Jew World Order

In a ruling that directly paves the way for mass confiscation of
firearms in America, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit,
in a much-anticipated decision, has upheld the constitutionality of the
New York SAFE Act of 2013. ~ Alex Thomas

Shockingly, the court ruled
that nearly all of the most drastic gun control law in the history of
the United States did not violate the Second Amendment and is therefore
constitutional.

That’s right, a law passed in the wake of Sandy Hook that included
and paved the way for confiscation of millions of legally purchased
firearms has been ruled “constitutional” with proponents already calling
for a similar law to be enacted at the federal level.

As an article published by the American Thinker noted,

If the SAFE Act is upheld by the Supreme Court, nothing
prevents Congress from summarily outlawing tens of millions of firearms
overnight.

Once those firearms become contraband, the government may
confiscate and destroy them without compensating the owner (just as the
government confiscates and destroys illegal drugs).

“The Second Circuit’s decision leaves the Second Amendment in its
gravest peril ever.  Second Amendment rights are now hanging by a
one-vote margin in the same Supreme Court that upheld Obamacare and
declared a national right to gay marriage.

Constitutional conservatives and Second Amendment supporters ought to
be terrified over the prospect of Justice Scalia having a heart attack
during a Hillary Clinton presidency.” (And as we know Clinton is calling for mass confiscation herself)

Australian style mass confiscation is coming

In the weeks since the most recent mass shooting in the country, literally dozens of mainstream publications have promoted Australia as the country to look towards when considering new gun control laws in America.

Despite
the fact that for years gun control groups and anti-gun liberals have
claimed that they only want “common sense” gun control, news outlets
such as Salon and Slate are once again openly praising Australia’s
controversial 1996 gun control law, a law that included a mandatory gun buyback program under the threat of government force.

After the Oregon school shooting, highly trafficked liberal news outlet Slate republished an article praising Australia’s gun control law that was originally released in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre.

In the weeks since the recent shooting the article has become the top
read report on the site as well as linked by dozens of other liberal
news outlets. (emphasis mine)

On April 28, 1996, a gunman opened fire on tourists in a seaside resort in Port Arthur, Tasmania. By the time he was finished, he had killed 35 people and wounded 23 more. It was the worst mass murder in Australia’s history.

Twelve days later, Australia’s government did something remarkable.

Led by newly elected conservative Prime Minister John Howard, it
announced a bipartisan deal with state and local governments to enact
sweeping gun-control measures.

A decade and a half hence, the results of
these policy changes are clear: They worked really, really well.

At the heart of the push was a massive buyback of more than 600,000 semi-automatic shotguns and rifles, or about one-fifth of all firearms in circulation in Australia.

The country’s new gun laws prohibited private sales, required that
all weapons be individually registered to their owners, and required
that gun buyers present a “genuine reason” for needing each weapon at
the time of the purchase. (Self-defense did not count.)

In the wake of the tragedy, polls showed public support for these measures at upwards of 90 percent.

Like most other articles praising Australia’s gun laws, the author of
the Slate article completely leaves out the fact that the buyback
program was mandatory which means that anyone that refused to go along
with the program was subject to government raids and or violence.

Remember, these are the same liberals who claim that they do
not want to take away all guns while literally writing articles
promoting a gun law that not only included gun confiscation but also
banned purchasing guns for use in self-defense!

Another recent article published in the mainstream press, this time
by CNN, dreamed of disarming all Americans while calling for banning all guns “once and for all”.

The article, written by liberal poet and Middlebury College
professor Jay Parini, was a perfect example of how on one hand gun
control advocates and their media allies tell the public that they only
want “common sense” reform while on the other they are pushing for a
full-scale ban.

Parini gets to the crux of his and the many who share his views on
the left’s agenda which is the confiscation of millions of legally owned
firearms under the threat of government attack and subsequent outlawing
of all handguns and rifles.

Let
me dream for a moment: I would much prefer to live in a country where
only hunters who pass appropriately strict tests for mental competence
and a knowledge of gun safety can still acquire rifles that are
appropriate for hunting.

Handguns and assault rifles would be banned, period.

Banned. Period. There you have it folks, CNN letting a hard left authoritarian use their platform to “dream” about disarming America. It gets worse.

So let’s get rid of guns in this country, once and for
all, making it a felony to possess a handgun or assault rifle. Over a
period of years, illegal guns will gradually disappear. Guns don’t kill
people, as they say.

People who acquire guns — legally or illegally — do. And we should
make it extremely difficult for them to get their hands on these
weapons.

Liberal media now pushing for gun owners to be shot

Not only are the mainstream media and gun control advocates pushing
for a mass confiscation plan in the United States, they are also making
it clear that they have no problem with gun owners being shot which would be a likely and obvious outcome if the government decided to outlaw millions of firearms overnight.

Just days ago, author and Coppin State University writing teacher D. Watkins published an article
on the prominent hard left news outlet Salon.com that called for all
gun owners to be shot if they wanted to use their 2nd Amendment right.

Starting out the article with the writer’s dreams of charging five
thousand dollars per bullet, Watkins then makes his position on gun
ownership in America startlingly clear. (emphasis mine)

Rock was definitely on point, $5000 bullets would be great but I’d take it a step further––I believe that being shot should be requirement for gun ownership in America.

It’s very simple. You need to have gun, like taking selfies with
pistols, can’t live with out it? Then take a bullet and you will be
granted the right to purchase the firearm of your choice.

If
we could successfully implement this rule, I guarantee the mass
shootings will stop. Watching cablenews now in days makes me physically
ill.

Week in and week out we are forced to learn about another coward, who
can’t stand to deal with the same rejection that most of us face–– so
they strap themselves with guns and then cock and spray at innocent
people.

Heartbroken survivors and family member images go viral, as our
elected officials remain clueless.

So there you have it. A court has upheld a New York law that paves
the way for mass confiscation in America while at the same time the
mainstream media is pushing this plan for confiscation and making it
clear that if gun owners have to be shot to achieve this agenda then so
be it.

The one question that remains is whether or not the American people
will stand by as their 2nd Amendment right is openly destroyed right
before their very eyes.

Source

October 26, 2015 – KnowTheLies

diggmutidel.icio.usgoogleredditfacebook