Liberals Remind Me of the Viet Cong
David A. Lombardo  6/11/2016
Liberals remind me of the Viet Cong: relentless, ruthless, chaotic and willing to chip away forever at whatever happens to be their cause. Liberals talk about tolerance, being inclusive and accepting people for who they are, unless who you are isn’t who they think you should be.
Liberals believe the end justifies the means and will lie, cheat, steal and use the federal government to intimidate anyone at all to further their goal. If a conservative so much as raises a finger, the liberal propaganda machine goes into full force to discredit them. Worst of all, liberals are pseudo-intellectuals who firmly believe they know what’s best for everyone else because the talking points tell them so and they’ve personally amassed shelves full of trophies and plaques extolling their virtues for attending some event.
Liberals unabashedly make up their own facts to support the hypothesis they wish to impose upon everyone else. Their hopes and schemes are aimed at desensitizing John Q. Public to the point the masses will fall lockstep under liberal control so they will be saved from some idiotic, made-up liberal threat such as global warming, oil drilling disasters and, of course, guns, which brings me to the point.
Earlier this week the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a decision in Peruta v. the County of San Diego in which Peruta challenged California’s capricious concealed carry laws. The plaintiffs sued the San Diego County Sheriff, challenging the state’s “good cause” requirement for obtaining a concealed carry license, which, as interpreted by San Diego, requires some very special threat of harm to the applicant. Inexplicably only Hollywood movers-and-shakers and politicians seem to meet that standard.
In true liberal fashion the federal appeals court ruled the Second Amendment does not permit Americans to carry firearms in public. The en banc ruling strikes down a 2014 decision that the right to carry a firearm is guaranteed by the Second Amendment.
The ruling, written by Judge William Fletcher, declares, “Based on the overwhelming consensus of historical sources, we conclude that the protection of the Second Amendment-whatever the scope of that protection may be-simply does not extend to the carrying of concealed firearms in public by members of the general public.”
Be damned the Supreme Court’s Heller decision. Be damned the words of the Second Amendment. Be damned the many written documents from the founding fathers who opined at length about the fear of a tyrannical government and the absolute necessity for John Q to be sufficiently armed to throw off the cloak of tyranny should it enshroud the citizenry.
Of course the overwhelming consensus of historical sources suggest concealed carry isn’t a right when you pick and choose isolated quotes, hark back to several-hundred-years-old British Monarchy law and garnish it with liberal conjecture. These people are shameless, and they’re bent on disarming John Q at any cost. So now the citizens of California, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, Arizona, Idaho and Montana have to contend with this nonsense. As an aside I can’t wait to see how the good people of Arizona, Idaho and Montana react to this. Who knows? Maybe Americans will give the Viet Cong a run for their money one more time.

 
Hillary Clinton: Government Has 'A Right' To Regulate 2nd Amendment

While arguing for the government’s “right” to regulate the Second Amendment, Clinton twice refused to say the people have “a constitutional right” to keep and bear arms.

Breitbart – JUNE 6, 2016
Government has a right to regulate the Second Amendment, Hillary Clinton said in an interview on the June 5 airing of This Week With George Stephanopoulos.

Clinton contended that Americans have historically recognized the government’s “right” to regulate the bearing of arms, suggesting that it was not until District of Columbia v Heller(2008) that anyone thought otherwise.
Stephanopoulos asked, “Do you believe an individual’s right to bear arms is a constitutional right? That it’s not linked to the service in the militia?”
Clinton responded:

I think that for most of our history there was a nuanced reading of the Second Amendment, until the decision by the late Justice [Antonin] Scalia. And there was no argument until then that localities, and states, and the federal government had a right–as we do with every amendment–to impose reasonable regulations.

 
While arguing for the government’s “right” to regulate the Second Amendment, Clinton twice refused to say the people have “a constitutional right” to keep and bear arms.
The first time Stephanopoulos asked if “an individual’s right to bear arms is constitutional” Clinton sidestepped the question, claiming instead the government’s “right” to regulate.
So Stephanopoulos repeated the question, and Clinton responded: “If it is a constitutional right, then it–like every other constitutional right–is subject to reasonable regulations.”

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR