Tag Archives: gun confiscation

Staten Island DA playing, “Please don’t throw me in the briar patch” but Rush doesn’t get it


By Kevin “Coach” Collins

In a rare moment of confusion, the usually well informed Rush Limbaugh talked about something he seems not to understand. In a few months there will be a special election to fill the now vacated seat in the 11th Congressional District which is largely on Staten Island. The seat was held by a Republican who has taken a plea and awaits sentencing for an income tax related crime.

For most of America, especially liberal America, Staten Island in a mysterious place that used to have the largest garbage dump in the world and is filled with Right Wing Republicans. Unfortunately for the liberal Democrat who will try to recapture the seat (it was taken from a liberal Democrat by the outgoing Republican) both of those statements are true.  

 Last summer and fall Staten Island was thrust into the spotlight of racial strife because a common street criminal named Eric Garner, who had no common sense, died while fighting the police who were trying to arrest him for a minor crime he was well known for committing. The case ended with a Staten Island Grand Jury declining to indict any of the police involved which gave birth to the Left’s “I can’t breathe” slogan.

Demonstrations against the police broke out everywhere but Staten Island. Yes there were a few people who gathered together to protest but there was really nothing to speak of.

Now the District Attorney of Staten Island, Dan Donovan, is running to fill the empty Congressional seat. He has asked that Democrats not make an issue of the Garner case because it cost a man his life.

People like Rush Limbaugh who know nothing about Staten Island don’t understand why Donovan would do this. They don’t understand that by doing so Donovan has insured himself an easy victory.

Here’s how it will happen. Whatever liberal crash dummy the Democrats put up will be bankrolled with big money from liberals who will demand the Garner case be made the center of Democrat’s campaign. The crash dummy will HAVE to comply; but EVERY TIME Garner is mentioned, Donovan’s support will grow because the people of the district strongly support the “no bill” result and will reward him for it.

Donovan, who was born and raised on Staten Island is playing Brer rabbit and asking the unsuspecting Brer Fox Democrats, “Please don’t throw me in the briar patch!”   

It’s as simple as that.         

Get your free PDF of Coach’s book “Crooks Thugs& Bigots: the lost, hidden and changed history of the Democrat Party.” If you don’t know the truth all you’ll have are Democrat lies.

Just ask at kcoachc@gmail.com   


Correcting media lies and half-truths: Las Vegas killers were bottom feeding “occupiers”

By Kevin “Coach” Collins

The media has been caught lying about a gun violence episode once again. Last week’s terrible murder of an innocent man in a Walmart was turned into another dishonest attempt to strip guns from honest law abiding citizens.  

What we know to be true in this story is that two miserable pieces of human debris, Amanda and Jerad Miller entered a Walmart in Las Vegas intent upon committing murder.  Seeing that both of them were armed, an honest citizen who had a legal right to carry a gun confronted them and was shot and murdered by Amanda Miller.   

As is the case whenever a sensational gun related crime occurs, the dishonest media worked overtime to portray the shooters as somehow connected to any Right wing group they could. This case was no different. The two murderers were quickly painted as Tea party supporters and Right-wing extremists.  

The truth about these two swine is that not only were they not connected to any Right wing group, they were in fact “Occupy” movement people, and avowed enemies of our way of life.  The Millers were present at the Bundy Ranch showdown, but only because they were violent anarchists who loved death and were likely hoping to see some death during the standoff.   

Again, contrary to the media’s prepackaged “fill in the date and a few other details” narrative, the Millers were detected and ejected at the Bundy Ranch. They were not accepted and treated as comrades in arms.

The lesson in this case is always the same. The media are not on the side of average Americans. In fact they hate us and would rather spend a month in prison than an hour with the “rubes and yahoos” they think we are. It is precisely because of this that we must never stop correcting their lies.

The Millers were being readied by the Leftist media to be THE shooting that finally stripped us of our guns – every shooting always is.  When stories like this appear each of us must become our own free press. Learn the truth and speak the truth. Don’t assume someone else will do it for us.

Virtually every day the media works to take away our freedoms with lies. In response we have two choices: help them with our silence or fight them with our voices.

Keep asking questions and keep demanding answers. It’s the only way we will ever get the truth.   



by Doug Book,  editor

1.) On May 12th, a motorist told Minneapolis police that the driver of another vehicle had “brandished” a gun at him on I-694. Police closed two lanes of Interstate traffic during the morning rush hour, identified the gunman’s vehicle and took him into custody.

It turns out the man who caused the police emergency and traffic nightmare is an ATF agent. However, the agent’s name “…was not released per Minnesota Statute 13.82, which allows the identity of an undercover law enforcement officer to be kept private.”

An undercover law enforcement officer? How many undercover officers–you know, individuals who would prefer to remain anonymous–wave a gun at a fellow driver at 6:30 in the morning? 

