Wow, not since I first saw Ron Paul's speeches on the House Floor way back when have I been so impressed -

Tim Kaine Challenger is Great - Nick Freitas

A Star Is Born! Speech On Guns By VA Lawmaker Causes Democrat Walk-Out, Goes Viral

[www.dailywire.com]

All eyes are suddenly fixed on Nick Freitas, a Republican member of the Virginia House of Delegates, now that he's ticked off a lot of Democrats with his powerful speech on guns that quickly went viral, raking in over 12 million Facebook views since Friday.

The powerful and aggressive speech, which touched on inconvenient truths about the Democrat Party's history, even triggered some Democrats to walk off the House floor.

Freitas delivered his remarks on Friday as a response to the very heated gun control debate.

"For several days now, some Democrats in the Virginia House of Delegates have made public speeches comparing those of us who take our oath to the Constitution seriously, to include the 2nd Amendment, to Nazis and segregationists," wrote the delegate on Facebook captioning his speech, which he dubbed as his "response" to such attacks.

The Republican first debunked the leftist notion that deterring so-called "gun violence" means further infringing on Second Amendment rights. Digging deeper than gun control measures that he noted have proven ineffective in areas like Chicago and Washington, D.C., he said Americans should be looking at why so many shootings happen in "gun-free zones." And he called attention to the high likelihood that killers come from a broken home, which he connected to the growing welfare state and the abortion industry, and how hardening schools could be a practical, proactive step.

Addressing the Left's dirty tactics of impugning Republicans' moral character to push their gun control agenda, Freitas listed off some hard truths about the history of the Democratic Party, which ruffled some feathers.

"It's really difficult to have an open and honest debate about this [...] because members of this body are comparing members of [the Republican] side of the aisle to Nazis," he said, adding that it was particularly offensive that GOP members were also compared to "segregationists."

Freitas unleashed: "It was not our party that supported slavery, that fought women's suffrage, that rounded up tens of thousands of Asian Americans and put them in concentrations camps, that supported Jim Crow, that supported segregation, or supported mass resistance -- that wasn't our party, that was the Democrat Party," he said.

"I'd be really appreciative that every time you want to make a powerful point, you don't project the sins, the atrocities, and the injustices the Democratic Party perpetrated on others onto us," slammed the Republican.

He also noted the lame talking point that Republicans representatives are "paid off" by the National Rifle Association (NRA). "Why don't you look at how much Planned Parenthood pays compared ot the NRA?" he said.

A true conversation, he said, "starts with a certain degree of mutual respect."

Democrats were ticked off by the Republican's remarks. It was apparently the acknowledgment of the disturbing history of the Democratic Party that made them so uneasy. So they cried racism. As reported by the Richmond Times-Dispatch, Delegate Lamont Bagby said he viewed Freitas' remarks as racial "dog-whistling."

“We realize that we live in a ugly political moment. So while we were offended, we were not surprised,” said Bagby. “It should embarrass every member of this body that we have allowed such rhetoric to enter these chambers. Bringing up a very painful past to make a political point is disgusting and poisonous.”

Remember: it's fine to suggest Republicans are choosing NRA money over saving children's lives, or branding them as Nazis and segregationists for disagreeing with Democratic talking points, but it is unacceptable — a racial dog-whistle actually — to bring up historical truths about the Party of Slavery."



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 03/07/2018 08:05PM by Jennifer.

Wish Nick Freitas would have made a point of denouncing the Libs' rhetoric/accusation that if you believe we have an inherent right to defend ourselves and our families - the Second Amendment - that you also condone killing animals (even if you've previously denied such). As has been my experience.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/07/2018 08:22PM by Jennifer.

Thanks for sharing - that was a great speech!

You're welcome - thanks for watching it.

Lol - as usual, when the Libs were confronted with common sense/reality/facts, they were 'triggered' and resorted to their usual tactics - walking out, emotional rhetoric and using the 'racism' card -

**********

"Friday’s speech by Freitas before the Virginia House of Delegates lead to many Democrats actually walking out and demanding a recess so that they could calm down because they were so outraged.

The Washington Post reports that after Democrats settled down, Del. Joseph Lindsey (D-Norfolk) told the House that “today, I have been offended as I can never recall since being a part of this body. And I have seen many of my colleagues emotionally shaken and bothered by either a lack of concern for facts or just simply playing to the cameras, I don’t know which.”

[www.thegatewaypundit.com]

**********

As Freitas' guns speech goes viral, Virginia Democrats say slavery remarks reopened racial wounds

Del. Nick Freitas, R-Culpeper, was riding a wave of national publicity Monday after a fiery pro-gun speech last week that several African-American Democrats condemned as racially insensitive for its references to poverty and slavery.

During Monday’s floor session, Del. Lamont Bagby, D-Henrico, the chairman of the Virginia Legislative Black Caucus, called Freitas’ comments “hateful and divisive,” adding that he wanted to put all legislators on notice that “our heritage will not be used as a political football.”

Bagby said many Democrats saw Freitas’ comments — suggesting “abortion, welfare, family structure and a litany of other stereotypes” are also factors in the gun-violence problem — as racial “dog whistling.”

“We realize that we live in a ugly political moment. So while we were offended, we were not surprised,” Bagby said. “It should embarrass every member of this body that we have allowed such rhetoric to enter these chambers. Bringing up a very painful past to make a political point is disgusting and poisonous.”

Del. Delores McQuinn, D-Richmond, who walked off the floor Friday rather than listen to Freitas, also rose Monday to address what she called “insensitivity and disrespect” that deflected from the issue of gun violence.

“Let us not bring in things that would be hurtful and painful to people who have to live in a skin that some of you will never know and have to endure a reality that being black in America is sometimes difficult,”

[www.richmond.com]

Its funny some folks thinks one of these two RICO partys are better than the other.

Here is the transcript of Nick Freitas speech -

Friday, March 2nd, 2018

Delegate Nick Freitas

Virginia House of Delegates

"So, over the last several days, Mr. Speaker, there's been a lot of discussion about an "open and honest debate" with respect to school shootings, gun violence, gun control, etc. An open and honest debate, as I understand it, is one that would rely on data, facts, evidence, analysis, reason, logic, etc., etc. And I'm certainly willing to have that debate.

I think if we were going to look seriously at school shootings and gun control, we would analyze things like "why do all mass shootings seem to take place in gun-free zones?" Wouldn't it be reasonable to test whether or not the efficacy of gun-free zones have actually achieved what their intended intent is.

We would start to look at most of these shooters coming from broken homes. What sort of government policies have actually encouraged broken homes? You can look at left-leaning think tanks like the Brookings Institute, that will actually say that some of it can be attributed to various cultural changes that happened in the sixties, to include the abortion industry. You can look at a more conservative-leaning organization that will say that the welfare state contributes significantly to dismantling the family, as families became more and more dependent upon the government than they were mothers and fathers in the home raising children.

We can look at various datas with those areas in the United States and around the world that have strict gun control measures, and what their crime rates look like, whether its Chicago, New York City, Washington DC, and others that have incredibly strict gun laws, and yet for some reason haven't seemed to stop the gun violence in those particular areas.

We can look at the analysis out of FiveThirtyEight - which is considered more of a left-of-center data analysis think tank - where you have several analysts now who have confirmed through the data that they were looking at -- not just the United States, but Canada, Great Britain, and Australia -- they were shocked that the data did not support what they thought gun control measures would actually achieve.

We can look at the number of cases within the United States where a gun has been used for self-defense. Estimates range everywhere from 100,000 uses to close to 1,000,000 uses within the United States. Now some organizations and some reporters only want to report on the ones where a gun was used and it actually resulted in the death or maiming of the perpetrator. But if you look at the ones where the gun was used, and the mere presence of a firearm actually dissuaded a criminal from committing an act of violence, an act of rape, an act of murder, the number shoots up. It skyrockets.

So when people on this side talk about the importance of the Second Amendment, please understand it's not just some base philosophical conviction that we all have. It is rooted in the idea that, while we may be a post-enlightenment society, the vast majority of horrible atrocities that we've seen have happened in those post-enlightenment societies. They've happened as a result of governments systematically disarming citizens and claiming themselves to be the sole responsible party for their security, and then turning on those same citizens and punishing them. That's the most egregious cases, but in the individual cases of self-defense, that's why the people on this side of the aisle hold the Second Amendment in such high esteem. Because we honestly believe that you have an inherent right to defend yourself, and your ability to defend yourself should not be exclusive to your size. Firearms provide someone that is weaker and not as fast the ability to actually to defend themselves from a stronger attacker.

Some of the other things that the would look at, and certainly I would hope we would have bipartisan support for, all of us agree that we need to make sure that our students are better protected when they go to school. One of the things that we would look at is arming certain teachers. Not every teacher. But a teacher that is comfortable with it, is former law-enforcement, is former military, that is now in the classroom. Delegate Plum said yesterday that, that was ridiculous to consider. Why? Is it because the other side of this debate will only accept one "solution" to this problem, and that is tearing apart or gutting the Second Amendment?

And I understand. We're gonna mention just a couple of the bills that were done this year, right? Background checks, getting rid of bump-stocks? If you're wanting the other reason why we can't have an honest debate over this one, it's because quite frankly, I don't think any of us on this side of the aisle believe you when you say that's all you want to do. It'll be bump-stocks and it'll be background checks. Then it'll be different kinds of background checks that register the guns. Then after that it'll be "we need to ban assault-weapons." What's an assault weapon? Something that looks scary. Then after that, it'll be semi-automatic rifles. After that, it'll be semi-automatic handguns. Then it'll be revolvers, shotguns. Because when the policies fail to produce the results you are promising to your constituents, you'll be back with more reasons why we've got to infringe on Second Amendment rights.

The other reason why it's really difficult to have an honest and open debate about this is because of members of this body comparing members on this side of the aisle to Nazis. Members on the other side of the aisle saying that when a 24 year old teacher gets up that the whole debate is between the Second Amendment or her life. That's a false dilemma.

And quite frankly, one of the ones that I found the most offensive (along with being compared to Nazis) was being compared to segregationists. I just want to remind everyone of something very quickly. It was not our party that supported slavery, that fought women's suffrage, that rounded up tens of thousands of Asian-Americans and put them in concentration camps, that supported Jim Crow, that supported segregation, or supported mass resistance. That wasn't our party. That was the Democrat party.

Now I'm thrilled that Democrats no longer believe that. And I don't believe that a single current member of this body who is a Democrat ever believed those things. But I would really appreciate it if, every time you want to make a powerful point, you don't project the sins, the atrocities, and the injustices that the Democratic party perpetrated on others, onto us.

So if we want to have an open and honest debate, I am all for that. Let's do that. But it does start with a certain degree of mutual respect. It starts with a certain degree of not assuming that "the only reason why we believe in the Second Amendment is because the NRA paid us off." Well if that's the sort of logic you want to use, why don't you go take a look at how much money the NRA spends and how much money Planned Parenthood spends. Because when I get up here and I talk about abortion, I don't assume that you're all bought and paid for by Planned Parenthood. I don't assume you're horrible people because I disagree with you on a policy position. I assume that you have deep convictions and that we can have an argument and a debate about it. But if you're not willing to reciprocate that level of respect, well don't be surprised when it becomes more difficult to talk about these things.

Because there is a lot that we can do, and there is a lot that we need to do to ensure the security of our children and our citizens. But yes, we are going to have a problem with so-called "solutions" which infringe on people's liberty under the promise the government will provide for their security. Because ultimately, in this last school shooting, we had a perfect example of government being engaged over thirty times and still failing to provide security for those students.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker."