Another "asian" in Brussels

The PC doublespeak is really starting to be tiring

In Brussels, an "asian" woman goes on a machete rampage

.....and the official word is instantly

she is "asian"
she has a history of mental illness
there are "no ties to terrorism"


....let me translate that for you

She's muslim.

....that was easy....wasn't it?

I mean....it's not like this is happening every couple of days or so in Brussels

....oh....wait 

..it's almost as if all of these mentally ill folks have to rest their heads five times a day or something....ya know?

Voter ID is RACIST!!!

So, let me see if I understand the way the Dhims see Photo ID correctly:

According to the Dhims, it's NOT racist to require a photo ID for:

Purchasing Alcohol,
Purchasing Cigarettes,
Opening a Bank account,
Joining the Armed Services to defend the country,
Apply for Government Benefits like:
- Food Stamps,
- or Welfare,
- or Social Security,
- or Medicaid,
- or Unemployment benefits.
Applying for a job,
Renting a house,
- or an Apartment,
Buying a house,
- or a condo,
Applying for a Mortgage,
Driving a Car,
Driving a Truck,
Driving a Motorcycle,
Renting a Car,
Renting a Truck,
Buying a Car,
Buying a Truck,
Buying a RV,
Buying a Motorcycle,
Getting on an Airplane,
Traveling outside of these United States,
Returing to these United States,
Getting Married,
Purchasing a Gun,
Adopting a Child,
Adopting a Pet,
Renting a Hotel Room,
Applying for a Fishing License,
Applying for a Hunting License,
Applying for a Concealed Carry,
Buying a Cellular phone,
Visiting a Casino (any of them),
Getting a Prescription,
Getting any medication with Pseudoephedrine (a "D" medcine),
Holding a rally,
Holding a protest,
Donating your own blood,
Buying a video game that is rated "Mature",
Entering a Dhimocrat Rally or Convention, such as one for HiLIARy.
Entering a state or federal government building, facility, or Military Installation.

BUT

requiring a Photo ID to vote IS RACIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

...did I get that right?

Voter ID is RACIST!!!

So, let me see if I understand the way the Dhims see Photo ID correctly:

According to the Dhims, it's NOT racist to require a photo ID for:

Purchasing Alcohol,
Purchasing Cigarettes,
Opening a Bank account,
Joining the Armed Services to defend the country,
Apply for Government Benefits like:
- Food Stamps,
- or Welfare,
- or Social Security,
- or Medicaid,
- or Unemployment benefits.
Applying for a job,
Renting a house,
- or an Apartment,
Buying a house,
- or a condo,
Applying for a Mortgage,
Driving a Car,
Driving a Truck,
Driving a Motorcycle,
Renting a Car,
Renting a Truck,
Buying a Car,
Buying a Truck,
Buying a RV,
Buying a Motorcycle,
Getting on an Airplane,
Traveling outside of these United States,
Returing to these United States,
Getting Married,
Purchasing a Gun,
Adopting a Child,
Adopting a Pet,
Renting a Hotel Room,
Applying for a Fishing License,
Applying for a Hunting License,
Applying for a Concealed Carry,
Buying a Cellular phone,
Visiting a Casino (any of them),
Getting a Prescription,
Getting any medication with Pseudoephedrine (a "D" medcine),
Holding a rally,
Holding a protest,
Donating your own blood,
Buying a video game that is rated "Mature",
Entering a state or federal government building, facility, or Military Installation.

BUT

requiring a Photo ID to vote IS RACIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

...did I get that right?

A rally to "prove" we are a religion of peace!!!

Ummm......yeah.

So a planned rally with an expected turnout of over 100,000 is planned for the National mall to "prove" that Islam is NOT what ISIS/ISIL/ISHT  (rearrange the lettes of the last one to get it) makes it seem to the rest of us "kaffirs".


and a couple of DOZEN show up.

but the low turnout is only because it was hot in DC....yeah sure


....so only a few dozen show up......so that shows what....that the majority of Muslims are ANTI-ISIS/ISIL/ISHT....or the minoriy?

Breaking: Black clad gunman goes on a rampage, killing 19 and wounding 45

'I want to get rid of the disabled from this world': Black-clad gunman goes on gruesome rampage  near Tokyo, killing at least 19 to death and injuring 45.

OMG.....we must BAN HANDGUNS IMMEDIATELY to prevent this from ever happening again!!!!


.....oh.....wait......nevermind.

For Reference: Germany's Restrictive gun policy

So,

More gun control in America would "fix" the Admiral Akbar issue?

ok...for future reference:

Germany....you know...where the latest "Ali" (name accidentally removed, I'm sure) used a handgun to kill kids in McDonalds....has ONE OF THE MOST RESTRICTIVE GUN POLICIES IN THE WORLD!!!!!

....so how did "Ali" get a gun?......how did German's "Gun Control" laws work the Fatherland?

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/germany

"His motives are not known"

Apparently (rather blatantly) this is the phrase that the "smarter than us" crowd now uses whenever they can't admit that someone is what they say they are.  Examples:

-  The axe wielding "17" year old afghani in Germany who screamed "admiral akbar" on the train ....."The attacker's motive is not yet known"

-  The truck driver in Nice who screamed "admiral akbar" as he plowed thru the crowd before some good-guys-with-guns stopped the attack.

              "His motives are not known"

- The POS in Dallas who picked off the po-po intentionally while screaming "I hate white people" and "I wanna kill cops"

              "His motives are not known"

The fish in a barrel shooter in Orlando who screamed "admiral akbar" while he popped off rounds from NOT AN AR!!! and called the media during the attack to say "it's me doing this and I am doing it for Islam!!"

               "His motives are not known"

We now add this phrase to the growing list of newspeak that the "smarter than us" crowd likes to use....kinda like a "DRINK" word

just like "BUT" and  "LET ME BE CLEAR".

...and counting...with 6 months still left

Let's present some "un-massaged" numbers (aka ....no "hide the decline" science)

Reagan's was 11
Bush Sr's was 12
Clinton's was 23
Bush Jr's ("Dubya") was 16


You may ask "What do these numbers represent?"

These are the number of Mass Shootings of each of the former presidents entire terms in office.


Now,

KPTB's is ONE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY


Yes....that is right....170.


interesting that CBS/NBC/ABC/CNN isn't reporting this......isn't it?

Nice

Now it is Nice.....two weeks ago it was the Airport in Istanbul, before that it was Orlando, before that it was Brussels, before that it was San Bernardino and the Recruiting station in Chatanooga, and before that it was Paris.

and yet, KPTB insists that it must be the fault of the gun, or unemployment, or the truck.

Gee....I wonder if there is another connection between these events?

For Future reference

http://blog.joehuffman.org/2016/06/23/the-mask-drops/

http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/applying-liberal-logic-rest-bill-rights/

hiLIARy....nothing to see here citizen, move along

- - 18 USC §201 Bribery
- - 18 USC §208 Acts Effecting A Personal Financial Interest (Includes Recommendations)
- - 18 USC § 371 Conspiracy
- - 18 USC §1001 False Statements
- - 18 USC §1341 Frauds And Swindles (Mail Fraud)
- - 18 USC §1343 Fraud By Wire
- - 18 USC §1349 Attempt And Conspiracy (To Commit Fraud)
- - 18 USC §1505 Obstruction Of Justice
- - 18 USC §1519 Destruction (Alteration Or Falsification) Of Records In Federal Investigation
- - 18 USC §1621 Perjury (Including Documents Signed Under Penalties Of Perjury)
- - 18 USC §1905 Disclosure Of Confidential Information
- - 18 USC §1924 Unauthorized Removal And Retention Of Classified Documents Or Material
- - 18 USC §2071 Concealment (Removal Or Mutilation) Of Government Records
- - 18 USC §7201 Attempt To Evade Or Defeat A Tax (Use Of Clinton Foundation Funds For Personal Or Political Purposes)
- - 18 USC §7212 Attempts To Interfere With Administration Of Internal Revenue Laws (Call To IRS On Behalf Of UBS Not Turning Over Accounts To IRS)

A failed presidency....it's not KPTB's fault....it's everyone else's fault.

I stole this from the comment section here:

h/t to "adk"

Here's the short version and the longer (albeit incomplete) list of various villains and humanity flaws responsible for sometimes less than brilliant results of Obama's foreign policy and His great many disappointments. The short one: Obama is disappointed and frustrated by everybody and everything, everywhere. It's actually much easier to note who clears his high bar of being far-sighted, reasonable and strategic -- He does.

The longer list of frustrations and other people's failures, in the order of appearance:
-- the war-monger Churchill (Churchillian rhetoric and,more to the point, Churchillian habits of thought, helped bring his predecessor, George W. Bush, to ruinous war in Iraq.)
-- annoying Samantha Power who "argued early for arming Syria’s rebels." (“Samantha, enough, I’ve already read your book,” he once snapped.)
-- Hillary Clinton (Clinton’s assessment that “great nations need organizing principles, and‘Don’t do stupid stuff’ is not an organizing principle, ” Obama became “rip-shit angry,” ...Clinton quickly apologized to Obama for her comments...)
-- the Washington foreign-policy establishment (which he secretly disdains...)
-- conventional expectations (he president had come to believe that he was walking into a trap—one laid both by allies and by adversaries, and by conventional expectations of what an American president is supposed to do.)
-- his advisors (Many of his advisers did not grasp the depth of the president’s misgivings...)
-- Washington at large (He was tired of watching Washington unthinkingly drift toward war in Muslim countries.)
-- Pentagon (Four years earlier, the president believed, the Pentagon had “jammed” him on a troop surge for Afghanistan.)
-- The Saudis (he had, long before he became president, referred to them as a “socalled ally ” of the U.S.)
-- Congress (Congress’s clear ambivalence [about authorizing US strike on Syria] convinced Biden that Obama was correct to fear the slippery slope.)
-- the “Washington playbook”(that presidents are supposed to follow. It’s a playbook that comes out of the foreign-policy establishment. And the playbook prescribes responses to different events, and these responses tend to be militarized responses.)
-- America's Middle East allies (frustrating, high-maintenance allies in the Middle East—countries, he complains privately to friends and advisers, that seek to exploit American “muscle” for their own narrow and sectarian ends.)
-- US military leaders and the foreign-policy think-tanks (He resented military leaders who believed they could fix any problem if the commander in chief would simply give them what they wanted, and he resented the foreign-policy think-tank complex.A widely held sentiment inside the White House is that many of the most prominent foreign-policy think tanks in Washington are doing the bidding of their Arab and pro-Israel funders. )
-- America’s ability to direct global events (Obama as a president who has grown steadily more fatalistic about the constraints on America’s ability to direct global events)
-- small men (who rule large countries in ways contrary to their own best interests)
-- primary human emotions (the persistence of fear as a governing human emotion—frequently conspire against the best of America’s intentions.)
-- the world at large (the world is a tough,complicated, messy, mean place, and full of hardship and tragedy)
-- America's free riders, esp. Britain(“Free riders aggravate me, ” he told me. Recently, Obama warned that Great Britain would no longer be able to claim a “special relationship” with the United States if it did not commit to spending at least 2 percent of its GDP on defense.)
-- American self-righteousness. (“We have history,” he said. “We have history in Iran, we have history in Indonesia and Central America. So we have to be mindful of our history when we start talking about intervening, and understand the source of other people’s suspicions.”)
-- traditional U.S. foreign-policy thinking (to a remarkable degree, he is willing to question why America’s enemies are its enemies, or why some of its friends are its friends.)
-- Pakistan (which he believes is a disastrously dysfunctional country, [why] should be considered an ally of the U.S. at all.)
-- Israel (he has questioned why the U.S. should maintain Israel’s so-called qualitative military edge, which grants it access to more sophisticated weapons systems than America’s Arab allies receive)
-- US Arab allies ( [he] also questioned, often harshly, the role that America’s Sunni Arab allies play in fomenting anti-American terrorism.)
-- ME Muslims (he said that he had been trying—unsuccessfully, he acknowledged—to persuade Muslims to more closely examine the roots of their unhappiness.)
-- the Arab Spring (...as the Arab Spring gave up its early promise, and brutality and dysfunction overwhelmed the Middle East, the president grew disillusioned.)
-- Netanyahu (Some of his deepest disappointments concern Middle Eastern leaders themselves. Benjamin Netanyahu is in his own category: Obama has long believed that Netanyahu could bring about a two-state solution that would protect Israel’s status as a Jewish-majority democracy,but is too fearful and politically paralyzed to do so.)
-- other Middle Eastern leaders (Obama has also not had much patience for Netanyahu and other Middle Eastern leaders who question his understanding of the region...Other leaders also frustrate him immensely.)
-- Erdoğan (Obama now considers him a failure and an authoritarian, one who refuses to use his enormous army to bring stability to Syria.)
-- King Abdullah II of Jordan (Obama said he had heard that Abdullah had complained to friends in the U.S. Congress about his leadership, and told the king that if he had complaints, he should raise them directly.)
-- Middle East at large ("The president recognized during the course of the Arab Spring that the Middle East was consuming us,” John Brennan ... told me recently.)
-- bad faction within [his] national-security team...Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice, ...Samantha Power, Ben Rhodes, and Antony Blinken who pushed him to intervene in Libya (...lobbied hard to protect Benghazi, and prevailed.)
-- Libya (he calls Libya a “shit show...for reasons that had less to do with American incompetence than with the passivity of America’s allies and with the obdurate power of tribalism.)
-- EU types, Cameron and Sarkozy in particular ( "I had more faith in the Europeans, given Libya’s proximity, being invested in the follow-up,” he said.)
-- General Lloyd Austin, then the commander of Central Command (told the White House that the Islamic State was “a flash in the pan.” This analysis led Obama, in an interview with The New Yorker, to describe the constellation of jihadist groups in Iraq and Syria as terrorism’s “jayvee team.” )
-- U.S. intelligence (But by late spring of 2014 ...he came to believe that U.S. intelligence had failed to appreciate the severity of the threat and the inadequacies of the Iraqi army)
-- the Islamic State (The rise of the Islamic State deepened Obama’s conviction that the Middle East could not be fixed—not on his watch, and not for a generation to come.)
-- Republican governors and presidential candidates ([who] had suddenly taken to demanding that the United States block Syrian refugees from coming to America...This rhetoric appeared to frustrate Obama immensely.)
-- fearful American society (in the words of one official, that “everyone back home had lost their minds.”...Obama frequently reminds his staff that terrorism takes far fewer lives in America than handguns, car accidents, and falls in bathtubs do. Several years ago, he expressed to me his admiration for Israelis’ “resilience” in the face of constant terrorism, and it is clear that he would like to see resilience replace panic in American society..he believes that a misplaced word, or a frightened look, or an ill-considered hyperbolic claim, could tip the country into panic. The sort of panic he worries about most is the type that would manifest itself in anti-Muslim xenophobia or in a challenge to American openness and to the constitutional order)
-- terrorism (The president also gets frustrated that terrorism keeps swamping his larger agenda)
-- modern Islam (in private encounters with other world leaders, Obama has argued that there will be no comprehensive solution to Islamist terrorism until Islam reconciles itself to modernity and undergoes some of the reforms that have changed Christianity. )
-- ME tribalism (One of the most destructive forces in the Middle East, Obama believes, is tribalism—a force no president can neutralize. )
-- climate change (As I survey the next 20 years, climate change worries me profoundly because of the effects that it has on all the other problems that we face)

Another Mennonite attack

So this guy named "Samy" (obviously a Mennonite) attempts a mass shooting with AUTOMATIC weapons (wait....I thought those were "controlled" by a law), and is stopped by the FBI

.......but no Terrorism charges against "Samy"

http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/fbi-thwarts-mass-shooting-at-milwaukee-masonic-temple-b99659005z1-366609371.html

...oh wait....he made this statement:

 "We are Muslims, defending Muslim religion, we are on our own, my dear, we have organized our own group,"

Whoops...sorry....never mind.....nothing to see here, move along citizen, move along

A bumper sticker

Thought of this today:

"How many gun crimes have LAW ABIDING CITIZENS  committed?"

Well the answer would be ZERO, since they are LAW ABIDING.

So, to the hoplos out there...how exactly would another LAW (or "Executive Action") solve anything?

Answer: It wouldn't.....it would ONLY take the tool away from the LAW ABIDING.


So the real question is this:  There are two types of people who would take guns away from LAW ABIDING citizens

a.  Tyrants
b.  Criminals


Which one are you Mr/Ms Hoplo?

KPTB's EA - 2nd post

Another post on yesterday's "action"

Mental Health -  KPTB's (illegal) "action" makes ANYONE who seeks ANY type of mental health lose their civil rights (after all, once you lose the 2nd, what's going to "stop" the government from removing the 1st, and 3rd, and 4th, and 5th.....)

some questions.

Who do you think this is targeted at?        

LAW ABIDING CITIZENS

Criminals will not pay attention....just like they already are doing with the THOUSANDS of gun laws already on the books.



What about a Soldier/Sailor/Airmen/Marine (or ANY veteran) who seeks help for PTSD? (I seem to remember something about this Administration already trying to go after the Veterans anyway...hmmm....ain't that a co-ink-ee-dink)

What about Police officers who are MANDATED to seek mental health counseling after a shooting incident?

What about Firefighters who seek counseling after pulling a child out of a burning building that dies afterwards?

What about someone going thru a divorce that seeks grief counseling?

What about all those kids who are pushed into seeking "counseling" after ANY incident in a public school?

What about ANYONE in a house where one person in the house seeks ANY type of counseling? (this has ALREADY happened...this "action" will only increase it)

What about ALL THE KIDS who have been "diagnosed" with ADD/ADHD once they reach the age of majority (that's 18 for those who went to public schools)?  They try to get a firearm for protection and "suddenly discover" they can't?

What about abused women who seek counseling after the fact?  Those women "suddenly discover" that they cannot protect themselves from an abusive husband?



Remember how Dhims work.....When they say they want to "protect you", they really want protection "from you".

This isn't a way to "help"...it's a outright back-door gun ban that won't get discovered by the great unwashed until AFTER the pot is boiling and the frog can't jump out.

KPTB's EA

It's illegal...first of all.  The way the Dhims work...they "make a law" they KNOW is unconstitutional, and then WE have to pay for the lawyers to get involved.

Now...."people in the business of firearms" now must get licensed to do commerce.....sounds nice doesn't it.  Well....if you SELL firearms, YOU ALREADY HAVE TO HAVE A FFL....so why is he doing an "action" that is already codified?   Well.....look at what is in italics....and think about how the Dhims work.

Does this NOW mean that businesses who manufacture "stuff" that is used for firearms (not the firearms themselves) HAVE TO GET PERMISSION and get a FFL?

Does this NOW mean that businesses that manufacture AMMO need to get an FFL?

Does this NOW mean that business that PRINT TARGETS on paper need to get an FFL?

Does this NOW mean that business that HOST GUN SHOWS need to get an FFL?

Does this NOW mean that publishers of Gun books and magazines need to get an FFL?

And

What about the new "law" that mandates that you lose your rights if a doctor reports you to the ATF?

well....let's think about how the Dhims work.

What if your Doctor "doesn't think" you should own a gun, or "thinks" that being a gun owner is bad....all he has to do is "click a button" and PRESTO!!!!...bye bye!....isn't that NEAT?

......questions questions questions.

Correlation?

Since the Dhims love to say that guns cause criminals (derrrr....yeah)....kinda like spoons make people fat......I'd like to use their way of thinking to illustrate something that is indeed more dangerous.

What do you notice about this top 20?

20 - East Palo Alto, CA - Mayor Donna Rutherford (D)
19 - Jackson, MS - Mayor Tony Yarber (D)
18 - Wilkes-Barre, PA - Mayor Thomas M. Leighton (D)
17 - Birmingham, AL - Mayor William A. Bell (D)
16 - East Point, GA - Mayor Jannquell Peters (D)
15 - East Chicago, IN - Mayor Anthony Copeland (D)
14 - Compton, CA - Mayor Aja Brown (D)
13 - Baltimore, MD - Mayor Stephanie C. Rawlings-Blake (D)
12 - St. Louis, MO - Mayor Francis G. Slay (D)
11 - Harvey, IL - Mayor Eric J. Kellogg (D)
10 - Newark, NJ - Mayor Ras J. Baraka (D)
9 - New Orleans, LA - Mayor Mitch Landrieu (D)
8 - Trenton, NJ - Mayor Eric Jackson (D)
7 - Detroit, MI - Mayor Mike Duggan (D)
6 - Flint, MI - Mayor Karen Weaver (D)
5 - Saginaw, MI - Mayor Dennis Browning
4 - Chester, PA - Mayor John Linder (D)
3 - Gary, IN - Mayor Karen Freeman-Wilson (D)
2 - Camden, NJ - Mayor Dana Redd (D)
1 - East St. Louis, IL - Mayor Emeka-Jackson Hicks (D)

See anything that is blatantly obvious?

Now.....what is this top 20 list?








It's the top 20 MURDER CITIES in these United States.

Now....you may notice the link goes to the top 30.....so the typical Dhim-wit would say "see...see,....that's manipulating the data".

well...

1.  the top 20 are ALL Dhimocrat controlled.  So that blows that arguement out
2.  of the top 30, 28 are Dhimocrat controlled.....so again....I say "Correlation anyone?

Which side?

A few questions:

When "a person" refuses to declare that terrorist acts are not the work of radical islam, which side does "a person" support?

When "a person" openly states that the terrorists are the victims, and that those that are the ACTUAL victims are the ones who are the oppressors, which side does "a person" support?

When "a person" openly apologizes to followers of islam that the group "a person" belongs to is to blame for criticizing islam, which side does "a person" support?




Who am I describing?


Well....actually two people.

1. KPTB
2. Shrillary

Mosques as weapons caches.....unpossible!

The frogs are starting to realize the pot is boiling.

http://speisa.com/modules/articles/index.php/item.2241/france-close-down-3-mosques-334-war-grade-weapons-found-223-arrests.html

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/kalashnikov-ammunition-isis-propaganda-seized-after-paris-mosque-closure-1532108


...but remember, according to KPTB "This has nothing to do with Islam"



nothing to see here citizen, move along.

Molon Labe

I am stealing this from Col Schlichter, but, considering the source, it's a definite "read this".
------------

Here’s What A Liberal ‘Gun-Grab’ Would Look Like And Why It Would Ultimately Fail


So, how do liberals get their wish for a disarmed, subservient population? Because all this talk of gun banning – and now they are finally admitting that they want to take our guns – raises some practical questions. Not least among them is how you get a hundred million-plus armed citizens to cheerfully turn over their firearms at the behest of a bunch of liberals who have nothing but contempt for normal Americans.

Let’s not focus on the political blowback – the massive mobilization of voters who suddenly take an interest in politics because their guns are threatened and vote in pro-freedom candidates. That’s already happening – the ranks of the NRA are swelling and there were 20 people waiting for the doors to open last weekend at a local Los Angeles gun shop.

Instead, let’s look at the practical obstacles to gun banning. The first is legal. Some jurisdiction passes a law infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms and those subjected to that injustice go to court to challenge it. But this is problematic. While the majority of Americans understand the Constitution’s Second Amendment to mean exactly what it says, liberals see the Constitution as less a foundational document than a list of suggestions to be disregarded as they become inconvenient.

Hillary is already making the repeal of the First Amendment a key part of her campaign – she doesn’t like that citizens are allowed to unite and make movies critical of her – and we’ve seen Obama heap contempt upon freedom of religion, due process, and the right to be free of unreasonable searches. Only a slim majority of the Supreme Court is even willing to enforce what the Second Amendment says, and it just recently refused to consider challenges to laws banning normal capacity magazines and that unicorn of the gun debate, “assault weapons.”

This means an American citizen stands a remote chance of being able to use the judicial process to protect his rights, and it is a grave injustice when a constitutionally-guaranteed freedom can simply be written out of the Bill of Rights by the courts’ refusal to enforce it. This reinforces the ultimate rationale for citizens keeping weapons – to maintain the ability to resist tyranny.

So, when the courts ignore our rights, it fuels, and provides moral justification for, the next problem gun grabbers would face – “Irish democracy.” Irish democracy is simply systemic noncompliance – people refuse to play along and cooperate with the unjust system. The government needs our cooperation. We generally believe our laws are just and that they were instituted fairly, and therefore usually feel morally obligated to obey. That’s why people stop at stop signs in the middle of nowhere; that’s why the self-reporting income tax system can function. America works on the honor system. But when the system is perceived as unjust, that ends.

Look at Connecticut’s obnoxious new gun laws banning whole categories of standard weapons. Law abiding citizens did not line up at the local police station to turn in their black rifles. They kept them. They just refused to comply. Now, Connecticut has not yet tried to send police house to house to collect these wicked tools. Mass sweeps for guns without warrants might even arouse the sensitivities of liberal judges who are willing to ignore the Second Amendment but balk at ignoring the Fourth.

But even if the government got over that hurdle, who do they send? Law enforcement is decentralized – the state can’t simply order local police departments and sheriffs to do the dirty work. Even assuming he’s not as outraged as his constituents, the local sheriff out in the country wants to be reelected, and sending his deputies farm to farm to please a bunch of big city liberals is a poor electoral strategy. A good number of chiefs and sheriffs would respond with impolite, anatomically challenging suggestions.

But assuming you find a willing agency head, you still have to get the beat cops to go get those guns. Good luck. Besides the many who would simply announce, “Hell no, I’m not doing it” (only to be fired and then initiate union agitation and budget-busting litigation), you would have a bunch who would simply not play along. They would call in sick. They would find an emergency to distract them. Or they would open a closet door, look over the three illegal AR-platform rifles, and announce “Nothing here.”

And if they did haul in some citizen for the crime of emulating America’s founders, it’s perfectly reasonable to expect that one of the twelve citizens in the box would comply with what would be an aggressive campaign by pro-freedom advocates to encourage jurors not to convict those accused of unconstitutional gun “crimes.” This kind of jury nullification already happens in urban drug cases.

Of course, whole municipal and state governments would refuse to cooperate. Today, 30 of the 50 states have Republican governors. The vast majority of the country is red – they are never going to pass such laws and, if the feds did, they may very well refuse to enforce them or assist the federal government in doing so. The governor of Texas announcing that the Lone Star state simply will not allow the enforcement of a gun ban within its borders is going to drive the liberals in Washington to distraction and guarantee him another term in office.

Then it could get ugly. The unique combination of ego, hatred for normal Americans, and bar-exam-failing stupidity of Hillary might cause her to try to use military force to crush resistance. Any effort to use massive force to impose the liberals’ vision of a gun-free Utopia faces the practical problem of a lot of armed Americans.

There are millions of Americas with guns, many of them veterans who know how to employ them. We would certainly see more Ruby Ridges and Wacos as people took up arms to resist, if not much, much worse. A dedicated effort to forcefully disarm our citizenry would cost lives on both the pro-freedom and pro-fascism sides.

But, before Hillary could employ the military, she’d have to contend with resistance from within its ranks. Our warriors signed on to kill America’s enemies, not other Americans whose beliefs are generally pretty close to those of our troops. Don’t count on our guys in uniform killing or dying to please a bunch of coastal liberals determined to turn American citizens into defenseless subjects. And the special snowflake spawn of the coastal elites certainly aren’t going to emerge from their safe spaces and gender studies seminars to suit up in Kevlar and kick in doors in Middle America.

So how do liberals get their wish for a disarmed, subservient population? They don’t.
(emphasis is mine)

https://journal.ijreview.com/2015/12/251122-kurt-liberal-gun-grab-why-fail/