One of the reasons that we are facing a harder fight for our rights is that anti-Second Amendment extremists have gone beyond the misuse of firearms in the commission of crimes and acts of madness as a reason to take away our rights. This strategy, which has become very effective, had its birth with the Violence Policy Center.
Do not let the innocent-sounding name fool you. The Violence Policy Center is responsible for not only creating the “assault weapons” myth that is regularly used to beat Second Amendment supporters over the head, especially in the wake of mass shootings, but it is part of an overarching long-term strategy that is responsible for a paradigm shift in the debate over our rights.
You see, to the Violence Policy Center, mere ownership of any type of firearms threatens the “public health” of the entire country. By moving it to this angle it allows them to hammer law-abiding American citizens who wish to exercise their Second Amendment rights – even when they have done nothing wrong. It is part of a pattern of anti-Second Amendment innovation – one that has been a hallmark of the organization’s founder, Josh Sugarmann.
Sugarmann, as Second Amendment supporters should know, is the one who initially suggested that the future of anti-Second extremism was shifting the focus away from handguns and on modern multi-purpose semiautomatic rifles and shotguns. His infamous quote is one that Second Amendment supporters should point to when trying to convince our fellow Americans that they are being misled.
But it goes beyond modern multi-purpose semiautomatic rifles. The Violence Policy Center has also sought a complete ban on handguns over the same years. Again, the refrain is they are a danger to public health. We also saw them hype of alleged dangers from rifles that used the .50 BMG cartridge, and it has waged a relentless war on concealed carry laws, often highlighting the very rare times concealed carry permit holders were charged with crimes. The group even targeted subcompact pistols like the Glock 26 calling them “pocket rockets.” There is one very common denominator in all of this: The Violence Policy Center was trying to create fear about gun ownership and modern firearms technology.
But the Violence Policy Center has not stopped there. In addition to the fear-mongering, the Violence Policy Center has proposed to give career bureaucrats the right to impose gun bans. This is, in fact, precisely what the Violence Policy Center advocated in 1994. Their model legislation was introduced in 1993, 1995, and 1997 by then-Representative Major Owens.
The group calls it “regulating the gun industry” – ignoring the many federal, state, and local laws on firearms already in existence. At the link, you will note that they will claim teddy bears are regulated for health and safety, while guns aren’t.
Putting guns under the model of consumer product regulation would, in essence, allow anti-Second Amendment extremists to ban guns – leaving Americans with little recourse against such a ban. It would even apply to accessories like laser sights. And all from a bureaucrat’s edict – with no effective response. When was the last time a federal government bureaucrat got fired for abusing power?
While the Brady Campaign was dangerous in its ability to harness emotional stories, and to separate a lot of well-meaning gun owners from defending the Second Amendment, and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence has added a more religious fervor that many groups adopt, the Violence Policy Center has literally put forth the nuts and bolts of a plan to take away our rights. They also have played a role in creating the climate of fear used to fuel efforts to take our rights away.
While that approach has been brushed off easily in the past, these days, it is becoming more and more effective – and we are paying for that in terms of losing elections. Eric Holder’s long-sought brainwashing of Americans against guns has begun to take hold, and the Violence Policy Center’s work has been the crux of that campaign. How else do you explain the way an advice columnist can tell a father to put his hatred of guns over love for his daughter, and then double down on it?
Overcoming this climate of fear will be a full-spectrum fight over the long haul that will require the right approach and much attention to not just strategy and tactics, but how Second Amendment supporters come across to their fellow Americans. Supreme Court rulings will only be of temporary respite rather than the beginning of the end of infringements on our rights if the fear created by the Violence Policy Center is not overcome.
While Democrat presidential candidate after Democrat presidential candidate has pushed gun control, Americans have been filing into retailers to purchase firearms.
In fact, FBI figures for firearm purchase background checks–performed via the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS)–show that October 2019 was the third consecutive month of record checks.
And October 2019 saw 2,393,609 background checks, for the third consecutive record month this year.
It is important to note that background checks numbers are not an exact indicator of the number of gun sales that occurred, and there are many reasons for this.
For one, a background check is done on the purchaser not the gun, and the purchaser could purchase multiple guns with each background check.
Secondly, some background checks are done for concealed carry licenses, etc., so they do not represent gun sales.
However, the recording setting rise in background checks does indicate that gun sales rose, and did so at a time when candidates like Robert “Beto” O’Rourke were saying, “Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15.” Which was the same time frame in which Joe Biden was pushing firearm registration, gun owner licensing, and lawsuits against gun manufacturers and Elizabeth Warren was pushing an excise tax to reduce firearm sales.
