BULLSHIT!! They are public servants and this is a public issue!
The police don’t work for you, they’re considered a public service, not a servant. Elected officials are considered public servants. The police work for whoever hired them
Please remember this the next time you think about saying “only the police should have guns.”
It’s called situational awareness and he wasn’t practicing it. Keep your eyes on on those around you. Too bad he wasn’t paying attention and armed so all three could have left this earth with a chest packed full of lead.
And again, it has to be asked, if the police are the only ones who have guns and are supposed to keep us safe from all this violence…
WHERE WERE THE FUCKING POLICE?
Stay alert and stay loaded my friends. The life you save will be your own.
Subhan Zaib, 26, reportedly began his spree of crimes, which were mostly against women, on May 30 when he threatened his ex-girlfriend in Queens and ended with a brutal rape in Baltimore on June 14.
Only the police get to have guns? Relying on the police to protect you?
Ok, but Where Were The Police when these people were being assaulted and raped?
The police have no legal responsibility to protect you. It’s not even physically possible. No one is coming to save you. You and you alone are your first line of defense (situational awareness) and your last (multiple rounds center mass in an assailant).
The Second Amendment is an integral component in our natural right of self-defense against tyrannical politicians and bureaucrats trampling on our rights and robbers and rapists intent on same.
Joy Behar’s Ignorant Claim Laws Will Change ‘When Black People Get Guns’
This isn’t the first time I heard someone in the media claim that laws will change “When Black People Get Guns”.
In 1967 about 30 black panthers walked into the California state capitol building carrying rifles and shotguns to protest the Mulford Act. Many people think the Mulford act was passed to take guns away exclusively from the black panthers.
In 2020 I did a video on the Mulford act where I provided full context behind why it was crafted from the mouth of Mulford himself.
I disagree with the Mulford act on Second Amendment principles alone.
Whether you believe the Mulford act was racially motivated or not is your decision based on the information you have and what I just gave you.
On its face, Joy Behar’s statement was ambiguously racist!
But what’s ironic is that she doesn’t even realize that her statement, if true, is the exact reason why Black people should not only be exercising their second amendment right.
Joy Behar Rants Gun Control Would Pass if Black Americans Were Buying Guns — Millions Already Have
During Wednesday’s airing of ABC’s The View, host Joy Behar vented her frustration over a lack of gun control by suggesting gun laws will change “once black people get guns.”
The Wrap reports that host Lindsey Granger, a gun owner, told the story of a Connecticut man who built his own AR-15 for the sake of defending his family after a neighborhood home invasion.
Granger used the man’s example to argue that owning an AR-15 does not mean someone is crazy.
She said, “He is a Black man, it’s odd. Most AR-15 owners are former military, 35+ and married. That’s all I’m saying is that they’re not just crazy people.”
Behar snapped,
“Here’s the thing, once Black people get guns in this country, the gun laws will change. Trust me.”
On August 4, 2020, amid the unprecedented gun-buying boom that followed news of coronavirus and COVID lockdowns, and subsequent social unrest, Breitbart News noted National Shooting Sports Foundation numbers showing gun purchases by women and black Americans were up 59 percent over 2019.
By April 5, 2021, Breitbart News pointed out that gun ownership among black Americans was up nearly 60 percent. The Guardian put the exact figure at 58.2 percent.
On July 1, 2021, Breitbart News reported a New York Times’ article explaining that new gun buyers were less likely “to be male and white.”
The Times based their column on 2020 gun purchases, noting roughly one-fifth of all gun purchasers during 2020 were first-time buyers. Of those first-time buyers, “half were women, a fifth were Black, and a fifth were Hispanic.”
Joy Behar Spews SICK Racism About Black People and Guns
Joy Behar released some more of her leftist bigotry, saying that if blacks get guns, the gun laws will change. How is it that those on the Left are able to get away with these racially-charged comments?
Biden Conflates a Broad Category of Rifles With Intolerable ‘Weapons of War’
The Biden administration says H.R. 7910, a bill imposing new age restrictions on sales by federally licensed gun dealers, “would ensure that individuals under 21 years of age cannot purchase weapons of war.” But H.R. 7910, dubbed the Protecting Our Kids Act, sweeps much more broadly than the phrase “weapons of war” suggests, covering all semi-automatic centerfire rifles that accept detachable magazines.
President Joe Biden and other politicians who support a federal ban on “assault weapons” often call those arbitrarily defined firearms “weapons of war.”
But this bill applies to many guns that do not fit the legislative definition of “assault weapons,” which hinges on military-style feature such as folding stocks, pistol grips, and barrel shrouds.
That ambiguity suggests Biden is not sure which guns he wants to ban or why, and it illustrates the challenge of deciding which firearms are too dangerous to be tolerated.
The distinctions drawn by H.R. 7910 actually make more sense than the distinctions drawn by H.R. 1808, the proposed federal “assault weapon” ban. While the latter bill focuses on functionally unimportant characteristics, H.R. 7910 focuses on the type of ammunition (centerfire vs. rimfire) and the ability to use detachable magazines, both of which have practical implications. But those differences cut both ways: The same characteristics that might make the rifles covered by the bill more effective in a mass shooting can also make them more suitable for self-defense or other legal uses.
