This is from Breitbarts Big Government.

The anti-gun crowd makes Joesph Goebbles proud with their big lies and propaganda.



On June 27, PolitiFact Oregon released a fact-check showing that the claim by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence that nine children are killed every day in gun violence is false.

The Brady Campaign made the claim at a June 17 Vancouver rally in the wake of the murder-suicide at Reynolds High School in Troutdale, Oregon. The group wrote, “9 kids every day will never have another birthday” on a chalkboard, displayed for all to see.

According to PolitiFact Oregon, the real number from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) shows 7.81 deaths daily for those who fall under the Brady Campaign’s “kids” age range. But the problem with that age range is that it includes 19-year-old adults.

The CDC’s “own metrics” show that “about half of all youth gun deaths” from 2007 to 2011 are for the age group of 18 to 19. And when “unintentional” firearm-related injuries are isolated, “roughly 46 percent” is for the age group of 18 to 19, as well.

Remove these and there is “an average of 4.76 unintentional gun [firearm] injuries each day and 3.85 [firearm-related] deaths.”

The 3.85 number is considerably lower than the claim that 9 children are killed each day.

PolitiFact Oregon contacted the Brady Campaign’s Heidi Yewman about these figures, and “she acknowledged that the number presented at the Vancouver rally was incorrect.”



Gun control lobby continues to ignore the facts about background checks

1 Comment

This is from The Daily Caller.

The whole gun control movement is built on lies,faulty reports and statics and fear.

The gun control crowd turns inanimate objects into menacing weapons with minds of their like anything on an AR platform.

Facts mean nothing to any gun control group.


The Brady Campaign’s recent report that the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) has “stopped more than 2.1 million would-be gun purchases” sure sounds impressive – only it isn’t true.

The fact is the vast majority of the 2.1 million people flagged by NICS are either legitimate purchasers who are snagged by mistake, or criminals who are then turned loose to obtain firearms elsewhere, rather than being prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

For example, in 2010, only 62 out of 72,659 NICS denials led to prosecutions by the federal government – and only 13 of those prosecutions resulted in a conviction. That’s .0001 percent.

According to Vice-President Joe Biden, the reason for the Obama administration’s near-total lack of enforcement is that “we simply don’t have the time or the manpower to prosecute everybody who lies on a form, that checks a wrong box, that answers a question inaccurately.” If that’s the case, then what’s the point of the check? Does the administration think a determined criminal will give up a life of crime after an NICS denial?

Moreover, the Brady Campaign is being intentionally deceitful by claiming “40 percent” of gun purchases are conducted without a background check. You won’t read this in their misleading report, but even the notoriously anti-gun Washington Post debunked their “40 percent” whopper, giving it a rating of “3 Pinocchios” for dishonesty. That’s because this statistic comes from a 251-person survey conducted nearly two decades ago, in which more than three-quarters of the firearm sales covered in the survey occurred before background checks were mandated by federal law.

The most recent Department of Justice survey of 1,402 convicted criminals found that nearly 90 percent of them got their guns from sources including theft, straw purchases, family, friends, and the black market. None of these would have been blocked by NICS.

If the Brady Campaign truly wanted to keep guns out of the wrong hands, it would challenge Biden and the Obama administration on their admitted refusal to prosecute those they know may be attempting to purchase a firearm illegally. Instead, they’re renewing their push for Obama’s so-called “universal background checks” scheme, which has more to do with registering and criminalizing lawful transfers than reducing violent crime.

But that’s the point. The Brady Campaign’s clear goal is to harass law-abiding gun owners and manufacture public shame toward anyone who exercises their Second Amendment rights. They can try by hook or by crook, but the National Rifle Association won’t them get away with it.

Brady Campaign: Hey ladies, take one for the TEAM!

1 Comment

This is from The Black Sphere.

The Brady Campaign is stupider than I thought.

Shooting a scumbag raping or attempting to rape

a woman is not a crime.


In what has to be one of the most offensive ad campaigns for gun control, the Brady Campaign people have lost it!

If you are attacked, and there is threat of sexual assault, what should you do ladies? Grin and bear it.

These people call us the misogynists. Talk about Barbarians.

The Brady Campaign site states:

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence works to pass, enforce, and protect sensible laws and public policy that address gun violence at the federal and state level.  We do this by engaging and activating the American public, electing officials who support common sense gun laws, and increasing public awareness of gun violence.

Through our advocacy campaigns and Million Mom March and Brady Chapters, we work locally to educate people about the risks of gun ownership, honor victims of gun violence, and pass sensible gun laws.

Sensible? Is it sensible to leave women defenseless? Is it sensible to equate the shooting of an innocent and the shooting of a violent sexual predator?

Murder lasts forever,” but sexual assault doesn’t. I don’t know much about sexual assault, but I can’t believe women don’t live with that scenario forever. For me, that falls under the category, “There are some things worse than death.”

This ad demonstrates the lengths to which the Left will go to get guns. What if a woman were to STAB her assailant to death? Or what if that frail, helpless little man-needing creature were to just kick the crap out of her assailant, and kill him with her bare fist? Are any of those scenarios the answer?

The ACT of rape may last 30 seconds; the effects of rape can haunt for a lifetime.

On the other hand, shooting a rapist in self-defense is not murder, but a justified shooting.



NRA’s Chris Cox: False flags flying high

Leave a comment

This is from The Daily Caller.

More millionaire Nanny Bloomberg want to bes.

They are more dangerous than Nanny Bloomberg as they are pretending to be

gun rights advocates.

They will fool many gun owners.

We need to expose these people for the vermin they are.


Well, here we go again. Another group of wealthy, elitist supporters of gun control have come together, spending their own money to form a new organization to pursue their personal, pet agenda. This would be unremarkable, except that this time they are using the rare gambit of pretending to be a group that actually supports the Second Amendment.

Note I said rare—not unprecedented. You would think that a group of self-styled entrepreneurs would perform some basic market research before launching this charade. If they had, they would have found they are not the first to mount such a deception. They would have discovered the remnants of both “Americans for Gun Safety” (AGS) and the “American Hunters and Shooters Association” (AHSA) within the trash heap of history.

“Americans for Gun Safety” was precisely one American, a billionaire from New York City (sound familiar?) named Andrew McKelvey, who hired a half-dozen Democratic staffers and operatives to lobby for gun control at both the state and federal level. These operatives recognized a gravy train when they saw one and they milked it for as long as they could, but their sponsor eventually tired of funding the group after years of failing to pass his personal gun control agenda. The operatives didn’t miss a beat, however, and turned themselves into a think-tank with the name of “Third Way.” They still exist, now taking funding from a much broader array of left-wing interest groups to pursue a broader agenda. And one of their staffers has re-appeared on the gun control scene, recently drafting a lengthy report for the Brookings Institution calling for new gun control.