Yep, that’s right. Just a “commonsense” law allowing the police to enter your home and check to ensure that your firearms are being stored properly. Shaw bases his argument on what’s called an “appeal to authority,” in this case his status as a veteran. His column is even called “Take It From A Veteran: Gun Control Will Actually Protect Our Right To Keep And Bear Arms.”
I appreciate Mr. Shaw’s service, but being a veteran doesn’t make you an expert on gun control laws. I wanted to call this column “Take It From A Guy Who’s Been Covering The Gun Issue For Fifteen Years: Gun Control Will Not Actually Protect Our Right to Keep And Bear Arms”, but it’s a little wordy.
On Nov. 14, 2019, the Attorney General published and submitted to Congress the first semiannual report on the Fix NICS Act. The report, required by the Fix NICS Act passed by Congress in March 2018, reflects strong compliance with the Act and demonstrates renewed efforts at all levels of government to improve the sharing of records and information that are vital to the effective operation of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).
“An effective NICS system is critical to ensuring that we keep guns out of the hands of those who should not have them,” said Attorney General William P. Barr. “I am encouraged by the results of this initial report. Fix NICS implementation is still in its infancy, yet already we’re seeing great strides being made across government – state, tribal, and federal law enforcement – to strengthen the NICS. Given the preliminary data, it is clear that the Fix NICS Act is well on its way to doing exactly what it was intended to do – make the NICS better.”
The NICS is a computerized system designed to help determine if a person is disqualified from possessing or receiving firearms by conducting a search of available relevant records. The databases searched by the NICS contain records with information relevant to the legal prohibitions against firearm possession and purchasing under both federal and state law. To function effectively, the NICS must have access to complete, accurate, and timely information submitted by relevant agencies in all levels of government across the country.
The 2018 Fix NICS Act was passed to encourage government agencies to improve their records submission processes and further strengthen the NICS. Under the Fix NICS Act:
- Federal agencies:
- must report certain record submission metrics to the Attorney General in semiannual certifications; and
- must establish four-year implementation plans to improve records submissions.
- States and tribal governments:
- are incentivized with grant preferences to establish four-year implementation plans.
- The Attorney General:
- must publish and submit to Congress a semiannual report on federal agency compliance with the Act; and
- must determine whether federal agencies, states, and Indian tribal governments have achieved substantial compliance with the benchmarks set out in their implementation plans.
- 45 federal agencies submitted certifications and implementation plans
- All 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Indian tribal governments established implementation plans and
- Another 44 federal agencies certified they do not have any relevant records
The efforts by federal agencies, states, and Indian tribal governments under the Act are already paying off. Between April 2018 and August 2019:
- There was an increase of over six million records in the three national databases searched with every NICS check—a 6.2 percent increase. In addition, there was a 15 percent increase in records in one of those databases, the NICS Indices.
- The number of Firearm Retrieval Referrals (FRRs) (where a prohibited person is able to purchase a firearm because the background check could not be concluded within three business days due to incomplete records) decreased each month in comparison to the same month during the previous year, for an average monthly decline of 102 FRRs.
- With the exception of June 2018, there was an increase in the percentage of NICS checks resulting in an immediate determination (not requiring a delay for further research) compared to the previous year. Specifically, there was an average increase of 0.51 percent for each month when compared with the same month of the previous year.
- From May 2019 through July 2019, the military branches enhanced their record reporting by increasing entries into the Controlled Substance category by 10 percent, with an overall increase in multiple categories of 2.63 percent.
- The U.S. Customs and Border Protection entered approximately 13 million illegal or unlawful alien records into the NICS Indices in October 2019.
Although the implementation plans have been in place for just a few months, these early indicators are encouraging. As the plans are executed over the next several years, the Department of Justice expects to see a real and lasting positive impact on NICS records and operations.
The complete report can be accessed here: https://www.justice.gov/ag/fix-nics-report-2019.
DENVER (AP) — Gun rights groups are urging the Colorado Supreme Court to follow guidance from the U.S. Supreme Court to throw out the state’s ban on gun magazines that hold more than 15 rounds.
In arguments before the state court Wednesday, the groups’ lawyer, Barry Arrington, said that since the U.S. Supreme Court has found that the right to bear arms is a fundamental right, the state has a heavier burden to prove that the magazine limit is needed. He said they cannot meet that standard.
The law was passed in 2013, a year after the Aurora theater shooting, in an effort to limit the number of deaths in mass shootings. While large capacity magazines were used in the Columbine and Aurora shootings, Arrington said that have also been widely used by gun owners, with millions of them in existence when the law was passed.
\The legal challenge brought by Rocky Mountain Gun Owners and the National Association for Gun Rights is based on the gun rights’ provision in the Colorado Constitution, which expressly protects the right of people to be armed to defend their homes, property and themselves. Given that, Colorado Solicitor General Eric Olson told the justices they have the right to interpret the state’s constitution on their own, noting that U.S. Supreme Court guidance changes over time.
Olson argued the state Supreme Court should instead stick with the approach it established in 1994 in a challenge to an assault weapons ban passed by Denver — deciding whether a law furthers a legitimate government interest without being too broad.
The case that Arrington wants the state court to look to came later. In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Americans have a constitutional right to keep handguns and commonly used firearms in their homes for self-defense. The ruling struck down the District of Columbia’s 32-year handgun ban as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment.
Classic reference: “Sure would be nice if we had some grenades….”
The campus of one of Hong Kong’s top universities turned into a battleground on Tuesday as student protesters fought with police well into the night.
After police entered the campus, protesters set up roadblocks, formed human chains to pass supplies, and made weapons including petrol bombs.
Others fought back with bows and arrows, as police fired volleys of tear gas and rubber bullets at the crowd.
Colorado gun stores still sell high-capacity magazines despite 2013 law banning them
Magazines that hold more than 15 rounds of ammunition are still being sold in Colorado. Legislators thought that they banned them, but gun store employees describe a loophole in the law.
A state law banning the sale and transfer of large-capacity gun magazines has not stopped the sale and transfer of magazines that hold more than 15 rounds of ammunition.
An undercover investigation by 9Wants to Know found examples of gun stores in Colorado either ignoring the law altogether or finding a loophole to get around the law.
“It’s shocking to see that people are doing this,” said state Sen. Rhonda Fields, D-Aurora.
In 2013, a Democratically-controlled state legislature passed four comprehensive bills dealing with guns, including the bill sponsored by Fields banning magazines that hold more than 15 bullets.
The bill, signed into law by then-Gov. John Hickenlooper, banned the sale, transfer and possession of a large-capacity magazine as of July 1, 2013.
“…wholly ineffective, which your video shows.”
Retired Circuit Justice Kozinski once said:
“The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed—where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.
Fortunately, the Framers were wise enough to entrench the right of the people to keep and bear arms within our constitutional structure. The purpose and importance of that right was still fresh in their minds, and they spelled it out clearly so it would not be forgotten.”
It seems that “….silences those who protest.” is not so ‘improbable’ these days, is it?
A poll conducted by Caravan Surveys for the Campaign for Free Speech revealed alarming support among Americans for rewriting the First Amendment and underscores the danger of putting constitutionally-protected fundamental rights up to a public vote.
According to the survey, “some 51 percent of people in the US believe that the (First) amendment…should be updated to reflect the cultural norms of today.” The poll of 1,004 respondents also revealed that 48 percent believe “hate speech,” while not defined, should be illegal and half of the people think punishment should include possible imprisonment or fines. A whopping 57 percent of poll respondents think the government should be able to penalize news agencies for publishing “content that is biased, inflammatory, or false.”
The poll results have frightening ramifications for our free speech and free press rights. The fact that a majority of people now seem to be rethinking our freedoms guaranteed under the Bill of Rights should be troubling to all Americans.
What is equally troubling is the failure of the establishment media to see the parallels between this sudden attack on the First Amendment and the ongoing crusade against the Second Amendment.
As authors of the recently-released book “Good Guys with Guns,” we recognize there are good journalists with keyboards and bad journalists with keyboards. Good ones should not be penalized for the misbehavior of the bad ones. The same principle must apply to how we treat the rights of more than 100 million American gun owners who have never harmed anyone or committed any crime, yet how many editorial pages have repeatedly demanded more restrictions on the Second Amendment because some people break the law?
When talking about constitutionally-enumerated rights, great care must be taken to separate rights from privileges. For too many years, far too many people in the media have treated the Second Amendment as a privilege to be heavily regulated. The Campaign for Free Speech poll puts such corrosive thinking in its proper perspective.
Simply, you cannot advocate restrictions or abolition of your neighbors’ rights, which you don’t support, without putting your own rights at risk. With the release of these new survey results, that vulture has come home to roost.
We are fully aware of the growing concern for school safety against shootings. Schools are becoming one of the most targeted areas due to being gun-free zones. No one on the property is allowed to carry a firearm, regardless of their training except the police officer who sits at the front desk. One person is in charge to cover and protect the entire school against a shooter that can be anywhere in the building.
A change is needed, and it starts with who may or may not be allowed to carry a firearm.
Teachers throughout the school should be allowed the right to carry a firearm for protection of themselves and, more importantly, the students in their class. This right needs to involve detailed training, extensive background checks and also psychiatric testing to confirm these individuals are suitable for that responsibility.
Now, this should not be mandatory, but it certainly should be allowed for the protection and safety of our children. These mentally insane individuals are targeting schools because they have to get past one person at the front door, and then the devastation is up to them. With teachers carrying guns, the shooter will be able to be apprehended much sooner if a gun is pointed back at them and save a lot of innocent lives.
According to the National Rifle Association, there are over 95 percent less shootings in gun-friendly zones than gun-free zones. This information persuaded lawmakers in Florida to make it legal for a teacher to carry a firearm at school. Coupled with testing previously stated in this letter, teachers having the right to carry firearms is a very strong form of protection and definitely can be regulated and implemented in schools in this area.
In the aftermath of a recent Florida self-defense shooting, female gun owners argued that the AR-15 provides specific advantages to women for home defense, vehemently rejecting the views of gun-control activists who insist the firearm is unnecessary.
Speaking with the Washington Free Beacon on Friday, five female firearm owners and advocates said the AR-15 platform offers several features that are ideal for women specifically. Robyn M. Sandoval, executive director of A Girl & A Gun Women’s Shooting League, said the rifle is both more effective and safer for female shooters.
“ARs are an excellent choice for women for home defense,” Sandoval told the Free Beacon. “The platform is relatively lightweight and easy to hold and customize so that the firearm fits her body correctly. Having a rifle that is the right size for the shooter makes it more comfortable to shoot and therefore more accurate and safer.”
Many Democratic politicians, including 2020 frontrunner Joe Biden, have long decried the AR-15 as both dangerous and an impractical or unnecessary firearm for civilians, especially women. But the female firearm owners the Free Beacon spoke to rejected the logic of these pro-gun-control men.
“AR-15s are perfect for women,” Mary Chastain, a writer and gun owner, said. “Despite the size, they are lightweight and have hardly any kickback. This allows us to aim well and shoot the target where we want to.”
Dana Loesch, a nationally syndicated radio host and gun-rights activist who has faced threats to her safety throughout her career, said she picks an AR-15 when it comes to home defense.
“I was always taught in training that your pistol is what you use to get to your rifle, and the AR-15 is what I choose to use,” Loesch told the Free Beacon.
The customizability of the rifle is a big selling point for women, competitive shooter and trainer Julie Golob said.
“The AR platform can be a useful and effective option for women when it comes to defending themselves and their property,” she told the Free Beacon. “Starting with the fact that the length of pull can be adjusted easily, unlike rifles with fixed stocks, the AR can quickly become custom fit to its user. The pistol grip, combined with quick access to the safety and other controls, makes this platform one a woman can confidently control.”
“I can choose my trigger, hand guard, barrel length, grip,” Dianna Muller, a former police officer and head of the gun-rights group DC Project, added. “I can put a light, laser, etc. I call it the Mr. Potato Head for the gun connoisseur!”
The testimony of these women contradicts Biden, who has repeatedly claimed that AR-15s are hard to use and ineffective compared with shotguns. In 2013, he said he had advised his own wife to use a double-barrel shotgun instead of an AR-15.
“I said, ‘Jill, if there’s ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony here, walk out and put that double-barrel shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house,'” Biden said in an interview with Parents Magazine. “You don’t need an AR-15—it’s harder to aim. It’s harder to use, and in fact you don’t need 30 rounds to protect yourself. Buy a shotgun! Buy a shotgun!”
Late last month, a heavily pregnant mother did exactly what Biden warned against to defend her family. She used an AR-15 to fend off two armed men who were attacking her husband and daughter in their Florida home.
The women who spoke with the Free Beacon disagreed with Biden’s assertions that AR-15s are not necessary. Loesch said she was competent with shotguns, but has found the AR-15 is simply a better option.
“The 12 gauge is an excellent home defense gun, too, but the collateral consideration does affect my decision there (frangible ammo is an option),” Loesch told the Free Beacon. “AR-15s are easy to shoulder, lightweight, the low recoil makes it easier to maintain target acquisition, and the ergonomics are great. I can access everything without compromising a defensive stance. I also have more rounds with an AR-15.”
Chastain also said that she finds the AR-15 easier than many other firearms to use.
“You can use it with one hand, which helps me,” she said. “My entire left side is handicapped, caused by brain trauma at birth. There are many guns I cannot use. The AR is perfect because I can use the functions with only my right hand. The lightness of the gun makes it easy for my handicapped left arm and hand to hold it.”
The women said the availability of magazines with more ammunition capacity than the double-barrel shotguns Biden highlighted—which hold only two rounds—is a significant advantage of the AR platform, as is the variety of ammunition types.
“Standard capacity magazines create a reduced chance to have to fumble to exchange mags under stress,” Golob said.
“The ballistics of defensive ammunition prevent over-penetration, and standard-capacity magazines hold 30 rounds, which is more than a shotgun or pistol,” Sandoval said.
The women who spoke to the Free Beacon stressed that, while they believe the AR-15 provides them certain advantages over other guns, women are more than able to become skilled with shotguns, handguns, or any other firearm.
“There are pros and cons to any self-defense tool,” Golob said. “Practice on the range and training gun-handling skills, whether it’s a rifle, pistol, or shotgun, is key. I feel that the best home defense option for a woman is the one she is most comfortable with and that she can produce the best results.”
Sandoval encouraged women to “train extensively on any firearm they choose to use to protect their families” but also noted AR-15 classes are one of the most commonly available—one of its primary advantages in her opinion.
Some of the women also view the imposing nature and reputation of the AR-15 as a bonus feature.
“I also like the fact that they’re scary looking,” Chastain said. “A man breaks into my house, I don’t mind using a scary looking weapon to defend myself.”
“Ultimately, I want the meanest, most manageable thing I can get,” Loesch said.
“The only reason why the government would want to disarm you after 243 years is because they intend to do something that you would shoot them for.”
–Kathy Zhu @PoliticalKathy
November 9 marks the 81st anniversary of the first day of Kristallnacht, also known as the “night of broken glass.” For nearly a week, the Nazi Sturmabteilung paramilitary forces carried out a pogrom against Jewish-owned businesses, synagogues and properties across Germany and related territories; 267 synagogues and 7,000 businesses were damaged or destroyed, and 30,000 Jewish men were incarcerated in concentration camps.
There was another sinister motive equal to the anti-Semitism: gun control.
What many don’t know is, weeks before, the Nazis had disarmed the Jews whom they terrorized; they knew who had firearms because of a compulsory, pre-Nazi gun registry created a decade earlier. The Nazis were so precise that businesses adjacent to Jewish-owned businesses were untouched; we suspect that many non-Jews wanted to help, but they knew that assisting would likely mean death or imprisonment.
After Kristallnacht, what did Hitler say was the justification? Confiscation of illegally owned guns, in response to the assassination of Nazi diplomat Ernst vom Rath by Herschel Grynszpan, a 17-year-old German-born Polish Jew living in Paris.
In his 1971 book Rules for Radicals, Chicago community organizer and Obama and Clinton hero Saul Alinsky coined the phrase “the issue is never the issue.”
This is exactly what Hitler and Joseph Goebbels, Reich minister of propaganda of Nazi Germany, employed in their post-Kristallnacht propaganda. Their “issue” was revenge for vom Rath’s death, but the actual issue was disarmament of a population they intended to murder or enslave.
Democrats Channel the Nazis
Thanks to Robert O’Rourke, the chronically failing candidate and DMIC (Democrat Media Industrial Complex) Chia Pet, firearm registrations and confiscation are now cemented in the national branding and messaging of the Democratic Party and most of its 2020 candidates. Democrats have always believed this, mind you; in the past, however, they at least had the decency to lie about it.
Now that the “Democrats aren’t coming for your guns” toothpaste lie is out of the tube, expect Democrats to eventually — sooner rather than later — present their Final Solution to the firearm question: full-scale criminalization of any civilian firearm ownership, irrespective of the type of firearm. The Democrats’ voter base is rabidly and insatiably anti–Second Amendment.
The unholy matrimony between the Democratic Party and the Nazis has long been documented. What’s utterly shocking is how little Americans know about this history. The Democratic Party is America’s original hate group, and Democrats were Nazis before the real Nazis existed. Just like today’s Democrats, the Nazis were also anti-white; in Germany’s case, the expendables were those deemed to be the weaklings in the pursuit to resurrect a mythological pure Aryan race. The Third Reich’s basis for the Holocaust was the belief that certain racial and biological traits made one inferior or superior as a human being. Sound familiar? “I voted for Obama because he’s black”; “I voted for Clinton because she’s a woman.”
As South Florida residents, it’s rare to meet Jewish Democrats who know the complete history of Kristallnacht. In Palm Beach County, 20 percent of the 1.5 million residents are Jews, making it one of the largest Jewish-inhabited counties in the U.S. Miami Dade and Broward counties have a combined additional 200,000 Jews.
Republicans Side with Democrats
In the wake of every mass shooting, we wait to see what Republican lawmaker will run to CNN or The Washington Post to lecture us about “doing something bipartisan,” which is the peddling of peaceful slavery disguised as utopianism.
The most egregiously unconstitutional proposal, which is supported by many Republican politicians, and is law in Florida, is “red flag” legislation. These laws allow police or family members to petition a state court to order the temporary removal of guns from an individual who may present a danger to himself or others.
In some cases, ex parte hearings are held, which allow judges to make rulings without all plaintiff and defendant parties present. In some cases, the defendant isn’t even aware that someone has filed a petition against him until he receives a notice in the mail, or hand-delivered by a law enforcement officer.
Red flag laws don’t solely violate our Fifth Amendment rights; they also potentially infringe upon our First, Second, Fourth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment liberties. (We’ve written extensively about national and Florida red flag laws here; they’re too good to be true.) The Second Amendment is where Democrat political and judicial activist tyranny most manifest themselves. Yes, it also shows in their disdain for freedom of speech and religion, due process, and states’ rights, but the Second Amendment is the right that has long provoked the most anti-liberty bloodthirstiness among Democrats.
Rather than respond with more laws that infringe upon our guaranteed, God-given, non-negotiable rights, why is it that Republicans never respond to shootings with impassioned pleas to Americans to exercise their Second Amendment rights by arming themselves? Because they’re petrified that The New York Times will accuse them of “having blood on their hands.” Instead of challenging the debunked myths and conspiracy theories of Democrats and the DMIC, too many Republicans fall over themselves to let MSNBC’s audience know that they really do care about the well-being of children.
Thankfully, President Trump — once a supporter of red flag laws — appears to be changing his mind. Good thing, too; had he continued to side with the Democrats and Tessio Republicans (inspired by Sal Tessio, from The Godfather, who betrays the Corleone family, a Tessio Republican is one who betrays his or her core voters), he would have undoubtedly lost millions of votes, and we can’t afford to lose any votes heading into 2020.
Last week, the Wall Street Journal published an op ed by prominent firearm policy researcher John Lott Jr., and big shocker – the anti-gunners immediately got their knickers in a bunch.
Entitled Mexico’s Soaring Murder Rate Proves Gun Control Is Deadly, Lott very effectively spells out some sound reasons as to why our southern neighbor has become a mecca of murder.
“Another month, another record number of murders in Mexico” reports Lott. “For the first nine months of 2019, Mexico had 25,890 murders—almost six times as many murders per 100,000 people as in the U.S.”
Not content, however, to marvel at the sheer horror and atrocity of these numbers, anti-gun fanatics instead are shrieking at the Wall Street Journal for having the gall to give Lott anything other than print space in the obituaries.
Moms Demand Action founder Shannon Watts – head anti-gun dogmatist and Bloomberg’s political honey screamed through Twitter “Why would the WSJ allow John Lott to lie about gun violence in their newspaper?”
And she continued by doing what she does best – being flat-out dishonest – calling Lott a “shill for the gun lobby.” She knows full well this is bogus but that hasn’t kept her and others in the anti-gun circle from spreading the lie. On the Crime Research Prevention Center’s website, Lott responded:
“It is a false claim that Shannon Watts and other gun control advocates have floated before and I have responded before. Neither the Crime Prevention Research Center nor I have received a $1 for any of our research. We have that policy posted on our website. Shannon Watts also links to an attack on Dr. Lott in the left wing Vox, but that was also something that we had previously responded to. Not that Watts could respond to our responses, she finds it necessary to keep repeating the same links over and over again.”
In direct response on Twitter, Lott asked “Why is it acceptable for gun control activists like Shannon Watts to always push to keep others off the media – why can’t they ever provide substantive comments on the actual content of what they are criticizing?”
He concluded with “Of course, neither Shannon Watts nor any other gun control advocates responded to my Tweets. As is typical, they attack and then move on.”
Lott’s article is well worth a read. He reports “Mexicans had a right to own guns until 1971, when the constitution was amended to give the federal government total control over firearm access. In 1972 the government passed strict gun-control measures. registered, unloaded, in a locked container, and going from one residence to another.”
For decades Mexico has had only one gun store in the entire country, a military-run establishment in Mexico City. The store’s prices are very expensive, and the most powerful rifle that you can buy there is a .22 caliber.
John Lott – WSJ 10/21/19
Although this sounds eerily familiar as to what Californians face, Mexico has taken private ownership of firearms to a level far beyond what we experience.
“Getting permission to purchase a gun is a feat in itself. Background checks take six months to complete and require fingerprints and an evaluation of the buyer’s employment history. Only 1% of Mexicans possess a license to own a firearm.”
John Lott – WSJ 10/21/19
There’s nothing scary or inaccurate about anything Lott has written – in the Wall Street Journal piece or anywhere else. That being said, it’s clear to GOC why Shannon Watts and those like her want to shut the John Lotts of the world up. It’s because the more people know the facts, the anti-gun movement will be just like that Emperor…you know, the one with no clothes.
To read the full John Lott article, click here.
“And I think for somebody to put a sign that said ‘this is a gun-free zone’ is asinine. You’re only asking for trouble.”
Much like Hillary Clinton before an African American audience, when she breaks into her fake accent in order to try to give the impression that she can relate to people that she’d ordinarily cross the street to avoid, Joe Biden lapses into faux-gun-owner-ese whenever he’s in front of a group that might include a few gun owners. Such was the case in this sparsely attended Biden speech in New Hampshire.
“I believe in 2A but nobody says you can have a rounds — a magazine with a hundred clips in it…”
“We protect geese more than we protect, no joke you can only have 3 shotgun shells when you go shooting for geese”
Seriously, WTF is he talking about?🤦🏼♀️
— Femme Fatale (@RealBasedMAGA) November 8, 2019
Aside from his lack of facility with some very basic firearms terms screaming that he’s a poseur, the argument is patently stupid. Shotguns are limited to three rounds but only for migratory game birds. For instance, my aging Ithaca pump-action 12-gauge that I’ve had since high school has a five-round magazine and a plug that reduces magazine capacity to two. They are limited in capacity because the phrase “sitting duck” isn’t just something someone thought up and the laws are in place to ensure a regular supply of game birds to facilitate the sale of hunting licenses. Deer hunting has no such limit on magazine capacity because deer are just a little bit harder to kill than geese and you might find that you have to shoot more…hmmm…frequently to hit your quarry.
Unlike human predators, only rarely do game birds invade your home and seek to kill you. When you do need a weapon for home defense, the last thing you want is some goof like QuidProJoe and his fellow travelers leveling the playing field by reducing your magazine capacity and giving the criminal a fighting chance. Humans are notoriously hard to kill, one of my platoon sergeants counseled me that “you have to shoot a man’s weight in bullets at him to kill him,” and if you are surprised by an intruder, you probably aren’t going to have time to grab your back up ammo supply to make up for the magazine that only carries two “clips.”
This is just another dumb idea from one of the least intelligent politicians in the Democrat field, and that, my friends, covers one helluva lot of real estate.
Anti-gun gubbernor calls a special session for gun control laws, which is in his power, but nothing though in that power concerning how long the legislature has to stay in session. Hee hee.
The Assembly and Senate special sessions on gun control legislation that Democratic Gov. Tony Evers ordered to take place Thursday both lasted less than a minute.
Evers called on lawmakers to convene Thursday at 2 p.m. to take up two bills that polls have shown have widespread support among voters. Earlier in the day dozens of gun control advocates rallied at the Capitol and packed into the Assembly and Senate galleries to witness the debate.
But it wasn’t until 8 p.m., after most of the activists had gone home, that Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald, R-Juneau, called the session to order with no other lawmakers in the room. He adjourned the session a few seconds later, avoiding debate or a vote on the gun control measures Democratic lawmakers had been advocating for throughout the day.
“I think if there are bills that would make sense to Republican legislators, that we would call ourselves into regular session or extraordinary session to take those up,” Fitzgerald said. “I think the governor knows the bills that he’s offered are not going to pass the Legislature … As they’ve been presented by the governor, there’s no momentum for them.”
The Assembly also began and quickly closed its special session immediately after finishing its regular session at about 9:30 p.m. Throughout the more than 8-hour regular session, Republicans declined multiple Democratic requests to break into special session, while also debating the merits of the legislation.
Evers called for the special session to vote on bills that would require universal background checks for all firearm purchases in Wisconsin and implement so-called red-flag laws, under which people deemed to be threats by a court must surrender their firearms.
I bet they didn’t expect that.
When Tulsa County District Attorney Steve Kunzweiler was asked what would happen when Oklahoma’s constitutional carry law took effect on November 1, he said, “Nothing.”
In a radio interview on Tulsa Beacon Weekend on KCFO AM970, Kunzweiler said basically that criminals will still commit crimes and law-abiding citizens will exercise their constitutional rights.
The new law, the 2018 Oklahoma Self-Defense Act, means you can carry a firearm without a license. You can still get a license but state law no longer requires that someone over age 21 (age 18 for veterans or active military) need to pay $100 for a five-year gun permit ($200 for 10 years). The cost of a required training certificate and an awareness of the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act can now be avoided. Not requiring a license also means legal citizens can carry without proof of residency, fingerprinting and a background check. (You still need an FBI background check to purchase a firearm from a licensed gun dealer.)
Oklahomans may still use a local license to carry a firearm in certain states, depending on their laws. It’s approved in Kansas, Arkansas and Missouri but not in Colorado, New Mexico or Texas.
There are some restrictions under state law as to where someone can carry a weapon. That includes liquor stores, bars, government buildings, some sports arenas, public schools, colleges, universities (some exceptions for private colleges), casinos and a few other categories set up law enforcement.
If stopped by a police officer, lawful citizens don’t have to say they are carrying a firearm. Police would prefer that motorists who are stopped say they are exercising their right to carry a gun and tell them where the gun is. And, the police want drivers to keep they hands on the steering wheel.
If you decide to carry a visible handgun on your hip, it must be in a holster. If you threaten someone with a gun, even if you don’t draw the gun or fire it, you could suffer legal consequences. The right to bear arms is embedded in the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The National Rifle Association recommends that anyone who owns a firearm should take training in its use and learn commonly held safety rules.
Democrat presidential candidate billionaire Michael Bloomberg, who spends tens of millions of dollars pushing for extreme gun control laws, demonstrates that he knows literally nothing about firearms.pic.twitter.com/SCjpNdQm6h
— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) November 7, 2019
Michael Bloomberg is probably running for president. That’s bad news.
According to the New York Times, the former New York City mayor is making preparations to file for the Alabama Democratic primary. Alabama isn’t an early voting state, but it has an early registration deadline. Key Bloomberg advisers told the Times that this doesn’t mean he’ll surely enter the race, but that he will if he thinks it’s necessary: “We now need to finish the job and ensure that Trump is defeated — but Mike is increasingly concerned that the current field of candidates is not well positioned to do that.”
While I certainly understand the abstract appeal of the idea of adding a more moderate voice to a Democratic primary field that currently boasts Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders as front-runners, voters shouldn’t mistake Bloomberg for someone any more hospitable to liberty and freedom. In fact, the former mayor has made an entire career out of cracking down on individual liberty and building up the nanny state.
Don’t forget, he spent his tenure as NYC mayor fighting the problems that truly matter by … attempting to ban large sodas? And since leaving office, he’s spent much of his time crusading against vaping despite it being much healthier than traditional smoking.
Even on more serious issues, Bloomberg shows contempt for freedom and constitutional liberties. For instance, he supports a robust anti-Second Amendment agenda, which includes everything from so-called universal background checks to all-out bans on certain types of guns to bans on entire age groups from exercising their right to self-defense. And he’s spent millions of dollars trying to elect legislators willing to whittle away at the Second Amendment.
He fairs only somewhat better on First Amendment issues.
For instance, Bloomberg openly dismisses the idea of a free press when he says he expects his reporters at Bloomberg News to never cover him critically. Imagine that attitude in the Oval Office in the hands of someone who has already displayed ample willingness to use the powers of the government to squash individual liberties. Bloomberg’s contempt for press freedom led even a Washington Post writer to decry his “disturbing attitude toward the First Amendment — and democracy generally.”
Oh, and Bloomberg thinks marijuana legalization is “the stupidest thing anyone has ever done.” That’s right, he believes we should throw people in cages for smoking a plant in their backyard. Of course, I doubt the mayor wants to play by his own rules — he has admitted to smoking weed in the past.
There are, of course, some things to like about Michael Bloomberg. He supported charter schools as mayor of New York City and is at least somewhat fiscally conservative. And in a field that included aspirants as insufferable as Beto O’Rourke and Bill de Blasio, there’s no way he’ll be the most obnoxious candidate we’re forced to hear out.
But none of this makes the mayor’s policy positions any less disqualifying.
Bloomberg’s affinity for the nanny state and antipathy toward personal liberty led a writer at the libertarian magazine Reason to dub him a “billionaire busybody who can be counted on to oppose individual freedom in almost every area of life.” Let’s hope that billionaire busybody doesn’t become our next president.