Wednesday, June 28, 2017

NRA

by -
Useless Sign
Without a strong right to bear arms, we are all sitting congressmen, er, ducks...

Dana Loesch, host on TheBlaze TV, while on a show with Martha MacCallum on Fox News, debated with gun control advocate Mark Glaze following the horrific shooting on Republican members of Congress at a baseball practice in Virginia.

“First and foremost,” Loesch began, “obviously our prayers are with Congressman Scalise and those individuals who were wounded in this attempted political assassination. And bravo to the Capitol Hill Police who as you heard other congressional members say, if Representative Scalise had not been on that field, with those two officers who are afforded to him as a perk of being a member of leadership there in the Republican Party in the house, they would have been sitting ducks. All they would have had was their gloves and their baseball bats with which to defend themselves which seems, it’s amazing to me.”

“This isn’t a gun issue,” Loesch declared. “The good guys saved the day. Guns save lives. That’s what the story proved.”

“But furthermore, this isn’t an issue, Martha, about firearms,” she continued. “This is an issue about rhetoric. Martha, this is an issue about a guy who has been feeding off the poison that has been coming from comedians and Shakespeare plays of assassinating presidents that are playing in the park.”

“This has been coming from vitriolic rhetoric from the DNC chair,” she added, “and the California Democrat Party who say ‘blank the Republicans, they don’t care about you.’ And individuals like this feed off of this poison, and what’s the result? The result is that these four individuals, their lives were, five individuals now, they were affected by this, and we could have lost a loyal public servant, a husband and father.”

“Well you know politics may have had something to do with what happened today,” Glaze admitted. “But for context, in San Francisco today, four people were killed in a U.S. postal service facility, or a UPS facility, tomorrow, 93 more Americans are going to be killed with guns, and the next day, and the next day.”

“And by the way,” he continued, “the way people in the United Kingdom do politics makes it look like patty cake here in America, but we have 25 times the gun murder rate of people in every other Western country and the reason is, we will give guns to just about anybody. We have to address that.”

MacCallum then indicated that Virginia has quite relaxed gun laws. She asked Loesch why she thought that was a strong argument to explain gun violence.

“No, no,” Loesch responded, “I would obviously have to disagree with the statements. And first off, I think it’s kinda silly to compare us to the U.K., specifically because they also classify crimes differently, and we could get into the weeds all day on that, and I welcome any, all and all debate on that, and I’ll be there anytime anywhere.”

“But with that point, what happened in San Francisco is also awful,” she continued, “but I want to point out that the CDC report commissioned by former President Obama in 2013 just proved what we all knew: it’s that defensive gun use by law-abiding Americans, Martha, greatly outweighs criminal abuses. I definitely don’t want anybody to be made a sitting duck just because the only argument is that a criminal may abuse something that they have every right to possess. Guns save lives, and guns saved the lives in Alexandria, Virginia.”

Glaze counter-argued with more facts and figures about gun violence in America. “Last year and just about every year in America,” he said, “we have some where around 32,000 gun murders and we have about 214 justifiable homicides. Everybody sort of knows that there’s a public health epidemic around guns, and you know we through out this claim that self-defense is a significant factor in America, it’s just not.”

“What’s the number for how many people’s lives are saved by someone who steps in with a gun?” MacCallum interrupted.

“Well, we don’t know,” Glaze responded, “part of the reason is that the NRA won’t let us do the research.”

“We do! That’s a lie!” Loesch interjected. “That’s an absolute lie. [The] CDC report commissioned in 2013 proved it was anywhere from 2.1, actually 500,000 to 2.3 million instances annually, so don’t lie and say that the NRA stood in the way of that. It disrupts your narrative, and you refuse to acknowledge it, and at the same time you’ve had the audacity to claim that you’re for gun safety.”

Commissioned by the Obama administration, the CDC report released in 2013, determined that self-defense “can be an important crime deterrent.”

by -
Gun Rights
Will Trump pass the test?

When he addressed the National Rifle Association at its annual convention in Atlanta, Georgia last Friday, Donald Trump did not mince his words. The President declared to a rousing ovation that, “the eight-year assault on your Second Amendment freedoms has come to a crashing end.” This was welcome news to the thousands of firearms owners, manufacturers and retailers in the audience – many of whom had suffered first-hand as a result of the Obama Administration’s anti-Second Amendment policies during the last eight years.

However, as the saying goes, the “proof of the pudding is in the eating,” and the table has been set for Trump to show America’s 55 million gun owners, including some five million NRA members, that his pro-Second Amendment rhetoric will be backed up by concrete action.

