• Category Archives Activism
  • Activism means fighting for our rights, as guaranteed by God and teh Constitution of the U.S.A.

  • Man Wearing Pro-Gun T-shirt Thrown Out of Voting Booth in Texas

    Election officials ejected a Texas man from a voting booth because he was wearing a Second Amendment t-shirt.

    Chris Driskill was prevented from voting at the Waller County Courthouse on Tuesday after officials claimed he was violating Texas Election Code section 85.036, which states that “a person may not electioneer for or against any candidate, measure, or political party” in or within 100 feet of a voting location.

    “I heard a gentleman’s voice over my shoulder say ‘he can’t vote with that shirt on. You’ll have to either turn it inside out our you’ll have to leave,’” Driskill told KVUE.

    The officials used the election law to throw Driskill out of the voting booth even though the shirt simply stated “Second Amendment – 1789 – America’s Original Homeland Security” on the front without any mention of a political candidate or proposition.

    This is simply an attack on free speech and voting rights through the color of law as well as another example of the continued demonization of gun owners across America.

    Read More…


    The Second Amendment Foundation has filed a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court for review of its challenge to the exorbitant gun permit fees charged by the City of New York. The case is Kwong v. de Blasio.

    SAF is joined in the lawsuit – which was filed in 2011 against former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has been replaced by current Mayor Bill de Blasio – by the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association and seven private citizens. They are represented by New York attorney David Jensen.

    The lawsuit challenges New York City’s $340 fee for a three-year handgun license, which is the highest such fee imposed for a gun possession license anywhere in the United States. SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb noted that the fee anywhere else in the entire state of New York is $10, but the city is exempted from that law, The city’s higher fee, he said, “discourages city residents from exercising their civil rights while violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

    “The fee structure discriminates against all but the wealthy and well-connected elites,” Gottlieb said. “This prohibitively high fee leaves average citizens defenseless due to their financial situation, but the right of self-defense and exercise of the Second Amendment should not be limited solely to those with deep pockets and fat wallets.”

    The federal district court and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals both sided with the city’s argument that the higher fee is allowable to recover costs and promote public safety.

    “This recurring fee constitutes a substantial burden on the exercise of a fundamental civil right,” Gottlieb stated. “Nowhere in the Constitution does it condition the exercise of a civil right on the amount of money one has in the bank.”

  • Using the Calm Before the Storm: It’s Time to Prepare (An Economic Storm is Coming)


    The lull is almost over. Now what?

    I don’t need to tell the savvy readership of Clash Daily that this economic “recovery” has been a combination of smoke and mirrors, held together with a shoestring and bubble gum. The plummeting economy, triggered by the collapse of our government-inflated housing bubble, was temporarily slowed in its break-neck decline by the Obama administration’s decision to shovel astronomic amounts of taxpayer money into a hole. In June 2010, after the first round of Quantitative Easing, the Fed had holdings of $2.054 trillion. In November 2010, deciding that things weren’t improving fast enough, QE2 was launched and we bought up another $600 billion of assets/debt. When that failed to stimulate the market into a full-on recovery, QE3 was announced in September of 2012. At that point, the Fed declared that they would be buying $40 billion/month for an open-ended duration.

    Read More…

  • De Blasio caught speeding, running stop sign after traffic safety announcement! (Bloomturd II)

    Just days after Mayor Bill de Blasio announced an aggressive plan to prevent traffic deaths, CBS 2 cameras caught the driver of a car carrying the mayor violating a number of traffic laws.

    As CBS 2′s Marcia Kramer reported Thursday, the mayor’s two-car caravan was seen speeding, blowing through stop signs, and violating other traffic laws. Kramer reported that if the driver of the lead car, which carried the mayor in its passenger seat, would have racked up enough points to get his license suspended if he’d been ticketed.

    When the mayor announced his 62-point safe streets initiative, which includes lowering the speed limit to 25 mph, he said, “We want the public to know that we are holding ourselves to this standard.”

