Newtown

Specter Of 1994 Looms Over Democrats In Renewed Push For Gun ‘Control’

Speaking of Barack Obama and gun “control” this morning, I hear the Democrats are doubling-down on the issue months before the crucial November mid-term elections. Ned Resnikoff reported on the MSNBC website last Thursday:

Gun control, long a dormant issue in American politics, surged to the forefront of the Democratic agenda following December 2012’s massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. Yet in the following months, as bill after bill failed to pass through Congress, the renewed push for gun control once again subsided – until now.

One hundred sixty-three House Democrats – over 80% of the entire caucus – signed onto an open letter Thursday addressed to Republican House Speaker John Boehner demanding that he allow “a vote on substantive legislation to address gun violence.” The timing of the letter suggests that Democrats are prepared to make gun control in an issue in the 2014 midterm elections…

“The timing of the letter suggests that Democrats are prepared to make gun control in an issue in the 2014 midterm elections”

Just like they did in the lead up to the 1994 mid-term contests?

I’ve suggested it before on this blog- history could “rhyme” again soon for the Democrats.

On September 13, 1994, Congress passed the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, which included a 10-year ban on so-called “assault weapons.” U.S. President Bill Clinton signed the legislation into law the same day.

In the months that followed, Democrats were being swept out of office left and right during the “Republican Revolution.”

Now, some doubt the impact of the gun “control” push on this turnover. Here’s what the former president had to say about that period of his administration in his 2005 autobiography My Life:

Ironically, I had hurt the Democrats by both my victories and my defeats. The loss of healthcare and the passage of NAFTA demoralized many of our base voters and depressed our turnout. The victories on the economic plan with its tax increases on high-income Americans, the Brady bill, and the assault weapons ban inflamed the Republican base voters and increased their turnout. The turnout differential alone probably accounted for half of our losses, and contributed to a Republican gain of eleven governorships

(Editor’s note: Bold added for emphasis)

This, from the man himself.

As I pointed out in that 2013 post and an earlier September 2012 piece about the Democratic Party’s adopted National Platform, the Democrats own gun “control.”

And evidently, they’re trying to remind the American people of that fact in the months leading up to November.

Political hara-kiri all over again?

By Christopher E. Hill
Survival And Prosperity (www.survivalandprosperity.com)

Source:

Resnikoff, Ned. “Democratic House members demand gun control vote.” MSNBC.com. 26 June 2014. (http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/democratic-house-members-demand-gun-control-vote). 30 June 2014.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Signs Of The Time, Part 74

Any readers know who Oscar Ramiro Ortega-Hernandez is?

He was the young man charged with the attempted assassination of U.S. President Barack Obama back in November 2011 when he fired shots at the White House. Thankfully, no one was hurt in the attack.

The other day, I spotted this on the legal news site LawyerHerald.com. A staff writer reported Tuesday:

According to a Bloomberg report, an Idaho man has been sentenced to 25 years in prison after pleading guilty to firing an assault rifle at the White House from his car. 23 year-old Oscar Ramiro Ortega-Hernandez admitted to shooting at the White House from his car. His lawyers claimed in a memo to presiding US District Judge Rosemary Collyer that their client has the misguided idea that his action would make the public aware that an Armageddon is coming and that Ortega-Hernandez has no intention to hurt anyone nor President Barack Obama…

Ortega-Hernandez’s lawyers had asked Collyer to hand down only a 10-year jail sentence for their client…

According to the memo submitted to Collyer for a reduced sentence, Ortega-Hernandez allegedly fell under the influence of survivalists following a childhood where he has been living in many places and saw his parents separated…

(Editor’s note: Bold added for emphasis)

Ah, it was the survivalists’ fault.

Apparently, Judge Collyer didn’t buy that argument.

But it was only a matter of time before someone demonized preppers/survivalists again after the Sandy Hook shootings.

Remember what was being said back then about one of the first victims of the violence- Nancy Lanza? I blogged on December 17, 2012:

I’ve come across two more web articles that don’t paint the modern survivalist movement in a positive light.

In fact, some might argue they’re attempting to connect prepping with the Sandy Hook school shootings.

From The Telegraph (UK) website yesterday:

Connecticut school shooting: Adam Lanza’s mother was preparing for disaster

The mother of the gunman who killed 20 children and seven adults in America’s worst school massacre, was a gun-proud “survivalist” preparing for economic collapse, it has emerged.

Nancy Lanza, whose gun collection was raided by her son Adam for Friday’s massacre at Sandy Hook school, was part of the “prepper” movement, which urges readiness for social chaos by hoarding supplies and training with weapons.

“She prepared for the worst,” her sister-in-law Marsha Lanza told reporters. “Last time we visited her in person, we talked about prepping – are you ready for what could happen down the line, when the economy collapses?”

And then there’s this from The Independent (UK) site this morning:

Mother of Sandy Hook school gunman Adam Lanza was a ‘prepper’ survivalist preparing for economic and social collapse, say reports

Friends and family have portrayed Mrs Lanza as a paranoid ‘survivalist’ who believed the world was on the brink of violent collapse.

“Paranoid.” Regrettably, preppers and survivalists should expect more of the same from the establishment politicians, their “presstitutes,” and low-information supporters going forward.

Whereas I- not a prepper but gleaning ideas and knowledge from them- see these individuals for the most part as simply wanting to carry on with their lives and look after themselves, loved ones, and friends in the event of an emergency or disaster.

Did I mention that by their actions they free up police, fire, and other public safety agencies to attend to those who for some reason or another failed to prepare for a major crisis?

Paranoid, or actually patriots?

By Christopher E. Hill
Survival And Prosperity (www.survivalandprosperity.com)

Source:

“Court hands out a 25-year prison sentence on White House shooter.” Lawyer Herald. 1 Apr. 2014. (http://www.lawyerherald.com/articles/5175/20140401/court-hands-out-a-25-year-prison-sentence-on-white-house-shooter.htm). 4 Apr. 2014.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel And Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy Call For More Gun ‘Control’

The first anniversary of the Newtown, Connecticut, shootings is right around the corner, and supporters of gun “control” are becoming increasingly vocal about their desire for more restrictions. Not surprisingly, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel and Chicago Police Department Superintendent Garry McCarthy chimed in yesterday with their calls for more gun “control” while celebrating the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, or “Brady Bill,” which was signed into law on November 30, 1993, and required background checks be conducted on individuals before a firearm can be purchased from a federally-licensed dealer. C. Hayes wrote on Chicago’s WGN TV website Thursday:

Mayor Emanuel, Chicago Police Supt. Garry McCarthy, and the Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police, and the National Law Enforcement Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence mark the upcoming, 20th anniversary of an historic gun law while also pushing for even tougher gun rules in Chicago

At Thursday’s gathering, the leaders said the explosion of the internet has undermined the law. They point out up to 40 percent of firearms sales are through the internet between private parties

“While gun shows were around, they weren’t really conceived of in the way that they are today for purchases and moving of guns,” said Emanuel.

(Editor’s noted: Italics added for emphasis)

CPD Superintendent McCarthy had this to say about the group’s desire for universal background checks:

I think some people wrongly believe that requiring background checks will have no impact on criminals and will only create a system that impacts the good citizens who comply with the law. That couldn’t be further from the truth.

Speaking of “the truth,” back on March 21, 2013, FactCheck.org looked into the line that “40 percent of guns are purchased without a background check.” Here’s what they found:

That figure is based on an analysis of a nearly two-decade-old survey of less than 300 people that essentially asked participants whether they thought the guns they had acquired- and not necessarily purchased- came from a federally licensed dealer. And one of the authors of the report often cited as a source for the claim — Philip Cook of Duke University — told our friends at Politifact.com that he has “no idea” whether the “very old number” applies today or not.

(Editor’s note: Italics added for emphasis)

Ironically, a number of FactCheck.org’s critics claim the fact-checking project is actually liberal-leaning, not unbiased as many might think.

Too funny.

Sources:

Hayes, C. “City officials mark 20th anniversary of ‘Brady Bill’” WGN TV. 21 Nov. 2013. (http://wgntv.com/2013/11/21/brady-bill-anniversary-marked/). 22 Nov. 2013.

“Guns Acquired Without Background Checks.” FactCheck.org. 21 Mar. 2013. (http://www.factcheck.org/2013/03/guns-acquired-without-background-checks/). 22 Nov. 2013.

By Christopher E. Hill
Survival And Prosperity (www.survivalandprosperity.com)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Signs Of The Time, Part 65

Back in the spring I stopped by the hardware store I frequent when I’m at my family’s place in Wisconsin. I was talking to the guy who was staffing the sporting goods section that day (and who’s also the resident gun guru from what his fellow employees tell me). He had just gotten off the phone with an ammunition supplier who had always come through for him in the past. This being only a couple of months after the tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut, the Great Guns & Ammo Panic of 2012-13 was still in full throttle. Anyway, “Scott” told me that his usually-reliable supplier wasn’t able to provide him and the store what they needed this time around. A first, from what I gathered.

Now, Scott and the hardware store will survive because they sell a lot more than just bullets. But what about the small gun stores who deal primarily in just firearms and ammunition? What would happen to them if enough inventory was gone, with no hope of resupply for months, and the bills started to pile up?

Apparently, a number of those gun shops go out of business. From Carley Gordon on the website of Nashville NBC affiliate Channel 4 last night:

For months, many Tennessee gun owners have had a hard time finding ammunition for their weapons. Now, some gun stores say a nationwide ammo shortage is pushing them out of business.

WSMV Channel 4
“Gun Shops Closing”
Channel 4 Video
ANY CHARACTER HERE

By Christopher E. Hill, Editor
Survival And Prosperity (www.survivalandprosperity.com)

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Quote For The Week

What I found ironic about this, tragically ironic, is that teddy bears face more stringent regulations than guns do in our country. Teddy bears are tested for sharp edges, points, loose parts and flammability. And you know the number of children who were killed by teddy bears in our country last year?

-Illinois State Senator Dan Kotowski (D-Park Ridge), while meeting with a number of Newtown parents in downtown Chicago Sunday as they joined Chicago-area Democrats in their push to ban standard-capacity ammunition magazines statewide (Chicago Tribune, May 19, 2013)

By the way, according to the Child Injury Lawyer Network website:

Teddy bears and other toys account for twenty two deaths each year, and nearly one hundred and fifty thousand injuries. Most of these deaths and injuries happen to children.

(Editor’s note: Italics added for emphasis)

In Chicago, there’s only been a total of 37 homicides involving rifles- “assault rifles” included- over 9 years, from 2003 to 2011 (Source: Chicago Police Department).

By Christopher E. Hill, Editor
Survival And Prosperity (www.survivalandprosperity.com)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Newtown Parents Join Chicago-Area Democrats In Push To Ban Standard-Capacity Ammunition Magazines

“Just wait for next week. 10 round mag limit bills and semi-auto ban bills may surface next week. They will pull out all the stops to distract us from the fight on CCW. I wouldn’t be surprised that they USE the traumatized parents of Connecticut to push their agenda.

Its sad that the traumatized Connecticut parents have to be used to take away our rights to defend our children from a similar fate.”

-Anonymous comment, Second City Cop blog, May 18, 2013

On Sunday, May 19, it was announced that some parents of children who were victims of the shooting that took place at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, last December were due to arrive in Chicago as area Democrats push for a ban on standard-capacity ammunition magazines. From the WGN Chicago website yesterday:

Governor Pat Quinn will meet with parents of the Newtown, Connecticut school shooting victims today at the Thompson Center.

They are working together to urge Illinois lawmakers to ban the sale of high-capacity ammunition magazines.

(Editor’s note: Going forward, high-capacity ammunition magazines will be defined as having more capacity than what is generally run in that firearm- 40-round magazine in a Kalashnikov, for example- and standard-capacity magazines are having the typical capacity that is run in the firearm- 30-round magazine in an AK or AR, or 20-rounder in an M1A, for example).

Gregory Pratt added on the Chicago Tribune website last night:

Quinn, Senate President John Cullerton, D-Chicago, and Sen. Dan Kotowski, D-Park Ridge, joined the parents in calling on state legislators to pass the bill banning the delivery and sale of ammunition magazines that contain more than 10 rounds.

Under that legislation, introduced Friday by Kotowski, the sale or delivery of these magazines would be punishable by a maximum of three years in prison. It would also make the use of a high-capacity magazine during a crime an aggravating factor leading to a stiffer penalty, Kotowski said.

The legislation being referred to here is Senate Bill 1002, “Amends the Criminal Code of 2012. Makes a technical change in a Section concerning the short title.”

Should this gun “control” legislation be enacted:

A person who knowingly delivers, sells, or transfers, or causes to be delivered, sold, or transferred… a large capacity ammunition feeding device capable of holding more than 10 rounds but not more than 17 rounds of ammunition commits a Class 4 felony for a first violation and a Class 3 felony for a second or subsequent violation.

(Editor’s note: Italics added for emphasis)

And if it’s a 20- or 30-round standard-capacity ammunition magazine that’s involved:

A person who knowingly delivers, sells, or transfers, or causes to be delivered, sold, or transferred… a large capacity ammunition feeding device capable of holding more than 17 rounds commits a Class 3 felony for a first violation and a Class 2 felony for a second or subsequent violation.

(Editor’s note: Italics added for emphasis)

If this legislation sounds familiar to Survival And Prosperity readers, that’s because I blogged about it on May 10, when State Senator Antonio Muñoz (D-Chicago) was still the chief sponsor, not Kotowski from the suburbs.

More information about the proposed Illinois Senate bill can be found here on the LegisScan website.

By Christopher E. Hill, Editor
Survival And Prosperity (www.survivalandprosperity.com)

Sources:

SCC. “Flawed Concealed Carry Dies in Springfield.” Second City Cop. 18 May 2013. (http://secondcitycop.blogspot.com/2013/05/flawed-concealed-carry-dies-in.html). 20 May 2013.

WGN Web Desk. “Gov. Quinn to meet with families of Newtown shooting victims.” WGN Chicago. 19 May 2013. (http://wgntv.com/2013/05/19/gov-quinn-to-meet-with-families-of-newtown-shooting-victims/). 20 May 2013.

Pratt, Gregory. “Newtown parents join Quinn to call for ban on high-capacity ammo magazines.” Chicago Tribune. 19 May 2013. (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-newtown-parents-join-quinn-to-call-for-ban-on-highcapacity-ammo-magazines-20130519,0,5894367.story). 20 May 2013.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Chicago Reporter Goes Off Anti-Gun Reservation

Anyone who’s read/listened to the work of Chicago-based reporters over a period of time might detect the anti-gun bias that many of them seem to have. So I was somewhat shocked when the following appeared on the Chicago Sun-Times website the other day. Steve Huntley wrote on May 9:

Amid the gun control debate following the Newtown killings, average Americans could be forgiven for thinking — as polling shows most do — that gun violence is higher than 20 years ago. The truth is exactly the opposite — both the number and rate of gun murders have plunged since 1993.

In what can only be interpreted as a setback to the gun control crusade, two new studies document a remarkable trend in firearm crime. Gun-related homicides in 2011 numbered 11,101, down from 18,253 in 1993 — a 39 percent decline, according to the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics. And the number of non-fatal firearm victims in the same period fell by more than two-thirds, from 1.5 million in 1993 to 467,300 in 2011. Separately, the Pew Research Center found that the nation’s gun homicide rate had fallen 49 percent between 1993 and 2010.

These declines came as the population of the United States increased, gun sales soared, and concealed-carry laws multiplied. Yes, the decline came as overall violent crime fell, guns account for 70 percent of murders, and major cities like Chicago are plagued by violence. But the bottom line is firearm violence has fallen to the point that most gun deaths aren’t murders — six in 10 of them are suicides.

(Editor’s note: Italics added for emphasis)

Huntley added later in the piece:

I’ve never owned a firearm and support reasonable gun legislation, but given the facts, has the legislative emphasis after Sandy Hook been focused too much on guns and not enough on the violently mentally ill?

(Editor’s note: Italics added for emphasis)

Nice to see some in the so-called “Fourth Estate” still asking thought-provoking questions. And reporting the facts. And checking their biases in at the door.

After penning this article, brave Mr. Huntley might want to be on the lookout for the following:

1. A bayonet being shoved up his butt by a former Chicago mayor
2. A dead fish being mailed to him by the current Chicago mayor
3. Being wire-tapped (plenty o’ stories going around about that this week- choose your own search engine)

By Christopher E. Hill, Editor
Survival And Prosperity (www.survivalandprosperity.com)

Source:

Huntley, Steve. “Gun deaths are down as debate rages.” Chicago Sun-Times. 9 May 2013. (http://www.suntimes.com/news/huntley/20001555-452/gun-deaths-are-down-as-debate-rages.html). 13 May 2013.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Obama On Gun ‘Control’ Push: ‘One Thing I Am Is Persistent’

On Thursday, May 2, 2013, Barack Obama joined his Mexican counterpart President Enrique Peña Nieto for a joint press conference in Mexico City, Mexico. Not surprisingly, the U.S. President talked about gun ‘control’ among other issues. From a transcript provided by the Chicago Sun-Times:

I do want to editorialize just for a second about gun control. As I think all your Mexican counterparts understand and as I talked about with President Peña Nieto, we recognize we’ve got obligations when it comes to guns that are oftentimes being shipped down South and contributing to violence here in Mexico.

But, frankly, what I’m most moved by are the victims of gun violence not just in Mexico but back home — like the parents in Newtown. And I said the day that the legislation that had been proposed by Senators Manchin and Toomey in the Senate — the day that that failed to get 60 votes — that that was not the end; this was the beginning.

The last time we had major gun legislation it took six, seven, eight tries to get passed. Things happen somewhat slowly in Washington, but this is just the first round. And when you’ve got 90 percent of the American people supporting the initiatives that we put forward around background checks and making sure that drug traffickers, for example, can’t just send in somebody with a clear record to purchase guns on their behalf with no way of tracking or stopping that, when you had common-sense legislation like that that the overwhelming majority of Americans, including gun owners, those of us who strongly support the Second Amendment, all of us supporting, I believe that eventually we’re going to get that done. And I’m going to keep on trying.

So I didn’t mean to horn in on President Peña Nieto’s response, but I just want to be clear that we’re going to keep at this. One thing I am is persistent.

You can read the entire transcript of the press conference on the Sun-Times website here.

By Christopher E. Hill, Editor
Survival And Prosperity (www.survivalandprosperity.com)

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Washington County, WI, Sheriff Blasts Milwaukee Police Chief, Feinstein, And Obama On Gun ‘Control’

While my family’s Wisconsin residence is not in Washington County, I thought I’d share with you this morning something residents of the nearby county received from Sheriff Dale Schmidt last week:

To Washington County Residents, 03-08-2013

Recent comments on gun control by Milwaukee Police Chief Flynn highlight, for me, a problem with law enforcement in this country. Too often, law enforcement leaders confuse all citizens with criminals, and see themselves as “kings” of their jurisdiction instead of employees of the people.

In 2009, when Wisconsin’s Attorney General issued his advisory memo on open carry, it created little discussion within my department. That is because we already knew it was legal and protected by the Constitution. Chief Flynn’s position quoted from JSOnline was, “my message to my troops is if you see anybody carrying a gun on the streets of Milwaukee, we’ll put them on the ground, take the gun away and then decide whether you have a right to carry it.” Sounds like a man who makes no distinction between law-abiding citizens and criminals. That is one example, but I believe other law enforcement leaders operate under the “end justifies the means” policing model, Constitution be damned.

Law enforcement in America was never supposed to be about “ruling the people.” We are hired by “the people” to do that part of crime fighting they cannot do themselves. The citizens never gave up their protection against unlawful search of their persons, or seizure of their property, or the right to own guns and defend themselves, in that process. Does that make it harder to ferret out the criminals amongst us and arrest them? Yes it does, but it is how we protect our free society from a tyrannical government. I believe Chief Flynn is truly concerned about the safety of his officers, but law-abiding citizens are not the threat, and any law to improve officer safety must first be Constitutional.

The way it is supposed to work, is that the citizens elect people to run the government. Those elected people then hire police chiefs and officers to enforce society’s laws within the confines of the Constitution. In the case of Sheriffs, the people elect them directly. Either way, we are all accountable to the people, we are not their rulers. The law-abiding people are on our side and we should be focused on protecting their Constitutional rights, not limiting them! How did this get so backward?

The assertion, by President Obama, Senator Feinstein and Chief Flynn, that if certain types of guns or features of guns are banned, then violent crime will go away, is a fantasy. More importantly, they should not even be talking about it because the people hired them to protect that right. We should be talking about how to identify and stop people before they commit mass murders. We should be talking about why criminals remain on the street after multiple convictions for violent crimes. And we should be talking about how to change the sub-culture in this country that places no value on human life or personal responsibility.

Every American was appalled when they learned Adam Lanza inexplicably killed 20 children in their own classroom. But President Obama showed no leadership when he immediately took the focus to banning guns. That “kingly” position, shared by Senator Feinstein and Chief Flynn, essentially blames any American who supports the 2nd Amendment for those deaths, and excuses the perpetrator.

What if after Sandy Hook, President Obama had said, “this is bad; dangerous people are committing mass killings in public places, drug addicts are robbing banks, pharmacies and gas stations, and the Drug Cartels are operating in our central city neighborhoods. The violence in this country is more than our law enforcement people can handle right now. We work for you, and we need your help.” Might that have produced something more positive for this country than a threat to turn half its citizens into criminals for owning guns?

Rotten and disturbed individuals commit violent crimes, and that is where law enforcement leaders need to focus their energies. We were elected and hired by the people, and then took an oath to protect their Constitutional rights. I suggest we try a fresh angle on violent crime by inviting the law-abiding public to be a part of the solution instead of carpet bombing their individual rights. It would do Sheriffs, Chiefs and the President well to remember Sir Robert Peel’s 7th Principle of Policing:

Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

Mr. President, Chief, it’s time to trust the People, not rule them.

Dale K. Schmidt, Sheriff
Washington County, WI

All I can say is, thank God for Wisconsin county sheriffs like Milwaukee County’s David Clarke Jr. and Washington County’s Dale Schmidt.

By Christopher E. Hill, Editor
Survival And Prosperity (www.survivalandprosperity.com)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

John Wesley, Rawles On Latest Gun ‘Control’ Push

While I don’t think there is a single “face” to the Prepper Movement, a number of individuals are closely-identified with modern survivalism. One of these is James Wesley, Rawles of SurvivalBlog.com-fame. Rawles, a former U.S. Army intelligence officer and author of a number of survival-related works including Patriots: Surviving the Coming Collapseicon and How to Survive the End of the World as We Know It: Tactics, Techniques, and Technologies for Uncertain Timesicon, had this to say on his blog yesterday regarding the latest push for gun “control” in the aftermath of the Newtown, Connecticut, shootings:

Now that BHO has trotted out the kiddies to pull America’s heart strings, it is a good time to again contact your elected representatives, and insist that they draw the line in the sand on semi-auto rifles and full capacity magazines. Modern battle rifles are our rightful militia weapons, and without full capacity magazines we’d be at a disadvantage when going up against foreign invaders or domestic despots. The Second Amendment is not negotiable.

“The Second Amendment is not negotiable.”

One word comes to mind here:

Succinct.

By Christopher E. Hill, Editor
Survival And Prosperity (www.survivalandprosperity.com)

Source:

Rawles, James Wesley, “Notes from JWR:” SurvivalBlog.com. 17 Jan. 2013. (http://www.survivalblog.com/2013/01/notes-from-jwr-598.html). 18 Jan. 2013.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Obama Gun ‘Control’ To Extend Beyond Gun, Ammunition Magazine Bans?

This should keep the panic buying going for a while longer with anything firearms-related. Philip Rucker reported on the Washington Post website this Saturday:

The White House is weighing a far broader and more comprehensive approach to curbing the nation’s gun violence than simply reinstating an expired ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition, according to multiple people involved in the administration’s discussions.

A working group led by Vice President Biden is seriously considering measures backed by key law enforcement leaders that would require universal background checks for firearm buyers, track the movement and sale of weapons through a national database, strengthen mental health checks, and stiffen penalties for carrying guns near schools or giving them to minors, the sources said.

To sell such changes, the White House is developing strategies to work around the National Rifle Association that one source said could include rallying support from Wal-Mart and other gun retailers for measures that would benefit their businesses. White House aides have also been in regular contact with advisers to New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg (I), an outspoken gun-control advocate who could emerge as a powerful surrogate for the Obama administration’s agenda.

The Biden group, formed last month after the massacre at a Newtown, Conn., elementary school that killed 20 children and six adults, plans to submit a package of recommendations to President Obama this month. Once Obama’s proposals are set, he plans to lead a public-relations offensive to generate popular support.

(Editor’s note: Italics added for emphasis)

Well, as I blogged earlier today, Chicago Democrats tried pushing “far broader and more comprehensive” gun “control” on Illinois residents twice in the last couple of days. And failed. This in a state where “The Machine” is incredibly-influential in state politics and even got their man- Pat Quinn- elected governor in 2010 despite him winning only 4 out of 102 counties in the state. I’m sure the Chicago Democrats currently wielding power in the nation’s capital are fully-aware of the gun “control” debacle in their “home” state by now. In light of these latest developments, it will be interesting to see what exactly the “Biden group” ends up proposing.

One more thing. Regarding what Rucker said about the White House “developing strategies to work around the National Rifle Association that one source said could include rallying support from Wal-Mart and other gun retailers for measures that would benefit their businesses.” I have a feeling retailers who are caught “playing ball” with the gun “control” crowd will be punished by many in the firearm community. These days, I routinely encounter comments from visitors on gun-related websites, blogs, and forums declaring that they will no longer be buying anything from Dick’s Sporting Goods and Cheaper Than Dirt after the two retailers suspended sales of firearms in the days after the Newtown, Connecticut-shootings. Other retailers possibly considering such an alliance with the Obama White House on gun “control” will almost certainly be watching to see how these decisions made by Dick’s and Cheaper Than Dirt pan out for them.

By Christopher E. Hill, Editor
Survival And Prosperity (www.survivalandprosperity.com)

Source:

Rucker, Philip. “White House weighs broad gun-control agenda in wake of Newtown shootings.” Washington Post. 5 Jan. 2013. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/white-house-weighs-broad-gun-control-agenda-in-wake-of-newtown-shootings/2013/01/05/d281efe0-5682-11e2-bf3e-76c0a789346f_story.html). 7 Jan. 2013.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Too Much Uninformed Chatter About Firearms, Gun ‘Control’

“The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right name.”

-Ancient Chinese proverb

On Saturday, I was watching FOX News when one of their liberal contributors, while talking about gun “control,” mentioned ammunition clips and magazines. She proceeded to complain about people making such a big deal regarding the differences between the two, displaying an attitude of “it doesn’t really matter.”

At which point I changed the TV channel.

Her ignorance regarding firearms is representative of what I’ve been witnessing in the gun “control” conversation after the Newtown, Connecticut, mass shooting. While this lack of knowledge about guns and their so-called “control” existed before, never have I’ve seen it so magnified to the degree it’s being displayed these days by politicians, journalists, bloggers, activists, Main Street, what have you.

Granted, a lot less Americans have grown up around guns than previous generations.

Still, pushing uniformed opinion as fact is inexcusable.

Which is why I’m going to suggest everyone who wishes to participate in the ongoing discussion about guns gets informed.

At risk of sounding like that talking head.

And subsequently getting tuned out by your audience.

This is what I recommend. First, learn as much as you can about firearms. There’s a lot of free, quality introductory material on these personal safety tools out there on the Internet. Query “gun basics” in a search engine and see what turns up.

Second, download and read Gun Facts, a free firearm reference book by Guy Smith I first blogged about back in December 2010. Regularly-updated, it’s now on version 6.1. From their website:

Gun Facts is a free e-book that debunks common myths about gun control. It is intended as a reference guide for journalists, activists, politicians, and other people interested in restoring honesty to the debate about guns, crime, and the 2nd Amendment.

Gun Facts has 112 pages of information. Divided into chapters based on gun control topics (assault weapons, ballistic finger printing, firearm availability, etc.), finding information is quick and easy.

Any doubts over what’s presented in Gun Facts? Try and debunk what’s been claimed.

I wrote in that December 2010 post:

While researching personal safety issues, it’s amazing how often I see people put forth arguments about guns without knowing the facts (now that I think about it, this just doesn’t apply to firearms). I learned a long time ago that if you want others to take you seriously- you’ve got to know what you’re talking about.”

I still feel the same way more than two years later. It’s time to get serious and learn the facts if you haven’t done so already.

Being an uninformed fool is one thing. However, pulling stuff out of one’s butt doesn’t cut it in a discussion about firearms and gun “control” where the implications of widely-disseminated misinformation can lead to future restrictions on a Constitutional right.

Gun Facts version 6.1 can be downloaded for free here.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

China, Global Mainstream Media Urge U.S. To Enact More Gun ‘Control’

Since last week’s mass shooting in Newtown Connecticut, the global mainstream media has gone to work pushing the United States to adopt more restrictions on firearms. Reuters’ Edward Krudy and Peter Rudegeair reported Wednesday:

Around the globe, newspaper editorials from the Philippines to South Africa urged U.S. gun-control efforts and said they were long overdue.

“It takes no great deductive genius to understand the link: a violent individual with a gun will be more able to kill, and can kill more people, than a violent individual without a gun. Elsewhere in the world, tighter gun laws have been shown to save lives,” said an editorial in India’s The Hindu newspaper.

(Editor’s note: Italics added for emphasis)

“Elsewhere in the world, tighter gun laws have been shown to save lives.”

I’d really like to see the evidence supporting that statement.

Even the People’s Republic of China is chiming in on this. From state-run Xinhua News Agency on December 14:

Innocent blood demands no delay for U.S. gun control

Every time a tragedy occurs, there are renewed appeals for gun regulation. However, the calls disappointingly always fail…

The latest heartbreaking deaths of the 20 schoolchildren aged five to 10 have made the crime especially unbearable. Many people can’t help but turn to the dim hope once again: the gunman’s cruelty and evil may provide a strong momentum and broader public support for the restart of gun control efforts. Moreover, with no re-election pressure, President Obama is currently in the best position to promote it…

Action speaks louder than words. If Obama wants to take practical measures to control guns, he has to make preparation for a protracted war and considerable political cost.

This brings to mind something China’s Chairman Mao said in Problems of War and Strategy, November 6, 1939:

All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The Communist Party must command all the guns. That way, no guns can ever be used to command the Party.

Sources:

Krudy, Edward and Rudegeair, Peter. “White House readies gun-control plan as more children laid to rest.” Reuters. 19 Dec. 2012. (http://news.yahoo.com/schools-reopen-newtown-washington-talks-gun-control-002828916.html). 21 Dec. 2012.

“Innocent blood demands no delay for U.S. gun control.” Xinhua News Agency. 14 Dec. 2012. (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/indepth/2012-12/15/c_132042820.htm). 21 Dec. 2012.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Obama May Use Executive Orders For More Gun ‘Control’

JENNIFER GRANHOLM: After Gabby Giffords was shot in 2011, the Department of Justice actually came up with a list of steps- this was reported in The New York Times this weekend- a list of steps that the administration could take to improve the system of background checks. Like pooling information from other agencies to help identify people who are not mentally competent. I, as a former person in the executive branch, used to love stuff that I could do without having to go to the state legislature. The President, presumably, has an opportunity here to pick up those regulatory measures. Do you think not?

ROBERT REICH: Yes, some can be done by executive order. And he will, I think, try to do that. If it’s an executive order, by definition, Congress can’t stop him. There may be efforts to say that he has exceeded his authority under executive order. I think the big factor here, though, for the President, the White House, for Democrats, is that the election is over. And I don’t want to appear too cynical about this, Jennifer, but one reason the President may not have taken up what the Department of Justice had tentatively come up with, before the election, was the fear that there would be a backlash.

-Gun ‘control’ discussion between Current TV’s Jennifer Granholm and former U.S. Secretary of Labor Robert Reich on Current TV’s The War Room with Jennifer Granholm this past Monday.

The following talk of “executive actions” caught my attention the other day. From Reuters’ David Ingram and Karey Wutkowski on Wednesday:

The Obama administration will consider executive actions and specific proposals for legislation as part of its gun policy response to the school massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said on Wednesday.

(Editor’s note: Italics added for emphasis)

And then there was this from Michael D. Shear on The New York Times that same day:

President Obama declared on Wednesday that he would make gun control a “central issue” as he opens his second term, promising to submit broad new firearm proposals to Congress no later than January and to employ the full power of his office to overcome deep-seated political resistance.

(Editor’s note: Italics added for emphasis)

“And to employ the full power of his office to overcome deep-seated political resistance.”

By the sound of all this, I wouldn’t be surprised if the White House uses Executive orders to implement more gun “control.”

According to the Federal Register website, Barack Obama has issued 140 of these orders since becoming President.

Sources:

Shear, Michael D. “Obama Vows Fast Action in New Push for Gun Control.” The New York Times. 19 Dec. 2012. (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/us/politics/obama-to-give-congress-plan-on-gun-control-within-weeks.html?_r=1&). 21 Dec. 2012.

Wutkowski, Karey and Ingram, David. “Holder: executive actions to be considered on gun violence.” Reuters. 19 Dec. 2012. (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/19/us-usa-shootings-connecticut-holder-idUSBRE8BI13720121219). 21 Dec. 2012.

Tags: , , , , , ,

Obama Backs New Gun Ban After Declaring ‘I’m Not Going To Take Away Your Guns’ In 2008

“A woman in the crowd told Obama she had ‘heard a rumor’ that he might be planning some sort of gun ban upon being elected president. Obama trotted out his standard policy stance, that he had a deep respect for the ‘traditions of gun ownership’ but favored measures in big cities to keep guns out of the hands of ‘gang bangers and drug dealers’ in big cities ‘who already have them and are shooting people.’

‘If you’ve got a gun in your house, I’m not taking it,’ Obama said. But the Illinois senator could still see skeptics in the crowd, particularly on the faces of several men at the back of the room.

So he tried again. ‘Even if I want to take them away, I don’t have the votes in Congress,’ he said. ‘This can’t be the reason not to vote for me. Can everyone hear me in the back? I see a couple of sportsmen back there. I’m not going to take away your guns.’”

-Mary Lu Carnevale and Christopher Cooper, Wall Street Journal’s Washington Wire blog, September 5, 2008

David Jackson and Jackie Kucinich reported on the USA TODAY website tonight:

Obama backs new assault weapons ban

President Obama supports efforts to reinstate an assault weapons ban as part of a comprehensive plan to address gun violence, his spokesman said Tuesday.

Press Secretary Jay Carney added that Obama would back proposals to close the “gun show loophole,” which allows people to buy weapons without background checks…

Obama met with aides and others to develop a “comprehensive” plan that would include the education, social and mental health issues associated with gun violence. He is also “interested in looking at” possible restrictions on high-capacity ammunition clips, Carney said…

Obama “wants to move in the coming weeks,” Carney said.

(Editor’s note: Italics added for emphasis)

“I’m not going to take away your guns.”

Truth-loving Americans will hold the President to that statement.

Sources:

Mary Lu Carnevale and Christopher Cooper. “Obama: ‘I’m Not Going to Take Your Guns Away.’” Washington Wire. 5 Sep. 2008. (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/09/05/obama-im-not-going-to-take-your-guns-away/). 18 Dec. 2012.

Jackson, David and Kucinich, Jackie. “Obama backs new assault weapons ban.” USA TODAY. 18 Dec. 2012. (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2012/12/18/obama-carney-newtown-assault-weapons-ban/1777793/). 18 Dec. 2012.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,



Christopher E. Hill, Editor
13,166 Visits in August
479,590 Visits from
11/22/10-8/31/14
Please Rate this Blog HERE

Translate (Allow 1 Minute Per Page To Complete)


by Transposh - translation plugin for wordpress
NEW! Advertising Disclosure HERE
ANY CHARACTER HERE
bullet proof vests
ANY CHARACTER HERE
New Affiliate Partner! BulletSafe
ANY CHARACTER HERE
New Affiliate Partner! BUDK
ANY CHARACTER HERE
Propper Tactical Bags up to 30% Off @ CHIEFSupply.com New Affiliate Partner! CHIEF Supply
ANY CHARACTER HERE
JM Bullion Reviewed HERE
ANY CHARACTER HERE
MyPatriotSupply.com Reviewed HERE
ANY CHARACTER HERE
Nitro-Pak--The Emergency Preparedness Leader Nitro-Pak Reviewed HERE
ANY CHARACTER HERE
BullionVault BullionVault.com Reviewed HERE
ANY CHARACTER HERE
Not all airguns preform the same in colder weather. Click to learn more. PyramidAir.com Reviewed HERE
ANY CHARACTER HERE
Airsoft Megastore - Limited Time Savings, Save Up to 20% Airsoft Megastore Reviewed HERE
ANY CHARACTER HERE
 

Categories

Archives