Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Beim Laden dieses Videos ist ein Problem aufgetreten. Dies könnte an einem vorübergehenden Netzwerkproblem liegen oder das Video ist möglicherweise nicht verfügbar.

Americans need education on the Second Amendment: founders intended it for protection against tyrannical government, not hunting. Guns are inanimate objects that don't act alone. Gun control advocates ignore that drunk drivers kill 30 daily, so should we ban cars? Rifles/shotguns cause 550 deaths yearly, while knives 1,500 deaths... show more

ꪻꫝể ꪻꫝể

283,028 subscribers

17,113 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

The Joe Biden Administration & Department Of Homeland Security Insist We Continue To Have A Wide Open Southern Border During These Times Lieutenant Governor of North Carolina Reminds Everyone Why We Have Our Second Amendment: “We need to remind ourselves what our Second Amendment is for. We need to remind ourselves that our Second Amendment is not for duck hunting. It's not for skeet shooting or target practice. It's not so we can sit around and compare who's got the biggest, baddest gun. Although, watch this guys, we like to do that, don't we? See, I like that guy. See, that guy, me and that guy are brothers right here. We know each other. But that's not what the Second Amendment is for. Second Amendment is for you to protect your individual liberties from whoever may threaten it, even if that should be an overreaching, overbearing government that has lost its place in this nation. And folks don't like to hear that. That's why that found, that's why that amendment is number two, right after the freedom to speak, the freedom to protect yourself, to protect your liberty.”

The Joe Biden Administration & Department Of Homeland Security Insist We Continue To Have A Wide Open Southern Border During These Times Lieutenant Governor of North Carolina Reminds Everyone Why We Have Our Second Amendment: “We need to remind ourselves what our Second Amendment is for. We need to remind ourselves that our Second Amendment is not for duck hunting. It's not for skeet shooting or target practice. It's not so we can sit around and compare who's got the biggest, baddest gun. Although, watch this guys, we like to do that, don't we? See, I like that guy. See, that guy, me and that guy are brothers right here. We know each other. But that's not what the Second Amendment is for. Second Amendment is for you to protect your individual liberties from whoever may threaten it, even if that should be an overreaching, overbearing government that has lost its place in this nation. And folks don't like to hear that. That's why that found, that's why that amendment is number two, right after the freedom to speak, the freedom to protect yourself, to protect your liberty.”

Wall Street Apes

666,616 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

CNN's Kasie Hunt suggests people should be pointing guns at the Trump administration because it has become "tyrannical" citing "what we saw on the streets" of Minneapolis: "I want to bring back a tweet from Charlie Kirk in 2018. He says this, 'The Second Amendment is not for hunting. It's not for self protection. It is there to ensure that free people can defend themselves if, God forbid, government became tyrannical and turned against its citizens.' And I think a lot of people are pointing to this because, I mean, what what we saw in the streets."

CNN's Kasie Hunt suggests people should be pointing guns at the Trump administration because it has become "tyrannical" citing "what we saw on the streets" of Minneapolis: "I want to bring back a tweet from Charlie Kirk in 2018. He says this, 'The Second Amendment is not for hunting. It's not for self protection. It is there to ensure that free people can defend themselves if, God forbid, government became tyrannical and turned against its citizens.' And I think a lot of people are pointing to this because, I mean, what what we saw in the streets."

Nicholas Fondacaro

257,624 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

8. Gun Rights — The First Line of Defense Against Tyranny 🔹 America has always had guns — even in schools. But mass shootings didn’t start until something else broke: the mind, not the trigger. This isn’t a gun crisis. It’s a mental health crisis disguised as one. Blame the tool, ignore the cause — that’s the script. 🔹 The First Amendment gives you free speech. The Second ensures you keep it. Disarmament was never about protection — it was about control. And a population that can’t defend itself is one that no longer needs to be convinced — only managed.

8. Gun Rights — The First Line of Defense Against Tyranny 🔹 America has always had guns — even in schools. But mass shootings didn’t start until something else broke: the mind, not the trigger. This isn’t a gun crisis. It’s a mental health crisis disguised as one. Blame the tool, ignore the cause — that’s the script. 🔹 The First Amendment gives you free speech. The Second ensures you keep it. Disarmament was never about protection — it was about control. And a population that can’t defend itself is one that no longer needs to be convinced — only managed.

MatrixMysteries

450,151 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

4. Gun Rights — The First Line of Defense Against Tyranny 🔹 America has always had guns — even in schools. But mass shootings didn’t start until something else broke: the mind, not the trigger. This isn’t a gun crisis. It’s a mental health crisis disguised as one. Blame the tool, ignore the cause — that’s the script. 🔹 The First Amendment gives you free speech. The Second ensures you keep it. Disarmament was never about protection — it was about control. And a population that can’t defend itself is one that no longer needs to be convinced — only managed.

4. Gun Rights — The First Line of Defense Against Tyranny 🔹 America has always had guns — even in schools. But mass shootings didn’t start until something else broke: the mind, not the trigger. This isn’t a gun crisis. It’s a mental health crisis disguised as one. Blame the tool, ignore the cause — that’s the script. 🔹 The First Amendment gives you free speech. The Second ensures you keep it. Disarmament was never about protection — it was about control. And a population that can’t defend itself is one that no longer needs to be convinced — only managed.

MatrixMysteries

85,229 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Young conservative woman picks apart MSNBC contributor’s claim that more guns = more gun violence TIM MILLER: “I think it’s basically the guns.” WOMAN: “First of all… almost 50% of all homicides caused by guns are in cities where the gun per capita is much lower.” “Secondly, I’d like to bring up that from the 1990s to the early 2000s, we had a major decrease in homicides by guns, but we had an increase of guns by nearly 50%.” MILLER: “We had an assault weapons ban during that time.” “The pro-gun side in this country is always trying to cut and dissect the demographics down… The only reason you can do that kind of statistics is that we have so many fricking gun deaths in this country.” “I don’t know why we have to come up with other convoluted reasons why we have all these deaths in this country.” WOMAN: “First of all, I think that fatherless homes is a big part of it… 76% of people who commit violent acts come from fatherless homes.” “Additionally, I think a second problem that we have is releasing criminals back into the street. It’s our criminal justice system.” “The majority, 76% of people who cause violent crimes in the United States have a criminal record of some sort.” “So we need to stop releasing people back to the streets.” TIM MILLER: “I agree.”

Young conservative woman picks apart MSNBC contributor’s claim that more guns = more gun violence TIM MILLER: “I think it’s basically the guns.” WOMAN: “First of all… almost 50% of all homicides caused by guns are in cities where the gun per capita is much lower.” “Secondly, I’d like to bring up that from the 1990s to the early 2000s, we had a major decrease in homicides by guns, but we had an increase of guns by nearly 50%.” MILLER: “We had an assault weapons ban during that time.” “The pro-gun side in this country is always trying to cut and dissect the demographics down… The only reason you can do that kind of statistics is that we have so many fricking gun deaths in this country.” “I don’t know why we have to come up with other convoluted reasons why we have all these deaths in this country.” WOMAN: “First of all, I think that fatherless homes is a big part of it… 76% of people who commit violent acts come from fatherless homes.” “Additionally, I think a second problem that we have is releasing criminals back into the street. It’s our criminal justice system.” “The majority, 76% of people who cause violent crimes in the United States have a criminal record of some sort.” “So we need to stop releasing people back to the streets.” TIM MILLER: “I agree.”

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

857,831 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

#WATCH | Delhi: On media reports that the central government is likely to bring a bill to curb the powers of the Waqf Board over assets, Former Vice Chairman Of National Commission For Minorities Atif Rasheed says, "The Waqf Act was formed in 1954. The then government in 1995 changed it completely. In 2013, a lot of amendments were made to the act. So, now if an amendment is taking place, it does not need to be taken negatively. We should trust the government, it is dedicated to 'Sabka Sath, Sabka Vikas'... As per the reports, it seems that there are going to be around 32 amendments in the act. If it is about registration with the Collector or a judicial inquiry, then why should one have a problem with it? In 2013, it was amended that the government should map it every 10 years... This is not an interference in the Shariat and it does not decrease the power of the Waqf..."

#WATCH | Delhi: On media reports that the central government is likely to bring a bill to curb the powers of the Waqf Board over assets, Former Vice Chairman Of National Commission For Minorities Atif Rasheed says, "The Waqf Act was formed in 1954. The then government in 1995 changed it completely. In 2013, a lot of amendments were made to the act. So, now if an amendment is taking place, it does not need to be taken negatively. We should trust the government, it is dedicated to 'Sabka Sath, Sabka Vikas'... As per the reports, it seems that there are going to be around 32 amendments in the act. If it is about registration with the Collector or a judicial inquiry, then why should one have a problem with it? In 2013, it was amended that the government should map it every 10 years... This is not an interference in the Shariat and it does not decrease the power of the Waqf..."

ANI

14,687 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

The shooters owned half a dozen rifles, but they didn't carry the cache of weapons with them. Restricting the number of guns you can own would've changed nothing. We don't need to look at our gun laws but rather, how radicalisation slips through ongoing checks. We need to look at the people behind this, not the guns that were used. We also need to look at the police response to this situation and why it was allowed to go on for so long. Why did it take citizens to instigate the takedown? The government is avoiding the real issues at hand. "Prime Minister Anthony Albanese will put tougher gun laws to national cabinet today that could include limits to the number of guns someone can possess legally and a review of existing licences."

The shooters owned half a dozen rifles, but they didn't carry the cache of weapons with them. Restricting the number of guns you can own would've changed nothing. We don't need to look at our gun laws but rather, how radicalisation slips through ongoing checks. We need to look at the people behind this, not the guns that were used. We also need to look at the police response to this situation and why it was allowed to go on for so long. Why did it take citizens to instigate the takedown? The government is avoiding the real issues at hand. "Prime Minister Anthony Albanese will put tougher gun laws to national cabinet today that could include limits to the number of guns someone can possess legally and a review of existing licences."

The People's King Elvis

43,503 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

#BREAKING:🔥Rampell: "You know it's interesting because I remember when these VERY SAME (rightwing) voices were decrying government tyranny, government tyranny under Obama, government tyranny under Biden, so much government tyranny that that's why we all need guns, that's why we should tolerate gun deaths because we need to arm ourselves against that government tyranny, and yet these are the VERY SAME voices, and their listeners, who are CHEERING ON this president as he sends out ICE agents to SHOOT U.S. citizens in the face, as he sends out the military to occupy U.S. cities, as he tries to get comedians taken off the air because they hurt his feelings, as he deploys forces to snatch Brown people off the streets for no apparent reason other than the fact that they look Brown, they might be immigrants..."😳

#BREAKING:🔥Rampell: "You know it's interesting because I remember when these VERY SAME (rightwing) voices were decrying government tyranny, government tyranny under Obama, government tyranny under Biden, so much government tyranny that that's why we all need guns, that's why we should tolerate gun deaths because we need to arm ourselves against that government tyranny, and yet these are the VERY SAME voices, and their listeners, who are CHEERING ON this president as he sends out ICE agents to SHOOT U.S. citizens in the face, as he sends out the military to occupy U.S. cities, as he tries to get comedians taken off the air because they hurt his feelings, as he deploys forces to snatch Brown people off the streets for no apparent reason other than the fact that they look Brown, they might be immigrants..."😳

Emoluments Clause

160,624 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

NEW: "These 10 Deaths are the tip of the iceberg" Dr. Peter McCullough calls for immediate suspension of mRNA, citing VAERS as "causation by proxy". MCCULLOUGH: "VAERS has in total 19480 deaths with over 2000 of them happening within 48 hours of the injection [and] VAERS does indicate causation by proxy of reporting" "Both Makary and Prasad should immediately call for the covid vaccines to be removed from the market [and] we've already had several hundred deaths that have occurred on their watch" "If the vaccine was not the cause, then we wouldn't do the report to VAERS [so] VAERS does indicate causation by proxy of reporting [it] indicates the vaccine is the cause of the problem, because the Doctor or healthcare provider [at] the scene who's examined the patient [has] determined the vaccine is the cause, otherwise a VAERS report would not be made" The US FDA is mulling over a "black box" warning ... I don't think that is going to cut it.

NEW: "These 10 Deaths are the tip of the iceberg" Dr. Peter McCullough calls for immediate suspension of mRNA, citing VAERS as "causation by proxy". MCCULLOUGH: "VAERS has in total 19480 deaths with over 2000 of them happening within 48 hours of the injection [and] VAERS does indicate causation by proxy of reporting" "Both Makary and Prasad should immediately call for the covid vaccines to be removed from the market [and] we've already had several hundred deaths that have occurred on their watch" "If the vaccine was not the cause, then we wouldn't do the report to VAERS [so] VAERS does indicate causation by proxy of reporting [it] indicates the vaccine is the cause of the problem, because the Doctor or healthcare provider [at] the scene who's examined the patient [has] determined the vaccine is the cause, otherwise a VAERS report would not be made" The US FDA is mulling over a "black box" warning ... I don't think that is going to cut it.

Humanspective

36,665 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

Think About This TikTok Ban For A Second “I don't think enough people are talking about the fact that 535 elected officials sat in a room, and the only thing they could collectively agree on was - not minimum wage - not the border crisis - not inflation - not health care - not helping out with the homeless problem No. The only thing that they could all collectively agree upon that was a problem for America was banning the app TikTok. So while millions of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck, can barely afford rent, and are honestly struggling just to make it on a daily basis, these elected officials would not only rather take down the platform where these people can go and voice their disdain about what these officials that we elected are doing, but those also elected officials that we put into power care way more about making sure that their pockets are full so they can be richer than they need to while majority of us can barely afford eggs.”

Think About This TikTok Ban For A Second “I don't think enough people are talking about the fact that 535 elected officials sat in a room, and the only thing they could collectively agree on was - not minimum wage - not the border crisis - not inflation - not health care - not helping out with the homeless problem No. The only thing that they could all collectively agree upon that was a problem for America was banning the app TikTok. So while millions of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck, can barely afford rent, and are honestly struggling just to make it on a daily basis, these elected officials would not only rather take down the platform where these people can go and voice their disdain about what these officials that we elected are doing, but those also elected officials that we put into power care way more about making sure that their pockets are full so they can be richer than they need to while majority of us can barely afford eggs.”

Wall Street Apes

1,918,480 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

The Supreme Court just handed gun owners a **9-0 win**. But here’s the part nobody saw coming: The ACLU was on the side of the gun owner. The gun-control groups were on the side trying to keep the ban. Read that again. This case wasn’t just about weed and guns. It was about the government trying to shut off someone’s Second Amendment rights by putting them in a category. No proof he was dangerous. No proof he hurt anyone. Just a label. And once the label sticks, the right disappears. That’s the game. Today it’s “drug user.” Tomorrow it’s whatever label they decide comes next. The Supreme Court basically said: Prove the person. Not the category. So here’s the question: Should the government be able to take your gun rights based on a label alone? Or should they have to prove you’re actually dangerous? Drop your answer below — and send this to the friend who still thinks every gun law is about “safety.” Extended 15% OFF Fathers Day sale Code : 2ADAD

The Supreme Court just handed gun owners a 9-0 win. But here’s the part nobody saw coming: The ACLU was on the side of the gun owner. The gun-control groups were on the side trying to keep the ban. Read that again. This case wasn’t just about weed and guns. It was about the government trying to shut off someone’s Second Amendment rights by putting them in a category. No proof he was dangerous. No proof he hurt anyone. Just a label. And once the label sticks, the right disappears. That’s the game. Today it’s “drug user.” Tomorrow it’s whatever label they decide comes next. The Supreme Court basically said: Prove the person. Not the category. So here’s the question: Should the government be able to take your gun rights based on a label alone? Or should they have to prove you’re actually dangerous? Drop your answer below — and send this to the friend who still thinks every gun law is about “safety.” Extended 15% OFF Fathers Day sale Code : 2ADAD

Colion Noir

57,543 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

$As requested, I'm posting the whole video, which makes it even look worse. ➤ He compares guns to cars. False equivalence. Cars are built for transport. Guns are built to injure or kill. Car deaths fell sharply because of regulation and engineering. He argues to tolerate gun deaths instead of regulating to reduce them. ➤ He sets up a straw man: “you’ll never get gun deaths to zero.” Nobody claims zero. Other rich countries got firearm-homicide rates down to tiny fractions of the U.S. using basic laws. Latest UNODC/OWID data show Western Europe around ~0.1–0.3 per 100k, with Sweden an outlier ~0.4 per 100k; the U.S. is ~4.4 per 100k. That’s an order of magnitude gap. ➤ Country snapshots (firearm homicide, per 100k, latest 2021–2023 window): • UK: typically ~0.02–0.07 • Germany: ~0.05–0.10 • France: ~0.20–0.35 • Italy: ~0.20–0.40 • Spain: ~0.05–0.10 • Netherlands: ~0.15–0.30 • Poland: ~0.05–0.10 • Sweden: ~0.35–0.45; Europe avg ≈ 0.16 per 100k. U.S.: ≈ 4.4. ➤ His core line wasn’t “out of context.” It is the context: “I think it’s worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment… That is a prudent deal.” He is explicitly pricing in dead civilians as acceptable. ➤ “Guns protect against tyranny” collapses under law and force. The president can deploy federal troops and federalize the Guard under the Insurrection Act. That is the explicit statutory exception to Posse Comitatus. Rifles in civilian hands do nothing against armored units, ISR drones, electronic surveillance, and lawful military deployment. This is not theory; it’s black-letter authority and modern capability. ➤ Practical reality: a semi-auto rifle can’t contest air assets, armored vehicles, signals intelligence, or coordinated urban operations. Modern doctrine and tools end such resistance quickly. RAND and U.S. Army War College analyses document how sensors, drones, armor, and comms make small-arms resistance futile against a modern force. ➤ Translation: the long clip makes him look worse because it shows a considered position, not a slip. He equates public-health regulation with tolerating preventable deaths, waves away working policies other countries use, and sells a fantasy about “tyranny” that modern law and military reality render void.$

As requested, I'm posting the whole video, which makes it even look worse. ➤ He compares guns to cars. False equivalence. Cars are built for transport. Guns are built to injure or kill. Car deaths fell sharply because of regulation and engineering. He argues to tolerate gun deaths instead of regulating to reduce them. ➤ He sets up a straw man: “you’ll never get gun deaths to zero.” Nobody claims zero. Other rich countries got firearm-homicide rates down to tiny fractions of the U.S. using basic laws. Latest UNODC/OWID data show Western Europe around ~0.1–0.3 per 100k, with Sweden an outlier ~0.4 per 100k; the U.S. is ~4.4 per 100k. That’s an order of magnitude gap. ➤ Country snapshots (firearm homicide, per 100k, latest 2021–2023 window): • UK: typically ~0.02–0.07 • Germany: ~0.05–0.10 • France: ~0.20–0.35 • Italy: ~0.20–0.40 • Spain: ~0.05–0.10 • Netherlands: ~0.15–0.30 • Poland: ~0.05–0.10 • Sweden: ~0.35–0.45; Europe avg ≈ 0.16 per 100k. U.S.: ≈ 4.4. ➤ His core line wasn’t “out of context.” It is the context: “I think it’s worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment… That is a prudent deal.” He is explicitly pricing in dead civilians as acceptable. ➤ “Guns protect against tyranny” collapses under law and force. The president can deploy federal troops and federalize the Guard under the Insurrection Act. That is the explicit statutory exception to Posse Comitatus. Rifles in civilian hands do nothing against armored units, ISR drones, electronic surveillance, and lawful military deployment. This is not theory; it’s black-letter authority and modern capability. ➤ Practical reality: a semi-auto rifle can’t contest air assets, armored vehicles, signals intelligence, or coordinated urban operations. Modern doctrine and tools end such resistance quickly. RAND and U.S. Army War College analyses document how sensors, drones, armor, and comms make small-arms resistance futile against a modern force. ➤ Translation: the long clip makes him look worse because it shows a considered position, not a slip. He equates public-health regulation with tolerating preventable deaths, waves away working policies other countries use, and sells a fantasy about “tyranny” that modern law and military reality render void.

