Dianna Muller, who served in the Tulsa Police Department for 22 years and is the founder of gun advocacy group The DC Project, was among the witnesses at the House Judiciary Committee hearing.
Anti-gun Representatives tried and failed on Wednesday, September 18th to override Governor Chris Sununu’s vetoes of three-anti gun bills.
House Bill 109 would have effectively banned the private transfer of firearms, with exemptions too narrow to matter. As written, the bill would have imposed a definition of “commercial sales” broad enough to cover private transactions at gun shows, forcing nearly all individuals transfer through Federal Firearm Licensed (FFL) dealers. Between 1) the narrowness of the bill’s supposed “exemptions” for private individuals outside of gun shows; and 2) the broad scope of the definition for “commercial sales,” the “exemptions” for New Hampshire citizens were effectively useless.
House Bill 514 would have hindered the Second Amendment rights of New Hampshire citizens by imposing an arbitrary three-day waiting period (excluding weekends and holidays) between citizens and the firearms they purchase. Limited “exemptions” were hitched to requirements involving prolonged safety courses and certain long gun purchases.
House Bill 564 would have prohibited law-abiding citizens from carrying firearms for self-defense while on school grounds (except when picking-up or dropping-off students and, even then, only if the firearm remained in the vehicle). This counterintuitive law would have impeded the very type of protection that citizens and students deserve under the Second Amendment. The bill’s wonky “exemptions” for leaving firearms in vehicles were riddled with limitations that would have forced parents to make an absurd choice between their family’s security or their child’s participation in school activities.
A Senate staffer tells me gun legislation is dead, at least for the time being, because of the impeachment inquiry.
— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) September 25, 2019
Sometimes you have to come to the conclusion that TPTB in congress really don’t want to deal with it anyway; except as a grandstand for their next re-election campaign.
The Bill of Rights. The document on permanent display in the Rotunda is the enrolled original Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 25, 1789, proposing 12-not 10-amendments to the Constitution.
On September 25, 1789, the First Congress of the United States proposed 12 amendments to the Constitution. The 1789 Joint Resolution of Congress proposing the amendments is on display in the Rotunda in the National Archives Museum. Ten of the proposed 12 amendments were ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures on December 15, 1791. The ratified Articles (Articles 3–12) constitute the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, or the U.S. Bill of Rights. In 1992, 203 years after it was proposed, Article 2 was ratified as the 27th Amendment to the Constitution. Article 1 was never ratified.
Transcription of the 1789 Joint Resolution of Congress Proposing 12 Amendments to the U.S. Constitution
Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
(The preamble in the first paragraph that follows is most important. It explains that the Bill Of Rights was to be a restriction on the government, not on the people)
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
Article the first… After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.
Article the second… No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.
Article the third… Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Article the fourth… A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Article the fifth… No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Article the sixth… The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Article the seventh… No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Article the eighth… In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Article the ninth… In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Article the tenth… Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Article the eleventh… The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Article the twelfth… The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, Speaker of the House of Representatives
John Adams, Vice-President of the United States, and President of the Senate
John Beckley, Clerk of the House of Representatives.
Sam. A Otis Secretary of the Senate
Competing factions inside the White House have stymied efforts to unite behind gun legislation, further delaying President Donald Trump from getting behind any plan.
On one side is Ivanka Trump, the president’s daughter and adviser, and Attorney General William Barr. Both are urging the president to back new firearms restrictions — including expanded background checks for gun sales — insisting he can be the leader who succeeds on an intractable issue that has bedeviled his predecessors and that he can win back moderate suburban voters in the process, according to people involved in the discussions.
On the other side, a group that includes Donald Trump Jr., the president’s son and an avid hunter, and a top aide to acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, is telling Trump he risks losing support from his conservative base if he pushes too aggressively on new gun control legislation, they say.
Then there’s Trump, who has heard all of these arguments privately but publicly hasn’t committed to any plan. For weeks, he’s left Washington guessing on whether he’d support any gun control legislation and what form the legislation would take.
The competing forces have created paralysis with just about everybody involved in the discussions — most notably senators — and have delayed the White House’s release of its long-awaited package, possibly jeopardizing the effort to enact meaningful legislation following this summer’s mass shootings that claimed dozens of lives.
The White House didn’t initially respond to a request for comment but after publication spokesman Hogan Gidley refuted the story.
“This is ridiculous, we are completely united in developing exactly what the President wants — which are meaningful solutions that will protect the second Amendment, make American communities safer and potentially prevent these types of tragedies from ever occurring again,” he said in a statement.
Introducing her new gun-control legislation on Monday, Congresscritter Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) proved conclusively that she’s just too uninformed to go anywhere near the subject. She claims to have “held an AR-15 in my hand,” which weighed as much as “10 boxes that you might be moving.” She also claimed the rifle fired a .50 caliber round, and that “these kinds of bullets need to be licensed and do not need to be on the street.”
Can anyone keep them all straight? They rise like noxious bubbles from the cauldron of deep-state anti-Trump sentiment, only to pass away almost immediately, carried off by their own insubstantiality and the contrasting bright-light series of real achievements on the part of the Trump Administration.
Just this last week, we saw the New York chapter of the left-over Left make a last-ditch effort to smear Justice Brett Kavanaugh by fabricating yet another spurious complaint that an 18-year-old Kavanaugh had been over-served and acted rudely to a fellow female student at Yale. Only the student in question had no memory of the incident.
Like every other complaint against the teenaged Kavanaugh, it was a matter of “my cousin Ernie’s brother’s girlfriend heard from her college roommate that three people whose names she cannot remember told her best friend that someone who might have been Brett Kavanaugh was rumored to have exposed himself at a drunken white-privilege party at Yale 35 or maybe 36 years ago.” …………
But back to the Ukraine. On Friday, the oyez, oyez, oyez boys in the press whipped up the big display type to announce that someone in the “intelligence community” (we don’t know whom) issued an official complaint that President Trump made a “promise” (we don’t know what) to an unnamed foreign leader that the complainant, whoever it is, found “troubling.” …..
Stepping back for a moment from that snarling imbroglio, I do wonder whether the latest “Trump abused his powers, let’s impeach him!” gambit is not rather an impressive deployment of a rhetorical-political gambit known as the “preemptive tu quoque I-tagged-you-first” strategy. The media and anti-Trump commentariat is jumping up and down in unison saying, “Trump is leaning on a foreign power in order to gain a political advantage.”
But what is that charge cover for? A chap called Robert Barnes, writing on Twitter, reminds us of a pertinent fact. “The same Democrats who used all the powers of the Presidency to spy on an opposing campaign, and continue to use every power of the House to invade the privacy of the President, are deeply offended that Trump would want corruption investigated involving a former Vice President?” That’s what Latinists called a nonne question, one that expects the answer “Yes.”
After leaving office in 2017, Vice President Joe Biden Bragged about strong-arming the government of Ukraine to fire its top prosecutor.
Joe Biden made the remarks during a meeting of foreign policy specialists. Biden said he, “Threatened Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko in March 2016 that the Obama administration would pull $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees, sending the former Soviet republic toward insolvency, if it didn’t immediately fire Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin.” Biden suggested during his talk that Barack Obama was in on the threat.
In April John Solomon revealed what Biden did not tell his audience. Joe Biden had Shokin fired because he was investigating Joe Biden’s son Hunter.
Poroshenko was investigating $3 million in funds that were being transferred out of Ukraine and into accounts in the United States at that time.
That went up the flag pole and right back down again real fast didn’t it?
Senate Republicans are treading cautiously on a background checks plan floated by Attorney General William Barr that has been decried as a “non-starter” by the National Rifle Association (NRA).
Barr floated the proposal to GOP offices on Wednesday as the Senate inches toward doing something on gun control amid growing public pressure created by a seemingly endless string of mass shootings.
But Barr was careful to tell Republicans that his memo on background checks, titled “Idea for New Unlicensed-Commercial-Sale Background Checks,” did not have the backing of President Trump.
“I’m up here just kicking around some ideas, getting perspectives so I can be in a better position to advise the president,” Barr told reporters. “But the president has made no decision yet.”
GOP lawmakers, for their part, were decidedly noncommittal, with several saying they still wanted to hear what Trump would back.
“It’s one thing to have a few ideas on paper,” said Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), who met with Barr and White House legislative affairs director Eric Ueland on Tuesday.
“But in terms of actually being a concrete proposal where you can say, ‘How do you feel about this?’ I need to see a lot,” Hawley told reporters, summarizing his meeting with Barr.
“My question was, where’s the president on this? Is this something — I asked that question directly — is this something the president supports?”
Hawley said Ueland couldn’t say whether Trump backs the Department of Justice (DOJ) proposal.
“That’s an important piece, because if the president doesn’t support it, there’s no point. It’s not going to become law,” he added.
The NRA moved quickly to dismiss the proposal, which would expand background checks along the lines of a 2013 amendment to a gun violence bill that was sponsored by Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.).
“This missive is a non-starter with the NRA and our 5 million members because it burdens law-abiding gun owners while ignoring what actually matters: fixing the broken mental health system and the prosecution of violent criminals,” said Jason Ouimet, executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action.
Here Are the Problems With the Attorney General’s Plan To Expand Background Checks for Gun Buyers
It would not do much to protect public safety, but it would magnify the injustice of existing restrictions on gun ownership.
Attorney General William Barr is reportedly floating a proposal to expand background checks for gun buyers that is similar to an unsuccessful 2013 bill sponsored by Sens. Joe Manchin (D–W.Va.) and Patrick Toomey (R–Pa.). The proposal would require background checks for “all advertised commercial sales, including gun sales at gun shows.”
Manchin and Toomey’s Public Safety and Second Amendment Protection Act would have required that federally licensed firearm dealers, who are already required to conduct background checks, be involved in all sales at gun shows and all transfers resulting from online or print ads. It explicitly exempted transfers “between spouses,
between parents or spouses of parents and their children or spouses of their children, between siblings or spouses of siblings, or between grandparents or spouses of grandparents and their grandchildren or spouses of their grandchildren, or between aunts or uncles or their spouses and their nieces or nephews or their spouses, or between first cousins.”
Barr’s proposal would do pretty much the same thing, but it also would authorize licenses for “transfer agents” to help gun owners comply with the background check requirement. The idea, presumably, is that the new category of licensees would make compliance easier by providing an alternative to firearm dealers.
This proposal is less sweeping than the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019, which the House of Representatives approved last February. That bill, which was supported by 232 Democrats but only eight Republicans, would ban almost all gun transfers by people who are not licensed dealers. It applies to any sale, whether or not it happens at a gun show and whether or not the firearm was advertised.
The House bill makes an exception for “a transfer that is a loan or bona fide gift between spouses, between domestic partners, between parents and their children, including step-parents and their step-children, between siblings, between aunts or uncles and their nieces or nephews, or between grandparents and their grandchildren.” If money changes hands, in other words, a background check would be required even for transfers between relatives.
Both proposals share the same problems as any other effort to expand the reach of background checks. First, the categories of prohibited buyers are irrationally and unfairly broad, encompassing millions of people who have never shown any violent tendencies, including cannabis consumers, unauthorized U.S. residents, people who have been convicted of nonviolent felonies, and anyone who has ever undergone mandatory psychiatric treatment because he was deemed suicidal.
Second, background checks are not an effective way to prevent mass shootings, since the vast majority of people who commit those crimes do not have disqualifying criminal or psychiatric records. Third, background checks, even if they are notionally “universal,” can be easily evaded by ordinary criminals, who can obtain weapons through straw buyers or the black market. Fourth, voluntary compliance is apt to be the exception rather than the rule, and enforcement will be difficult, if not impossible.
Since the Manchin-Toomey approach applies only to relatively conspicuous sales, enforcement would be easier, but only because unadvertised private sales would be exempt. The House bill would be mostly aspirational and symbolic, since the government has no way of knowing when guns change hands in private transactions if the sales are not advertised and do not happen at gun shows.
In a study published last year, researchers looked at what happened after Colorado, Delaware, and Washington expanded their background check requirements. They reported that “background check rates increased in Delaware, by 22%–34% depending on the type of firearm,” but “no overall changes were observed in Washington and Colorado.” It is hard to see how the federal government can do any better, since it does not know who owns which guns and cannot possibly monitor unrecorded private transfers.
California Senate passed a resolution telling Christian clergy to accept and support LGBTQ ideology, even if doing so violates their Christian beliefs.
Assembly Concurrent Resolution 99 (ACR-99) was introduced by Democratic state Assemblyman Evan Low of San Jose on June 4 as a way to gather support for LGBTQ identity and behaviors.
CBN News previously reported that more than two dozen doctors, counselors, former homosexuals, and other Christian leaders signed a letter condemning the resolution, which they said violates religious freedom.
The resolution also condemns counseling for unwanted same-sex attraction or gender confusion, known as conversion therapy.
The bill says “California law recognizes that performing conversion therapy on young persons is ineffective, unethical, and harmful. Conversion therapy has been rejected as ineffective, unethical, and harmful by leading medical, mental health, and child welfare organizations in the United States.”
Several Christian leaders are speaking out against the resolution saying it infringes upon their free exercise of religion.
Why Soft-on-Crime Democrats Are Tough on ‘Gun Violence’
By embracing the magical thinking behind gun control, the Democrats remind us they would rather punish society and label law-abiding citizens wrongdoers than confront the criminal class.
At their third primary debate, nearly all of the Democratic presidential contenders offered full-throated support for gun control. In the very recent past, gun control measures bowed to prudence by respecting the rights and expectations of law-abiding gun owners—even the Clinton “assault weapons ban” grandfathered weapons and magazines manufactured and purchased before the ban took effect.
Now, however, the rhetoric has shifted and become even more radical and uncompromising.
For example, supposed moderate Joe Biden said, “Over 90 percent of the American people think we have to get assault weapons off the street—period. And we have to get buybacks and get them out of their basements.” Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) said we should “start” with a gun buyback aimed at assault weapons. Former U.S. Representative Beto O’Rourke (D-Texas) took things further: “Hell, yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47!”
He’s so proud of himself that he put his quote on a t-shirt.
The Rhetoric of “Gun Violence” Obscures the Reality of Violent Crime
At first glance, these appear to be tough statements by Democrats who want to tackle the problem of mass shootings. Everyone is frustrated by these costly and random crimes. But these high profile shootings are not increasing, and their rarity is obscured by disproportionate media coverage ……….
As I wrote last year, “the right to bear arms also comes at a price, and that cost has arguably become more pronounced as our society has become more fractured and disorderly. The honest argument in favor of the Second Amendment is that it’s worth it.”
President Donald Trump will not consider the House-passed universal background checks bill as part of his proposed gun package, according to a source familiar with the conversation on guns.
Trump’s position on the House-passed bill is not exactly a surprise. The White House issued a veto threat against the bill in February.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) have called on Trump repeatedly to bring up the House-passed universal background checks bill. Over the weekend, Pelosi and Schumer issued a statement following a phone call with Trump that anything other than the House-passed bill “will not get the job done.”
Schumer reiterated his calls Monday for the White House to back the House proposal.
“We’re certainly willing to discuss the finer points of legislation with our Republican colleagues, but we made one thing clear to the president — the effectiveness of gun safety measures will be severely compromised if we allow the loopholes in our background check system to remain intact,” Schumer said on the Senate floor.
But Senate Majority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.) said Monday that Schumer and Pelosi were merely trying to score political points.
“The things that they are proposing just aren’t realistic and they know that and so it’s designed more to talk to their political base and it’s a lot more about that than I think an actual solution,” Thune said.
Trump met again with aides Monday to discuss proposals to address gun violence. The White House expects to release the package of proposals this week but Trump is on a campaign trip to New Mexico and California though Wednesday night. On Friday, he will host an all-day state visit for officials from Australia. His schedule makes Thursday the most likely day, though nothing has been scheduled.
When even The Hill believes nothing’s going to happen….
Prospects for a bipartisan deal on gun control legislation have dimmed significantly as President Trump and Democratic leaders appear to be far apart on the key issue of expanding background checks.
Republicans expect Trump to put forward a proposal addressing gun violence later this week, but Democrats predict it is likely to fall far short of what is needed and that they may not vote for it.
Democrats are pressing Trump to agree to a gun control bill already approved by the House, but the president has yet to even signal support for a scaled-down background check bill sponsored by Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.).
“I don’t think anyone thinks he’s going to endorse the Toomey bill, which is weaker than the House bill,” said a senior Democratic aide, expressing growing doubt on Capitol Hill that Trump will strike a bipartisan deal.
As a result, the likelihood that Congress will fail to take action on gun violence a month after a new spate of shootings across the country appears to be growing.
“Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is this. The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just around the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now you begin to understand me.” ~ George Orwell, writer and essayist, from his novel on a Dystopian society, 1984
Engaging in compromise with those who abhor firearms and who detest those who choose to exercise their sacred right to keep and bear arms will serve only to compromise that right, destroying the Second Amendment.
The American citizenry are a free, powerful, sovereign people living in a free Constitutional Republic; a Nation that belongs to the entire citizenry, not to a select few individuals among the citizenry; and definitely not to the Government, an entity created to serve the citizenry, not to subjugate and oppress it. The words codified in the Second Amendment make this fundamental truth plain. The exercise of the right of the people to keep and bear arms make this truth a reality. The New Progressive Left seeks to erase the words of the Second Amendment from the Constitution.
If these radical Left-wing elements succeed in compromising the Nation by undercutting the Constitution, then the American people, like the populations of the EU, will face unending misery; misery manifesting in the suppression of basic freedoms, constant surveillance, control over thought and conduct, and penury; a sad, oppressive life, nay, something less than life: mere existence—in a new political, social, economic, and cultural construct; one that has erased the independence and sovereignty of our Nation and of all Western nation-states; destroying, as well, the constitutions, laws, and jurisprudence of all nation-states.
But to accomplish their goal, the New Progressive Left in our Country must indoctrinate our children, and reeducate those adults who aren’t so easily susceptible to prolific proselytizing and propagandizing; those adults who are not so willing to accept the fiction that our fundamental rights and liberties aren’t rights at all and never had been, but are merely man-made constructs, mere privileges, bestowed on the American people by grace of Government and by that same authority of Government would those same privileges be rescinded.
If the public believes the fiction—if, in fact, the public believes that fundamental, immutable, inalienable rights are not, at all, rights preexistent in man, bestowed on man by a loving Divine Creator, but are mere privileges, vouchsafe granted by Government to men—then these Marxists, Socialists, and Communists, will find it much easier to weaken and ultimately negate the one right that alone serves as the means of preventing subjugation of the American citizenry, and it is that one, fundamental right that most concerns them: the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
The problem for those of us who seek to preserve and strengthen our sacred right of the people to keep and bear arms is found less in the Radical Left or New Progressive Left elements now controlling the seditious Press and who have insinuated themselves in and are now legion in the Democratic Party but:
The growing possibility is that the U.S. President and Congressional Republicans might actually consider negotiating with the Democrats and in so doing, weaken rather than preserve and strengthen the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
What we must do is to make plain to both the U.S. President and to Congressional Republicans that they must not capitulate. We must make clear to President Trump and to Congressional Republicans that to cave in to Democrat demands for “muscular new gun control proposals,”—that Progressive Left Democrat Candidates for U.S. President, Joe Biden, and Elizabeth Warren, are calling for, as reported by The New York Times, on September 3, 2019, in an article titled, “Demanding Gun Control, but Differing on Tactics,”—is not the way to deal with these gun grabbers.
Q: “How do you tell when a politician is lying?” A: “His lips are moving.”
This is particularly true when the political topic is guns.We have even seen commentators on the left questioning their own side’s stance on gun control.
Jeffrey Goldberg’s 2012 Atlantic article: “But these gun-control efforts, while noble, would only have a modest impact on the rate of gun violence in America. Why? Because it’s too late.”
Justin Cronin’s New York Times 2013 article: “. . . I am my family’s last line of defense. I have chosen to meet this responsibility, in part, by being armed. It wasn’t a choice I made lightly.”
Jamelle Bouie’s Slate 2015 article: “. . . assault weapons—there’s no official definition for the term, which makes identifying them for prohibition difficult, if not impossible . . . But out of 73 mass killers from 1982 to 2015, just 25 used rifles of any kind, including military-style weapons. Most used revolvers, shotguns, and semi-automatic handguns. Which gets to a related point: We might feel safer if we ban “assault weapons,” but we won’t be safer. Of the 43,000 Americans killed with guns since 2010, just a fraction—3.5 percent—were killed with rifles.”
Leah Libresco’s Washington Post 2017 article: “By the time we published our project, I didn’t believe in many of the interventions I’d heard politicians tout. I was still anti-gun, . . . But I can’t endorse policies whose only selling point is that gun owners hate them.”
Alex Kingsbury’s New York Times 2019 article: “. . . [C]alling for military-style rifles bans—as I have done for years—maybe making other lifesaving gun laws harder to pass. America’s gun problem is far larger than military-style weapons, the mass killer’s rifle of choice. There are hundreds of millions of handguns in the country . . . The guns . . . are here to stay.”
After each mass shooting the demand for more gun control rises in proportion to the death toll. Few Democrat politicians forego the opportunity to denounce guns in civilian hands. Even a few Republicans now vie for their place in the line before the microphones. But all this clamor for gun control is another BIG LIE.
Even if that progressive wet dream—repeal of the Second Amendment—happened, gun owners would defy the ban, burying their Cosmoline coated guns in PVC pipe. Merciless enforcement might scare some, but there would remain hundreds of millions of firearms in patriot hands.
The most remarkable aspect of gun control advocacy is that proponents cannot explain how their “common sense”, “reasonable” measures will reduce gunshot mortality and morbidity.
Background checks are a perfect example of the unwillingness to acknowledge the ineffectiveness of a gun-control measure. For more than 20 years we have had in place an extensive regime, the National Instant Background Check System, required of all retail dealers. And almost all mass killers have passed this background check. A few stole their guns or bought them illegally, sometimes violating state laws mandating background checks on private sales. Occasionally, the NICS failed due to weaknesses in implementation. Also, straw buyers routinely buy guns on behalf of prohibited persons—yet these violations are rarely investigated or prosecuted.
Background checks can’t stop anyone with a modicum of craftsmanship from building his own gun. Nor can they influence robbers, traffickers or other criminals.
We should strive to improve the existing background check system for licensed dealers before expanding its scope, because it produces far too many false positive (and temporary) prohibitions. “Universal” background checks will not be the magic bullet that stops criminal “gun violence”.
“Assault weapon” bans are another example of a gun-control proposal that doesn’t stand scrutiny. The FBI reports more homicides by hammers, clubs and cutlery than by all rifles. Yet, no one speaks of banning cutlery or clubs (except in England, of course).
Just what would be banned as an “assault weapon” anyway?
Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy was asked: “What is a barrel shroud? And why should we regulate that?” She finally admitted: “I actually don’t know what a barrel shroud is . . . I believe it a shoulder thing that goes up.” A barrel shroud is just a fore grip that prevents the user burning his hand on a hot barrel. Neither this, nor any fore grip, have any influence on lethality of “military-type guns”.
There is no practical definition of an “assault weapon” that distinguishes it meaningfully from most other types of firearms. The attempt to do so would lead down the slippery slope to outlawing all semi-automatic firearms. But it’s politically and practically impossible to confiscate the ubiquitous semi-auto long gun in America, while handguns have already been defined by the Supreme Court as in common use and therefore inviolable.
In fact, none of the supposedly “reasonable”, “common sense” gun controls proposed stand up to political or practical scrutiny. Gun control advocates know this and refuse to debate the effectiveness or economics of implementation and enforcement. When challenged they always retreat immediately behind the shield of “We have to do SOMETHING!”
Stated clearly, we are being lied to. Politicians promise gun control to satisfy their fearful constituents, yet there is never any measurable impact on gunshot deaths or wounding.
Why? Because no gun control measure short of successful nationwide confiscation of all firearms could substantially affect these casualties.
Two-thirds of gunshot deaths are suicides, and a single-shot weapon does as well as one with a 100 round magazine for that. One-third of gunshot deaths are homicides;, and almost all injuries are attempted homicides. These are committed mostly by convicted felons, gang members, and in drug-related crime. Meanwhile, mortality due to firearm accidents has practically become a rounding error.
Until we are prepared to criminalize as much as half of Americans, repeal of the Second Amendment won’t happen. Nor could it be passed while 42 states are Right-to-Carry jurisdictions and just 13 opposing states could block any amendment.
Politicians using gun control to mobilize their base on Election Day are also inflaming gun owners to vote to against them. These effects seem, so far, to offset one another.
Why do progressives risk jeopardizing the rest of their platform for the promise of “reasonable” and “common-sense”, but impotent, “gun control”? Why do they pursue incremental gun control that can’t deliver on its false promise of reducing gunshot mortality and morbidity?
Maybe they’re lying to themselves as much as to the rest of us.
Statists gotta state you know.
Chief Elizabeth Warren, who lies constantly, has a plan to end corruption.
Repeating her anti-government rhetoric, in a piece titled, END WASHINGTON CORRUPTION, Warren writes that big insurance companies and hospital conglomerates put profits ahead of the health and well-being of the American people, and dump piles of money into political campaigns and lobbying efforts to block any move toward Medicare for All.
This comes from a woman who has no problem with unions and Planned Parenthood sinking a fortune into Democratic campaigns, including hers. She has no problem with their lobbyists or those of far-left groups.
In order to get her unaffordable Medicare for All through, she must demonize hospitals, many of which are just trying to survive.
Railing against fossil fuels, she claims they are promoting false studies and preventing the Green New Deal from seeing the light of day. That’s the same Green New Deal that will take away our planes, our cars, and our hamburgers but provides incomes to people who don’t’ want to work.
Pharmaceuticals and their lobbyists are also on her hit list.
Her answer to all of it is to spend trillions of dollars we do not have and to take away our liberties.
Her last paragraph calls for Universal Childcare, criminal justice reform, and affordable housing [paid for by the redistribution of wealth]. Naturally, she wants gun reform. Somehow, turning over control of all sectors of society to the big corrupt government will fight corruption in the big government and its cronyism.
She won’t admit middle-class taxes will go up under Medicare for All.
About 2/3rd of the deaths in the U.S. that involve the use of a gun are suicides. No kind of a background check will in any way do one thing to decrease that number. Of course, SanFranNan & ChuckU are being their standard operational demoncrap selves.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on Sunday had a call with President Donald Trump about gun control legislation. According to a statement from Democratic leadership, universal background checks are a non negotiable that must be included in any proposal Trump moves forward with. Specifically, Democrats want Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) to bring the legislation to a floor for a vote.
“200 days ago, the Democratic House took decisive action to end the gun violence epidemic in America by passing H.R. 8 and H.R. 1112: bipartisan, commonsense legislation to expand background checks, which is supported by more than 90 percent of the American people. With the backing of the American people, we continue to call on Senator McConnell to ‘Give Us A Vote!’
“Yet, for 200 days, Senator McConnell has refused to give these bipartisan bills a vote on the Senate Floor, again and again putting his own political survival before the survival of our children. Every day that Senator McConnell blocks our House-passed, life-saving bills, an average of 100 people – including 47 children and teenagers – die from senseless gun violence. Some 20,000 have died since the House took action on February 27th.
“This morning, we made it clear to the President that any proposal he endorses that does not include the House-passed universal background checks legislation will not get the job done, as dangerous loopholes will still exist and people who shouldn’t have guns will still have access. For instance, someone prohibited from possessing a gun under an Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) law could still obtain a firearm by exploiting the gun show and online loopholes that H.R. 8 would close. We know that to save as many lives as possible, the Senate must pass this bill and the President must sign it. We even promised the President that if he endorses this legislation and gets Senator McConnell to act on what the House has passed, we would both join him for a historic signing ceremony at the Rose Garden.
“Congressional Democrats will continue to join with law enforcement, survivors, students and parents, health care providers, mayors and public health officials across the nation to accelerate a relentless drumbeat of action to force Senator McConnell to pass our background checks bills. We will not stop until these bills are passed and our children’s lives are safe. We call upon Senator McConnell to ‘Give Us a Vote!’
McConnell has made it clear that he wouldn’t bring any gun control proposals to the floor for a vote if President Trump has vowed to veto the bill.
“My members know the very simple fact that to make a law you have to have a presidential signature. They are working on coming up with a proposal that the president will sign,” McConnell said last week.