Could The Ferguson Effect Speeches, The Black Lives Matter Movement, Gun Confiscation Talk All Be Preparing Us For Civil War In The US?

DAILY BEAST: OBAMA, HILLARY TOYING WITH ‘CIVIL WAR’ OVER GUN CONFISCATION

10798

34

783

Getty Images

by AWR HAWKINS2 Nov 20154,803

On November 2, The Daily Beast pointed to recent statements from President Obama and Hillary Clinton regarding the implementation of Australian-style gun confiscation and suggested “civil war could erupt on American soil” if any administration actually tried to confiscate privately owned firearms.

The Daily Beast theoretically agreed that “confiscation on a massive scale” may be “the only way to solve American gun violence,” but they pointed out that it was not realistic and suggested Hillary risks causing irreparable divisions by talking about confiscation then mocking gun owners as conspiracy theorists waiting for “black helicopters” to come take their guns away.

According to The Daily Beast, confiscation was workable in Australia because there was no Second Amendment and the government only had to take 650,000 guns. That is a far cry from the “350 million” believed to be in Americans’ hands.

Yes, “350 million.”

But even more important than the number of guns is the depth of American “devotion” to them. And The Daily Beast observes that it is this devotion–this dedication to the philosophy and tradition underlying the right to keep and bear arms–that turns the mere mention of confiscation into something that could literally rip the country apart.

The Daily Beast put it thus, “The prospect of confiscation—as much as it might, theoretically, reduce drastically or even eliminate gun crime altogether—is simply impossible in the United States.” They pointed to statements by Republican presidential hopeful Ben Carson, who stressed that Jews could have curtailed the Holocaust had they retained their guns. The Daily Beast suggests Carson hit on something “Second Amendment enthusiasts are fond of arguing,” namely, “that gun rights are enshrined in the Constitution not only for the sake of hunters or people who want to protect their homes and businesses from criminals, but also to allow the population to resist an overreaching government.”

Breitbart News previously reported that Founding Father James Madison used Federalist 46 to make that very point–that armed citizens could band together and resist their government, should it tend toward tyranny. And he pointed out that this demonstrated American exceptionalism inasmuch as citizens of other nations, lacking arms, also lacked the ability to resist.

The Daily Beast addressed the way Hillary mentioned confiscation only later to mock gun owners for fearing the government might come after their guns:

Clinton can joke all she likes about Americans fearing “black helicopters” taking their guns away, but it is no exaggeration to suggest that civil war could erupt on American soil were the U.S. government to attempt anything remotely resembling what was done in Australia.

The column in The Daily Beast is aptly titled, “Yes, They Want to Take Your Guns Away.”

Video Exonerates Police, However, Prof Is Unrepentant!

Lady Accuses Police Officers Of Stopping Her For “Walking While Black”… Then This Video Shows Up

Dorothy Bland is the dean of the school of journalism at the University of North Texas. An African American, Bland also became a recent viral phenomenon when she accused white police officers of detaining her for “walking while black.”

One problem: Ms. Bland seems to have forgotten that police cars are equipped with dash cams. After she wrote an op-ed for the Dallas Morning News, police decided to release the video, which showed she was stopped for a definite reason.

“Flashing lights and sirens from a police vehicle interrupted a routine Saturday morning walk in my golf-course community in Corinth,” Bland wrote in the Wednesday piece.

“Like most African Americans, I am familiar with the phrase ‘driving while black,’ but was I really being stopped for walking on the street in my own neighborhood?”

Bland said she was terrified and that the police intimidated her.

“Knowing that the police officers are typically armed with guns and are a lot bigger than my 5 feet, 4 inches, I had no interest in my life’s story playing out like Trayvon Martin’s death,” Bland added. “I stopped and asked the two officers if there was a problem; I don’t remember getting a decent answer before one of the officers asked me where I lived and for identification.

“Although I am not related to Sandra Bland, I thought about her, Freddie Gray and the dozens of others who have died while in police custody.”

However, shortly after she published her piece, Corinth Police Chief Debra Walthall submitted a rebuttal, as well as the dash cam video from the stop.

“My officers, a field training officer and his recruit, observed Ms. Bland walking in the roadway wearing earbuds and unaware that there was a pickup truck directly behind her that had to almost come to a complete stop to avoid hitting her,” Walthall wrote.

“The driver of the truck looked at the officers as they passed and held his hands in the air, which implied ‘aren’t you going to do something about this?’ The officers turned around and drove behind Ms. Bland.

“They activated their in-car video camera, which shows her again walking in the roadway impeding traffic. They activated their emergency lights — no siren was ever sounded — they exited their patrol vehicle and contacted Ms. Bland.”

Yes, the only reason Dorothy Bland was pulled over by police was the fact that she was acting as an entitled nuisance, holding up traffic so that she could walk wherever she wanted to.

And, as it turns out, they apparently made it plain why she was stopped.

“They immediately advised Ms. Bland about the pickup truck and the fact that it was safer for her to walk against traffic so she could see the cars and jump out of the way if necessary. The interaction between Ms. Bland and the officers was very cordial and brief,” Whitehall wrote.

“I am surprised by her comments as this was not a confrontational encounter but a display of professionalism and genuine concern for her safety.”

The video seems to show the same thing:

Of course, how many people are going to share that part on Facebook? It doesn’t fit into the media’s narrative, so it has to go. Much like in the case of the woman who shares her surname or Freddie Gray, when the facts don’t match up with the agenda, reporters will always go with the agenda.

Next time, though, anyone looking to make a spurious claim against the police should remember that video exists, and it can be used against them — perhaps not in a court of law, but certainly in the court of public opinion.

H/T Mad World News