Of course the story was not reported by the mainstream media and no questions were asked even after the agent was released without being charged.

After all, the perp wasn’t a civilian. And the big boy media is interested only in pistol-wielding civilians because they are the people who “…can’t be trusted with guns.” They just “…don’t have the training or capacity to handle the responsibility.”

Isn’t it lucky the guy playing in traffic with his Glock was an ATF agent? A bricklayer might have done something really dangerous, stupid or irresponsible.

According to the Minnesota State Patrol, the incident is “under investigation.” An ATF representative said it was “under review.” 

2.) Dr. Vivek Murthy, Barack Obama’s “on hold” Surgeon General nominee, “…has expressed a desire to see more restrictions on how guns can be purchased and who can own them.” According to the New York Yimes, “…his views are in step with where many Americans stand on gun control…”

Yet for some reason, the “in-step” Dr. Murthy has 10 Senate Democrats who can’t wait to vote against his confirmation. Maybe that’s because the doctor “…believes gun ownership is a public health issue, not a right protected under the 2nd Amendment.” A vote to confirm this guy would be more dangerous on election day than cyanide.

Not reported by the Times or any other member of the MSM, Murthy believes doctors should document anyone who has a gun in their home. Gun owners should also be licensed and the purchase of ammunition restricted.

Even more scary is the fact that just as physicians may certify those who should no longer drive as they might pose “…a grave danger to themselves and others,” Dr. Murthy believes government “…should approach the purchase, transfer and operation of guns with the same vigor.”

Translation: your doctor will have the authority to make you an ex-gun owner!

Former Surgeon General Dr. Richard Carmona wrote to Barack Obama in December of last year, telling the president that Vivek Murthy is not qualified; that he has “no leadership experience” and no “public health training or experience.” That would mean that Dr. Murthy could be a purely political appointee, selected only because he is a believer in the Obama approved, “common sense” gun control agenda.







What prompted Hillary to threaten America’s gun owners?

by Doug Book,  editor

On May 7th, an apoplectic CNN attempted to provide cover for Hillary Clinton after her unprovoked assault on 100 million American gun owners. Speaking before the National Council for Behavioral Health, Hillary stated that the nation’s “gun culture” had gotten “way out of balance.” “We’ve got to rein in what has become an almost article of faith that anybody can have a gun anywhere, anytime” added Clinton. “I don’t believe that is in the best interest of the vast majority of people.”

“She’s talking in the context of mental health,” claimed CNN talking head John King in the hope of bailing his fellow liberal out of the ofttimes politically fatal quagmire of anti-gun zealotry.  After all, who could favor arming the mentally unstable?

But Hillary’s nonsensical claims had nothing to do with the acquisition of firearms by the mentally ill.  “At the rate we’re going, we’re going to have so many people with guns everywhere, fully licensed, fully validated,” lamented Clinton. Her concerns obviously revolve around the increasing number of “fully licensed” and “fully validated” gun owners. And that’s a group which certainly doesn’t include the mentally ill!

Not satisfied that she had done enough damage to her chances in 2016,  Clinton then claimed that the proliferation of guns “[is] what happens in the countries I’ve visited where there is no rule of law and no self-control…” This is “…something that we cannot just let go without paying attention,” said Hillary, not only insulting America’s law abiding gun owners but obviously threatening them with a new round of anti-gun legislation from the federal government.

Yet even more mind boggling than her sudden decision to declare war on America’s gun owners was Hillary’s laughable claim that she could say all she had and “…still support the right of people to own guns.” Now that’s funny stuff!

As usual, Hillary made statements which cannot be supported by anything which even resembles a fact. No, Mrs. Clinton, “anybody” cannot “have a gun anywhere, anytime.” The left made certain of that with the manufacture of killing fields they call “gun free” zones. Also, little in the U.S. is more subject to the “rule of law” than the right to keep and bear arms.

As for “self-control,” Concealed Carry license holders are 3 times less likely to commit a domestic murder with a firearm than are police officers! (1)

But the real question here is why? Why would Hillary believe it a good idea to take up publicly declared residence on the losing side of one of the most polarizing subjects in politics?  Trailing Barack Obama in the polls in 2008, Hillary became a sudden convert to the belief that gun ownership was just swell. Speaking of her own experience shooting with her father, Hillary said of gun ownership at the time:  “It’s part of culture. It’s part of a way of life. People enjoy hunting and shooting because it’s an important part of who they are.”

But that tale was no more truthful than her claim to have been named after Sir Edmund Hillary–3 years BEFORE he climbed Mt. Everest.

Of course, little that Hillary Clinton has ever said has not been a lie. She is a cold, calculating, political thug who measures the value of things according to their effect on public opinion. So why would she begin an unnecessary war with gun owners? Why provide the eventual  Republican opponent with golden opportunities for “Here’s what Hillary really thinks about gun owners” commercials?

It doesn’t make much sense to me.


(1) http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2013/10/concealed-carry-permit-holders-are-one.html







“Nobody wants to take your guns”

by Doug Book,  editor

There is nothing so dependably disingenuous as a liberal who proclaims a willingness to have an honest debate or engage in a legitimate compromise. For decades spent in the practice of calculated deceit have made truth a foreign concept to these unprincipled vermin.

And no subject has been the cause of more outright dishonesty from the left than the right to keep and bear arms.

For decades, liberals have begun each new call for “common sense” gun legislation by reassuring gun owning, 2nd Amendment supporting Americans that nobody wants to take their guns. “No one is seriously proposing to ban or confiscate all guns,” claims Martin Dyckman, Associate Editor of the St. Petersburg Times.  “You hear that only from the gun lobby itself, which whistles up this bogeyman whenever some reasonable regulation is proposed.” Rather than suggest Mr. Dyckman may not be telling the absolute truth, let’s hear from the “bogeyman” himself:

“Our ultimate goal–total control of handguns in the United States — is going to take time.” “The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition-except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors-totally illegal.”
Richard Harris in The New Yorker, quoting Pete Shields, founder of Handgun Control, Inc.

“It will happen one very small step at a time, so that by the time people have “woken up” — quote — to what’s happened, it’s gone farther than what they feel the consensus of American citizens would be.”
Stockton, California Mayor Barbara Fass: Speaking of the banning of firearms in the US, beginning with “the banning of semi-assault military weapons, that are military weapons, not “household” weapons.”

“There is little sense in gun registration.  What we need to significantly enhance public safety is domestic disarmament . . . .  Domestic disarmament entails the removal of arms from private hands.”
Former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, San Antonio Mayor Henry Cisneros and Baltimore Mayor Kurt Schmoke, upon signing the Communitarian Network’s “Case for Domestic Disarmament.”

“I shortly will introduce legislation banning the sale, manufacture or possession of handguns (with exceptions for law enforcement and licensed target clubs).”
Sen. John H. Chafee (R.-R.I.): In View of Handguns’ Effects, There’s Only One Answer: A Ban, Minneapolis Star Tribune, June 15, 1992, at 13A.

“Mr. Speaker, my bill prohibits the importation, exportation, manufacture, sale, purchase, transfer, receipt, possession, or transportation of handguns and handgun ammunition.”
Rep. Major Owens (D-Brooklyn, N.Y.), 139 Cong. Rec. H9088 at H9094, Nov. 10, 1993.

“There is no reason for anyone in this country, anyone except a police officer or a military person, to buy, to own, to have, to use a handgun.” “I now think the only way to control handgun use in this country is to prohibit the guns.”
Michael Gartner (then president of NBC News), Glut of Guns: What Can We Do About Them?, USA Today, Jan. 16, 1992

Speaking of the Assault Weapons Ban:  “Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.”
Charles Krauthammer (nationally syndicated columnist), Disarm the Citizenry. But Not Yet, Washington Post, Apr. 5, 1996

“I think there should be a law — and I know this is extreme — that no one can have a gun in the U.S.  If you have a gun, you go to jail.  Only the police should have guns.”
Rosie O’Donnell. Shannon Hawkins, Rosie Takes on the NRA, Ottawa Sun, April 29, 1999  

“We’re talking about limiting people to one gun purchase or handgun purchase a month.  Why not just ban the ownership of handguns when nobody needs one?  Why not just ban semi-automatic rifles?  Nobody needs one.”
Statement by Time Magazine, National Correspondent Jack E. White
L. Brent Bozell III, Lock-and-Load Mode Against the 2nd, Washington Times, May 8, 1999

“We will never fully solve our nation’s horrific problem of gun violence unless we ban the manufacture and sale of handguns and semiautomatic assault weapons.” 
Jeff Muchnick, Legislative Director, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, Better Yet, Ban All Handguns

“The goal of CSGV is the orderly elimination of the private sale of handguns and assault weapons in the United States.”
 Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, http://www.csgv.org/content/coalition/coal_intro.html (visited June 20, 2000)

“We Are NOT “Gun Banners”-and never have been… Handgun Control, Inc., has never advocated banning firearms used for legitimate purposes such as hunting and recreation.”  Measures We Don’t Support,” Handgun Control Inc. March 16, 1999
As Eugene Volokh of the UCLA Law School points out: “Hopefully you noticed Handgun Control, Inc. (now the Brady Campaign) doesn’t include self-defense as a “legitimate purpose” for owning a firearm.”

Apparently, as long as the Brady Campaign considers a specific firearm usage “legitimate,” gun owners have nothing to fear.   

Just remember: Nobody Wants to Take Your Guns!