“American Hunters and Shooters Association” had broader support—this time, it was a group of about six gun control supporters who banded together to push for new restrictions under the guise of supporting our rights. And, according to a deposition given by a staffer, AHSA far eclipsed AGS in member recruitment, eventually arriving at the vast total of “fewer than 150” individual members.

The leader of AHSA was a former Washington Redskins football player named Ray Schoenke. He liked to shoot ducks on Maryland’s Eastern Shore, so he considered himself well equipped to be a national policy and political leader for all hunters. Schoenke also had a lengthy history of making publicly disclosed donations to groups like Handgun Control, Inc. (now the Brady Campaign) and political candidates who supported gun control.

Like McKelvey, Schoenke hired gun control lobbyists to work at both the state and national level, but he also liked to put his own skin in the game. In 2008, Schoenke traveled extensively to battleground states, making public appearances to say why gun owners and hunters should vote for Barack Obama. The Obama campaign paid handsomely for his support, but after the election the group dried up and blew away. Schoenke later claimed the group had to fold because of a lack of support for its agenda from the Obama administration. Maybe Schoenke’s happy now that Obama has finally revealed his true gun-ban agenda.

Now comes the “American Rifle and Pistol Association” (ARPA). Founded on July 4, the group bills itself as an “independent third voice to the highly polarized national firearms conversation, a voice of reason and responsibility.”

But what do their leaders really think? ARPA’s CEO Waylan Johnson told U.S. News that the reason for their founding is because “The NRA represents the firearms industry. There’s not a lot of member input.”  That sound bite is straight from the Obama/Bloomberg playbook, and there’s a reason for that. Another founder, group chairman Peter Vogt, had a lengthy online trail of social media postings in support of Bloomberg’s mayors’ group, as well as the newer gun control group “Moms Demand Action.”  Once discovered, Vogt quickly and quietly took down his postings.

n short, there’s nothing new about elitist gun control supporters banding together to push their agendas—there’s safety in numbers, and they can hide behind the veil of secrecy that many such groups drape around their funders. But the idea of attempting to conceal the anti-gun agenda behind a pro-gun façade has already been tried, repeatedly, and has always failed.

Debate over guns will be back, supporters and critics say

Leave a comment

This is from

Nanny Bloomberg and hid goon squad will not stop

trying to void The second Amendment.

Neither will Obozo,Slow Joe,Little Smuckie  Schumer,DiFi

and Babs Call Me Senator Boxer stop their assault.

The Brady Bunch will add their two cents worth of propaganda.



Former Rep. Gabby Giffords and her husband Capt. Mark Kelly testify during the Senate Judiciary Committee‘s hearing on gun control in Washington D.C., Jan. 30, 2013.

Fang Zhe/Xinhua — MCT

Read more here:



WASHINGTON — The debate over guns isn’t over yet.

Supporters – and even opponents – of legislation designed to curb gun violence expect a revised proposal that would expand background checks for firearms sales to return to Congress for a vote later this year, despite a resounding defeat last month.

Vice President Joe Biden, the administration’s point-person on gun control, has renewed a series of meetings with organizations with a vested interest in the issue, from law enforcement officers to religious leaders.

Advocacy groups are pressuring lawmakers they think could be persuaded to change their vote by running ads, packing town halls and signing petitions.

And, perhaps most importantly, senators from both parties are talking privately, seeking small but significant changes to the background check bill to appease critics worried about infringing on privacy and chipping away at the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

“We are at a place that would not have been imaginable in the political landscape four months ago,” said Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, one of the nation’s pre-eminent gun control groups. “We haven’t seen anything like this.”

Following the mass shooting in December at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., that left 20 children dead, President Barack Obama pressed Congress to pass the nation’s most aggressive gun control plan in generations.

But the Democratic-controlled Senate fell short of having the votes needed to approve the proposals – expanding background checks, renewing an assault weapons ban and limiting the size of ammunition clips – after most Republicans and a handful of Democrats rejected them.

Advocates say they were disappointed that the legislation was killed, but they remain invigorated by the first serious gun control debate in two decades. The Brady Bill, which first required checks for purchases from federally licensed dealers, passed in 1993 after more than a half-dozen failed attempts.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has not said when a vote would be held, but Senate leaders say they will need the summer, including the annual August recess, before they can reach consensus. A vote could come as early as September.

“Nobody who was involved in this has abandoned the effort,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., a key player in writing the legislation and a former state attorney general.

Both sides expect a second vote, but a victory is not guaranteed. Opposition remains strong.

Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, found people lined up 3-to-1 against it at his town meetings. “The problem is that nothing in that bill would have prevented any of the recent catastrophes,” said Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, the second-ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The focus this time has turned almost solely to expanding background checks to private sales and Internet purchases, a proposal that polls show an overwhelming majority of Americans approve.

But that legislation would not help fix all the loopholes in the law. A host of logistical problems – including concerns about violating privacy, misunderstandings about which records should be submitted and a lack of money and training – has prevented federal and state agencies from submitting millions of mental health and drug abuse records to the database that’s used for background checks.

The amendment, a compromise drafted by a Republican and a Democrat, fell five votes short in the 100-member chamber last month. Four Republicans voted for the bill, but four Democrats voted against it.

Opponents, led by the powerful National Rifle Association, are lobbying to kill the bill by sending mail to their allies on Capitol Hill and by airing TV ads in support of senators who voted against the legislation. One of them, Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., has been targeted by the bill’s supporters because of her vote against it.

“Let’s not fool ourselves; it doesn’t mean the war is over,” NRA president David Keene said at his group’s convention in Houston in early May. “We must never confuse winning a battle with winning a war. We all know that . . . our opponents are regrouping and we know that they’ll be back.”


The renewed effort involves both continuing public pressure on vulnerable senators and altering the proposal’s language.


Biden has strategized with advocates and held lengthy meetings with law enforcement officials and religious leaders who he urged to reframe the debate in moral terms. He and Obama will continue to speak out on the issue, aides say, though Obama has yet to hold a public event about guns since the legislation was killed.

“In the end, I believe we will prevail,” Biden wrote in the Houston Chronicle. “And those who wrote off gun safety legislation last month will come to realize that moment wasn’t the end at all. It was the turning point.”


Organizations from Americans for Responsible Solutions, a group formed by former congresswoman and shooting victim Gabby Giffords, and Mayors Against Illegal Guns, founded by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, have run radio or TV ads trying to shame lawmakers who didn’t vote for the bill, while thanking those who did. And a flurry of groups has held dozens of events in key states, including Arizona, Georgia, Arkansas and Ohio. Obama’s political organization, Organizing for Action, delivered 1.4 million signatures in support of background checks to Capitol Hill.

More events have been planned for this week’s congressional recess.

“People may be surprised at the public outcry,” said Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich.

In Washington, key senators are engaged in informal talks, sometimes on the Senate floor during votes, over the language of the bill. The two major changes would allow gun transfers between family members and ensure that no national log of gun owners would be kept.

Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., a conservative who co-sponsored the bill, was crucial to winning some bipartisan support. But after the failed vote, he indicated he was done. Then politics intervened. His poll numbers went up, and late last week Toomey said that he was open to new talks.

“If we could bring some more people on board, of course I’m willing to bring the bill back up,” he said.

So far, though, Toomey said he hasn’t found anyone willing to change their vote, but he continues to explore alternatives.

But even if the bill passes the Senate this time, it faces enormous challenges in the House of Representatives, where Republicans have a large majority.

“It would be a very tough sell for me personally,” said Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., an influential veteran lawmaker.

Read more here:



The Gun Ban Lobby and Its Funders

1 Comment

This is from The Capitol Research Center.

The Capitol Research Center exposes the man behind the curtain.

They expose the money flowing into the gun control lobby.

They also expose this BS American Hunters and Shooter Association.

The above group is a lying fraud as they support gun control.

This is a long article but worth your time to read.


Summary: The gun ban lobby includes not just a few groups like the Brady Center but also the mainstream media as a whole. Its preferred tactics are to use misleading terms and to ignore the actual facts of gun control’s failure. 

The massacre at Sandy Hook elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, this past December hit home like few other tragedies. Yet again a lunatic commits mass murder, this time slaughtering our most vulnerable and most cherished: our children. Words cannot express the bottomless grief one feels at the mere thought of such loss. Sandy Hook rightfully shook our sensibilities and forced us to reassess what we believe about ourselves and America. Why is this happening? we ask.

As usual, before police cordoned off the crime scene, the Left had its answer ready: not enough gun control. Left-wingers repeated their old refrain: America can no longer defend its “gun culture,” which is responsible for this tragedy, and we must have a national “dialogue” on guns.

In fact, we have been having a “dialogue” about guns for decades, and it has been very one-sided. The Left has often received what it asked for, starting with the 1968 Gun Control Act, the 1993 Brady Law (until the courts found parts of it unconstitutional), and a so-called federal “assault weapons” ban on semi-automatic rifles and high capacity magazines from 1994 to 2004. Yet none of this has affected gun crime or prevented any massacres. The Centers for Disease Control, a federal agency widely seen as favoring gun control, produced a major study in 2003 that admitted, “The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes.”

Prior to the 1968 Gun Control Act, few controls existed on privately owned firearms, with the exception of machine guns—that is, guns that keep firing as long as you hold the trigger—which have been strictly regulated since 1934 under the National Firearms Act. Even children could order rifles through the mail with parental permission. Yet firearms crimes were less frequent, as were the mass shootings that seem to be a regular feature in the news these days.

Activists on the Left don’t really want a dialogue. They want a total ban on guns in private hands, but they rarely admit that. Instead, they mask the issue with misleading language, selective statistics, and a campaign to vilify their political opponents.


Major Players
On the gun control issue, only a few small activist groups dedicate their work to banning guns. Here is the list, with the most recent available annual revenues shown on their IRS tax returns:

American Hunters and Shooters Association (2011 revenues $5,000)

Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence (2010 revenues $3 million) and its 501(c)(4) affiliate, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (2010 revenues $2.9 million)

Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence (2010 revenues $309,000)

Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (2010 revenues $249,000)

Legal Community Against Violence (a.k.a Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence; 2010 revenues $978,000)

Mayors Against Illegal Guns Action Fund (2010 revenues $2.7 million)

Stop Handgun Violence (co-founded the American Hunters and Shooters Association in 2005; 2012 revenues $143,000)

Third Way (formerly Americans for Gun Safety Foundation; 2010 revenues $7.5 million)

Violence Policy Center (2010 revenues $832,000)

United Against Illegal Guns Support Fund (affiliated with Mayors Against Illegal Guns; 2010 revenues $1.3 million)

The best known gun control groups are the Brady Center and the Violence Policy Center (VPC). VPC receives most of its funding from the Joyce Foundation ($6.3 million since 1998) on whose board Obama used to serve; George Soros’ Open Society Institute ($800,000 since 1999); and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation ($575,000 since 1999). The Brady Center receives much of its funding from small donors. FoundationSearch only reveals modest payments from foundations. From 2008 to 2011 the largest donation, $34,000, came from the Ladner Family Foundation. By contrast, the Brady Center’s last tax return says $2.7 million of its $3 million revenues were raised with the help of a professional consultant that specializes in online and direct mail fundraising (the Brady Center paid the consultant $96,000). In the same year, the group’s (c)(4) affiliate, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, paid the same consultant $99,000 to bring in $2.8 million of its $2.9 million revenues.

Altogether these 10 groups provided less than $20 million to the gun control cause in 2010, a trifle compared with the National Rifle Association (NRA), which lists 2010 revenues of $228 million. To the uninformed this appears to be a David versus Goliath struggle, the little good guys versus the big, bad old NRA, and that’s the way the Left likes it. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Conservative groups often focus on one or a few issues like abortion, taxes, excessive regulations, immigration, or guns, and rarely unite behind other causes. Conversely, the Left should be understood as a single amorphous organism. Like a giant amoeba, one segment may move one way and a second another, but the whole organism moves slowly forward as one. While leftist groups may identify themselves with one issue, most work together on allleftist agendas.

Thus the gun ban lobby actually includes the ACLU, Women Strike for Peace, People for the American Way, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, Physicians for Social Responsibility, National Council of La Raza, as well as labor, women’s, and medical groups. (Yes, the gun control Left has captured the national leadership of such groups as the American Academy of Pediatrics, which has stated, “The most effective way to prevent firearm-related injury to children is to keep guns out of homes and communities.”)

The NRA published a list of 141 organizations, 237 actors, and 26 national figures who have lent their resources and/or names to the anti-gun agenda. The list also includes 37 journalists and cartoonists who editorialize against guns. Practically all mass media outlets, including ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, the publicly funded PBS, most major daily newspapers, and many magazines overtly push an anti-gun agenda. The earned media alone from this unified public voice is worth billions of dollars.

In addition, Soros’s philanthropic network purchases media to promote its founder’s radical agenda, granting annual awards to “Soros Justice Fellows.” In at least one case, this involves subsidizing a working journalist. Amanda Crawford, who works for Bloomberg and Newsweek, received $47,000 in 2010 “To illustrate the failure of the drug war through a blog []) and series of targeted magazine articles….” Not surprisingly, she also writes about guns. This seems to be a clear case of Soros actually buying media to promote his agenda. In the past month, President Obama has asked Soros and other wealthy leftists to open their checkbooks to challenge the Second Amendment.

Lying About Their Beliefs
Gun control is not a winning issue. Talking amongst themselves or trolling for votes from their base, leftists will say what they think, but most moderate or hide their views to appeal to rational voters. The best example is our president. While he denies it today, President Obama has been overtly anti-gun for most of his political career:

* He served on the board of the anti-gun Joyce Foundation from 1994 to 2002, and considered becoming the foundation’s president.

* As a U.S. Senate candidate in 2004, he favored federal legislation to ban all concealed-carry laws for private citizens.

* While teaching at the University of Chicago, he told another professor, “I don’t believe people should be able to own guns.”

* He supported Washington, D.C.’s draconian gun laws, struck down by the Supreme Court in D.C. v. Heller (2008).

* Presidential candidate Obama made the infamous comment about “bitter” people who “cling to guns or religion.”

Not all on the left, however, are so deceptive. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), author of the 1994 gun ban and the current Senate proposal, said in 1994, “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America turn ’em all in, I would have done it.”

Misleading Language
The Left deliberately uses incorrect and misleading definitions to elicit emotional responses and sway voters. We must, therefore, correctly define the more important terms:

Machine Gun: A fully automatic weapon that fires a rifle cartridge. Strictly controlled under the 1934 National Firearms Act (NFA), these require an extensive, months-long background check and payment of a $200 tax. Any such weapon manufactured after 1986 cannot be purchased by civilians. Only two criminal uses of legally owned machine guns have occurred since the law was passed.

Assault Weapon: Assault weapons, as understood by the military, are military-issue small arms capable of fully automatic fire, that is, continuous firing while the trigger is pulled; a.k.a., machine guns. Civilian versions of these kinds of guns, for instance, the popular AR-15 rifle, are only capable of semi-automatic fire; that is, you must pull the trigger each time to shoot one bullet. The Left deliberately conflates these two types of weapons—fully automatic military guns vs. semi-automatic civilian guns—to exaggerate the lethality of the civilian versions and generate an emotional response to the scary-sounding phrase “assault weapon.” The “assault weapons ban” now being contemplated is for semi-automatic firearms, not true assault weapons.

Submachine Gun: A fully automatic weapon that fires a pistol cartridge; it falls under the same NFA restrictions as machine guns. The Left deliberately confuses machine guns with civilian semi-automatic firearms, for the same reason they mislabel semi-automatics as “assault weapons.”

Gun Safety: Proper care and safe, responsible use of firearms. The NRA conducts gun safety courses nationwide for thousands of adults and children, for which it rarely receives credit from the anti-gun press. In the Left’s lexicon, “gun safety” means gun control. Not a single leftist “gun safety” group offers any training or information on the responsible, safe ownership and use of firearms, nor do they even advocate for it. They simply use the term “gun safety” because “gun control” does not win votes.

One extreme left organization, Third Way, even dedicated itself specifically to creating a positive “messaging strategy” about gun control. Founded in 2005, it absorbed the former Americans for Gun Safety Foundation. AGS was a project of the far-left Tides Center. Its creator, Andrew McKelvey, was also a prominent board member of Handgun Control Inc.

Using poll data to develop their “message,” Third Way believes “progressives” can “take back the Second Amendment”—as if they ever owned it—by convincing voters that “reasonable” gun laws don’t undermine the individual right to keep and bear arms.

The group emphasizes “gun safety” because “gun control has become a loaded term that leads voters to believe that the candidate supports the most restrictive laws.…” According to Third Way, “reasonable” gun laws include an “assault” weapons ban, closing the “gun show loophole,” and registration of all guns.

The flagship anti-gun group, National Council to Control Handguns, founded in 1974, was later known as Handgun Control Inc. Its most prominent leader has been Sarah Brady, wife of Jim Brady, the White House press secretary wounded in the 1981 attempt to assassinate President Reagan. When the term “gun control” became politically radioactive, the outfit was rechristened the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. In the group’s most recent tax returns, Sarah Brady is now listed as “chair of the organization,” with compensation of $135,000 for an average of five hours work a week (i.e., $519 an hour).

Gun Show Loophole: Another invention of the Left that implies gun show purchases can be made without a background check. This is false. All licensed federal firearms dealers must conduct background checks on all prospective purchasers, and all gun show exhibitors that sell firearms hold federal firearms licenses (FFLs). Private sales between individuals, however, are not regulated in most states. This is what the gun controllers really seek to stop, and because such sales sometimes occur at gun shows, gun ban extremists demonize show promoters and hope to shut them down. They have had some success. Meanwhile, the scholar John Lott explains that the now-common claim that “40 percent of all gun sales today are private” is nonsense. It’s based on one small, flawed survey from two decades ago which mostly surveyed sales that occurred before mandatory federal background checks became law in 1994. Lott speculates that the true figure is in the single digits.

Sporting Purposes: Gun ban advocates try to delegitimize ownership of firearms that do not appear to serve a “sporting purpose.” They question, for example, the “sporting purpose” for semi-automatic firearms, especially those with large capacity magazines. But the Second Amendment was not intended for sportsmen: it was intended for defense, personal and national.

That is exactly why Sir William Blackstone, in his 1765 Commentaries on the Laws of England, a seminal work that profoundly influenced America’s founders, said that having arms for defense is a “natural right of resistance and self-preservation.”

It is precisely because the antebellum Supreme Court accepted Blackstone’s rights-based defense of firearms that it handed down its notorious Dred Scottdecision in 1857. In that ruling, which helped to precipitate the Civil War, the high court tried to make sure black people would never be American citizens and therefore never be able to acquire the right “to keep and carry arms wherever they went.”

Similarly, when the Ku Klux Klan was trying to enforce Jim Crow restrictions against blacks, gun control was high on its list of goals. Liberal blackWashington Post columnist Courtland Milloy recently praised the way blacks responded to the Klan by forming private groups like “the legendary Deacons for Defense and Justice—an organization of black men in Louisiana who used shotguns and rifles to repel attacks by white vigilantes during the 1960s.”

The same phenomenon occurred during the Rodney King riots in 1992, when many Korean business owners stood guard over their property with their firearms prominently displayed. Korean businesses suffered a large proportion of the losses during the riots, and those firearms proved critical to their survival when police abandoned the area and left them to face the rioters alone.

Selective Statistics
The Left trots out Britain and Australia as model gun control utopias, basking in peace and security. Handguns have been controlled in the U.K. since 1920, and other firearms also have been heavily regulated. That didn’t prevent horrific mass killings in Hungerford, England (1987), and Dunblane, Scotland (1996), which claimed a total of 33 victims, including 17 school children, and spurred successively more restrictive gun laws.

The Firearms Act of 1998 effectively banned automatic weapons and handguns. The penalty for possession of a handgun in Britain is up to 10 years in prison. After the handgun ban, gun crime, including handgun crime, skyrocketed. In 1997/98, there were 2,636 crimes committed with handguns in England and Wales. By 2001/02, handgun crimes had increased to 5,871. Overall, firearms were used in 9,974 crimes. (“Gun crime soars by 35%,”Daily Mail, Jan. 9, 2003).

Firearms crime in the U.K. peaked in 2005/06 and has declined since. In 2010/11, firearms were used in 7,024 crimes, and 3,105 of these were handgun crimes, down from the earlier peak, but still well above its 1997/98 level. In 2010/11, 9.3 percent of all homicides were committed with a firearm. U.K. firearms crime and violent crime in general remain well below U.S. levels, but both have increased dramatically despite a century of gun control. (Press release, Home Office, Jan. 19, 2012)

Despite harsh laws regulating what few firearms are still allowed in the U.K., in June 2010, a taxi driver in Cumbria, England, killed 12 and injured 11 during another murderous spree.

In all these circumstances, victims were completely at the killer’s mercy, and local police, also unarmed, were powerless to stop the rampages. In the U.K., only specially trained police carry firearms. In the Hungerford case, the nearest armed police unit was 40 miles away. The killers all ended their sprees by committing suicide.

In 1996, shortly after Dunblane, a man with a violent history killed 35 people and wounded 21 using two semi-automatic rifles at a tourist site in Port Arthur, Tasmania. Australia’s gun laws were stricter than Britain’s at the time, and after Port Arthur the Australian government banned all semi-automatic rifles, shotguns, and certain other firearms and instituted a forced buyback program, destroying 631,000 firearms at a cost of $500 million. The result? According to the Wall Street Journal:

Peter Reuter and Jenny Mouzos, in a 2003 study published by the Brookings Institution, found homicides “continued a modest decline” since 1997. They concluded that the impact of the National Firearms Agreement was “relatively small,” with the daily rate of firearms homicides declining 3.2%.

The United States has a rate of firearms crime higher than many other developed countries. For example, 3.5 per 100,000 are murdered by firearms in the U.S., while in most Western European countries the rate is less than 1 per 100,000. The U.K. is often cited due to its very low firearms homicide rate of 0.03 per 100,000. Many but not all Western European countries have restrictive gun laws. Belgium, Germany, and Switzerland, for example are less restrictive; all allow open carry, and their firearms murder rates are no higher than the others. Germany’s rate is roughly equivalent to the U.K.

The U.S. rate is radically lower than most Central and South American countries, despite stringent controls in many of them. Venezuela, for example, bans all semi-automatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns, yet Venezuela’s firearms murder rate is 11 times higher than ours. Brazil and Honduras require extensive background checks and registration, but Brazil’s firearms murder rate is 5 times higher than the U.S., and Honduras’ rate is almost 20 times higher. Conversely, Chile has few restrictions and licensed owners can carry handguns openly, yet Chile’s firearms murder rate is much lower than the U.S.

What does this say about gun laws? Obviously, other factors are at work in these different countries, and they have a much greater impact than gun laws. Just about the only thing consistent about gun laws is the inconsistency of their results.

But let’s engage in a thought experiment. Let’s imagine that somehow the Left got its wish and all civilian-owned firearms were confiscated and banned. Would Adam Lanza, the Newtown shooter, have attacked Sandy Hook if such a ban existed? It’s impossible to know; he was mentally disturbed. But even assuming Lanza had no access to firearms, would that have stopped him from murder? He could wait until school got out and attack the kids with a car as they waited for busses to arrive. He may have killed more that way.

In 2009, a 20-year-old man attacked a daycare center in Belgium with a knife. He killed two babies and a daycare worker and seriously injured 12 others, 10 of them children. He was also implicated in another knife murder and had plans to attack two other daycare centers, according to police. (WKRG website, Jan. 27, 2009)

This young man, Kim De Gelder, had a history of mental health issues. His parents had tried to have him committed, but medical authorities declined because was already receiving treatment for depression. Interestingly, he applied make-up before the attack, using white face and black eye-liner, and like last summer’s Aurora, Colorado killer, who attacked theater goers watching the Batman sequel, Dark Knight Rises, De Gelder dyed his hair red, earning himself the nickname, “Joker Killer.” (“Belgium’s ‘joker killer’ Kim De Gelder admits guilt,” Telegraph (U.K.), Jan. 27, 2009)

For the 1999 Columbine, Colorado high school attack, the perpetrators manufactured a total of 99 explosive devices. This included two diversionary bombs set elsewhere in town that exploded before the attack, 30 bombs that exploded at the school, 46 more that did not explode, 13 in their cars, and 8 more at their residences. Police determined that the two unexploded propane bombs left in the cafeteria could have killed up to 488 students, all of whom were at the cafeteria when the bombs were set to detonate.

Following the Australian gun ban, suicides by firearms did decline. Firearms are naturally a preferred vehicle for those intent on suicide because they are quick and effective. Following the ban, firearms were more difficult to obtain for most non-criminals. But people intent on suicide have serious problems. They are not going to be dissuaded simply because one of many methods is denied them. And indeed, the overall suicide rate remained essentially unchanged. People simply chose other methods. (, May 1, 2008;, Dec. 16, 2012) Gun bans only guarantee that law-abiding citizens will be unarmed. One cannot argue that they would prevent criminals and terrorists in the U.S. from obtaining guns. A robust international trade exists in small arms, much of it illegal, and much of that illegal activity backed by governments hostile to ours. The world market is awash in weapons from past wars and defunct governments. Many weapons used by Mexican drug cartels are genuine assault weapons, i.e., capable of fully automatic fire. They did not come from U.S. dealers as alleged by the gun control crowd, because they are much more difficult and expensive to obtain in the U.S. (, July 9, 2009)

In 1996, U.S. Customs seized a shipment of 2,000 AK-47s from a merchant marine ship of Communist China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA). It was the largest seizure of its kind in U.S. history, and the guns were allegedly to be used by street gangs. (Baltimore Sun, Nov. 8, 1998) At least 35 Jamaat-ul Fuqra terrorist training camps operate within the United States. These are privately owned compounds, complete with gun ranges and underground bunkers. Two have been shut down by police; one in California and another in Colorado. A storage facility used by the Colorado compound was raided by police in 1989. It contained handguns, silencers, explosives, bombs, and other materials plainly meant for terrorist acts. (Colorado Attorney General, statement, Feb. 9, 2005) Will Jamaat-ul Fuqru comply with an “assault” weapons ban? Will American street gangs? The notion is laughable. Every criminal or terrorist who has a gun will keep it, and the illegal firearms market will thrive.

Vilification and Smears
Here is where the extremist media comes to the fore. Journalists constantly vilify guns and gun owners. After any headline-grabbing event, activists then pick up the narrative, which journalists in turn amplify, creating a feedback loop of propaganda. Meanwhile, the facts about gun control and the role guns play in deterring violent crime are suppressed by the media and ridiculed by leftists. The Newtown fallout was especially ugly.

Des Moines Register columnist Donald Kaul suggested (Dec. 29, 2012) that the NRA be branded a terrorist organization and people who refused to turn in their guns be killed: we should “tie Mitch McConnell and John Boehner … to the back of a Chevy pickup truck and drag them around a parking lot until they saw the light on gun control.”

Westchester County, New York’s Journal News published names and addresses of every concealed-carry permit holder in Westchester and Rockland Counties, along with an interactive Google map showing their addresses. After widespread public outrage over this action, which put retired police, prison guards, and many others at risk, the Journal News hired armed guards to protect themselves. They also sheepishly admitted that a staff member held a concealed-carry permit, but they did not publish his information. Putnam County officials refused the Journal News’ request for their permit holder records, calling it “stupid and dangerous.”

In 1995, Eric Holder, then U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia (but now Obama’s attorney general), said we need to change attitudes about guns as we did with cigarettes. He advocated a relentless campaign of brainwashing in schools: “We have to be repetitive about this,” he declared. “We need to do this every day of the week, and just really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way.” Some critics have claimed Holder conceived the “Fast and Furious” gun-running scam to create the appearance that U.S. gun shops were supplying Mexico’s drug cartels. At least one American and hundreds of Mexicans have died at the hands of drug dealers using those same weapons.

Anti-gun hysteria whipped up by politicians has another unintended consequence. It spurs panic-buying among current and prospective gun owners when new gun restrictions are proposed. As Clayton E. Cramer noted at National Review Online, after the 1994 federal “assault” rifle ban was passed, people who lacked experience with guns bought firearms “while they still could.” Some misused the weapons, resulting in deaths.

With the saturation coverage that tragedies like Newtown receive, the media may actually be encouraging more killings. David Kopel argued in a recentWall Street Journal article that

Cable TV in the 1990s, and the Internet today, greatly magnify the instant celebrity that a mass killer can achieve. We know that many would-be mass killers obsessively study their predecessors … the copycat effect is as old as the media itself. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe’s 1774 classic “The Sorrows of Young Werther” triggered a spate of copycat suicides all over Europe. But today the velocity and pervasiveness of the media make the problem much worse.

If Kopel is correct, we will likely see more of this appalling violence, which only makes it more urgent to ensure that people in schools and elsewhere are free to defend themselves and those they are responsible for.

Mental Illness
Finally, while the Left hyperventilates over guns, we overlook the elephant in the tent in stories like the Newtown killings: mental illness.

David Kopel observed that deinstitutionalization of the violently mentally ill may be credited to an earlier left-wing campaign, the 1970s deinstitutionalization movement:

A second explanation is the deinstitutionalization of the violently mentally ill. A 2000 New York Times study of 100 rampage murderers found that 47 were mentally ill. In the Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry Law (2008), Jason C. Matejkowski and his co-authors reported that 16% of state prisoners who had perpetrated murders were mentally ill … today, while government at most every level has bloated over the past half-century, mental-health treatment has been decimated.

Moreover, a 2011 paper by Steven P. Segal at the University of California, Berkeley, … found that a third of the state-to-state variation in homicide rates was attributable to the strength or weakness of involuntary civil-commitment laws.

According to Rasmussen and Gallup polls taken shortly after Newtown, most Americans believe treating mental illness is the most important factor in preventing these mass crimes.

So should we deny private citizens the right to self-defense on the off-chance that a few lunatics may be prevented from using firearms as their method to commit mass murder, even though we know, with certainty, that terrorists, street gangs, and other criminals will remain heavily armed and able to attack citizens they know are defenseless?

Isn’t it a better idea to let law-abiding citizens remain armed, promote firearms safety and responsible gun ownership, while relaxing counterproductive constraints that now prevent law-abiding citizens from using firearms in defense of themselves and others in emergencies like Sandy Hook?

Isn’t it a better idea to confront the problem of mental illness in our society head on? Aren’t our dollars better spent treating these people, rather than risking more children’s lives by attempting to fix the problem on the cheap with feel-good non-answers like gun control? Would we not be risking many more lives by disarming the public while letting criminals go free?


Republicans Aren’t the Only Gun-Control Obstacle

Leave a comment

This is from Yahoo News.


Gun owners need to turn up the heat on the vulnerable DemocRats.

As Ronald Reagan said “If you can’t make them see the light,make them feel the heat.


Correction: A previous version of this story misstated the state Sen. Mary Landrieu represents. It is Louisiana.

President Obama’s call for Congress to show the “courage” to consider new gun-control laws was aimed at Republicans, but he faces challenges with members of his own party who have a history of cowering from the gun debate.

The shooting deaths of 20 children and six adults at a Connecticut elementary school last week exposed how divided Democrats have been on gun control. It also demonstrated that, along with the current president, Democrats have failed to champion reforms after previous acts of mass violence. While Republicans held the line ongun control, Democrats largely ducked, ever since they ratified the assault-weapons ban in 1994 and saw their majority in Congress disappear.

Gun-control advocates face familiar challenges in keeping Democrats unified. The most vulnerable Democratic senators in 2014 hail from rural states where hunting is popular and guns are ubiquitous: Mark Begich of Alaska, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Max Baucus of Montana, Tim Johnson of South Dakota, and Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia. (Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., who was staunchly pro-gun during his 2010 and 2012 campaigns but now says he’s open to a debate, is not up for reelection for another six years. Same with Joe Donnelly of Indiana, who is also reconsidering his opposition to gun control as he transitions from congressman to senator and doesn’t face another election until 2018.)

The evolutions underscore how polarized the country is over gun control. Republicans, many of whom hail from rural, gun-owning states and districts, and the smaller number of Democrats that represent like-minded parts of the country, are responding as much to their constituents as to the powerful National Rifle Association lobby when opposing measures that come before Congress.

“There’s no question that the leadership of the party made a conscious decision years ago to walk away from the issue at all levels,” said Democratic lobbyist Steve Elmendorf, a top Capitol Hill adviser when the assault-weapons ban passed. “They figured they weren’t getting any credit for it, and they were getting hurt. I do think the situation [in Connecticut] could change that.”

The changing political calculus for some Democrats on gun control is starkly exemplified by Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuelwho recently boasted that he “stood by [Bill] Clinton’s side” as a top adviser when he signed the 1994 assault-weapons ban.  But years later, Emanuel helped elect numerous pro-gun candidates–and bragged about their Second Amendment bona fides–as he spearheaded the Democratic takeover of Congress in 2006. He was President Obama’s chief of staff in 2010 when the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence handed the administration an “F” for expanding gun rights and failing to reinstate the assault-weapons ban. Now, in the wake of the tragedy in Newtown, as the mayor of a city plagued by gun violence, Emanuel is touting the ban once again.

Another prominent Democrat, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, underwent an even more dramatic conversion. As a member of the House representing a Republican-leaning upstate district in 2008, she voted to repeal a law that banned semiautomatic weapons in the District of Columbia and required gun owners to register their weapons and store them unloaded, with trigger locks. She earned an “A” rating from the NRA. Even as gun-control advocates complained about her January 2009 appointment to the Senate, she told a newspaper reporter that she kept two rifles under her bed. “If I want to protect my family, if I want to have a weapon in the home, that should be my right,” she said.

The makeover of the congresswoman from a conservative district to the senator of a liberal state began the next day, when staff said that the rifles were removed. Later that year, with the help of two former critics–New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y.–she sponsored legislation to crack down on illegal gun trafficking. The NRA downgraded her to an “F.” “She sounded like Annie Oakley, and now she’s somebody different,” complained her Republican challenger in 2010. Days after the shootings in Connecticut, she wrote a newspaper column pushing her gun-trafficking bill and other restrictions.  “Congress has ducked a serious national debate over commonsense gun laws for too long,” she wrote.

In the column, she describes meeting the parents of a slain 17-year-old in Brooklyn, N.Y., shortly after her Senate appointment and the near-shooting death of her friend, Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., in 2011. “Her former congressional district did not experience the same issues of gun violence,” explained her spokesman, Glen Caplin. “For the last four years, as a statewide representative, Senator Gillibrand has been highly focused on solving the problems of the entire state, including gang and gun violence.”

Asked if she still owned the two rifles, Caplin said, “I’m not going to get into this.”

A shift in public opinion could offer political cover. A new Pew Research Center poll finds that, by 49 percent to 42 percent, limiting gun ownership is viewed as more important than protecting gun owners. The survey marks the first time since Obama’s election that more Americans prioritized gun control over gun rights.

“We’re getting so many calls from state capitals and Capitol Hill, it’s overwhelming,” said Brian Malte, spokesman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. “This feels like it could be a tipping point.”

It’s been nearly two decades since President Clinton pushed the assault-weapons ban, strategically attached to a sweeping anticrime bill and a 10-year expiration date. The House passed it by only two votes, and even Democrats who voted no feared it would brand their party as antigun.

“We knew it was a politically devastating vote at the moment it passed,” said Patrick Griffin, who served as Clinton’s director of legislative affairs. “They cleaned our clock in 1994. You can’t ascribe all of that to guns, but it was a factor.”

Guns were blamed again in 2000 when Democratic nominee Al Gore lost one of the closest presidential elections in history to Republican George W. Bush. As vice president, Gore backed the assault-weapons ban and cast a tie-breaking vote for a 1999 background check law. Just one more gun-friendly, Southern state–Arkansas, West Virginia, or even his home state of Tennessee–could have delivered the presidency to Gore, even without Florida.

Six years later, a handful of pro-gun candidates, including Joe Donnelly and Brad Ellsworth of Indiana, Heath Shuler of North Carolina, and Jason Altmire of Pennsylvania, helped Democrats take back the House. Once again, other factors contributed to the election results–the heated immigration debate, political scandals, and the unpopularity of the war in Iraq–but the success of pro-gun Democrats reinforced the party’s wariness of gun limits.

Anxious to protect their moderate members and the president’s reelection prospects, Democrats shied from high-stakes gun votes even after massacres at Virginia Tech and Fort Hood (although Republicans seized the House anyway in 2010), and after slayings at a meet-and-greet hosted by Rep. Giffords and in a movie theater in Aurora, Colo. “It’s never been a simple Democrat versus Republican issue. It’s much more complicated than that,” Griffin said.

A former top aide to Obama and on Capitol Hill, Jim Papa, said that Republicans beholden to the gun lobby deserve the lion’s share of the blame for inaction on gun control.

“There has always been an overwhelming amount of Democratic votes for gun control and practically zero support from the other party, and the responsibility falls on the Democrats?” he asked. “Opponents of gun control have confused the issue, confused assault weapons with hunting rifles, so there is peril for people who believe in one and not the other. The NRA successfully equated sensible, popular gun-safety legislation with taking away your shotgun.”

But even when Democrats controlled both legislative chambers during Obama’s first two years in office, they passed and he signed laws allowing visitors to carry loaded, concealed guns to national parks and permitting Amtrak passengers to stow guns in checked baggage. The assault-weapons ban was never taken up during Obama’s first term, which was consumed with trying to revive the economy, pass health care reforms, and end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“You don’t have an infinite amount of time and goodwill, and you have to pick some priorities,” said Griffin, the former Clinton aide. “Postelection, after this horrific event, maybe there’s a moment when we can come to common ground.  I’m not convinced of that, but it looks better than ever.”


Democratic senators want ban on assault weapons

Leave a comment

This is from Yahoo News.

The members of Congress with the most restrictive gun laws want more.

The California Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence need to release their numbers.

Every statistic I have ever seen says more gun rights less crime.


WASHINGTON (AP) — Democratic lawmakers and independent Sen. Joe Lieberman said Sunday that military-style assault weapons should be banned and that a national commission should be established to examine mass shootings in the United States.

The proposals were among the first to come from Congress in the wake of Friday’s school shooting in Newtown, Conn. Gun rights activists remained largely quiet on the issue, all but one declining to appear on the Sunday talk shows. Meanwhile, Democrats vowed action and said it was time to hear from voters — not gun lobbyists — on how to prevent the next shooting.

The time for “saying that we can’t talk about the policy implications of tragedies like this is over,” said Rep. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., who won a Senate seat in the November elections.

President Barack Obama and Senate Democrats haven’t pushed for new gun controls since rising to power in the 2008 national elections. Outspoken advocates for stricter laws, including Sen. Dianne Feinstein, say that’s because of the powerful sway of the National Rifle Association.

But advocates also say the latest shooting is a tipping point that could change the dynamic of the debate dramatically. Feinstein, D-Calif., said she will propose legislation next year that would ban big clips, drums and strips of more than 10 bullets.

“It can be done,” she said Sunday of reviving the 10-year ban that expired in 2004.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg said Obama could use executive powers to enforce existing gun laws, as well as throw his weight behind legislation like Feinstein’s.

“It’s time for the president, I think, to stand up and lead and tell this country what we should do — not go to Congress and say, ‘What do you guys want to do?'” Bloomberg said.

Lieberman, an independent from Connecticut who is retiring, supports such a ban but said there should also be a national commission to scrutinize gun laws and loopholes, as well as the nation’s mental health system and the role that violent video games and movies might play in shootings. Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois said he would support such a panel, adding that it was time for a “national discussion” that included school safety.

“This conversation has been dominated in Washington by — you know and I know — gun lobbies that have an agenda” Durbin said. “We need people, just ordinary Americans, to come together, and speak out, and to sit down and calmly reflect on how far we go.”

Congress has frequently turned to independent bipartisan commissions to try to solve the nation’s worst problems, including the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the Iraq war and the failing economy. But ultimately, lawmakers are often reluctant to act on the recommendations of outsiders, especially if they think it will cost them support in their home states.

Still, Lieberman defended the idea of a national commission as the only way to ensure that the “heartbreak and anger” of the Connecticut shooting doesn’t dissipate over time and that other factors beyond gun control are considered.

“We’ve got to continue to hear the screams of these children and see their blood until we do something to try to prevent this from happening again,” he said.

Gun rights advocates appeared reluctant to make their case against tougher gun laws while Connecticut families and the nation were still in the earliest stages of grieving. David Gregory, the host of “Meet the Press,” said NBC invited all 31 “pro-gun” senators to appear on Sunday’s show, and all 31 declined. All eight Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee were unavailable or unwilling to appear on CBS’ “Face the Nation,” host Bob Schieffer said.

Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, was the sole representative of gun rights’ activists on the various Sunday talk shows. In an interview on “Fox News Sunday,” Gohmert defended the sale of assault weapons and said that the principal at Sandy Hook Elementary School, who authorities say died trying to overtake the shooter, should herself have been armed.

“I wish to God she had had an M-4 in her office, locked up so when she heard gunfire, she pulls it out and she didn’t have to lunge heroically with nothing in her hands. But she takes him (the shooter) out, takes his head off before he can kill those precious kids,” Gohmert said.

Gohmert also argued that violence is lower in cities with lax gun laws, and higher in cities with stricter laws.

“The facts are that every time guns have been allowed —conceal-carry (gun laws) have been allowed — the crime rate has gone down,” Gohmert said.

Gun control advocates say that isn’t true. A study by the California-based Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence determined that seven of the 10 states with the strongest gun laws — including Connecticut, Massachusetts and California — are also among the 10 states with the lowest gun death rates.

“If you look at the states with the strongest gun laws in the country, they have some of the lowest gun death rates, and some of the states with the weakest gun laws have some of the highest gun death rates,” said Brian Malte of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

Murphy spoke on ABC’s “This Week.” Lieberman, Durbin and Gohmert spoke on “Fox News Sunday.” Bloomberg and Feinstein spoke on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”



Court rules N.Y. shooting victim can sue gun maker, distributor

Leave a comment


This is from Yahoo News.

This is a BS ruling from the New York State Appeals Court.

The gun manufacturer and distributor are not responsible for the shooting.

James Bostic fraudulently bought the gun as he was a felon.

Why didn’t the NICS check flag him as a felon?

The FBI/NICS is to blame for James Bostic being able to buy the guns.

ALBANY, New York (Reuters) – A Buffalo man who was shot nearly a decade ago can sue the manufacturer, the distributor and the dealer of the semi-automatic pistol used to shoot him, a New York state appeals court ruled on Friday.

Attorneys for Daniel Williams, who was shot in 2003 when he was in high school, argued that Ohio-based manufacturer Beemiller and the distributor, MKS Supply, violated federal law by knowingly supplying guns to irresponsible dealers.

The defendants said they cannot be sued because of the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, a 2005 law that shields firearm manufacturers and sellers from liability for harm caused by the criminal misuse of their non-defective products.

A unanimous panel of the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, on Friday reversed a 2011 ruling that threw out the case against the defendants – Beemiller, MKS Supply and gun dealer Charles Brown, who sold the guns to James Bostic, a Buffalo resident accused of running a trafficking scheme that funneled guns into the black market in New York.

The decision reinstates the case.

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which is representing Williams, claims Bostic is a convicted felon and is barred from purchasing guns, according to the ruling.

The center said Bostic traveled to Ohio, which does not require a license to buy a gun, to procure a large numbers of handguns, including the pistol used to shoot Williams, the ruling said.

“Although the complaint does not specify the statutes allegedly violated (by the defendants), it sufficiently alleges facts supporting a finding that defendants knowingly violated federal gun laws,” Justice Erin Peradotto wrote for the court.

Jeffrey Malsch, a lawyer for MKS, said he is reviewing the decision.

“We believe (the lower court’s ruling) was a courageous and legally correct decision, but the Fourth Department was unwilling to follow his well reasoned opinion,” he said. “Whether we appeal or not, we are confident that ultimately the facts will contradict the baseless allegations in the complaint and the case will be dismissed.”

Attorneys for Williams and the remaining defendants did not immediately return requests for comment.




UN Gun Grab Treaty Dead – Libs Shoot At Obama

Leave a comment


This is from Freedom Outpost.

The liberals have formed  circle firing squads.

The target of the shooting is Barack Milhous Capone Kardashiah.
As a Conservative Republican it id great to see the opposition shooting each other.

On July 27 the U.S., Russia, Indonasia, and India said they needed more time to think about the pact known as the United Nations Arms Trade Treaa (ATT). This officially put the threat of a gun grab off, at least for six months. It won’t keep the treaty from making a come back, but at least it is does allow us to catch a breath before the next attack.

Some of this probably had to do with the fact that the Senators were threatening to oppose the treaty.

As soon as the negotiations of the treaty had been put on suspension, gun control groups took aim and fired at Barack Obama. Turtle Bay reported,

Arms controls advocates expressed dismay over the American move, saying it could undercut momentum that has been building to establish the world’s first international treaty government the export of weapons. Before the U.S. speech, they were convinced that the United States and other big powers were on board.

We are “extremely disappointed about this outcome,” said Daryl Kimball, the director of the Arms Control Association. The failure of this treaty is “in large part due to the failure of leadership by President Obama.”

“Today the U.S. did not grab the golden ring: an international arms treaty that would have bolstered our country’s reputation as a elader on human rights,” said Scott Stedjan, senior policy advisor for Oxfam. “Moving forward, President Obama must show the political courage required to make a strong treaty that contains strong rules on human rights a reality.”

The Brady campaign was not far behind:

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence said both candidates owe voters concrete plans, and that tens of thousands of people had already signed a petition urging them to speak up. The group’s president, Dan Gross, said it was shameful for political leaders to play politics when lives could be saved.

“We truly believe, as a nation, we are better than this,” said Gross. “We’re better than a nation where shootings like the one in Aurora, Colo., happen with such frequency.”

Obama and his aides were initially tepid about calling for stricter gun regulations after 12 people were killed inside the Colorado movie theater, aware of the implications on a tight presidential race in a country where gun-rights activists have a powerful voice. But on Wednesday, Obama embraced some degree of additional restrictions, including tougher background checks.

Gross challenged Obama to move beyond rhetoric, arguing that Americans can’t be satisfied with words alone.

“The president said very similar things in his last campaign,” Gross said. “A speech is not a plan. An endorsement of a measure is not a solution.”

Isn’t it great to watch liberals attack each other? I say we need to see this a lot more often. Maybe they will be each other’s own demise in the end and we can get back to a truly Constitutional form of limited government and liberty for all.


Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: