By: Brandon Pruitt
Meet Democratic Caucus Vice-Chair Representative Joe Crowley (A Democrat from New York). A man whose integrity have been questioned by the Office of Congressional Ethics, and is no friend to gun rights advocates.
He believes that gun manufacturers should be held responsible for gun deaths (yet, no where in his background could I find similar rhetoric against GM for drunk driving…)
In fact, since first taking office, Crowley has supported every last Gun Control bill that has come across his way. And, since he’s suffered one miserable defeat after the other, he’s now taking things a step further by proclaiming that he can make “better background checks” by denying gun sales to anyone found to have a “criminal” thought.
Look, Congressman, I get it: the media has manufactured a frenzy among your uneducated Constituents. It’s too difficult to bring them up to speed on the reality of the situation, and you have pressure from your superiors to push an agenda that literally comes straight from the top: Ban Guns. More Control. No Matter The Cost.
So it doesn’t surprise me, Rep. Crowley, when you openly condemn the idea of due process for law abiding gun owners. Furthermore, I am also not surprised when you suggest the ends will justify the means, as you introduce your latest gun-grab proposition which boldly ventures into the realm of “thought police” and does so without remorse or concern.
“But what we do know is that there will be more people killed by guns and people who ought not to have those weapons because a thorough background check was not in place to make sure that people who have mental incapacity, that have terrorist thoughts, who have criminal thoughts or records, or behavior that would lead law enforcement to deny them access to those weapons – that’s what we’re looking for that’s what the American people are looking for”
Whether Representative Crowley is stating that he has developed a sort of background check that can determine an individuals intent before the sale is made, or that he has a Minority Report pre-cog hidden in his back pocket remains to be seen, but what is know, at this point, is we have another card-carrying Democrat coming up with more meaningless legislation whose publicly stated attempt is to strip you of your 2nd Amendment Rights.
And what, exactly, is a criminal thought … and who defines it? If I think that the 2nd Amendment was written to keep corrupt politicians in line… is that going to be labeled criminal? Or, what if the questions are less ambiguous, and more direct, such as: Do you plan on using this gun to harm an innocent person? Is anyone going to actually say “Yes“?
On the ATF Form 4473, it asks this question:
Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form?
And how many people that check “No” to this question are sold a firearm? That’s right. None. If you answer “no” you are denied the sale, immediately. So then how does one explain the epidemic of “Straw Purchases” that take place in this country?
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 39.6% of “crime guns” are obtained through straw purchases made by family members or friends. Perhaps the check-box on the paper offers little in the way of deterring a criminal from committing a crime when the criminal knows that the Government has all but given up on prosecuting gun crime?
Interestingly enough, at June 2016’s Guns Save Life meeting in Champaign, our crowd of over 100 listened as a Champaign police detective related case after case of the local states attorney showing exactly zero interest in prosecuting these straw purchase cases from family members (mothers) or girlfriends – even cases presented up on a silver platter with perfectly admissible and freely given confessions, often on video.
The fact is, crime is here to stay. It’s a part of our society – it’s been a part of every society since the very beginning of civilization. But unlike other developed nations – the crime rate in the United States is down…more specifically, it’s way down. That’s right. An actual FACT that you won’t hear about on CNN this evening. But it’s still true: As gun sales soar, crime rate plummets. In fact, since 1991, violent crime has actually fallen an astounding 51%. You can verify that fact for yourself if you wish.
So really, it seems the only thing these Representatives should be concentrating on is how to encourage more law abiding citizens to get trained and take up arms to protect themselves and their family. If we study the actual data, and listen to the concrete facts, we can only arrive at one clear, perfectly illustrated conclusion: Where you have more law abiding gun owners, you have less crime.
Add questions on the ATF Form 4473,such as,
” What do you do with a democrat? ‘
The question on the 4473 should be “Are you a Democrat?”
Answer YES and automatic denial.
Have to wonder how much more the crime rate would be down if it did not have to include places such as Chitcago.
YOUR DAILY SUPERHERO/COWARDLY COP/KILLER UPDATE:
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/california-police-release-footage-moment-they-fatally-shot-unarmed-white-teenager-1570632?utm_source=yahoo&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=rss&utm_content=%2Frss%2Fyahoous%2Fnews&yptr=yahoo
What a coward! What a WUSS! What a GURL!!!!!
“Oh, me oh my! That boy’s ‘reaching’ for something, so I better unload 3″ of 00 buck into his guts!!!”
When are these cops going to stop MURDERING people? When they’re all dead themselves?
Maybe BLM has something here!
There was UTTERLY and ABSOLUTELY no reason for those cops to shoot that man. If you think there was then YOU are the problem.
Carry on, circle-jerkers, carry on.
Fresh updates as they happen – which, as it turns out, is almost DAILY now.
It would appear, @Ken, that you didn’t watch the video.
He refused to obey lawful orders. He was warned that if he continued to advance on the officers, he would be shot. He continued, he was shot.
That he was unarmed was not determined until AFTER he refused the orders, and continued to advance, all the while hiding his right hand behind his body.
An extremely viable solution was available to the “victim”: obey the lawful orders, and don’t act stupid. He decided instead to ignore those orders, and act stupid. While police had guns aimed at him.
This is truly a bad shooting to try to make a cause célèbre out of.
I watched it and it was justified and then some. Showing off your willful ignorance to the justified use of deadly force and anti-cop bias doesn’t make you right Ken.
It does make you less liked though.
John
Since when is “refusing to follow orders” a capital crime?
You’re despicable.
That’s okay; one day soon enough the Homeland Security or Department of the Interior or Dept. of Education (you know, the guys with BILLIONS of cop-killer bullets?), will be giving you orders and, when you don’t comply, you’ll be shot too.
It’s almost over.
When “GOOD MEN” like you guys mindlessly and blindly back the murder of unindicted citizens, there’s nothing left.
Oh, and, J.B., I don’t care if ya like me or not. I’m only here for instructional purposes.
Instructional purposes?
Afraid not, Ken. Your posts are replete with inaccuracies and misdirection.
The phrase “capital crime” describes potential punishment after conviction and is simply inapplicable to the situation at issue. If the subject of this video had complied with the lawful orders of the officers, he’d have had his due process.
The problem as I see it is that your blind rage toward police officers and others in positions of potential authority over you colors your view of such issues to the point where it is irrational. Tell us all, what was wrong with the orders the officers were giving? Were they overreaching, unintelligible, conflicting, impossible of compliance, or in any other way inappropriate? I submit that your denial of the legitimacy of those orders indicates your lack of appropriate concern for the lives and safety of those officers
It is this lack of acknowledgement of the need for the officers to maintain their own lives and safety in order to be able to serve and protect the rest of us, that causes you to use the term “murder” in describing the depicted shooting. A murder is an intentional taking of a human life without lawful justification. Were these officers engaged in some illegality in affecting a traffic stop and directing the individual to get on the ground and show his hands? I certainly don’t see it that way and don’t believe the vast majority of others would either. Why then do you deny the right of these officers to defend themselves and by extension the rest of us? The term “murder” simply doesn’t apply here.
Wow, JAS!
Nobody has ever been MORE wrong in all of history.
As I challened KK[K] (unanswered, of course) POINT OUT ONE INACCURACY OR FACT THAT I’VE GOTTEN WRONG. I defy you to do so. You can’t, cause my FACTS are right.
It’s OPINIONS that evidently differ here. But that doesn’t mean I’ve gotten anything wrong factually. You guys mistake opinion for fact, and you’re just embarrassing yourselves.
“Blind rage?” Nah. Every single thing I’ve ever said has been backed up by fact. Not blind and definitely NOT rage.
Capital crime is a crime for which the punishment fixed is death. These cops murdered that man, pure, plain and simple.
He wasn’t even armed.
It used to be the cops would disarm a man.
It used to be then that the cops had to SEE a gun before feeling threatened.
NOW? All they have to do is have hurt feewings and they’re blazing away.
This was MURDER, and your woeful defense is just that, woeful and pitiful.
I realize that the deck is stacked against me here, on the circle-jerk forum, but the rest of the country is WITH me.
And remember, fellers, be armed and ready tomorrow, cause the blacks is gonna riot! Tomorrow is PAYBACK day!
So is he saying we need “thought police” as in Minority Report”?
A new Government agency of “Pre-crime?”
Doesn’t everybody know by now that Democrats are dictator wannabes?
Pre-Crime, Is that when a democrat is first elected to office ?.
Democrats: The party of would-be fascists and tyrants.
Low information voters give us low information leaders like Joe Crowley. Is it not surprising that he’s facing probes and investigations for criminal activity? Laws are for little people.
Ken why didn’t you say you was a teacher. I didn’t know you were only here for instructional purposes well that she’d a whole new lite on things as far as iam concerned. But I know one thing , I won’t be coming to
Your class !!! Hhhhhhhmmm
Jackie, hunny, you couldn’t afford the tuition! Nor could you pass the final exam!
Now shut up, get back in the kitchen, and make me a sammich!
All those in favor of ken getting the ban hammer, say aye…
AYE!
I’ve got a far BETTER idea!
Why don’t you ARGUE INTELLIGENTLY against the facts as I recite them, or link to them?
Too challenging for you? Nah, you’ll just act like dear Jackie above and stoop to the insults.
ARGUE the facts. Dispute my ideals.
nah, just censor ’em.
Typical libs.
Folks; Ken is a troll. Just ignore him. His desire is to create and sustain conflict on this discussion board.