White House: Stripping constitutional rights for gun control ‘common sense’

Trey Gowdy

The San Bernardino terror attack on Dec. 2 has caused gun-control activists to go into hyperdrive. President Obama and his administration have now latched on to using terror watch lists — those same lists once derided by his supporters — to strip Americans of constitutionally-protected rights. Yours truly and others have already mentioned just how dangerous of an idea that is, but it was perfectly illuminated Thursday during a House Oversight Committee hearing.

In one corner we have Kelli Burriesci, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Screening Coordination, Office of Policy of the United States Department of Homeland Security. (Quite a mouthful of a title there, so one would hope she would know her stuff…)

In another corner we have South Carolina Rep. Try Gowdy.

Here is how it all unfolded:

Trey Gowdy: Let me ask you a question about the terrorism list. What process is afforded a U.S. citizen — not someone who overstayed a visa, not someone who crossed a border without permission — but an American citizen?  What process is currently afforded an American citizen before they go on that list?

DHS: I’m sorry, there is not a process afforded the citizen prior to getting on the list. There is a process should someone feel they are and unduly placed on the list.

Gowdy: Yes there is. And when I say ‘process,’ I’m actually using half of the term due process, which is a phrase we find in the Constitution — that you cannot deprive people of certain things without due process.

So I understand Mister Goode’s idea, which is wait until you’re right has been taken from you and then you can petition the government to get it back. I understand that that’s his idea. My question is can you name another constitutional right that we have that is chilled until you find out it’s chilled, and then you have to petition the government to get it back? Is that true of the First Amendment?

DHS: Sir, there are strict criteria before any gets put on the list.

Trey Gowdy:That’s not my question ma’am. That is not my question. My question is what process is afforded a United States citizen before that person’s constitutional right is infringed? He’s fine when do it with the Second Amendment. My question is, ‘How about the First?’ How about we not let them set up a website or Google account? How about we not let him join a church until until they can petition the government to get off the list. How about not get a lawyer? How about the Sixth Amendment?

How about you can’t get a lawyer until you petition the government to get off the list? Or my favorite — how about the Eighth amendment? We’re going to subject you to cruel and unusual punishment until you petitioned the government to get off the list. Is there another constitutional right that we treat the same way for American citizens that we do the Second Amendment? Can you think of one? **pause** Can you think of one?

DHS:I don’t have an answer for you, sir.

She. Doesn’t. Have. An. Answer.


How is it possible for someone at the Department of Homeland Security, who is advocating on behalf of stripping American citizens of constitutionally-protected rights, to not have an answer to those questions?

As Rep. Gowdy points out, the Obama administration’s own logic dictates that if the Second Amendment can be stripped without due process, then there is no reason why any other rights can’t be taken as well.

Listen to White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest’s comments on the issue Friday, and then ask yourself how comfortable you are with giving the federal government a blank check to do whatever it wants under the guise of national security.

Mr Earnest said:

“I think it’s common sense, the president believes it’s common sense and it is in our national security interest to prevent those who are deemed by the government ‘too dangerous to board an airplane’ that we should pass a law that prevents those people from purchasing a gun — until such time as they can resolve the concerns the government has about their  potential links to terrorism. There is a process administered by the Department of Homeland Security for those concerns to be considered and resolved. When it comes to gun safety, that seems like a pretty common sense step.

In response to Sen. Rubio, I guess I would simply say: Is he suggesting we should wait until someone who is on the no-fly list walks into a gun[store], purchases a firearm and kills a whole bunch of Americans before we pass a law preventing it? I don’t think that passes the common sense test either.”

To recap:

  • The Department of Homeland Security does not know how many of your constitutional rights can be stripped without due process.
  • President Obama wants to give women like Kelli “I don’t have an answer for you, sir” Burriesci the ability to deny you constitutionally-protected rights (The Second Amendment…for now.)
  • The Department of Homeland Security officials will “consider” not infringing upon your constitutionally-protected rights if you go through its petition process and it feels like changing its mind.

