Attorney and second amendment advocate Colion Noir provides answers to the popular question “Why does anyone need an AR-15?”
In this video, a Fox News interview, Colion Noir discusses President Biden’s proposed gun control agenda.
From Colion Noir:
I made a video in response to US Representative Mike Thompson, who tweeted, HR8 “A Universal Background Check Bill”, Has bi-Partisan Support from 90 percent of the American People. In my video, I stated that this is not true, because the polls where Mike Thompson got this 90% number from were misleading because they didn’t ask about Universal Background Checks which are different from the Regular background checks that we already have.
I further Stated that if the people who were polled understood the distinction between a background check and a “UNIVERSAL” background check and that a Universal Background check can’t be enforced effectively without a national gun registry I highly doubt 90% of Americans would agree with a UNIVERSAL Background Check.
Four Days after I released my video, I got an email from a guy named Tom Kertscher with PolitiFact asking me to submit proof by noon CT today.
A few hours later, PolitiFact Released an article from Tom concluding my video was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its news feed & my video was false.
Tom is anything but objective on this issue. All you have to do is search Guns on his Twitter feed and the vast majority of his gun tweets are anti-gun tweets from politicians and the PolitiFact articles that he’s written to try to disprove pro-gun arguments.
Toms’s entire argument for why my video was false, is based on polls about background checks. Here’s the problem, none of the polls used the phrase UNIVERSAL Background Checks in their question. Tom used it in his title when he concluded: Support for UNIVERSAL Background checks on gun buyers is near 90%, but none of the polls actually used the phrase UNIVERSAL background check or explained the difference from the Background Checks we already have.
The reason why this is important is that Universal Background checks do not only apply to gun sales they apply to all transfers.
It’s even harder to believe this 90% Number when this percentage doesn’t show itself when universal background checks are voted on the state level.
Washington State has universal background checks but it only got 59% of the popular vote in Washington and that’s a state that hasn’t elected a Republican senator since 1994 or a republican Governor since 1980.
In Nevada, it only got 50.5% of the popular vote and in Maine, Lost with only 48% support.
If you combine the number of people who actually voted on universal background checks in all three of those states, it’s close to 3.97 million people, and each of these states leans blue, and out of the 3.97 million voters in those three states, only 54.7% voted in favor of Universal Background Checks.
Facebook is supposed to be a platform for open discussion. Instead, it’s turning into a platform where random fact-checkers get to play GOD.
How are we supposed to have an open dialogue and exchange of ideas and opinions when the platforms where the vast majority of these conversations are happening, use a clearly biased “Independent fact-checker” to justify invalidating my video and as a result limiting its reach.
I’m just trying to inform people about one of the most important if not the most important right we have in this country.
I get that Facebook is a private platform and they can do whatever they want and use whatever guy named after a pair of shoes they want to determine what can be posted on your platform but have an ounce of intellectual honesty and let us have the conversation without artificially limiting our voices.
That doesn’t help the country nor does it help the platform. We become stronger as a country by sharpening our ideas against the blade of open discourse. All these so-called fact-checkers are nothing more than political and intellectual bullies, not because they critiqued my video but because there’s no one to check the fact-checkers.
They have the final say and their say dictates how many people get to hear and see my ideas and that indirectly makes them Gods of online political and intellectual discourse and it’s insanely dangerous.
We posted on this a few days ago, before the bill had been given a number. Here’s Colion Noir talking about S. 736, the Assault Weapons Ban of 2021, or officially “A bill to regulate assault weapons, to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, and for other purposes.” They just want to save you from your rights; that’s all.
RocketFFL summarizes the bill:
…Currently, a Federal Firearm Licensee (FFL) must satisfy background check requirements prior to transferring a firearm to a non-FFL. In most cases, this involves running a background check on the individual purchasing the firearm.
Usually, a response to the background check is received by the FFL within a few minutes. However, sometimes there is a delay of the response for myriad reasons: slow system response, anomaly in the person’s background, or multiple people with the same name.
Thankfully, as to not violate the Constitutional rights of law abiding Americans, if a denial is not received within 3 days, the FFL may transfer the firearm to the customer. This prevents the government effectively banning guns by delaying a background check response.
Anti-gunners refer to this check on the government’s power as a “loophole” and they are trying to end it…
One sad reality of some of the most extreme anti-Second Amendment legislation is that it will come back in Congress after Congress as long as its sponsor is still out there. The Sabika Sheikh Firearm Licensing and Registration Act is one of these bills.
This legislation was introduced last year in the 116th Congress and covered in Ammoland. It was part of a package of three bills introduced by Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee – the other two being the Santa Fe High School Victims Act and the Kimberly Vaughan Firearms Safe Storage Act. This year, it is labeled under HR 127, as opposed to being HR 4801 in the last Congress.
As you can imagine, this Congress’s iteration of the Sabika Sheikh Firearm Licensing and Registration Act is no less onerous and oppressive as its predecessor. If anything, though, some of the provisions now carry new menace given the constant calls for “deprogramming” we hear from pundits and cable “news” outlets of a certain persuasion.
Like its iteration in the last Congress, HR 127 calls for a psychological evaluation of those who wish to exercise their Second Amendment rights. Our past coverage noted that the evaluation could take a lot of time, given the number of interviews that would have to be scheduled. The concern then was the creation of more tragedies along the line of Carol Bowne, who was murdered by an abusive ex.
Now, however, given the desire for “deprogramming,” we could very well see the psychological evaluation used to target those who dissent from anti-Second Amendment extremism, who raise questions about certain issues, or who even supported former President Trump on other issues. After all, we haven’t ever seen government bureaucrats abuse power for political ends before, and even raising that notion might be enough to warrant “deprogramming” these days. After all, to believe some people, Second Amendment advocacy is domestic terrorism.
In addition, the climate of media-fueled hate adds another danger – the registration data is going to be made available to the general public. Someone can look up just how many firearms you own, what types of guns you have. It’s not just a massive planning aid to would-be thieves, but in an era of social stigmatization, it opens the door to discrimination and blacklisting across a number of areas, including employment and housing.
This bill is even more unacceptable now than it was when it was introduced in the last Congress. Second Amendment supporters need to contact their Representative and Senators and politely urge them to oppose this massive infringement that only punishes the law-abiding and to instead support legislation like the School Violence Prevention and Mitigation Act of 2019 and the Protecting Communities and Preserving the Second Amendment Act, which actually address school security and the misuse of firearms and do not infringe on our rights. Second Amendment supporters should also support the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action and Political Victory Fund to ensure that the current anti-Second Amendment regimes in the House, Senate, and White House are defeated at the ballot box as soon as possible.
Colion Noir also talks about it:
From Colion Noir:
This video comes from Colion Noir on the BATFE letter on pistol braces.
Colion Noir talks about the Georgia senate runoff and possible effect on the Second Amendment.
From The Truth About Guns – HR 5717: Killing Off America’s Gun Culture In One Generation about HR 5717 – Gun Violence Prevention and Community Safety Act of 2020, the latest piece of anti-rights legislation cooked up in D.C. Following the excerpt is a video about the bill from Colion Noir.
Hank “Tippy” Johnson [D-GA, sadly], noted loon and midget/giant cage match fan, has filed HR 5717 the Gun Violence Prevention and Community Safety Act of 2020 in the US House. It has everything a violence-enabling victim disarmament advocate could possibly want: national gun owner licensing, an “assault weapon” ban, a suppressor ban, ex parte “red flag” confiscations, and more.
But the kicker is this section on owner licensing.
I wrote about this bill back in January, when Senator Fauxcahontas Warren (Squaw-MA) filed a Senate companion bill, S. 3254. GovTrack now gives it a 24% chance of being enacted, so let’s take another look.
“§ 932. License to own firearms and ammunition
“(a) In general.—Except otherwise provided in this section, it shall be unlawful for any individual who is not licensed under this section to knowingly purchase, acquire, or possess a firearm or ammunition.
“(b) Eligibility.—An individual shall be eligible to receive a license under this section if the individual—
“(1) has attained 21 years of age; and
“(2) has completed training in firearms safety, including—
“(A) a written test, to demonstrate knowledge of applicable firearms laws;
“(B) hands-on testing, including firing testing, to demonstrate safe use of a firearm;
Did you spot it…the now all-too-common Catch-22?
To possess a firearm, you must be licensed. To become licensed, you must first possess a firearm, at least for “hands-on testing” and “firing testing.” But “testing” is not one of the exceptions “otherwise provided.”
Current gun owners would be allowed to keep their existing firearm unlicensed. But no one who is not currently (as of when the Attorney General begins issuing “Federal firearm owner’s licenses”) in possession of a firearm could get a license and lawfully possess a firearm ever again.
And there you have it…lawful civilian gun culture eradicated in a single generation.
One might dismiss this as a simple error by a man with some obvious mental issues, but he didn’t draft this on his own. And these impossible-to-comply-with provisions are becoming standard practice in gun people control bills.
And so it goes.