Previous Post
Next Post

I’m not exactly sure when it happened, or even if it’s happened, fully. But at some point the Democrats replaced the Republicans as the “anything to stop crime” party. Yes, yes; I know. The Patriot Act. But there’s no mistaking the fact that the Democrat party and its supporters are leading the charge on gun control. They’re ready, willing and able to sacrifice personal liberty for an illusive ideal of crime prevention. Check the video above. Here’s their official platform position on the subject. . .

We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans’ Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation. We understand the terrible consequences of gun violence; it serves as a reminder that life is fragile, and our time here is limited and precious. We believe in an honest, open national conversation about firearms. We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements–like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole–so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few.

See what I mean? It’s all about the “law-breaking few.” Well of course it isn’t. It—meaning Americans’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms—is all about protection against government tyranny.

The video above is classic distraction. It implies that we live in a stable society where the largest threat against our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is some selfish white guy [sic] in a mask. It isn’t. Never has been. Never will be. Anyone who thinks so is a dummy. Period.

Previous Post
Next Post


    • “The video above is classic distraction.”

      I disagree. It is not a distraction. It is classic propaganda. It is meant to form an opinion, and it has only a slight resemblance to fact. The fact that the justice department found that “universal” background checks would have little to no effect without universal gun registration, is simply ignored.

      • Propaganda IS distraction.

        It distracts people from the truth or from the complete truth by deforming it or only using parts of it, so that public eyes aren’t trained on the real issues, lest they inform themselves properly

        • I would not use the word “distraction” to describe propaganda. While partially accurate, distraction has a better definition, IMO. When I hear “distraction” I think of someone who is either talking about a completely different issue or redirecting conversation to a completely different point. Distraction is a diversion away from the main issue or discussion point. Propaganda, on the other hand, is still talking about the main issue but is mixing in a slight bit of truth with a lot of BS.

          Anything that is similar to a “wag the dog” event is distraction (e.g. talking about Syria to distract people from NSA spying, Benghazi, etc.). Another example of distraction would be a gun debate in which a question is asked about handguns, but the participant redirects his answer so that he can bash “scary-looking assault weapons” (semiauto rifles).

          In the video above, they take a bit of truth (criminals don’t quit attempting to obtain a weapon because of some background checks), and then omit key details and add misleading information (omitting that criminals obtain guns via friends, family, and theft; and presenting the idea that there are no internet sales that go through background checks). That, as Dean stated, is classic propaganda.

        • Propaganda is more than taking people’s eye off the ball with another topic, and also more than presenting half-truths, outright lies or lies by omission; it is reprogramming people’s thought process to accept as true that which is not in furtherance of the protagonists end game – in this case disarmament of the (law abiding) American people.

      • Of course they’re the only ones talking; the grabbers now characterize their “common sense” position in an attempt to seize the high ground and silence opposition as being “extreme” when in fact it is the grabbers who are themselves extreme. The grabbers have been doing mind-thought control both subtly and not so subtly for a long time – decades.

        With a now almost fully sympathetic press, and extensive money from key players, the massive push by a minority set of elitist thinking progressives to redefine guns and gun owners by “re-educating” the general body politic is in high gear. They think the time is right because of all the years of subtle educational and big media indoctrination and the fortuitous (for the grabber elitists) spate of recent tragedies that evoke emotional sympathy from all.

        The same subtle mental reprograming is ongoing by the progressive elitists with other issues that impact freedom, self-reliance and self-determination as well.

  1. That video disgusts me. So much incorrect information and rhetoric, all wrapped up in a cutesy little girl voice that’s probably being voiced by a 30 year old woman.

      • Anyone who says they want a *conversation* and subsequently disables comments on their anti-gun video is completely full of shit.

        • I faced this with a friend of mine who wanted an “honest discussion” about gun control after sandy hook but wanted to start the conversation on the premise that gun control was necessary. He still refuses to believe that the lives saved due to a personal firearm are greater than the lives taken through “gun violence” and still insists that every death involving a firearm was caused entirely because of the firearm.

          Simple support of the 2nd Amendment caused him to call it “tragically immature” and lumped me in with the “cold dead hands” crowd. Well I am, sort of, but there is nothing to indicate that in simply stating support for the 2nd Amendment. Again, in his mind any discussion must be predicated on the idea that gun control is necessary, he is unwilling to consider the possibility that it is detrimental. In every discussion I am the only one citing sources or giving reasons for what I believe or referencing data in a way that he could go investigate if he chose. His retort is always based around that fact that he doesn’t know what I am citing so he does not trust it, never mind that he cannot cite any sources himself, aside from once mentioning that “if I knew what he knew” I would change my mind. He could not tell me what facts would convince me and made no attempt to even try.

          It’s a bit like watching a loved one succumb to Alzheimer’s sometimes. I don’t care what he believes, as I have stated numerous times, I care why he believes it. I want to hear the arguments, the logical statements that lead to his conclusion and he seems to have none, like most gun control advocates.

          Though, I’m beginning to believe that gun control simply allows violent crime while it’s a fostered entitlement mentality that is he actual cause. But I digress.

        • Marcus Aurelius,

          Your error was debating your friend on facts. Your friend doesn’t care about facts. And to be totally blunt, facts don’t matter anyway. It is your business and ONLY your business what personal property you own and/or carry, period. Society’s or government’s thoughts, feelings, or comfort factor about your personal property are irrelevant.

          To drive this point home, ask your friend about muscular men. How many such men have to commit violent assaults before government should start passing laws against muscular men? And what laws should government pass against these muscular men? Should government make it illegal for muscular men to have exercise equipment and protein supplements? Should government require all men to pass background checks before they can purchase exercise equipment and protein supplements? Should government require safe storage of exercise equipment and protein supplements? Is government entitled to surprise inspections of men’s homes to verify compliance? Should government require that all men be feeble in an attempt to insure that muscular men cannot harm people?

          This should illustrate the nature of rights to your friend. It forces your friend to demonize and condemn muscular men if he wants to continue to support gun control. And if he goes that route, you can point out to him how morally wrong and detestable that position is.

    • Funny – I watched it just now at work with the sound off and yes.. I thought it was adorable (“totz adorbz”).

      Propoganda? Absolutely. Funny? Sure.

    • Actually, this video is fantastic for our side. Gun grabbers tacitly admit that violent criminals will always find a way to obtain a weapon!

      Listen to what the video says. Background checks at gun stores stop bad guys from buying guns from gun stores. And then the video says that bad guys simply find another way to buy guns — through private sales. They are coming right out and saying that if you shut down one way for a violent criminal to obtain a firearm, they will find another way to obtain a firearm … or any other possible weapon for that matter.

      At that point we should all be yelling, “Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding!” This is why we should focus our limited resources on keeping violent people in prison rather than trying to prevent criminals from acquiring weapons — an utterly impossible task! And this is why we (as a society and hence government) should never tell a good citizen that we will imprison them if they wish to be armed in public to defend themselves and their families from violent criminals who will always find a way to acquire a deadly weapon.

  2. “Finish the Job” does that mean they will never, ever, ask for any other anti gun laws? If there were some way to seal that agreement on the american people, I’d be all about it.

    • hey Jeff it’s Jeff here, just a party of Jeffs

      do you think the Brady Group will close up shop if they get UBC laws passed? I mean they say “finish the job” so I guess their corporate mission is complete at that point, they will simply dissolve their organization, and their members will go on to other avenues of employment?

  3. Well I have several problems with both the video and the message below. First of all. Yes anyone can go online and buy a firearm. However said firearm must be shipped to an FFL where the background check is done. With the message below it, no the democrats are not hard on crime, they want the whole country disarmed. Like say Germany before WW2.

      • No that’s not clear at all. They want to give the impression to the general public that anybody can buy a gun though the mail without a background check. If we call them on that, they would just say “oh we were meaning Armslist”. Yeah right. They show it coming out of the car like it’s local but I GUARANTEE 90% of the public will get the impression that it can be done through the mail.

    • That old dead horse about Nazi German gun laws? Hitler never made it any easier or harder. Stop believing this god-damn myth, history major liberals have been laughing at the face of everyone on our side waving this as an argument.

      German gun laws prior to Hitler’s rise to power were tight since the Weimar Republic; in 1928 they had enforced tight gun laws so that the NAZIS could be disarmed; specifically “private armies” and political paramilitary groups, at the time, this targeted the Nazi SA and other extremist groups starting to arm themselves to challenge the legitimacy of the then-new and fragile democratic regime.

      The law was designed to prevent an armed coup. Oh, the law succeeded in that they never needed to stage one.

      What Hitler did was being elected to power; the gun laws never changed, his “private army” simply turned into… the de facto national military. They never needed gun control; Hitler’s powers, granted under the dictatorial regime as soon as he was elected Chancellor in 1933 simply made it unnecessary to enact any sort of gun control. As we all know, when a country’s regime becomes “Dictatorship”, it is hardly going to matter what the gun laws are when they can simply and with all impunity BE the law, rewrite the constitution, and enforce it as they please.

      In short, Hitler and Nazi Germany have NEVER made it harder for the Jews or anyone really to (legally) obtain firearms, what they did was circumvent the law by simply winning the ballot over and simply using the existing laws to prevent OTHER potential paramilitary groups from trampling THEM.

      I’m very sorry for this extra-long rant about one detail of a comment, but it gets me extra angry to see the old “Germany’s gun laws during WW2” argument; it is so wrong it pains me to see a fellow pro-gun using this argument. Let’s not give our political opponents any figurative ammunition…

      • Hitler and Nazi Germany have NEVER made it harder for the Jews . . . to (legally) obtain firearms

        How long have you been insane?

        • Are you capable of reading or do you not understand that they needed not to make it harder for Jews to get firearms? The reasons are:
          A) It was already difficult in the first place.
          B) Jews were not commonly armed at the time.
          C) They were racially targeted directly – i.e. the government was after their LIVES and not their guns
          D) ANY sort of resistance was handled by the Gestapo; no need for gun laws when they can simply imprison and kill “political opponents”.

        • Your information is enlightening, Karina. Thank you. I think most people are under the impression that Hitler passed all sorts of gun control laws.

          On the other hand, the meat of the issue is still simpler than all that. Like you said:

          A) It was already difficult in the first place.

          So, gun control, right?

          B) Jews were not commonly armed at the time.

          They didn’t have guns. So when the oppressive regime came along, well, that was it for them.

          C) They were racially targeted directly – i.e. the government was after their LIVES and not their guns

          Since A and B, then yes, there were no guns to come after. Just lives. That’s the point. If they had had guns, many lives might have been saved.

          D) ANY sort of resistance was handled by the Gestapo; no need for gun laws when they can simply imprison and kill “political opponents”.

          What you’re saying here is that since authority cares not a whit for justice, they didn’t need to restrict the right to keep and bear arms in order to oppress the people. Those are essentially the same thing.

      • I would like t point out, briefly, that the Armistice ending the First World War was in effect a super-sized gun control act intended to deprive Germany of arms and an army. How well did that work out?

        From that I think we can extrapolate how well ANY gun control scheme might work, on any level.

        • One day at the German airplane factory:

          “You know… this “civilian airplane” might just work reeeally well with some machine guns in the wings… oh look! There’s already mounting points and everything… Whatta Koinkee-dink!”

  4. Neither party has replaced the other. Both have been substantially the same for a very long time. They are politicians first and foremost.

    People who imagine the right/left spectrum is the all-encompassing measure of political ideology are sadly mistaken. It’s a false dichotomy. Policies are made for political convenience, not derived from first principles and certainly not written for the best interests of the people.

    • I very much agree. A giant game of good cop/bad cop, useful as a tool of distraction and propaganda to convince the sheep that they do indeed have a say.

      • If just a few more libtards (democrats) were in Congress, we would have seen some VERY nasty federal firearms laws. Understand?

    • Libtards (democrats) have been FAR more embracing of gun control, which is one of their MAIN agendas. Saying they are the same on this issue means your on serious drugs.

    • While it is difficult to disagree with the contention that professional politicians of any stripe are often corrupted in their quest to obtain and hold onto power such that at some point it may become difficult to tell them or their agendas apart, it is foolish to then presume that there is NO DIFFERENCE between the tenets of the political left (Progressive/socialist/statist) and the political right (Conservative/ republican/small government).

      That these ideals are abandoned to the siren song of power does not change them as core beliefs of the constituents of the competing parties. The greatest failing of the Herculean efforts of our Founding Fathers in drafting the Constitution was to fail to institute within that document draconian limitations through term limits on elected federal office. The lack of these term limits has all but guaranteed a self-sustaining and privileged political class worse in many ways than the aristocrats of Britain we fought to be free of.

  5. “We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements–like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole–so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few.”

    I agree. If the shooter in the CO school shooting this week would have gone though a NICS check and not had an “assault weapon”….. oh wait, he passed a NICS check and did not have an “assault” weapon.

    Ok, well if the Navy Yard shooter had gone though a NICS check and not had an “assault weapon”….. oh wait, he passed a NICS check and did not have an “assault” weapon.

    Ok we will get it this time. If Seung-Hui Cho @ Virginia Tech had gone though a NICS check and not had an “assault weapon” or high cap magazines….. Oh wait, he passed a NICS check, did not have an “assault” weapon and used 10 round magazines.

    *Sarcasm off*

    What really steams me about the phrase “reinstating the assault weapons ban” is that that is not what has been proposed. They wanted to drastically expand the AWB to include many more guns and drop the 2 criteria to 1. You know, that Ruger Mini-14 without a pistol grip? Well, it is WAY safer than one that has one.

  6. The cartoon should show the bad guy breaking into someone’s home and stealing the gun. Then they can move from background checks to “no guns in homes” rhetoric. You know, for the f*cking children.

  7. “an important part of the American tradition…”

    In other words: “how quaint!”

    The democrats aren’t exactly the vanguard of protecting us from the Patriot Act… people like Feinstein are just as bad on the 4th as they are on the 2nd. They just aren’t as open about it.

  8. Bonus points for a perfect use of “illusive.” That elusive ideal the Democratic party thinks it’s chasing? Nothing but an illusion.

    Although I gotta say, everyone knows people in masks cannot be trusted.

    • Yeah …

      It’s amazing how in one breath they say that the criminal is “not a quitter” and in the next breath, they say that if background checks are expanded to private sales, this will make the criminal quit searching for a gun.

      This, of course, ignores the fact that the criminal will either get friends/family to purchase a gun for him or will simply steal a gun from someone else.


      • ^ this!

        I stated in a comment a couple months ago that gun grabbers always claim the opposite of truth, every time. As Chip pointed out, the video claims that violent criminals seeking firearms are quitters … that violent criminals are neither motivated nor resourceful. And thus more background checks will prevent violent criminals from acquiring firearms. Of course we all know this is the opposite of the truth: violent criminals are motivated and resourceful and are able to acquire firearms (as well as other weapons) all the time. Thus background checks are a waste of limited resources.

        The beauty here is that their video actually tells us criminals are motivated and resourceful: they have found a way to acquire firearms in spite of background checks.

        So which is it? Are violent criminals motivated and resourceful or not?

  9. I think with the review of the rallies we saw from this past weekend, the biggest thing we got working for us is that Libs don’t want to tire themselves with any actual effort and them getting off their behinds to actually do anything is pretty questionable.

    So the only thing we really need to worry about are the big mouths that have the big money behind them.

  10. Want to buy a car? No background check.
    Want to buy a knife? No background check.
    Want to buy weed? No background check.
    Chainsaw? No background check.
    Cocaine deal? No background check.
    Booze? No background check, but there’s an ID check.

    Some states require background checks and some don’t. Even if background checks are required, there are still a multitude of ways that criminals can get guns: cash purchases, straw purchases, theft, smuggling, home made, etc. Background checks will not stop those purchases. Even worse, there are idiotic laws such as gun free zones and “may issue” concealed carry that prevent responsible citizens from getting guns.

  11. the video leaves out the part where the guy selling a gun to this poor man’s Strong Bad doesn’t care about background check laws and does it any way in exchange for a few kilos of coke.

    “people don’t follow laws making XYZ illegal, so we shouldn’t have any laws against it?” the UBC supporter will say. well, with or without UBCs, the person selling the gun to an ineligible buyer committed a crime.

    so if the gun buyer shoots someone with the gun, what difference does it make if the seller committed two crimes, or one?

  12. “…We believe in an honest, open national conversation about firearms. ”

    Why is it when someone says they want an open and honest conversation they always expect the people who aren’t involved in anyway to sit down to the table? The kid in Colorado from the other day, for example… I have nothing to do with that incident (being several states away for starters), my firearms are not connected in any way except maybe by the brand name, so why should I sit down for this conversation and participate? It is kind of like asking Mrs Louise Shapher of the Nevada Shaphers to come participate in the discussion about alligator hunting.

  13. “National conversation” except we disable comments on our videos and ban anyone with a dissenting opinion on Facebook.

  14. Been reading through cases at People who kill are very creative. Taking guns away from everyone will not stop the murders.

  15. Unless the vid has Shannon Watts striping and then perform sex acts with in season fruit and veggies, not interested.

  16. Once again, the groups that champion tolerance and openness allow no dissent or discussion.

    Isn’t that the exact opposite of what they said?

  17. I believe they need to reread the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights. It was meant to be taken literally. Believe THAT!!

  18. How did youtube allow this? Showing violent content where a criminal is shooting innocent people. It is very disturbing even though it is a cartoon. I reported it for violent content. It is a shame that youtube allows this where small children possibly could watch it. Please youtube, think of the children.

  19. It’s no good, they’re communists. They won’t allow dissent because they aren’t interested in a conversation. They’re interested in forcing you to obey.

    So be a good little peasant and give up your guns. And your property. And your freedom.

    And your life.

    • Lose what right, exactly?

      If you are referring to the natural, civil and Constitutionally protected Second Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms, that right was yours at birth, bestowed upon you by your creator (whomever or whatever you personally believe that to be) and that right remains with you until the day you die.

      Since no government, bestowed, granted, permitted or allowed that right to you and it is a natural right, the ONLY way you can lose this right is to do something so stupid as to get yourself killed for your mistake. The best any government can ever do is to ATTEMPT, with greater or lesser degrees of success, to inhibit your ability to exercise this right.

      In Europe under Nazi occupation every citizen “lost” their right to keep and bear arms, subject to severe reprisals for failure to comply, and yet there were armed partisans in every occupied nation and also the Warsaw uprising. This natural right CANNOT be lost nor taken away by government fiat.

      “Stupidity cannot be cured with money, or through education, or by legislation. Stupidity is not a sin, the victim cannot help being stupid. But stupidity is the only universal capital crime, the sentence is death, there is no appeal, and execution is carried out automatically and without pity.” – Robert A. Heinlein

  20. It’s kind of disingenuous to talk about politicians preying on fear and using an “anything to stop crime” platform and then casually dismiss the USA PATRIOT Act. As though it weren’t one of the greatest single pieces of anti-liberty legislation ever passed – by Republicans and Democrats together, nearly unanimously, without even bothering to even read or discuss it.
    That should tell you all you need to know about both parties and whether either one of them is looking out for your rights.

  21. in the video the bg without a gun strangled the clown, the bg with a gun shot the clowns balloons. seems like he committed a worse crime without a gun.
    just saying.

    • Good catch. I also noticed that the clown got dizzy and fell down. Woulda been neat to see him pull out his own gun and cap the bad guy. (Though drawing on a drawn gun is often a bad idea for the non-professional.)

  22. For me, the most insane thing is trying to legislate violent crime. It can’t be done. No one, no way can anyone predict who or how or when a specific individual will commit a violent crime. All the legislation in the world will not stop it! I keep telling myself that among those 535 U.S. legislators, there must be some who are intelligent enough to realize this and bring it to their peers’ attention. There are over 12,000 gun laws in effect. How could anyone possibly break 12,000 laws? Considering that those laws are not being adequately enforced, why should the People accept more? There is no logic to support such action, and there is nothing the anti-firearm faction can present to support their argument(s.) The Supreme court has ruled on the Second Amendment. It is law!
    The columnist who turned me on to this site mentioned that its founder “didn’t look like a gun person.” Whew! I’m still wondering what a gun person looks like. The author’s subliminal message was that of a gap toothed, scraggly bearded, coverall wearing, wilderness boots clomping, mentally deficient ignoramus who handles firearms like he does eating utensils. I doubt if this boy knows that eight U.S. presidents have been NRA members, or that over a million women are members. I doubt he knows the difference between an assault rifle and a hunting rifle. I know he doesn’t know the difference between automatic and semi-automatic. In other words, he’s a typical anti-firearm person and he knows what he FEELS, but not anything about firearms or “gun people.” These are our enemies. These are who are attempting to rescind the Constitution. Off my soapbox…for now.

  23. Nothing to do with crime prevention the Dems are the fascist party they want to strip all rights from the people. Face it they want total power and be a dictatorship.

  24. That is one of the most duplicitous, and flagrantly incorrect anti-Second Amendment advertisements I have ever watched. It’s just a flat-out lie!


    What provocative sensationalist crap!

  25. Ok being serious for a moment (seriously)

    Is it me or was Shannon Watts’ little video from the other week, the one recalling Sandy Hook and “no more silence”, that depicted a Gunman walking into a school with a weapon in a bag perhaps the “tackling fuel” for this young goober Pierson in CO? I wonder if this was the trigger that this young uber liberal/socialist needed to spring into action and Shannon is somehow the Mrs Robinson puppetmaster? If so, I am pissed the kid got some before me.

  26. I like how this cutesy video casually implies that 40% (a dead horse debunked statistic) of gun buyers are criminals.

    Feel bad for the kid. The most believable lies are the ones you tell yourself.

  27. Edit: I hit the wrong button, this was meant to be under FortWorthColtGuy WAY up there…..

    This JUST occurred to me:

    “effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system”

    Existing ≠ strengthening


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here