Now, let’s see if she’s a liar. If she takes her Congressional Oath of Office in our Republic yet continues to claim she supports socialism, she’s a liar. Can she REALLY…
“…support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies foreign and domestic?” Or is she more likely to be the domestic enemy trying to undermine our Constitution in order to advance her wacko socialist beliefs that stand in utter opposition to our Constitutional principles?
I recently read on Fox News that CNN is suing the White House:
There’s actually quite a few more restrictions specified therein than that, but suffice it to say that Acosta clearly violated a number of them, on recorded video, and in front of the entire nation.
the entire content of the agreement in the presence of three White House attorneys-witnesses while recording it on video. Of course, the WH will have to record and witness all future new WH Press Corps reporters, although after the next three or four, they can lower the burden to just one attorney-witness and a video recording as the agreement is read aloud (play a recording?) to the next candidate reporter.
lawsuits by creating both crystal clear and court-admissible instructions on what members of the White House Press Corps can and cannot do. The instructions cannot limit the questions that are asked. They absolutely can require reporters to both cease and desist all further questioning and sit down when the President turns to another reporter.
- Bottom of the 100: Unspecified Diabetes Mellitus with Peripheral Circulatory Complications: 1.3 per 100k
- Intentional self-harm by handgun discharge: 1.4 per 100k
- Chronic viral hepatitis C: 1.5 per 100k
- Alcoholic cirrhosis of liver: 3.4 per 100k
- Motor vehicle accident: 3.5 per 100k
- Murders and non-negligent manslaughters: 5.35 per 100k
- Pneumonia: 16.2 per 100k
- Top 1 out of 100: Atherosclerotic Heart Disease: 62.5 per 100k
- Violent crime: 383 per 100k
Years ago, our Founding Fathers knew the dangers of an unarmed populace, so they MANDATED that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” They even stated that it was “necessary to the security of a free nation (state).
One gent, an ER doc, once spent the afternoon trying to convince me that firearms were “bad” because of “all the people he had to stitch up, if not zip up, in his emergency room.
Let’s examine that.
In 2013, there were 73,505 injuries and 33,636 deaths related to firearms. Their total comes to 107,141 firearms-related injuries and deaths.
Also in 2013, there were 1.3 million violent crimes. Of those, roughly 725,000 violent crimes were stopped by armed citizens. That’s 6.8 times more good than bad. Furthermore, experts examining the UK’s firearms ban estimate that violent crime would increase to between 200% and 300% of current levels if firearms were banned in the U.S. That’s an additional 1.3 to 2.6 million violent crimes, but without the attenuating effect of 750,000 stops.
The net effect would be a 192% increase from our current 1.3 million violent crimes per year to roughly 3.8 million violent crimes per year. That’s nearly 3 times as much violent crime. “No way!” you say. Wrong. The United Kingdom experience a tripling of its violent crime following its firearms ban, and violent crime remains 2.74 (“nearly 3”) times higher than it was before.
Now you know WHY I carry a firearm. Now you know WHY I firmly support our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. I support it because it’s safer — many times safer — than getting rid of them.
Yet along come the libtards, who cannot for the life of them figure out that assaults with firearms are just as deadly as automobile accidents, and that violent crime is 100 times more likely. They’re all for wearing seat belts, not to mention prohibiting supersize soft drinks, but they refuse to even consider the only effective solution to a very real problem that’s 109 times more prevalent than motor vehicle deaths.
Bottom Line: There were 1.28 million violent crimes in the U.S. in 2017. That comes to 382.9 per 100k people, which is 109 times more likely than dying in a motor vehicle accident.
THIS is why I carry a firearm. Of COURSE I carry a firearm. You should, too. You wear seat belts, don’t you? Then why wouldn’t you protect yourself against a threat that 109 times more prevalent than motor vehicle deaths?
To all the blitheringly idiotic liberals who think they know better: No, you do not. You don’t know the facts. You’re ignorant. All you know is the predigested liberal anti-gun mantra, factless ideals that have no basis in reality.
The FBI’s own statistics blow all of your anti-gun and gun control arguments totally out of the water. You’re idiots with irrational fears. Not only do so-called “gun-free zones” never work, they backfire, actually attracting mass shooters. When it comes to firearms, you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about and really need to shut the hell up and stop interfering in other people’s lives.
The following FAQs are taken from the University of Colorado at Boulder’s Weapons on Campus page maintained by CU Boulder’s Police Department. They are very well organization and exceptionally well-written. I am preserving them here as a prime example of How It’s Done.