David Codrea: Major Newspapers Confirm No ‘Gun Laws’ will Ever be Enough for Them

Here is David Codrea talking with Michael Dukes about the article below.

Listen in your car.

 

 

“Would strict enforcement of existing gun laws have stopped the Texas church massacre?” The Los Angeles Times editorial board asks rhetorically. “Probably not.”

“Of course not” would be more like it, no matter how many ostensibly on the side of the Second Amendment claim otherwise.  As long as those who do evil walk among us, they will find a way. Remember that mass killings that racked up the highest death tolls, 9/11, the Oklahoma City bombing and the Happyland Dance Club fire, were all committed without guns.

The Times goes through the “existing laws” the Texas church massacre maniac slipped through to come to its central thesis, one the paper has been rabidly demanding for decades:

“But even then, assault weapons like the one Kelley used will remain for sale in this country, and that’s the fundamental problem. Civilians have no legitimate reason to own military-style firearms. Enthusiasts might get a kick out of shooting them, but that’s hardly reason to endanger the rest of us. These rapid-fire weapons, with their high-capacity magazines and quick reloads, are designed for one purpose: to kill as many people as quickly as possible. They do not belong in private hands.”

That, of course, is a lie, demonstrable if by no other means than looking at the sheer number of such firearms peaceably owned and used for all kinds of other purposes, and then comparing that to the small percentage used in crimes of violence – often by people who obtained them by criminal means.

The Times is not done intentionally confusing a readership conditioned to believe the editors know what they’re talking about:

“Gun advocates argue that the 2nd Amendment gives them the right to own such weapons, but it does not. The Supreme Court’s 2008 Heller decision (which we think was wrongly decided) recognized a right to own a firearm in the home for self-protection, but echoed previous court decisions that the ownership right is not absolute, is subject to regulation, and can be limited to firearms currently “in common use.” By some estimates, assaults weapons account for only about 3% of the estimated 300 million guns in our collective arsenal. That’s not ‘in common use.’”

No “gun advocate” worth his salt thinks the Second Amendment “gives” them anything. Since The Times cited Heller. It’s fair to assume leaving out a key citation was a deliberately fraudulent lie of omission:

“As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed … “

Equally deceptive is their characterization of what “in common use at the time” means (and by their definition, all new developments in firearms technology would be forever withheld from We the People). That qualifier relied on U.S. v Miller, a case from 1939 that found a weapon must have “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia [or] that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”

But it’s interesting The Times admits they even disagree with the Heller opinion that you can have a gun in your home. And it doesn’t matter what kind, because they’ve long supported handgun bans as well. And forget them recognizing any right to carry either openly or concealed.

They want it all.

As does The Boston Globe, which wants Americans to “Hand over your weapons.”

 “The logic of gun control lies, at bottom, in substantially reducing the number of deadly weapons on the street — and confiscation is far and away the most effective approach … Ultimately, if gun-control advocates really want to stanch the blood, there’s no way around it: They’ll have to persuade more people of the need to confiscate millions of those firearms, as radical as that idea may now seem.”

If “that idea” ever “seems” normal, the core and vital reasons behind Oath Keepers will come into play. It will become a very dangerous time for the citizen targets of those who follow such orders as well as for those refusing to obey them. That’s why it’s so crucial to disseminate the truth now, and by that I mean for you and me to do it, and regularly.

Then there’s “the newspaper of record,” The New York Times, a generational apologist for communist totalitarianism from the days of Walter Duranty that flat-out declares:

“Repeal the Second Amendment.”

The masks are off and they can’t put them back on. This is what’s at the bottom of Nancy Pelosi’s “slippery slope.” And this is the answer to throw back in the faces of collectivists who use Alinsky Rule 5 ridicule and sneering terms like “paranoids” as they flat-out lie that “No one wants to take your guns.”

Of course they do.  And if they can, the real business of control will become apparent.

In the mean time, they’ll continue lie under cover of the “common sense gun safety law” deception, and chip away at one piece and then the next until they can try to bring the whole thing down. And they’ll continue smearing anyone who opposes them as an extremist, as a hater, as a terrorist and as a treasonous domestic enemy to be destroyed.

They’re intent on forcing the issue. The surrender they demand of us is unconditional.

—–

If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please make a donation to support our work.  You can donate HERE.

—–

David Codrea’s opinions are his own. See “Who speaks for Oath Keepers?”

Leave a Reply