SPLC is going after gun advocates now! Here's their latest hate post

Started by MikeWB, April 06, 2010, 07:11:09 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

MikeWB

Leave them a comment here: http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2010/02/0 ... om-threat/
and read some of them...

QuoteGun Advocates to March Against Phantom Threat
Posted in patriot by Larry Keller on February 1, 2010

 Print This Post
Public support for gun control has been steadily declining, the U.S. Supreme Court has issued a ruling that strengthens an individual's right to own firearms and President Obama has said nothing to suggest he will take on gun-rights enthusiasts.

No matter.

Gun rights advocates, including some in the antigovernment "Patriot" movement for whom the specter of gun restrictions is a recurring theme, are planning to march in Washington, D.C., and some individual states on April 19.

Speakers scheduled for the "Second Amendment March" in D.C. include

Stewart Rhodes, founder of Oath Keepers, a conspiracy-minded, antigovernment organization composed mostly of active-duty police and military officers and veterans;
Richard Mack, a former Arizona sheriff who travels the country preaching about the evils of the federal government;
Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, who advocated the formation of citizen militias in the United States in the early 1990s and addressed a three-day meeting of neo-Nazis and Christian Identity adherents in Colorado in 1992; and,
Nicki Stallard, a transsexual gun rights activist who is active in Pink Pistols, a gay gun rights organization.
Gun rights supporters assumed the worst even before Obama was elected. The National Rifle Association initiated a membership drive dubbed, "Prepare for the Storm in 2008." In the months before and immediately after Obama's election, firearms and ammunition sales soared in anticipation of new gun restrictions. Those fears were reinforced a month after Obama took office, when Attorney General Eric Holder said the administration would try to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 during the Bush administration.

But the administration quickly backpedaled. Not only has the president made no effort to restrict gun ownership, he even signed legislation allowing guns in national parks and on Amtrak trains. (These provisions were amendments to larger, unrelated pieces of legislation that he supported.) The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, which endorsed Obama in 2008, recently gave him a grade of "F" on every issue on which it scored him.

There are other reasons to think gun rights supporters would be content. In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the District of Columbia's strict gun control law and reversed years of lower court decisions holding that the intent of the Second Amendment was to link the right of gun possession to militia service. The opinion "delivered a bold and unmistakable endorsement of the individual right to own guns," The Washington Post reported.

And there's still more happy news for the gun enthusiasts. Poll after poll shows a steady decline in support for gun control. For example, a Gallup Poll last October asked, "In general, do you feel that the laws covering the sale of firearms should be made more strict, less strict, or kept as they are now?" Only 44% chose "more strict," the lowest number in at least 10 years. In April 1999, by contrast, 66% favored stricter laws. The same poll asked if a law should be enacted that bans the possession of handguns, except by police and other authorized persons. Only 28% answered in the affirmative – the lowest percentage in the 50 years Gallup has asked the question. In 1959, 60% favored a handgun ban.

A CBS News/New York Times Poll conducted in April of last year asked, "In general, do you feel the laws covering the sale of handguns should be made more strict, less strict, or kept as they are now?" Some 60% said stricter, but that was down from 66 percent from two years earlier, and down from 71% in 2000.

A FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll taken in May 2009 asked respondents which strategy would more likely decrease gun violence –  better enforcement of existing gun laws or more laws and restrictions of obtaining guns. Forty-seven percent of those who answered said better enforcement, compared to 41% in 2000. And 34% said they favored more laws and restrictions, a decline from 37% in 2000.

Despite the dearth of evidence that their rights are in peril, gun enthusiasts are gung-ho on the planned marches. "The purpose is to remind the U.S. government that it is our right to keep and bear arms, and that right shall not be infringed," the Second Amendment March website states. Organizers say they have contacted Glenn Beck to see if he'll support them. One vocal gun rights guy who won't be speaking at the Washington march is rocker Ted Nugent. It seems his oratory carries a hefty cost.

"While Mr. Nugent would be a great asset to the march, we simply cannot afford him," the organizers' website says.

1) No link? Select some text from the story, right click and search for it.
2) Link to TiU threads. Bring traffic here.

CrackSmokeRepublican

Like Russia in 1917, the Jews want to keep the "non-Jews" Goyim unarmed so that they can round up anybody they want to without fear of people fighting back. In an unarmed and unmotivated America, they can sick any paid off or propagandized police force on just anyone for just about any reason whatsoever. The USA would have Idiot Jew Holohoax Laws in place today without the 2nd Amendment. I'm sure of it.

   By bringing the 2nd Amendment up again and again, it only shows what the Idiot Jews, with their dumbed-down Mouth Puppets, ultimately have in mind for the Average American male --> become a Palestinian in your country and let the "Chosen" (idiots) rule over you...
After the Revolution of 1905, the Czar had prudently prepared for further outbreaks by transferring some $400 million in cash to the New York banks, Chase, National City, Guaranty Trust, J.P.Morgan Co., and Hanover Trust. In 1914, these same banks bought the controlling number of shares in the newly organized Federal Reserve Bank of New York, paying for the stock with the Czar\'s sequestered funds. In November 1917,  Red Guards drove a truck to the Imperial Bank and removed the Romanoff gold and jewels. The gold was later shipped directly to Kuhn, Loeb Co. in New York.-- Curse of Canaan

MikeWB

These criminals are extremely afraid of the 2nd amendment because it's the only thing that we'll have left to defend the country from them so they're making up all kinds of stuff.
1) No link? Select some text from the story, right click and search for it.
2) Link to TiU threads. Bring traffic here.

CrackSmokeRepublican

The most ridiculous thing about their "Worry" is that the people they are pointing fingers at would likely be the first ones to bail them out of trouble using the 2nd Amendment if something really serious went down.  It's ironic in weird way... but that is J-Tribe paranoia in action...
After the Revolution of 1905, the Czar had prudently prepared for further outbreaks by transferring some $400 million in cash to the New York banks, Chase, National City, Guaranty Trust, J.P.Morgan Co., and Hanover Trust. In 1914, these same banks bought the controlling number of shares in the newly organized Federal Reserve Bank of New York, paying for the stock with the Czar\'s sequestered funds. In November 1917,  Red Guards drove a truck to the Imperial Bank and removed the Romanoff gold and jewels. The gold was later shipped directly to Kuhn, Loeb Co. in New York.-- Curse of Canaan