Tags Posts tagged with "Gun Control"

Gun Control

0 31
Islamic State
"Abu Bakr said we should attack the gun shows next? I know we are suicide bombers, but that's suicide!"

U.S. Rep. Richard Hudson (R-N.C) bashed Manhattan District Attorney, Cyrus Vance for stating on WNYM-AM Sunday, that the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act is supported by ISIS.

“This bill is supported, I’m sure, by ISIS,” New York County District Attorney Cyrus Vance said. “ISIS points its readers to America and how they can easily obtain guns by going to states where there are no permitting requirements.”

U.S. Rep. Richard Hudson (R-N.C.) was quick to shut-down the alleged criticism from Vance’s end. Hudson stated in an op-ed by the Hill that Vance needs to “educate himself” before “making such disparaging and false statements.

“With all due respect, the district attorney needs to educate himself on H.R. 38 before making such disparaging and false statements. He outrageously accused the 200 co-sponsors of this bill — both Democrats and Republicans — of ‘playing into the hand’ of ISIS and other terrorists, attempting to support his point by saying terrorists can ‘easily obtain guns’ in some states. The chief law enforcement officer should be above dishonesty and scare tactics, but I guess desperate times call for desperate lies,” Hudson stated.

Vance had argued on the radio show that the bill would make it increasingly easy to buy guns in the United States and can pose as a serious safety issue.

“It would be completely legal for a person to bring a loaded gun or guns in New York as long as it was legal to possess them in the person’s home state,” Vance said. And that, “a guy from Idaho, where there’s no permitting requirement whatsoever, could carry his gun into New York City loaded, into Times Square,” he added.

Vance further noted that, “Does anyone really think the gun laws in West Virginia should be the same laws that apply in Washington Heights, Manhattan?”

“Can you imagine how incensed Idaho would be if they had to abide by New York gun laws?” he questioned.

0 36
Pelosi Gaffe
Well, that's awkward!

While talking to reporters about injured colleague Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La) on Thursday, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) made an embarrassing mistake. Scalise remains in critical condition following the shooting at the GOP baseball practice in Alexandria, Virginia.

“Our hearts are broken over the assault that was made, really, on all of us,” she said, “but personally heartbroken over the dea…ah, at what happened to Steve Scalise, our colleague.”

Even though Scalise is quite alive, currently under treatment for injuries sustained at the shooting, Pelosi seems to begin to say “death,” while talking to reporters at Capitol Hill on Thursday.

“Our thoughts and prayers are with him and Matt Mika,” she added, referring “as they continue with their, the care that they need, but also as we do pay tribute to them, identify with them.”

“Use all of our energy, just like sports,” she continued, and all your energy for them to get well. We all have to pray and identify with their concern.”

The hospital where Rep. Steve Scalise is being treated, Medstar Washington Hospital Center, also released a statement on the condition of the injured Republican Congressman. “Earlier today, Congressman Steve Scalise underwent a second surgery related to his internal injuries and a broken bone in his leg,” the statement read.

“He remains in critical condition, but has improved in the last 24 hours. The Congressman will require additional operations, and will be in the hospital for some time,” it added. “At the request of the family, we will continue to provide periodic updates.”

0 23
Hand with knife. Street violence concept. Double exposure.

Anti-gun liberals that want to ban all guns went on a social media rampage as they suspected a gunman was the culprit.

As the news broke about the active shooter on the Ohio State University campus, the anti-gun left came out in droves to attack the 2nd amendment.

If they would have waited just a couple of hours they would have known that it was a Somali refugee with a big knife… not a gun.

Liv Long wonders what “2nd Amendment glorifiers have to say” instead of what the facts are.

One lady doesn’t want to hear any “BS” but then shares a lie.

Once again the media got it wrong. The “active shooter” wasn’t a shooter; it was a knife wielding man.

Should we ban all knives now?

The tragedy on the campus quickly turned into a gun debate, but there were no guns. The outrage is just another example of liberals going crazy before they get the facts.

One Twitter user tried to set everyone strait.

The real sad part here is that seven people were injured on the campus of our great universities and we are already arguing over guns. We should put the focus on the victims first, and then worry about policy.

Maybe we should wait until all the facts come in before we start going off the handles. Don’t you think? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below.

0 478
guns

It is no surprise that President Obama and the Democrats want new gun control. Some want to limit the guns people can buy while others want all guns to be banned.

Despite the attempts to take guns from Americans, Obama has been arming some groups in America to the teeth.

One of the groups Obama has given incredible firepower to is the U.S. Agriculture Department’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.

The agency that is filled with biologists who study and measure the impact of animal and plant species needs $4.7 million in weapons and ammunition.

The Department of Homeland Security has requested 1.7 billion rounds of bullets since 2004.

Under Obama, the number of agencies that are carrying guns has also gone up along with the spending.

In President Bush’s last year, non-military spending on guns and ammo was $119.3 million dollars.

In 2012, Obama spent a record $224.7 million on non-military spending for guns and ammo.

Agencies like the EPA and the FDA are all getting millions of dollars in weapons.

The real question is why?

Why would the Food and Drug Administration need a couple million in weapons?

The government blames the rising threats against employees. Because the world is a dangerous place, they are arming their employees to keep them safe. While at the same time, President Obama is trying to take the guns of Americans in order to keep us safe.

Well, which one is it. Do guns keep us safe or are they dangerous? Are the only safe guns the ones in the hands of government officials?

The idea that the FDA and EPA have more guns than some small countries is a little worrisome. Especially when the people arming the agencies are also trying to take our guns away as citizens protected by the Second Amendment.

How do you feel about Obama arming our government agencies? Let us know in the comments below.

0 77
Watch List

To the typical liberal, nothing engenders greater panic and crippling fear than the sight of a firearm; especially the Mainstream Media’s self-defined posterchild for gun violence, the AR-15. The Left’s irrational reaction to the popular sporting rifle, enjoyed (safely and legally) by millions of recreational and competition shooters across America, is so potent the New York Daily News’ resident pansy, Gersh Kuntzman, claims to have suffered “temporary PTSD” from merely firing the rifle at a gun range.

Yet, in spite of its obvious and repetitive ignorance on firearm information, the Left considers itself capable of engaging in an adult discussion on the Second Amendment’s application to the problems facing our country in this early 21st Century.

Not really.

The folly of the Left’s opposition to any fact- or history-based understanding of an individual right to keep and bear arms was on full display following the terror attack in Orlando earlier this month. Rather than blame radical Islam that preaches gays are to be murdered, the Left immediately turned to blaming its usual suspects: gun manufacturers, Republican members of Congress, and anyone who supports the NRA or the Second Amendment.

Adding to their normal “gun control” hysterics following any high profile gun crime, leading Democrats – joined by some constitutionally squeamish Republicans like Pennsylvania Sen. Pat Toomey – have proposed using secret government lists such as the FBI’s terrorist “watch list” and the TSA’s “No-Fly List” to serve as the basis for denying an individual the constitutionally-guaranteed right to purchase or own firearms.

As innocent individuals, from toddlers to U.S. Senators, have discovered since 9-11after being denied access to commercial airline flights due to their name being on a secret No-Fly List, anyone can mistakenly wind up in such databases. For those hapless individuals, their presence on such a list comes with no notice, explanation, or effective way to correct errors. Moreover, secret government lists that serve as the basis for limiting or denying constitutional rights, also provide the government with an extremely powerful tool for bullying and silencing disfavored groups and individuals.

Ironically, it was not but a few decades ago that the federal government used such lists to surveil, intimidate, and harass leaders of both black and gay civil rights movements. But, let it never be said that the Left permits history or facts to serve as a barrier to their vision of a gun-free country.

It takes but a few keystrokes to add a name to a list; and without any of the due process normally afforded those accused of crimes, there are no effective protections against lists being abused. For example, in what might otherwise be considered a comical example of database overreach, in 2008 the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC), a “fusion center” that provided intelligence to local and federal law enforcement, issued a report on modern militias suggesting police should be on the lookout for supporters of then-U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and me, because such supporters could possibly be militia-influenced domestic terrorists. We were able to have the nonsense stopped, but the incident illustrated how easy it is for government functionaries to get carried away when it comes to data-basing bad information.

Consider the 15-year old USA PATRIOT Act, the use of which has expanded far beyond the scope of terrorism and is often used for drug-related and other investigations having nothing to do with terrorism. There is little to suggest that expanded government watch lists to target suspected terrorists attempting to obtain firearms would never be employed to target Second Amendment rights of anyone under suspicion by the government for whatever reason.

Consider as well that social media constitutes an even more devastating weapon of terrorists than firearms. Remember that both the San Bernardino and Orlando terrorists appear to have been radicalized online. Following the philosophy underlying the Left’s current drive to create and expand firearms watch lists, would it not be appropriate to use such a database to deprive those on watch lists from communicating by electronic means or accessing the internet?

If the Left is not comfortable with the idea that Donald Trump could just as easily be in charge of such lists beginning next year as Hillary Clinton, then perhaps they should pause to consider that granting such vast power to the government, affecting any number of constitutional rights, is an extremely dangerous proposition that should not be proposed as a safety blanket for an irrational fear of firearms.

Limiting or denying constitutional rights to individuals is a tremendously important decision, which is why our Bill of Rights demands due process be followed before any such steps are allowed. Creating shortcuts around due process does not make us more safe, but rather less secure; even if it prevents firearms-induced PTSD.

0 4795
gun control

The terror attack in Orlando has put the Democrats in a tough spot. Obama said that ISIS was on the run, but it doesn’t appear that is the case.

In order to divert America’s attention away from terrorism as the cause of the Orlando massacre, the Democrats and gun-hating liberals all over this great nation are attacking gun owners like never before.

Liberals have always been a little short on facts, and when it comes to gun control, they just make up their own lies to try and sell to media and the world.

Here are ten liberal lies about guns and gun control.

START >

0 1361
Orlando

The FBI is researching why Omar Mateen killed 49 people and injured over 50 more in an Orlando nightclub. The answer is simple… the government didn’t do their job in stopping this man.

In high school, Omar was suspended for cheering on 9/11/2001. Even back then, over 15 years ago, he was rooting for the deaths of Americans.

If he was only teenager then and he must have learned his hate for Americas from his parents. He was radicalized on the Internet at age 13. He was radicalized at home.

There are reports from almost a dozen co-workers who say Mateen spoke violently about women and black people and made threats often. They say he supported different terrorist groups and spoke about it openly.

Despite the complaints at work, the continued his job at G4S, a security company that is a contractor for Department of Homeland Security, and was given all the necessary licenses to buy guns in Florida.

One of the gun stores that Omar Mateen visited didn’t feel comfortable in selling the future terrorist body armor and reported it to the proper authorities.

Did anything happen? No! Omar kept going to different gun shops and was able to buy everything he needed for his massacre.

Omar was reported by a gun shop, and still the feds did nothing.

Omar was even on the terror watch list, but was removed by the FBI. Why was he removed? So far we don’t have that answer, but the chatter at work and his radical history should have raised a few red flags.

Maybe his trips to Saudi Arabia also should have raised a few red flags, but they didn’t. Omar Mateen was interviewed by the FBI and found to not be a radical terrorist.

They were wrong.

Before we go and change the gun laws, why don’t we first change how the FBI determines if someone is going to be a terrorist? This crime could have been stopped.

The FBI, the Department of Homeland Security and state law enforcement all missed the mark. All the safeguards in place and the interviews they conducted which raised red flags, and they still let him go.

For the Obama administration, it is a lot easier to blame guns than it is to blame itself, but our government failed us in Orlando. It failed to stop a killer and now they want to take our guns to make the world a safer place.

Do you think that Omar Mateen should have been on the terror watch list? Let us know in the comments below.

0 347
Petraeus

Just a few years ago, General David Petraeus was a highly respected military leader; the commander of U.S. Forces in Afghanistan, and later serving as the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Sorrowfully, human foibles undid the Great Man — shamed and prosecuted for revealing classified national security information during an affair with his biographer.

Now, rather than atoning for his betrayal by standing up for the Constitution he swore to defend and the men and women of the Armed Services he failed by violating his oath, the disgraced general is doubling-down on his poor judgement. Petraeus has joined forces with gun-control Leftists, including former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Astronaut-turned-activist Michael Kelly, and launched yet another gun control advocacy organization.

The Petraeus-Kelly group calls itself the “Veterans Coalition for Common Sense.” However, as with other gun control groups, it is long on misleading rhetoric and painfully short on common sense. The only apparent difference between this new group and earlier gun control organizations, is the veneer about helping veterans; and this is misleading at best and downright harmful to many veterans at worst.

For example, while the group claims to be interested in reducing the suicide rate for veterans, it quickly pivots into the familiar gun-control mantra about keeping guns out of the hands of “dangerous people” – a non-sequitur it attempts to bridge merely by pointing out the truism that veterans know “first-hand the incredible power of firearms.”

Petraeus’ resume, spanning leadership roles in both military and national security settings, could have provided him with a platform from which to do real good for veterans; on public safety issues as well as those involving health care. After all, who better to take up the cause of reforming the broken Veterans Administration, which arguably is responsible in some measure for suicide rates among veterans?

Perhaps of even greater relevance in the wake of the mass shooting this week in Orlando — who better understands the threat posed by ISIS and other Islamic terrorists and how to meet that threat, than the man who oversaw the very war against those terrorists in their “homeland?”

Yet, sadly, Petraeus took the easier path of joining the chorus of liberal do-gooders who fear and misunderstand the role firearms play in the natural right to self-preservation. His approach reflects more a philosophy of retreat in the face of danger, rather than of self-reliance and initiative.

Fundamentally, the principle around which the Petraeus group has concocted its mission has nothing to do with keeping guns out of the hands of evil individuals, much less preventing a mass shooting like that in Orlando. Petraeus’ “solution” fails to articulate the deeper, true nature of what we face. The tragedy in Orlando was as much as a clash of ideologies as it is a terrorist attack; actually, two clashes of ideologies.

The more obvious of the two clashes is that of freedom versus religious tyranny (a conflict well-known to true students of American history). The concept of personal liberty at the foundation of the United States is antithetical to the crushing tyranny of radical Islam. What we witnessed in Orlando is a stark reminder of the unbridgeable chasm between these two world views; a reminder seemingly lost on Petraeus.

The other clash is between individual responsibility — the obligation to defend oneself — and reliance on others to protect you — passivity. This clash is something we routinely see in government efforts to limit the ability of individuals to defend themselves with a firearm – a limitation now championed by groups like Petreaus’. We also see this defeatist ideology reflected in companies and businesses that prohibit people from defending themselves when they enter those establishments.

This ideology of passivity invites incidents such as occurred in Orlando; where an individual (or individuals, in the case of the San Bernardino shooting) intent on mayhem, know that such facilities offer a concentration of unarmed victims in an environment in which they – the terrorist(s) – are able to maintain a high degree of control.

Indeed, there is no more protected of environments for such cowards than those that essentially guarantee a disarmed and fearful universe of victims — relying not on self-defense as a response, but on waiting for the authorities to arrive and take action (which, as we saw in Orlando, may take literally hours).

Until our nation’s leaders, and we as a society, recognize the obligation we have at a personal level to ensure our own self-preservation, terrorists and other criminals will use this passivity against us with ruinous consequences. Gen. Petraeus is not helping us, and his timing could not be worse.

0 136
Isaiah

The prophet Isaiah, in one of his many insights on human nature, warned us in Chapter 57, Verse 20 in the Old Testament book bearing his name, that the wicked never rest. He likened them to “the troubled sea . . . whose waters cast up mire and dirt.”

So it is with gun-control advocates in 21st Century America, who continue to stir their toxic potions formulated to undermine our constitutionally-guaranteed right to keep and bear arms. Unfortunately, with so much of the nation’s media and political attention focused on matters involving convention delegate counts, primary vote results, and Donald Trump’s latest hissy-fit-of-the-day, much of what the Left is doing to weaken the 2nd Amendment receives far less attention than it should.

The latest venue in which the gun grabbers have opted to ply their trade, is a piece of real estate so small and far-removed from the mainland, that few Americans could find it on a world map even if offered a winning lottery ticket to do so.

The Northern Mariana Islands, one of only two territories designated as a “Commonwealth” for purposes of U.S. sovereignty (the only other one being Puerto Rico), is a small chain of islands in the Pacific Ocean. The territory’s last brush with mainland recognition was in August 1945, when an airstrip on the island of Tinian served as the takeoff-point for the “Enola Gay” on its bombing run to Hiroshima. Now, 71-years later, The Northern Mariana Islands are home to one of the latest assaults on the right to keep and bear arms.

Just last month, a federal judge ruled that the Commonwealth government’s strict gun ban was unconstitutional. To retaliate, the legislature mandated that a $1,000 tax be paid by any purchaser of a handgun. Governor Torres puffed out his chest and declared his hope that this confiscatory action would serve as a “role model” for other states and municipalities.

This action by the Mariana Islands is by no means the first effort by anti-Second Amendment governors and legislatures to ban or limit possession of firearms by levying excessive taxes, though it is the most severe. And, even though the tax likely will be stricken down once challenges work their way through the federal legal system, the burden on those citizens of this Pacific Ocean Commonwealth wishing to purchase a handgun is very real.

Here in the continental United States, three months ago the city of Seattle in the state of Washington reaffirmed its long-standing aversion to the Second Amendment by enacting a $25 tax on each firearm purchase, and a tax of two to five cents on every round of ammunition sold. Officials in Cook County, Illinois, another notoriously anti-gun jurisdiction, are gleefully waiting for June 1st, when a per-round tax on ammunition goes into effect there.

Meanwhile, across the continent in Connecticut, a state court judge decided last week that federal law has no applicability in that state; at least if the law in question serves to protect firearms manufacturers and retailers against lawsuits based on the unlawful use of the firearm by a purchaser or subsequent user. The fact that the federal law provides to firearms manufacturers and retailers nothing more than the same level of protection afforded manufacturers and retailers of virtually every other lawful product made or sold in the United States, mattered little to the local judge.

Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has long-advocated for a national, 25% sales tax on firearms purchases; and routinely takes her Socialist opponent, Sen. Bernie Sanders, to task for not kowtowing just as strongly as she to the anti-gun agenda. For the most part, however, these and other continuing challenges to one of our most basic liberties remain under the radar in this presidential election cycle.

Fortunately, Republican candidate Ted Cruz has not taken his eye off the target even as he fends off Trump’s constant rantings that he is “stealing” delegates from the New York billionaire. Last week, for example, Cruz joined with Sen. Mike Lee of Utah and introduced a Senate bill, to rein in the notorious Obama Administration initiative known as “Operation Choke Point.” The Cruz-Lee legislation would stop federal agencies from abusing their power by pressuring banks and other financial institutions to cut off credit and other financial services for businesses that deal lawfully in firearms and related products; which is precisely what the Obama Administration has been doing for years.

The sooner broader attention can be focused on these and other gun-control efforts this campaign cycle, the better the chance we can defeat them before lasting damage is done to one of most cherished and important civil liberties.

0 395
gun tax

Hillary Clinton had a bright idea recently . . . tax guns out of existence.

The concept may have seemed unlikely just a few years ago, but thanks to legislative action in the U.S. territory of the Northern Mariana Islands, it’s now a reality.

In April of this year, the territory’s new gun tax took effect which levies an additional $1,000 tax on gun purchases.

The tax is far above the average price of a gun.

For those 2nd Amendment supporters who think the gun tax is just a thing for whacky island nations, think again.

On January 1st of this year the city of Seattle and Cook County, Illinois imposed their versions of a gun tax.

Seattle tacked on an additional $25 tax on gun purchases while Cook County went further and applied a tax to ammunition. The ammo tax ranges from a penny to five cents per round. A penny per round for rimfire rounds and a nickel for centerfire.

The tax represents a 17% tax on 22lr rounds and a 20% tax on .223 rounds (used in the popular AR15 rifle).

Cook County decided to tax ammunition in addition to a $25 tax on retail purchases of firearms.

Notably, Cook County is home to Chicago, a city with already strict firearms regulations that is also the most gang-infested city in the nation.

Within the first ten days of 2016, over 100 people had been shot. Assuming each victim was shot only once by a center fire round, the city gained $5 in revenue from the violence.

Social Media