Pete

20,585 Aufrufe • vor 11 Monaten

Being Dominant means being the One in Control. Some people love it and some hate it, but either way, there is always someone in control and the areas where you are not the one in control, are where you have given that control to someone else! Being the one in control means being the one people TRUST to lead, to be in charge. And for us to hold that responsibility, we gotta be not only comfortable with that role, but to love it! To want it. Control holds negative connotations, yet if it is exerted by someone with positive intentions, it is very healthy. It means you trust yourself and don't need to rely on others to direct you. NOT being in control means chaos. It means helplessness. It means inability to make decisions. Or to take initiatives. It means you are the one that follows. And if that is what you actually desire you have to be conscious of that choice. Otherwise you fall into that role and then wonder why nothing goes as you want. And if you choose to follow, choose your leader wisely. There always is someone in control, someone in charge, someone that leads. There is always a power dynamic. Truth is, we feel safe with those in control. Especially when they show us that them being in that role is positive for us. But so many people trust others more than they trust themselves! Which means being constantly influenced by everyone else's option and advice... which makes then the ones in control of your life! Decide WHO you want to take control when you want or need it, but also choose when YOU should be The One in charge. Developing that self-trust requires radical self responsibility. Which is what people struggle with. Nobody wants to be responsible for anything. And then we blame everyone for why our lives are not what we want them to be. And if you DO want to dominate, start by controling your own Self, your own thoughts, your own life. You can't expect others to trust YOU if YOU don't. Think about it... those that are in control are the people that have the most influence in the world. So if conscious people who desire to create a positive change take more control/responsibility, it would literally change society as we know it.

Being Dominant means being the One in Control. Some people love it and some hate it, but either way, there is always someone in control and the areas where you are not the one in control, are where you have given that control to someone else! Being the one in control means being the one people TRUST to lead, to be in charge. And for us to hold that responsibility, we gotta be not only comfortable with that role, but to love it! To want it. Control holds negative connotations, yet if it is exerted by someone with positive intentions, it is very healthy. It means you trust yourself and don't need to rely on others to direct you. NOT being in control means chaos. It means helplessness. It means inability to make decisions. Or to take initiatives. It means you are the one that follows. And if that is what you actually desire you have to be conscious of that choice. Otherwise you fall into that role and then wonder why nothing goes as you want. And if you choose to follow, choose your leader wisely. There always is someone in control, someone in charge, someone that leads. There is always a power dynamic. Truth is, we feel safe with those in control. Especially when they show us that them being in that role is positive for us. But so many people trust others more than they trust themselves! Which means being constantly influenced by everyone else's option and advice... which makes then the ones in control of your life! Decide WHO you want to take control when you want or need it, but also choose when YOU should be The One in charge. Developing that self-trust requires radical self responsibility. Which is what people struggle with. Nobody wants to be responsible for anything. And then we blame everyone for why our lives are not what we want them to be. And if you DO want to dominate, start by controling your own Self, your own thoughts, your own life. You can't expect others to trust YOU if YOU don't. Think about it... those that are in control are the people that have the most influence in the world. So if conscious people who desire to create a positive change take more control/responsibility, it would literally change society as we know it.

Ms. Malissia

18,397 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

While condemning the killing of some of our brothers from the North by Vigilantes in Edo State who were on transit from Port Harcourt to the North , the following questions must be answered . 1 Are the victims really hunters ? If as it is claimed that they are hunters in Rivers State do they have hunting license from the Rivers State Government having paid.the required hunting fees to qualify them as hunters in the eyes of the law ? 4. Were the victims residence of Rivers State by proof through their NIN, drivers licence or any other means of identification ? Beecause to hunt in Rivers State you need to be a resident of the state. 5. Did the victims complete a hunter education course to establish their competence ? 6 When the victims were confronted in Edo State , where they were found in possession of guns ? if they were, what type of guns? Shotguns (single/double-barrel, pump-action, semi-automatic) and hunting rifles are , categories of guns allowed for hunting by law but if the victims were found with , AK-47 , M16 , AR15R etc it makes them to be suspected criminals like bandits , terrorist or kidnappers and the proper thing to do is to hand them over to the police and not kill them .

