Friday, October 28, 2016

Gun Control

by -
gun control

Two years ago I wrote about an idiot politician publicly making a fool of himself at his own scripted press conference. The politician was California State Sen. Kevin de León, and his topic was “Ghost Guns.” The press conference was to publicize de León’s latest gun control bill, a proposal to require anyone making a gun in his or her garage to register it with the state Department of Justice and engrave a DOJ-supplied serial number on the gun. His primary justification for this proposal was that a mentally disturbed young man who had been denied purchase of a firearm had subsequently manufactured a firearm from purchased parts and fabricated components, and used that homemade gun to murder several people before committing suicide.

As disturbing and compelling as that story might be, de León’s “solution” was absolutely laughable. Could he possibly believe that his law would have prevented this tragedy? Is it remotely conceivable that this disturbed young man, having been turned down for a firearm purchase at a dealer based on his mental history, would have then requested permission from the DOJ to construct a gun from parts in his bedroom?

As idiotic as that idea is, de León’s manic performance at the press conference overshadowed any obvious flaws in his reasoning. Along with repeated mispronunciations and misapplication of words, de León consistently conflated “detectability” with “traceability” as he tried to demonize both homemade 3D-printed guns and homemade guns manufactured with more traditional machining methods. But the money shot came when de León explained the awesome firepower of one of his prop “Ghost Guns.” Holding up one of the guns, de León declared;

“This is a ghost gun. This right here has the ability, with a .30 caliber clip, to disperse with 30 bullets within half a second.” He then reiterated, to drive home the point, “Thirty magazine clip in half a second.”

The reason I bring up this 2-year-old news conference now is that Sen. de León, this stellar example of a politician whose only apparent noteworthy skill is that of being elected, is now, along with being one of the most rabid – if poorly informed – proponents of radical gun control, the president pro tempore of the Senate, the highest ranking and most powerful role in the California Legislature.

This is as irrational and inexplicable as the elevation of “Groping Joe” Biden to the office of vice president. At least Biden serves the security function of being a deterrent to anyone considering assassination of the president. Sen. de León doesn’t even have that going for him. What he does have is good looks and impeccable Spanish. He’s probably also really good at remembering names and asking for money, and he is an extreme radical on a variety of political topics. An avowed “liberal progressive” and Hillary Clinton supporter, de León is a champion of massive restrictions on carbon emissions, a tireless advocate for citizenship rights and benefits for immigrants illegally in the country, and a supporter of the environmental policies that mandated diverting millions of metric tons of water from reservoirs and farmers in favor of an ineffective effort to improve habitat for a subspecies of smelt, resulting in the current severe water shortage. He is also a vocal advocate of additional restrictions on tobacco smokers, additional rights for marijuana smokers and a strong proponent of raising the minimum wage to at least $15 an hour. That the people of California and their elected representatives would, during a time of economic struggle and budget challenges, when the state is effectively beyond broke, select such a radical destroyer to lead their Senate is beyond comprehension.

In May, de León helped to push through yet another round of gun control tightening in the state, on top of some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. Included in the package is a blanket ban on possession of any magazine capable of holding over 10 rounds. Unlike the current law, which forbids the sale of such magazines, this law criminalizes possession, requiring that all existing magazines of greater than 10-round capacity be sold, destroyed, or surrendered without compensation.

Tell me again that confiscation is not the eventual objective of gun control.

Another bill in the package passed by the Senate requires a background check and record-keeping for ammunition purchases. This is probably the most sinister in the group because it not only adds complication and expense to a protected constitutional right, but by retaining records of ammunition purchases it creates a de facto gun owner registration system. You can be sure that de León and his ilk would use this information to further harass gun owners.

The rest of the package includes de León’s “Ghost Gun” registration bill, a bill banning so-called “bullet button” magazine systems – effectively outlawing numerous currently legal rifles – a bill that makes the victim of a firearm theft a criminal if they fail to report the theft in what some bureaucrat considers a timely manner, a bill that makes simply loaning a gun to a friend or even a family member in most cases, a criminal offense, a technical correction that moves theft of a firearm back up to felony status, and a bill creating a Firearm Violence Research Center at the University of California.

The whole package is designed to compete with an even worse ballot initiative Lt. Gov. (and gubernatorial candidate) Gavin Newsom is championing. The gun control package is now in the hands of the State Assembly where even more gun control legislation is already pending.

We should probably be grateful to California’s gun control zealots for proving that control freaks are never satisfied. No matter how many laws they pass, they will always come back for more. We in the rest of the country need to recognize the warning and understand that gun control is back on the front burner as a political issue. We must mobilize to shut this nonsense down.

by -
Gun Control

The House of Representatives was the site of a sit-in last week where dozens of Democrats sat inside protesting and demanding a change to gun control.

This week, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan said the House will vote on new gun control measures that will help prevent suspected terrorists from purchasing guns.

Also on the docket, the House will work on a terrorism package that will be aimed at disrupting recruitment and radicalization.

The vote on the gun control measure still isn’t defined very well. There are several bills that could be brought to the floor that will help disrupt terrorists, but the House is divided.

Some like Texas Senator John Cornyn’s bill that requires the Feds to prove that a person is a terrorist to stop the purchase of a firearm. Democrats want the bill to cover “probable cause” instead of “proof” that someone is a terrorist.

The NRA supports Cornyn’s bill but does not support the “probable cause” direction the Democrats want to go.

The Democrats want to take it a step further and ban anyone on any terrorism watch list or even the no-fly list from buying a gun.

The major concern with the “no-fly no-buy” campaign is there are many people on those lists that are not any threat at all. When a person is added to a watch list, they are not told nor do they have a real system to challenge the ruling.

Although Speaker Ryan called the sit-in a “publicity stunt”, it is clear he is trying to bring the House together by calling a vote. What they will vote on next week is up in the air, but they are going to vote.

Do you think that Speaker Ryan should call for a vote? Let us know in the comments below.

by -
stop a mugging

With all the talk right now on gun control, it is important to keep the public aware of the right ways to handle a threatening situation.

What do you do if an armed robber wants all your stuff?

In this video, an off duty police officer is robbed at gunpoint in a crowded area, but manages to take down the criminal and nobody else got hurt.

This video is graphic and does show a criminal getting shot, but it also shows the right way to draw a gun and handle a dangerous situation.

When watching this video, it reminds us why it is so important for the good guys to carry guns too.

If we ban guns then only the police and bad guys will carry and the rest of us will be helpless little victims. Sometimes the police can’t help and you need to take matters in your own hands.

The next time someone tells you that we don’t need guns in America, send him or her to this article and have them watch this video. The good guys need guns too.

Do you carry a gun on you? Let us know in the comments below.

by -
Assault Rifle

Fox News afternoon host of the Real Story, Gretchen Carlson, shocked most Fox News fans when she said she supports the ban on assault rifles.

The shooting in Orlando has sparked a new and vicious debate on gun control and the need for assault rifles.

The right-leaning news network often defends the right to sell and own assault weapons, but the former Miss America, Gretchen Carlson, says no.

What do you think? Should we reinstitute the ban on assault rifles?

by -
Gun Rights

The right to bear arms is as American as apple pie, but some places that serve apple pie don’t want you to bear your arms in their restaurant. This election year, gun rights are being attacked and many businesses are turning their back on freedom.

Sometimes you just want to go to dinner in a crowded, fun restaurant with your gun on your hip to protect you from all the crazy people in the world. If that is how you feel, then don’t try eating at one of these famous eateries.

Also, if you live in New York, Illinois, South Carolina, Florida or California then you don’t have to worry about freedom since you can’t open carry anywhere in public.

If you live in the capital of American freedom, Washington DC, then don’t even think about showing a gun in pubic. The consequences could be dire.

The home of what was once called the people’s house and open to citizens is now a city where you can’t even carry your own gun.

There are great places in this beautiful country where you can still open carry inside your favorite restaurant, unless your favorite restaurant doesn’t believe in you having the right to bear arms… at least in their establishment.

Here is the list of 9 restaurants that have banned open carry.


by -
obama tears

On December 31st, people gathered across America and the world to welcome the New Year with joyous festivities, hopeful resolutions, and cheerful optimism about fresh starts. Bucking the trend, President Obama opted against such new beginnings and vowed instead to do in 2016 as he has the last seven years: Whatever he wants, regardless of what the Constitution, Congress, the Courts, or the public, has to say about it.

Using his vehicle of choice, Obama this week announced – with a flood of presidential tears – several “Executive Actions” aimed at restricting gun sales and ownership in the United States. Similar to his past moves, which range from further regulating healthcare to (illegally) expanding work permits for illegal immigrants, the President justified his unilateral policy decrees on a need to bypass an “ineffectual” Congress. Rather than actually traveling a few blocks up Pennsylvania Avenue to meet personally with congressional leaders, Obama chose again to chastise Congress for being held “hostage” by the “gun lobby.”

Obama’s teary-eyed efforts to rally supporters to his gun-control agenda every time a publicized mass-shooting occurs, has become something of a broken record. While the latest proposals – like those unveiled three years ago following the Newtown tragedy — appear on the surface to be largely benign, we had best take them seriously. As Ross Perot cautioned us, “the devil is in the details”; there is a relevant corollary to Perot’s maxim – “it’s often not what’s on the lines count; it’s what between the lines that matters most.”

Of most concern among the proposals is the Administration’s attempt to broaden the definition of who is “engaged in the business” of selling firearms; a classification which requires cumbersome licensing from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, in addition to dramatically enhanced penalties for violating the myriad regulations and conditions attendant to being a firearms dealer (a “Federal Firearms Licensee” or “FFL”). Yet, even the Administration is not clear on who would qualify. According to U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch, selling even one firearm could qualify an individual as a federal dealer, “depending on the circumstances” – vagueness not welcome from the person supposed to be the nation’s top lawyer.

In examining Monday’s decrees, Obama’s failure to propose even harsher gun control schemes as demanded by the Left, should not be viewed as a victory for Second Amendment supporters. The eventual goal of gun control advocates is not necessarily “gun control” per se, but ultimately reducing the number of firearms in circulation, and undermining the strength and authority of the Second Amendment. By simply making firearms more expensive to manufacture, and more complicated (and legally treacherous) to own or sell, the president’s “modest” proposals are every bit as dangerous as a move to outlaw certain categories of guns or ammunition; without the fuss of more direct measures that would never actually secure congressional approval.

Much like his Democratic predecessor Bill Clinton, Obama remains chronically apathetic towards the heavy-lifting required to work with Congress in order to pass his agenda through the regular constitutional process. But unlike Clinton, Obama detests the glad-handing, negotiations, and compromises with those he sees as beneath him; and finds it is far easier to use the “stroke of the pen” to accomplish his goals, regardless of the damage thereby done to such vital principles as limited presidential power and separation of powers between the branches of government. Whereas Clinton was relatively open with his Second Amendment agenda and proposed mostly symbolic policies designed to score political points, Obama has chosen to work in the shadows via non-legislative means that strike more calculated blows to heart of gun rights. And his efforts in this regard are many.

Consider the Obama Administration’s signing of the “Arms Trade Treaty” (ATT), which even without ratification by Congress, means the U.S. is “obligated” not to act “contrary to” the gun-control efforts proffered by the treaty explicitly or in ancillary documents. Or, “Operation Choke Point” in 2014, when Obama ordered the Department of Justice and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to pressure banks to dry up financial funding critical to firearms transactions and firearms-related companies. Or, how Obama has attempted to shoehorn the Centers for Disease Control into the gun control debate in an ongoing attempt to make gun violence a “public health” crisis; thereby subject to Food and Drug Administration regulatory control.

These are but a few examples of the many calculated moves by the Obama Administration over the last seven years designed to circumvent Congress, and gut the Second Amendment without subjecting himself or his proposals to real debate. The new round of executive actions is more of the same, regardless of how “modest” the President and his allies claim them to be.

Each step down this path opens the door wider for subsequent administrations to take the same approach regarding other issues. Whether this Congress, unlike its predecessors, recognizes this long-term damage and takes steps to stop the Administration, is – unfortunately – unlikely.


by -

On January 5th, 2016, President Obama announced executive actions take that will limit the buying and selling of guns for most Americans who actually don’t like to take losses on investments.

The action takes aim at the so-called “gun show loophole” but in reality it targets individuals who are looking to sell used firearms.

Currently, only ten states require individuals to conduct background checks on buyers for any purchase and another six require background checks specifically on handgun (not rifle) sales.

For everyone else, they’ll need to take action to protect their investments:


by -

Closing out his eight-year reign, President Obama is starting his final year with a bold move this coming Thursday.

On Monday, the White House announced a town hall hosted by CNN in non-other than Fairfax, Virginia – home to the headquarters of the National Rifle Association.

The townhall will also take place during the first board meeting of the NRA for 2016.

Rumors have circulated for weeks that Obama would use executive powers to enact gun control during his final year.

The first action leaked that would require casual gun sellers to register with the ATF.

Other actions are rumored to include ammunition control, supply manipulation and prohibiting the personal manufacturing of so-called “Ghost Guns.”

Obama’s townhall on Thursday will serve as the stepping off point for a year long campaign to limit the 2nd Amendment and remove firearms from the hands of law-abiding citizens.

CNN, serving as the event’s host in conjunction with George Mason University, will place Anderson Cooper as the moderator and allow questions from the audience.

Note that audience members of presidential events must be vetted for “security” 24 to 48 hours in advance.

White House officials say that Thursday’s event will focus on closing the so-called “gun show loophole” and will correspond with Obama’s executive action to require sellers to go through an bureaucratic quagmire of forms and inspections to become licensed with the ATF. The move would also require any sales made by casual “dealers” to include background checks of buyers.

by -

Throwing caution to the wind to gain the support of anti-gun radicals who despise the Second Amendment and want gun owners to be disarmed, democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton announced this past weekend that she was going to “take on the NRA” if she wins the White House next year.

And because it is unlikely that new gun control legislation will pass Congress and reach her desk for signature, she has said that she will use “Executive Orders” just the way President Obama has to sidestep Congress on controversial issues like illegal immigrant amnesty.

Warning the NRA to be very afraid of her should she win the presidency last year, Clinton touted her anti-gun record in a campaign email that reads in part:

“Hillary has been fighting hard to prevent gun violence for decades, from her vocal support of the Brady Bill in 1993 to her calls on the campaign trail to take on the NRA and pass commonsense solutions to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous criminals.”

“She is the champion we need on this issue — but she needs all of us to stand behind her.”

The email goes on to condemn congressional Republicans for refusing to implement more gun control measures including the expansion of background checks.

For his part, House Speaker Paul Ryan said late last week that he will not allow the Left to stampede Congress into passing new gun control legislation in the wake of last Wednesday’s shootings in San Bernardino, California.

Ryan added that there too many unknowns about the San Bernardino shootings and that many mass shootings occur due to is mental illness which Congress has already been working on.

Democratic presidential candidates Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley all used social media to call for increased gun control immediately following the shooting, while Republican candidates mostly urged prayers and words of support for the victims and their families – something that anti-gun activists mocked in front page editorials.

Reverting to form, Hillary urged Americans to “think about the children” in her email.

“We need to take action now.” “No parent should have to worry about sending their kids to school, or going to a movie theater, or even going to church. No one should have that basic sense of safety and security ripped away from them.”

Candidate Clinton failed to explain how her gun control proposals could have stopped determined Islamic terrorists from gunning down 14 people in San Bernardino, how taking the Second Amendment rights away from law-abiding Americans would make the country safer and exactly how she was going to take the NRA’s five million members down a peg.

All she could offer was an appeal to the anti-gun hysteria on the Left as way to drum up campaign contributions to finance her flagging campaign.

by -
Obama paris

During a press conference in Paris, where Obama is joining leaders for a climate change conference, Obama lamented that the United States has too many mass shootings—and claimed that other countries don’t have them.

He said that. In Paris. Which is just reeling from a mass shooting—a terrorist attack—that left 130 dead.

“With respect to Planned Parenthood, obviously, my heart goes out to the families of those impacted,” Obama said, answering a reporter’s question about the Planned Parenthood murders that left 2 dead in a Colorado Springs abortion clinic. “I mean, I say this every time we’ve got one of these mass shootings; this just doesn’t happen in other countries.”

It’s a popular line from Obama, who has tried to use just about every mass shooting of his presidency to call for increased gun control.

But it’s not true.

Other nations, just like the United States, have their share of mass shootings. And it’s commonly argued by gun rights advocates that the difference between a low-casualty shooting—like the one at Planned Parenthood—and a shooting that kills dozens of people—like Paris—is a proverbial “good guy with a gun” who can respond first, before police get there.

Obama seemed to realize he stepped in it: after his answer, he immediately began talking about terrorism:

“You know, we are rightly determined to prevent terrorist attacks wherever they occur,” he quickly recovered. “Whether in the United States or with friends and allies like France.”



When Comey, the director of the FBI decided not to charge Hillary Clinton, it looks like it had more to do with money than...