legislation showed respect for gun owners, and it showed respect for the victims of gun violence. And Gabby Giffords, by the way, is both — she’s a gun owner and a victim of gun violence. She is a Westerner and a moderate. And she supports these background checks.
In fact, even the NRA used to support expanded background checks. The current leader of the NRA used to support these background checks. So while this compromise didn’t contain everything I wanted or everything that these families wanted, it did represent progress. It represented moderation and common sense. That’s why 90 percent of the American people supported it.
But instead of supporting this compromise, the gun lobby and its allies willfully lied about the bill. They claimed that it would create some sort of “big brother” gun registry, even though the bill did the opposite. This legislation, in fact, outlawed any registry. Plain and simple, right there in the text. But that didn’t matter.
And unfortunately, this pattern of spreading untruths about this legislation served a purpose, because those lies upset an intense minority of gun owners, and that in turn intimidated a lot of senators. And I talked to several of these senators over the past few weeks, and they’re all good people. I know all of them were shocked by tragedies like Newtown. And I also understand that they come from states that are strongly pro-gun. And I have consistently said that there are regional differences when it comes to guns, and that both sides have to listen to each other.
But the fact is most of these senators could not offer any good reason why we wouldn’t want to make it harder for criminals and those with severe mental illnesses to buy a gun. There were no coherent arguments as to why we wouldn’t do this. It came down to politics — the worry that that vocal minority of gun owners would come after them in future elections. They worried that the gun lobby would spend a lot of money and paint them as anti-Second Amendment.
And obviously, a lot of Republicans had that fear, but Democrats had that fear, too. And so they caved to the pressure, and they started looking for an excuse — any excuse — to vote “no.”
One common argument I heard was that this legislation wouldn’t prevent all future massacres. And that’s true. As I said from the start, no single piece of legislation can stop every act of violence and evil. We learned that tragically just two days ago. But if action by Congress could have saved one person, one child, a few hundred, a few thousand — if it could have prevented those people from losing their lives to gun violence in the future while preserving our Second Amendment rights, we had an obligation to try.
And this legislation met that test. And too many senators failed theirs.
I’ve heard some say that blocking this step would be a victory. And my question is, a victory for who? A victory for what? All that happened today was the preservation of the loophole that lets dangerous criminals buy guns without a background check. That didn’t make our kids safer. Victory for not doing something that 90 percent of Americans, 80 percent of Republicans, the vast majority of your constituents wanted to get done? It begs the question, who are we here to represent?
I’ve heard folks say that having the families of victims lobby for this legislation was somehow misplaced. “A prop,” somebody called them. “Emotional blackmail,” some outlet said. Are they serious? Do we really think that thousands of families whose lives have been shattered by gun violence don’t have a right to weigh in on this issue? Do we think their emotions, their loss is not relevant to this debate?
So all in all, this was a pretty shameful day for Washington.
But this effort is not over. I want to make it clear to the American people we can still bring about meaningful changes that reduce gun violence, so long as the American people don’t give up on it. Even without Congress, my administration will keep doing everything it can to protect more of our communities. We’re going to address the barriers that prevent states from participating in the existing background check system. We’re going to give law enforcement more information about lost and stolen guns so it can do its job. We’re going to help to put in place emergency plans to protect our children in their schools.
But we can do more if Congress gets its act together. And if this Congress refuses to listen to the American people and pass common-sense gun legislation, then the real impact is going to have to come from the voters.
To all the people who supported this legislation — law enforcement and responsible gun owners, Democrats and Republicans, urban moms, rural hunters, whoever you are — you need to let your representatives in Congress know that you are disappointed, and that if they don’t act this time, you will remember come election time.
To the wide majority of NRA households who supported this legislation, you need to let your leadership and lobbyists in Washington know they didn’t represent your views on this one.
The point is those who care deeply about preventing more and more gun violence will have to be as passionate, and as organized, and as vocal as those who blocked these common-sense steps to help keep our kids safe. Ultimately, you outnumber those who argued the other way. But they’re better organized. They’re better financed. They’ve been at it longer. And they make sure to stay focused on this one issue during election time. And that’s the reason why you can have something that 90 percent of Americans support and you can’t get it through the Senate or the House of Representatives.
So to change Washington, you, the American people, are going to have to sustain some passion about this. And when necessary, you’ve got to send the right people to Washington. And that requires strength, and it requires persistence.
And that’s the one thing that these families should have inspired in all of us. I still don’t know how they have been able to muster up the strength to do what they’ve doing over the last several weeks, last several months.
And I see this as just round one. When Newtown happened, I met with these families and I spoke to the community, and I said, something must be different right now. We’re going to have to change. That’s what the whole country said. Everybody talked about how we were going to change something to make sure this didn’t happen again, just like everybody talked about how we needed to do something after Aurora. Everybody talked about we needed change something after Tucson.
And I’m assuming that the emotions that we’ve all felt since Newtown, the emotions that we’ve all felt since Tucson and Aurora and Chicago — the pain we share with these families and families all across the country who’ve lost a loved one to gun violence — I’m assuming that’s not a temporary thing. I’m assuming our expressions of grief and our commitment to do something different to prevent these things from happening are not empty words.
I believe we’re going to be able to get this done. Sooner or later, we are going to get this right. The memories of these children demand it. And so do the American people.
Thank you very much, everybody.
U.S. President Barack Obama arrives with Vice President Joe Biden to deliver a statement in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington April 17, 2013.
RELATED
Senate Guns Down Background Checks
Remarks provided by the White House Press Office
THE PRESIDENT: A few months ago, in response to too many tragedies — including the shootings of a United States Congresswoman, Gabby Giffords, who’s here today, and the murder of 20 innocent schoolchildren and their teachers –- this country took up the cause of protecting more of our people from gun violence.
Families that know unspeakable grief summoned the courage to petition their elected leaders –- not just to honor the memory of their children, but to protect the lives of all our children. And a few minutes ago, a minority in the United States Senate decided it wasn’t worth it. They blocked common-sense gun reforms even while these families looked on from the Senate gallery.
By now, it’s well known that 90 percent of the American people support universal background checks that make it harder for a dangerous person to buy a gun. We’re talking about convicted felons, people convicted of domestic violence, people with a severe mental illness. Ninety percent of Americans support that idea. Most Americans think that’s already the law.
And a few minutes ago, 90 percent of Democrats in the Senate just voted for that idea. But it’s not going to happen because 90 percent of Republicans in the Senate just voted against that idea.
A majority of senators voted “yes” to protecting more of our citizens with smarter background checks. But by this continuing distortion of Senate rules, a minority was able to block it from moving forward.
I’m going to speak plainly and honestly about what’s happened here because the American people are trying to figure out how can something have 90 percent support and yet not happen. We had a Democrat and a Republican -– both gun owners, both fierce defenders of our Second Amendment, with “A” grades from the NRA — come together and worked together to write a common-sense compromise on background checks. And I want to thank Joe Manchin and Pat Toomey for their courage in doing that. That was not easy given their traditional strong support for Second Amendment rights.
As they said, nobody could honestly claim that the package they put together infringed on our Second Amendment rights. All it did was extend the same background check rules that already apply to guns purchased from a dealer to guns purchased at gun shows or over the Internet. So 60 percent of guns are already purchased through a background check system; this would have covered a lot of the guns that are currently outside that system.
Their legislation showed respect for gun owners, and it showed respect for the victims of gun violence. And Gabby Giffords, by the way, is both — she’s a gun owner and a victim of gun violence. She is a Westerner and a moderate. And she supports these background checks.
In fact, even the NRA used to support expanded background checks. The current leader of the NRA used to support these background checks. So while this compromise didn’t contain everything I wanted or everything that these families wanted, it did represent progress. It represented moderation and common sense. That’s why 90 percent of the American people supported it.
But instead of supporting this compromise, the gun lobby and its allies willfully lied about the bill. They claimed that it would create some sort of “big brother” gun registry, even though the bill did the opposite. This legislation, in fact, outlawed any registry. Plain and simple, right there in the text. But that didn’t matter.
And unfortunately, this pattern of spreading untruths about this legislation served a purpose, because those lies upset an intense minority of gun owners, and that in turn intimidated a lot of senators. And I talked to several of these senators over the past few weeks, and they’re all good people. I know all of them were shocked by tragedies like Newtown. And I also understand that they come from states that are strongly pro-gun. And I have consistently said that there are regional differences when it comes to guns, and that both sides have to listen to each other.
But the fact is most of these senators could not offer any good reason why we wouldn’t want to make it harder for criminals and those with severe mental illnesses to buy a gun. There were no coherent arguments as to why we wouldn’t do this. It came down to politics — the worry that that vocal minority of gun owners would come after them in future elections. They worried that the gun lobby would spend a lot of money and paint them as anti-Second Amendment.
And obviously, a lot of Republicans had that fear, but Democrats had that fear, too. And so they caved to the pressure, and they started looking for an excuse — any excuse — to vote “no.”
One common argument I heard was that this legislation wouldn’t prevent all future massacres. And that’s true. As I said from the start, no single piece of legislation can stop every act of violence and evil. We learned that tragically just two days ago. But if action by Congress could have saved one person, one child, a few hundred, a few thousand — if it could have prevented those people from losing their lives to gun violence in the future while preserving our Second Amendment rights, we had an obligation to try.
And this legislation met that test. And too many senators failed theirs.
I’ve heard some say that blocking this step would be a victory. And my question is, a victory for who? A victory for what? All that happened today was the preservation of the loophole that lets dangerous criminals buy guns without a background check. That didn’t make our kids safer. Victory for not doing something that 90 percent of Americans, 80 percent of Republicans, the vast majority of your constituents wanted to get done? It begs the question, who are we here to represent?
I’ve heard folks say that having the families of victims lobby for this legislation was somehow misplaced. “A prop,” somebody called them. “Emotional blackmail,” some outlet said. Are they serious? Do we really think that thousands of families whose lives have been shattered by gun violence don’t have a right to weigh in on this issue? Do we think their emotions, their loss is not relevant to this debate?
So all in all, this was a pretty shameful day for Washington.
But this effort is not over. I want to make it clear to the American people we can still bring about meaningful changes that reduce gun violence, so long as the American people don’t give up on it. Even without Congress, my administration will keep doing everything it can to protect more of our communities. We’re going to address the barriers that prevent states from participating in the existing background check system. We’re going to give law enforcement more information about lost and stolen guns so it can do its job. We’re going to help to put in place emergency plans to protect our children in their schools.
But we can do more if Congress gets its act together. And if this Congress refuses to listen to the American people and pass common-sense gun legislation, then the real impact is going to have to come from the voters.
To all the people who supported this legislation — law enforcement and responsible gun owners, Democrats and Republicans, urban moms, rural hunters, whoever you are — you need to let your representatives in Congress know that you are disappointed, and that if they don’t act this time, you will remember come election time.
To the wide majority of NRA households who supported this legislation, you need to let your leadership and lobbyists in Washington know they didn’t represent your views on this one.
The point is those who care deeply about preventing more and more gun violence will have to be as passionate, and as organized, and as vocal as those who blocked these common-sense steps to help keep our kids safe. Ultimately, you outnumber those who argued the other way. But they’re better organized. They’re better financed. They’ve been at it longer. And they make sure to stay focused on this one issue during election time. And that’s the reason why you can have something that 90 percent of Americans support and you can’t get it through the Senate or the House of Representatives.
So to change Washington, you, the American people, are going to have to sustain some passion about this. And when necessary, you’ve got to send the right people to Washington. And that requires strength, and it requires persistence.
And that’s the one thing that these families should have inspired in all of us. I still don’t know how they have been able to muster up the strength to do what they’ve doing over the last several weeks, last several months.
And I see this as just round one. When Newtown happened, I met with these families and I spoke to the community, and I said, something must be different right now. We’re going to have to change. That’s what the whole country said. Everybody talked about how we were going to change something to make sure this didn’t happen again, just like everybody talked about how we needed to do something after Aurora. Everybody talked about we needed change something after Tucson.
And I’m assuming that the emotions that we’ve all felt since Newtown, the emotions that we’ve all felt since Tucson and Aurora and Chicago — the pain we share with these families and families all across the country who’ve lost a loved one to gun violence — I’m assuming that’s not a temporary thing. I’m assuming our expressions of grief and our commitment to do something different to prevent these things from happening are not empty words.
I believe we’re going to be able to get this done. Sooner or later, we are going to get this right. The memories of these children demand it. And so do the American people.
Thank you very much, everybody.
An Angry Obama Lashes Out After Gun Control Defeat
By Zeke J Miller
April 17, 2013
JACQUELYN MARTIN / ASSOCIATED PRESS
President Barack Obama speaks in the Rose Garden of the White House, Wednesday, April 17, 2013, in Washington, about measures to reduce gun violence.
Calling the defeat of his gun control efforts “a pretty shameful day for Washington,” a defiant and angry President Barack Obama announced in the Rose Garden Wednesday that the fight would go on.
Stoned faced and curt, the President used unusually pointed words to criticize the 45 Senators, including four Democrats, who successfully defeated the bill, which would have expanded mandatory background checks to gun shows and online sales. Obama said the
Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2013/04/17/an-angry-obama-lashes-out-after-gun-control-defeat/#ixzz2QoPHtogD
President Barack Obama speaks in the Rose Garden of the White House, Wednesday, April 17, 2013, in Washington, about measures to reduce gun violence.
Calling the defeat of his gun control efforts “a pretty shameful day for Washington,” a defiant and angry President Barack Obama announced in the Rose Garden Wednesday that the fight would go on.
Stoned faced and curt, the President used unusually pointed words to criticize the 45 Senators, including four Democrats, who successfully defeated the bill, which would have expanded mandatory background checks to gun shows and online sales. Obama said the
Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2013/04/17/an-angry-obama-lashes-out-after-gun-control-defeat/#ixzz2QoPHtogD
..
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)