No products in the cart.

News

Daughter of ‘Immigrant’ from Castro’s Cuba Calls for Confiscation of U.S. Guns

Daughter of 'Immigrant' from Castro’s Cuba Calls for Confiscation of U.S. Guns
And if some of us say “No”…?

One of Parkland’s teenage gun-grabbers, Emma González, has called for ‘[r]emoving the assault and semi-automatic weapons from our Civilian society, instituting thorough background checks and mandatory waiting periods (and raising the buying age and banning the production of high-capacity magazines” via a Sunday tweet.

She’s received 30.000 “likes” from her useful idiot followers for that as of this writing. So much for no one is talking about taking anyone’s guns.

She was following up on another tweet commenting on Sunday’s Waffle House shooting, where someone authorities had already confiscated guns from had no problem going on a shooting rampage.

“The local police say a man at the scene wrestled his gun away – looks like you don’t need to arm a teacher (or a resource officer) to stop a shooting,” González opined. “There goes the sales pitch for @SmithWessonCorp.”

Well hell. There goes the argument for armed police and armed soldiers, too.

Leave it to Opposite Day “progressives” to hail such immature naiveté, not to mention bad manners, as wisdom and visionary leadership. Fortunately, the louder and more obnoxious these armband-wearing children get, the more people are noting the reality about them – as opposed to their media-managed image.

Daughter of 'Immigrant' from Castro’s Cuba Calls for Confiscation of U.S. Guns
All those in favor of Cuban-style citizen disarmament, raise your right hand!

Here’s the thing about this González ingrate – her father came here ostensibly seeking more freedom than he had in Castro’s Cuba, the communist tyrant who, upon winning power with guns, disarmed those not acting as enforcers for his regime with the chilling question:

¿Armas para que?

And she demands our disarmament while wearing a Cuban flag.

And if our answer is “No? Your move?”

Here’s a question for González and the rest of her band of Time Magazine cover “honorees” demanding Americans surrender what founder Tench Coxe (whom they probably were never taught about in History class) called “the birthright of an American”:

How many citizens who refuse to disarm are you willing to see agents of the state kill in order to impose your demands?

Any bets there aren’t those who would respond “All of you”…?  And that any less than that wouldn’t be “Enough“?

—–

If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please make a donation to support our work.  You can donate HERE.

—–

David Codrea’s opinions are his own. See “Who speaks for Oath Keepers?”

1

DavidC

David Codrea blogs at The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance (WarOnGuns.com), and is a field editor/columnist for GUNS Magazine. Named “Journalist of the Year” in 2011 by the Second Amendment Foundation for his groundbreaking work on the “Fast and Furious” ATF “gunwalking” scandal, he is a frequent event speaker and guest on national radio and television programs.

Oath Keepers Merchandise

62 comments

  1. How many citizens who refuse to disarm are you willing to see agents of the state kill in order to impose your demands?

    More appropriate — how many agents of the state are you willing to see killed attempting to enforce your demands?

    1. Oh, they don’t care about that. That’s what they’re for, after all — to die imposing the will of their social justice overlords.

      1. When the New York State (un)SAFE Act was passed a few years ago it was actually discussed in a local church service that was being attended by a State Police Officer and his wife. At one point in the discussion, the wife of the officer told him that if he ever violated his oath, and tried to confiscate the weapons of their friends and neighbors then, as much as she loves him, she will shoot him herself. Rampant gun confiscation will not be nearly as easy as the alt-left thinks it will be, and previously law abiding citizens will actively choose to become felons with nothing to lose by shooting it out rather than giving up their fire arms. They can pass all of the traitorous laws they want, but it will not get them what they desire.

        1. I totally agree with you, it is absolutely disgusting that these children are being used the way they are and it is also ridiculous that she or anyone else thinks you will disarm law abiding citizens. I took an Oath when I enlisted in the military and it does not expire.

          1. That is their plan, to have school children afraid they will be shot at school, and to use the fear and emotional charge on their young impressionable minds to indoctrinate them that the only solution is to ban guns. One or two generations of such indoctrination will accomplish the end goal of no guns. It is imperative that we teach our children about the fatal flaws of indoctrination.

        2. “At one point in the discussion, the wife of the officer told him that if he ever violated his oath, and tried to confiscate the weapons of their friends and neighbors then, as much as she loves him, she will shoot him herself.” I love that comment, but what do we do to prevent arriving at that point?
          Probably by discussing the revitalization of the authority “to execute the Laws of the Union”.
          Over 5 million members combined at the NRA, GOA, and right here. You would think with the truth, and rule of law with us we could create a wave that will turn this mess around, and put the Sword of Sovereignty back in the hands of the People.

    2. Ignorant girl from a communist background shouldn’t even have a platform to spout such nonsense.
      Epic failure in enforcing the gun laws we already have resulted in the waffle house shooting.
      Children should be seen and not heard.

    3. Actions like this, taken by the government, is exactly why we have the second amendment and the constitution. Haven’t seen any addictions to the constitution that state how many or what kind of arms are allowed.The “Old Veteran”

  2. “Here’s the thing about this González ingrate – her father came here ostensibly seeking more freedom than he had in Castro’s Cuba”

    Why would anyone espect the insulated descendents of democided Hispanics to show any more situational intelligence than the insulated descendents of democided Jews?

    1. This is what we get for allowing immigrants to flood our country. It seems that a lot of the protesters to our laws and way of life are from those foreign invaders. Muslims, Hispanics and off shore blacks. I know we have many, many loyal countrymen of these groups, but these few activists, leaves a black mark on them !

      1. It seems that a lot of the protesters to our laws and way of life are from those foreign invaders. Muslims, Hispanics and off shore blacks.”

        Of course they are, that is another way to destroy a nation without a “recognizable war”. But our US Constitution, which defines out government, gives the authority to the PEOPLE of the states which are the Militia (those trained as Congress requires the military to be trained, and knowledgeable about the US Constitution and their own state’s Constitution) are taxed with the duty to deal with invaders.

        Constitution of the United States of America, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15: “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel invasions.“

        This clause is very straightforward as it is found in writing that it is the militia of each state which is entrusted with the defense of the USA and her people, not just with the defense of their state; and they are to be armed with weapons that can repel any invasions bearing modern weapons of war. The Congress is required to provide those military grade weapons for the militias. But even George Washington recongized that we might have domestic enemies, even traitors to our nation ensconced within our government(s) and he told the PEOPLE we should be making our own manufacturers of weapons of war so that we would not be found lacking when/if we were ever invaded.

        George Washington: “A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.”

        (Off topic sort of) Does that one paragraph not tell all of us that those who serve within our governments were NEVER delegated the use of a power that would tell Americans what they can or cannot manufacture, or have in their own homes (military weapons)?

        Those that serve within our government know this, because that was the excuse to send the Mujahideen weapons of war for their “Militias”. Here…

        It has been well established that the original intent of the 2nd amendment was to enable the people to defend against tyranny which invariably comes in the form of an overbearing and oppressive government. This right to defense is not special to Americans and is a natural right of all peoples.

        In the 70s and 80’s the Afghani “militia”, called the Mujahideen, was engaged against Soviet tyranny. Those who serve within our federal government decided that the best way to aid them in their fight against their oppressors was to send them (train them in the use of) weapons of war. Basically, the USA sent Stinger shoulder mounted rocket launchers, etc. so they could wage an asymmetrical battle against the much better equipped Soviet forces. [They still arm many across the globe today with weapons of war, though not with our permission (as if they are our Kings & Queens), yet try to deny us our Natural Right to bear and train with those arms.

        Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878): “To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm … is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege.”

        Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822): “For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution.”

        Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846): ” `The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’ The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right.”

        Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859): “The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the “high powers” delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.’ A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power.”]

        Therefore those that serve(d) within our own federal government established the precedent that, in the age of a modern military, rocket launchers (Bazookas, etc) fall within the scope of weapons necessary for citizen militias fighting against tyranny – making the case that those that serve within our governments know that everyone has the Natural Right to own and use whatever weapons (of war, etc) that might be necessary to fight oppression. http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin800.htm

        Those weapons may end up being needed by the people (who need to be trained in their use) to stop these modern INVASIONS of our states and nation. But instead they try to UNLAWFULLY disarm us, and by so doing go against the Contract that they serve under and are Oath bound to (felonies and Perjury), and also make themselves NO LONGER MEET THE QUALIFICATIONS OF THE OFFICE OR POSITION THEY OCCUPY.

        It IS an invasion, and we have a natural right that is put into writing within the contract that all who serve within our governments are under, to DEFEND our states, our nation, our families and friends from this invasion.

    2. Many of the Cubans who came here “seeking freedom” were from the elitist caste. They were the ones who thought they were born with spurs to ride on the backs of the underlings. I think that perhaps she should go back to Cuba to live, where the underlings are still disarmed, like she wants to do to us. I am sure someone there will remember her mommy and daddy.

  3. Apparently, Emma González’s dad wanted only a little more liberty. Upon getting here, he saw too much and now let’s his daughter try to smash it down to a level of his liking. All of the Communists should be rounded up and deported to places where Communism is already in full bloom for them.

    1. Those ingrate children are just a remake of Hitler’s children who were brainwashed to the point of, they turned their own parents in to the gestapo for having guns.

  4. I will go out on a limb and predict that it will take more than 30000 “likes” from a bunch of uswful idiot kiddies to take the main tool of freedom, the gun, from 70,000,000-100,000,000 freedom-loving gun owners.

  5. It also means this girl’s sugar daddy and all of the hollywood hypocrites can now go unarmed.
    Bloomberg has no excuse for armed guards anymore – he just needs some people from waffle house without guns to protect him.

  6. I just want to know….how much longer do we have to listen to this crap before someone gives the marching orders and shut these morons up.

  7. I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that she either was never told stories from her family about the horrors of the Castro Regime, or believes them to be false based on the liberal brainwashing and indoctrination she’s been fed throughout her Parkland school career. Either way, I offer her a bit of advice. Sit your ass down and let the adults handle this shit, because I pity you if you truly do come and try and take them. The British tried to take our guns in 1776, and we shot them.

  8. Keep our United States armed by keeping ALL arms in our hands!!!

    We’re guaranteeing the right of mush-headed kids to free [but uninformed] speech!!!

  9. As a woman, mother of 3 girls, I say this. We are armed, we will remain armed, neither I nor my girls will hand over our means of self protection. We will not appease teenagers who know nothing of the real world.

    1. What will any of us do if the government comes to take our means of self-protection, one by one, when we have no reinforcements. We will die, protecting ourselves, one by one, unless we UNITE beforehand.

      1. I doubt that confiscations would last very long if the teams they sent out knew that at least one of their group would be carried home from each sortie. I accept the probability of my death once that starts, but I plan to sent at least one traitor to hell ahead of me.

  10. This is what happens when only one side of a story is carried by the leftist MSM. Do they even teach real American and world history anymore? Moronic sheep.

  11. Obviously her right brain (she has one?) is much more developed than her left brain(must be pea-sized).the left brain usually contrives logical thought..the right one is for emotions, art, and other stuff. She needs to talk with her dad to see why he came here in the first place. THEN she needs to sit her butt down and READ the Constitution, the Federalist papers, and the Bill of Rights..Then she needs to probably enroll in Hillsdale college..I remember a quote from the Bible: “When I was a child, I thought as a child, and I spoke as a child.” Clearly she has not grown up yet and her parents need to do a better job of instructing her and showing her what is the RIGHT way….jus sayin..

  12. OK, Komrade Goonzalez, Come and Take Them .

    Don’t forget to pack a lunch. This won’t end quickly, and it won’t end pretty.

  13. I see/experience this weekly with a LARGE percentage of Cubans born here. Very SAD how humans keep repeating the SAME mistakes as others in the past. Joseph Goebbels KNEW that you keep repeating a LIE long enough and many will eventually think it’s true. Also these are the people who make decisions based on FEELINGS. -Born In a ShitHole

  14. I say let these little Commies be the first to go door to door. If the so called leftist authorities think they are going to disarm American Patriots and come out of this Unscathed there smoking wacky weed. We mean no one any harm, but if its violence there looking for they have come to the right place. Molon Labe!

  15. If She is So Against Our 2nd Amendment Right to Bear Arms She Can Always Go Back to Cuba Where The Public Is Not Allowed to Have or Keep Guns Except Thier Communist Government But If She Wants to Stay Here She better Get Use To Our Right to Bear Arms Wrather She Likes it or Not

  16. IF THIS IDIOT LOVES CUBA AND HATES THE FREEDOMS OF THIS COUNTRY THEN LET US HELP HER GO AND LIVE WITH THE SOCIALIST COMMUNIST CUBA. LET HER LIVE LIKE THE GUTTER QUEEN SHE IS. GOOD RIDDENCE!!!!

  17. Going down the same road as nazi germany. Those who don’t read history are doomed to repeat it over and over and over. Let the pinheads have the job of taking our weapons. I could use the practice.

  18. Best defense a good offense? If so… motor vehicles and alcohol kill many high-school children. Shall freedom-loving patriots start a campaign to curtail youthful access to those killers of youth?

  19. Apparently she knows nothing about why her family, who lived under communist rule came to America. Unfortunately many young kids today are brainwashed into thinking this is a glorified way of living where everything is the same for everyone (Except those who rule ) Perhaps she and her friends should take an excursion to a country where you have no rights and see what it actually means. My guns are here to stay and to take them away would be a huge mistake.

  20. It is sad when these punk children, yes CHILDREN, not even close to have a fully developed brain, spew their brain washed solutions upon folks that have lived and seen many, many more years of experience and most have taken the OATH TO PROTECT OUR NATION AND CONSTITUTION. How about you can’t vote untill your 35, and memorize our CONSTITUTION

  21. another point, they want to raise the age to 21 own or purchase a firearm, ok, now you have to be 21 before you can own or drive a car (also a weapon of mass destruction, especially when in full auto(matic transmission) Ha, how’s that work for ya doufuss.

  22. Exile Emma Gonzales and her family to Cuba. I believe anyone that speaks of further hindering American citizens from our rights to own and bear arms speaks sedition to overthrow the US government.
    No law can regulate evil, only Gad rules over good and evil and man was given free will to choose good or evil.

  23. This is what our so called education system is now producing. Saul Alinsky is jumping up and down with glee at his Victory.

  24. Oath Keeper Save our Country, and Save the Little Children Campaign. Note: none of these are God Given Rights. Note #2: Anyone entering military service receives all rights and privileges of ADULTHOOD at 18.

    21 to drive a car, 21 to own or use a cellphone, 21 to use the internet or social media, 35 to vote – and only after passing a test to ensure that you have a working knowledge of American History, American Civics, and the US Constitution.

    This saves lives, and Fixes the brainwashed Millennial problem that we are currently experiencing.

    Solving the Immigration problem… Deport ALL illegal immigrants, and require LEGAL immigrants to go through the same process that my grandfather (and every other immigrant) went through when he immigrated here during WWII.

    Solving the Politician problem:
    http://www.amendment-13.org/
    Designed to keep LAWYERS, dual citizens, etc, out of office.

    1. Exactly.

      Do you know which ones are being accepted and used as if LAWFULLY ratified when they were NOT? To start with…

      http://www.barefootsworld.net/14uncon.html
      Cites and References:
      Congressional Record.
      Senate, 84th Con. 1st Session., Vol. 101, pp. 7119 to 7124;
      Senate, 86th Con., 2nd Session., Vol. 106, pp. 4036 to 4038;
      Senate, 89th Con., 1st Session., Vol. III, pp. 10669 to 10671.

      The purported 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution is and should be held to be ineffective, invalid, null, void and unconstitutional for the following reasons:

      1. The Joint Resolution proposing said amendment was not submitted to or adopted by a Constitutional Congress per Article I, Section 3, and Article V of the U. S. Constitution.

      2. The Joint Resolution was not submitted to the President for his approval as required by Article I, Section 7 of the U. S. Constitution.

      3. The proposed 14th Amendment was rejected by more than one-fourth of all the States then in the Union, and it was never ratified by three-fourths of all the States in the Union as required by Article V of the U. S. Constitution.

      [Amendment XVI: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.]

      “The U. S. Constitution provides: Article I, Section 3. “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State”

      Article V provides: “No State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.”

      The fact that 28 Senators had been unlawfully excluded from the U. S. Senate, in order to secure a two-thirds vote for adoption of the Joint Resolution proposing the 14th Amendment is shown by Resolutions of protest adopted by the following State Legislatures:

      The New Jersey Legislature by Resolution of March 27, 1868, protested as follows: “The said proposed amendment not having yet received the assent the three-fourths of the states, which is necessary to make it valid, the natural and constitutional right of this state to withdraw its assent is undeniable “.”

      The Alabama Legislature protested against being deprived of representation in the Senate of the U. S. Congress. [Cite 2]

      The Texas Legislature by Resolution on October 15, 1866, protested as follows: “The amendment to the Constitution proposed by this joint resolution as article XIV is presented to the Legislature of Texas for its action thereon, under Article V of that Constitution. This article V, providing the mode of making amendments to that instrument, contemplates the participation by all the States through their representatives in Congress, in proposing amendments. As representatives from nearly one-third of the States were excluded from the Congress proposing the amendments, the constitutional requirement was not complied with; it was violated in letter and in spirit; and the proposing of these amendments to States which were excluded from all participation in their initiation in Congress, is a nullity.” [Cite 3]

      The Arkansas Legislature, by Resolution on December 17, 1866, protested as follows: “The Constitution authorized two-thirds of both houses of Congress to propose amendments; and, as eleven States mere excluded from deliberation and decision upon the one now submitted, the conclusion is inevitable that it is not proposed by legal authority, but in palpable violation of the Constitution.” [Cite 4]

      The Georgia Legislature, by Resolution on November 9, 1866, protested as follows: “Since the reorganization of the State government, Georgia has elected Senators and Representatives. So has every other State. They have been arbitrarily refused admission to their seats, not on the ground that the qualifications of the members elected did not conform to the fourth paragraph, second section, first article of the Constitution, but because their right of representation was denied by a portion of the States having equal but not greater rights than themselves. They have in fact been forcibly excluded; and, inasmuch as all legislative power granted by the States to the Congress is defined, and this power of exclusion is not among the powers expressly or by implication, the assemblage, at the capitol, of representatives from a portion of the States, to the exclusion of the representatives of another portion, cannot be a constitutional Congress, when the representation of each State forms an integral part of the whole.

      This amendment is tendered to Georgia for ratification, under that power in the Constitution which authorizes two-thirds of the Congress to propose amendments. We have endeavored to establish that Georgia had a right, in the first place, as a part of the Congress, to act upon the question, ‘Shall these amendments be proposed?’ Every other excluded State had the same right.

      The first constitutional privilege has been arbitrarily denied.

      Had these amendments been submitted to a constitutional Congress, they never would have been proposed to the States. Two-thirds of the whole Congress never would have proposed to eleven States voluntarily to reduce their political power in the Union, and at the same time, disfranchise the larger portion of the intellect, integrity and patriotism of eleven co-equal States.” [Cite 5]

      The Florida Legislature, by Resolution of December 5, 1866, protested as follows: “Let this alteration be made in the organic system and some new and more startling demands may or may not be required by the predominant party previous to allotting the ten States now unlawfully and unconstitutionally deprived of their right of representation to enter the Halls of the National Legislature. Their right to representation is guaranteed by the Constitution of this country and there is no act, not even that of rebellion, can deprive them of its exercise.” [Cite 6]

      Etc, Etc, Etc

  25. Emma Gonzalez, Fidel Castro led a revolution in Cuba in 1959 and succeeded in overthrowing a tyrant, supported by the C.I.A. that they needed in power to preserve the colonial occupation for American interest. It is one thing to fight for independence but the Cuban people were deceived and after realizing Castro deceived them, it was too late. Castro took away their weapons and the Cuban people had nothing to fight back with. Your father was fortunate to get out of Cuba and had a daughter born in the U.S.A.. Sometime in your life with the influence of your friends and the education you have been taught, your indoctrination of American history was subverted. We Americans have a Constitution and a Bill of Rights, I strongly suggest you read and understand these documents, for they provide those freedoms that allow you to exercise your self-expression and not live in a country that oppresses its people. The 2nd. amendment keeps us free and does not kill people.

  26. First, ANYONE who listens to “children” to make government laws or policy, is an IGNORANT IDIOT. Children are stupid, inexperienced, emotional as opposed to thoughtful, people. No child should ever have any say in our governmental actions, laws, or policies. The adults in the room are supposed to be the educated, intelligent people, not the children.
    “Children” all over our country now continue to have “student walkouts and demonstrations” to march for gun control. What a bunch of BS that is. These children couldn’t care less about gun control; they are performing their “walkouts” because they don’t want to be in the classrooms getting educated. Period. Start expelling students who walk out of class, or at least failing them and holding them back in the same grade for another year. The “children” would then learn one of the first lessons of their future adulthood: There are consequences to all of your actions.

  27. The poor and mental midgets will always be among us. I don’t know if Emma is poor, but she is sure a mental midget. I wonder if she has read RULES FOR RADICALS?

Leave a Reply