    But Kramer reported the mayor failed to practice what he preached Thursday.

    Read More…

  • Two Anniversaries Gun Control Supporters Aren’t Celebrating

    Gun control supporters have lately used the 20th anniversary of Bill Clinton’s signing of the Brady Act into law as an excuse to repeat their demand for “universal” background checks. Even though most people who commit crimes with guns defeat the Brady Act by getting their guns by theft, on the black market, or from straw purchasers, anti-gunners have portrayed the law as having saved countless lives.

    Nevertheless, the gun ban movement is altogether ignoring two other significant anniversaries associated with its efforts.

    Last month marked the 40-year anniversary of the founding of the National Council to Control Handguns, which in its early days openly admitted that it supported banning the private possession of handguns. It has since been renamed the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, and while its handgun banning rhetoric is more muted, its goals are still to ban guns by any means necessary.

    Since the group’s formation, Americans have bought over 60 million handguns, bringing the total to somewhere around 100 million; 32 more states have adopted Right–to-Carry laws, bringing the total to 42; and, contrary to the group’s predictions, the nation’s murder rate has decreased to a 49-year low. That’s not much for anti-gun rabble-rousers to celebrate.

    The other anniversary relates to something with a more contemporary significance. On Saturday, it will have been 25 years since the late-Sen. Howard Metzenbaum (D-Ohio) introduced the first federal legislation in anti-gunners’ war against the most universally useful firearms of all time: general-purpose semi-automatic rifles, such as the extraordinarily popular AR-15.

    The bill was S. 386, the “Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989,” and it came as no surprise. The previous year, Josh Sugarmann had advised gun control supporters to start attacking the rifles to boost their efforts to ban handguns. Mr. Sugarmann is a former staffer with the National Coalition to Ban Handguns, as well as Amnesty International. At the time, he had formed his own little anti-handgun group called the New Right Watch, which he later renamed the Violence Policy Center.

    As Sugarmann put it, “assault weapons [will] strengthen the handgun restriction lobby. . . . It will be a new topic in what has become to the press and public an ‘old’ debate. . . . Handgun restriction consistently remains a non-issue with the vast majority of legislators, the press, and public. . . . Efforts to restrict assault weapons are more likely to succeed than those to restrict handguns.”

    To the dismay of anti-handgun activists everywhere, Metzenbaum’s rifle-focused bill didn’t pass. President George H. W. Bush firmly opposed a ban on American-made rifles (although he later ordered that importation of over 40 models of foreign-made semi-automatic rifles be suspended, pending a new review of their eligibility for importation under the Gun Control Act’s “sporting purposes” test).

    Metzenbaum’s bill would have banned the manufacture of the AR-15, various other firearms, and magazines holding more than 10 rounds, regardless of the firearm for which they were designed. Furthermore, S. 386 would have required owners of banned firearms to register those that they already had and allowed the Treasury Secretary and Attorney General to designate other detachable-magazine semi-automatic firearms as “assault weapons.” In these ways, the bill was even worse than legislation Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) sponsored five years later, which ultimately became the federal “assault weapon” and “large” magazine ban of 1994.

    Metzenbaum’s bill was extreme, to be sure, but he was typical of most radical gun control supporters; ignorant of basic facts about guns but still self-righteous and indignant about them. In November 1993, when “assault weapons” were being debated in the Senate, Metzenbaum said, “I don’t know much about the weapons” but “they look quite ominous. We have pictures of them.”

    He wasn’t kidding about the “pictures.” In putting together his bill that year, Metzenbaum’s staffers had flipped through an issue of Gun Digest and written down whatever names they saw printed beside “ominous-looking” guns. Indeed, because the book had mislabeled one rifle, the bill even ended up proposing to ban a gun that didn’t exist. The media, who would have ridiculed any pro-Second Amendment senator for a comparable error, let Metzenbaum slide without comment.

    Metzenbaum’s bills and a bill authored by then-Sen. Dennis DeConcini (D-Ariz.) in 1989 were used as the starting point when Feinstein put together the language of her gun ban. Feinstein proved just as zealous and poorly informed as her fellow gun control supporters. A police officer from the Los Angeles Police Academy told NRA-ILA that Feinstein had visited the academy, ostensibly on a fact-finding mission. Nevertheless, she rejected information that officers at the academy gave her concerning the infrequent use of “assault weapons” in crime and the foolishness of categorizing rifles according to whether they have a flash suppressor, bayonet mount or other external attachment.

    Proving the officers right and Feinstein wrong, at least 730,000 AR-15s (sans flash suppressors and bayonet mounts) were manufactured and bought during the 10 years that Feinstein’s “ban” was in effect. Meanwhile, the nation’s murder rate plummeted anyway. Later, an independent study for Congress determined that the supposedly-banned firearms had not been used in much crime in the first place. Thus, over Feinstein’s tiresome protestations, Congress allowed the ban to expire in 2004.

    Since Metzenbaum introduced S. 386, Americans have bought about four million additional AR-15s, raising the total to about five million, and an uncountable number of their components and accessories. Gun controllers have continued to insist that AR-15s and similar rifles are the “weapon of choice of drug dealers” and “not useful” for self-defense. Yet most AR-15s are carbines configured for defensive applications, while also useful for target practice and a variety of shooting sports, such as “3-Gun” and the NRA’s new National Defense Match. For some 20 years, longer-barreled AR-15 rifles have dominated NRA and Civilian Marksmanship Program service rifle competitions, including those held during the annual National Rifle Trophy Matches and National Rifle Championships. These days they are also used for hunting everything from deer to coyotes to prairie dogs.

    Over the last 25 years, gun control supporters have told more lies and spread more misinformation and disinformation in the context of the “assault weapon” issue than perhaps on any other gun control issue of our time. But the American people aren’t stupid, and they aren’t buying it. Today, general-purpose semi-automatic rifles are going strong. In particular, the AR-15 has become the 21st century version of the 1898 Mauser–the platform upon which the most versatile defensive, hunting and target shooting rifles are built.

    Nothing is set in stone, of course. If President Obama was able to replace even one of the five Supreme Court justices who sided with the Second Amendment in District of Columbia v. Heller, gains that took decades to achieve could evaporate almost overnight. The Court’s statement that the right to keep and bear arms applies to all defensive arms that are commonly used for lawful purposes could be swept aside, banning handguns might be constitutionally permissible, and the Second Amendment could be reinterpreted as something that protects nothing more than a “right” of National Guardsmen to be issued guns while on-duty.

    On the other hand, if everyone who owns a gun the prohibitionists have proposed to ban over the last 40 years votes for pro-Second Amendment candidates this November and in 2016, we will continue to deny gun control supporters the celebrations which have thus far eluded them.

  • Bob Owens: But the State will protect you! (Gov’t Will Let You Die…)

    Huffington Post writer Monica Bauer claims that she has “A New Argument for Gun Control,” but sounds like the same old worn-out lies to me.

    The gun lobby frames the gun control debate using overheated rhetoric about rights that sound suspiciously like an appeal to masculinity; real men don’t let anyone take away their guns. How childish. Real men don’t need guns to be powerful. It’s time we put this argument in it’s proper perspective: ready access to guns is, in the terminology of Catholic dogma (but logical to anybody who can think) an occasion of sin. If you want to avoid committing a sin, stay away from the immediate temptation. It’s a pretty foolproof method. If you don’t want to gain weight, stay away from the cookie section of the supermarket. If it’s not in your kitchen cabinet when you’re hungry, it’s far less likely to end up on your hips.

    Bauer’s argument is that you shouldn’t have individual rights, because there is a danger you might use them irresponsibly. This isn’t a new argument. It’s the exact same mindset that has championed tyranny, democide, and ruin since the beginning of human history.