In the same press briefing where Josh Earnest created a giant Straw Man argument for Sen. Rubio, the White House Press Secretary admitted that none of the recent mass shooters were on the no-fly list. He also stammered and stuttered when a reporter pointed out that none of the current gun-control measures being talked about would have prevented the mass shootings in the first place.

Right now the federal government is asking for power that its own officials don’t know how to justify because they know that what they want to do is unconstitutional.

Whether you are a gun owner or not, it should terrify you that the same argument used in favor of stripping Americans of Second Amendment rights without due process can be applied to any right enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. 

If you cannot see the danger this poses to future generations of Americans, then I weep for your children.

NPR ombudsman: Constitution should not protect speech that insults ‘prophets and gods’

Charlie Hebdo die on my feet I’ve met some really nice people over the years who love NPR. Most of them are fairly intelligent as well. However, the peculiar thing about these individuals is that, despite their intelligence, they have a propensity to say frighteningly stupid things. On Feb. 6,  NPR’s outgoing Ombudsman Edward Schumacher-Matos was able to provide the perfect example.

Mr. Schumacher-Matos wrote in his final column:

I am not Charlie.

The French news media may have their ethical standards, but they are not American or sacred universal ones, and they shouldn’t be French ones either. The United States has never had absolute freedom of the press. And the framers of the Constitution—I once held the James Madison Visiting Professor Chair on First Amendment Issues at Columbia University—never intended it to. You wouldn’t know this, however, from listening to the First Amendment fundamentalists piping up from Washington to Silicon Valley.

In this case, the competing social and constitutional demand is the control of hate speech in the interests of social cohesion, without which the very idea of a nation is impossible. …

I do not know if American courts would find much of what Charlie Hebdo does to be hate speech unprotected by the Constitution, but I know—hope?—that most Americans would. It is one thing to lampoon popes, imams, rabbis and other temporal religious leaders of this world; it is quite another to make fun, in often nasty ways, of their prophets and gods. The NPR editors were right not to reprint any of the images.

There you have it: a smart man who is completely unaware of all the frighteningly stupid ideas he’s putting out into the world.

It would be rather bizarre if journalists started publishing nuclear launch codes and the identities of CIA agents in foreign countries, all while operating under the assumption that they could do so with impunity. If one were going to use terms like “First Amendment fundamentalists” to describe “free speech radicals,” then perhaps defenders of such journalists would qualify for membership. However, to use “First Amendment fundamentalist” as a pejorative to describe Charlie Hebdo’s American advocates is absurd.

Charlie Hebdo has said all sorts of “nasty” things about Christians. As a Catholic man, I find the publication’s illustrations of Jesus to be downright revolting — but I will defend their right to publish such pictures until my last breath. The fact that an NPR Ombudsman could ever publish a column in which he advocates giving religious radicals veto power over the content journalists provide their readers only shows how warped our culture has become.

There is no “constitutional demand” to control “hate speech.” There is only the desire among society’s self-proclaimed cultured class to control the actions of the rest of us.

“Hate speech” laws do not act as a salve for the red hot fissures that often occur between disparate groups in a country like The United States of America — they are in fact accelerants. Such laws infuse words with unwarranted power and give every group’s grievance mongers a reason to seek their own list of off-limits speech.

Speaking of off-limits, NPR closed down the comments section on Mr. Schumacher-Matos’ op-ed. Telling, isn’t it?

In the fight for Western Civilization’s soul, the mindset cultivated by men like Mr. Schumacher-Matos is a loser.

NPR closed commentsRelated: Papers go into censorship mode over Paris terror attack; free speech heroes hang up their capes

Piers Morgan: In another life I changed the king’s chamber pot — and loved it

Piers Morgan First Amendment

John Adams said that the American Revolution “connected, in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.” His cousin Sam said the passage of the Declaration was the day that the colonists “restored the Sovereign to Whom alone men ought to be obedient.”

These men and many of America’s founding fathers understood the important role Christianity played in shaping our nation at its inception. In fact, it’s a good bet that if they were transported in time to 2013 that Piers Morgan would call these men religious “bigots.”

Here is what Piers Morgan said of Duck Dynasty’s Phil Robertson after reading the text of the interview the A&E star gave to GQ magazine:

Just as the 2nd Amendment shouldn’t protect assault rifle devotees, so the 1st Amendment shouldn’t protect vile bigots.

Here is what Mr. Robertson said:

“[Sin isn’t] logical, my man. It’s just not logical. […] Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men. […] Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

The First Amendment does not exist to protect popular speech. Quite the contrary — it exists to protect unpopular speech. The fact that Piers Morgan doesn’t understand a concept that is so crucial to America’s identity indicates that in another life he probably cleaned the king’s chamber pot — and loved every second of it. He carries himself as if he once was a handmaiden to tyranny and it’s carried over into this lifetime. Sadly, he doesn’t even understand how he’s telegraphing for all the world to see that the seeds of an authoritarian monster are alive and well within him.

Americans once got to listen to Frenchmen like Charles de Montesquieu. Today, they get … Piers Morgan, who has now demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that he does not understand or respect the First or Second Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

Americans once got to read the writings of Thomas Paine, who published ‘Common Sense’ on January 9, 1776. Today, they get to read the Twitter feed of men like Piers Morgan, who compensate for what they lack in common sense with blind faith in their own B.S.

What does it say about us that instead of finding this generation’s John Locke that CNN suits settled for the modern equivalent of King George III’s man-servant pooper scooper?

Those of the Morgan-mold are obsessed with banning things they do not like. Whether we are talking about physical objects like guns or something much more precious — like ideas — the modern man of the left has a never-ending “to do” list that involves using force to get you to comply with his vision for the world.

While conservatives believe that A&E viewers are smart enough to decide on their own whether Phil Robertson still belongs on the airwaves, the Piers Morgans of the world feel as though only they can be trusted to make the right call. They do not like talk of God because they see themselves as gods — elite masterminds who must mandate their great ideas to you when you do not accept them. The beatings will continue until morale improves…

Whether or not you think Phil Robertson is a “bigot” for his faith in the Bible, one thing is certain: Men like Piers Morgan are a greater threat to freedom and individual liberties than the Duck Dynasty family or their fans will ever be.

“We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job,” said Phil. “We just love ’em, give ’em the good news about Jesus—whether they’re homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort ’em out later, you see what I’m saying?”

Piers Morgan? Not only is he filled with hate, but he believes he should have the moral authority to impose restrictions on the kinds of thoughts and feelings that disturb his sensibilities.

Related: Operation Mindcrime: Media take out Duck Dynasty’s Phil Robertson

Ben Franklin’s thoughts on the rattlesnake as a symbol of America: ‘Don’t tread on me’

Gadsen Flag

Once upon a time, Americans listened to men like Benjamin Franklin. Today, they get unhealthy doses of Sen. Harry Reid. Given that, I thought I’d share a few excerpts from ‘The Completed Autobiography by Benjamin Franklin,’ which was compiled and edited by Mark Skousen, Ph.D.

I like Archer just as much as the next guy, but Archer is not Ben Franklin. If I had one piece of advice to give to young people it would to turn off the television for a year or two and read the works of the men who helped shape America’s identity at its inception. Learn from the wisdom preserved for us by the best and brightest minds ever turned out by Western Civilization. Once you do that, you will realize who it is within the political class and the entertainment community that wants you to wander through life like a zombie. You will be able to discern who is telling you what you want to hear and who is telling you what you need to hear. You will be able to tell the difference between the man who is snake oil salesman from the man who is like the rattlesnake.

The rattlesnake as a symbol of America: ‘Don’t tread on me’

“I observed on one of the drums belonging to the Marines being raised that there was painted a rattlesnake, with this modest motto under it, “Don’t tread on me.” It occurred to me that the rattlesnake, being found in no other quarter of the world besides America, might therefore be chose to represent her. Having frequently seen the rattlesnake, I ran over in my mind every property by which she was distinguished.

I recollect that her eye excelled in brightness, that of any other animal, and that she has no eye-lids. She may therefore be esteemed an emblem of vigilance. She never begins an attack, not, when once engaged, ever surrenders; she is therefore an emblem of magnanimity and true courage.

As if anxious to prevent all pretensions of quarreling with her, the weapons with which nature has furnished her she conceals in the roof of her mouth, so that, to those who are unacquainted with her, she appears to be a most defenseless animal, and even when those weapons are shown and extended for their defense, they appear weak and contemptible; but their wounds however small, are decisive and fatal. Conscious of this, she never wounds till she has generously given notice, even to her enemy, and cautioned him against the danger of treading on her.

I confess I was wholly at a loss what to make of the rattles until I went back and counted them and found them just thirteen, exactly the number of the colonies united in America; and I recollected too that this was the only part of the snake that increased in numbers; perhaps it might be only fancy, but, I conceited the painter had shown a half formed additional rattle, which, I suppose, might have been intended to represent the province of Canada.

‘Tis curious and amazing to observe how distinct and independent of each other the rattles of this animal are, and yet how firmly they are united together, so as never to be separated but by breaking them to pieces. One of those rattles singly is incapable of producing sound, but the ringing of thirteen together is sufficient to alarm the boldest man living.

The rattlesnake is solitary and associated with her kind only when it is necessary for their preservation. In winter, the warmth of a number together will preserve their lives, while singly they would probably perish.

The power of fascination attributed to her, by a generous construction, may be understood to mean that those who consider the liberty and blessing which America affords, and once come over to her, never afterwards leave her, but spend their lives with her. She strongly resembles America in this, that she is beautiful in youth and her beauty increases with age, “her tongue also is blue and forked as the lightning, and her abode is among impenetrable rocks.”

I communicated my sentiments to a neighbor of mine, who had a surprising readiness at guessing everything which related to public affairs. He instantly declared it as his sentiments that the Congress meant to allude to Lord North’s declaration in the House of Commons that he never would relax his measure until he had brought America to his feet, and to intimate to his Lordship that were she brought to his feet, it would be dangerous treading on her.” — The Completed Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin, compiled and edited by Mark Skousen, Ph.D. Pages 112-114.

Rebellion to Tyrants is obedience to God

“Only July 4 I had been appointed to a committee, along with Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, to design the great seal of the United States. I urged the following to be adopted: Moses standing on the shore, and extending his hand over the sea, thereby causing the same to overwhelm Pharaoh who is sitting in an open chariot, a crown on his head and a sword in his hand. Rays from a pillar of fire in the clouds reach to Moses to express that he acts by command of the Deity. Motto: Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.” — The Completed Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin, compiled and edited by Mark Skousen, Ph.D. Page 124.

Take a few moments to really think about America’s founding and what it meant to have men like Franklin at the helm when the fate of the nation hung in the balance. And then, when you’re done…if you really must, go back to the cartoons.

Woman pulls gun on intruder who asks if she wants to ‘meet God’ — sheeple still beg to be disarmed

Self Defense

Think about men like Michael Bloomberg for a moment, who wake up occasionally in the middle of the night crying tears of joy — the after-effects of dreaming that all Americans are stripped of their Second Amendment rights. Now, think of the Milwaukie, Oregon intruder who kept trying to break into homes until he finally succeeded — at which point he asked a poor woman if she wanted to “meet God.”

KGW Newschannel 8 reports from Portland.

Before trying to get in the home, the man had reportedly walked in two other apartments. In one, he followed Crystal McKinney upstairs and inside.

She knew something wasn’t right.

“I backed up and I said ‘What are you doing?'” McKinney said. “He said, ‘Do you want to meet God?’ I went to my room and got my gun. I said get out or I will shoot you.”

She said the man turned to leave, so she followed him, shut the door, and called 911. Then she heard him in the apartment across the hall before he finally left.

“My adrenaline was really pumping and I broke down in tears,” McKinney said.

She broke down into tears because that’s the sort of thing that happens when your mind realizes all the gruesome things that could have happened to you during a home invasion — if men like Michael Bloomberg had their twisted dreams realized on a national level. Mikey probably lives on the top floor of a penthouse that has 24-hour security manning the entrance to the building. Maybe he even has a panic room, since that’s the sort of thing billionaires sometimes splurge on.

Ms. McKinney? Without her gun she might have a phone, which she could use to call the cops. Maybe they’d come in time, maybe not. When seconds count, the cops are only minutes away.

Hooded Man

Whenever gun debates take control of cable news, it’s always interesting to listen to rich, well-dressed and emasculated men wearing Brooks Brothers suits as they denigrate women like Ms. McKinney. (Did you get the Brooks Brothers Signature Tartan Slim Briefcase for the emasculated gun-control nut in your family? They’re only $448!) The gun debate is one that they will continue to have a tough time on because there will always be nut-jobs threatening innocent people, and innocent people like being able to defend their life, liberty and property.

Oddly enough, I was talking with my brother this morning and told him that if anyone ever stuck a gun to my head that any tears I would shed would be because I’d feel bad for the pain my family would go through — not because I was afraid of dying. On some level I’d laugh at a guy who asked if I wanted to “meet God” because I know I’ll be just fine. I’ve been trying to play long ball with my soul for quite some time; the same can’t be said for the intruder who threatens to murder innocent Americans at gunpoint. Regardless, I still have the right to defend my life — and putting a bullet through the head of those who seek to end it is not up for debate.

If you’ve never seen it, watch as Ted Nugent intellectually destroys a guy who probably owns the Brooks Brothers “Small Foldover Manicure Set” (only $98!)

Editor’s note: In full disclosure, the author does own a number of Brooks Brothers ties. Like the Joker’s poison from Tim Burton’s Batman, men are only emasculated by Brooks Brothers clothing when they mix it with specific behavioral patterns (e.g., buying into the Bloombergian gun control mindset).

Communism survivor to clueless gun-grabbers: ‘You don’t know what freedom is because you’ve never lost it’

Manuel Martinez
Mr. Manuel Martinez will never be on certain cable networks known for their liberal word view. He will not be on the cover of left-leaning news magazines. His name will not trend on Twitter with people who seek strict gun control measures after every high profile shooting, and he will not be invited to swanky parties in Washington, D.C. with Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. But Martinez’s story is important.

Daylight Disinfectant writes on YouTube:

Mr. Martinez escaped the brutal Communist regime in Cuba in 1954. His testimony included how citizens under Castro were first disarmed by legislation similar to that being shepherded along by Gun-Grabber in Chief Floyd Prozanski. Defenseless, many Cuban Citizens were later summarily slaughtered.

Having been present at the testimony, I can assure you even the liberal hacks in the press pool were visibly shaken. The expressions on the Senators faces … well they spoke for themselves (you can see them at the end of the video). I’d wager no one in room did not feel a chill up their spine, or a tear in the corner of their eye, as Martinez described scenes of sons being torn from their mothers arms, and shot dead in the street, because they lacked the means to protect themselves. He spoke from the heart: no notes or teleprompter required.

Here is a small portion of Mr. Martinez’s testimony. I invite you to watch it in its entirety.

“In 1959 a revolution of malicious individuals, masquerading as Democrats,.. established a regime, … a dictatorial regime in my nation called Communism, Socialism, Stalinism, Marxism, and whatever other named “ism” you want to put on it. The reason why it was done was to take away the guns from the people. … [The right to bear arms] is a God-given right. It’s not given by anybody. It’s not given by any group. … Absolutely nobody has the authority to take it away. … I’ve been through it. I’ve been there. You people don’t know what freedom is because you’ve never lost it.

You haven’t been tortured. You haven’t seen assassinations. You haven’t seen mothers begging for the life of there son because the only reason they want is to be free. And they killed the mothers and they killed the son… If we keep tumbling with the Second Amendment we are open the same way Cuba was open for Communism, China, Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Venezuela — on and on. A tortuous regime will destroy this country in the same way they destroyed those I mentioned to you. … I came here for freedom. At the time, this country was different. This country opened its arms for me. … If they had not opened their arms for me I probably would not be here today. I hope that I’m clear with you and you understand my point of view.”

Please watch the video. It is incredibly powerful in ways the text could never capture.

I have no words. It brings a tear to your eye and a lump in your throat. Mr. Martinez is more of an American than many, many, many other Americans that were born and raised in the U.S. If I ever met this guy I think I’d give him the longest hug I’ve given anyone in years because he gets what’s at stake.

God bless you, Mr. Martinez. You’re a true patriot.

Push your fingers up against your nose, you moron.
Push your fingers up against your nose to try and hide your shame, you moron.  Read from your script like an android and call for the next witness with your “smart” glasses pushed up tight, you twit. You’ve just been hit with an intellectual sledgehammer by a Cuban immigrant who is more American than you’ll ever be.

CO Democrat Rep. Joe Salazar: Women are too emotional and stupid to use a gun

Colorodo's liberals want women to know they'd prefer projectile vomiting on rapists instead of projecting bullets out of the barrel of a loaded gun.
Colorado’s liberal academics and politicians want women to know they’d prefer projectile vomiting to ward off rapists instead of projecting bullets out of the barrel of a loaded gun. Mysteriously, UCCU’s rape advice page was taken down shortly after if it was mercilessly mocked online.

The gun control issue just won’t go away. When it isn’t Vice President Biden trying to make the case for gun control by telling all of us to buy shotguns, it’s a university broadcasting a new way to avoid being raped: menstruation.

February’s winner (and by ‘winner’ I mean ‘loser’) for his ability to continue the gun-control distraction (we are almost $17 trillion in debt) is Colorado Rep. Joe Salazar. In one fell swoop he manages to let women know that he thinks they’re all a bunch of emotional basket cases that can’t be trusted to carry a firearm, and that they’re too stupid to know when they’re being physically assaulted.

“There are some gender inequities on college campuses. This is true. … It’s why we have call boxes, it’s why we have safe zones, it’s why we have the whistles. Because you just don’t know who you’re gonna be shooting at. And you don’t know if you feel like you’re gonna be raped, or if you feel like someone’s been following you around or if you feel like you’re in trouble when you may actually not be, that you pop out that gun and you pop … pop around at somebody,” (Colorado’s golden bow tie wearing Democrat, Joe Salazar).

Unlike the University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, Mr. Salazar does not openly support projectile vomiting and sudden urination as a deterrent to rape. He’s a big fan of whistles and “safe zones” (because as everyone knows, rapists abide by the same “safe zone” rules once used in elementary school during games of freeze tag).

Question: If Salazar’s last name was Akin and he had an “R” next to his name, what are the chances that his rape statements would be aired around the clock on MSNBC and CNN? Given that Marco Rubio taking a sip of water was replayed over 200 times on MSNBC alone, I’d say the chances are pretty good. But because Rep. Salazar has a “D” next to his name, those same “news” outlets will work overtime at ignoring the story. Sadly, the average American only thinks about media bias in terms of what is actually reported, without ever factoring into the equation what is left unsaid.

Luckily, with the invention of Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and blogs (like this one), it is a lot harder for partisan media hacks to ignore the stories that don’t conform to their particular word view.

In response to Mr. Salazar’s desire to create of safe-zone call-box utopia for whistle-carrying paranoid women, the hashtag #LiberalTips2AvoidRape began trending on Twitter. Oddly enough, the people making fun of politicians whose policies would endanger more women found themselves being attacked … by women.

Liberal Tips 2 Avoid Rape

Someone needs to tell Anna O’Hara that she needs to save that puke for the next time she’s approached by a rapist. Semi-automatic and automatic vomit (with three-round burst capability) is currently legal in all 50 states.

Luckily, the feed was also filled with sanity:

Liberal Tips to Avoid Rape reactions

Indeed. Women do deserve better. Men deserve better. The country deserves better. But we’re stuck with an electorate that spends most of its free time watching Harlem Shake videos on YouTube or kittens on Buzzfeed. Every four years voters memorize a few talking points given to them by whatever cable news channel host they like, and then they pretend they’re policy experts before voting for a stooge who has lived in Washington, DC his entire life.

Have fun with your safe-zone call boxes, my gun-control favoring friends. I’m not sure how long it takes to rape someone, but I’m hoping the campus security segway isn’t low on battery when you push the distress signal. When seconds count, the scooter patrol will be minutes away.

A Good day to defend the Constitution: Bruce Willis sticks to his guns on the Second Amendment

Bruce Willis A Good Day to Die Hard
Thank God John McClane (i.e., Bruce Willis) can be counted on to defend gun rights. Besides the politics, who wants to live in a world where ‘Die Hard’ movies are banned from using high capacity magazines?

‘A Good Die to Die Hard’ will be out on Valentine’s Day, which means that Bruce Willis will be promoting it heavily for the next two weeks. It also means that that, like Sylvester Stallone, he’s going to get a slew of questions pertaining about gun violence. Given his celebrity status, they’ll be teed up for him in such a way as to allow him to hit the ball in whatever direction he chooses — but they’ll still be asked.

The Associated Press was the first to get a hold of him, and he didn’t disappoint:

Bruce Willis says he’s against new gun control laws that could infringe on Second Amendment rights. The “Die Hard” star also dismisses any link between Hollywood shootouts and real-life gun violence.

“I think that you can’t start to pick apart anything out of the Bill of Rights without thinking that it’s all going to become undone,” Willis told The Associated Press in a recent interview while promoting his latest film, “A Good Day To Die Hard.” ”If you take one out or change one law, then why wouldn’t they take all your rights away from you?” …

“It’s a difficult thing and I really feel bad for those families,” he said. “I’m a father and it’s just a tragedy. But I don’t know how you legislate insanity. I don’t know what you do about it. I don’t even know how you begin to stop that.”

Compare Willis’ answer to Stallone’s recent musing on the Second Amendment while promoting ‘Bullet to the Head’:

“I know people get (upset) and go, ‘They’re going to take away the assault weapon.’ Who … needs an assault weapon? Like really, unless you’re carrying out an assault. … You can’t hunt with it. … Who’s going to attack your house, a (expletive) army?”

The 66-year-old actor, writer and director said he also hopes for an additional focus on mental health to prevent future mass shootings.

“It’s unbelievably horrible, what’s happened. I think the biggest problem, seriously, is not so much guns. It’s that every one of these people that have done these things in the past 30 years are friggin’ crazy.

Notice the difference? In actuality, both answers are only off by degrees — but Bruce Willis comes down on the side of individual freedom and liberty, and Stallone does not. Stallone seems to want to curry favor with the politically correct hob-knobbers in Hollywood, but Willis doesn’t care; he’s just Willis.

It is a rare instance indeed when a Hollywood star realizes that the public do-gooders will never be appeased. There will always be wrongs for them to right, and so they will never stop chipping away at the God-given natural rights of the individual. The same people who believe that they should be able to regulate how much sodium and fat and sugar you consume would not think twice about confiscating all guns if they thought they could get away with it (politically or with their lives). The people who believe they can force you to engage in commerce so that they could regulate that commerce will have no qualms coming for firearms as soon as history provides them with a window of time to act.

There are cameras on every block. There are domestic drones overhead. Your property rights (an essential pillar of any free society) have been eroded like a sandcastle wiped away by the rising tide (e.g., Kelo v New London). Your text messages and email messages are fair game. The federal government is so big and so bloated and so convoluted that every day you break federal regulations without even knowing it. We have a president — who demonized President George W. Bush — who has “Terror Tuesday” kill lists and rules for killing American citizens overseas.

In short: the stage is set for the United States to devolve very quickly one day into a bizarro United States of hopelessness and despair and tyranny. And one of the bulwarks against such a reality from ever taking place is the Second Amendment.

Bruce Willis might not be a constitutional expert, but his instincts are sound (which may explain why he’s been a star for so long). On this day, on this issue, he deserves a pat on the back for his willingness to stand up for gun rights. Bravo, Bruce. You just solidified my decision to see ‘A Good Day to Die Hard.’ I was on the fence after the previous installment (let us not go into detail about how ridiculous the fighter jet scene was, even by ‘Die Hard’ standards), but you’ve gained enough good will to get a few more bucks out of me. I’ll see you opening weekend.

Bruce Willis will also be starring in 'Red 2' in the near future, which will mean more dumb questions for him on gun control. Hopefully, he doesn't back down and continues to stand up for the rights enshrined in our Constitution.
Bruce Willis will also be starring in ‘Red 2’ in the near future, which will mean more dumb questions for him on gun control. Hopefully, he doesn’t back down and continues to stand up for the rights enshrined in our Constitution.

Related: All balding men should pledge allegiance to Bruce Willis
Related: Yippie Ki-yay … Steve Doocy. Bruce Willis is Sheer Awesome

Sen. Greg Ball drops intellectual bomb on Cuomo’s fat head

Senator Greg Ball

Boom. There is nothing else to say.

“You know, it’s amazing, I got a letter form a mother in my district, and that mother has a bipolar child who is schizophrenic. She fears for her life and the lives of her neighbors every day. The mental health system in the state of New York has failed her repeatedly. It’s a kangaroo system, where that child will be treated like a number, a ticking time bomb to go off. And that single mother doesn’t have the support of this state or that system to care for that child.

And tonight we preach about saving lives.

Not long ago, I think a woman was in Georgia. She has several young children. Her husband showed her how to shoot. Somebody broke into her home and came after her. She shot him I believe six times. Tonight, we’re going to pass legislation that if she had eight rounds in that chamber instead of seven, she’d be a criminal. We haven’t saved any lives tonight — except for one: the political life of a governor who wants to be president. We have taken an entire category of firearms that are currently legal and are in the homes of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens. As a legislature that believes in its power to the extent where you actually profess that you are magically saving lives, we are now turning those law-abiding citizens into criminals — and tomorrow hoping that on the front page we will be seen as preventing tragedies. Yet that single mom will wake up tomorrow with that bipolar child who is schizophrenic and mentally ill — and we will have done nothing. Good night,” (Sen. Greg Ball, Jan 15, 2013).

Obama to make gun control pitch flanked by kids

You either agree with President Obama’s gun control plans, or you stand against innocent children. That’s the message the administration will telegraph on Wednesday, when it plans to hold a press conference flanked by kids. The announcement was made by White House Press Secretary Jay Carney on Tuesday, who also disclosed that the proposals put together by Vice President Joe Biden will include bans on assault weapons and high capacity magazines.

In the past, presidents have welcomed children to bill signings (e.g., President Obama did so with Obamacare), but the dynamic shifts exponentially when kids become props in the pitch for legislation. That’s exactly what will happen tomorrow, when children who wrote the president in the wake of the Newtown shootings will surround him as he makes the case to curb Second Amendment rights.

Both President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden have made the claim that “if it only saves one life,” their proposals will be worth taking. It’s an emotional argument that breaks down in the face of the slightest bit of intellectual scrutiny. Should we ban motorcycles and cars? Cuttlery? Self-defense classes? Regardless, it is not surprising that men who cloak statist power grabs in lofty rhetoric also see nothing wrong with using little ones as propaganda pawns for their scripted press conferences.