California recently imposed age restrictions similar to those that Biden wants Congress to approve. Unlike H.R. 7910, which applies only to sales by federally licensed dealers, California’s law applied to all sales. But it targeted the same age group and the same broad category of rifles. It did not deal with “assault weapons,” which California has long prohibited.
Last month the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit concluded that California’s law imposed an unjustified burden on the Second Amendment rights of young adults. Since California had already prohibited 18-to-20-year-olds from buying handguns, the 9th Circuit said, the new rule left them with few viable options for home defense.
“Non-semiautomatic rifles are not effective as self-defense weapons because they must be manually cycled between shots, a process which becomes infinitely more difficult in a life or death situation,”
the Court said.
“Rimfire rifles generally aren’t good for self-defense either, because rimfire ammunition has 'poor stopping power’ and [is] mostly used for things like hunting small game.
So for self-defense in the home, young adults are left with shotguns.”
The 9th Circuit noted that the shotgun option—the one that Biden thinks should be adequate for everyone, not just young adults—has significant drawbacks. “Even acknowledging that shotguns are effective weapons for self-defense in the home, shotguns are outmatched by semiautomatic rifles in some situations,” the appeals court said.
“Semiautomatic rifles are able to defeat modern body armor, have a much longer range than shotguns and are more effective in protecting roaming kids on large homesteads, are much more precise and capable at preventing collateral damage, and are typically easier for small young adults to use and handle.”
In light of these considerations, the 9th Circuit said, “California’s ban is a severe burden on the core Second Amendment right of self-defense in the home.” The same analysis presumably would apply to H.R. 7910, notwithstanding its exception for private sales.
What about the Biden administration’s claim that the bill targets “weapons of war”? Vice President Kamala Harris used the same phrase when she touted a federal “assault weapon” ban after the May 14 massacre in Buffalo.
“You know what an assault weapon is?” Harris said. “You know how an assault weapon was designed? It was designed for a specific purpose: to kill a lot of human beings quickly….An assault weapon is a weapon of war with no place, no place in a civil society.” Contrary to that claim, “assault weapon” bans exempt guns that are just as deadly as the guns they prohibit, as Biden himself has conceded. But if semi-automatic centerfire rifles that accept detachable magazines are “weapons of war,” as the Biden administration now says they are, it follows that they likewise have “no place in a civil society.”
New York Gov. Kathy Hochul pulled a similar bait-and-switch when she pushed new gun control laws after the attacks in Buffalo and Uvalde, Texas. New York, like California, already had an “assault weapon” ban, but Hochul thought it did not go far enough. “How does an 18-year-old purchase an AR-15 in the State of New York [or the] State of Texas?” she asked in May. “That person’s not old enough to buy a legal drink. I want to work with the legislature to change that. I want it to be 21. I think that’s just common sense.”
Hochul seemed to be proposing new age restrictions on sales of the “featureless” AR-15-style rifles that remain legal in New York, even though they fire the same ammunition at the same rate with the same muzzle velocity as the prohibited models. But A10503, the bill she signed into law this month, is even broader than California’s law or H.R. 7910, covering all semi-automatic rifles.
While these laws do not affect sales to adults 21 or older, Hochul’s equation of semi-automatic rifles with AR-15s, like the Biden administration’s description of the rifles covered by H.R. 7910 as
“weapons of war,” reflects a broader tendency to expand the definition of firearms that are supposedly intolerable because they are especially suitable for mass murder.
Advocates of a federal “assault weapon” ban commonly conflate that relatively narrow category with “semiautomatic rifles” or “semiautomatic firearms” in general.
Such confusion is inevitable when politicians vainly try to distinguish between “good” guns that Americans have a right to possess under the Second Amendment and “bad” guns that have no legitimate uses. It turns out that supposedly good guns can be used for evil purposes.
Handguns, which the Supreme Court has described as “the quintessential self-defense weapon,” are also overwhelmingly preferred by violent criminals (including mass murderers). By contrast, “assault weapons,” which include some of the most popular rifles sold in the United States, are rarely used in homicides. Even shotguns, which Biden sees as the best weapon for home defense, are used by criminals about as often as rifles, only a subset of which would qualify as “assault weapons.” Since firearms are tools with no inherent moral properties, the attempt to identify guns that have “no place in a civil society” inevitably produces laws that are illogical, flagrantly unconstitutional, or both.
California: No. 1 In Gun Control, No. 1 In “Active Shooter Incidents”!
An FBI report on ‘Active Shooter Incidents’ in 2021 shows that California was the number one state for such incidents, with six incidents total.
California is also number one for gun law strength, the Mike Bloomberg-affiliated Everytown for Gun Safety noted.
According to the FBI, there were 61 “active shooter incidents” across the country in 2021 and 12 of the incidents met the definition of a “mass killing.”
Travis Haley Speaks on the Second Amendment and Reflections as an American
Such a reality check. One that almost every person in this country needs. The majority of us are ignorant, selfish, and take the precious carefree lives that we have in America for granted every single day and it’s wrong.
