RSS Feed

Category Archives: Second Amendment

Post Script on the Senate Race

Alabama has some pretty convoluted election laws. There is no real need to get into the nuts and bolts, but it makes me angry when these ignorant know-it-alls on talk shows claim an accusation equals an assumption of guilt. Almost every single talking head calls for Roy Moore to step aside. If he did, a liberal, anti-Second Amendment, pro-abortion, anti-tax cuts, pro-Obamacare, Democratic Party Line Voter will be guaranteed the seat with no competition. Write-in votes have very little chance of ever even being counted. When these accusations were made it was too late to withdraw Moore from the ballot and no substitutions could be made.

So, Alabamians are left with a true ethical quandary. Fortunately, we have more information on the facts and the accusers than is reported on the national media. Also, we have finally begun to see more conservative ads challenging Doug Jones on what he claims are his mainstream views and policies but which do not conform to mainstream Alabama views and opinions at all! 

December 12 Alabama voters will decide what to do, not America and not the media and not Washington.

It is a conundrum.
“The Alabama Legislature passed a law in 2016 so that write-in votes are not counted on election day. The law stipulates that write-in votes for a particular contest are not counted unless the total number of write-in votes is greater than the difference in the number of votes received by the first place and second place candidates. If that takes place, write-in votes are counted on the seventh day after the election. If the number of write-ins doesn’t meet that threshold, they are not counted.”
I know people were wondering why every democrat and every media outlet was so helpfully recommending that some trusted Republican be put forward for a write-in campaign, they never mentioned this though!


Just Another Gun Duel

“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788


It has been said millions of times…guns don’t kill people, people kill people. Evidently, to many who live for simplistic solutions this nice catch phrase sounds great but it has no meaning whatsoever. Their belief is that if you remove guns from honest people you will stop massacres, crime, and all random acts of violence. They are absolutely wrong.

As has been proven in other societies, criminals do not give up merely for lack of a gun. Tasers, physical violence (with bats, foreign objects like knives or daggers) or cunning can often be employed instead. Where only one person is required to waive a gun around, two or three criminals working together offer enough of a threatening presence to achieve the goal. Also, consider that today most crimes are not the type that utilize a gun, they just steal from people by con. Identity theft is on the rise yet congress does nothing to protect citizens against the most basic collection of information by large corporations choosing instead to focus on guns. Email scams, Internet rip-offs are all out there just waiting for stronger regulation….but that would be hard.

The most obvious of all, of course, is that any laws that are passed of whatever stringency will have absolutely no affect on criminals, only on honest citizens who buy guns legitimately. Criminals do not buy guns in stores or in gun shows, they get them on the black market. No laws or regulations and no taxes to bother with on the black market. There are black market guns everywhere. Criminals don’t care if we put harsher regulations on gun ownership, as a matter of fact, it would make their lives infinitely safer and easier if innocent people cannot defend themselves! After all, even the mass killings tend to hit “soft targets” which means those places where guns are not allowed! Doesn’t that tell anyone anything??


“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.”– Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

Chicago is a great example of what happens with the criminal element when you impose some of the strictest gun control in the US. The gang members and other criminals do not turn in their guns, honest citizens are left with no way to defend themselves and a city that was once wonderful now has a section that has one of the highest crime and murder rates in the nation! None of this is news, we all know it, so why are we not paying attention?
If government could protect us 100% of the time we would be 100% safe and no mass murders or crimes would ever occur.The government tells us that the police are there for our protection, but they are not everywhere all the time. As much as I respect and honor our warriors in blue, we were designed to be a country with guns and a brave people who could protect and defend themselves and their neighbors.

People, especially those in the government, tend to skip over the main reason that the founding fathers made sure that the citizens of this country would forever keep their God given right to bear arms. There was no guarantee that the new Constitution would stand the test of time. Many were very afraid that too much power had been given to the centralized federal government. They had experience with an oppressive British King and were wary of any form of it. We have our guns because a well armed populace is a bulwark against tyranny. It is true that our forefathers were closer to the land and hunted more. But make no mistake, if you read what they had to say on this issue, they were not ambivalent.

The liberals have chosen guns as an issue. However, if a disturbed, insane, evil person or a radical jihadi terrorist is determined to cause havoc and kill massive numbers of people – he does not have to use a gun! A gun is just a tool. I have friends who can shoot a bow as accurately as a gun, knives, bombs, cars, vans, eighteen wheelers, acid, poisons, etc. Jumping on the gun issue seems to be screaming at one of the symptoms when we ought to be looking at the genesis of the problem.


“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”– William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783

On Principle

I have more than a few friends who believe that I am throwing out my principles because I will be voting for Donald Trump in November. I’ve also heard more along this line from some talk radio hosts and opinion columnists. I cannot even comprehend this line of reasoning (if that is what it is).  Throwing your vote away on your own personal perfect candidate does not accomplish anything positive for the country. Furthermore, if you are a principled individual you are obligated to confront the reality of circumstances as they exist and not as you would either pretend they should be or as some bizarre strange path through the congress triggered by a third party vote which would result in a third party president. I have never been a gambler. I do not want to gamble with the future of my country. Any action that allows Hillary Clinton to increase her chances of winning the presidency is insane and irresponsible and no argument can convince me otherwise.

My principles are not so soft and weak that they fall when the obviously biased mainstream media tries to influence my thinking. It is true that I have been on this earth long enough to have lived through more than a few Clinton scandals, but if one does just a little standard investigation on her government “service” record, the mishandling of CLASSIFIED MATERIAL (including overseas posts, counter terrorism activities and at least one reference to a SAP!!!) it is so very obvious, even before considering anything else, that she is not even qualified to handle classified documents. 

A person of principle asks what our Supreme Court would look like under Hillary Clinton. The eight member court currently is awaiting the new president’s pick to fill out the bench of nine justices. We now basically have 4 liberals and 4 conservatives. Naturally I have boiled it down a bit for simplicity and space, individual votes on different issues vary, but as a generalization it holds fairly well. Since Marbury v. Madison in 1803 the Supreme Court has gradually taken on more power than the Constitution grants to it. Now it has become an arbiter of social justice, an interventionist in legislative acts and the ultimate authority on what is constitutional. There are only two members on the highest court who strictly construe and apply the Constitution of the United States as it was intended and written. So, if Clinton is elected there will be an immediate appointment of a radically liberal justice. This will tip the balance of the court for a generation since justices serve for life. In addition, it is expected that our next president will appoint as many as 3 or even 4 justices as those we have now are getting older and may leave during the next four years. Obviously, the more liberal justices we have sitting on our Supreme Court the more likely it is that the Bill of Rights will be seriously infringed. I know that the Second Amendment will not survive, neither will what remains of the Tenth (States Rights). Most have not even noticed, but even the First Amendment has eroded over the last eight years. If Hillary Clinton is elected, few realize how badly it will impact the crumbling framework that remains after Obama’s last eight years of illegal executive orders, the burdensome expansion of executive bureaucracy and its associated explosion of rules and onerous regulations, the clear squashing of state’s rights and the frightening rise in power of the centralized Federal Government. 

It is against my principles to allow any politician or party who uses the IRS to target political opponents any access to power in Washington. I will add here that any political party that is using the media for propaganda purposes is manipulating the voting public and greedy for power. When the media turns away from the issues and covers or manufactures lies attacking the republican candidate it is beyond shocking and alarming. The media has virtually ignored the leaked emails and the problems with Clinton’s honesty, integrity, character and professional judgement. Most of the mainstream media are no longer journalists at all, they are either government, Democratic Party or Republican establishment mouthpieces.

Our government is properly by and for the people, not over and oppressing the people. We should control the government, the government should not control us by planning our neighborhoods, determining what the schools teach our children, placing any limits on our religious liberty, taking land away from the states or their citizens or doing anything to threaten the gun ownership of honest law abiding Americans, and that includes collecting names for a registry. The president has no right or power under the Constitution to make any treaty or agreement which takes effect without approval from Congress. Obama certainly has no power to give up any sovereignty to the UN for any purpose whatsoever. I have only listed a few things that the current administration has begun but which Clinton has promised to continue and expand. My principles will not allow me to ignore the precarious position we are in because so many of the basic bedrock fundamentals of our Constitution are being attacked and ignored. Our Federal Government has grown and evolved into the very thing that our founding fathers were so afraid of and tried so hard to protect us from with the separation of powers and the Tenth Amendment as well as the Bill of Rights.

I am, therefore, holding on to my principles and voting for Donald Trump. I freely admit I like his tax plan, I approve of most of the people he surrounds himself with, I am relieved that many of the women who have accused him of inappropriate behavior are being debunked, but make no mistake. He would have to be much much worse. He would have to sell out his country, he would have to make millions from Haiti after a natural disaster when he had gone to give aid, he would have to leave 4 Americans to die in Benghazi and lie to their families, he would have to steal furniture from the White House, he would have to arrange for approval so PUTIN CONTROLS 20% OF U.S. URANIUM! 

Under Obama the DOJ is no longer above reproach and has been shown to be in collusion with the Clinton campaign. The FBI is corrupt for the first time in U.S. history. The State Department also has been exposed for covering up for Hillary Clinton. An honest person does not debase and corrupt everything she comes in contact with. The democratic hold on the White House must be broken and we must get back to basics, transparency, patriotism and honesty.

Lets All Riot!

By all means, if I don’t feel I am being treated fairly or receiving justice, I suppose I should riot by today’s BLM standards! When I watch the interviews of the rioters, they claim that they are not safe, their children are not safe and their elderly are not safe. They claim that the police treat them differently. Of course, they claim racism and bigotry.

The FACT that the police actually kill more white suspects than black suspects never seems to change the way they think. Neither do they stop and think what would happen to their neighborhoods if there were no police. The police protect them far more than they threaten them, regardless what they think. The police limit the drug flow, they cut the crime rate and they try to stop gang activity. I can think of only one type of person who would not like the police for doing that! It is basic math, where there is more crime there are more police. Where there is less crime there is less police.  Most law abiding citizens want it to be that way.

Another thing I have noticed, when police confront anyone with a weapon they are immediately told to “drop it”. There seems to be a cultural difference between the way blacks and whites react to this. Most white gun owners I know are trained or well aware that possession of a firearm necessitates a different response to, and attitude about, your response. You immediately, slowly, without question or argument, put that gun down and put your hands up. If you are carrying you tell the officer immediately. Anything else can be interpreted as a threat. African-Americans seem to think we get treated differently, not so. When they are stopped it seems like many of them have a chip on their shoulder and believe that if they are not hurting anyone with the gun or not pointing it at the officer, then the officer can’t do anything. As the situation escalates and they still have not released the gun, they seem to think that there should be some dialogue. This is why there is more to carrying a gun than just possessing a permit. They also seem to think that police don’t have a right to protect themselves. Blacks think they are being treated differently when actually they are being treated just like anyone who does not do what the officer commands. It is rule #1 – always do whatever the officer commands, you can present your case and argue later.

This leads me to the next point I would like to make. In all of the media commentary I hear a lot about how afraid of the police young black men are these days. I accept that there might still be a few instances in this era of cell phone videos and police cameras. However, one of the primary differences in the way children are socialized in the two communities is the way in which they are taught to view the police. From the beginning, a white child is taught that the policeman/woman is an authority figure to obey. The child is taught this for his own safety. There is a much different attitude toward the police in many black households, consequently as the child matures the police are regarded as the enemy or the antagonist rather than the protector that he/she really is.

I wonder what these rioters/BLM activists really want. They will not get anarchy because the government and the citizens will never allow it. They are not going to promote any kind of negotiation, compromise or dialogue by attacking innocent citizens in cars, smashing windows, looting and stealing, beating up any white person they can, trying to throw a white media team into a fire started in the street, destroying random cars parked on the street, etc. The only thing that they seem to be doing is having a violent block party where they help themselves to other people’s property. It gives absolutely no legitimacy to their cause, their argument or their claims. If anything it makes them look manipulated, greedy and a great deal thoughtless.

If these people want change, why do they keep voting in the same Democrats over and over, decade after decade? If a political party cannot improve your life in 50 years and, in fact, things get worse…..why would you blindly keep following that party and voting for its candidates? 

Lastly, as bad as it is to destroy someone’s livelihood or to trash their car ( which they probably haven’t even paid off), attacking someone with the intent to do bodily harm is inexcusable. Violence never produces positive results but violence against a fellow human being can have NO justification. When a protest becomes a riot, the national guard needs to be called at the first sign and curfew imposed. No quarter given, arrest anyone who violates the curfew.

Meanwhile, there is much on the net and TV. You could clearly see people bashing windows and looting. I hope that the police department views every video out there and pursues every lead and arrests every single rioter who broke the law.

Laughing at the Media

I think it is becoming highly entertaining to watch the liberal media, who knows absolutely not one solitary thing about how Donald Trump thinks or what he intends or plans, analyze his every statement and comment. These liberal media commentators speak as if they are Donald Trump’s closest friends and have tea with him at five every afternoon!

I have forgotten the exact quote, but he said that the “Second Ammendment people” would take care of Hillary. We all say we will take care of things every day. We do not go out and kill them. Trump is not the candidate who has mysterious deaths littering his past life! Furthermore, I am a “Second Ammendment person” and fit right within his class definition of citizens who would get out and do everything possible to defeat such a move. However, I no longer have a CC license, I do not open carry and have no intentions of killing anyone and I did not interpret Trump’s remark that way, nor do I know any reasonable normal person who did. Most “Second Amendment people” do not shoot their guns at people and do not want to. 

Trump defines the problems of the inner city. Naturally, the media claims that his intent is to be racist and demeaning to an entire segment of the population. What self-respecting candidate would ever say something with intentions like that?Everyone who listened to those speeches knew he was being honest and that he does want to remedy the problems, not ignore them. The Trump-hating media, who sifts each word out of the candidate’s mouth for negative implications, attempts to convince the American public that it is still fair and relatively objective. As such, they are certainly (not) capable and qualified to judge his meaning and intent. It does get pretty funny, though, watching how far they twist and turn to attribute evil intent to a man who is not evil at all.

Then there is the comment about Clinton’s bodyguards dropping their weapons. Well of course he meant that he wanted some crazy to get through her protection (Rediculous)! The media so totally missed the point on this one that it makes you wonder if they were even listening to the context in which it was made. After all, if Hillary gets protected by guns why shouldn’t every other citizen have the ability to protect themselves in the same way? Likewise, if hardworking American citizens have to give up their guns and their Second Ammendment rights, then Clinton’s bodyguards should give up their guns too! I agree!!

Yes, the media has evidently studied Trump so very carefully but are so incompetent and/or dishonest that they still manage to misinterpret, attribute false narratives, ignore positive stories, blow up mistakes, minimize policy advances and generally claim that they are the definitive source on what occurs in Donald Trump’s brain. If the whole world does not fall apart in laughter just thinking about that, then we have all just lost our senses of humor to politics!

The Crowd Follows..

Posted on

Look over here at how horrible guns are and how we have to keep them out of the hands of bad people, don’t look at how we are shipping bad people into the country because we have no way to identify the good ones from the bad ones. Not permitting them to come, shipping them here in ever increasing numbers.

Look over here at what we need to do to ensure that there is no bias or backlash of hate crimes against our Muslim citizens, don’t look over there at our administration deleting the names of  many hundreds of people with ties to  Islamist terror organizations from the travel and national security databases. 

15 December, 2015 

 An Open Letter to Members of Congress: 

In the aftermath of the most devastating and lethal jihadist attack in the United States since 9/11, Americans are rightly angry their government will not face the problem of Islamic terrorism honestly. I know this first hand. During my 13 years at the Department of Homeland Security, I worked tirelessly to identify and prevent terrorism in the United States. As a recognized “founding member” of DHS, it was among my responsibilities to raise concern, not only about the individuals primed for imminent attack, but about the networks and ideological support that makes those terrorist attacks possible. I investigated numerous groups such as the Deobandi Movement, Tablighi Jamaat, and al Huda as their members traveled into and out of the United States in the course of my work. Many were traveling on the visa waiver program, which minimizes the checks and balances due to agreements with the countries involved. But the scrutiny we were authorized to apply was having results. 

This investigation could possibly have prevented the San Bernardino jihadist attack by identifying its perpetrators, Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik, based on their associations with these groups. Almost a year into this investigation, it was halted by the State Department and the DHS Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. They not only stopped us from connecting more dots, the records of our targets were deleted from the shared DHS database. The combination of Farook’s involvement with the Dar Al Uloom Al Islamiyah Mosque and Malik’s attendance at al Huda would have indicated, at minimum, an urgent need for comprehensive screening. Instead, Malik was able to avoid serious vetting upon entering the United States on a fiancé visa and more than a dozen Americans are dead as a result. The investigation was not stopped because it was ineffective, it was stopped because the Administration told us the civil rights of the foreign nationals we were investigating could be violated. 

When did foreign nationals gain civil rights in the United States, especially when they are associated with groups we already know are involved in terrorist activity? Based on what I have seen in the Department of Homeland Security, I no longer have the confidence this administration can adequately vet or screen refugees or immigrants from Islamic countries. I took my story to the American people last week. Remarkably this week, DHS’ former acting under secretary for intelligence and analysis, John Cohen, told ABC News that under the direction of DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson, potential immigrants’ social media activity was off limits to those responsible for screening. Just as they did when they halted my investigation in 2012 which could have provided key intelligence and potentially saved over a dozen lives.

DHS described a potential “civil liberties backlash” if the law enforcement officals tasked with keeping our country secure did the most basic checks on potential travelers, immigrants and refugees. Parents checking on someone their child may be dating look at social media, but our law enforcement officials can’t? This administration has a deadly blind spot when it comes to Islamic terrorism. It is not willing to allow proper vetting and screening of refugees or immigrants from Islamic countries; Congress must take action to defend the security of the American people. I understand the desire to welcome as many immigrants and refugees as possible, especially those fleeing dangerous conflict zones. However, this administration has handcuffed law enforcement officials tasked with vetting these individuals appropriately and that places the American people in danger. 

Philip B. Haney DHS, Customs & Border Protection Officer  (Ret.)


 I just have one other comment on this, no one is fully aware of how deeply the organizations like CAIR have influenced the training and investigation procedures of the FBI and other agencies. We do know that the FBI cannot monitor mosques like they can churches or synagogues. We also know now that the Obama administration has interfered in the way the FBI discharges its duties as well as the information it has access to. How much more damage will be done while we are looking the other way?


Daily Wire Repost

Posted on

Here’s a Comprehensive List Of Obama’s Gun Control LiesAP Photo/Jacquelyn MartinAP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin


1434 15 32 Comments 749 

President Barack Obama played the role of tearful dictator on Tuesday as he unveiled his executive orders on gun control. Like most of Obama’s speeches, it was filled with numerous lies, distortions, and mistruths. Here is a comprehensive list of them.
Obama’s examples of mass shootings:

Five years ago this week, a sitting member of Congress and 18 others were shot at, at a supermarket in Tucson, Arizona. It wasn’t the first time I had to talk to the nation in response to a mass shooting, nor would it be the last. Fort Hood. Binghamton. Aurora. Oak Creek. Newtown. The Navy Yard. Santa Barbara. Charleston. San Bernardino. Too many.

One key fact that Obama left out:

In his fact-check of Obama’s speech, the Associated Press’s Michael Sisak confirms this, writing: “The shooters at Sandy Hook and San Bernardino used weapons bought by others, shielding them from background checks. In other cases, the shooters legally bought guns.”

On mass violence in other advanced countries:

The United States of America is not the only country on Earth with violent or dangerous people. We are not inherently more prone to violence. But we are the only advanced country on Earth that sees this kind of mass violence erupt with this kind of frequency. It doesn’t happen in other advanced countries. It’s not even close. And as I’ve said before, somehow we’ve become numb to it and we start thinking that this is normal.
CRPC also cites this passage from The Washington Post’s fact-checker, Glenn Kessler:
The best proxy for “industrialized countries” is the membership of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. There are currently 34 countries in the OECD, but the agency also includes Brazil and Russia in its statistical data. (The two countries have been negotiating for membership but talks have been suspended with Russia because of the Crimea crisis.)
The OECD says the average homicide rate among the 36 countries is 4.1 per 100,000 people.
According to the 2014 data, at the top of the list is Brazil, with a homicide rate 25.5, or six times the average. Next on the list is Mexico, with a homicide rate of 23.4, followed by Russia at 12.8.
Then comes a tie for fourth place—Chile and the United States both have a homicide rate of 5.2. Estonia follows close behind with a homicide rate of 4.7. . . .
IJ Review confirms the CRPC’s findings.
A separate CRPC piece notes, “France suffered more casualties (murders and injuries) from mass public shootings in 2015 than the US has suffered during Obama’s entire presidency (Updated 524 to 428). Note that these numbers don’t adjust for the fact that the US has 4.9 times the population of France.”
In reality, the United States does better than most industrialized countries in terms of mass violence.

On the Second Amendment:

Now, I want to be absolutely clear at the start — and I’ve said this over and over again, this also becomes routine, there is a ritual about this whole thing that I have to do — I believe in the Second Amendment. It’s there written on the paper. It guarantees a right to bear arms. No matter how many times people try to twist my words around — I taught constitutional law, I know a little about this — (applause) — I get it. But I also believe that we can find ways to reduce gun violence consistent with the Second Amendment.
The fact that Obama referred to the Constitution as “the paper” shows how much contempt he has for it. He has mocked Second Amendment “absolutists” for being opposed to his gun control measure. In a 2001 panel, Obama said the Constitution “reflects some deep flaws in American culture” and also reflects “the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.”
Translation: Obama resents the Constitution, and doesn’t care about the Second Amendment. This is further seen in the following statement:
I mean, think about it. We all believe in the First Amendment, the guarantee of free speech, but we accept that you can’t yell “fire” in a theater. We understand there are some constraints on our freedom in order to protect innocent people. We cherish our right to privacy, but we accept that you have to go through metal detectors before being allowed to board a plane. It’s not because people like doing that, but we understand that that’s part of the price of living in a civilized society.
In a piece for Breitbart, The Daily Wire’s editor-in-chief Ben Shapiro explained the problem with the president’s “fire” argument: 
The “fire in a crowded theater” language was originally coined by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in Schenck v. United States, which ruled that the government could prosecute anti-war protesters for handing out flyers against the draft. It’s been repeatedly overruled. But Obama has maintained the original “fire in a crowded theater” definition, mobilizing federal resources to target the “Innocence of Muslims” filmmaker in order to blame him for Benghazi, telling the United Nations that “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam,” blaming Charlie Hebdo for publishing anti-Islam cartoons, and the like. Obama has also run the most anti-free press administration in modern history and consistently calls for an amendment to the First Amendment to ban corporate free-speech. This is the guy we should trust on the Second Amendment?
And how about the Fourth Amendment? Obama compares gun control to metal detectors before boarding airplanes. But flying is not a Constitutional right, and the “administrative search” doctrine that allows such checks at the airport is a complete mess. Besides, Obama’s own respect for the so-called right to privacy ends with using your tax dollars to pay for abortions. The Obama administration has encroached into Fourth Amendment space in unprecedented ways, even while cheering Constitutionally-okayed “stop and frisk” policies in cities like New York. Even Obama’s new executive order falls into questionable “right to privacy” territory under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA).
Obama has made clear that he is willing to violate the Constitution, and that includes the Second Amendment.

On the amount of support for his proposals:

A majority of gun owners agree that we can respect the Second Amendment while keeping an irresponsible, law-breaking feud from inflicting harm on a massive scale.
Obama doubled down on this later in his speech, saying that 90 percent of Americans support his efforts to expand background checks.
A CNN poll in September showed that 59 percent disapprove of Obama’s handling of gun policy, and 49 percent think that the current gun laws are “about right,” while 41 percent thought the current laws made it “too easy” to get guns and 10 percent thought they made it “too difficult” to get guns. A Pew Research Center poll also found that 51 percent of Republicans and 48 percent of Independents were happy that the universal background checks bill in 2013 failed in the Senate.
Obama also tried to claim that the NRA used to support expanded background checks and that a majority of its members continue to do so. But as CRPC points out, the commonly cited poll that 74 percent of NRA members support expanded background checks is false, explaining, “people were really just being asked about whether they wanted to keep criminals from getting guns, not about a particular piece of legislation,” and that the questions were incredibly vague. 
A majority of Americans do not agree with Obama’s gun control measures.

On gun confiscation:

Contrary to the claims of what some gun rights proponents have suggested, this hasn’t been the first step in some slippery slope to mass confiscation. Contrary to claims of some presidential candidates, apparently, before this meeting, this is not a plot to take away everybody’s guns.
Except that Obama has privately said he doesn’t believe anybody should own guns. CRPC explains how expanded background checks further the goal of a gun ban.
“Federally licensed dealers are required to keep records of background checks. Congress currently forbids federal collection of this information into a central database, but there’s no guarantee that this won’t change. The government could potentially figure out who legally owns a gun,” CRPC writes. “When 5 or 10 years have gone by a future president could simply require that federally licensed dealers copy their 4473 forms for all these transfers and sales and turn them into the federal government and you would have an instant national registration list.”For instance, states like “California, New York, and Chicago have all used registration lists to identify who owns guns that are no longer legal.”Expanding background checks inherently increases the likelihood of a national registry, which subsequently increases the chances of gun confiscation.

On Internet sales and background checks:

A violent felon can buy the exact same weapon over the Internet with no background check, no questions asked. A recent study found that about one in 30 people looking to buy guns on one website had criminal records — one out of 30 had a criminal record. We’re talking about individuals convicted of serious crimes — aggravated assault, domestic violence, robbery, illegal gun possession. People with lengthy criminal histories buying deadly weapons all too easily. 
This is a big whopper. Internet gun sales actually are subjected to background checks. Radio host and author Dana Loesch writes, “When you purchase guns online they aren’t shipped to your house like an Amazon delivery. They must be shipped to a FFL where you then go, fill out a 4473, get your background check, and if cleared you can take it home. Period.”
CRPC explains that this falls under the Gun Control Act of 1968, and the “one out of 30” statistic Obama cites was based on data trying to determine if people have similar names to those with criminal records. Kessler gave Obama two Pinocchios for this claim on Internet sellers.

On China knife attacks:

Some of you may recall, at the same time that Sandy Hook happened, a disturbed person in China took a knife and tried to kill — with a knife — a bunch of children in China. But most of them survived because he didn’t have access to a powerful weapon. 
This particular statement in and of itself is true – 22 children and an 85 year-old woman were stabbed in a Chinese elementary school that day, and fortunately they all survived. However, Obama cherry-picked this example, as there have been many knife attacks in China where numerous people have died. This includes:
Ten men using knives to kill 29 people and injuring 130 in 2014.

A person killing six people with a knife in 2014.

A man stabbing 8 children to death and injuring 5 others in 2010.

It’s disingenuous for Obama to imply that criminals with knives are not also capable of mass carnage. And what about other weapons, for example pipe bombs, like the ones the San Bernardino terrorists were building?

On states and background checks:

After Connecticut passed a law requiring background checks and gun safety courses, gun deaths decreased by 40 percent — 40 percent. Meanwhile, since Missouri repealed a law requiring comprehensive background checks and purchase permits, gun deaths have increased to almost 50 percent higher than the national average. One study found, unsurprisingly, that criminals in Missouri now have easier access to guns.
The 40 percent statistic in Connecticut is incredibly misleading. According to CRPC, it is true gun deaths increased by 40 percent between 1995 and 2005, but the firearm death rate was already falling at a faster rate in the two years prior to Connecticut’s gun laws. In three of the four years after Connecticut’s gun laws were passed, the firearm homicide rate rose relative to northeastern states. The rate also rose again relative to northeastern states in four of the next five years after 2005.
The Missouri statistic is also misleading. It appears to come from this pro-gun control fact sheet from the liberal Center for American Progress, and its data from the Centers for Disease Control, which is ironic since the CDC views firearms as a crime deterrent. But even so data from the CRPC shows that Missouri’s murder rate was increasing at a higher rate in the previous five years before Missouri repealed their gun laws. Obama’s cited statistics were once again clearly cherry-picked.

On background checks:

And the evidence tells us that in states that require background checks, law-abiding Americans don’t find it any harder to purchase guns whatsoever. Their guns have not been confiscated. Their rights have not been infringed.
This is false. CRPC president John Lott wrote in The Philadelphia Inquirer:
For gun purchases, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives later cleared more than 94 percent of those “initial denials.” As the annual National Instant Criminal Background Check System report explains, these cases were dropped either because the additional information showed that the wrong people had been stopped, or because the covered offenses were so many decades old that the government decided not to prosecute. At least a fifth of the remaining 6 percent flagged were still false positives.
These initial denials mean delays for many law-abiding gun buyers. While a mere inconvenience for most, initial denials can pose a danger to people who suddenly and legitimately need a gun for self-defense – women being stalked by an ex-boyfriend or spouse, for example.
It actually was harder then for those Americans initially denied guns to obtain a firearm, contrary to Obama’s claim.

On federal funding for gun research:

When it comes to an inherently deadly weapon — nobody argues that guns are potentially deadly — weapons that kill tens of thousands of Americans every year, Congress actually voted to make it harder for public health experts to conduct research into gun violence; made it harder to collect data and facts and develop strategies to reduce gun violence. 
There is simply no evidence that the decline of federal funding into gun research resulted in any less academic research on the issue.

On the gun show loophole:

Number one, anybody in the business of selling firearms must get a license and conduct background checks, or be subject to criminal prosecutions. It doesn’t matter whether you’re doing it over the Internet or at a gun show. 
The gun show loophole does not exist, as The Daily Wire has previously reported.

On corporations and trusts:

We’re also expanding background checks to cover violent criminals who try to buy some of the most dangerous firearms by hiding behind trusts and corporations and various cutouts.
As Bob Owens of Bearing Arms explains, it is required to be a law-abiding citizen in order to be a part of those trusts. There have only been two examples in 82 years of people using a firearm illegally after acquiring it through a trust.

On accidental gun deaths:

In 2013 alone, more than 500 people lost their lives to gun accidents –- and that includes 30 children younger than five years old. 
The statistic may be true, but what Obama left out is that according to CDC data, accidental gun deaths were 0.4 percent of all yearly accidental deaths. More people die from accidental drug overdoses, falling, drowning, and suffocation than guns.
Passages from Obama’s speech were provided through Time magazine’s transcript.

Preacher01704's Weblog

My Published Works

A Backpack , A Chair and A Beard

Think of all the beauty still left around you, and be happy

Classic, Not Contemporary

Reviving classical life in a modern world


This site is for insights, observations and commentary on various issues. We are part social critic, part philosopher, part dreamer, and part seeker after elusive truths.

A swede's take on America

politics, islam, usa, sweden, muslims, middle east, world politics

The Rouser

Wake up. Ask Why?

Reclaim Our Republic

Knowledge Is Power


Always question the premise

%d bloggers like this: