Sandy Hook

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: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

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: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

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: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

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: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Top Illinois Democrats Push Hard For Gun Ban, More Gun ‘Control’

Can’t say I’m surprised to hear the following from top Illinois Democrats. Hal Dardick reported on the Chicago Tribune website last night:

Illinois’ leading Democrats on Monday pushed for more gun control in the wake of last week’s school shootings in Connecticut, but gun-owner rights groups criticized the move as politicizing a national tragedy and said they were prepared to fight in Washington and Springfield.

U.S. Sen Dick Durbin, the state’s senior senator and the No. 2 Democrat in the chamber, called for congressional hearings aimed at finding constitutional limits to Second Amendment rights while Gov. Pat Quinn and Mayor Rahm Emanuel re-emphasized their long-standing call to ban semi-automatic, assault-style weapons at the state and federal level.

According to the article, Governor Quinn is hoping Illinois legislators will take action on more gun “control”- including a gun ban- by early January.

Fran Spielman noted on the Chicago Sun-Times website yesterday afternoon:

Quinn… called for state lawmakers to ban assault weapons when they return to Springfield for a lame-duck legislative session, beginning on Jan. 2 and extending through Jan. 9. “The message of last Friday is it’s time for all of us in Illinois to begin to save lives by banning assault weapons [and] banning high-capacity ammunition magazines that are used to kill people,” he said.

Stay tuned…

Sources:

Dardick, Hal. “Governor, mayor want assault-weapons ban.” Chicago Tribune. 17 Dec. 2012. (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-school-shooting-illinois-politicians-1218-20121218,0,5128691.story). 18 Dec. 2012.

Spielman, Fran. “Emanuel calls for ‘vote of conscience’ on assault weapons ban.” Chicago Sun-Times. 18 Dec. 2012. (http://www.suntimes.com/17072443-761/emanuel-calls-for-vote-of-conscience-on-assault-weapons-ban.html). 18 Dec. 2012.

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

Preppers Under Attack, Part 2

“All this prepping, it gives people an identity, a group to belong to. But it definitely is emerging as the ‘new kid on the block’ as far as cults go.”

– Dr. Peter Behrens, Penn State-Lehigh Valley professor

Last Friday night, I blogged that it seems to me “preppers” are coming under increasing attack these days.

Funny how things can change so dramatically in just a few days, as “seems” is now a significant understatement in the wake of the Newtown, Connecticut, shootings.

But before I talk more about that horrific incident and its possibly-implied “relationship” to prepping, I want to discuss a recent piece I came across on the Nazareth, Pennsylvania Patch website. On December 13, Elizabeth Rich wrote about preppers/survivalists and said:

According to Dr. Peter Behrens, preppers are buying into a cult.

Dr. Behrens, a Penn State-Lehigh Valley professor who specializes in the history of psychology, abnormal psychology and personality psychology, says that the most recent form of Doomsday preparations have all the earmarks of an active, recruiting cult.

“From a psychological perspective [Doomsday prepping] is bizarre. Members spend so much time and energy readying for the end of the world. Prepping is just people trying to control what is beyond their control.”

Dr. Behrens believes that clusters of preppers and the movement as a whole has all the markings of a cult.

“I think this is just a modern iteration of the phenomenon of people believing that the end is coming in their lifetime. That idea is so selfish, so self-centered, so narcissistic. It’s mind control.”

(Editor’s note: Italics added for emphasis)

Unlike Valerie Lucus-McEwen and her concerns about the preppers featured on the National Geographic Channel TV show, according to Rich, Dr. Behrens attacks the prepping movement as a whole. It having all the markings of a cult.

A cult, huh? Would that make Doomsday Preppers evaluators Practical Preppers their Grand Poobahs then? And could National Geographic Channel now claim non-profit status on their taxes for spreading “the word” via the Doomsday Preppers TV show? Of course a uniform will be needed. Try this one on for size.

(Editor’s warning: video could be offensive to some)

Since I completed the first draft of this post, 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.

Yep. Undoubtedly, preppers are under attack these days.

Sources:

Rich, Elizabeth. “Are Doomsday Preppers a Cult? A Lehigh Valley Professor Says Yes.” NazarethPatch. 13 Dec. 2012. (http://nazareth.patch.com/articles/are-doomsday-preppers-a-cult-this-professor-says-yes-7da6a028). 17 Dec. 2012.

Foster, Peter and Swaine, John. “Connecticut school shooting: Adam Lanza’s mother was preparing for disaster.” The Telegraph. 16 Dec. 2012. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9749217/Connecticut-school-shooting-Adam-Lanzas-mother-was-preparing-for-disaster.html). 17 Dec. 2012.

Williams, Rob. “Mother of Sandy Hook school gunman Adam Lanza was a ‘prepper’ survivalist preparing for economic and social collapse, say reports.” The Independent. 17 Dec. 2012. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/mother-of-sandy-hook-school-gunman-adam-lanza-was-a-prepper-survivalist-preparing-for-economic-and-social-collapse-say-reports-8422298.html). 17 Dec. 2012.

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

Democrats To Push Gun Ban On First Day Of New Congress

“In the coming weeks, I will use whatever power this office holds to engage my fellow citizens- from law enforcement to mental health professionals to parents and educators- in an effort aimed at preventing more tragedies like this.”

-U.S. President Barack Obama at a prayer vigil in Newtown, Connecticut, last night

A person who’s only just tuned-in to U.S. current events in the last week or two would probably have a pretty good idea of where the country looks to be heading:

More attacks on religion, more drugs, more government regulation, more government spending (and waste), more taxes.

Oh, add more gun “control” to that list. In the form of a gun ban, no less.

Amanda Sakuma reported on the MSNBC TV web site Sunday:

Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, said on Meet the Press Sunday morning that she would introduce an assault weapons ban on the first day of the next Congress. “It’s a first-day bill I’m going to introduce in the Senate and the same bill will be introduced in the House, a bill to ban assault weapons,” Feinstein said. “It will ban the sale, the transfer, the importation and the possession–not retroactively but prospectively–and it will ban the same for big clips, drums or strips of more than 10 bullets.”

(Editor’s note: Italics added for emphasis)

Another top Democrat in the Senate discussed what’s hoped to be accomplished with up-and-coming gun control legislation. Sakuma added:

Feinstein’s Democratic colleague, New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, said on CBS’ Face the Nation that the U.S. had finally reached “tipping point where we can actually get something done.” Schumer outlined what he said were the top three areas that Congress will focus on with legislation.

“One is to ban assault weapons, try and reinstate the assault weapons bans,” he said Sunday. “Second is to limit the size of clips to maybe no more than 10 bullets per clip, and third is to make it harder for mentally unstable people to get guns.”

(Editor’s note: Italics added for emphasis)

“Third is to make it harder for mentally unstable people to get guns.”

I can’t help but wonder if gun owners who’ve ever seen a shrink or veterans who’ve been diagnosed with anxiety disorders like PTSD wouldn’t be affected by this. That’s one way of wrestling a lot of guns away from the masses (in the politicians’ minds, at least).

Meanwhile, at the White House, Gary Fields and Laura Meckler reported on the Wall Street Journal website last night:

President Barack Obama is also likely to propose gun-policy changes, according to two administration officials

The White House is looking at various options, and the scope and details of the president’s approach aren’t clear. One possibility likely to be considered is a ban on high-capacity magazines, the devices attached to firearms that store large numbers of bullets and reload them rapidly…

No White House proposal is imminent, and it remains to be seen whether it would be legislative or administrative and how hard the president would push for any legislative initiative.

(Editor’s note: Italics added for emphasis)

“Administrative.” As in Executive Order? Time will tell.

Regardless of the horrific event that took place in Newtown last week, the push for more gun control- and a gun ban- by the Democratic Party should come as no surprise to regular Survival And Prosperity readers. Back on September 6, 2012, I noted that the Democratic Party’s 2012 National Platform approved at the Democratic National Convention included talk of “reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole.” And on October 17, 2012, I blogged about President Obama announcing at the second presidential debate:

But I also share your belief that weapons that were designed for soldiers in war theaters don’t belong on our streets. And so what I’m trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally. Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced, but part of it is also looking at other sources of the violence, because frankly, in my hometown of Chicago, there’s an awful lot of violence, and they’re not using AK-47s, they’re using cheap handguns.

(Editor’s note: Italics added for emphasis)

That remark by Obama about “looking at other sources of the violence” and “handguns” have left some to speculate these firearms are also in the cross-hairs of Democrats.

I live at “ground zero” of gun control (Chicago, Cook County, Illinois). And plenty of you know just how well that’s working out as it’s probably only a matter of days before the city reaches 500 “official” murders for the year. By the way, Connecticut has some pretty strict gun control laws as well. Henry D’Andrea wrote on the Washington Times website Sunday:

Connecticut has some of the strictest laws in the nation. To obtain a gun there, you must be 21. You must apply for a local permit with the town’s police chief and be fingerprinted for a state and federal background check. The process includes a 14-day waiting period, and the state requires a gun safety course for anyone who purchases a handgun.

The shooter in Connecticut wasn’t eligible to own a gun, as he wasn’t 21. He stole the weapons from his mother, who legally obtained them.

Plus, I understand the state already has an assault “weapons” ban on their books.

According to the National Rifle Association, there are already more than 20,000 gun laws in the United States.

With more to come, if Democrats get their way.

Sources:

Sakuma, Amanda. “Dems promise: First day of new Congress, a new gun law.” MSNBC TV. 16 Dec. 2012. (http://tv.msnbc.com/2012/12/16/dems-promise-first-day-of-new-congress-a-new-gun-law/). 17 Dec. 2012.

Fields, Gary and Meckler, Laura. “New Calls for Gun Limits.” Wall Street Journal. 16 Dec. 2012. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324677204578183781498008140.html). 17 Dec. 2012.

D’Andrea, Henry. “Sandy Hook: Gun control wouldn’t have stopped it.” Washington Times. 16 Dec. 2012. (http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/conscience-conservative/2012/dec/16/why-gun-control-wouldnt-have-prevented-connecticut/). 17 Dec. 2012.

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



Christopher E. Hill, Editor
504,582 Visits from
11/22/10-10/31/14
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
Food Insurance Reviewed HERE
ANY CHARACTER HERE
Survival Titles Save 20% Paladin Press Reviewed HERE
ANY CHARACTER HERE
BUDK Reviewed HERE
ANY CHARACTER HERE
bullet proof vests BulletSafe Reviewed HERE
ANY CHARACTER HERE
CHIEF Supply Reviewed HERE
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
Pyramyd Air is your one-stop shop for everything airgun related. PyramidAir.com Reviewed HERE
ANY CHARACTER HERE
Airsoft Megastore - Limited Time Save Up to 20% Airsoft Megastore Reviewed HERE
ANY CHARACTER HERE
 

Categories

Archives