While condemning the killing of some of our brothers from the North by Vigilantes in Edo State who were on transit from Port Harcourt to the North , the following questions must be answered . 1 Are the victims really hunters ? If as it is claimed that they are hunters in Rivers State do they have hunting license from the Rivers State Government having paid.the required hunting fees to qualify them as hunters in the eyes of the law ? 4. Were the victims residence of Rivers State by proof through their NIN, drivers licence or any other means of identification ? Beecause to hunt in Rivers State you need to be a resident of the state. 5. Did the victims complete a hunter education course to establish their competence ? 6 When the victims were confronted in Edo State , where they were found in possession of guns ? if they were, what type of guns? Shotguns (single/double-barrel, pump-action, semi-automatic) and hunting rifles are , categories of guns allowed for hunting by law but if the victims were found with , AK-47 , M16 , AR15R etc it makes them to be suspected criminals like bandits , terrorist or kidnappers and the proper thing to do is to hand them over to the police and not kill them .

malcolm omirhobo

67,996 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Reporter: So you're agreeing with the Republicans on the shutdown. You're agreeing on Israel. You're agreeing on the woke BS. Are you close to becoming a Republican? Sen. Fetterman: No. No. I'd be a terrible Republican. But I'll just be a very honest Democrat that's not necessarily afraid to push back against some of these views that I just don't agree with. Like, if you can't be unapologetically supportive of Israel, then that's a problem for my party. If you think it's the right thing to shut our government down for any reason, then that should be a problem too. And I believe we need to secure our border, and things were out of control under the Biden administration about the border. And now I think that's right. Those are the views that I have. With this shutdown, it would be wrong if the Republicans did that, it’s wrong now. We need to reopen this. As a Democrat, 42 million Americans are food insecure. That’s at the very core of the kinds of people we really need to protect. Every union connected to this shutdown is calling for it to end. If we’re fighting for working families, why don’t we agree with them and just do this?

Reporter: So you're agreeing with the Republicans on the shutdown. You're agreeing on Israel. You're agreeing on the woke BS. Are you close to becoming a Republican? Sen. Fetterman: No. No. I'd be a terrible Republican. But I'll just be a very honest Democrat that's not necessarily afraid to push back against some of these views that I just don't agree with. Like, if you can't be unapologetically supportive of Israel, then that's a problem for my party. If you think it's the right thing to shut our government down for any reason, then that should be a problem too. And I believe we need to secure our border, and things were out of control under the Biden administration about the border. And now I think that's right. Those are the views that I have. With this shutdown, it would be wrong if the Republicans did that, it’s wrong now. We need to reopen this. As a Democrat, 42 million Americans are food insecure. That’s at the very core of the kinds of people we really need to protect. Every union connected to this shutdown is calling for it to end. If we’re fighting for working families, why don’t we agree with them and just do this?

Open Source Intel

76,538 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

The Firearms Control Amendment Bill cannot be steamrolled through Parliament. In the Portfolio Committee on Police, I raised a serious concern with the Civilian Secretariat for Police Service. On slide 9 of their presentation, the Secretariat referred to the review of the Firearms Control Amendment Bill and used the words “to ensure enactment.” That wording matters. It suggests that the outcome has already been decided: push the Bill through, and treat Parliament and public participation as process boxes to tick afterwards. I asked the Secretariat directly whether they intend to advance the Bill in its current form, or whether they are prepared to substantially reconsider it based on actual evidence and stakeholder input. Because right now, the approach does not line up with the serious concerns raised by stakeholders, the slow Nedlac process, and the failures we already see in the current firearm control system. My question was simple: Why is the Department prioritising further legislative restriction before demonstrating measurable improvements in: -the Central Firearms Registry; -SAPS’s own firearm losses; -illegal firearm recovery; -firearm tracing; -ballistic capacity; and -actual enforcement against criminal possession of firearms? I also made it clear: the Portfolio Committee on Police is not a rubber stamp. The Secretariat then made an important concession. They accepted that the word “enactment” may need to be revised. More importantly, they confirmed that they have commissioned research into whether the current firearm legislation is actually being fully implemented, and what the failures in implementation are. The most important line from the response was this: “We can’t rush to the amendment of legislation if, for instance, it’s the failures of the implementation of the current legislation.” That is exactly the point. Marco van Niekerk captured this well in his article. The concern is that government appears to be moving towards new restrictions before properly diagnosing the real problem. He also points out that the failures are not theoretical: CFR dysfunction, state firearm losses, weak tracing capability, and limited enforcement against criminal possession of illegal firearms are all part of the problem. (Here is Marco’s article on The Common Sense: And to add insult to injury, this past week the SANDF confirmed that military weapons were stolen from Tek Base in Lyttelton. Reports state that three R4 assault rifles and a grenade launcher were stolen after a break-in was discovered on 27 April. Access was suspected to have been gained by cutting a hole in the perimeter fence, and a burglar door was forced open. That raises obvious questions. Where were the controls? Was there functioning CCTV? Were there alarm systems? Were there access logs? Were there armed patrols? Were inventories being audited? How can military-grade weapons be stolen from a base while government wants to tell law-abiding citizens that the problem is that they are not regulated enough? This is the contradiction. The State loses firearms. The State fails to secure military weapons. The State struggles with tracing and ballistics. The CFR remains dysfunctional. Criminals continue to possess illegal firearms. But the policy answer is apparently more restriction on lawful firearm owners. That is not good enough. South Africa does not need symbolic legislation. We need enforcement. We need working systems. We need accountability. We need functioning ballistics. We need a competent CFR. We need state-owned firearms secured. We need illegal firearms recovered. We need criminals prosecuted. Any revised Firearms Control Amendment Bill must be evidence-based, transparent and properly consulted on. No steamrolling. No predetermined enactment. No rubber-stamping. Fix the State’s failures first.

The Firearms Control Amendment Bill cannot be steamrolled through Parliament. In the Portfolio Committee on Police, I raised a serious concern with the Civilian Secretariat for Police Service. On slide 9 of their presentation, the Secretariat referred to the review of the Firearms Control Amendment Bill and used the words “to ensure enactment.” That wording matters. It suggests that the outcome has already been decided: push the Bill through, and treat Parliament and public participation as process boxes to tick afterwards. I asked the Secretariat directly whether they intend to advance the Bill in its current form, or whether they are prepared to substantially reconsider it based on actual evidence and stakeholder input. Because right now, the approach does not line up with the serious concerns raised by stakeholders, the slow Nedlac process, and the failures we already see in the current firearm control system. My question was simple: Why is the Department prioritising further legislative restriction before demonstrating measurable improvements in: -the Central Firearms Registry; -SAPS’s own firearm losses; -illegal firearm recovery; -firearm tracing; -ballistic capacity; and -actual enforcement against criminal possession of firearms? I also made it clear: the Portfolio Committee on Police is not a rubber stamp. The Secretariat then made an important concession. They accepted that the word “enactment” may need to be revised. More importantly, they confirmed that they have commissioned research into whether the current firearm legislation is actually being fully implemented, and what the failures in implementation are. The most important line from the response was this: “We can’t rush to the amendment of legislation if, for instance, it’s the failures of the implementation of the current legislation.” That is exactly the point. Marco van Niekerk captured this well in his article. The concern is that government appears to be moving towards new restrictions before properly diagnosing the real problem. He also points out that the failures are not theoretical: CFR dysfunction, state firearm losses, weak tracing capability, and limited enforcement against criminal possession of illegal firearms are all part of the problem. (Here is Marco’s article on The Common Sense: And to add insult to injury, this past week the SANDF confirmed that military weapons were stolen from Tek Base in Lyttelton. Reports state that three R4 assault rifles and a grenade launcher were stolen after a break-in was discovered on 27 April. Access was suspected to have been gained by cutting a hole in the perimeter fence, and a burglar door was forced open. That raises obvious questions. Where were the controls? Was there functioning CCTV? Were there alarm systems? Were there access logs? Were there armed patrols? Were inventories being audited? How can military-grade weapons be stolen from a base while government wants to tell law-abiding citizens that the problem is that they are not regulated enough? This is the contradiction. The State loses firearms. The State fails to secure military weapons. The State struggles with tracing and ballistics. The CFR remains dysfunctional. Criminals continue to possess illegal firearms. But the policy answer is apparently more restriction on lawful firearm owners. That is not good enough. South Africa does not need symbolic legislation. We need enforcement. We need working systems. We need accountability. We need functioning ballistics. We need a competent CFR. We need state-owned firearms secured. We need illegal firearms recovered. We need criminals prosecuted. Any revised Firearms Control Amendment Bill must be evidence-based, transparent and properly consulted on. No steamrolling. No predetermined enactment. No rubber-stamping. Fix the State’s failures first.

Ian Cameron

15,352 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

🚨THOMAS MASSIE: "Some of my colleagues have suggested that we attach the SAVE Act to a clean re-authorization of the [FISA]... program... used to spy on Americans" "Why take the 4th Amendment hostage and then shoot it in order to get safe elections? I don't buy into that." "How can you have safe elections if the people in power are allowed to spy on the campaigns without a warrant? I don't think you can have safe elections. So it's an oxymoron." "It's not a trade that anybody should make." "I voted for the SAVE Act twice. We should keep supporting the SAVE Act. It's a federal requirement that you have an ID and US citizenship before you vote or are registered to vote in federal elections. But you shouldn't couple these two things." "The premise there is, 'Oh, as long as I get this voting thing, I'll give up this 4th Amendment requirement. Why would you kill the 4th Amendment for this other thing, even if this other thing is great?" This clip of Massie (Thomas Massie), a U.S. representative for Kentucky's 4th congressional district, is taken from a conversation with Matt Kibbe (Matt Kibbe) posted to the Free The People (Free the People) YouTube channel on April 22, 2026.

🚨THOMAS MASSIE: "Some of my colleagues have suggested that we attach the SAVE Act to a clean re-authorization of the [FISA]... program... used to spy on Americans" "Why take the 4th Amendment hostage and then shoot it in order to get safe elections? I don't buy into that." "How can you have safe elections if the people in power are allowed to spy on the campaigns without a warrant? I don't think you can have safe elections. So it's an oxymoron." "It's not a trade that anybody should make." "I voted for the SAVE Act twice. We should keep supporting the SAVE Act. It's a federal requirement that you have an ID and US citizenship before you vote or are registered to vote in federal elections. But you shouldn't couple these two things." "The premise there is, 'Oh, as long as I get this voting thing, I'll give up this 4th Amendment requirement. Why would you kill the 4th Amendment for this other thing, even if this other thing is great?" This clip of Massie (Thomas Massie), a U.S. representative for Kentucky's 4th congressional district, is taken from a conversation with Matt Kibbe (Matt Kibbe) posted to the Free The People (Free the People) YouTube channel on April 22, 2026.

Sense Receptor

16,100 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Facts on facts: Aaron Siri delivers major TRUTH BOMBS at last week's ACIP meeting. “Why do we need the 1986 act if vaccines are so safe?” “When you take away somebody's right, you have made it, no longer just a medical question. You've made it a legal one, you've made it a political one.” “Why does a product need immunity if it doesn't cause harm?” “There's probably a reason that this immunity still needs to continue for these products, and pretending that that reason doesn't exist is not going to make the problem any better. And it's not going to safeguard the kids that are injured by these products.” Aaron Siri

Facts on facts: Aaron Siri delivers major TRUTH BOMBS at last week's ACIP meeting. “Why do we need the 1986 act if vaccines are so safe?” “When you take away somebody's right, you have made it, no longer just a medical question. You've made it a legal one, you've made it a political one.” “Why does a product need immunity if it doesn't cause harm?” “There's probably a reason that this immunity still needs to continue for these products, and pretending that that reason doesn't exist is not going to make the problem any better. And it's not going to safeguard the kids that are injured by these products.” Aaron Siri

Children’s Health Defense

19,385 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

DEMOCRATS HATE THIS: Vance just explained the COMMON SENSE reasons we NEED Greenland for National Security. "It is the threat of American power that keeps Greenland safe. Everybody knows that China and Russia have national security interests there. Everybody knows they would love to take it if they could." "So what keeps Russia or China from invading Greenland?" "Is it the power of Denmark? As much as I love Denmark, no. "It's the power of the United States of America." "Our entire missile defense system could be destabilized if you don't control the Arctic. That means Americans are less safe, and that, again, is why we have this implicit protection over Greenland." "It's absurd that it's taken people so long to realize that obvious fact." There's not a single chance that Gavin can contend with any of this.

DEMOCRATS HATE THIS: Vance just explained the COMMON SENSE reasons we NEED Greenland for National Security. "It is the threat of American power that keeps Greenland safe. Everybody knows that China and Russia have national security interests there. Everybody knows they would love to take it if they could." "So what keeps Russia or China from invading Greenland?" "Is it the power of Denmark? As much as I love Denmark, no. "It's the power of the United States of America." "Our entire missile defense system could be destabilized if you don't control the Arctic. That means Americans are less safe, and that, again, is why we have this implicit protection over Greenland." "It's absurd that it's taken people so long to realize that obvious fact." There's not a single chance that Gavin can contend with any of this.

Gunther Eagleman™

19,814 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

Parents are the first and forever educators of their children. As such, they alone hold the fundamental right to determine what is in the best interests of their child. No government, institution, or special interest group should have the power to override or redefine that right. And yet, those who seek control over our children’s education have steadily worked to shift authority away from parents, placing it instead in the hands of bureaucrats and policymakers whose priorities often serve their own agendas rather than the well-being of our children. One of the most deceptive battles placed before us—a battle designed to distract and divide—is the push for government regulated universal #SchoolChoice On the surface, it appears to empower parents, but in reality, it is a well-laid pathway to the nationalization of education. As a mother, I do not derive my right to choose the best education for my child from the state or federal government. That right comes from God. It is not granted by politicians, nor should it be subject to their control. Yet, the push for #SchoolChoice, particularly in the form of government-funded vouchers, virtual learning, ESA and charter schools, is part of a bipartisan calculated effort to redefine parental rights while consolidating control over education at the national level. Think I am wrong? Do not attack-Prove me wrong.

Parents are the first and forever educators of their children. As such, they alone hold the fundamental right to determine what is in the best interests of their child. No government, institution, or special interest group should have the power to override or redefine that right. And yet, those who seek control over our children’s education have steadily worked to shift authority away from parents, placing it instead in the hands of bureaucrats and policymakers whose priorities often serve their own agendas rather than the well-being of our children. One of the most deceptive battles placed before us—a battle designed to distract and divide—is the push for government regulated universal #SchoolChoice On the surface, it appears to empower parents, but in reality, it is a well-laid pathway to the nationalization of education. As a mother, I do not derive my right to choose the best education for my child from the state or federal government. That right comes from God. It is not granted by politicians, nor should it be subject to their control. Yet, the push for #SchoolChoice, particularly in the form of government-funded vouchers, virtual learning, ESA and charter schools, is part of a bipartisan calculated effort to redefine parental rights while consolidating control over education at the national level. Think I am wrong? Do not attack-Prove me wrong.

Alice

11,840 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr