Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoons for Friday October 6, 2017

Reported URL of the original posting site: https://conservativetribune.com/4-words-lv-massacre/?
Advertisement – story continues below

In the so-called “search for answers,” the media rarely goes where Philadelphia Eagles QB Carson Wentz went in the aftermath of the Las Vegas massacre. In fact, while news outlets kept tripping over themselves to report every political utterance of anyone even vaguely affiliated with the NFL over the past few days, Wentz’s tweet hardly registered in the aftermath of Sunday night’s tragic shooting.
Why? He said four words that the media freaks out every time they hear: “The world needs Jesus.”
In a tweet early Monday morning, Wentz expressed his condolences and urged Americans to turn toward Jesus for guidance.
“So much hate and evil. So sad. The World needs Jesus in a bad way. Praying for all those affected in Vegas,” Wentz tweeted.
The world does need God in the most dire of ways. Sadly, that’s the only solution reporters and politicians won’t look toward in situations like these. In fact, as the Washington Examiner reports, Democrats already want to move forward on gun control legislation without even knowing the full circumstances behind the Las Vegas massacre. So, in case you were wondering, no — they haven’t forgotten Rahm Emanuel’s maxim about letting a good crisis go to waste.
Congressional Republicans, thankfully, are blocking the reactive impulse to legislate the problem away without actually knowing the problem.
“I just think politicizing this terrible tragedy is beyond disgusting and we ought to wait a respectful period of time, out of respect for people who lost their lives or were injured before we get into the push and shove of politics around here,” Republican Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn of Texas said.
And yet, one thing we forget is that no legislation can prevent pure evil. We cannot take depravity and cruelty out of the human heart with a law. That’s what caused the massacre in Las Vegas. It wasn’t some pernicious legal loophole or some new type of hyper-malevolent weaponry Congress refuses to ban. It was evil, plain and simple.

At least Carson Wentz is willing to acknowledge that, even if the media won’t.
H/T The Daily Caller
| 9:11pm October 2, 2017URL of the original posting site: https://www.allenbwest.com/2017/10/02/not-even-one-day-las-vegas-massacre-liberals-unthinkable/
Getty ImagesThese things are both sad and predictable. With bodies literally still arriving in operating rooms, Hillary Clinton managed to do the incredible – politicize the event and contradict herself all in the same tweet. This morning the former First-Lady and most recent general election loser tweeted the following:
This is putting politics aside?
Not to be outdone, Capital Hill Democrats together with former-Congresswoman Gabby Giffords also jumped on the “it’s time to act” train. From The Hill:
“Democrats, joined by former Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-Ariz.), are amplifying their calls for tougher gun laws in the wake of the deadly mass shooting in Las Vegas.
Democrats on Monday quickly intensified their campaign after a gunman targeted an outdoor country music festival on the Las Vegas strip Sunday night, leaving at least 58 people dead and 500 others injured. The lawmakers have pressed for years for tighter gun restrictions, only to have those efforts beaten back on Capitol Hill, largely by Republicans, who are near-universally opposed to such changes.
“I am praying for the victims of this shooting, their families and friends,” Giffords, who was almost killed after being shot in the head at a campaign event in Tucson in 2011, said on Monday. “But I am praying for my former colleagues, our elected leaders, too. I am praying they find the courage it will take to make progress on the challenging issue of gun violence.”
Other Democrats were much more forceful.
Former Vice President Joe Biden tweeted that “there’s no excuse for inaction.” Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) said he’s “furious” that Congress “refuses to act.” And Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) urged Congress to “get off its ass and do something.”
And of course no good liberal talking points would be complete without some requisite America-bashing: “Nowhere but America do horrific large-scale mass shootings happen with this degree of regularity,” said Murphy,…”
Nowhere but America, huh? Might want to ask the citizens of France, England, Germany and Belgium these days if mass shootings happen nowhere else but America with regularity.
The strategy liberals insist on pursuing is unwavering. They persist in the belief that by somehow making guns ‘more illegal’ the problem will get solved. Because that’s the liberal solution to just about everything – pass more laws. Authorities are working on confirming the fact that Stephen Paddock (the Vegas shooter) was using illegal weapons to carry out his dastardly deed and, needless to say, murder is already illegal. Yet these people still believe that the path to a cure is to make shooting people even more illegal.
“Rep. Mike Thompson (D-Calif.), a gun owner and Vietnam veteran who heads the Democrats’ gun violence task force, will lead the charge outside the Capitol Monday afternoon. He will be joined by Giffords and other Democrats who have long pressed for tougher gun laws.
“Enough is enough,” Thompson tweeted Monday. “Congress should come together and establish a Select Committee to end gun violence.”
How, specifically, is a Select Committee going to end gun violence? Answer – it isn’t. But as Rahm Emmanuel once said, “You never let a good crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that its an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.” Dems are feeling this current crisis and emotion surrounding it may be providing an opportunity to finally knock a significant dent in the Second Amendment, apparently families can grieve later.
[NOTE: This article was written by Derrick Wilburn, Founder and Chairman of the Rocky Mountain Black Conservatives, and a speaker, author, columnist and analyst for multiple print and broadcast media outlets. Follow him on Facebook and at RMBlackConservatives.com.]

Even though our nation’s Constitution explicitly allows Americans the right to bear arms, the political left of our nation has been at the forefront of the anti-gun cabal in America. By preying on bleeding heart liberals with their ridiculously skewed assertions and anti-firearm media campaigns, democrats and their ilk have been able to create a dark stigma surrounding firearms in our nation. After any gun-related accident or mental health-induced incident, the left is quick to jump onto their soapbox to push for tighter gun control legislation.
Now, after being emboldened by one of the country’s most liberal and forceful Presidents in modern history, the fight against firearms is reaching absurd new heights.
“The campaign against guns has reached such a fever pitch that an Ohio seventh-grader was suspended from school for 10 days for simply ‘liking’ a photo of an airsoft gun on Instagram.
“Zachary Bowlin saw the photo, which was succinctly captioned, ‘Ready.’ He ‘liked’ the photo, prompting Edgewood Middle School to suspend him.
“The boy said, ‘I don’t think I did anything wrong. The] next morning, they called me down and, like, patted me down and checked me for weapons. Then, they told me I was getting expelled or suspended or whatever.’
“The school sent a note to Zachary’s parents stating the reason he was suspended was ‘liking a post on social media that indicated potential school violence.’ His father, Martin Bowlin, snapped, ‘I was livid. He never shared, he never commented, never made a threatening post … [he] just liked it.’ He added, ‘My wife called and said he’d been pulled in to the office, and he was being suspended because he liked a picture on Instagram that his friend posted of a weapon, of an airsoft gun. It was 10 days suspension with the possibility of expulsion. I’m like, “For liking a gun? Did he make a comment or threat or anything?” And it’s like, “No. He just liked a picture.” I’m like, “Well, this can’t happen.”‘”
This insane action, taken against a young man at such an impressionable age, is proof positive that the leftists of our nation are actively working to win the propaganda war against the Second Amendment. With this vile and disturbing demonization taking place at an educational institution, the question must be asked, “has liberalism gone too far?”

Andrew West is a Georgia-based political enthusiast and lover of liberty. When not writing, you can find Mr. West home brewing his own craft beer, perfecting his home-made hot sauce recipes, or playing guitar.

Posted by GirlsJustWannaHaveGuns.comURL of the original posting site: http://girlsjustwannahaveguns.com/school-wants-implement-new-class-will-liberals-crying-love/
And one state is taking the steps to do just that.
A new piece of legislation introduced in North Carolina will give high school students one more class to take: firearms education.
House Bill 612, filed this week by Representative Jay Adams, would give the state room to develop a firearms education course and allow the class, which would include “firearms safety education as recommend by law enforcement agencies or a firearms association”, to be offered as an elective to high school students.
The course, which would be developed by the North Carolina Board of Education, would not allow live ammunition in the classroom and would also cover the history and mechanics of firearms with a firm emphasis on the importance of gun safety.
–Bearing Arms
This class would have something for everyone. Each student likes a certain subject, this class would not only cover safety but also teach students about the math, history and science of guns.
That’s a a lot of subjects in one class. It should keep students pretty engaged.
The bill seems to be getting a lot of positive feedback.
“I think education, first and foremost, is essential, before actually obtaining a firearm,” Allen Shaw said.
“If they have the opportunity to buy, they should have the opportunity to be educated. We’ve got too many people out there right now that are wanting to buy guns that don’t have any background with them.”
“Gives the kids a chance to learn how to work them,” said Danny Davis.
“It would be a very beneficial course,” said Tres Cobb, a gun owner and full supporter of the bill.

Of course, this hasn’t come without criticism from individuals who feel the course would encourage students to become shooters…
“I don’t even see the point in that,” Jenny Rorie said. “I don’t think they should, there’s enough violence going on without them doing that.”
“I think it would hurt and help. It’s kind of like a catch-22,” said Tanica Wilkerson.
“I think high school is a little early. I think some of those kids are not ready for that type of environment, to be exposed to something like that. I don’t feel like they’re mature enough.”
Under federal law, citizens under the age of 21 can’t purchase handguns, but 18 year-olds can purchase shotguns or rifles. These are the types of guns that would be part of the proposed high school course.
The bill says live ammunition won’t be allowed in class, but it doesn’t say whether guns can be present.
While adults argue over this bill, 6-year-old Evelyn had some of the best insight:
“If you see someone around you with a gun, you need to know how to handle it.”
Her parents did not give their opinion on the bill but did say teaching kids how to properly handle a firearm was an important lesson.
The bill has passed its first reading in the house. It’s now on its way to the House Committee on Education for debate. If passed, it will take effect at the start of the 2017-2018 school year.
Authored / 21 Dec 2016
Members of the Chicago Police Department search a vehicle involved in a shooting in the 3300 block of West Douglas Boulevard parked outside of Mount Sinai Hospital Tuesday, Sept. 6, 2016, in Chicago. Two males were shot and drove themselves to the hospital. (Erin Hooley/Chicago Tribune/TNS via Getty Images)
Breitbart News reported that the death toll in Chicago had already passed 730 for the year by December 6. And the Chicago Tribune reports that the number of murders in Chicago reached 755 by December 21. When these numbers are added to the murder figures of other cities, they raise the overall perception of violence considerably — particularly when it comes to the number of homicides.
In other words, if year-end numbers do in fact show the anticipated “14 percent” jump in homicides nationally, the deaths in Chicago alone will account for nearly half of that increase.
AWR Hawkins is the Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and host of “Bullets with AWR Hawkins,” a Breitbart News podcast. He is also the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com.
Authored by URL of the original posting site: http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/23/this-is-one-of-the-biggest-pending-scotus-case-you-havent-heard-of/

A smoking 12 bore shotgun having ejected spent a cartridge. (Max Earey/Shutterstock)
When Beckles was taken into police custody in 2007, his girlfriend asked authorities to remove his gun from her residence; he directed officers to the weapon, concealed under his girlfriend’s mattress. He was later charged and convicted of one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm — Beckles had two prior felony drug convictions. Given these two convictions, the court determined that Beckles was a career offender. The U.S. Sentencing Guidelines (USSG), the set of rules which establish uniform sentencing practices across federal courts, instructed that his sentence should therefore be enhanced.
The court also ruled that Beckles’ possession of the shotgun constituted a “crime of violence,” which, per the USSG, also requires a sentence enhancement. The court ultimately sentenced Beckles to a 30-year prison term.
Beckles brought an appeal, Beckles v. U.S., in which he argued that his sentence was wrongly enhanced. He asserts that mere possession of a weapon does not constitute a “crime of violence,” and that his sentence enhancement should therefore be vacated. His appeal was rejected by the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear his case in late June.
His argument was bolstered when the Supreme Court issued it’s ruling last year in Johnson v. U.S. In Johnson the Court found that the phrase “violent felony” — the functional equivalent of the phrase “crime of violence” — as it appears in the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) was unconstitutionally vague. A seven justice majority led by the late Justice Antonin Scalia reasoned by a due process analysis that the phrase, referred to as the “residual clause,” is poorly defined and leads to arbitrary and capricious application, in violation of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
Beckles makes essentially the same argument as Johnson, arguing that the phrase “crime of violence” in the USSG is as vague as the residual clause of the ACCA, and should therefore be struck down (which, by extension, would vacate Beckles’ additional penalties.) His argument could have major consequences for the way federal agencies operate.
Strictly speaking, the USSG does not define possession of a sawed-off shotgun as a “crime of violence.” Instead, commentaries on the guidelines provided by the United States Sentencing Commission (USSC) advise that possessing such a weapon should be considered a “crime of violence.” The government argues that those commentaries are subject to Auer deference, and that the Supreme Court must respect their interpretation of the law.
Auer deference is a legal doctrine which requires a court to defer to an agency’s interpretation of its own rules and regulations as long as its interpretation is not “erroneous” or “inconsistent with the regulation.” In Beckles, the government argues that the USSC commentaries are simply the agency’s interpretation of its own regulation (being the guidelines), and that the Court must defer to the USSC.
The Auer doctrine looms large in the administrative law scene. The doctrine is regularly invoked by agencies to protect their various activities. The U.S. Department of Labor invoked Auer deference when it announced that mortgage-loan officers were entitled to overtime. The Environmental Protection Agency did the same in requiring companies to obtain permits for water runoff from ditches running parallel to logging roads. It is difficult to overstate how much federal activity is protected by the Auer doctrine.
The Beckles case presents the Supreme Court the opportunity to revisit the Auer doctrine. Though it’s entirely possible the justices may sidestep the issue, opponents of Auer deference have gradually emerged on the high court in recent years. Scalia, the author of the Auer doctrine and a champion of judicial deference, made a thorough case for overturning the practice in 2013 in Decker v. Northwest Environmental Defense Center. Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito are also likely to share Scalia’s sympathies. (RELATED: Exclusive: Puerto Rico Is Full Of ‘Open Dumps’ Ripe For Spreading Zika, And EPA’s Ignoring Them)
Furthermore, as Andrew Hessick notes in the Yale Journal on Regulations, the case presents exactly the fact posture critics of agency deference often complain about. “The Commission issued a vague guideline through notice and comment and then set its meaning through an interpretation not subject to those procedures,” Hessick writes. “Further, although they must be the product of notice and comment, the sentencing guidelines are not subject to judicial review when they are promulgated.”
In other words, the fact pattern presented in this case is exactly the sort of thing critics of Auer deference complain about. Should the Supreme Court feel so bold, Travis Beckles’ sawed-off shotgun might end up dealing a double-barrel blast to federal agency power.

Written by Rob Morse on July 29, 2016URL of the original posting site: http://clashdaily.com/2016/07/obama-lies-guns-islamic-terrorism-wont-media-say/
In 2009, President Barack Obama said, “Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance.” The evidence says otherwise.
I can understand missing a few incidents, but by November 4th of that year, Muslims had committed 1682 violent attacks. That wasn’t enough of a clue for President Obama. The next day, November, 5th, a Muslim officer in the US Army shot and killed 13 servicemen at Fort Hood, Texas while shouting “allahu akbar”. The officer had been under investigation as a security threat, but the investigation was closed because the officer was Muslim. The Obama administration called the attack “workplace violence.”
It wasn’t workplace violence. It was religious terrorism. US soldiers paid with their lives while Obama hid behind political correctness.
In January of 2015, two Muslim brothers walked into the office of a French humor magazine Charlie Hebdo. The two terrorists murdered 12 people and injured 11 more with guns they had obtained illegally. French citizens are not allowed to carry firearms for self-defense. The victims died unarmed and defenseless.
In June of that year, an avowed racist with a criminal history passed his FBI background check and bought a gun in South Carolina. He shot 9 people in a black church. Carolina law made the church a gun free zone, so the victims were disarmed. President Obama said, “At some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries.” I’ve already shown you evidence the president ignored. The president lied and the major media never exposed him.
In July of 2015, an Oregon college student passed several background checks and bought several rifles. He then asked his fellow students if they were Christians. He shot his victims in the head if they said, “Yes.” The attack occurred on a junior college campus that is another gun free zone. Not even the one security guard was armed.
Responding to the attack, President Obama said, “The United States of America is the one advanced nation on earth in which we do not have sufficient common-sense, gun-safety laws.” The president lied again. We have some 23 thousand firearms laws here in the US. The problem is not an absence of laws and regulations. Far from it. The problem is that murdering terrorists don’t, and won’t, obey gun laws. They never have. Not here in the US, and not anywhere else. That shouldn’t come as news to anyone. Let me show you more.
President Obama ignored the fact that criminals ignore gun laws. both in the United States and in other “advanced nations.” Our ignorance of European violence does not mean Europe is a safe place. There were 18 attacks by Muslim terrorists in Europe during the preceding 12 months. The terrorists used illegal weapons to kill and maim their disarmed victims. I mention the victims because most European citizens are denied the legal right to carry a firearm for self-defense. They are denied the right to keep a firearm accessible in their home. That is the same “gun control” that President Obama wants to import into the United States. Failure never stopped our President.
A mentally ill man got a gun and shot three innocent victims in a Louisiana movie Theater. As I mentioned, criminals and crazies don’t obey gun laws. President Obama said, “We are the only advanced country on Earth that sees these kinds of mass shootings every few months.” I’ve showed you the contrary facts that violence is both widespread and frequent. Why didn’t the media tell you that?
In San Bernardino, California, a Muslim immigrant couple murdered 14 people and wounded an additional 24 at a year-end Christmas party. The office Christmas party was held at a “gun-free zone” so the victims were legally disarmed. Terrorists don’t obey gun free zone signs… even in California. The death toll would have been much higher but the bombs the terrorists left behind failed to detonate.
The terrorists had been screened several times by the FBI. They had no criminal history and bought their firearms legally in California. Background checks don’t stop terrorists, but that didn’t stop our president from proposing more of them.
President Obama said, “…we don’t know why they did it… We do not know their motivations… And we’re going to have to, I think, search ourselves as a society to make sure that we can take basic steps that would make it harder — not impossible, but harder — for individuals to get access to weapons.”
In Orlando, Florida, a Muslim terrorists killed 49 victims and injured an additional 50 people at the Pulse nightclub. The murderer called 911 to announced his allegiance to ISIS and his dedication to Allah. The club was another “gun free zone” so the victims were disarmed by Florida law.
The murderer was a security contractor for the TSA. He had been reported for suspicious behavior by colleagues at work and by gun store employees. They contacted the FBI… who did nothing. The murderer passed several security background checks.
President Obama said “…our politics have conspired to make it as easy as possible for a terrorist or just a disturbed individual like those in Aurora and Newtown to buy extraordinarily powerful weapons… and they can do so legally.” The murderer used a 22 caliber rifle and a 9mm handgun. Neither is considered to be a high powered cartridge. The rifle was not an AR, and had no parts in common with an AR rifle. Facts don’t matter when you can tell unchallenged lies.
The president wasn’t done blaming firearms for the actions of terrorists. President Obama said, “We flood communities with so many guns that it is easier for a teenager to buy a Glock than get his hands on a computer or even a book.” Even the Washington Post called him a liar.
Within a month, Muslim terrorists would kill and injure hundreds more as they ran over families on a boardwalk in Nice, France and shot youngsters in a McDonald’s restaurant in Munich, Germany. Our President finds it easy to lie, but difficult to reach an obvious truth.

Foul Movement

Published on June 27, 2016URL of the original posting site: http://clashdaily.com/2016/06/patriots-whod-win-civil-war-breaks-america/
There are a whole lot of gun owners in our country who will not sit down quietly and take that kind of abuse from the government.


Warm-Up Act

By: Wilmot Proviso on June 23, 2016URL of the original posting site: http://conservativetribune.com/gun-control-shut-down/
In the social media gun control wars of 2016, the great liberal argument has been that the Second Amendment was designed by founding fathers who simply couldn’t foresee a gun like the AR-15 being invented.
Never mind, of course, that the AR-15 wasn’t used in the Orlando terrorist shooting, or the fact that Democrats and liberals know so little about guns that they can barely talk about them without making a serious mistake.
There’s also the fact that they’re discounting that the founding fathers didn’t put it that way when they wrote the Second Amendment, as a new meme pointed out.

The Second Amendment does not read, “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, unless the gun looks really scary and fires bullets that aren’t musket balls, and you can load more than one bullet at a time, and — really, why do you need a gun? Let’s pass some gun control laws.”
The Second Amendment wasn’t just an afterthought for the founding fathers. It was one of the cornerstones of the Bill of Rights — the one amendment that would make sure all of the others weren’t violated.
The founders weren’t ignorant men, either. They studied military history and knew the pace of progress. They knew that more advanced firearms were coming, and they hoped that they were writing a document for a nation that would survive hundreds, if not thousands, of years.
To say that they hadn’t seen weapons like the AR-15 coming is to dramatically underestimate their foresight.
And yet, nobody challenges the Bill of Rights on any of the other counts. Free speech is so much freer in 2016 than it was in the 1700s, but most of us don’t believe it’s time to do away with the First Amendment.
So, as this meme demonstrates — if you want to complain about the Second Amendment not being designed for modern weapons, get off the computer and write me out a letter. Or, better yet, stop complaining.












Commentary by Rob Morse, June 23, 2016
Fort Hood Memorial
The Muslims who bombed the Boston Marathon were investigated by the FBI. The FBI even received tips from foreign intelligence services about the Muslim immigrants. The FBI didn’t stop the killers from building a bomb. The FBI didn’t stop them from getting guns either. We were told that the government would protect us.

Pulse LGBT Nightclub


URL of the original posting site: http://townhall.com/political-cartoons/chipbok

URL of the original posting site: http://townhall.com/political-cartoons/garyvarvel

URL of the original posting site: http://townhall.com/political-cartoons/lisabenson




Drawn by Michael Ramirez – Thursday, June 16, 2016URL of the original posting site: http://townhall.com/political-cartoons/michaelramirez/


Published on June 16, 2016URL of the original posting site: http://clashdaily.com/2016/06/hilarious-youll-probably-agree-additional-background-check/



URL of the original posting site: http://constitution.com/need-stop-blaming-guns-start-blaming-radical-islam/
As expected, the Left has immediately jumped to gun control:

The reason liberals are rushing to blame guns is because they don’t have anything else to blame. The shooter, Omar Saddiqui Mateen, was a radical Islamist.
According to CNN:
“[Mateen] called 911 around the time of the attack to pledge allegiance to ISIS and mentioned the Boston bombers, according to a U.S. official.”
This was an act of radical Islamic terrorism. However, the Left cannot acknowledge such a thing because they refuse to identify the enemy. We’re dealing with an ideology that isn’t simply religious, but political and cultural. Radical Islamists in the Middle East routinely execute homosexuals by various means, including tossing them off buildings.

I keep seeing posts on social media repeating the same idiotic notion: This wasn’t because of Islam, it was an act of hate. I would follow that up with this: An act of hate because…his radical Islamic ideology teaches him to hate gays.
As Ted Cruz rather brilliantly said yesterday:
“For all the Democrats who are loud champions of the gay and lesbian community whenever there is a culture battle waging, now is the opportunity to speak out against an ideology that calls for the murder of gays and lesbians. ISIS and the theocracy in Iran (supported with American taxpayer dollars) regularly murder homosexuals, throwing them from buildings and burying them under rocks. This is wrong, it is evil, and we must all stand against it…
If you’re a Democratic politician and you really want to stand for LGBT, show real courage and stand up against the vicious ideology that has targeted our fellow Americans for murder.”
If the Left refuses to fight for the people they claim to champion, even when they know in their hearts who the enemy is, they are truly and utterly repugnant.
They can cry for days about how “sensible gun control” would have prevented this massacre, but we don’t know that. Most likely, it wouldn’t have. Other than complete confiscation, there is very little that can be done to “control” guns. Moreover, the sad reality is that in our disturbed world, bad guys will always–let me repeat that–always have access to the weapons they want. The only thing gun control will accomplish is leaving law-abiding Americans unarmed in the face of terror.
So let’s place the blame where it belongs–on radical Islamic ideology. If we keep our eyes firmly shut, the blood will never stop running, and eventually, we won’t have any left.


By Rob Morse Posted on June 10, 2016URL of the original posting site: http://girlsjustwannahaveguns.com/majority-of-anti-gun-politicians-are-criminals-here-is-the-list/


Let me paint with a broader brush for a minute. Some 25 anti-rights mayors in Michael Bloomberg’s group Mayors Against Illegal Guns have been charged with crimes. The majority of those charged were convicted, though some convictions remain open on appeal. In contrast, Barack Obama was never charged for selling two thousand illegal guns to Mexican drug gangs. Hillary Clinton took millions of dollars in foreign bribes. Clinton also called the NRA the political enemy of which she is most proud. Clinton is currently under investigation by the FBI for security violations while Secretary of State.
Not all of the anti-gun politicians are corrupt, but that is the way to bet. No wonder these politicians want to disarm honest civilians.

By Sean Davis 3, 2016URL of the original posting site: http://thefederalist.com/2016/06/03/katie-courics-anti-gun-producers-repeatedly-violated-federal-gun-laws/
But that’s not the worst thing that happened with the making of this documentary. It turns out that Couric’s production team deliberately conspired to violate federal gun laws. According to video obtained by Ammoland, a shooting sports news website, one of Couric’s producers deliberately committed at least four separate felonies by purchasing four separate firearms across state lines without a background check.
SOECHTIG: We sent a producer out and he was from Colorado. He went to Arizona, and he was able to buy a Bushmaster and then three other pistols without a background check in a matter of four hours. And that’s perfectly legal. He wasn’t doing some sort of underground market. [..] And he just met someone in the parking lot of Wendy’s and bought a Bushmaster. Legally. Like, this is legal.
Federal law is abundantly clear on what types of transactions require federal background checks. Gun owners tend to understand these laws incredibly well. Gun controllers like Soechtig do not. Under federal law, all gun purchases from an FFL must be accompanied by a federal background check. It doesn’t matter if the FFL sells a gun at a retail location, at a gun show, or out of the back of a car in a Wendy’s parking lot. All FFL transactions require a federal background check. It doesn’t matter who you are or where you’re from: if you buy a gun from an FFL, the FFL must confirm that you have passed a federal background check.
Next we have interstate purchases, all of which must be conducted through an FFL in the buyer’s home state. It is illegal to purchase a gun across state lines unless the transaction is processed through an FFL in the buyer’s home state. And what did we just learn about all FFL purchases? That they require federal background checks. Ergo, all interstate purchases must be accompanied by federal background checks.
What does that mean? It means that a producer who resides in Colorado cannot legally buy a gun in Arizona unless that gun is shipped to an FFL in Colorado, whereby that FFL confirms that the Colorado resident can legally own that firearm. The Colorado resident who bought the gun from someone in Arizona cannot take possession of that gun until the Colorado FFL receives the gun from Arizona and confirms that the Colorado buyer can legally own that weapon. Once that happens, the Colorado FFL would transfer possession of the gun to the Colorado buyer.
How may an unlicensed person receive a firearm in his or her State that he or she purchased from an out–of–State source? An unlicensed person who is not prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms may purchase a firearm from an out–of–State source, provided the transfer takes place through a Federal firearms licensee in his or her State of residence. [18 U.S.C 922(a)(3) and 922(b)(3); 27 CFR 478.29]
But that’s not what happened according to Soechtig’s very own testimony. According to Soechtig, she gave direct orders to an employee of hers who lives in Colorado to buy some guns in Arizona without undergoing a federal background check. He then acted on those orders, and, according to Soechtig’s own admission, proceeded to illegally purchase four separate firearms from a seller in Arizona. And if he was purchasing the guns for Soechtig rather than himself, you can add illegal straw purchases to the list of federal crimes.
Soechtig’s employee, acting on her orders, repeatedly violated federal gun laws. And he did so not just because of his own monumental ignorance, but because of the aggressive ignorance of Stephanie Soechtig, Katie Couric’s hand-picked producer, director, and writer of the anti-gun documentary.
Soechtig’s chest-thumping ignorance and arrogance on display in that interview–“Legally. Like, this is legal.”–are a perfect example of why so many gun owners care so little about the opinions of sanctimonious gun controllers. Because they have absolutely no clue what they’re talking about. They don’t understand how guns work. They don’t understand crime statistics. They don’t know the difference between semi-automatic and automatic. And they can’t even deign to spend 5 minutes researching actual gun laws before declaring that those laws just aren’t sufficient.
The one thing gun controllers all agree on, however, is that strong enforcement of commonsense gun laws is key to preventing senseless gun violence. Katie Couric, Stephanie Soechtig, and their entire anti-gun documentary team now have a chance to put their money where their mouths are. If enforcement of federal gun laws is essential to preventing gun violence, then Soechtig and her team must pay the price for their willful and admitted violations of federal gun laws.

Written by URL of the original posting site: http://eaglerising.com/33947/california-goes-full-fascist-outlawing-global-warming-skeptics-and-their-guns/
First, the California state Assembly rammed through several bills which would enact even more restrictive laws/regulations on gun rights, criminalizing the mere possession of unserialized firearm parts, banning the purchase of more than one firearm in a month, allowing your boss, teacher, or therapist to secretly take away your RIGHT to self-defense, banning guns with a bullet button, and allowing the state to send harassing mail to legal gun owners!
Yes, you’d only be allowed to buy one gun a month because the ninnies in Sacramento think that that is enough. Yes, your boss, teacher or therapist could go behind your back and tell the government to take your guns and that would be enough for the government to do it. No if’s and’s or but’s from you. All of the measures are completely unconstitutional and un-American, and their penalties are absolutely Draconian.
These idiotic new laws would be enough to paint the California Assembly as the most fascist legislature of the week, but they didn’t stop there. No, they decided that undermining the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights wasn’t enough. They also chose to launch an all-out assault on the 1st Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech as well.
The first-of-its-kind legislation — Senate Bill 1161, or the California Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act of 2016 — is scheduled for floor action Thursday after clearing Senate committees in April and May.
The measure would allow state and local prosecutors to pursue claims against climate-change skepticism as a violation of the state’s Unfair Competition Law [UCL], as well as extend the four-year statute of limitations for such claims retroactively to Jan. 1, 2021.
“This bill explicitly authorizes district attorneys and the Attorney General to pursue UCL claims alleging that a business or organization has directly or indirectly engaged in unfair competition with respect to scientific evidence regarding the existence, extent, or current or future impacts of anthropogenic induced climate change,” says the state Senate Rules Committee’s floor analysis.
Yes, you read that right. California is planning to make it illegal for you, your business, or anyone else, to disagree with the liberal opinion on man-made climate change/global warming. ILLEGAL. Over at the California Political Review, Stephen Frank puts this into perspective and explains what this bill really is.“Did you donate to the Pacific Legal Foundation? Do you support Americans for Prosperity? Are you a member of the California Republican Party, which has a platform approving of all forms of energy, including fossil fuel (oil)? Do you work for a gas station, an oil company, have your written a letter to the editor in favor of oil drilling? If so, you could find yourself with being charged in a court of law, thanks to SB 1161… a totalitarian statement by Democrats that the First Amendment is now dead.”
If you actually believe that the progressive left in America today is the same Democrat left that existed 50 years ago, you are simply fooling yourself. The generation that fought for civil liberties and less government interference in their lives have apparently either died off or gone completely senile in their drunken quest for power. The hippies who used to advocate for more “freedom” are now the very same people clawing and scraping to unburden you from your liberty. Today’s Democrat Party has more in common with the totalitarian excesses of the Soviet Union, or Mao’s China.For more on this travesty of justice go read Jeff Dunetz at the Lid…

Reported by Under the reign of Hugo Chavez, the government introduced a law that banned personal purchases of firearms and ammunition in an attempt to “improve security and cut crime.” The law was designed to keep guns in the hands of only police, military, and some security companies.
At the time, Chavez’s government said that “the ultimate aim is to disarm all civilians.” Shortly after the law passed, Chavez lost a battle to cancer, and bus driver Nicolas Maduro became the new president.
Maduro invested $47 million in “disarmament centers” in 2014, where citizens could turn in their firearms without fear of repercussions. This was at about the same time as the government declared that prepping was illegal and those “hoarding” could be detained on criminal charges and when the country instituted a fingerprint registry for purchasing groceries so that they could ensure people only purchased what they were allotted.
It’s interesting to note that nearly all repressive regimes take away the means for the citizens to stand up for their rights. Right before the proverbial S hit the F in Venezuela, guns were taken away from the general public. It was then a slippery slope into chaos as the government failed, socialism itself failed, and the country collapsed.
However, now that the people are ready to revolt against Maduro’s government, they no longer have the means to do so. It’s suicide for unarmed people to fight the well-armed military, something that the government undoubtedly counted on when Venezuela banned guns, disarming the populace.
There are some unnerving parallels we can draw to the disarmament of Venezuela and the plans for America.
Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is adamantly anti-gun. Her own website has a long list of the anti-gun measures she has supported. Make no mistake, if she gets the magical president’s pen, there will be anti-gun Executive Orders. She could also be the person responsible for choosing Supreme Court Justice Scalia’s empty seat, which will not bode well for the next challenge to the Second Amendment heard by the highest court in the land.
If you’re wondering how this relates to Venezuela, it’s simple. Our ship here in the US is sinking.
And if the wrong person is making Executive Orders and appointing Supreme Court Justices, gun owners could be targeted.
The American government doesn’t really represent the American people anymore. Do you feel that your wishes are
taken into consideration when corrupt politicians benefit from big corporations against the desires of their constituents? Our system is broken, and every day we lose rights, incrementally.
The Second Amendment is not in place so people can go hunting for deer. Thomas Jefferson summed it up. “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
There are many lessons you can learn from analyzing the fall of Venezuela, like what items they have run out of that you should be stocking up on. You should be buying long-term food, stocking up on medical needs, and preparing for a down-grid scenario.
But as the country descends into chaos, you must also see how it got there. An armed society is a polite society. You’re seeing via the news report what happens to a disarmed society.
There’s a distinct pattern when society breaks down, and as our society becomes more desperate, poverty-stricken, and lacking of moral compass, this trend will become more obvious. Note that the “lacking of moral compass” part doesn’t just refer to the thugs rioting and looting, but also to a certain sector of cops who think that their badges give them permission to behave like street thugs, too.

Tess Pennington wrote about societal breakdowns in more detail – read her excellent article for more information on these predictable scenarios. In an event like this, you can try to call 911, but most likely, the police aren’t going to be coming to save you.You will be completely on your own. Will you be an unarmed, yet law-abiding citizen, hoping to somehow fend off the criminals who must have missed the memo to turn in their firearms? Good luck with that.
The thing that I believe it’s important to remember here is that if you have stacked your supplies to the rafters but refused to plan for defending your home and family, you’ve basically just made them bait should a desperate situation arise.
Just in case you think that chaos and violence only happen in places like Venezuela, where they’re undergoing a full-on collapse, the following examples are all from America.
Remember Black Friday? People climbed all over each other for cheap electronics. Fist fights erupted over vegetable steamers. People were ready to throw down and do battle for sale items.
I’d hazard a guess that folks who spend time and money fighting over electronics are not the kind of people who prep. That means that these are the people who will be hungry in a long-term disaster. Look at those people, stampeding to get to a sale on things that they don’t actually need to survive. Their inhibitions are loosened because those around them are behaving in the same way.
You have to look at the psychology of this. People can justify pretty much anything when they or their children are starving. And I can understand that to a large degree – who could stand to watch their babies suffering? But if someone can devolve to the above degree just to because everyone else is doing it, the chaos we saw above is only a tiny sample of what could come if people were truly hungry.
Do you really feel like you could prepare them one meal and they’d go away politely? Do you really think that reason and a polite but firm conversation will be sufficient to make them go away? It only takes one person to start the charge against you in a tense scenario, and when that happens, unless you take swift and shocking action, the others will follow, and your retreat will be overcome. Sort of like when the walkers overtook the prison after the fence got knocked down on The Walking Dead.
But wait, there’s something even worse out there than the hungry unprepared. There are the folks who have built an entire preparedness plan around taking the things that other preppers have stored. Remember this guy from another episode of Doomsday Preppers?
If you aren’t ready for people like this, your survival retreat is a soft, easy target. These people are not nice, but desperate. Their entire survival plan hinges on taking what someone else has amassed using superior force. This yahoo (who was subsequently arrested after his appearance on Doomsday Preppers) blatantly explains his plan, and I can guarantee that he is not alone. He’s just the one dumb enough to announce it on national television.
These are the types of people who are only careful about breaking the law because they don’t want to be caught. If a situation arises in which being caught and thrown in prison is unlikely, it will be a free-for-all. Morals and ethics won’t stop them, because they don’t have any. The only thing capable of stopping people like that is people who are able and ready to defend their homes
Finally, there are those who simply enjoy mayhem. Some people are just waiting for the opportunity to behave in this fashion. They enjoy destroying things and venting their anger on any person who has “more” than they do. They’d love to act like that every single day, but they don’t want to spend the rest of their lives in jail. But when a verdict gets rolled out, when a storm takes out the power, when a disaster strikes, they delight in the chance to rob, pillage, loot, and burn. Who can forget the day before Superstorm Sandy hit the East Coast, when thugs were coordinating looting rampages via Twitter?
Here was the scene in Ferguson, Missouri. These are definitely not folks out fulfilling needs.
I remember learning about “sublimation” in a high school psychology class.
Sublimation is a defense mechanism that allows us to act out unacceptable impulses by converting these behaviors
into a more acceptable form. For example, a person experiencing extreme anger might take up kickboxing as a means of venting frustration. Freud believed that sublimation was a sign of maturity that allows people to function normally in socially acceptable ways. (source)
If you believe Freud’s theory, then it’s easy to see that many people look for an excuse to revert to their true natures. In a situation where “everyone” is doing something, they are able to cast off their normal control of their impulses without much fear of reprisal. The number of looters and thugs far outstrips the number of arrests going on in Baltimore, so there’s a very good chance that someone swept up in that mentality can go burn somebody else’s home or business and completely get away with it.
These are the people who burned down their own neighborhoods after the verdict in Ferguson. And what businesses were left untouched? The ones for which the owners stood out front, armed, to defend their property.
What if the world as we know it ended? What if there wasn’t food in the grocery stores? What if there was no longer any such thing as EBT, for those who have made a career out of milking the system? What if the police and military finally threw their hands up in the air, gave up, and went home to protect their own families? What if the scenes on social media from Venezuela become the scenes from America? Who’s going to keep your family safe then?
You have to realize that at any point in time, you could find yourself on your own, without backup from 911.
Whether civil unrest is right outside your door.
Whether a group of thugs decides to invade your home to rob and/or terrorize you.
Whether the world we know goes down, via an EMP that takes out the grid, civil war, economic collapse, or a breakdown in the national transportation network.
You can stockpile until you have a decade of supplies put back, but if you can’t defend it, you don’t actually own it. You only have it because no one has bothered taking it away from you yet. You have what you have based on the goodwill of others, who are stronger, greater in number, and better armed.
Take a long hard look at the threats you face during civil unrest, and develop a plan for protecting your
retreat. Wherever you live, whatever your situation, you need to plan as though 911 does not exist. Whether riots are occurring in the streets or not, in the seconds during which the lives of your family hang in the balance, you are completely on your own. In some situations, it won’t stop with the destruction of your property. You may have to defend your home. And for this, you MUST BE ARMED.
I’m sure I’ll receive another barrage of email wishing me and my children dead by our own guns. (It always amazes me how people who swear vehemently that they’re against violence can send me those letters that fervently hope for bloody and terrifying deaths for us.) Some people are so terrified of self-defense tools that the very idea of using one causes veritable spasms of cognitive dissonance and denial.
Those very same people will tell you that they’ve survived riots or unrest and never had to have a gun or shoot anyone.
And do you know what? Chances are, you won’t have to unholster your weapon. But this is a plan based on pure luck and the goodwill of others. Survival favors the prepared. I do not base my preparations for my family on the hope for good luck and nice people.
Firearms are an equalizer. A small woman can defend herself from multiple large intruders with a firearm if she’s had some training and knows how to use it properly. But put a kitchen knife in her hand against those same intruders, and her odds decrease exponentially.
If the situation does escalate and the lives of you and your loved ones are in danger, there is no substitute for meeting force with force. You may not wish to engage, but sometimes there’s no time to escape. Sometimes there’s no place to escape to. In these situations, you won’t be able to talk your way out of it, hide from it, or throw dishes at the intruders to fight them off.
When you need help in seconds, the police are only minutes away. By the time they arrive during a collapse scenario, your family will be dead, raped, or kidnapped, and your supplies will be long gone.
If you plan to survive a scenario of civil unrest or a Mad Max society meltdown, you are going to have to accept that preppers need guns. This doesn’t mean that you want to hurt someone. It means that you intend to keep your loved ones safe by any means necessary.
Your plan has to be unique to your situation. Be sure when making your plan to take into consideration things like: the layout of your property, your family, and their skill sets, your comfort with firearms, your neighbors – the list of variables goes on and on
Know how to use your firearm. Whatever your choice of weapon, practice, practice, practice. A weapon you don’t know how to use is more dangerous than having no weapon at all. You have to spend time at the range. It’s a must. During a stressful, frightening situation, you will be relying on muscle memory, so make sure the muscles are well trained. I’m not a firearms instructor, so I can’t recommend “the best gun” for preppers. The guns I chose for my rural property aren’t necessarily the same ones I’d choose if I lived in Suburbia. Every situation is different, and your firearm choice should reflect that. (Here’ssome advice from someone who knows a lot more about weapons than I do to help you with that decision.)
Make sure your children are familiar with the rules of gun safety. Of course, it should go without saying that you will have pre-emptively taught your children the rules of gun safety so that no horrifying accidents occur. In fact, it’s my fervent hope that any child old enough to do so has been taught to safely and effectively use a firearm themselves. Knowledge is safety.
Spend time making a plan unique to your situation. You need to prepare your battlespace and make plans for defending it. Those plans will be different based on your experience and that of people in your family or group. For example, a family of preppers in the suburbs would most likely have a very different plan than a group of former military guys protecting a compound.
Don’t rely on 911. If the disorder is widespread, don’t depend on a call to 911 to save you – you must be prepared to save yourself. First responders may be tied up, and in some cases, the cops are not always your friends. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, some officers joined in the crime sprees, and others stomped all over the 2nd Amendment and confiscated people’s legal firearms at a time when they needed them the most.
Be armed and keep your firearm on your person. When the door of your home is breached, you can be pretty sure the people coming in are not there to make friendly conversation over a nice cup of tea. Make a plan to greet them with a deterring amount of force. Be sure to keep your firearm on your person during this type of situation, because there won’t be time to go get it from your gun safe. Don’t even go to the kitchen to get a snack without it. Home invasions go down in seconds, and you have to be constantly ready.
Have a safe room established for children or other vulnerable family members. If the worst happens and your home is breached, you need to have a room into which family members can escape. This room needs to have a heavy exterior door instead of a regular hollow core interior door. There should be communications devices in the room so that the person can call for help, as well as a reliable weapon to be used in the unlikely event that the safe room is breached. The family members should be instructed not to come out of that room FOR ANY REASON until you give them the all clear or help has arrived. You can learn more about building a safe room HERE. Focus the tips for creating a safe room in an apartment to put it together more quickly.
Plan an escape route. If the odds are against you, devise a way to get your family to safety. Your property is not worth your life. Be wise enough to know if you’re getting into a fight that you can’t win.
Only four short years ago, the people of Venezuela were armed. Look at how the situation has devolved since then. People are starving. They are burning muggers alive. Doctors are doing surgeries in the blood of previous patients.
The argument could be made for the chicken or the egg, but regardless, I’d certainly feel a lot better in a chaotic place like that if I was armed to the teeth.
So many times, when interviewed after a disaster, people talk about being “shocked” at the behavior of others. Their level of cognitive dissonance has lulled them into thinking that we’re safe and that we live in a civilized country. They are unwilling to accept that civilization is only a glossy veneer, even when the evidence of that is right in front of them, aiming a gun at their faces, lighting their homes on fire, or raping their daughters.
They refuse to arm themselves and prepare for an uncivilized future.



Hawaii State Sen. Will Espero (D-Ewa Beach) meets with Obama in the fall of 2015. (Image: Will Espero via Facebook)
In every meaningful effect, that’s what this would be: through an end-around, Hawaii condemning its gun owners to be entered in a national gun registry. The law hasn’t been passed yet. It was introduced recently in the Hawaii legislature by state Senator Will Espero, a Democrat.Hawaii could become the first state in the United States to enter gun owners into an FBI database that will automatically notify police if an island resident is arrested anywhere else in the country.
Most people entered in the “Rap Back” database elsewhere in the U.S. are those in “positions of trust,” such as school teachers and bus drivers, said Stephen Fischer of the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services Division. Hawaii could be the first state to add gun owners.
In other words, to be clear, if you’re a resident of the Aloha State, Hawaii would enter your name in the database because you’re a gun owner. That’s why you would be singled out.
This approach clarifies one thing most people rarely think about in a focused way. Registering guns is about registering the people. It’s not the guns the authorities care about; it’s disarming the people who possess them — or treating those people differently. Under Hawaii’s law, it’s not “your gun” that will be registered with the FBI. It’s you.
Advocates of the proposed law hope other states follow suit.
Supporters say the law would make Hawaii a leader in safe gun laws. Allison Anderman, a staff attorney at the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said the bill was “groundbreaking,” and that she hadn’t heard of other states introducing similar measures.
(The San Francisco-based Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence gets its major funding from the anti-gun Joyce Foundation, on whose board Barack Obama served from 1994 to 2002. There’s a reason why Allison Anderman is the go-to anti-gun commentator for MSM coverage.)
The argument for gun rights opponents in Hawaii is that the state needs to know when its gun owners are arrested in other states, as those events may make them ineligible for continued gun ownership in Hawaii.
But since the FBI already maintains its Interstate Identification Index, there is no justification for the proposed Hawaii law.
The Interstate Identification Index or III (pronounced “triple-eye”) is a national index of criminal histories (or rap sheets) in the United States of America, maintained by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) at the National Crime Information Center. Included in this index are individuals who have been arrested or indicted for “a serious criminal offense anywhere in the country.”
The program is designed to facilitate the interstate exchange of criminal history records among State justice agencies. In addition to the interstate exchange, this index holds millions of fingerprint identification cards for criminals who have committed a serious enough crime to go to jail for over 24 hours.
If Hawaii feels that this database is not updated quickly enough, that point could be addressed without singling out gun owners for special notification from the FBI. The excuse for adding gun owners to the Rap Back database is superficial and unsupported.
Notably, Will Espero was one of the Hawaii lawmakers who huddled with Obama in Washington, D.C. last fall to take up the challenge of implementing his agenda at the state level. Although mainstream media reporting doesn’t indicate the anti-gun agenda was on their list, Obama has continued to push it through all available avenues.
Hawaiians buying guns in the state will be required to pay for the cost of entering their names into the Rap Back database.


The notice provides gun owners, who possess firearms now prohibited under New York’s unconstitutional SAFE Act, the “options” to either surrender their firearms to the police, remove them from the city limits or otherwise render them inoperable.
The NYPD knew exactly who to send the notices to by using a centralized firearms registry which lists the city’s gun owners and what firearms they have in their possession.
With the gun database already in place, the police merely needed to compile a list of firearm makes and models now banned under the SAFE Act and send the notices to the appropriate owners.
The SAFE Act, which was passed by the state legislature and signed by the governor on the same day in January, has numerous, draconian provisions including, but not limited to:

These unconstitutional provisions and the overall law itself have met significant resistance.
Erie Co., N.Y. Sheriff Timothy B. Howard publicly stated that his department will not enforce the SAFE Act, adding that the law is one of the strongest examples of the government not listening to the people.
“It’s an unenforceable law and I believe it will ultimately be declared unconstitutional,” he said during a press conference. “Do you want law enforcement people that will say ‘I will do this because I’m told to do this, even if I know it’s wrong?’”
Earlier this month, Howard won his re-election due to his stance against the gun control law.
“The SAFE Act was a major issue in this [Erie Co. Sheriff] election,” Carl J. Calabrese, a political consultant, said to the Buffalo News. “A lot of people in Erie County, both Republicans and Democrats, are hunters, gun owners and shooters … These are motivated people who get out and vote.”
“In a low-turnout election year like this one, it can make a huge difference.”
Howard told the newspaper that he did what he thought was the right thing to do.
“People in Western New York feel strongly about the Constitution and Albany’s misreading of it,” he added.
(H/T: The Truth About Guns)
Last year Canada ended its national long gun registry, a national database of every rifle and shotgun in the country that was supposed to help police track the movement of and sale of weapons. When it was introduced twenty years ago critics said the registration of firearms would eventually lead to confiscation, a criticism dismissed as ridiculous, yet that’s what happened and more right up until its dismantling.
“You are required by law to return your firearm registration certificates, without delay, either by mail to the address shown in the top left corner of this page or in person to a peace officer or firearms officers. You have 30 days to deliver your firearms to a peace officer, firearms officer of Chief Firearms Officer or to otherwise lawfully dispose of them,” read the letter sent by the Canadian Firearms Centre.
The reason for the need to surrender what had been legal firearms was simply cosmetic, the AP 80 looked too similar to the AK47. There were no interchangeable parts between the two rifles, the rifles used vastly different ammunition, had vastly different uses but they looked the same. 
What was more worrisome was that the decision to reclassify what for years had been a legal rifle was made by a bureaucrat not by elected officials. There was no debate, no vote just a decision by a bureaucrat who felt the AP80, legally owned for decades, was too dangerous to be privately owned by Canadians.
Of course confiscation of firearms could just be the start, confiscation of homes and cars could also come to the USA.

If the United States follows Canada’s lead in registering all guns into a national database then the confiscation of rifles and shotguns won’t be far behind.
Brian Lilley is the host of Byline on Sun News Network

Posted on May 5, 2016
For those of you who have a hard time defending your second amendment rights, or just need some more pointers, you need to check this out!By William J. Bennett
On NBC’s “Meet the Press” this past Sunday, I was asked how we can make our schools safer and prevent another massacre like Sandy Hook from happening again. I suggested that if one person in the school had been armed and trained to handle a firearm, it might have prevented or minimized the massacre.
“And I’m not so sure — and I’m sure I’ll get mail for this — I’m not so sure I wouldn’t want one person in a school armed, ready for this kind of thing,” I said. “The principal lunged at this guy. The school psychologist lunged at the guy. Has to be someone who’s trained. Has to be someone who’s responsible.”
Well, I sure did get mail. Many people agreed with me and sent me examples of their son or daughter’s school that had armed security guards, police officers or school employees on the premises. Many others vehemently disagreed with me, and one dissenter even wrote that the blood of the Connecticut victims was ultimately on the hands of pro-gun rights advocates.
To that person I would ask: Suppose the principal at Sandy Hook Elementary who was killed lunging at the gunman was instead holding a firearm and was well trained to use it. Would the result have been different? Or suppose you had been in that school when the killer entered, would you have preferred to be armed?
Evidence and common sense suggest yes.
In 2007, a gunman entered New Life Church in Colorado Springs and shot and killed two girls. Jeanne Assam, a former police officer stationed as a volunteer security guard at the church, drew her firearm, shot and wounded the gunman before he could kill anyone else. The gunman then killed himself.

Posted on May 3, 2016

By: Ben Marquis on April 27, 2016URL of the original posting site: http://conservativetribune.com/trump-plan-2nd-amendment

“The Second Amendment to our Constitution is clear. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed upon. Period,” the position paper began.
Trump went on to explain that the right to keep and bear arms is a right that pre-exists both the government and the Constitution, noting that government didn’t create the right, nor can it take it away. He also rightly denoted the Second Amendment as “America’s first freedom,” pointing out that it helps protect all of the other rights we hold dear. In order to protect and defend that right, Trump proposed tougher enforcement of laws that are already on the books, rather than adding new gun control laws.
Citing a successful program in Richmond, Virginia, that sentenced gun criminals to mandatory minimum five-year sentences in federal prison, Trump noted that crime rates will fall dramatically when criminals are taken off the streets for lengthy periods of time.
Trump also proposed strengthening and expanding laws allowing law-abiding gun owners to defend themselves from criminals using their own guns, without fear of repercussion from the government. Noting that many of the recent high-profile shooters had clear mental problems that should have been addressed, Trump proposed fixing our nation’s broken mental health system by increasing treatment opportunities for the non-violent mentally ill, but removing from the streets those people who pose a danger to themselves and others.
Trump would do away with pointless and ineffective gun and magazine bans and suggested fixing the current background check system already in place, rather than expanding a broken system. Furthermore, Trump proposed a national right to carry, a national concealed carry reciprocity law that would compel states to recognize the concealed carry permits of any other state, exactly as drivers licenses from anywhere are accepted by all states today.
Finally, Trump would lift the prohibition on military members carrying weapons on military bases and in recruiting centers, allowing trained military members to carry weapons to protect themselves from attacks by terrorists, criminals and the mentally unstable, as we have seen recently.
This is great, and those who cherish our right to keep and bear arms should be pleased by Trump’s stated position on the Second Amendment. Of course, liberal anti-gunners will hate this, but their opinion on the matter is of little concern to us “people of the gun,” of which Donald Trump is apparently one.

March 1, 2016, authored by Casey HarperThis time in 2015, there had only been 52 homicides, almost half the current total.
The Chicago Police Department told The Daily Caller News Foundation in early February that they were ramping up visibility in troubled parts of town, transferring more officers from foot patrol to vehicle patrol and shut down businesses that were fostering criminal activity.
“While we have much more work to do, the entire Chicago Police Department is determined to keep every Chicagoan safe,” CPD Director of Communications Anthony Guglielmi told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “We will continue to work tirelessly on ways to stop violence, and restore accountability and trust in communities throughout the city.”
The rise in homicides comes after a series of CPD scandals that have marred the department’s reputation. The Guardian reported in February of last year that the department was operating a secret site where detainees were allegedly beaten and illegally kept from their lawyers.
Since then, multiple questionable police shootings have drawn scrutiny, most notably, the death of 17-year-old Laquan McDonald. Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel tried to keep a video of McDonald’s death hidden from the public, but it was finally released late last year. The video shows McDonald, who is black, apparently moving away from police when he is shot 16 times.
Since the release of the tape, protesters have called for Emanuel’s resignation.

Written by Thomas Holmes on January 13, 2016URL of the original posting site: http://clashdaily.com/2016/01/obama-thinks-science-is-on-his-side-against-guns-this-new-article-destroys-that
It also might help to review Reason magazine senior editor, Brian Doherty’s balanced and informative editorial on the limitations of statistical science’s analysis of gun ownership and crime. Go ahead and forward the article to your liberal friends too on the off chance it will give them pause before they starting pleading for President Obama to give the children a second Christmas and launch every firearm in existence into the sun.
Mr. Doherty thoroughly examines a number of the most inflammatory studies and surveys from both the right and the left and comes to a number of critical conclusions:
“The facts then become even more muddled as the conclusions of those less-than-ironclad academic studies cycle through the press and social media in a massive game of telephone.” Doherty touches on an incredibly crucial point that demonstrate how many scientists, journalists and politicians see true value less in the robustness of the analysis but “win” in the headline.
Later in the piece Doherty refers to a Pew study that showed that 56% of those polled thought gun homicide was increasing even though it had actually been going down for years, suggesting that a convincing narrative and a passive public beats the truth every time.
Doherty writes that Harvard gun violence researcher, David Hemenway “believes, given the good he thinks can come from legal interventions about guns, that we don’t need to be that certain we are right for policy work.” Other anti-gun researchers come to similar conclusions, according to Doherty. They suggest that just because an analysis might not conclude that guns aren’t too violent for statistics doesn’t mean that science should punish the real world by letting things carry on as they are.
Again with that convenient greater good.
Arguably, Mr. Doherty’s greatest conclusion is that current levels of social scientific study are incapable of providing any definitive empirical conclusion on the causality of gun ownership and gun crimes. The number and depth of variables make it basically impossible to truly know, especially when taking into account the intensive political and social heat around the topic.
What is equally true but significantly more disturbing is just how much President Obama will DID ignore that reality during the State of the Union and declare the subject decided.

https://www.truthorfiction.com/swiss-gun-policySummary of eRumor:
This is a forwarded email alleging that Switzerland equips every adult male with a gun, trains them and mandates that they maintain marksmanship personal qualifications. Because of this the gun related crimes in Switzerland are almost nonexistent.
The Truth:
This is true according to a September 27, 2001 article by Britain’s BBC that said “the country has a population of six million, but there are estimated to be at least two million publicly-owned firearms, including about 600,000 automatic rifles and 500,000 pistols.”
The BBC said that over the centuries Switzerland developed a unique system of national defense where every adult man is required to take some form of military training. The training continues for most of their lives and can last a few days or weeks throughout the year. Men between the ages of 21 and 32 will serve as frontline troops. Each man is issued an M-57 assault rifle with 24 rounds of ammunition, “which they are required to keep at home.” After their service is completed they are discharged but continue to serve in a Swiss version of the U.S. National Guard. Their training continues but less frequently and they are issued bolt rifles.
As for the statistics of murders around the world, they are in accurate and may be out of date. TruthOrFiction.Com found that such data taken from the United Nations website have variations as to the year the information for each country was gathered. This would result in a less accurate report.
Sample report found posted on the website Maps of the World
Posted 03/20/14
A real example of the eRumor as it has appeared on the Internet:
Honduras 91.6 (WOW!!)
El Salvador 69.2
Cote d’lvoire 56.9
Jamaica 52.2
Venezuela 45.1
Belize 41.4
US Virgin Islands 39.2
Guatemala 38.5
Saint Kitts and Nevis 38.2
Zambia 38.0 Uganda 36.3
Malawi 36.0
Lesotho 35.2
Trinidad and Tobago 35.2
Colombia 33.4
South Africa 31.8
Congo 30.8
Central African Republic 29.3
Bahamas 27.4
Puerto Rico 26.2
Saint Lucia 25.2
Dominican Republic 25.0
Tanzania 24.5
Sudan 24.2
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 22.9
Ethiopia 22.5
Guinea 22.5
Dominica 22.1
Burundi 21.7
Democratic Republic of the Congo 21.7
Panama 21.6
Brazil 21.0
Equatorial Guinea 20.7
Guinea-Bissau 20.2
Kenya 20.1
Kyrgyzstan 20.1
Cameroon 19.7
Montserrat 19.7
Greenland 19.2
Angola 19.0
Guyana 18.6
Burkina Faso 18.0
Eritrea 17.8
Namibia 17.2
Rwanda 17.1
Mexico 16.9
Chad 15.8
Ghana 15.7
Ecuador 15.2
North Korea 15.2
Benin 15.1
Sierra Leone 14.9
Mauritania 14.7
Botswana 14.5
Zimbabwe 14.3
Gabon 13.8
Nicaragua 13.6
French Guiana 13.3
Papua New Guinea 13.0
Swaziland 12.9
Bermuda 12.3
Comoros 12.2
Nigeria 12.2
Cape Verde 11.6
Grenada 11.5
Paraguay 11.5
Barbados 11.3
Togo 10.9
Gambia 10.8
Peru 10.8
Myanmar 10.2
Russia 10.2
Liberia 10.1
Costa Rica 10.0
Nauru 9.8
Bolivia 8.9
Mozambique 8.8
Kazakhstan 8.8
Senegal 8.7
Turks and Caicos Islands 8.7
Mongolia 8.7
British Virgin Islands 8.6
Cayman Islands 8.4
Seychelles 8.3
Madagascar 8.1
Indonesia 8.1
Mali 8.0
Pakistan 7.8
Moldova 7.5
Kiribati 7.3
Guadeloupe 7.0
Haiti 6.9
Timor-Leste 6.9
Anguilla 6.8
Antigua and Barbuda 6.8
Lithuania 6.6
Uruguay 5.9
Philippines 5.4
Ukraine 5.2
Estonia 5.2
Cuba 5.0
Belarus 4.9
Thailand 4.8
Suriname 4.6
Laos 4.6
Georgia 4.3
Martinique 4.2
And …………………………………….. The United States 4.2 !!!!!!!!!!!!

Written by Sen. Chuck Grassley / @ChuckGrassley / January 07, 2016URL of the original posting site: http://dailysignal.com/2016/01/07/10-myths-about-guns

President Barack Obama unveiled a handful of executive measures on gun control Tuesday. (Photo: Chine Nouvelle/SIPA/Newscom)
<!– President Barack Obama unveiled a handful of executive measures on gun control Tuesday. (Photo: Chine Nouvelle/SIPA/Newscom) –>
Chuck Grassley is a Republican senator from Iowa and serves as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Obama Promises| Political Cartoon | A.F.Branco 
NEW! A.F.Branco Coffee Table Book <—- Order Here!

Where There’s A Will | Political Cartoon | A.F. Branco
Posted on January 5, 2016
EMBARGOED UNTIL 6:30 PM ET, MONDAY, JANUARY 4TH

Gun violence has taken a heartbreaking toll on too many communities across the country. Over the past decade in America, more than 100,000 people have been killed as a result of gun violence—and millions more have been the victim of assaults, robberies, and other crimes involving a gun. Many of these crimes were committed by people who never should have been able to purchase a gun in the first place. Over the same period, hundreds of thousands of other people in our communities committed suicide with a gun and nearly half a million people suffered other gun injuries. Hundreds of law enforcement officers have been shot to death protecting their communities. And too many children are killed or injured by firearms every year, often by accident. The vast majority of Americans—including the vast majority of gun owners—believe we must take sensible steps to address these horrible tragedies.
The President and Vice President are committed to using every tool at the Administration’s disposal to reduce gun violence. Some of the gaps in our country’s gun laws can only be fixed through legislation, which is why the President continues to call on Congress to pass the kind of commonsense gun safety reforms supported by a majority of the American people. And while Congress has repeatedly failed to take action and pass laws that would expand background checks and reduce gun violence, today, building on the significant steps that have already been taken over the past several years, the Administration is announcing a series of commonsense executive actions designed to:







Congress should support the President’s request for resources for 200 new ATF agents and investigators to help enforce our gun laws, as well as a new $500 million investment to address mental health issues.
Because we all must do our part to keep our communities safe, the Administration is also calling on States and local governments to do all they can to keep guns out of the wrong hands and reduce gun violence. It is also calling on private-sector leaders to follow the lead of other businesses that have taken voluntary steps to make it harder for dangerous individuals to get their hands on a gun. In the coming weeks, the Administration will engage with manufacturers, retailers, and other private-sector leaders to explore what more they can do.
Keeping Guns Out of the Wrong Hands Through Background Checks
The most important thing we can do to prevent gun violence is to make sure those who would commit violent acts cannot get a firearm in the first place. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which was created by Congress to prevent guns from being sold to prohibited individuals, is a critical tool in achieving that goal. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the background check system has prevented more than 2 million guns from getting into the wrong hands. We know that making the system more efficient, and ensuring that it has all appropriate records about prohibited purchasers, will help enhance public safety. Today, the Administration is announcing the following executive actions to ensure that all gun dealers are licensed and run background checks, and to strengthen the background check system itself:




Making Our Communities Safer from Gun Violence
In order to improve public safety, we need to do more to ensure smart and effective enforcement of our gun laws and make sure that criminals and other prohibited persons cannot get their hands on lost or stolen weapons. The Administration is therefore taking the following actions:



Increase Mental Health Treatment and Reporting to the Background Check System
The Administration is committed to improving care for Americans experiencing mental health issues. In the last seven years, our country has made extraordinary progress in expanding mental health coverage for millions of Americans. This includes the Affordable Care Act’s end to insurance company discrimination based on pre-existing conditions, required coverage of mental health and substance use disorder services in the individual and small group markets, and an expansion of mental health and substance use disorder parity policies, all of which are estimated to help more than 60 million Americans. About 13.5 million more Americans have gained Medicaid coverage since October 2013, significantly improving access to mental health care. And thanks to more than $100 million in funding from the Affordable Care Act, community health centers have expanded behavioral health services for nearly 900,000 people nationwide over the past two years. We must continue to remove the stigma around mental illness and its treatment—and make sure that these individuals and their families know they are not alone. While individuals with mental illness are more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators, incidents of violence continue to highlight a crisis in America’s mental health system. In addition to helping people get the treatment they need, we must make sure we keep guns out of the hands of those who are prohibited by law from having them. Today, the Administration is announcing the following steps to help achieve these goals:

Shaping the Future of Gun Safety Technology
Tens of thousands of people are injured or killed by firearms every year—in many cases by guns that were sold legally but then stolen, misused, or discharged accidentally. Developing and promoting technology that would help prevent these tragedies is an urgent priority. America has done this in many other areas—from making cars safer to improving the tablets and phones we use every day. We know that researchers and engineers are already exploring ideas for improving gun safety and the tracing of lost or stolen guns. Millions of dollars have already been invested to support research into concepts that range from fingerprint scanners to radio-frequency identification to microstamping technology.
As the single largest purchaser of firearms in the country, the Federal Government has a unique opportunity to advance this research and ensure that smart gun technology becomes a reality—and it is possible to do so in a way that makes the public safer and is consistent with the Second Amendment. Today, the President is taking action to further this work in the following way:

Great Guns| Political Cartoon | A.F. Branco“Great Guns” – And who is responsible for this big boom in gun sales?

By: Wilmot Proviso on December 21, 2015URL of the original posting site: http://conservativetribune.com/families-revea-sick-thing/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=ConservativeHeadlinesEmail&utm_campaign=AM1&utm_content=2015-12-23
According to the U.K. Daily Mail, Obama spent Friday evening with the families of the 14 dead, offering hugs and getting in some photos. However, one local official severely criticized Obama for failing to meet with first responders and the 22 who were left wounded by the Dec. 2 attack. The visit was carried out as Obama was en route to his annual Christmas vacation in Hawaii.
The San Bernardino attacks, carried out by married Muslim terrorists Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik, has been a cause celebre for an Obama administration pushing for gun control. Recent reports indicate that the president specifically instructed intelligence services to downplay the terrorism aspect of the attack.
San Bernardino Supervisor Curt Hagman said the president was using a terror attack to “to promote his agenda on gun control.” He also called upon Obama to visit with first responders and wounded who “also deserve the president’s time.”
“This is an opportunity for unity and healing at the highest level and I call upon President Obama to be more inclusive with his meeting,” Hagman said in a statement.
Obama’s use of San Bernardino as yet another photo opportunity shouldn’t necessarily come as a surprise. After all, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Obama’s visit to San Bernardino was “patterned after” a similar visit he made to Roseburg, Oregon, in October after a shooting at Umpqua Community College.
During that visit, Obama met with some of the families of victims and pressed for gun control. However, he didn’t meet with either first responders or other family members of the wounded who had expressed opposition to Obama’s use of the tragedy as platform for gun control legislation.
Obama seems rather immune to that sort of criticism, though. As Rahm Emmanuel once said, “Never let a serious crisis go to waste.” The president certainly doesn’t.

Published on December 5, 2015URL of the original posting site: http://clashdaily.com/2015/12/obama-says-we-need-common-sense-gun-control-we-think-we-need-this-instead/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=subscriber_id:9760859&utm_campaign=Obama%20Says%20We%20Need%20’Common%20Sense’%20Gun%20Control%20-%20We%20Think%20We%20Need%20THIS%20Instead#
Recently, my CNN colleague Mel Robbins made a startling point. Robbins was on “Legal View” to discuss the case of an 11-year-old who shot and killed an 8-year-old neighbor when host Ashleigh Banfield noted that 10,000 children are killed by guns every year. Robbins was taken aback by the statistic. Then Robbins pointed out that when the government found out that a certain type of crib resulted in 32 children dying over 10 years, what did the government do about the cribs? “Outlawed them,” she said. But 10,000 kids die because of guns every single year and we can’t pass even the most measly common sense safety laws?
If you go to that link now, you’ll see that she corrected her claim about 10,000 kids being killed by guns every year. But not before radio host John Cardillo called her out on it. He pointed to FBI statistics that found that there were a total of 11,961 gun homicides last year. Of those, 1,085 were victims under the age of 18. And when you think of places like Chicago and Detroit, that’s not all that surprising, since those places are hotbeds of gang violence, often involving teen minors.
In the context of her article, she’s probably talking about little kids, not merely those under the age of 18. The number of little kids who are killed each year by someone with a gun is sure to be a good bit smaller than 1,085.
When Cardillo pointed out the error on social media, Sally Kohn corrected her piece. Now it says, “10,000 kids die or get injured every year because of guns.”
I know, I know…10,000, 1,000…what difference at this point does it make? Well, since you’re asking, about 9,000. Liberals have to inflate these numbers to make things seem way worse than they really are.
Posted By Leo Hohmann On 10/26/2015Article printed from WND: http://www.wnd.com
URL to article: http://www.wnd.com/2015/10/islamic-invasion-pulls-trigger-europeans-scramble-for-guns
Obtaining a working firearm and ammunition in Germany, Britain, Denmark and the Netherlands is practically impossible for the average citizen. Germany, for instance, requires a psychological evaluation, the purchase of liability insurance and verifiable compliance with strict firearms storage and safety rules. And self-defense is not even a valid reason to purchase a gun in these countries.
The laws in Austria, while still strict, are a bit less overbearing.
A Czech TV report confirms that long guns – shotguns and rifles – have been flying off the shelves in Austria, and Austrians who haven’t already purchased a gun may not have a chance to get one for some time. They’re all sold out.
And those arming themselves are primarily women. “If anyone wants to buy a long gun in Austria right now, too bad for them,” the Czech newscaster says. “All of them are currently sold out.”
He cites the Austrian news outlet Trioler Tageszeitung as the source of his report.
“We cannot complain about lack of demand,” Stephen Mayer, a gun merchant, told Trioler Tageszeitung.
He claims the stock has been sold out for the last three weeks and that demand is being fueled by fears generated by social changes. “People want to protect themselves,” Mayer said. “Nonetheless, the most common purchasers of arms are primarily Austrian women.”
They are also buying pepper sprays, which Mayer said are in big demand among those who can’t get a gun.
Alan Gottlieb, executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation, said he recently returned from a gun rights event in Europe, where he sensed a change in attitude toward firearms. “I just returned from a gun rights meeting in Belgium, and I can attest that all over Europe people now want the means to defend themselves,” Gottlieb told WND. “Self-defense is no longer a dirty word. In countries like Austria, where it is still legal to own a firearm, gun sales are at record levels. I can tell you first-hand that people in Europe now wish they had a Second Amendment.”
More potential new customers are entering the market than ever before, according to the Czech report.
&amp;lt;div&amp;gt;Please enable Javascript to watch this video&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;
So-called “projectile weapons” are available in Austria under two classifications, C and D, which are rifles and shotguns. Every adult Austrian is legally able to apply for a weapons permit but must disclose to the government their reason for wanting to own a gun.
The Czech station cited an interview with a sociologist and an Austrian journalist, both of whom said the weapons purchases were based on unfounded fears about foreign migrants.
The Viennese sociologist, identified only as Mr. Gertler, said no such fears about migrants should ever be published by any Austrian news outlet.
A journalist named Wittinger said “something is very wrong here” if Austrians are buying guns to protect themselves against migrants. Shotguns will not, after all, solve any immediate problems, quite the contrary,” he said.

ISIS-trained jihadists are now returning as European citizens or they are trying to infiltrate as migrants. In one propaganda video an ISIS operative informs his comrades back home in Germany to slit the throats of unbelievers in Germany, Czech TV reports. “Overall, the ministry of interior stated that Germany is in the cross-hairs of Islamic terrorists but that he does not have any indications of specific threats,” he said.
The Czech site reflects awareness of a major event in Western history, said Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America. “Polish King John Sobieski defeated the Muslim invaders at the gates of Vienna in 1683. Another Muslim invasion is underway and Austrians are alarmed, hence their run on gun stores,” Pratt told WND. “Women are right to be concerned in view of the Muslim view of women that they are good for raping and little else.”
The Czech TV report cited the Arab Spring as the root cause for the flood of Muslim migrants into Europe.
“More and more, the whole thing is turning into the situation that we will experience the much-touted Arab spring from very close up – right here at home,” the reporter said. “What’s more, many European are alienating large part of their own populace with unfortunate social and multicultural politics, merciless removal of children, unfair seizures and trading on traditional European values and with policies which are usually less friendly toward conservative and traditional native inhabitants and leans toward that portion of inhabitants who have little trouble with globalization and nonchalant liberalization, removal of traditions and Islamization. Yet we will not be able to rely on it, that portion of (population) once the Arab Spring comes here. And that will probably be, as they say, closing the barn after the cows are gone.”
Posted By Kit Daniels | Infowars.com On October 16, 2015Article printed from Infowars: http://www.infowars.com
URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/hillary-clinton-nationwide-gun-ban-repeal-of-second-amendment-worth-considering

Hillary Clinton said it’s “worth considering” a nationwide gun ban and a “buyback” program to eradicate private gun ownership.

Hillary said:
“You know, Australia’s a good example, Canada’s a good example, the UK’s a good example. Why? Because each of them had mass killings, Australia had a huge mass killing about 20 or 25 years ago. Canada did as well, so did the UK. In reaction, they passed much stricter gun laws.’
“In the Australian example, as I recall, that was a buyback program. The Australian government as part of trying to clamp down on the availability of … weapons offered a good price for buying hundreds of thousands of guns and basically clamped down going forward, in terms of having more of a background check approach, more of a permitting approach.’
“But they believed, and I think the evidence supports them, that by offering to buy back those guns, they were able to, you know, curtail the supply and set a different standard for gun purchases in the future. “
Clinton also mentioned that several U.S. cities have done gun buyback programs and it would be “worth considering on a national level.”
“In fact she was the biggest cheerleader for redistributing these arms to Syrian rebels,” presidential candidate Rand Paul told Fox News in July. “The reason this is an important issue is many of these people who received the arms are not friends of America.”
“Many of them are linked to al Qaeda and al-Nusra and some of these weapons may well have ended up in the hands of people who became ISIS.”
“The Free Syrian Army and the Syrian National Council, the vaunted bulwarks of the moderate opposition, only really exist in hotel lobbies and the minds of Western diplomats,” journalist Ben Reynolds wrote in November. “There is simply no real separation between ‘moderate’ rebel groups and hardline Salafists allied with al-Qaeda.”
The New York Times made a similar statement.
“Nowhere in rebel-controlled Syria is there a secular fighting force to speak of,” the newspaper reported in 2013.
URL of the original posting site: http://www.beliefnet.com/News/Articles/Harvard-University-Study-Reveals-Astonishing-Link.aspx?p=6#myyDZs86qT8y01Vd.99
According to a study in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, which cites the Centers for Disease Control, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the United Nations International Study on Firearms Regulation, the more guns a nation has, the less criminal activity. In other words, more firearms, less crime, concludes the virtually unpublicized research report by attorney Don B. Kates and Dr. Gary Mauser. But the key is firearms in the hands of private citizens.
“The study was overlooked when it first came out in 2007,” writes Michael Snyder, “but it was recently re-discovered and while the findings may not surprise some, the place where the study was undertaken is a bit surprising. The study came from the Harvard Journal of Law, that bastion of extreme, Ivy League liberalism. Titled Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?, the report “found some surprising things.”
The popular assertion that the United States has the industrialized world’s highest murder rate, says the Harvard study, is a throwback to the Cold War when Russian murder rates were nearly four times higher than American rates. In a strategic disinformation campaign, the U.S. was painted worldwide as a gunslinging nightmare of street violence – far worse than what was going on in Russia. The line was repeated so many times that many believed it to be true. Now, many still do.
Today violence continues in Russia – far worse than in the U.S. – although the Russian people remain virtually disarmed. “Similar murder rates also characterize the Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and various other now-independent European nations of the former U.S.S.R.,” note Kates and Mauser . Kates is a Yale-educated criminologist and constitutional lawyer. Dr. Mauser is a Canadian criminologist at Simon Fraser University with a Ph.D. from the University of California Irvine. “International evidence and comparisons have long been offered as proof of the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths. Unfortunately, such discussions are all too often been afflicted by misconceptions and factual error.”
By the early 1990s, Russia’s murder rate was three times higher than that of the United States. Thus, “in the United States and the former Soviet Union transitioning into current-day Russia,” say Kates and Mauser, “homicide results suggest that where guns are scarce, other weapons are substituted in killings.”
“There is a compound assertion that guns are uniquely available in the United States compared with other modern developed nations, which is why the United States has by far the highest murder rate,” report Kates and Mauser. “Though these assertions have been endlessly repeated,” the statement “is, in fact, false.”
Norway, Finland, Germany, France and Denmark, which have high rates of gun ownership, have low murder rates. On the other hand, in Luxembourg, where handguns are totally banned and ownership of any kind of gun is minimal, the murder rate is nine times higher than Germany. Their source of information? The United Nations’ International Study on Firearms Regulation, published by the UN’s Economic and Social Council and the United Nations Commission on Crime-Prevention and Criminal Justice.
When Kates and Mauser compared England with the United States, they found “’a negative correlation,’ that is, ‘where firearms are most dense violent crime rates are lowest, and where guns are least dense, violent crime rates are highest.’ There is no consistent significant positive association between gun ownership levels and violence rates.”
In 2004, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences released an evaluation from its review of existing research. After reviewing 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications and its own original empirical research, it failed to identify any gun control that had reduced violent crime, suicide, or gun accidents, note Kates and Mauser.
“The same conclusion was reached in 2003 by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control,” write Kates and Mauser. “Armed crime, never a problem in England, has now become one. Handguns are banned but the Kingdom has millions of illegal firearms. Criminals have no trouble finding them and exhibit a new willingness to use them. In the decade after 1957, the use of guns in serious crime increased a hundredfold. In the late 1990s, England moved from stringent controls to a complete ban of all handguns and many types of long guns. Hundreds of thousands of guns were confiscated from those owners law-abiding enough to turn them in to authorities.” But crime increased instead of decreasing.
Ignoring these realities, gun control advocates have cited England, as the cradle of our liberties, as “a nation made so peaceful by strict gun control that its police did not even need to carry guns,” write Kates and Mauser. “The United States, it was argued, could attain such a desirable situation by radically reducing gun ownership, preferably by banning and confiscating handguns.”
Somehow, it goes unreported that “despite constant and substantially increasing gun ownership, the United States saw progressive and dramatic reductions in criminal violence,” write Kates and Mauser. “On the other hand, the same time period in the United Kingdom saw a constant and dramatic increase in violent crime to which England’s response was ever-more drastic gun control. Nevertheless, criminal violence rampantly increased so that by 2000 England surpassed the United States to become one of the developed world’s most violence-ridden nations.
“Gun owners across America reading this right now will say: ‘Well, duh!’” writes Michael Snyder. Even so, the California state legislature recently approved $24 million to expedite the confiscation of 40,000 handguns and assault weapons purchased legally, according to the Huffington Post. Gun registration records are being used to seize those California guns from owners who legally purchased and registered the guns – but who the state of California has now decided pose a risk to public safety.
“We are fortunate in California to have the first and only system in the nation that tracks and identifies individuals who at one time made legal purchases of firearms but are now barred from possessing them,” said Senator Mark Leno (D-San Francisco).
Senator Leno’s measure utilizes $24 million from Dealer Record of Sale funds. That account holds fees collected during any transfer or sale of a firearm in California. Assemblyman Brian Jones (R-Santee) voted against the measure because he said the fees were intended to cover background checks – not underwrite confiscations, the Huffington Post noted.
“What we are seeing is ideology in collision with reality” writes Terry Roberts in California’s North Coast Journal newspaper. Confiscations are being made for all the wrong reasons, he says. “Recent mass shootings were all in places that were ‘gun free zones.’ The theater in Colorado was the only theater out of seven in the near vicinity of the shooter with ‘no firearms allowed’ posted outside. Ditto, for the other mass shootings. They were all in ‘gun free zones.’”
“Where have the worst school shootings occurred?” writes John Lott. “Contrary to public perception, Western Europe. The very worst occurred in a school in Erfurt, Germany in 2002, where 18 were killed. The second worst took place in Dunblane, Scotland in 1996, where 16 kindergarteners and their teacher were shot. The third worst high school attack, with 15 murdered, happened in Winnenden, Germany.” The fourth worst? Columbine.
“Most often, the mere presence of a firearm is enough to stop criminal activity in its tracks,” writes Scott Bach, president of the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs. “To the woman whose clothes are about to be torn from her body by a knife-wielding rapist in a deserted parking lot, a handgun in the purse is a lifeline. It is a genuine equalizer that may mean the difference between her life and her death. It gives her a chance when she otherwise would have none.”
“Criminologists of all political persuasions, in over a dozen studies,” writes Bach, “estimate that firearms are used for protection against criminals several hundred thousand to 2.5 million times per year, often without a shot fired. This is a staggering statistic, but it’s not one you are likely to hear on the evening news. Why is it that you don’t hear about the homeowner who defended his family before the police could arrive; or the shopkeeper who saved his own life and the lives of his customers; or the woman who stopped her own rape and murder; or the teacher who stopped the school shooting?”
“Yet when a single criminal goes on a rampage, that’s all you hear about, over and over and over again, along with angry cries to ban firearms,” writes Bach. “Why? A study by the Media Research Center concluded media coverage of firearms is overwhelmingly biased. In a recent period, “television networks collectively aired 514 anti-gun stories, to a mere 46 that were pro-firearm, a ratio of more than 11-to-1 against firearms.”
“And did you know that there is now an official propaganda manual that has been put out for gun control advocates?” asks Snyder. “This manual actually encourages gun control advocates to emotionally exploit major shooting incidents to advance the cause of gun control.” It’s a how-to manual on manipulating the public’s emotions toward gun control in the aftermath of a major shooting.
“We are only being told one side of the story,” notes Bach. “When we hear only one side, we assume that what we are told is all there is to know, and we do not inquire further.” The reality is that criminals “really, really, really don’t want to get shot,” writes Snyder. “When you pass strict gun control laws, you take the fear of getting shot away and criminals tend to flourish.”
In some American cities, “where strict gun control laws have been passed,” writes Snyder, “police are so overwhelmed that they have announced that they simply won’t even bother responding to certain kinds of crime anymore. The truth is that the government cannot protect us adequately, and that is one reason why millions are arming themselves and gun sales have been setting new records year after year.” He offers are “some little-known gun facts:”
Authored by
Ann Coulter | URL of the original posting site: http://humanevents.com/2015/10/14/hispanics-wouldnt-vote-gop-if-you-held-a-gun-to-their-heads/?utm_source=coulterdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

Nonetheless, Hillary Clinton attacked Sanders for having voted against an insane bill that would have held gun manufacturers and sellers legally liable for the behavior of anyone who uses one of their guns in a crime.
I would be open to such a law — but only after we pass a law holding psychiatrists liable for crimes committed by their patients; lawyers for crimes committed by their clients; and sanctuary cities for crimes committed by the illegal immigrants they released in violation of federal law. 
Gun dealers are a lot more careful about whom they sell guns to than psychiatrists, lawyers and sanctuary cities are about the criminals they loose on the public.
In several recent mass shootings, the psycho was at least temporarily delayed when gun shops refused to sell him guns — such as the Colorado gun range owner who put his whole staff on red alert in case James Holmes ever wandered in, simply on the basis of having heard Holmes’ strange voicemail message.
As Sanders himself once said, holding gun sellers liable for the crimes of their customers would be like holding “a hammer company responsible if somebody beats somebody over the head with a hammer.” (As happened to Lincoln Chafee.)
To cheers from the Democratic audience, Hillary denounced Sanders for his vote against imposing unprecedented liability on gun makers, saying, “It’s time the entire country stood up against the NRA.” Sanders bowed and scraped, finally saying he’d “take another look” at the gun bill.
Former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley bragged about passing the strictest gun-control laws in the country (which explains why Baltimore is such a safe city). Asked which “enemy” he was proudest of, O’Malley said: “The NRA.” (Loud applause — especially from the radical Muslims in the audience!)
I gather Democrats have written off the gun vote.
Plenty of Democrats own firearms — or at least have armed bodyguards, such as Rosie O’Donnell, Jim Carrey, Michael Moore and Michael Bloomberg. But Democrats have made a calculated decision that they are not going to win a majority of gun owners, so they denounce them with abandon, making no concessions at all.
Why don’t Republicans do that with the Hispanic vote? Somehow, the left has convinced the GOP to obsess over winning people who will never give us a majority of their votes, which is the exact opposite of the Democrats’ strategy for themselves.
I would wager that Democrats get more votes from NRA members than Republicans do from La Raza members (0). But try to imagine a Republican answering the “enemies” question: “La Raza.”
Republicans don’t need to treat Hispanics with the contempt that Democrats treat gun-owners. We do not dislike Hispanics. We do not dislike any group. We just have to protect Americans first — American jobs, American taxes and American social programs being bankrupted by immigrants. Most voters don’t think it’s an outrageous imposition to ask people to obey our laws.
Donald Trump opened his campaign talking about Mexican rapists, pledged to build a wall and deport illegals — and has soared to the top of the polls. The massive Hispanic blowback consists of this: Trump is getting about the same percentage of the Hispanic vote as Romney did.
I have no doubt that the 73 percent of Hispanics who will be voting against Trump are prepared to be much angrier about it than the 73 percent who voted against Romney. But the result won’t look any different on election night. Voting machines don’t register angry glints in people’s eyes.
On the other hand, by driving up the white vote — to say nothing of the black vote — we will see a difference in the Republicans’ box score on election night.
The Holy Grail year for Republicans is supposed to be 2004, when President Bush won a record-breaking 40 percent of the Hispanic vote. He had to turn his entire White House into a Hispandering operation to do that – and he still lost the Hispanic vote.
It’s crazy to deform our whole platform in pursuit of some group that won’t give us at least 51 percent of its vote, anyway. The Democrats ignore white voters and they were 73.7 percent of the electorate in 2012. Hispanics were only 8.4 percent that year.
I haven’t seen an estimate of the electoral percentage of gun-owners, but with one-third to half of all Americans owning guns, it’s a lot more than 8.4 percent.
Democrats know not to expend any effort on constituencies they can’t win, but have buffaloed Republicans into wasting resources on a quixotic bid to win a slightly larger — but still losing — percentage of the 8.4 percent of the electorate that is the Hispanic vote.
You’ve been conned, GOP. You are never going to beat the Democrats at sucking up to foreigners. And your conservative base will flee.
The GOP should expend precisely as much effort fawning over the Hispanic vote as Democrats do over the gun vote, the pro-life vote and the white vote. Republicans have got to stop believing The New York Times line that the only honorable votes are from minorities. It’s honorable to get votes from taxpayers, too.
Posted by Tim BrownURL of the original posting site: http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/10/since-2009-92-percent-of-mass-shootings-have-occurred-in-gun-free-zones/#yRA4TyFQepvJLdHz.99
In its presentation, the CPRC report, put out by John R. Lott, Jr. and Rebekah C. Riley, claim, “Everytown’s recent analysis of mass shootings is riddled with errors. Mistakes are made on the number of mass shootings as well as the extent of mental illness, the killers’ ages, and even where the attacks occurred. Those errors occurred because they did not do a complete news search on each case. They made simple accounting errors and included cases that did not fit their claimed criteria (4 or more shooting deaths). Also, their arbitrary definition of “assault weapons” seems chosen to obtain the results that fit their ideological agenda. Their numbers should not be relied on for any type of policy analysis.”
So, let’s be honest here, because clearly Everytown was not. They did not make errors. They made calculated deceptive claims. In the vernacular, they lied, and they know it.
According to the CPRC report, Everytown’s claims of 86% of mass shootings occurring outside of gun-free zones is because of their “inclusion of attacks in private homes” and “numerous errors in identifying whether citizens can defend themselves.”
Not only does Everytown’s report fail to identify cities that infringe on citizens’ rights to carry a gun, but they also fail to distinguish between citizens and police officers who carry guns.
The CPRC report also takes the time to educate ignorant people about so-called “assault rifles.”
“It may seem obvious that using assault weapons would result in far more victims than if other types of guns had been used,” reads the report. “After all, firearms such as the AR-15 and the AK-47 are ‘militarystyle weapons.’ But the key word is ‘style’—they are similar to military guns in their cosmetics, not in the way they operate. The guns covered by the original federal assault weapon ban were not the fully automatic machine guns used by the military, but semiautomatic versions of those guns.”
“The civilian version of the AR-15 uses essentially the same sorts of bullets as small game hunting rifles, fires at the same rapidity (one bullet per pull of the trigger), and does the same damage,” the report continues. “The civilian version of the AK-47 is similar, though it fires a much larger bullet—.30 inches in diameter, as opposed to the .223 inch rounds used by the Bushmaster. The civilian version of these guns is hunting rifles. They have just been made to look like military weapons.”
This is important because the call from gun grabbers pushes the fear of scary looking weapons, when the rest of us gun owners understand they’re really just “cool” looking. But here’s an important question, are there more fatalities when these kinds of guns are used? CPRC answers:
“Mass public shootings vary greatly and averages can be misleading. Except for the tragedy at Newtown, the typical attack with an assault weapon actually results in slightly fewer deaths than shootings with other types of guns. That one attack greatly skews the results as Adam Lanza used an assault weapon to kill 26 people at the Sandy Hook Elementary School as well as his mother. When all mass public shootings are counted, the average number killed with assault weapons is 10.2 per attack versus 6.5 in a non-assault weapon attack. Excluding the Newtown shooting, assault weapons are actually associated with slightly fewer fatalities — 6 versus 6.5.”

So, sticking to the actual definitions of what a mass shooting is (four or more injured or dead in a single shooting), CPRC takes the same data, but deals with it fairly and demonstrates that Everytown is pulling a Climate Change data fraud on the American people. In the same manner that Climate Change should be dismissed as being advanced by Communists, the same can be said of the anti-gun push by Bloomberg’s communist organization Everytown for Gun Safety.
This week, President Barack Obama announced executive actions related to guns. Here are 10 common myths about firearms.
Myth No. 1: Firearm purchases at gun shows do not require a background check due to the “gun show loophole.”
Facts:
Myth No. 2: Gun shows lack any law enforcement presence and are a free-for-all for felons and other prohibited individuals to obtain firearms.
Fact:
Myth No. 3: Individuals who purchase firearms on the Internet are not subject to background checks.
Facts:
Myth No. 4: The president’s Jan. 5 executive action on gun control represents landmark change regarding gun control.
Facts:
Myth No. 5: The Obama administration has made firearms enforcement a priority.
Facts:
Myth No. 6: Mental health has nothing to do with gun control.
Facts:
Myth No. 7: Obama’s executive action on gun control will thwart criminals’ ability to obtain firearms.
Facts:
Myth No. 8: There is a general consensus in America that greater gun control is needed to prevent mass shootings in the United States.
Facts:
Myth No. 9: The terrorist “no-fly” list is a proper mechanism to bar Americans from purchasing firearms. —Obama, Jan. 5
Fact:
Myth No. 10: Gun retailers need to step up and refuse to sell semi-automatic weapons. —Obama, Jan. 5
Fact: