NRA Doesn’t ‘Buy’ Politicians, but Gun Controllers Do

The gun control movement often exhibits a dearth of critical thinking skills. Nowhere is this more apparent than in much of the gun control community’s insistence on claiming that NRA has the resources and ability to “buy” politicians.

Whenever gun control enters the national spotlight anti-gun activists and the media level this lazy charge. Editorial pages are replete with cartoons depicting unscrupulous politicians being swayed by NRA cash. Following the tragedy in Las Vegas, the New York Times and Washington Post produced lists of politicians who had received NRA donations. In a recent error-filled monologue, late night comedian Jimmy Kimmel claimed that NRA had some lawmakers’ privates “in a money clip.”

Aside from the silliness of such arguments from a movement that is in large part bank-rolled by a single billionairemore sophisticated observers from across the political spectrum understand that lavish donations to lawmakers is not how NRA influences public policy. In a recent piece addressing this topic, National Review Editor Jonah Goldberg took issue with the Washington Post’s list of NRA donees, which claimed, “Since 1998, the National Rifle Association has donated $4.23 million to current members of Congress.” Putting NRA’s contributions in context, Goldberg explained,

In terms of lobbying and political contributions, the NRA and the gun industry generally spend next to nothing compared with the big players. According to OpenSecrets, the NRA spent $1.1 million on contributions in 2016 and $3 million on lobbying. The food and beverage industry has spent $14 million on lobbying in 2017 alone. Alphabet, Google’s parent company, spent $9 million on contributions in 2016.

Goldberg went on to note,

The simple reality is that the NRA doesn’t need to spend a lot of money convincing politicians to protect gun rights. All it needs to do is spend a little money clarifying that a great many of those politicians’ constituents care deeply about gun rights.

An October 2015 New Yorker article by James Surowiecki came to a similar conclusion. The piece quoted UCLA Law Professor Adam Winkler, who explained why NRA is able to influence politicians without spending as much as other interest groups, stating, “N.R.A. members are politically engaged and politically active. They call and write elected officials, they show up to vote, and they vote based on the gun issue.”

A few of the more honest gun control advocates acknowledge this reality. In 2016, the president of Global Strategy Group, who was hired to consult for gun control group Americans for Responsible Solution, said to Politico, “[NRA’s] money isn’t that big… It’s not what they do. Their power rests in their stupid postcards and their ability to terrorize members on the Hill and have them panicked about their rating.”

Gun control supporters who peddle the myth about NRA money aren’t only wrong, they are ignoring team gun control’s own sordid history of buying politicians. And forget Michael Bloomberg for the moment, gun control supporters have purchased lawmakers using taxpayer dollars.

In a recently published Daily Beast podcast, Patrick Griffin, who served as assistant to the President for legislative affairs during the Clinton Administration, shed light on how government resources were used to secure votes for the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which included the federal “assault weapons” ban.

Gun control supporters who peddle the myth about NRA money aren’t only wrong, they are ignoring team gun control’s own sordid history of buying politicians. And forget Michael Bloomberg for the moment, gun control supporters have purchased lawmakers using taxpayer dollars.

Explaining how the process worked, Griffin told the interviewer, “The candy store was a little more open back then… There were earmarks. There were things that were in the pipeline that you could loosen up. There were plane rides on Air Force One…. We sold anything.”

Getting more specific, Griffin recalled that in exchange for voting for the crime bill one lawmaker “wanted us to invite him to a state dinner with his daughter.” Clarifying, Griffin added, “But he had no daughter… Yes, he wanted to take his girlfriend.” At another point in the podcast, Griffin recalled acquiring another lawmaker’s vote for the crime bill by getting the Secretary of the Interior to advance the approval process on a Native American casino in the member’s district.

Griffin’s account is similar to one offered in April 2013 by an individual Politico described as “an official with one of the major gun-control groups” following the failed Manchin/Toomey/Schumer background check vote. The gun control official told the publication, “Bribery isn’t what it once was… The government has no money. Once upon a time you would throw somebody a post office or a research facility in times like this. Frankly, there’s not a lot of leverage.”

Sadly, given that mounting evidence of the invalidity of the myth about NRA buying influence hasn’t been enough to deter gun controllers from repeating this fallacy, it’s unlikely that exposing their rank hypocrisy will either.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Everytown and Hollywood Launch New Campaign Against Pro-gun Legislation

Anti-Gun Congresswoman Introduces Magazine Ban, Aims Slippery Slope at the Gun on Your Hip

Anti-Gun Billionaire George Soros Pumps $18 Billion into His Political Apparatus

Bad News For “Universal” Background Check Supporters

Oregon: Governor Signs Anti-Gun Bill into Law

Gun Rights Are Women’s Rights

The right to bear arms isn’t just a constitutional issue — it’s a women’s rights issue. Author and commentator Katie Pavlich explains why guns are the great equalizer between men and women.

RELATED ARTICLE: NRA Spokeswoman Dana Loesch Forced to Flee Own Home After Anti-Gun Advocates Make Death Threats – American News

TRANSCRIPT:

GUNS RIGHTS ARE WOMEN’S RIGHTS WITH KATIE PAVLICH

Do you want equality between men and women?

I do. Which is why I own a gun. My Glock 43 is my equalizer.

Too NRA for you? Then, let’s take a step back and think about this. I will start with this premise: Men are physically stronger than women.

I know: even this is controversial these days. But men have more muscle mass and greater bone density; they run faster, and punch harder. It’s called “biology.” If a woman is going to protect herself against a man who intends to do her serious harm, she needs to even the odds. And what’s the best way for her to do that? Own a gun — and know how to use it.

Given this, you would think that feminists would be lining up in front of gun shops, spending quality time at the shooting range, and filing for concealed carry permits. But when was the last time you heard a feminist speak out for women owning guns? You haven’t, because
feminists aren’t for gun ownership. They’re for taking guns away from women.

Well, you might say, if no one owned a gun, then everybody would be safer. Yes…and it would be nice if cheesecake was a diet food.

There are over 300 million guns in the United States and that’s not going to change any time soon. But even if we could build a giant magnet, fly it across the country and snap up every gun, it wouldn’t much matter to women’s safety.

In Great Britain, where it’s almost impossible to get a gun, a woman is three times more likely to be raped than in America, according to a study by David Kopel, a professor of constitutional law at Denver University.

Here’s another telling comparison between gun-free UK and gun-owning US: In the United States, only about 13 percent of home burglaries take place when the occupants are home, but in the UK, almost 60 percent do.

Professor Kopel explains the disparity: “American burglars . . . avoid occupied homes because of the risk of getting shot. English burglars prefer occupied homes, because there will be wallets and purses with cash.”

And, by the way, an assailant doesn’t need a gun to be dangerous. What do you do if you’re a woman and a man comes at you with a knife? Or just his bare hands? If you want to depend Free Courses for Free Minds.com on pepper spray or a whistle, okay—but I think your finger on the trigger of a gun would be more effective.

Take the example of mail carrier Catherine Latta. After she had been assaulted and raped by her ex-boyfriend, Latta tried to purchase a firearm. She was told it might take a month to get a permit. “[I’ll] be dead by then,” she recalls telling the clerk. That afternoon, she went to a rough part of town and bought a handgun. Five hours later, her ex-boyfriend attacked her outside of her home. She shot him in self-defense, and saved her life.

I should add that firing a gun is very rare. Just carrying it—let alone brandishing it—is a deterrent.

And, isn’t that the issue? Personal safety? How is a woman supposed to defend herself? What if an intruder breaks into her home?

Liberal TV personality Sherri Shepherd answered this question a few years ago.

“At one in the morning, the alarm in our house went off,” Shepherd told her co-hosts on the popular daytime show, “The View.” As the alarm blared, her husband, Sal, went downstairs to look around. If something happened to him, a terrified Shepherd realized, she had no way to protect herself or her son, Jeffrey. “ …All I had was this wicker basket…[I] don’t have a bat, nothing.”

“‘We’re going to get a gun,’” I told Sal. “[This] just made me realize how vulnerable you are if you can’t protect your home. And the police [were] wonderful; they came about seven minutes later, but to me, that’s seven minutes too late.”

Luckily for Shepherd, the incident was a false alarm. But there are lots of cases where the alarm is real, especially in high crime areas. Yet every year, progressives push for more and more gun control without ever considering who will pay the price.

It won’t be the bad guys. They always get the guns they want. It will be the good women who need to equal the odds in a dangerous confrontation with a man.

Women owning guns shouldn’t be a partisan issue. In fact, it’s a women’s rights issue.

I’m all for equality between the sexes. And I practice what I preach.

That’s why I own a gun.

I’m Katie Pavlich for Prager University.

Why I Oppose Banning Bump Stocks

The latest firearm-equipment boogeyman is the “bump stock,” a device allowing one to fire a semi-automatic rifle more rapidly. Liberals learned of bump stocks because Las Vegas murderer Stephen Paddock had modified 12 of his rifles with them.

This has made them a target for prohibition, and an easy one, too. After all, almost no one wants to buy a bump stock, so even many Republicans — and the National Rifle Association — are willing to place greater restrictions on the device. I also have no plans to acquire one, but I wouldn’t even consider outlawing the stock. Why?

Remember last year’s Orlando massacre, perpetrated by Muslim terrorist Omar Mateen? In its wake the gun boogeyman, as it has often been, was the AR-15, the sleek black gun with military looks that makes libs wet their panties. We were told how outrageous it was that such a “killing machine” (is this the Terminator we’re talking about?) was available to the public. But notice something funny?

Paddock also had an AR-15 rifle.

Yet we haven’t heard a peep from the mice about this “killing machine.” The reason?

Right now leftists have bump stocks to focus on. Being driven by emotion and/or Machiavellian motives (depending on the person), the type of equipment targeted in an anti-gun push is secondary, at best. The only consistent theme is an effort to steadily, incrementally erode gun rights. It doesn’t matter what weapon or accessory is outlawed today because there’ll be another opportunity, and target, after the next high-profile gun crime tomorrow.

The argument for a restriction is always the same. Logically rendered it states: “This _________ (fill in the blank) is far too effective to be available to the general public.” What this misses is that Second Amendment rights don’t exist just to secure the opportunity to go target shooting or hunting.

They exist to ensure that Americans can have effective weaponry. Full stop.

Again, realize that the current gun-grabber proposal has nothing to do with bump stocks. It has more to do with bumps in heads passing for brains that can’t figure out that any given anti-gun proposal is just another step in an evolutionary process whose apparent end game is the elimination of all guns. This must be concluded since liberals never articulate a different end game. And there always will be another massacre, and then another, and each will be followed with a further drum beat to outlaw _________, because it’s just too effective for citizens to own. It’s a crumb here, a morsel there, a slice today, a half a loaf tomorrow.

In his book Orthodoxy, in the chapter titled “The Eternal Revolution,” philosopher G.K. Chesterton wrote something relevant here:

“Progress should mean that we are always changing the world to suit the vision. Progress does mean…that we are always changing the vision.”

While this fault, lamentably, plagues most ideologists today to some degree, it characterizes liberals. They’re the situational-values set, and their goalposts are always shifting. This is why giving them an inch only means they’ll come back for a foot and, later, a mile. This is why you don’t give them even a millimeter. It’s why you must insist upon a certain prerequisite before considering any more anti-gun laws: that liberals articulate a hard and fast, unchanging vision, to be presented for consideration, of what guns laws should forevermore be.

No more free-association legislating. No more shots in the dark. No more making it up as you go along. For example:

  • You say bump stocks allow a person to fire too rapidly. Okay, what exactly is the maximum number of rounds per minute a weapon available to the public should be capable of firing? What’s your reasoning?
  • “High-capacity magazines” is an ambiguous term. Exactly what size magazine should citizens be allowed to own? What’s your reasoning?
  • Don’t tell us about “high-powered rifles.” Tell us exactly what the maximum muzzle velocity of a publicly available firearm should be. What’s your reasoning?
  • Another ambiguous (and misleading) term is “armor-piercing ammunition.” What exactly should the maximum penetration power of a publicly available round be? What’s your reasoning?

Once you formulate your concrete vision (for the first time in your lives), please present it. If we accept it, though, note what the agreement means: You don’t get to ask for more anti-gun laws ever again. There’s no more politicizing of the issue after every shooting. The vision is conceived, articulated, agreed upon — and then set in stone.

Of course, I’m sure there’s no way to make such a thing legally binding, and no other agreement with liberals is worth the paper it’s printed on. The point is that without such a vision’s presentation we shouldn’t even take anti-gun proposals seriously. Doing otherwise is akin to pandering to children (and liberals are overgrown children) when they stamp their feet and scream about what they want right now, “just because.”

This doesn’t mean we should be totally averse to compromise. So try this on for size: I propose reducing the 22,000 anti-gun laws currently on the books by 10,000. If that’s unacceptable, however, I’ll agree to a 5,000-law reduction — for now. There’s always next year’s negotiation, after all.

Don’t ever let it be said I’m not a reasonable guy.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

EDITORS NOTE: What is a bump stock?

A bump stock is a device that can be legally purchased and installed onto semi-automatic firearms, such as AR-15, AK-47, and Saiga models, replacing the rifles’ standard stocks.

Unlike automatic firearms, which fire continuously while the trigger is pulled, semi-automatic weapons fire one round per trigger-pull. The bump stock harnesses the recoil energy produced when a shot is fired from a semi-automatic rifle, and it “bumps” the weapon back and forth between the shooter’s shoulder and trigger finger.

Since the shooter’s finger is still pulling the trigger for each shot, the firearm technically remains a semi-automatic, even as it achieves a rate of fire similar to that produced by an automatic.

VIDEO OF A BUMP STOCK:

Was Vegas Massacre a Federal Sting Operation Gone Bad, Like Fast and Furious?

Perhaps Stephen Paddock was a “lone wolf” who somehow “snapped.” But his arsenal, designed for a small terrorist army, and his “secret life” have led to speculation he was part of a gun-running and bomb-making operation similar to the federal ATF ‘Fast and Furious’ gun-walking scandal in the early Obama Administration. In this case, however, the targets were Islamists, not Mexican drug traffickers.

blue_logo
By Cliff Kincaid

Why is there no motive for the Vegas massacre? Why did Stephen Paddock have a secret life?

It is terrible to contemplate, but the possibility that Stephen Paddock was an undercover federal operative or informant cannot be ruled out. He may have been either set up or used by ISIS and/or a federal agency in a scheme that backfired.

The feds may have thought they were going to catch ISIS in the act of preparing a major terrorist attack. ISIS terrorists may have thought Paddock was one of them but realized at the last minute that it was a set-up. So, they claimed him as one of their own.

Perhaps he did convert to Islam after trying to get local Jihadists to buy his weapons. Or perhaps they thought he did, and he used his “conversion” to convince them he was one of them.

In short, Paddock may have approached potential terrorists with offers of weapons and bomb-making material. Or they may have approached him.

Those of us who have been around Washington D.C. for a while know that the FBI has been rocked by scandals of all kinds and a series of failures, ranging from Ruby Ridge to Waco to 9/11. Because these scandals involve death, stonewalling, and cover-up, the agencies cannot be trusted to investigate themselves.

For someone with even elementary knowledge of government incompetence and corruption, it doesn’t take a lot of imagination to consider the possibility that Paddock was a government informant or operative in a scheme that backfired.

We can anticipate there will be obligatory denials.

Reports indicate that the materials found in Paddock’s car included 1,600 rounds of ammunition, fertilizer that could be used to make explosives, and 50 pounds of the explosive substance Tannerite. He had 23 weapons in the hotel room and had reportedly bought 33 guns in the past year. This guy was the perfect operative to be used in undercover stings. He had everything they needed to carry out major terrorist acts.

Paddock was a one-stop-shop for terrorists. He had the guns and the bombs. He was a one-man Weather Underground.

Read Mr. Kincaid’s full column by clicking here.

Cliff Kincaid

Cliff Kincaid is the President of America’s Survival, a public policy organization and author of numerous books covering the United Nations and national security issues. He is also a contributor to SFPPR News & Analysis, of the conservative-online-journalism center at the Washington-based Selous Foundation for Public Policy Research.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Las Vegas: A THIRD Timeline Emerges

The Las Vegas Massacre and the Many Unanswered Questions

Las Vegas police now say critical 6-minute shooting gap doesn’t exist

Alleged Sexual Predator and Hollywood Mogul Harvey Weinstein Threatens NRA (Again)

Even in a city and industry that prides itself on strict adherence to anti-gun orthodoxy, Hollywood Producer and Democratic mega-donor Harvey Weinstein distinguished himself as an enemy of law-abiding gun owners. In a January 2014 interview on The Howard Stern Show, the mogul launched into a lengthy anti-NRA tirade.

The rant started when Stern, a carry permit holder, asked Weinstein whether he owned a gun. Weinstein responded, “I don’t think we need guns in this country, and I hate it. And I think the NRA is a disaster area.” The producer went on to share his plans to make an anti-NRA feature film, titled, The Senator’s Wife. Weinstein noted, “I’m going to make a movie with Meryl Streep, and we’re going to take this head-on. And they’re going to wish they weren’t alive after I’m done with them.” The mogul also contended that the movie would damage the gun industry, stating, “Gun stocks, I don’t want to be involved in that stuff. It’s going to be like crash and burn.”

It’s nearly four years later and The Senator’s Wife is reportedly still in the development stage. However, Weinstein’s grudge against NRA is back in the national spotlight, thanks to the producer’s bizarre attempt to deflect attention from a spiraling sexual misconduct scandal.

On October 5, the New York Times published an article titled, “Harvey Weinstein Paid Off Sexual Harassment Accusers for Decades.” The piece detailed allegations that the mogul used his position of influence to make unwanted sexual advances towards young women in the movie industry, including movie star Ashley Judd. 

That same day, Weinstein issued a statement that addressed the Times’s story and attempted to excuse some of his behavior. Oddly, following a series of tepid apologies and justifications, the statement turned to NRA.

The beginning of the final paragraph of Weinstein’s statement read:

I am going to need a place to channel that anger, so I’ve decided that I’m going to give the NRA my full attention. I hope Wayne LaPierre will enjoy his retirement party. I’m going to do it at the same place I had my Bar Mitzvah.

Weinstein’s clumsy attack on gun owners was immediately seen for what it was, an attempt to distract the public and curry favor with anti-gun Hollywood. The Wall Street Journal’s Kimberley Strassel remarked on Twitter, “Gotta love how Harvey Weinstein’s statement includes swipes at NRA/Trump. Clear message: Hey guys, i’m a good liberal. Give me a pass.” Even MSNBC’s Chris Hayes tweeted, “Weinstein’s attempt to rally liberals to his side by attacking the NRA is gross and absurd and I hope people don’t fall for it.”

The ploy didn’t work. In the days since the Times ran their initial article, a host of other women, including stars Angelina Jolie and Gwyneth Paltrow, have come forward and accused Weinstein of sexual harassment. Some of the more recent allegations have taken on an even more serious character, with the New Yorker reporting that Weinstein allegedly raped at least three women. The New Yorker report also included an account of an N.Y.P.D. sting operation where Weinstein was allegedly caught on tape mistreating a woman.

The allegations have put several prominent Democratic politicians in a difficult position. CBS has reported that Weinstein-hosted political fundraisers have brought in more than $5 million for Democrats.

An ardent Hillary Clinton supporter, Weinstein hosted a June 2016 fundraiser at his Manhattan home that reportedly raised $1.8 million for the failed candidate. Further, according to the New York Times, in October 2016, Weinstein “co-produced a Broadway fund-raiser for Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign that was headlined by former President Bill Clinton, her husband, and Chelsea Clinton, her daughter, and featured dozens of performing artists.” Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) are among the prominent politicians who have disgorged themselves of Weinstein’s money in the wake of his sex scandal.

It should not come as a surprise that an individual who has allegedly used his influence and physical stature to overpower and abuse woman would detest the right to keep and bear arms. Published research on sexual assault from Florida State Professor of Criminology Gary Kleck concluded that rape victims “who resist are much less likely to have the rape completed against them than nonresisting victims,” and that, “[t]he form of resistance that appears most effective in preventing rape completion is resistance with a gun, knife, or other weapon.”

As for Weinstein’s recent threats against NRA, gun owners shouldn’t lose any sleep over the alleged sexual predator’s bluster. Even if Weinstein weren’t preoccupied with mounting legal woes, the producer isn’t much for follow-through. In response to criticism of his 2014 comments on The Howard Stern Show, Weinstein said he would curtail his support for violent movies. Weinstein said, “I have to choose movies that aren’t violent or as violent as they used to be,” and, “I know for me personally … I can’t continue to do that.  The change starts here.  It has already.  For me, I can’t do it.  I can’t make one movie and say this is what I want for my kids and then just go out and be a hypocrite.” A year later, Weinstein put out the blood-soaked Quentin Tarantino film The Hateful Eight.

On October 8, the Weinstein Company board, which includes Weinstein’s brother Bob, fired the embattled producer. Given the criminal implications of some of the allegations against the mogul, and reports of an FBI investigation, it is has yet to be determined if Weinstein’s retirement party will be held at a state or federal penitentiary.

Problematic Women Video: College Students Use Sex Objects to Protest Katie Pavlich

At the University of  Wisconsin-Madison this week, Fox News contributor and Second Amendment advocate Katie Pavlich faced a new brand of protest from liberal campus activists—sex objects.

The protest, named “Cocks Not Glocks,” was reportedly organized by students and led by Katherine Kerwin and focused on Pavlich’s views that guns can protect women from being sexually assaulted on campus.

Their rationale, according to Facebook, goes like this:

Katie Pavlich thinks that you can murder campus sexual assault away. Young Americans for Freedom thinks that her presence on campus is necessary to defend free speech.

Therefore, Cocks Not Glocks: UW Madison will be gathering during Pavlich’s speech to create and present dick art that has ZERO literary, artistic, political, educational, or scientific value. You know, for free speech.

In order to participate, the event page encouraged students to “tie that dildo to your backpack and wear it proudly to class every day.”

If people think taking loaded guns to class is socially acceptable, harmless vibrating toys should be too.

Although Pavlich’s speech, hosted by the Young Americans for Freedom chapter at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, went smoothly on Tuesday, students did come out to demonstrate using these profanities.

For this reason, this week’s edition of “Problematic Women” is honoring Pavlich as our “Problematic Woman of the Week.” In this show, co-hosted with Bre Payton of The Federalist, we show clips of the protest Pavlich faced, discuss the hypocrisy of liberal Hollywood, and the Boy Scouts of America deciding to welcome young girls into its programs.

Watch in the video above.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Kelsey Harkness

Kelsey Harkness is a senior news producer at The Daily Signal. Send an email to Kelsey. Twitter: 

A Note for our Readers:

Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.

Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.

Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.

The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.

Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.

Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.

You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.

SUPPORT THE DAILY SIGNAL

The Humanitarian Hoax of Gun Control: Killing America With Kindness

The Humanitarian Hoax is a deliberate and deceitful tactic of presenting a destructive policy as altruistic. The humanitarian huckster presents himself as a compassionate advocate when in fact he is the disguised enemy.

Those who support gun control and those who oppose gun control are speaking two different languages.

The Second Amendment guaranteeing the people the right to bear arms was passed by Congress September 25, 1789 and ratified December 15, 1791. The American Revolution freed the colonists from British oppression and our Founding Fathers were determined to prevent future tyranny by their newly formed federal government. The federal government would be armed but so would the citizenry – it was a balance of power arrangement.

One hundred fifty years later Mao Tse-Tung speaking in front of the Central Committee of the Communist Party famously declared:

“Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” Mao is telling the Communist Party leaders that armed struggle is necessary to acquire political power. “Whoever wants to seize and retain state power must have a strong army. Yes, we are advocates of the omnipotence of revolutionary war; that is good, not bad, it is Marxist. The guns of the Russian Communist Party created socialism. We shall create a democratic republic. Experience in the class struggle in the era of imperialism teaches us that it is only by the power of the gun that the working class and the labouring masses can defeat the armed bourgeoisie and landlords; in this sense we may say that only with guns can the whole world be transformed. We are advocates of the abolition of war, we do not want war; but war can only be abolished through war, and in order to get rid of the gun it is necessary to take up the gun.”

Mao Tse-Tung was a communist revolutionary seeking to overthrow the established rule of the nationalist Republic of China. He advocated arming his supporters (proletariat) against the opposition (the bourgeoisie). Mao was successful and the communist People’s Republic of China took power in 1949.

So, guns have been used to both take power from those who have power (Mao) and also to balance the power of the federal government (Second Amendment). These are the two languages of gun control.

The left-wing radical humanitarian hucksters of gun control also know that political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. They are disingenuously selling gun control as the altruistic answer to gun violence but in reality they seek to eliminate the Second Amendment and disarm its supporters. Why?

The Second Amendment right to bear arms gives citizens the right to defend and protect themselves against the tyranny of the armed federal government. The Founding Fathers envisioned an independent America with a strong federal government restrained by a three-part checks and balances structure and insured by the Second Amendment. Leftists today envision a Maoist public completely dependent (Marxism/Socialism/Communism) upon the federal government and completely controlled by the federal government. The Leftist dream requires dissolution of the Second Amendment.

Gun control is being disingenuously marketed as the solution to gun violence. The fiction of the gun control narrative is that gun control will keep Americans safe from the gun violence that has terrorized the country. Here is the problem. Chicago, with its strict gun control laws is a record-setter in homicides. Almost everyone killed in Chicago was shot to death. So how did gun control stop the gun violence in Chicago? It didn’t. Criminals find access to guns.

The horrifying and increasingly suspicious October 2nd massacre of innocent concertgoers in Las Vegas immediately and predictably triggered emotional calls from the Left for gun control. Gun control enthusiasts focus on terrorism, mass shootings, and police related shootings. A recent study examining the 33,000 annual fatal shootings in America today shows that a very small percentage involve mass murder attacks. Almost 2/3 of the deaths are suicides, another 1/3 are homicides, and the rest are considered accidents.

A person committing suicide could take pills or jump of a building. A person committing homicide could use a knife or a hammer. A person committing mass murder could use poison. How would gun control affect the outcome of death in America? It wouldn’t. So, why does the Left consistently focus on gun control? Because gun control is the argument that seeks to disarm the American public and dissolve the Second Amendment.

The left-wing liberal Democrat Party is speaking Mao’s Marxist/Communist/Socialist language. “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”

The Humanitarian Hoax of gun control presents restricting/eliminating the Second Amendment as the altruistic solution to gun violence but is really a sinister attempt to disarm the American public. Disarming America awards total control of the people to the federal government which is specifically why our Founding Fathers ratified the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment is the fulcrum of American freedom and those who defend it are speaking the language of American independence.

If the Left succeeds then 241 years of American freedom will be lost because a willfully blind American public was seduced by the Humanitarian Hoax of gun control advanced by leftist humanitarian hucksters promising safety to a public too frightened to live in reality. The Humanitarian Hoax of gun control will have succeeded in killing America with “kindness.”

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on Goudsmit Pundicity.

The National Association for Gun Rights opposes NRA-backed ban on firearm accessories

Washington D.C. – The National Association for Gun Rights is urging members of Congress to withhold their signatures from an anti-gun letter that is currently being circulated by Congressman Adam Kinzinger and Senator Dean Heller — in concert with the NRA — that calls for banning “bump stocks.”

The proposal outlined in the letter will not prevent future crimes or mass shootings, and will only lead to more federal destruction of constitutional rights.

If a gimmicky rifle stock can be banned, what’s next? Federal regulations on magazines, scopes, or bi-pods? A new round of restrictions on other features, like Senator Feinstein’s 1994 gun ban? A full resurrection of her so-called “Assault Weapons” Ban?

Make no mistake — this is a red-herring, playing right into the hands of those who seek an open door to more federal regulations on firearms and accessories.

Despite the NRA’s endorsement of this ban, members of Congress are urged not to add fuel to this fire. The National Association for Gun Rights and its 4.5 million members and supporters will be carefully tracking and grading all support for the anti-gun Kinzinger letter, and all measures reflecting it in Congress.

About NAGR

With our rapidly expanding membership of 4.5 million grassroots activists, the National Association for Gun Rights has led the charge to halt the radical anti-gun agenda across the nation. Accepting NO COMPROMISE on the issue of gun control, NAGR works tirelessly to hold politicians accountable for their anti-gun views, and has made great strides in protecting and preserving the Second Amendment. But our effectiveness in the battle against the gun grabbers depends entirely on the support of gun rights supporters like you.

As the Founders Intended

At the National Association for Gun Rights, not only do we work tirelessly to defend against attacks on our Second Amendment Freedoms, but we work to advance true firearms freedom in the form of Constitutional Carry legislation.

Constitutional Carry is the simple idea that law-abiding people shouldn’t be forced to get a government permission slip to exercise their right to self-defense. No one should be treated like a criminal simply for wishing to carry a firearm in defense of themselves or their family.

NAGR strongly believes that Constitutional Carry is the way our founders intended for citizens to exercise their constitutionally protected right to bear arms. NAGR has helped propose Constitutional Carry legislation in dozens of states, and was instrumental in passing Constitutional Carry in both Kansas and Maine in 2015.

Support Constitutional Carry in your state today.

Catalonia Shows the Danger of Disarming Civilians

October 1 showed the US why we need civilian guns.

Laura Williams

by  Laura Williams

Since the tragic murder of 59 peaceful concertgoers in Las Vegas Sunday, I’ve heard well-intentioned Americans from all political corners echoing heartbroken and tempting refrains:

Can’t we just ban guns?

Surely we can all get together on the rocket launchers.

Things like this would happen less often.

We have enough military.

While victims were still in surgery, some took to television and social media to criticize the “outdated” and “dangerous” Second Amendment to the Constitution. They have lived so long in a safe, stable society that they falsely believe armed citizens are a threat to life and liberty for everyone.

Those who claim to see no necessity or benefits of individual gun ownership need only look to the rolling hills of Catalonia, where a live social experiment is currently unfolding.

Unarmed Patriots

Just hours before an alleged lone gunman opened fire from the Mandalay Bay casino, the citizens of a small region surrounding Barcelona, Spain, cast a vote for their regional independence. Catalonia’s citizens have a unique language, culture, and history, and consider Spain a neighboring power, not their rightful rulers. So as America’s Continental Congress heroically did (and as Texans and Californians occasionally threaten to do) Catalonia wished to declare independence and secede.

Spain has enacted, it would seem, the kind of “common sense restrictions” American gun-control advocates crave.

Polling stations in Catalonia were attacked by heavily armed agents of the state with riot gear and pointed rifles. Spanish National Police fired rubber bullets and unleashed tear gas canisters on voters, broke down polling center doors, disrupted the vote, and destroyed enough ballots to throw results into serious doubt.Exceedingly few of those would-be patriots were armed.

In Spain, firearm ownership is not a protected individual right. Civilian firearms licenses are restricted to “cases of extreme necessity” if the government finds “genuine reason.” Background checks, medical exams, and license restrictions further restrict access. Licenses are granted individually by caliber and model, with automatic weapons strictly forbidden to civilians. Police can demand a citizen produce a firearm at any time for inspection or confiscation. Spain has enacted, it would seem, the kind of “common sense restrictions” American gun-control advocates crave.

But of course, that doesn’t mean that Spanish citizens don’t buy guns. In fact, Spanish taxpayers maintain an enormous arsenal of weapons, which are all in the hands [of] “professional armed police forces within the administration of the state, who are the persons in charge of providing security to the population.”

Those agents of the state weren’t “providing security to the population” of Catalonia on Sunday — they were pointing guns at would-be founding patriots who had challenged the rule of their oppressors.

“If somebody tries to declare the independence of part of the territory — something that cannot be done — we will have to do everything possible to apply the law,” Spain’s justice minister said in a public address.  While many polling places were closed or barricaded, 2.3 million voters (90% in favor of independence) were permitted to vote, he claimed, “because the security forces decided that it wasn’t worth using force because of the consequences that it could have.”

The consequences of a government using force to control those it is sworn to protect must be high. When citizens are armed, the consequences for tyranny rise and its likelihood falls.

Armed Tyrants

Americans have grown too trustful of the State, too ready to assume bureaucrats have only our best interests at heart. Even with a maniacal man-child in the Oval Office, many are seemingly eager to turn over individual liberty to those who promise to manage our lives for us. The United States was designed to be the smallest government in the history of the world, with no standing army, and little right to intrude in the private activities of its citizens. Instead, we have the most powerful and intrusive government in human history, with 800 permanent military bases in 70 countries, unfathomable firepower, and staggering surveillance capabilities. Unchecked abuses of power are routine and tolerated.

67 federal agencies, including the IRS and the FDA, have military weapons, according to the OpenTheBooks Oversight Report The Militarization of America. Among the most intrusive programs, including the Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Safety Authority, do not disclose their weaponry budget.

Don’t say “Americans shouldn’t be allowed to buy guns” when what you mean is “citizens should only be allowed to buy guns for their rulers.”

The number of armed government officials with arrest and firearm authority has doubled since 1996. The US now has more armed “civilian” federal officers (200,000+) than US Marines (182,000). The IRS spends millions of taxpayer dollars annually on pump-action shotguns, AR-15 rifles, riot gear, and Special Forces contractors to train thousands of “special agents” in targeting American citizens. Local police, sheriffs, and state troopers have also been armed to wage war against American citizens. Battlefield weapons are being given to state and local police, allegedly to combat drug trafficking and fight terrorist threats at local pumpkin festivals. Military SWAT-style raids are used to serve search warrants for low-level drug possession, not hostage situations. Relatives and neighbors of alleged criminals have had government guns held to their children’s heads. Violations of civil rights, including illegal searches and the seizure of money and property without evidence of any crime, are commonplace.

Law enforcement requests military equipment directly from the Pentagon’s war-fighting machine: tanks, machine guns, rocket launchers, tear gas, camouflage, shields, and gas masks.  Military equipment is often purchased with civil asset forfeiture slush funds to bypass legislative appropriations challenges.

The high percentage of civilian law enforcement who are military veterans (one in five, by some estimates) compounds the cultural risks of treating average Americans like enemy combatants.

Showdowns between civilians and heavily armed agents of the state in FergusonBaltimore, the Oregon Wildlife Refuge, and at various other political protests across the country should remind us that gun control advocates won’t be reducing the number of guns so much as shifting them all into either federal or criminal hands.

The senseless murder in Las Vegas is a frighteningly familiar tragedy. But don’t say “Americans shouldn’t be allowed to buy guns” when what you mean is “citizens should only be allowed to buy guns for their rulers.”

Laura Williams

Laura Williams

Dr. Laura Williams teaches communication strategy to undergraduates and executives. She is a passionate advocate for critical thinking, individual liberties, and the Oxford Comma.

RELATED ARTICLE: Steve Scalise: Being a Victim of a Shooting Fortified My Support For The Second Amendment

The Australia Model for Gun Control Is Useless

The case of gun control advocates for the US to move to the Australia model for gun ownership is faulty at best.

by  Corey Iacono

In the wake of the mass shooting in Las Vegas, which left dozens dead and hundreds wounded, a great number of people have laid the blame on America’s relatively lax gun laws and alleged unwillingness to adopt “common sense” gun control.

In particular, gun control advocates tell us America could eliminate mass shootings if only we followed Australia’s lead.

The Australia Model

In Australia, after a horrific mass shooting in 1996, the national government introduced a mandatory buyback program which forced gun owners to sell certain firearms (mainly semi-automatic rifles and pump action shotguns) to the state, who promptly destroyed them.

This program, which resulted in the stock of civilian firearms in the country being reduced by approximately twenty percent, was effectively large-scale gun confiscation, as gun owners would have become criminals were they to withhold their firearms from the state.

Since the introduction of these measures, Australia’s firearm homicide rates have fallen and it has yet to witness a mass shooting. Because of these “results,” Australia has been constantly cited as a successful example of gun control in action.But the reality is much less simplistic than the narrative being promoted by gun control advocates.

Sure, there have been no mass shootings in Australia since it enacted gun control, but that hardly proves anything by itself. A 2011 study published in Justice Policy Journal compared the trends in mass shootings before and after 1996, when gun control was enacted, in Australia and New Zealand.

New Zealand is Australia’s neighbor and is very similar to it socioeconomically, but unlike Australia, it retained the legal availability of guns that were banned and confiscated in Australia in 1996. It thus served as a useful control group to observe whatever effects gun control had on mass shootings.

The authors of the study found that, after taking into account difference in population size, Australia and New Zealand did not have statistically different trends in mass shootings before or after 1996. Indeed, New Zealand has not had a mass shooting since 1997, “despite the availability in that country of firearms banned in Australia.”

Well, what about firearm homicides in general? Or firearm suicides?

These questions were answered by a 2016 American Medical Association (AMA) study, which examined trends in firearm homicides and suicides before and after the adoption of gun control in Australia in 1996. The authors found no evidence of a statically significant effect of gun control on the pre-existing downward trend of the firearm homicide rate.

This is in accordance with past research. For example, the authors of a paper published in the International Journal of Criminal Justice report that, “Although the total number of published peer-reviewed studies based on time series data remains relatively small (fewer than 15 studies, at the time of writing), none of these studies has found a significant impact of the Australian legislative changes on the pre-existing downward trend in firearm homicide.”

The authors of the AMA study did find that the decline in firearm suicide rates accelerated in the wake of gun control, but concluded that “it is not possible to determine whether the change in firearm deaths can be attributed to the gun law reforms” because the “decline in total non-firearm suicide and homicide deaths were of greater magnitude.”In other words, since non-firearm suicide rates were reduced to an even greater extent than firearm suicide rates in the wake of gun control, one cannot firmly conclude that gun control is the reason firearm suicide rates fell.

Basically, gun control advocates have built their entire case about Australian gun control on lazy data analysis, or perhaps no data analysis at all. If anything, Australia proves the complete opposite of what advocates of gun control want.

A national gun confiscation scheme which reduced the civilian firearm stock by an astounding twenty percent and nobody can seem to find any clear evidence it caused a meaningful effect on the firearm murder rate? That’s not only embarrassing, it goes against everything they believe about the nature of the relationship between guns and murder rates.

Corey Iacono

Corey Iacono is a student at the University of Rhode Island majoring in pharmaceutical science and minoring in economics. He is a FEE 2016 Thorpe Fellow.

VIDEO: Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin on Gun Control and the Las Vegas Massacre

The Daily Signal posted the below video on its YouTube channel:

President Trump in his statement immediately after the Las Vegas massacre said:

Our unity cannot be shattered by evil. Our bonds cannot be broken by violence. And though we feel such great anger at the senseless murder of our fellow citizens, it is our love that defines us today — and always will, forever.

In times such as these, I know we are searching for some kind of meaning in the chaos, some kind of light in the darkness. The answers do not come easy. But we can take solace knowing that even the darkest space can be brightened by a single light, and even the most terrible despair can be illuminated by a single ray of hope.

It seems that some people focus on the weapons of choice rather than the person committing the act of violence. Evil exists in this toxic environment where individuals and groups call for the killing of those who do not agree with them. Some Muslims have called for a holy war (jihad) against President Trump and his supporters.

Focus on the good. Reject evil. As President Trump said, “Scripture teaches us, “The Lord is close to the brokenhearted and saves those who are crushed in spirit.” We seek comfort in those words, for we know that God lives in the hearts of those who grieve. To the wounded who are now recovering in hospitals, we are praying for your full and speedy recovery, and pledge to you our support from this day forward.”

Embrace the light, reject the darkness.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Ann Coulter: Media Find Las Vegas Shooter’s Motive: He’s White!

FBI Warns Of More Violence From ‘Black Identity Extremist’ Groups

Vegas Massacre: Americans At Their Best…Politicians At Their Worst

While the evil massacre of 59 people in Las Vegas was immediately politicized by those wanting more gun control legislation — despite the reality that everything the killer did was already illegal — average Americans continued to shine in the crisis.

Just as Americans did in killer hurricanes in Texas and Florida. Just as we always do.

As the psychopath continued to fire on the defenseless crowd from the nearby Mandalay Hotel high rise, dozens and dozens of stories have emerged about ordinary people turned heroes in the midst of the deadly chaos.

Repeatedly, concert-goers stopped to help others, went back into the field of fire from safety to aid the wounded — consistently risking their own lives to save others, often strangers.

“There were so many people out there that you wouldn’t think they would be helping others at a time like that, but it wasn’t an ‘every man for himself’ kind of situation,” said Tiffany Michelle, who witnessed the massacre. “Everybody just sort of grabbed somebody around them and tried to do everything they could to get others out.”

Off-duty California firefighter Steve Keys was bent over a shooting victim and performing CPR when he was shot in the back. He is expected to survive.

Retired teacher Mike Cronk told ABC 13 that many concert-goers with and without first-aid training, worked together to help victims get to first-responders — often carrying them. Cronk said he used his shirt to stop the bleeding after his friend was shot three times. He and another woman helped him push his friend under the stage to safety. “I’m no hero,” he said. “But there’s a lot of heroes out there.”

A 29-year-old nurse from Tennessee, Sunny Melton, was at the concert with his wife. When the shots began, Melton stood behind his wife, sheltering her as he guided her toward safety away from the gunfire. He was fatally shot in the back as they neared safety. His wife survived.

Off-duty firefighter Kurt Fowler from Arizona was also protecting his wife by using his body as a shield and was shot, but is expected to recover.

Los Angeles firefighter Mark McCurdy was at the concert with his wife and her sister when the sister was shot. McCurdy carried his sister-in-law to the safety of their hotel room, and once his wife was also safe, he turned around and went back out into the killing field to help others.

In the middle of the night, just a few hours before the politicians climbed out of bed to begin tweeting and issuing statements dividing Americans, regular Nevadans began flooding blood donation centers because of the critical need for blood with more than 500 people wounded.

Las Vegas shooting victim Thomas Gunderson with POTUS and FLOTUS

Blood centers were jammed full by 4 a.m. Through the night, throughout the next day and the following, Nevadans kept giving blood.

A GoFundMe account was quickly established for the victims and within a day had gained more than $2 million. More than 30,000 people contributed, including the Oakland Raiders professional football team, which will be moving to Vegas.

And states jumped in to help, just as they did during the hurricanes.

Drawing on the hard lessons learned after the Pulse nightclub massacre last year in Orlando, Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi and members of her office are heading to Las Vegas at the request of the Nevada Attorney General to practically help victims of the nation’s latest mass killing.

“Sadly, (in) Florida we know what we’re doing after the Pulse nightclub,” Bondi said. “So many of the victims who died don’t live in Nevada, so help with burial and helping them get back to their respective states…We need to help them work through the legal process, connecting with their families and by getting them services.”

This is America. Not the sleazy, grandstanding politicians. Not the divisive National Anthem protests. Not Antifa or white supremacists. Not the rancor and division that is so prevalent now for political gain.

White, black, Hispanic, male, female were all at the concert, were all helping others and were all lined up at blood banks to help others. Let’s remember this America.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on The Revolutionary Act.

VIDEO: Here’s What a Gun Fired With a ‘Silencer’ Really Sounds Like

Eight hours after the mass shooting in Las Vegas began, which left nearly 60 dead and more than 500 wounded, Hillary Clinton turned the conversation political, tweeting about gun silencers. She said:

But would gun silencers make any difference in mass shootings? Last February, The Daily Signal traveled to the National Rifle Association to learn about gun silencers, also known as suppressors. Watch the video to hear the same firearms being fired both with and without silencers, and decide the sound effects for yourself.

Portrait of Kelsey HarknessKelsey Harkness

Kelsey Harkness is a senior news producer at The Daily Signal. Send an email to Kelsey. Twitter: @kelseyjharkness

RELATED ARTICLE: I used to think gun control was the answer. My research told me otherwise. – The Washington Post

A Note for our Readers:

Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.

Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.

Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.

The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.

Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.

Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.

You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.

SUPPORT THE DAILY SIGNAL

Kimmel to Clinton, Appalling Democrats Pounce on Massacre for Political Gain

It happens. Every…single…time. Another mass shooting, another mass effort by Democrats to squeeze out some political gain.

In these circumstances, this is beyond the pale of normal ugly politics. It’s vicious, cold-hearted, self-centered, void of common decency, almost a sickness in part because of the rapidity of the response.

Literally within hours of a psychopath in Las Vegas slaughtering 59 people and injuring more than 600 others at a country western concert, leading Democrats in Congress, the media and entertainment everywhere were falling all over themselves to get their holier-than-thou positioning out to the masses — well, their masses anyway. They had one overarching goal: Turn an act of human evil to their political advantage.

It is as Democrat Rahm Emanuel, former Obama advisor and current Chicago mayor, infamously said: “You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”

Democrats’ endless efforts to limit gun ownership and interpret the Second Amendment as essentially rifle hunting, continually fail because they cannot get such laws through Congress. There are never the votes and the American people largely get the Second Amendment. Further, the policy prescriptions after each mass shooting are never related to the shooting or would have prevented it — from Sandy Hook to Orlando to Las Vegas.

There are no reflections on the condition of human nature, on the reality of evil, on the price of freedom. No, these killings are all simply opportunity crises not to be wasted.

Going through just a sampling of the responses, it is clear that this is not some responsible “gun control” measures, but pure political opportunism, because none of them propose anything that either can pass or is not already illegal.

Democrats could have joined with Republicans to donate blood and call for blood donors, as the mayor of Las Vegas immediately said blood was desperately needed right after the massacre. This humane response in the following hours would have been a uniting action and maybe opened the door for legislative actions. But it would not have been politically advantageous.

So we got this.

Democratic Sen. Bernie Sanders tweeted: “It is long past time for Congress to take action on gun safety to save innocent lives.” Vacuous in content and relevance to the shooting; meant to score political points.

Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren tweeted a series of tweets: “Thoughts & prayers are NOT enough. Not when more moms & dads will bury kids this week, & more sons & daughters will grow up without parents. Tragedies like Las Vegas have happened too many times. We need to have the conversation about how to stop gun violence. We need it NOW.” But she doesn’t mean a true conversation, she means take guns away from Americans.

Democratic Sen. Ed Markey tweeted: “Let’s close the close the gun show loophole.” Yes, he was so anxious to get this out the morning after the night shooting, he fired off typos. But of course, when he tweeted this, he had no idea (and we  still don’t as of the writing of this) where the killer got his weapons. The “gun show loophole” isn’t any more real than me selling a gun to a friend “loophole” because all of the dealers in the gunshow must follow all of the normal laws. And there is no evidence that any mass shooting has been accomplished through this supposed loophole. Just gross opportunism.

Former Democratic Vice President Joe Biden tweeted: “How long do we let gun violence tear families apart? Enough. Congress & the WH should act now to save lives. There’s no excuse for inaction.” Just as vacuous as Sanders. No thought for cause, motive, the reality of evil. It’s all about the gun.

Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin tweeted: “The notion that there’s no way to prevent gun violence is false — and without action to stop gun attacks, Congress is complicit in them.” This is the height of politicizing absurdity considering the level of violence in Chicago and the fact that it has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation. No shame.

Democratic Congressman Seth Moulton is a special kind of ugly on this issue. After tweeting he would not participate in a moment of silence in Congress over the slaughtered Americans, he tweeted: “Thinking of everyone in #LasVegas, and praying Congress will have the courage to do more than stand in silence to commemorate them.” Using the word “prayer” to make a tasteless political statement while blood is still on the ground in Vegas is grotesque.

Moulton went on to say assault rifles “have no place on American streets.” Right. And they are already illegal. Machine guns, fully automatic weapons are illegal unless you have one grandfathered in from before 1986. Moulton knows this. Just egregious.

Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal said in a statement: “…Congress refuses to act. I am more than frustrated, I am furious.” Again, empty political posturing.

The biggest bogeyman in the Democratic failure to restrict gun rights for law-abiding Americans is the National Rifle Association.

So Hillary Clinton tweeted just a few hours after the shooting: “Our grief isn’t enough. We can and must put politics aside, stand up to the NRA, and work together to try to stop this from happening again,” Clinton wrote. Later in the day, it had 172,000 likes.

It’s important to remember in all of this rush for more gun control, the killer was apparently using a weapon that is already illegal. So…what exactly are they saying?

It’s not just Democrat politicians. It’s celebrities, who are overwhelmingly Democrat and far more unhinged.

Late Night comedian Jimmy Kimmel, who has become hyper-partisan on health care and now gun control (guaranteeing his ratings will drop) smeared vast swaths of America telling his audience that Congressional Republicans “should be praying for God to forgive them for letting the gun lobby run this country because it’s so crazy.” Sure, that will result in positive change. But Jimmy feels good about himself.

Singer and noted political commentator Lady Gaga tweeted: “Prayers are important but @SpeakerRyan @realDonaldTrump blood is on the hands of those who have power to legislate. #GunControl act quickly.” Sigh.

Alyssa Milano, who gets an awful lot wrong, tweeted: “Sensible gun control NOW.” Because it would have stopped this, or Orlando or Sandy Hook?

Singer Sheryl Crow, a light thinker among light thinkers, tweeted: “Can we discuss the loss of rights of people going to a concert because of the lack of assault rifle regulations?” Again…assault rifles have been banned since 1986.

Actress Sophia Bush tweeted:

“Dear Donald.

Fuck you for this.
Truly.
Sincerely,
America”

Reaching for the Clinton bogeyman, House of Cards creator Beau Willimon‏ tweeted: “Don’t bring politics into the Las Vegas shooting? Okay, we’ll stop with the politics as soon as politicians stop taking money from the @NRA

It’s not newsworthy but requires pointing out that, of course, the mainstream media immediately went all in on gun control with their Democrat allies. Before motive, cause, gun type, legality of ownership — before any facts were established — the media hammered every Republican and White House spokesperson possible on gun control.

And of course, throughout all of these, the vitriolic Trump hatred is right at the surface. CNN’s senior White House correspondent Jeff Zeleny inexplicably said in his post-Trump speech “analysis:” “Something else, I think, to keep in mind — a lot of these country music supporters are likely Trump supporters.” Wow. Just wow.

The problem with this is threefold:

  1. Going partisan political within hours of the massacre to play on raw emotion is repulsive behavior.
  2. Seeking policy changes before any information is known on which to base policy changes inevitably results in bad policy.
  3. These actions immediately polarized Americans again when there could have been a moment of unity. When there might be opportunity to reach out and make whatever changes Democrats think are good, they instead went into high dudgeon attack mode, guaranteed to turn off anyone who might have considered working with them.

And this means among the politicians anyway it was all aimed at political gain. Period.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on The Revolutionary Act.

Here’s the Truth About Gun Control and Crime

Former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton took to Twitter to call for gun control shortly after a mass shooting took place in Las Vegas.

“The crowd fled at the sound of gunshots. Imagine the deaths if the shooter had a silencer, which the NRA wants to make easier to get,” Hillary Clinton tweeted.

“Our grief isn’t enough. We can and must put politics aside, stand up to the NRA, and work together to try to stop this from happening again,” she added.

The horrific mass shooting in Las Vegas began around 10 p.m. local time, or 1 a.m. EST. Eight hours later, Clinton dropped her tweets.

And she wasn’t the only one to quickly promote gun control in light of the terrible news about the shooting, which has left at least 58 dead and another 500 wounded.

While the facts are still entirely unsettled as of this writing, that didn’t stop gun control activists from immediately jumping to conclusions or answers on how to fix everything.

And while too little is known about the Las Vegas shooting to make judgments about what could or could not have prevented it, the reality is that gun ownership does not lead to more crime in the United States.

Yet, in the chaotic wake of the horrific mass shooting that took the lives of at least 50 in Las Vegas, proponents of gun control quickly turned the event to fit their agenda.

For instance, Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., accused those who didn’t act on shootings of “cowardice.”

And there were numerous other hot takes from nonelected politicos and celebrities that veered into various levels of blaming gun rights supporters for allowing events like Las Vegas to happen.

And all of this before even the most basic facts have been ascertained. The Associated Press reported that ISIS claimed responsibility for the shooting, but the FBI says there is no connection. The details of the case are simply a confusing mess and it is difficult to ascertain the shooter’s motives, how he acquired the firearm(s), or even what firearm(s) he used to conduct the attack.

While it is unwise to draw too many conclusions about what happened in Las Vegas, in the face of the relentless assault on gun rights and misinformation it is important to note some false narratives that have been spread in the last 24 hours.

Take Clinton’s claim about silencers. She was immediately denounced for this statement as being “ignorant” of how suppressors work. Even a Washington Post reporter wrote that the debate over silencers “isn’t really relevant” to what happened in Las Vegas.

And both The Washington Post’s fact-checker Glenn Kessler and conservative pundit Dana Loesch pushed back on Clinton’s claim:

study released earlier this year by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives found that while there were 1.3 million registered suppressors in the country last year, there were only 44 suppressor-related crimes recommended for prosecution.

The details about the weapons the shooter used are still not clear, but some have called for a ban on automatic weapons—basically machine guns—on top of other gun control measures.

However, federal laws dating back to the 1930s already on the books strictly regulate the sale and purchase of these kinds of firearms.

Sean Davis at The Federalist did an excellent job of explaining how tightly controlled automatic weapon sales are in the United States:

Only licensed entities are permitted to manufacture, sell, or own [fully automatic weapons]. Private civilian ownership of machine guns is illegal unless the individual has been explicitly permitted by the federal ATF to own them. All fully automatic weapons must be registered with the federal government in a central registry with no exceptions.

There is also a tax on these items—and they’re not cheap since only weapons produced before 1986 are allowed to be sold.

Of course, with the right tools and skills, it is still possible to create a fully automatic weapon, which some experts say may have been what the Las Vegas shooter did to carry out his murders.

Nevertheless, these weapons are incredibly difficult to obtain.

The events that took place in Las Vegas on Sunday night were an atrocity. But it must be noted that wicked individuals have found ways to conduct mass murder and terrorism through a variety of means both legal and illegal: guns, knivesacid, planes, and trucks.

The list goes on and on.

As numerous studies have shown, gun ownership is not necessarily connected to crime rates, and in fact may make crime go down. A 2016 report from the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action noted that:

As gun ownership has risen to an all-time high, the nation’s total violent crime rate has fallen to a 44-year low and the murder rate has fallen to an all-time low. Since 1991, when violent crime hit an all-time high, the nation’s violent crime rate and its murder rate have decreased by more than half, as Americans have acquired over 170 million new guns, roughly doubling the number of privately owned guns in the United States.

Furthermore, concealed carry permit holders are among the most law-abiding of any demographic group in America.

For these reasons and many others, gun control has fizzled as an issue even as its proponents continue to push the narrative.

The fact is, a majority of Americans just don’t see gun control as the answer to crime, violence, and terrorism.

As Gov. Matt Bevin, R-Ky., put it on Twitter, we live in a fallen world and ultimately can’t regulate evil.

Sometimes, in the face of horror, there are no policies or prescriptions that apply besides the courage and sacrifice of those who are good.

COMMENTARY BY

A Note for our Readers:

Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.

Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.

Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.

The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.

Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.

Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.

You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.

SUPPORT THE DAILY SIGNAL

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is by Dominic Chan/Sipa USA/Newscom.