“But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people.”

2 Timothy 3:1-5 ESV
And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.
Revelation 13:7


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
At a meeting of the Pontifical Academy held recently, Pope Francis (shown in white) advocated a policy of decreased national sovereignty and increased global unity. A shift toward globalism is necessary, he said, in order to fight climate change and other worldwide “threats.”
"When a supranational common good is clearly identified, it is necessary to have a special authority legally and concordantly constituted capable of facilitating its implementation. We think of the great contemporary challenges of climate change, new forms of slavery and peace,” his holiness told those gathered to discuss “Nation, State, and Nation-State,” the conference theme.
Pope Francis put a pretty fine point on his message, claiming that planetary problems are exacerbated by “an excessive demand for sovereignty on the part of States.”
He moved on to immigration, declaring that nationalism is too easily twisted into a doctrine repugnant to the welcoming of immigrants. “The Church observes with concern the reemergence, in many parts of the world, of currents that are aggressive towards foreigners, especially immigrants, as well as a growing nationalism that neglects the common good,” Pope Francis said.
Our only hope for planetary peace and progress is to make room for “international organizations” to develop into governing bodies, supplanting the “state interests” with the will of the United Nations, he stated.
Speaking of the United Nations, Pope Francis announced his ardent support for the sine qua non of all globalists: “sustainable development.”
He declared that if we hope to save the planet we must accept that we are one people and unite to create "a space for dialogue and meeting for all countries in a spirit of mutual respect," and must stop what "hinders the attainment of the sustainable development goals approved unanimously by the United Nations."
And the hits just keep on coming.
Pope Francis warned attendees that sovereign nations attempting to govern themselves will find they are unable to protect their populations from the myriad menaces abroad in the world. "The nation-state is no longer able to procure the common good of its populations alone. The common good has become global and nations must associate for their own benefit," Francis said. 
For our own benefit? Who benefits from global government? Ask yourself this question: In the nearly 75 years of the United Nations' existence, have wars ceased? Has the number of wars decreased? Are the signatories to the UN Charter moved toward greater prosperity or toward deeper economic depression? 
Of course, there is no need to argue whether or not the United Nations has been a blessing to the nations of the Earth. It has undoubtedly been the source of bloodshed, violence, oppression, and Marxism.
His holiness suggested that governments around the globe should "strengthen their cooperation by connecting certain functions and services to intergovernmental institutions that manage their common interests."  
"When a supranational common good is clearly identified, it is necessary to have a special authority that is legally and concordantly constituted and capable of facilitating its implementation," the pope concluded. 
Apparently, the pope has pondered our awful situation and found that small nation-based governments are the cause of great suffering, so the obvious solution to the problem of government is bigger government.
Pontifical politics, it seems, makes for strange bedfellows, as explained in a recent article by Steve Byas published in January in The New American:
“Of course, those who favor world government can be expected to praise the 2015 encyclical and the pope’s remarks this week, condemning 'nationalism.' But other positions of the Roman Catholic Church, such as opposition to abortion, are regularly belittled by many of the same globalists who are praising Francis now,” Byas wrote.
Those people pushing for unlimited access to abortion loathe the Roman Catholic Church and its centuries-long opposition to the murder of children in utero are the very people standing with the head of that church in the fight to kill sovereignty and establish a one-world government.
That seemingly bizarre and undeniably unholy alliance should be enough to compel people to question what the underlying goal of the globalists must be.
In other words, what sort of government would the pope and pro-abortion advocates find mutually commendable? Could it be that those who are in the shadows of this scheme are pleased by the pope’s support for their sinister aim, regardless of whether he appreciates the implications of the fulfillment of their plans? Of course! 
When it comes to convincing Catholics and the rest of the world that their only hope for peace, prosperity, and planetary salvation is found in the surrender of sovereignty, the hands pulling the strings believe that the only bad publicity is no publicity. They may loathe Pope Francis’ steadfast opposition to abortion, but they can hold their noses long enough to make effective use of his global influence.
What Pope Francis likely does not understand is that in the United States, the people are — were — sovereign, meaning that ultimately there is no will above the will of the people. Our Declaration of Independence recognizes the right of all people to “alter or abolish” a government if that government ceases to perform its only legitimate function: to protect the rights of life, liberty, and property.
That the entire foundation of the Anglo-American concept of self-government, liberty, and popular sovereignty is annihilated by even the theory of global government is revealed in one question: Would the UN (or whatever the global government would be called) be subject to alteration or abolition by the people of the United States of America?
There is no space for doubt. Should the pope’s plan be brought to pass, there would be no liberty as it has been understood by Englishmen and Americans for over 1,000 years.
Americans are blessed in that time yet remains for us to resist the subjugation of our military to multinational commanders, to resist the surrendering of the legislative power to supranational congresses populated with lawmakers unaccountable to the American people, to resist the eradication of state sovereignty and the protection of republican government provided thereby, and, finally, to resist the chronic disregard of constitutional principles on the part of our elected leaders.
SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Sala Clementina  Thursday, 2 May 2019
Multimedia ]
Dear sisters and brothers ,
I welcome you and thank your President, Prof. Stefano Zamagni, for his kind words and for having accepted to preside over the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences . Also this year you have chosen to deal with a topic of permanent relevance. Unfortunately, we have under our eyes situations in which some nation states implement their relations in a spirit of opposition rather than cooperation. Furthermore, it should be noted that the frontiers of States do not always coincide with demarcations of homogeneous populations and that many tensions come from an excessive claim of sovereignty on the part of States, often precisely in areas where they are no longer able to act effectively to protect the common good.
Both in the Encyclical Laudato si ' and in the Address to the Members of the Diplomatic Corps this year, I drew attention to the global challenges facing humanity, such as integral development, peace, care for the common home , climate change, poverty, war, migration, human trafficking, organ trafficking, protection of the common good, new forms of slavery.
St. Thomas has a beautiful notion of what a people is: "Like the Seine it is not a river determined by the flowing water, but by a precise origin and riverbed, so that it is always considered the same river, although the flowing water is different, so a people is the same not for the identity of a soul or of men, but for the identity of the territory, or even more, of the laws and the way of life, as it says Aristotle in the third book of Politics "( Spiritual Creatures, to. 9, ad 10). The Church has always urged the love of its people, of their homeland, to respect the treasure of the various cultural expressions, customs and habits and the right ways of living rooted in peoples. At the same time, the Church has warned people, peoples and governments about the deviations of this attachment when it concerns the exclusion and hatred of others, when it becomes conflict nationalism that raises walls, indeed even racism or anti-Semitism. The Church observes with concern the re-emergence, almost everywhere in the world, of aggressive currents towards foreigners, especially immigrants, as well as that growing nationalism that neglects the common good. Thus there is the risk of compromising already established forms of international cooperation,
It is a common doctrine that the State is at the service of the person and of the natural groupings of people such as the family, the cultural group, the nation as an expression of the will and the profound customs of a people, the common good and peace. Too often, however, states are enslaved to the interests of a dominant group, mostly for reasons of economic profit, which oppresses, among others, the ethnic, linguistic or religious minorities that are in their territory.
In this perspective, for example, the way in which a nation welcomes migrants reveals its vision of human dignity and its relationship with humanity. Every human person is a member of humanity and has the same dignity. When a person or family is forced to leave their land, they must be welcomed with humanity. I have said many times that our obligations towards migrants are based on four verbs: welcoming, protecting, promoting and integratingThe migrant is not a threat to the culture, customs and values ​​of the receiving nation. He too has a duty to integrate into the receiving nation. Integrating does not mean assimilating, but sharing the kind of life of his new homeland, while remaining himself as a person, the bearer of his own biographical story. In this way, the migrant can present himself and be recognized as an opportunity to enrich the people who integrate him. It is the task of public authority to protect migrants and to regulate migratory flows with the virtue of prudence, as well as to promote reception so that local populations are trained and encouraged to consciously participate in the integrating process of migrants who are welcomed.
Even the migration issue, which is a permanent feature of human history, revives the reflection on the nature of the national state. All nations are the result of the integration of successive waves of people or groups of migrants and tend to be images of humanity's diversity while being united by values, common cultural resources and healthy customs. A state that arouses the nationalistic sentiments of its people against other nations or groups of people would fail in its mission. We know from history where they lead similar detours; I am thinking of the Europe of the last century.
The nation state cannot be considered as an absolute, as an island with respect to the surrounding context. In the current situation of globalization not only of the economy but also of technological and cultural exchanges, the national state is no longer able to procure the common good of its populations alone. The common good has become global and nations must associate for their own benefit. When a supranational common good is clearly identified, it is necessary to have a special authority legally and concordantly constituted capable of facilitating its implementation. We think of the great contemporary challenges of climate change, new forms of slavery and peace.
While, according to the principle of subsidiarity, individual nations must be given the power to operate as far as they can, on the other hand, groups of neighboring nations - as is already the case - can strengthen their cooperation by attributing the exercise of certain functions and services to intergovernmental institutions that manage their common interests. It is to be hoped that, for example, in Europe the awareness of the benefits brought by this path of rapprochement and harmony between the peoples undertaken after the Second World War will not be lost. In Latin America, on the other hand, Simón Bolivar urged the leaders of his time to forge the dream of a Great Fatherland, which knows and can welcome, respect, embrace and develop the wealth of every people.
Humanity would thus avoid the threat of resorting to armed conflicts whenever a dispute arises between national states, as well as avoiding the danger of economic and ideological colonization of the superpowers, avoiding the oppression of the strongest over the weakest, paying attention to the global dimension without losing sight of the local, national and regional dimension. Faced with the design of a globalization imagined as "spherical", which levels differences and suffocates localization, it is easy for both nationalisms and hegemonic imperialisms to re-emerge. In order for globalization to be of benefit to all, we must think about implementing a "multifaceted" form, supporting a healthy struggle for mutual recognition between the collective identity of each people and nation and globalization itself,
The multilateral instances were created in the hope of being able to replace the logic of revenge, the logic of domination, oppression and conflict with that of dialogue, mediation, compromise, harmony and the awareness of belonging to the same humanity in the common home . Certainly, these bodies must ensure that states are effectively represented, with equal rights and duties, in order to avoid the growing hegemony of powers and interest groups that impose their own visions and ideas, as well as new forms of ideological colonization, often disrespectful of the identity, customs and habits, dignity and sensitivity of the peoples concerned. The emergence of these trends is weakening the multilateral system,
I encourage you to persevere in the search for processes to overcome what divides nations and to propose new paths of cooperation, especially with regard to the new challenges of climate change and new forms of slavery, as well as that excellent social good which is peace. Unfortunately, today the season of multilateral nuclear disarmament appears outdated and does not stir the political conscience of nations that possess atomic weapons. Indeed, a new season of disquieting nuclear confrontation seems to open up, because it erases the progress of the recent past and multiplies the risk of wars, also due to the possible malfunctioning of highly advanced technologies that are always subject to the imponderable natural and human. If, now, not only on earth but also in space will offensive and defensive nuclear weapons be placed,
Therefore, the State is called to greater responsibility. While maintaining the characteristics of independence and sovereignty and continuing to pursue the good of its population, today it is its task to participate in building the common good of humanity, a necessary and essential element for the world balance. This universal common good, in turn, must acquire a more pronounced juridical value at international level. I certainly do not think of a universalism or a generic internationalism that neglects the identity of individual peoples: this, in fact, must always be valued as a unique and indispensable contribution to the larger harmonic design.
Dear friends, as inhabitants of our time, Christians and academics of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences , I ask you to collaborate with me in spreading this awareness of a renewed international solidarity with respect for human dignity, the common good, respect for the planet and for the supreme good of peace.
I bless you all, I bless your work and your initiatives. I accompany you with my prayer, and you too, please do not forget to pray for me. Thank you!

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:

Question: "Does the Bible prophesy a one-world government and a one-world currency in the end times?"

Answer: The Bible does not use the phrase “one-world government” or “one-world currency” in referring to the end times. It does, however, provide ample evidence to enable us to draw the conclusion that both will exist under the rule of the Antichrist in the last days. 

In his apocalyptic vision in the Book of Revelation, the Apostle John sees the “beast,” also called the Antichrist, rising out of the sea having seven heads and ten horns (Revelation 13:1). Combining this vision with Daniel’s similar one (Daniel 7:16-24), we can conclude that some sort of world system will be inaugurated by the beast, the most powerful “horn,” who will defeat the other nine and will begin to wage war against Christians. The ten-nation confederacy is also seen in Daniel’s image of the statue in Daniel 2:41-42, where he pictures the final world government consisting of ten entities represented by the ten toes of the statue. Whoever the ten are and however they come to power, Scripture is clear that the beast will either destroy them or reduce their power to nothing more than figureheads. In the end, they will do his bidding.

John goes on to describe the ruler of this vast empire as having power and great authority, given to him by Satan himself (Revelation 13:2), being followed by and receiving worship from “all the world” (13:3-4), and having authority over “every tribe, people, language and nation” (13:7). From this description, it is logical to assume that this person is the leader of a one-world government which is recognized as sovereign over all other governments. It’s hard to imagine how such diverse systems of government as are in power today would willingly subjugate themselves to a single ruler, and there are many theories on the subject. A logical conclusion is that the disasters and plagues described in Revelation as the seal and trumpet judgments (chapters 6-11) will be so devastating and create such a monumental global crisis that people will embrace anything and anyone who promises to give them relief. 

Once entrenched in power, the beast (Antichrist) and the power behind him (Satan) will move to establish absolute control over all peoples of the earth to accomplish their true end, the worship Satan has been seeking ever since being thrown out of heaven (Isaiah 14:12-14). One way they will accomplish this is by controlling all commerce, and this is where the idea of a one-world currency comes in. Revelation 13:16-17describes some sort of satanic mark which will be required in order to buy and sell. This means anyone who refuses the mark will be unable to buy food, clothing or other necessities of life. No doubt the vast majority of people in the world will succumb to the mark simply to survive. Again, verse 16 makes it clear that this will be a universal system of control where everyone, rich and poor, great and small, will bear the mark on their hand or forehead. There is a great deal of speculation as to how exactly this mark will be affixed, but the technologies that are available right now could accomplish it very easily.

Those who are left behind after the Rapture of the Church will be faced with an excruciating choice—accept the mark of the beast in order to survive or face starvation and horrific persecution by the Antichrist and his followers. But those who come to Christ during this time, those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life (Revelation 13:8), will choose to endure, even to martyrdom.
Recommended Resource: End Times Prophecy by Paul Benware


SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Amazon is about to pay the price for its politics.
Working conditions for Amazon warehouse workers are notoriously miserable with employees urinating in cups and passing out from heatstroke. But while American employees can be abused this way, Somali Muslim migrants have special privileges.
Amazon recruited in Little Mogadishu. It’s going to pay the price.
Three Somali women working for Amazon near Minneapolis have accused the company of creating a hostile environment for Muslim workers and of retaliating against them for protesting their work conditions, according to a filing submitted this week to federal regulators.
In a letter with the filing, Muslim Advocates, a nonprofit legal organization representing the women, asked the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to investigate what they argue are “systemic violations” of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The law prohibits employment discrimination based on religion, among other things.
The issue at stake, as usual, is prayer space and prayer times.
Amazon warehouse workers urinate in cups because they don’t have enough time to use the bathroom and make their quota.
So it’s clearly not discrimination. But the facts don’t matter. They never do.
In 2016, when Amazon opened a major fulfillment center in Shakopee, a suburb of Minneapolis, it recruited heavily from the region’s large immigrant population amid low unemployment. At one point it ran buses to the warehouse from a Minneapolis neighborhood known as Little Mogadishu.
For more than a year, the Awood Center, a nonprofit focused on helping East African workers, has organized the employees around their concerns about the pace of work, accommodations for prayers and what they see as little opportunity for advancement to management. Awood has received funding from grants as well as the Service Employees International Union.
The federal complaint is the latest escalation in an almost yearlong dispute between Amazon and East African workers in the area, which has one of the most organized groups of Amazon warehouse employees in the country.
It’s ironic that Amazon, whose boss owns the pro-Brotherhood Washington Post (this story notably appeared in the New York Times, not the Post) has been caught up in this.
As so many useful infidels have found out, the crocodile may not eat you last.
Amazon gives the workers paid breaks to pray up to 20 minutes, as required by state law, but the employees are still responsible for maintaining the same “rate,” or how many items they must pack in an hour. Ms. Alfred said workers could take longer prayer breaks without pay, for which productivity expectations would be adjusted.
Missing the rate can lead to write-ups and firing. The women said they and other Muslim workers feared taking time to pray, making it a “hostile environment” to be Muslim.
The dead Amazon warehouse workers, none of whom were Somali Muslims, could not be reached for comment about their infidel privilege.


STEM School Shooter Hated Christians, Trump

Motivation behind rampage remains unknown

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
18-year-old Devon Erickson, who killed one student and injured seven more during a shooting at a public charter school in Colorado, previously posted on social media about his hatred for Christians and President Trump.
Erickson and a younger accomplice walked into the STEM School Highlands Ranch yesterday and opened fire on students in two classrooms.
While the motivation behind the attack remains unknown, according to Heavy, Erickson was a leftist who despised Christians and opposed Donald Trump.
“You know what I hate? All these Christians who hate gays, yet in the bible, it says in Deuteronomy 17:12-13, if someone doesn’t do what their priest tells them to do, they are supposed to die. It has plenty of crazy stuff like that. But all they get out of it is ‘ewwwwww gays,’” Erickson wrote on Facebook two years ago.
He also shared a video of comedian Seth Meyers attacking Donald Trump and another post praising Barack Obama.
The shooter appeared to be into the goth or grunge aesthetic, writing “I’m covered in ink and addicted to pain.”
It shouldn’t matter what political ideology a school shooter has unless that ideology was the motivation behind the rampage.
However, whenever such a tragedy occurs, the left rushes to find the gunman’s Facebook page in an effort to blame conservatives.
When a photo emerged of Parkland shooter Nikolas Cruz wearing a MAGA hat, the massacre was politically weaponized.
Yesterday’s STEM School shooting serves as a reminder that there are lunatics on both fringes of the political spectrum and their actions shouldn’t be cited to demonize innocent people.


Proof Every Single Dem Candidate is a Danger to the Second Amendment

Quotes from each individual show their hatred for the Constitution and American rights

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Gun control talking points from 2020 Democrat candidates are filled with vague statements and non-specific terminology used to confuse voters who are uneducated when it comes to firearms and gun culture.
For example, “high-capacity magazines,” “assault weapons” and “common sense” gun control are buzzwords frequently thrown out by Democrat politicians to demonize firearms.
Remember, when a Democrat says “assault weapons” or “weapons of war,” they mean semiautomatic weapons which include everything from AR-15s to hunting rifles and handguns.
These politicians ignore the reality that a ban on semiautomatic weapons would be unsuccessful and inevitably result in a civil war.
“Nobody’s coming to take your guns” has never sounded more stupid.
Joe Biden:
The former Vice President told a voter the hero who shot a mass murderer in Sutherland Springs, Texas shouldn’t have been able to carry his AR-15 used to stop the criminal.
Below is video proof of Biden’s flip-flop on the Second Amendment, including his infamous “you don’t need an AR-15” quote:
“Today, once again, it’s time for our political system to catch up with the overwhelming majority of the American people who want background checks, who want to keep assault weapons off our streets and out of the hands of people who have no business firing them…” Biden said after the 2015 Colorado Springs shooting.
In the 1990s, he voted for the 1994 ban on modern multi-purpose semiautomatic firearms, for the Brady Act, and for Frank Lautenberg’s effort to destroy gun shows. He voted against the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act in both 2004 and 2005. In 2004, he ranted against the legislation, intended to stop the back-door effort at gun control that was being carried out by big-city mayors.
Tuesday, Biden discussed “gun violence” with a Las Vegas crowd, saying, “There’s a Second Amendment but there’s a rational way to deal with the Second Amendment.”
Bernie Sanders:
The Democratic Socialist from Vermont also wants to ban semiautomatic weapons and magazines that hold over 10 rounds.
He has an “F” rating from the NRA and calls for “a federal ban on assault weapons” on his FeelTheBern website.
Eric Swalwell:
Before entering the 2020 presidential race, Swalwell threatened to use nuclear weapons against gun owners who refuse to turn in their guns.
In a hypothetical discussion about the inevitable civil war that would break out if the government were to attempt to seize firearms from citizens, Swalwell said, “And it would be a short war my friend. The government has nukes. Too many of them. But they’re legit…”
Now, Swalwell’s website brags, “I’m the only candidate calling for a mandatory national ban and buyback of military-style semiautomatic assault weapons.”
CNN’s Jake Tapper asked Swalwell, “What’s the punishment for people who don’t hand in their guns? Do they go to jail?”
“Well, Jake, they would, but I also offer an alternative, which would be to keep them at a hunting club or a shooting range,” he responded.
Cory Booker:
Booker has announced what his campaign calls “the most sweeping gun violence prevention plan ever put forth by a presidential candidate.”
The proposal would limit individual purchases of firearms to one per month and legislate for an all-out ban on so-called “assault weapons” and “high-capacity” magazines.
Americans who refuse to turn in their guns would be jailed according to Booker.
Pete Buttigieg:
“Mayor Pete” supports multiple gun control policies, but claims they are “compatible with the Second Amendment.”
He’s a member of a Michael Bloomberg gun control group and supports criminalizing private gun sales via universal background checks.
According to Buttigieg, if he’s elected an “assault rifle” ban would be “on the table.”
Buttigieg echoed the Democrat talking point that certain “weapons of war” don’t belong in American streets, citing his military background as evidence of his knowledge of the Second Amendment.
“The Second Amendment says you cannot have restrictions on this? That’s just not how freedom works,” he told a Brooklyn crowd.
Julian Castro:
Castro has promoted renewing the “assault weapons” ban, gun buybacks and limiting “high-capacity” magazines.
“I believe that Senator Feinstein has it right with regard to the assault weapons ban, that it ought to be reintroduced,” he said.
Tulsi Gabbard:
Hawaii U.S. Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard’s website brags about her record on gun control:
“She has long called for reinstating a federal ban on military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, requiring comprehensive pre-purchase background checks, closing the gun-show loophole, and making sure that terrorists are not allowed to buy guns. Tulsi has an F-rating from the NRA, a 0% rating by the Hawaii Rifle Association…”
She also sponsored a bill banning “bump stocks.”
Following the tragic shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, Gabbard called for “common sense gun safety legislation.”
Kirsten Gillibrand:
Gillibrand supports an “assault weapons” ban, a “high-capacity” magazine ban and opposes a national concealed carry policy.
In the following interview, Gillibrand shakes her head at the fact she used to have an “A” rating from the NRA and brags that she now proudly holds an “F”.
“We have to address that we have weapons of war on our streets today,” she said during a speech last year.
Kamala Harris:
Harris has brazenly claimed if Congress doesn’t act within her first 100 days in office, she’ll mandate gun control measures via executive order.
These gun control measures would include the vague “assault weapons” ban, along with other typical Democrat measures such as stronger background checks, etc.
“Upon being elected, I will give the United States Congress 100 days to get their act together and have the courage to pass reasonable gun safety laws. And if they fail to do it, then I will take executive action,” she said at a CNN Town Hall.
Beto O’Rourke:
The Texas Democrat is one of the most outspoken gun control candidates in the 2020 field.
He supports magazine size-limits, restrictions on semiautomatic weapons and opposes a national concealed carry policy.
Following the synagogue shooting in Poway, California, Beto used the tragedy to push for a ban on semiautomatic rifles.
Elizabeth Warren:
Warren is in favor of a national ban on magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds, banning “assault rifles” and even a crackdown on handguns.
Below is a video of Warren regurgitating Democrat talking points such as “weapons of war don’t belong in our streets.”
See Warren make her case for stricter gun laws in this PSA:
She once claimed the NRA “owns Congress,” while talking with a TMZ reporter.
Andrew Yang:
Yang says citizens shouldn’t be able to own “assault weapons,” wants to fine gun manufacturers $1 million each time a person is killed by one of their weapons and is pushing for stricter licenses and education classes for gun owners.
On his website, Yang proposes forced purchases of a gun locker, or trigger lock for each firearm owned.
John Delaney:
Delaney recently tweeted support for a ban on most semiautomatic weapons and “assault rifles,” similar to legislation passed in New Zealand following the Christchurch attack.
Michael Bennet:
Bennet supports stronger background checks, and as a Colorado Senator, he closed the “gun show loophole,” voted YES on banning high-capacity magazines of over 10 bullets and says AR-15s are used “all the time” by mass murderers.
John Hickenlooper:
During his time as Governor of Colorado, Hickenlooper signed a gun control billrequiring background checks for private and online gun sales and banning ammunition magazines holding more than 15 rounds.
Hickenlooper’s campaign website claims he’ll “fight the NRA,” who gave him an “F” rating.
He has also supported former NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s gun control group.
During a CBS This Morning interview, Hickenlooper admitted he would take national action “immediately.”
Sneakier than some 2020 Dems, Hickenlooper explains how he’d slowly roll out small gun control measures to build up to something larger, like an “assault weapons” ban.
Jay Inslee:
Known for being the Democrat who decided to make Climate Change his #1 issue, Inslee is also no friend of the Second Amendment with an “F” rating from the NRA.
Tuesday, Inslee passed multiple gun laws in his home state of Washington where he currently serves as Governor.
One of the newly-passed laws bans 3D-printed firearms, and another bans “people with a history of violence” from owning guns.
Inslee is opposed to armed teachers in schools, saying, “our teachers don’t want to be armed.”
In 2018, Inslee passed a law banning bump stocks in Washington.
Amy Klobuchar:
Klobuchar supports extending the “assault weapons” ban, which means no more semiautomatic rifles, and voted to ban magazines that hold over 10 rounds.
She also received an “F” rating by the NRA, who condemned her for using the Aurora shooting to push for stricter gun control.
Klobuchar tweeted support for New Zealand’s decision to ban nearly every semiautomatic weapon as a knee-jerk reaction to the Christchurch attack.
Wayne Messam:
Messam, Mayor of Mirimar, Florida, is running on a platform of gun control and getting rid of student debt.
In an interview with Citylab, Messam supported banning semiautomatic rifles:
“15 minutes up the road from Miramar is Parkland. In that mass shooting, the type of gun that was used was a military-style rifle that is designed to just create the complete annihilation of life. Those type of guns should not be acceptable.”
Seth Moulton:
Moulton, a military veteran, uses his background to act like an expert on the Second Amendment, saying, “I know assault rifles. I carried one in Iraq.”
He also supported legislation to ban bump stocks and agreed with banning .223 rifle ammunition during an interview with CNN.
Watch below as Moulton says Americans don’t need “military assault weapon” or “high-capacity” magazines to hunt.
Tim Ryan:
The Democrat Rep. from Ohio once had an “A” rating from the NRA and decided to give the $20,000 he received from the group’s political action committee to gun safety organizations.
Following the Vegas shooting, Ryan called for a ban on bump stocks and for stricter background checks on semiautomatic rifles.
Below is an excerpt of a Washington Post article where Ryan calls for restrictions on semiautomatic weapons.
Ryan called for a ban on semiautomatic rifles in an interview with CNBC, saying, “We have to get these weapons of war off the street.”
Marianne Williamson:
On her website, Williamson promotes “eliminating the sale of assault rifles and semi-automatic weapons and banning bump stocks and high capacity magazines.”
She would also mandate child safety locks on all guns.
Williamson claimed the current fight for gun rights in America “has nothing to do with the Second Amendment,” during a CNN Town Hall.
This list proves there isn’t a single Democrat candidate who is friendly to the Second Amendment no matter how many times they claim to support it.

Gun control 


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
As the worsening border crisis required the overworked U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agency to close inspection facilities on highways between the Mexican border and Alamogordo, New Mexico, so they could send more agents to El Paso to help stem the tide of illegal aliens crossing the border, it left Otero County (of which Alamogordo is the county seat) undefended.
With the CBP stations closed down, members of drug cartels and human traffickers from south of the border have infiltrated Otero County, creating a crisis so bad that county commissioners declared a state of emergency.
“It’s a green light for the cartels when border checkpoints are down,” Otero County Sheriff David Black told the New York Post.
Black said his deputies have had to shift their focus from traditional law-enforcement duties to apprehending drug smugglers. “I’ve had to redeploy my guys,” Black told a Post reporter who visited in the Otero County Sheriff’s Office. He told the reporter that his deputies seized $60,000 worth of illicit drugs in April. 
The Post also interviewed Kyle Williamson, the Drug Enforcement Agency’s special agent in charge of the El Paso Division, responsible for all of New Mexico and west Texas. 
“We’ve lost our second line of enforcement,” said Williamson, who said the overwhelming crisis at the border with Mexico is allowing drug traffickers to more easily bring their illicit cargo north.
“Are cartels capitalizing on the confusion at the border? Yes, they are!” Williamson told the Post.“They are using it as a cover to move drugs, which are coming through legal ports of entry. If your drugs are coming through legal ports of entry, you need lines of defense.”
Williamson said his team recently seized 44 pounds of fentanyl — “enough to wipe out all of New Mexico, Texas and the entire state of Chihuahua.”
He told the reporter that most of the drugs are being trafficked by a gang known as Barrio Aztecas, the enforcement arm of the Juarez Cartel.
“They are an incredibly violent gang,” he said, adding that they have between 2,000 and 2,200 members.
The reporter also quoted Couy Griffin, chairman of Otero County's Board of Commissioners.
“We have got to secure our border, period," Griffin told the Post.
Both Black and Griffin were critical of New Mexico's Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham, who recently withdrew 118 National Guard troops from the southern border. Griffin, a Democrat, made the move largely as an act of defiance against President Trump, whose efforts to secure the border she described as a “charade of fear mongering.”
Griffin did not hesitate to criticize Grisham.
“Unfortunately, we have a governor who is so interested in politics that she has lost touch with the people of this county,” she told the newspaper. “We have a governor who continues to claim that there is no crisis at the border.”
An article posted by The New American May 7 noted that it had just been a very busy weekend for both Border Patrol agents and smugglers — who were caught moving both people and more than $1 million in illegal drugs.
Related articles:
Surprise! New Mexico Governor Closes Checkpoints, 
Now DRUG CARTELS Are Flooding The Border 
Jim Hoft from The Gateway Pundit reports, Who could have predicted this? Earlier this year, far left New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham withdrew 118 National Guard troops from New Mexico’s southern boundary.