As has been widely noted, Trump is the first sitting U.S. president to speak to the NRA since Ronald Reagan in 1983. While no one expected Bill Clinton or Barack Obama to follow in Reagan’s footsteps, many NRA members did hold out hope that at least one of the Bush presidents – both of whom expressed solidarity with the Association – would have spoken to its members during the 12 years of their combined presidencies.

As it turned out, while both George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush voiced support for the Second Amendment and the NRA, their “commitment” to the gun-rights movement amounted to little more than lip service.

The first Bush – angered by an NRA fund-raising letter that was highly critical of the manner in which the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms handled the 1993 siege of the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas — made much ado publicly about “resigning” from the NRA.

While his son did not split with the NRA during his tenure in office, his support of legislation backed by the NRA and other gun-rights advocates was less than enthusiastic. To his credit, President George W. Bush did sign into law two important firearms bills – the 2005 “Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act,” which leveled the playing field for gun manufactures regarding liability for product misuse; and the “Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004,” which (in theory) allows qualified active and retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons across state lines. However, bringing “W” to the table to actually sign these bills was a lengthy and laborious process, and resulted in concessions to moderates that weakened the protections the legislation were intended to provide.

As gun owners, manufacturers and retailers have learned from experience, the real test whether a president truly supports and will defend the right to keep and bear arms is not their words, but their actions. The early indications are that President Trump will act.

In his first 100 days, Trump signed a repeal of a particularly troublesome Obama-era regulation that would have used an immaterial Social Security rule as the basis for summarily barring tens of thousands of Americans from owning firearms. Additionally, immediately upon confirmation, Trump’s new Interior Secretary, Ryan Zinke, signed an order rescinding a last-minute rule change under Obama that would have phased out the use of traditional, lead ammunition on federal lands. And, we now have a strong constitutionalist – Neil Gorsuch – on the Supreme Court.

But, the real test of a president’s commitment to the Second Amendment is revealed in whether he will actually – aggressively – support meaningful and substantive legislation. There are two pieces of legislation already teed up for the new Commander in Chief to demonstrate his true level of support for the Second Amendment.

The first is the “Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017,” already pending in both houses of Congress. This legislation would replace the patchwork of state laws and regulations regarding concealed carry — in which a person can go from law-abiding citizen to potential felon by doing nothing more than crossing a state line with a firearm fully lawful in their home state – with a single national standard. The legislation simply reflects the principle that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right of citizenship that a person carries with him or her regardless of where they travel.

Another bill now awaiting action in the House of Representatives, is the “Hearing Protection Act of 2017,” which would expand access to sound suppressors that protect the hearing of hunters, competition shooters, and those who may find it necessary to use a firearm in the home for self-defense.

If Trump actually gets behind these and other pieces of pro-gun legislation – and if he refocuses the ATF to go after criminals with firearms, as opposed to playing a game of “Gotcha” with firearms retailers trying to comply with the record-keeping burdens of federal regulations – the NRA, and all 55 million gun owners will have more to cheer about than rousing speeches.

by -
minnesota

A man who is connected to this “deplorable” organization killed the terrorist who stabbed nine people in a St. Cloud mall.

Jason F. Falconer is the off duty police officer who shot and killed the terrorist in the act of stabbing people at a local mall. The terrorist lunged for Falconer and he killed him in a textbook takedown.

The story is spreading all over the United States and his praise is all you are hearing on the national media.

Guess who was a member of the NRA? Guess who taught a training course for the NRA? Jason Falconer.

The man who is being praised by both the left and the right is not only a member of the NRA, but is he is a trainer.

The NRA has been attacked by Democrats and called the worst names for trying to support the second amendment.

Democrat governor Mark Dayton of Minnesota said that he is, “deeply grateful to the heroic law enforcement officer, whose swift response prevented an even worse attack.”

As of right now, the authorities are investigating terrorist ties to ISIS. Watch the video below to see the press conference by Minnesota officials as they talk about terror ties and the heroics of Jason Falconer.

It is obvious to anyone that is paying attention that this was a terrorist attack and a gun toting, card-carrying member of the NRA is the one that stopped the attack.

We need more NRA members like Jason Falconer on the streets.

What do you think about Falconer’s heroic actions? Let us know in the comments below.

by -
NRA

What is the best way to stop the gun violence in America? If you ask a liberal professor from Southern State Community College in Ohio, the solution is shooting up the NRA and leaving no survivors.

The terrifying statement was posted on Facebook on June 13th, when professor James Pearce called on people to storm the National Rifle Associations headquarters in Virginia.

The post has since been removed, but the text is below.

“Look, there’s only one solution. A bunch of us anti-gun types are going to have to arm ourselves, storm the NRA headquarters in Fairfax, VA, and make sure there are no survivors. This action might also require coordinated hits at remote sites, like Washington lobbyists. Then and only then will we see some legislative action on assault weapons. Have a nice day.”

Before the post was taken down, people responded with “likes” and a laughing face emoji. The scary thing is that some people think that this professor’s idea is a good one.

Although a lot of friends responded positively, someone alerted the authorities the next day and the case is under investigation.

What kind of school would allow a person who calls for the killing of hundreds of American citizens to be a professor? Southern State Community College, that is who.

When Kriss Cross, the Director of Public Relations for SSCC, was asked about James Pearce and his comments, the school refused to discuss any details during an investigation. Kriss Cross did however spoke in general about the incident with a Campus Reform reporter.

“In general, the college would alert local authorities about any threats that were made known to the college, especially any threats made to students, faculty or staff. We have a good working relationship with the police jurisdictions covering each of our four campuses, and trust they would follow their protocols for reporting to other agencies. As I understand it, a report does not necessarily mean an investigation.”

As of right now, the school is holding strong and Pearce is still employed by the community college since no criminal charges have been filed yet.

Apparently it is ok to make horrific threats and still keep you job as long as you threaten the NRA. If Pearce threatened an LGBT organization, he would probably be fired immediately.

What are your thoughts? Let us know in the comments below.

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 -
NRA

On Friday Trump spoke to a forum put on buy the political wing of the National Rifle Association, and won over the powerful group.

In his speech to gun enthusiasts, Donald Trump made it clear that he is pro 2nd Amendment and Hillary was not.

In one of his most poignant speeches yet, Donald took the opportunity to speak to the group of NRA supporters about guns and attack Hillary at the same time.

Trump started off by saying he’s beating Hillary in all the polls , but then went on to discuss why guns are important to him. He spoke of the Paris attacks and how 130 people died because nobody was able to shoot back.

Of course he mentioned the fact that Obama and Hillary don’t want to call terrorists Muslim Extremists.

Trump talked about Gun Free Zones and said he would get rid of them. He called Hillary the most anti-gun person to run for president ever and said she wants to abolish the 2nd Amendment.

The crowd of NRA fans ate it up, and at the end of the day he walked out with the endorsement of the National Rifle Association. This is probably the single largest endorsement he could get from any group in America.

Here is the entire speech.

What did you think of his speech and the endorsement of the NRA? Let us know in the comments below.

by -
Hillary

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 -
hillary

Hillary Clinton gave a solid performance in Tuesday night’s Democratic debate–but one statement she made is raising eyebrows. And it could have disastrous repercussions for her in the general election.

Moderator Anderson Cooper asked, “Which enemy that you made during your political career are you most proud of?”

Clinton responded, with a smile, “Well, in addition to the NRA, the health insurance companies, the drug companies, the Iranians–probably the Republicans.”

While that got a loud cheer from the audience, full of partisan liberal Democrats, it could mean big problems with Hillary when it comes to moderates in the general election.

It’s no secret that America has gotten progressively more polarized in the age of Obama–and part of that has been Obama’s refusal to work with Republicans. Blessed with a supermajority in the Senate when he took office, Obama didn’t need any votes from Republicans in order to pass controversial bills like ObamaCare.

When he lost his 60th vote in the Senate with the death of Teddy Kennedy and the election of Republican Scott Brown in Massachusetts, he refused to change course–further alienating Republicans.

Now, Americans on both sides of the aisle are left pointing fingers for gridlock–and many Americans caught in the middle are looking for a President who can unite, rather than continue to divide.

But it’s clear, from the debate, that Hillary Clinton–who declared how proud she is to count nearly half the country as her “enemies”–will not be that President.

by -
ammo-registration

Anti-gun extremist Jeffrey Zalles, who serves as president of the Marin County, California chapter of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, is reaching back in recent history to push what amounts to a gun ban that doesn’t focus on guns themselves but the ammunition people need and must have to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

Zalles began his recent editorial in The Washington Post by referring to a second anti-gun crusader, Nicholas Kristof, who wrote in The New York Times this past August “that gun violence claims one life every 16 minutes in the United States.” Kristof did not back up his spurious claim with any empirical evidence a uses the statistic to say “more than 90 American families are broken by gun violence every day.”

This claim could only be true if Zalles and Kristof lump Chicago gang violence, disputes between drug dealers settled at the point of a gun, robberies, home invasions and more with one thing in common – that these criminal acts were committed by those who care little for our laws against murder and not at all about our laws regarding guns.