    Read More…

  • Round Up (Tens of Thousands of) Gun Registration Scofflaws, Rants Hartford Courant Editorial Board

    A bit of military wisdom has it that you should never give an order you know won’t be obeyed. Issuing such an order accomplishes nothing except to undermine your authority and expose the extent to which, no matter what enforcement mechanisms are in place, you rely upon voluntary compliance. But now that Connecticut’s resident class of politically employed cretins has awoken to the fact that, in their state, like everywhere else, people overwhelmingly disobey orders to register their weapons, they’re acting like this is a shocking revelation. They’re also promising to make those who tried to comply, but missed the deadline regret the effort (proving the point of the openly defiant). And the politicians’ enablers in the press are screaming for the prosecution of “scores of thousands” of state residents who, quite predictably, flipped the bird at the government.

    Three years ago, the Connecticut legislature estimated there were 372,000 rifles in the state of the sort that might be classified as “assault weapons,” and two million plus high-capacity magazines. Many more have been sold in the gun-buying boom since then. But by the close of registration at the end of 2013, state officials received around 50,000 applications for “assault weapon” registrations, and 38,000 applications for magazines.

    Some people actually tried to comply with the registration law, but missed the deadline. The state’s official position is that it will accept applications notarized on or before January 1, 2014 and postmarked by January 4. But, says Dora Schriro, Commissioner of the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection, in a letter to lawmakers, anybody sufficiently law-abiding but foolish enough to miss that slightly extended grace period will have to surrender or otherwise get rid of their guns.

    Read More…

  • A prosecutor’s report debunks misconceptions about the Sandy Hook massacre

    Man-Boy Love Advocate and Mass Murderer Adam Lanza


    In December 2012, less than a week after Adam Lanza murdered 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, the New York Post described his “eerie lair of violent video games,” where he “obliterated virtual victims until the virtual became a reality.” The Post reported that the troubled 20-year-old “was enthralled by blood-splattering, shoot-’em-up electronic games.”

    The official report on the massacre, released in November by State’s Attorney Steven Sedensky, paints a more complicated picture. It casts doubt on the significance of Lanza’s gaming habits as well as several other theories about why Lanza killed or how he could have been stopped.

    Contrary to the impression created by stories focusing on Lanza’s enthusiasm for violent titles such as Call of Duty, he enjoyed a wide variety of games. “One person described the shooter as spending the majority of his time playing non-violent video games all day,” the report says, “with his favorite at one point being ‘Super Mario Brothers.'”

    Another game that “enthralled” Lanza in the months before the massacre: Dance Dance Revolution, which he played at a local movie theater for hours at a time every Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. If it seems absurd to portray Lanza’s obsession with dance moves as a warning sign of the violence to come, it is only slightly less absurd to imply that “shoot-’em-up electronic games” enjoyed by millions of young people who never hurt anyone turned him into a mass murderer.

    There is a similar problem with the theory that mental illness made him do it. “The shooter had significant mental health issues that affected his ability to live a normal life and to interact with others,” the report says, but “whether this contributed in any way is unknown.” Lanza was anxious, isolated, socially awkward, rigid, and persnickety -traits his mother attributed to Asperger syndrome. But as The New York Times noted in November, “there is no evidence that people with Asperger’s are more likely than others to commit violent crimes.”

    Read More…

  • NYC Cop Assaults Man Recording Him in Brooklyn Subway Station (Video)

    Police Officer Efrain Rojas confronted a man who was recording him give a summons to another man by pulling out his iPhone and recording the encounter.

    Shawn Thomas recorded Police Officer Efrain Rojas inside the Utica Ave. station while he was giving a summons to another person. Rojas came over with his iPhone and started recording his encounter with Thomas. Rojas asked Thomas to stop recording and leave while Thomas hurled profanities. Thomas’ phone was taken away and the was video deleted but later recovered. He was charged with multiple offenses.

    A transit cop allegedly assaulted, then arrested a 47-year-old man recording another man getting a summons at a Brooklyn subway station, according to a bombshell video released Wednesday.

    Shawn Thomas of New Rochelle claimed Police Officer Efrain Rojas attacked him, arrested him and then tried to delete the video of Saturday’s interaction at Brooklyn’s Utica Ave. station.

    Thomas told photographyisnotacrime.com that Rojas dragged him out of the station, forced him face down on a snowswept sidewalk and slammed his head into the pavement, splitting his lip.

    “I was bleeding profusely,” he told the website. Attempts to reach Thomas for comment were unsuccessful Wednesday. “I was having really bad head pains while in jail, so they took me back to the hospital the following morning.”

    Thomas was transported to the hospital twice as he awaited his arraignment Sunday, he said, according to the site.

  • NYCG Radio Episode #55 – 2/18/14 “Slaves of New York”

    New York City Guns Radio Episode



    IN THIS EPISODE: Secession movement in New York pushes for Big Apple to split from Upstate, CuHomo: Left-wing Totalitarianism in America, Governor CuHomo’s Selective Anti-Gun Fervor: And This Is Why So Many Americans Have No Respect for Laws Or Lawmakers, Union official blames Remington Arms expansion in Alabama on NY SAFE Act, New York City: A Pay More, Get Less Sinkhole, Gov. Andrew CuHomo Proposes Turning Prisons Into College Campuses, Bloomturd’s latest stats on school gun violence ignore reality, Criminologist: ‘More Youngsters Killed in Bicycle Accidents’ Than with Guns, Post Office Latest Federal Agency to Ask for Ammunition, It may soon be easy to carry a permitted concealed handgun in California, The NRA Reveals Who’s to Blame for Ammo Shortage: You!, Gun Control Sent Me Packing in CT.

    WARNING! This Content Contains AWESOME VULGARITY

  • Secession movement in New York pushes for Big Apple to split from Upstate

    When Frank Sinatra sang “New York, New York,” he may have been on to something.

    A movement is afoot to split New York into two regions — upstate and downstate — to acknowledge the gaping philosophical differences and improve representation.

    “I’ve lived in New York all my life, and upstate and downstate have two different philosophies of life,” said John Bergener, an Albany County resident and organizer of the two New Yorks effort. “And it seems like they’re always in conflict.”

    Campaigns for “secession” or a 51st state have been on the rise since the 2012 presidential election — see California, Colorado and Maryland — but the New York movement has a twist.

    Instead of splitting New York into two distinct states, advocates want one state controlled by two autonomous regional governments.

    The state would retain a “token” presence, funded by the 3 percent sales tax, and would remain united for federal purposes such as the Electoral College and congressional seats. But the power on all state matters would be transferred to the regions.

    The downstate region would be called New York and include the counties of Bronx, Kings, New York, Queens, Richmond, Nassau, Rockland, Suffolk and Westchester — basically New York City and its neighboring counties, including Long Island.

    The upstate region tentatively would be named New Amsterdam — after the 17th-century Dutch settlement on Manhattan Island that eventually became New York City — and would comprise the state’s remaining 53 counties, including the state capital of Albany.

    Upstate New York is less prosperous and populous than the Big Apple region. About 7 million of the state’s 19 million residents would be in the proposed New Amsterdam.

    The plan is the brainchild of the Upstate Conservative Coalition, a tea party-style group that last month launched a Facebook page called Divide NYS into New Amsterdam & New York, and a website, NewAmsterdamNY.org.

    Mr. Bergener said the two-regions proposal would be much easier than splitting New York into two states, which would require an act of Congress. The two-regions plan could be implemented by votes of the state legislature in two sessions, he said.

    The idea also could be adopted in a constitutional convention. New Yorkers vote every 20 years on whether to hold a state constitutional convention, and the next vote is slated for November 2017.

  • It may soon be easy to carry a permitted concealed handgun in California


    California may soon join 42 other states in letting people carry concealed handguns once they meet certain objective criteria.

    Thursday, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the state couldn’t ban both concealed and open carry guns. The court also struck down the so-called “good cause” requirement for getting a permit, saying that concern for one’s personal safety should be sufficient justification.

    The Constitution guarantees Americans the right to “keep and bear arms.” To “bear” means to carry.

    Ironically, California may have opened the door to make it much easier for people to get concealed handgun permits by recently banning people from openly carrying guns. The court wrote that while it might indeed be constitutional for a state to ban concealed handguns or to ban people openly carrying handguns, it simply can’t ban both options.

    Counties such as Los Angeles have only let a few hundred people get concealed handgun permits out of 7.5 million adults. In San Diego, only about 700 out of 2.4 million can carry. And in San Francisco, no one is granted a permit to carry a gun.

    Read More…

  • Bloomturd’s latest stats on school gun violence ignore reality

    Are schools and colleges dangerous places, with lots of gun violence?

    Some groups paint a picture of these places being particularly unsafe. Supposedly both murders and firearm suicides are very common at educational institutions. Last Wednesday, former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s two groups, Moms Demand Gun Sense in America and Mayors Against Illegal Guns, jointly released a report that received massive uncritical news coverage.

    They claimed that 44 shootings occurred in schools and colleges nationwide since the Newtown, Conn. massacre on Dec. 14, 2012 and Feb. 10 of this year. Out of the 44 shootings, a total of 28 died. To dramatize their numbers, Bloomberg’s groups emphasized that one of these attacks occurred every 10 days.

    But their statistics are not what they seem. Included in the numbers are suicides. Also included are late night shootings taking place in school parking lots, on their grounds or even off school property, often involving gangs. As “shootings,” they also include any incident where shots were fired, even when nobody was injured.

    Read More…

  • Gun Ownership By Women Is Booming

    Women gun owners are becoming a significant constituency in America.

    As The Inquisitr previously reported, the number of women participating in gun sports, such as target shooting and hunting, has steadily increased over the last decade. Estimates of the number of US women who are purchasing and learning how to use guns range from 12 million to 17 million.

    The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) claims that women are the fastest growing demographic of firearms enthusiasts.

    This growth is occurring perhaps because of, or despite, controversial efforts at the federal and state level to enact additional gun control regulations.

    Read More…

  • CuHomo: Left-wing Totalitarianism in America

    New York’s Democrat governor Andrew Cuomo recently told listeners of WCNY radio that “extreme conservatives” who are “pro-life, pro-assault weapons, anti-gay” have “no place” in New York State because “that’s not who New Yorkers are.”

    Cuomo later tried to cushion the impact of his words by claiming they were aimed solely at “extreme conservatives” among state politicians, and not at New York’s mass public.

    Even if true — and WCNY’s transcript of Cuomo’s blast makes that claim dubious — one wonders what New Yorkers with the “wrong” policy opinions are supposed to do when they have no politicians to support.

    If Cuomo were the only Left-wing pol to express totalitarian sentiments, one could take some solace. Unhappily, he is not. Do the names Barack Obama, Bill De Blasio, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Chuck-you Schumer, and Harry Reid ring a bell? Remember when NPR fired Juan Williams for being politically incorrect?

    Put aside how the Left (and many moderates, libertarians, and conservatives) would respond if some Republican governor said “pro-choicers, gun-grabbers, and homosexuality advocates” were not welcome in X, Y, or Z state.

    Don’t think about what New York State, or New York City with its new über-Leftist mayor, will be like if large numbers of “extreme conservatives” — many of whom are Roman Catholics, Orthodox Jews, and/or “one-percenters” — leave for locales with more hospitable political climates. (Sean Hannity, for example, has announced he’s leaving New York. Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck have already left.)

    Focus instead on the totalitarianism evident in Cuomo’s rant. When I was a university undergraduate, one of my professors — who was a Leftist — used to say, “scratch a liberal and you’ll find a fascist.” Cuomo’s outburst confirms Professor X’s observation.