Dianne Feinstein Wants to Ban Commonly Owned Semi-Autos, Again!

On Wednesday, Senator Dianne Feinstein introduced S. 2095, which she is calling the Assault Weapons Ban of 2017. The 125-page firearm prohibition fever dream is perhaps the most far-reaching gun ban ever introduced in Congress.

Subject to an exception for “grandfathered” firearms, the bill would prohibit AR-15s and dozens of other semi-automatic rifles by name (as well as their “variants” or “altered facsimiles”), and any semi-automatic rifle that could accept a detachable magazine and be equipped with a pistol grip, an adjustable or detachable stock, or a barrel shroud. And that’s just a partial list. “Pistol grip” would be defined as “a grip, a thumbhole stock, or any other characteristic that can function as a grip,” meaning the ban could implicate even traditional stocks or grips specifically designed to comply with existing state “assault weapon” laws.

Needless to say, semi-automatic shotguns and handguns would get similar treatment.

Also banned would be any magazine with a capacity of greater than 10 rounds or even any magazine that could be “readily restored, changed, or converted to accept” more than 10 rounds.

While Feinstein’s bill would graciously allow those who lawfully owned the newly-banned guns at the time of the law’s enactment to keep them, it would impose strict storage requirements any time the firearm was not actually in the owner’s hands or within arm’s reach. Violations would be punishable (of course) by imprisonment.

Owners of grandfathered “assault weapons” could also go to prison for allowing someone else to borrow or buy the firearm, unless the transfer was processed through a licensed firearms dealer. The dealer would be required to document the transaction and run a background check on the recipient.

Should lawful owners of the newly-banned firearms and magazines decide that the legal hazards of keeping them were too much, the bill would authorize the use of taxpayer dollars in the form of federal grants to establish programs to provide “compensation” for their surrender to the government.

This bill is nothing more than a rehash of Feinstein’s failed experiment in banning “assault weapons” and magazines over 10 rounds.  Except this time, Feinstein would like to go even further in restricting law-abiding Americans’ access to firearms and magazines that are commonly owned for lawful self-defense.

The congressionally-mandated study of the federal “assault weapon ban” of 1994-2004 found that the ban had little, if any, impact on crime, in part because “the banned guns were never used in more than a modest fraction” of firearm related crime.

Don’t let Dianne Feinstein infringe on our Second Amendment rights with a policy that’s been proven to do nothing to stop crime. Please contact your U.S. Senators and encourage them to oppose S. 2095.

You can contact your U.S. Senators by phone at (202) 224-3121, or click here to Take Action.

EXCLUSIVE: Texas Massacre Hero, Stephen Willeford, Describes Stopping Gunman | Louder With Crowder

An exclusive interview with Stephen Willeford, the hero who ended the killing spree in Sutherland Springs, Texas. Stephen recounts the actions that lead him to confronting Devin Patrick Kelley outside First Baptist Church of Sutherland Springs.

The Conservative Review’s Jordan Schachtel reports:

plumber by trade, the 55-year-old Willeford shot and struck Kelley, who then dropped his rifle proceeded to flee the scene. But Willeford and a local driver pursued and, during the car chase, Kelley’s truck flipped and went into a ditch, Willeford said. Kelley was pronounced dead at the scene.

In the aftermath of the mass carnage, many on the Left predictably took to blaming the NRA and all gun-rights advocates.

But now we know that it was an NRA-affiliated man who heroically answered the call and took action before even more pain and suffering could be inflicted on innocent lives.

RELATED ARTICLE: Why I Pray, Even After the Texas Shooting

In 2014 Pat Robertson Endorsed Guns in Churches, Secularist Outraged

How prophetic that in September 2014 broadcaster, humanitarian, author, Christian, businessman and statesman Pat Robertson endorsed the idea that Christians must arm themselves, not only because they should, but that they are called to in the Holy Bible.

In Luke 22:36–38 Jesus used the following to describe self-defense:

36 He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. 37 For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: k‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me has its fulfillment.” 38 And they said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords.” And he said to them, “It is enough.”

James B. Jordan in his 1984 book The Law and the Covenant: An Exposition of Exodus 21-23 wrote:

Under pagan influence, Western civilization has sometimes adopted a notion of ‘fair fighting.’ There is no such thing as a fairfight. The notion of a fair fight is Satanic and barbarous. If a child or a man finds himself in a situation where an appeal to arbitration is not possible, he should fight with all he has. If the neighborhood bully catches your child on the way home from school, and your child cannot escape by fleeing, your child should poke a hole in him with a sharp pencil, or kick him in the groin. If the bully’s parents will not restrain him, call the police.

If you or your child has been trained in self defense, of course, you may be able to dispatch your assailant with a minimum of force. Always realize, though, that the man who attacks you, or your wife, has forfeited all his rights to ‘fair’ treatment. Women should be prepared to gouge out the eyes of any man who attacks them.

“Women should be prepared to gouge out the eyes of any man who attacks them” are prophetic words given the revelations of rape, incest and pederasts in Hollywood and the media.

Kyle Kulinski who describes himself on his YouTube channel as a “Liberal Radio Host. Social Democrat. Agnostic-Atheist. Secular Humanist. Loyal to the Facts. Principles over Politicians.” posted the below video commentary about Pat Robertson endorsing guns in churches:

In the video Kulinski, a self proclaimed agnostic-atheist, mocks Robertson using a Southern accent, saying that the idea that only good people with guns can stop bad people with guns is wrong. But that is exactly what happened in 2014 and again in 2017 at the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas. In Sutherland Springs two armed Texans pursued Devin Kelly, another self-identified atheist, until Kelly was driven off the road. It appears Kelly, while wounded by one of the Texans, took his own life.

Kulinski states that Harvard research shows that the idea of guns stop violence is wrong. All of the Harvard research studies focus on gun ownership and not the person who either committed a crime using a gun, shot a police officer using a gun and those who committed suicide using a gun. It’s not the gun that kills a person, it is the person who has a gun, either legally or illegally who uses a gun as either the weapon of choice or convenience, that commits the evil act of murder. Focusing on the person, such as the dishonorably discharged Devin Kelly who had weapons illegally according to U.S. Code, is the issue that Kulinski gets sort of when he says that Robertson assumes only good people have guns. But that is not what Robertson said at all.

The Washington Post’s Todd C. Frankel after the shooting in Las Vegas reported:

But one reason the positions [like Kulinski’s and Robertson’s] are so intractable is that no one really knows what works to prevent gun deaths. Gun-control research in the United States essentially came to a standstill in 1996.

After 21 years, the science is stale.

“In the area of what works to prevent shootings, we know almost nothing,” Mark Rosenberg, who, in the mid-1990s, led the CDC’s gun-violence research efforts, said shortly after the San Bernardino shooting in 2015.

While in Japan, President Trump called Kelly a “very deranged individual” saying:

Fortunately somebody else had a gun that was shooting in the opposite direction otherwise … it would have been much worse. This is a mental health problem at the highest level.

Correct Mr. President. These are mentally deranged people. As the President said, “This act of evil occurred as the victims and the families were in their place of sacred worship. We cannot put into words the pain and grief we all feel.”

Are there no safe places anymore for Christians? Will other atheists, who listen to Kulinski’s Secular Talk Show, take it upon themselves to rid the world of other Christians? That’s the issue that must be researched.

RELATED ARTICLE: Current Gun Laws Should Have Made It Impossible for Texas Shooter to Buy Gun

City of Chicago Uses Trace Report to Deflect From Its Own Failed Governance

This week brought more proof that Chicago’s feckless public officials have perfected the art of scapegoating.

On Sunday, the city released the second edition of its Gun Trace Report. The document presents a host of ATF trace data on firearms recovered in the crime-plagued metropolis and attempts to shift blame for the city’s violence to the Illinois General Assembly, the state legislatures of neighboring and far-flung states, federally licensed firearms dealers, and the U.S. Congress. Lacking any introspection, the report fails to acknowledge any role the city might bear for its current predicament.

At the outset, the report asserts that in relation to crime perpetrated with firearms, “Chicago is in many ways a microcosm of a national epidemic.” This is not true. In 2016, Chicago’s murder rate was more than five times the national average. Moreover, Chicago’s murder problem is so acute that it drives statistical analysis of urban violence nationwide. Research from the NYU School of Law’s Brennan Center for Justice published in December 2016, noted, “The 2016 murder rate is projected to be 14 percent higher than last year in the 30 largest cities. Chicago is projected to account for 43.7 percent of the total increase in murders.”

Bizarrely, after calling the city a “microcosm” of a national gun problem, the report then contends that “Chicago faces a unique predicament in enforcement efforts against illegal gun trafficking. Illinois is surrounded by states that lack comprehensive firearms regulations…” First, trace data shows that Illinois is far and away the largest source state for guns recovered in Chicago; with double the number of firearms of the next highest source state. Second, without conceding to Chicago’s definition of “comprehensive,” the geographers at Chicago City Hall might be surprised to learn that California abuts pro-gun states Arizona and Nevada, while New York is adjacent to Vermont and Pennsylvania. Yet, Los Angeles and New York City’s murder rates are a fraction of the Windy City’s.

Despite their contention that out of state private firearms transfers fuel Chicago’s violent crime, a significant portion of the report targets federal licensed firearms dealers, who are required by federal law to conduct a background check prior to transferring a firearm. The report lists the top 10 gun dealers that firearms recovered in Chicago are traced to. Undermining the report’s contention that loose foreign gun laws are to blame for the city’s problems, “seven of the top ten source dealers are within Illinois.”

To remedy this situation, the report promotes the state-level dealer licensing requirements embodied in the Gun Dealer Licensing Act, which is currently making its way through the Illinois General Assembly. According to the report, “adding state and local law enforcement could greatly enhance regulatory enforcement over gun dealers” and the measure’s requirement to video record all business in a gun store will “deter straw purchasers.”

It is not clear how city officials expect this to reduce the illegal acquisition of firearms. Under current Illinois law, residents must acquire a Firearm Owners Identification Card in order to possess or purchase a firearm. Therefore, prospective straw purchasers must make their identities known to the state government and a dealer in order to purchase a firearm from a gun store. That sale is also documented in the dealer’s records, as required by federal law. A criminal already willing to be documented in this manner is unlikely concerned with how often a dealer’s books are audited for paperwork errors or the superfluous video recordation of his criminal acts. The chief effect of this dealer licensing legislation is to make the business of legally selling firearms prohibitively expensive.

The report also advocates for a state law restricting private transfers between FOID holders, and firearms registration. Missing from the report is any explanation of why those who would divert firearms into the criminal market, who have already displayed a willingness to expose themselves to severe state and federal criminal liability, would be deterred by these additional measures.

As ATFNRA, and the National Shooting Sports Foundation have acknowledged, straw purchasers are a real problem. However, an effective means of thwarting straw purchasers would be to prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law.

Illinois already has an “unlawful purchase of a firearm” statute that targets anyone “who knowingly purchases or attempts to purchase a firearm with the intent to deliver that firearm to another person who is prohibited by federal or State law from possessing a firearm.” Violation of this statute in relation to the purchase of a single firearm carries a maximum sentence of seven years in prison. Further, Illinois law requires a private individual who transfers a firearm to determine the transferee’s status as a FOID holder. Failure to do so can carry a sentence of up to three years in prison.

In what the Chicago police called “not an uncommon example” of straw purchasing, in September 2016, police arrested 22-year-old Simone Mousheh for selling two guns to a gang-affiliated man in Chicago. Reports indicated that Mousheh was “aware that he did not possess an FOID card and that he was on probation for domestic battery.” One of the firearms Mousheh sold was later recovered from a juvenile on Chicago’s West Side. Following a guilty plea, Mousheh was sentenced to 15 days in an alternative work program, 12 months of probation, and a $679 fine.

This sort of lackluster enforcement of existing gun laws might be why a Cook County Jail inmate told a researcher in 2013, “All they need is one person who got a gun card in the ‘hood’ and everybody got one.”

Chicago’s trace report also raises important questions about the permissible use of ATF trace data. Since 2003, Congress has restricted the use of trace data under the “Tiahrt Amendment.” Named after former U.S. Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.), the amendment permits federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies to have trace data “in connection with and for use in a bona fide criminal investigation or prosecution.” ATF and the Fraternal Order of Police support the Tiahrt Amendment as public disclosure of trace data could imperil ongoing law enforcement investigations, and according to FOP National President Chuck Canterbury, “threaten[s] the safety of officers and witnesses.”

ATF has taken issue with the use of trace data in Chicago’s recent report. A report from Michael Bloomberg anti-gun mouthpiece The Trace, cites an email from ATF spokeswoman Marky Markos who wrote that the Chicago report was “a prohibited use of the data.” Markos also pointed out that, “Through the eTrace [Memorandum of Understanding], parties agree that no data will be publicly disseminated, and that it is law enforcement sensitive information as it relates to criminal investigations.” eTrace is an online trace request submission module for law enforcement agencies.

Chicago issued a flippant response to ATF’s charges. Offering a creative interpretation of when it is necessary to comply with federal law, Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s spokesman, Adam Collins, stated, “This is just classic… The Trump administration is arguing it would be better to hide the facts on the deadly effects of gun trafficking than partner on a solution? Well, burying your head in the sand won’t change the truth and it won’t solve the problem.”

It is ironic that Chicago would accuse the Trump administration of “burying [their] head in the sand” on this issue. The discouraging truth about Chicago’s violence is that it is the product of a host of societal factors – including a lack of vigorous criminal prosecution – that cannot be remedied by a change to the current gun laws. Faced with this complex problem, Chicago’s public officials have repeatedly chosen to disparage their fellow Illinoisans and law-abiding gun owners throughout the country, rather than rise to meet the challenge. The city officials’ continued refusal to confront their own shortcomings and the city’s more intractable problems only serves to prolong the suffering of Chicago’s 2.7 million residents.

From Kneeling to Stepping On Freedom

Why kneel in disrespect to the flag when you can stand and trample the Constitution? That appears to be the thinking, at least, of the NFL’s San Francisco 49ers football team.

Let’s face it, the team does not have a lot going for it these days. With a losing streak currently standing at 0-7, they recently posted a questionnaire asking fans how important it was for them to even win games. Even more problematic, the team has been at the epicenter of a controversy concerning the NFL and divisive on-field national anthem protests.

These protests started last fall with former team quarterback Colin Kaepernick’s decision to first sit, then kneel, during the pre-game tradition of singing the national anthem, in order to protest alleged social injustice.  Kaepernick’s actions spawned similar “kneeling protests” across the NFL and other sports leagues. Those protests, along with Kaepernick’s decision to wear socks depicting police officers as pigs, have in turn helped crater NFL ratings.

Now the 49ers have “upped the ante”, following in the footsteps of recently disgraced Hollywood media mogul Harvey Weinstein by targeting the Second Amendment and advocating for gun control legislation in order to change the narrative and deflect attention from the team’s substantial problems. The 49ers announced this week that the team is pledging $500,000 towards a campaign “which will advocate for legislation banning ‘bump stocks’ and other mechanisms that allow semi automatic weapons to become automatic weapons, as well as silencers and armor piercing bullets.”

Such anti-gun advocacy will almost certainly stir the ire of an already frustrated fan base who, as ratings indicate, want to keep politics out of sports.  Perhaps the feeling is that because San Francisco has long been among the nation’s leading bastions of anti-gun fervor, this move would be seen as positive by a weakening fan base.  But, we remind NFL leadership of the dangerous trap-door that all too many have failed to see.  Put simply, ticket-paying fans have no interest in further incorporating divisive political issues into packaged entertainment, and this includes football and other sporting events.

But don’t take our word for it, just ask Hollywood.  Last year, Miss Sloane, a political thriller starring Jessica Chastain, was widely lauded by anti-gun elites and gun control advocates for taking on the NRA, but was among the top 100 worst box-office releases of the last 35 years.

While the merits of kneeling during the national anthem to forward a social agenda will continue to be debated, the intention of the 49ers, at least in this case, is clear.  Taking a knee is no longer enough; now they are willing to push for restrictions on our Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

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

RELATED ARTICLE: Bump Stock Ban Fails in Deep-Blue Illinois

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.