Zalles solution it to create a hole big enough in the Second Amendment to drive a truck through and does just that when it comes to licensing, rationing, microstamping and even banning ammunition – efforts that would not take away the right to Keep and Bear Arms but take away ammunition in a way that renders the Second Amendment meaningless.

Zalles laments the fact that the National Rifle Association (NRA) – the nation’s leading pro-gun group has stood in the way of “meaningful” gun laws that would “achieve” significant reductions in his gun violence “statistic” and ignores the rapes, killings, robberies, kidnappings and other criminal horrors prevented by the use of firearms by law-abiding citizens in self-defense.

But Zalles take heart in his belief that the NRA is not “forever” and that there will come a tipping point “whereby a majority of Americans, fed up and fearing for their safety, will finally work their will in the form of strict gun-control measures or even a rewrite or repeal of the Second Amendment.”

So for now, Zalles thinks making it difficult to access ammunition will neutralize the ability of gun owners to exercise their gun rights without restricting their access to firearms.

This is the same fascist thinking that gave us “poll taxes” and “literacy tests” to give people the right to vote but only if they could negotiate the speed bumps and road blocks set up to make voting as difficult as possible.

To burnish the validity of his strategy to limit the ability of gun owners to use their firearms by going after the ammunition, Zalles noted that late senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said there was a 200 year supply of gun in the United States but only a four-year supply of ammunition.

So Zalles proposes “two steps (that) would work wonders” in fighting gun violence.

The first is to license ammunition buyers – that next best thing to gun registration itself. He proposes “several” non-threatening requirements to gain a license like watching a video, answering a few questions about gun safety, producing some form of photo ID, paying as small fee and passing a passing a background check.

What he leaves out is that if the government knows who has the ammunition, the government knows who has the guns. What’s more, once any part Zalles “ammunition registration” scheme is in place, the government can play with the gun rights of law-abiding people around the edges.

A “small fee” could become a “big fee”. Some form of photo ID could become a government ID issued by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE). A gun safety test could become a questionnaire, completed under penalty of perjury, requiring you to disclose the types and number of firearms you own.

And Zalles doesn’t ask for a “criminal” background check, he only wants a “background check” that could include questions about military service, treatment for mental health issues, the number of children you have your home – you name it.

Zalles’s second step is to make ammunition too hard or too expensive to make – and that means “microstamping” ammunition at point of manufacture. That’s right, All ammunition would be marked so ammunition could be traced back to the buyer.

Setting the cost of microstamping aside, criminals could gain access to ammunition and simply deface the markings on the round. It would also put a crimp in those gun owners who load their own ammunition. Would these gun owners have to enter into some tortured registration regime overseen by government bureaucrats on the ammo they reload?

And while Zalles says “a focus on ammunition wouldn’t infringe on the rights of law-abiding gun owners”, he is woefully ignorant in what it takes to be a gun owner and the havoc politicians and bureaucrats to rain down on the right to Keep and Bear Arms.

A government that could impose a poll tax or literacy test on American’s wishing to exercise the franchise could easily take nice sounding well-reasoned and incremental steps against ammunition and turn them up into roadblocks that would stop the right of all law-abiding gun owners to use firearms for hunting, shooting and self-defense dead their tracks.

by -
mass-shooting

“Never let a crisis go to waste” was the famous credo of Obama’s former chief of staff, and current Mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emanuel.

And it’s advice that the liberal news media is certainly taking to heart–because they’re now blaming the horrific shooting in Oregon squarely on the Republicans to score political points.

Correspondent Nancy Cordes gave a special report on CBS News, where she slammed Republicans and conservative-leaning nonprofits like the NRA.

“Sympathy and best wishes are all about the victims’ families can expect from Congress,” she fumed, “which has not seriously debated strengthening gun laws since 2013, after 20 children and six adults were killed at Sandy Hook Elementary in Connecticut.”

But the media wasn’t alone directing their outrage at Republicans–it was Barack Obama who gave them permission to do so.

In a speech after the shooting on Thursday, Obama called for national outrage and exploited the crisis in order to seek tougher gun laws. He said, “Somebody, somewhere will comment and say, Obama politicized this issue. Well, this is something we should politicize.”

But while Obama–a politician–might be eager to politicize something, it’s not something Americans should expect from their so-called “unbiased” mainstream media.

TRENDING STORIES

Heightened Tensions

CBS News anchor Scott Pelley, who is being replaced as anchor chair by the news channel, took, what is being called “parting shot” at...