Posts

EXCLUSIVE VIDEO: ‘Black Guns Matter’ — The Racist History Of Gun Control

Gun control is pushed endlessly by the left as a way to decrease violence and save lives, but many people aren’t aware of the gun control movement’s sordid, racist history.

In this Daily Caller Productions video, black gun rights activists explain how gun control efforts evolved from “Slave Codes” that banned slaves from owning weapons before the Civil War to “Black Codes” that targeted freed slaves for disarmament to today’s gun control measures that leave majority-black inner-city residents vulnerable to criminal predators.

“The genesis of gun control was designed to keep guns out of the hands of black people,” gun rights activist Colion Noir said. “The last thing that they want to do is prop up a message that demonstrates to the very people they rely on to gain their power is the idea that we utilized the very thing they are trying to ban to gain our freedom or to protect our families back during the time period where we needed them the most.”

The video describes how these measures were fought and ultimately overcome by freedom-loving Americans.

VIDEO BY:

DAILY CALLER PRODUCTIONS

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Diversity In Gun Ownership Nothing New To The Firearm Industry

Riot Declared In Portland As 73rd Day Of Protests Results In Fire At Police Union Building

Lindsey Graham: Memo Shows FBI Lied To Senate About Dossier Source

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller video is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

2020 Democratic Party Platform Declares Total War on Second Amendment Rights

The national Democratic Party is no longer making any attempt to hide their antipathy towards guns and gun owners. Where once the party attempted to tailor their anti-gun messaging to appear moderate and appeal to some gun owners, the draft 2020 Democratic Party Platform contains a full-throated assault on firearms ownership and a blueprint for undermining every aspect of Second Amendment rights. Viewed in historical context, the draft 2020 Democratic Party Platform is the most anti-gun the party has ever put forward.

Released July 21, the draft platform contains the following passage:

Democrats will enact universal background checks, end online sales of guns and ammunition, close dangerous loopholes that currently allow stalkers and some individuals convicted of assault or battery to buy and possess firearms, and adequately fund the federal background check system. We will close the “Charleston loophole” and prevent individuals who have been convicted of hate crimes from possessing firearms. Democrats will ban the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high capacity magazines. We will incentivize states to enact licensing requirements for owning firearms and “red flag” laws that allow courts to temporarily remove guns from the possession of those who are a danger to themselves or others. We will pass legislation requiring that guns be safely stored in homes. And Democrats believe that gun companies should be held responsible for their products, just like any other business, and will prioritize repealing the law that shields gun manufacturers from civil liability.

The proposals include so-called “universal” background checks, the elimination of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System’s three-day safety -valve provision, and gun owner licensing, which would turn the right to keep and bear arms into a privilege dependent on the whim of government bureaucrats. The Democrats would empower government intrusions into the home to dictate how Americans keep and store firearms for self-defense and to confiscate firearms without due process based on the flimsiest of evidentiary standards. Moreover, the draft platform calls for a ban on commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms and their magazines, something explicitly prohibited under the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment in District of Columbia v. Heller.

Another portion of the platform states, “Democrats will also ensure the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have sufficient resources to study gun violence as a public health issue.” At a time when the politically-biased Centers for Disease Control has come under severe criticism for its response to an actual communicable disease, the national Democratic Party platform would further distract the agency from its core mission by turning it back into a taxpayer-funded gun control factoid factory.

The gun control section of the draft 2020 Democratic platform is an escalation of the anti-gun position put forward in the 2016 platform, adding and expounding upon the positions in the earlier document. Both are notable for what they omit. Neither recognizes that Americans have a Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms

As recently as 2012, the national Democratic Party was willing to acknowledge that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to arms – something understood by the vast majority of Americans and the U.S. Supreme Court. The 2012 Democratic platform explained:

We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans’ Second Amendment right to own and use firearms.

Similarly, the 2008 Democratic platform noted:

We recognize that the right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans’ Second Amendment right to own and use firearms.

The 2004 Democratic platform stated:

We will protect Americans’ Second Amendment right to own firearms… 

Although the 2000 Democratic platform did not cite the Second Amendment, the platform stated that the party sought to regulate firearms “in ways that respect the rights of hunters, sportsmen, and legitimate gun owners.”

Earlier Democratic platforms (1996199219801976) often offered language meant to assure hunters and target shooters that their rights would not come under threat.

The Democrats’ inclusion of Second Amendment language in the platforms of the early 2000s wasn’t by mistake. After George W. Bush defeated Al Gore in the 2000 presidential election, there was a concerted effort by Democrats to moderate, or at least give the appearance of moderating, the prevailing party positions on gun control in order to better reflect the American electorate’s respect for gun rights. For instance, in 2002, the Washington Post reported on a Democratic Senate caucus retreat at which “several” senators suggested a move away from gun control. According to the item, this prompted freshman Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) to “[urge] her colleagues to keep their positions but change their language to be less inflammatory to swing voters.” In the mid-2000s Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Rahm Emanuel also sought to shift the party’s anti-gun perception.

With the nomination of Clinton in 2016, the pretense that the national Democratic Party would respect Second Amendment rights was no longer tenable.

During the campaign, Clinton repeatedly attacked the individual right to keep and bear arms. She even attacked the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Heller, which recognized the individual right to arms. Clinton told the audience at a September 2015 fundraiser in New York City “the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment. And I am going to make that case every chance I get.” At a separate event in Connecticut, the former senator called Heller “a terrible decision.” When asked by ABC’s George Stephanopolous to clarify her position on the Second Amendment, the former first lady refused to acknowledge that it protects an individual right.

Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden’s persistent attacks on gun owners also make platform language in support of the Second Amendment indefensible.

The career politician has endorsed the confiscation of commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms. Biden had the following exchange with CNN’s Anderson Cooper when asked about firearm confiscation during an August 5, 2019 interview:

Cooper: So, to gun owners out there who say well a Biden administration means they are going to come for my guns.

Biden: Bingo! You’re right if you have an assault weapon.

Further, while attending a private $500 a person fundraiser in November, Biden revealed his intent to ban 9mm pistols. According to an article from the Seattle Times, while at the soiree, the 77-year-old posited to attendees “Why should we allow people to have military-style weapons including pistols with 9mm bullets and can hold 10 or more rounds?”

The U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that the Second Amendment prohibits the gun bans Biden advocates.

In Heller, the Court concluded that the types of firearms protected by the Second Amendment include those “in common use at the time” for “lawful purposes like self-defense.” The AR-15, which Biden has made clear he seeks to ban, is the most popular rifle in America and therefore undoubtedly “in common use” and protected by the Second Amendment. Similarly, industry data shows that 9mm pistols are the most common type of pistol produced.

In 2015, Heller decision author Justice Antonin Scalia reiterated that the Second Amendment and Heller preclude so-called “assault weapons” bans when he signed onto a dissent from the denial of certiorari in Friedman v. Highland Park. In the dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas explained,

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles [with many millions more owning them in 2020]. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons.

The gun control section of the draft 2020 Democratic Party Platform is a perfect fit for the party’s presumptive presidential nominee. Both the platform drafters and the former vice president have put forward a radical gun control agenda that would further burden every aspect of gun ownership. Above all, both have exhibited a complete disregard for the Second Amendment.

RELATED ARTICLE: Black Lives Matter Founder: DNC Platform Must Call for Defunding Police, Abolishing ICE – American Renaissance

EDITORS NOTE: This NRA-ILA column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

No Surprise That Gun Prohibitionists Endorse Clinton

BELLEVUE, Wash. /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Today’s endorsement of Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton by two major gun prohibition lobbying groups should come as no surprise, considering her highly-publicized attacks on the Second Amendment, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said in response.

As reported by the New York Times, Everytown for Gun Safety President John Feinblatt declared in a prepared statement, “Gun Sense Voters have a champion in Hillary Clinton. Our litmus test is simple: does a candidate side with the public or with the gun lobby? Hillary Clinton passes that test with flying colors.”

“It’s no surprise that the gun prohibition lobby has a litmus test based on erosion of the Second Amendment, and it is less of a surprise that Hillary Clinton passed it with flying colors,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “If there were any remaining doubts among American voters about Clinton’s intentions if she wins in November, these endorsements make it clear that she is determined to rip the right to keep and bear arms from the American fabric.”

Early last fall, Clinton was caught on audio at a private fund raiser declaring that “The Supreme Court was wrong on the Second Amendment.” Gottlieb said today’s endorsements by Everytown and Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America – two organizations supported by anti-gun billionaire Michael Bloomberg – amount to “damning proof” that a Clinton presidency would pose a direct threat to the individual right to keep and bear arms.

“Today’s Washington Examiner noted that Clinton has promised to push gun control on her very first day in office,” Gottlieb noted. “That’s not a sign of leadership. It’s a symptom of fanaticism against a fundamental individual civil right.

“Throughout her public career,” he observed, “Hillary Clinton has never been a friend of gun owners, and today’s double endorsement merely confirms that she is their avowed enemy.”

ABOUT THE CITIZENS COMMITTEE FOR THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS

With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is one of the nation’s premier gun rights organizations. As a non-profit organization, the Citizens Committee is dedicated to preserving firearms freedoms through active lobbying of elected officials and facilitating grass-roots organization of gun rights activists in local communities throughout the United States.

RELATED ARTICLES:

NRA Response to Gun Control Lobby’s Endorsement of Hillary Clinton

Hard-line Hillary Bashes Heller Again! Calls Supreme Court’s Decision “Terrible”

“Journalists” Renew Attack Upon “Assault Weapons”

What “Strong Case” for Gun Registration?

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is courtesy of the National Rifle Association.

Obama’s Executive Clemency Program Putting Firearm Offenders on the Streets

We’ve often mentioned that President Obama, despite his insistent shaming of America over its supposed lack of gun regulation, has shown little interest in enforcing the gun control laws already on the books.

But it gets worse. A lot worse.

Information has now arisen that the Obama administration is granting executive clemency to dozens of felons imprisoned for firearm-related offenses, some whose crimes involved possessing or using a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking crimes. These criminals will for the most part be released back into the very communities that they exploited and victimized with their offenses.

The revelations were detailed in a March 31 letter from Sen. Richard C. Shelby (R-AL) to U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch. According to the letter, of more than 200 federal inmates granted release under the president’s initiative for executive clemency, “33 were convicted of firearm-related offenses.”

These include, according to the letter:

  • Seven convictions of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime;
  • Four convictions of possession of a firearm by a felon; and
  • Two convictions of use of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense.

Sen. Shelby expressed his frustration with the administration’s actions:

Communities in my state, like other towns and cities all over America, are working hard to clean up their streets and make their communities safer. This is a constant struggle for some areas. Yet, this announcement from the President sends an unfortunate and resounding message to criminals everywhere: if you are convicted of a crime involving a gun, the federal government will go easy on you.

The president’s moves seem to be a glaring contradiction to his assertion last year that “the one area where I’ve been most frustrated and most stymied … is the fact that the United States of America is the one advanced nation on earth in which we do not have sufficient common sense gun laws.”

Surely Obama’s advisors have apprised him of the hundreds of federal gun control laws already on the books. So you would think he’d be using every tool at his disposal to deal with the violent crime that, for example, plagues his own home town in particular.

But rather than focus on violent criminals, Obama’s most recent and highly-touted gun control offensive targeted hobbyists and collectors who make occasional gun sales, licensed dealers, and expanding the attack on veterans to include Social Security recipients. 

But rather than focus on violent criminals, Obama’s most recent and highly-touted gun control offensive targeted hobbyists and collectors who make occasional gun sales, licensed dealers, and expanding the attack on veterans to include Social Security recipients.

Sen. Shelby’s letter raised questions about whether the administration is following its own guidelines in the granting of executive clemency. These include prioritizing applicants who “are non-violent, low-level offenders without significant ties to large scale criminal organizations, gangs or cartels” and who “do not have a significant criminal history.”

The administration’s actions would seem to point inescapably to two possible conclusions. One possibility is that the president really is allowing dangerous criminals back out on the streets of their communities. If that’s the case, then his actions are reckless and irresponsible and gamble with innocent lives for the sake of politics.

Another is that he genuinely believes that individuals who use or possess guns to perpetrate drug crimes are not really a threat to public safety. If that’s true, then he is dangerously misinformed. It also makes his obsessive focus on purely technical violations of gun control laws – e.g., re-categorizing hobbyists as “dealers,” banning veterans from possessing firearms, and recently expanding the attack on veterans to include Social Security recipients – seem even more like political persecution and less like serious crime control.

Whatever the case may be, President Obama’s latest moves merely add to his reputation as more interested in style than substance.

This November, voters should carefully consider whether Obama’s would-be successor really has their best interests at heart or whether, like Obama, the next president would vilify his or her political opponents, while simultaneously coddling the very criminals that put innocent lives at risk.

VIDEO: Gun Control Propaganda Debunked

A thorough debunking of the propaganda presented by Vox in their video on gun control and “mass shootings” in the U.S.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Scotland Gun Control: Where Nightmares Are Reality

Gun Violence Is a Serious Problem – Gun Confiscation Isn’t a Serious Solution

The Evil of Gun-free Zones

EDITORS NOTE: Read more at http://LouderWithCrowder.com including all sources at http://louderwithcrowder.com/vox-gun-…

You Can Take the Word Liberal From Me When You Pry It From My Cold, Dead Mouth by Jeffrey Tucker

I was in the middle of  a nice discussion with the man behind the counter at the firing range. He was surrounded by semi-automatic weapons and hundreds of handguns in the display case that separated us. I used the opportunity to tap his expertise, mostly because I don’t keep up with gun issues enough.

He explained to me the absurdity of the ban on automatic weapons, how and why it is that there is really no such thing as an “assault rifle,” and a bit about regulations on magazine size. He informed me that Clinton’s partial ban on assault rifles expired in 2004 due to a sunset clause.

This is where the conversation became interesting.

I asked: “So the law has been liberalized since Clinton?”

He raised his eyebrow and there was a long pause.

Finally he said in a deep Southern drawl, “I don’t know about no liberalism. I don’t like liberals.”

“Ok,” I said, “that’s not what I mean. I mean ‘liberalized’ in the sense of more liberal: like more freely available.”

That didn’t help. He just said, “I’m just saying that I don’t like much about what liberals are saying or doing.”

So I tried again.

“Well, more precisely, what I mean by liberalization is that American citizens are now more free from restriction than they once were to import and use certain kinds of weapons. We are more liberated to choose than we were before.”

Still, he stood there in silence, staring. Finally a co-worker walked by and said to him, “This customer means liberal like in the old way: a different way than you mean the term.”

I piped in and said, “yes, just the English-language ‘liberal’ meaning less government control over what we do.”

Even then, this nice man couldn’t understand what the heck I was talking about. The word “liberal” to him was like the Mark of the Beast. He somehow thought I was standing there promoting evil. Nothing I said would overcome his sense that I was somehow on the enemy side, simply because I was uttering this word.

Are we really so far down the path? Has our political terminology become so confused that we can’t even use regular English words and be understood?

Demonizing Liberals

Maybe this was an extreme case. Maybe it is not so bad all over. But I do wonder.

For years, right-wing radio commentators have been using “liberal” as a swear term: the worst epithet you could ever hurl at someone, indicating an individual hell-bent on destroying your life. They have contrasted the malice of “liberals” with the greatness of “conservatives,” who favor God, country, and free enterprise (with a bit of war thrown in). And book after book are published for conservative consumption using the term “liberal” to identify the most depraved values.

To be sure, this is not new. It has gone on since after World War II, when Russell Kirk’s Conservative Mind appeared and was promoted on the cover of Time Magazine. This  kicked off a long-running demonization of one of the great words in the English language.

Now, you might correctly point out that the “liberals” started it. About a century ago, everyone knew what a liberal was. A liberal favored free speech, freedom of action, a free economic order, and religious freedom. A liberal opposed war. A liberal favored the ever-increasing liberation of the world from oppression, poverty, suffering.

That began to change in the Progressive Era and especially with the New Deal. Liberals had to make a choice between the free economy and the fascist model of the New Deal. They chose poorly. Yet they kept calling themselves liberals. Ten years later, it had begun to stick.

Conservative Is Not What We Are 

So when William F. Buckley set out to, as he alleged, “stand athwart history and yell stop,” he needed a different name for his “anti-Left” movement. The name he chose was Kirk’s “conservative.”  The new “conservatism” differed from that of the old English Tories in that it had affection for free enterprise. Yet it harkened back to those bygone reactionaries by favoring war, the cops, and social control. The new “conservative movement” co-opted the classical liberal remnant of the time.

Already distorted, the conservative acquiescence to the left on terminology made a bad situation worse. And it has only worsened further over the decades, to the point that today the word liberal has become practically unusable in some corners, in spite of its rich and glorious history.

And yet this is mostly true just in the United States. In most places in the world, the word “liberal” still means what it is supposed to mean. More substantially, it is the right word. It has a beautiful tradition. And I agree with Mises who said there is no suitable replacement.

“This usage is imperative,” he wrote in 1966, “because there is simply no other term available to signify the great political and intellectual movement that substituted free enterprise and the market economy for the precapitalistic methods of production; constitutional representative government for the absolutism of kings or oligarchies; and freedom of all individuals from slavery, serfdom, and other forms of bondage.”

I’ll say it again: Don’t give up the term liberal. You might even be one.

Despite the gruff gun salesman behind the counter, I won’t give up the term “liberal.” The way I feel about that grand word is the same way he feels about his guns. You can take “liberal” from me when you pry it from my cold dead mouth.

Jeffrey A. TuckerJeffrey A. Tucker

Jeffrey Tucker is Director of Digital Development at FEE and CLO of the startup Liberty.me. Author of five books, and many thousands of articles, he speaks at FEE summer seminars and other events. His latest book is Bit by Bit: How P2P Is Freeing the World.  Follow on Twitter and Like on Facebook. Email.

Hillary Adjusts Her Gun Control Message and Volume for Different Audiences

Hillary Clinton is not known for her sincerity and forthrightness.

In fact, a poll conducted last September by Suffolk University/USA Today demonstrated that more than one in five voters associate some term of deceitfulness with Clinton, including “liar,” “dishonest,” “untrustworthy,” and “fake.” This followed an earlier Quinnipiac University poll that found, “’Liar’ is the first word that comes to mind more than others in an open-ended question when voters think of Clinton.” And that one followed similar findings from CNN/ORC International. Et cetera.

Like Abraham Lincoln said, “you cannot fool all the people all the time.”

But you can’t fault Hillary Clinton for trying her level best to do just that.

Regular observers of Hillary Clinton know for a fact she is no fan of the Second Amendment. We know, for example, she thinks the Supreme Court was “wrong” to declare that it’s an individual right, that self-defense is its “core” purpose, and that it prohibits the government at all levels from banning handguns. We also know that she is open to the idea of a mandatory, nationwide surrender of firearms, along the lines of what Australia did.

So we can at least credit her for being honest about that.

Well, sort of, anyway.

Those statements are now part of the public record, and we’ll gladly remind the public of them every chance we get.

But not everybody follows politics closely … not even everybody who votes.

So Hillary Clinton is counting on Americans to have short memories and limited awareness during the general election this year.

For now, she is willing to pander to her base and try to position herself to the left of primary challenger Bernie Sanders by harping on gun control … at least some of the time. She believes that message will resonate with the much smaller and more ideologically-oriented segment of the population that chooses a candidate in the primary election. But will she be singing the same tune if (and likely when) she faces the general electorate in a bid for the White House?

Not if a recent Associated Press (AP) analysis of her primary political ads is any indication. As an article in the D.C. Caller put it, “The Hillary Clinton campaign wants to both highlight her staunch support of gun control laws, but also obscure those views in places where it may hurt her at the polls.”

According to the AP, 1 of every 4 of her televised political ads in New Hampshire touts her support for tougher gun control. Meanwhile, in Iowa, only in 1 in 17 ads mention Clinton’s support for stronger gun control and in a less strident way. As University of Iowa Professor Tim Hagle opined to the AP, “It may have to do with the polls and that the hunting tradition is stronger here in Iowa.”

In other words, Hillary is being what is commonly called – in the world of normal human interaction, where people don’t routinely misrepresent themselves to each other wherever it might offer a perceived advantage – “two-faced.”

Remember that when Hillary Clinton is talking to the nation as a whole (and not just her party’s most ideologically-motivated base) about what she supposedly believes and what she supposedly would do as president.

Even if certain primary voters support Hillary’s gun control agenda, America at large does not. That being so, you can count on Clinton to be more muted about her radical designs to disarm the populace when she’s trying to bamboozle her way back to Pennsylvania Avenue. Rest assured, we do not intend to let her pull the wool over America’s eyes on this point.

Americans Oppose Unilateral Actions, Wary of Federal Government Gun Control

Despite a highly-publicized speech and a multi-week media blitz aimed at convincing the American people of the importance and legitimacy of President Barack Obama’s executive maneuvers on gun control, the American people remain unpersuaded. Polls show that Americans are unconvinced about the effectiveness of further gun control measures and are in opposition to Obama’s decision to work outside the traditional political process. An additional poll offers important insight in to one of the reasons the public has repeatedly rejected new federal gun controls.

A poll conducted by Investor’s Business Daily on January 4-7 asked if stricter gun control would “hinder self-defense, protecting family” or “reduce crime/keep guns out of criminals’ hands?” Only 42 percent of those surveyed responded that stricter controls would stop criminals from acquiring guns. Moreover, the poll found that more members of the public believe an increase in gun ownership would lead to an increase in safety rather than an increase in crime. The poll also found that the vast majority of Americans agree that the Second Amendment “will always be a relevant and necessary safeguard against tyranny,” including 52 percent of Democrats.

Similarly, a Rasmussen poll conducted January 6-7 revealed that Americans question the efficacy of Obama’s executive actions, but it also showed the public is skeptical of the legitimacy of Obama’s decision to act unilaterally. Survey takers were asked, “Will the president’s new executive order further extending federal government oversight of gun sales reduce the number of mass shootings in America?” A mere 21 percent believed that measure would be effective, while 59 percent answered that it would not. Further, indicating that at least half of Americans didn’t sleep through grade school civics, when asked, “When it comes to gun control, should President Obama take action alone if Congress does not approve the initiatives he has proposed or should the government do only what the president and Congress agree on?” a majority of 58 percent answered that the president must work with Congress.

Part of the reason the Americans lack an appetite for gun control is revealed in another Rasmussen poll conducted January 10-11. The survey asked, “Do you trust the government to fairly enforce gun control laws?” A staggering 59 percent of those polled do not trust the government to enforce gun control laws fairly. A mere 28 percent trust the government with this task, while 13 percent were undecided.

These results are in line with broader measures of trust in the federal government. Since the 1970s, Gallup has routinely conducted a poll asking “how much trust and confidence do you have in our federal government in Washington when it comes to handling [domestic problems] – a great deal, a fair amount, not very much, or none at all?” Under Obama, the federal government has breached Watergate-era lows in trust.

With a severe distrust of the government’s ability to fairly carry out gun control policies, the widely-opposed decision by Obama to go it alone on guns is unlikely to bring about the sort of togetherness across the political spectrum that Obama purports to seek. Those currently running for the Presidency that hope to reverse the climate of distrust with Washington might do well to exhibit trust in the American people to exercise their right to keep and bear arms and their ability to make decisions through their elected representatives.

RELATED VIDEOS:

In this News Minute from the NRA Institute for Legislative Action, Jennifer Zahrn reports that, with his latest executive actions on gun control, President Obama has once again chosen to engage in political grandstanding instead of offering meaningful solutions to our nation’s pressing problems.

Black conservative leaders discuss how the NRA was created to protect freed slaves

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Rep. Schweikert Introduces D.C. Personal Protection Reciprocity Act

Anti-Gunners Endorse Hillary Clinton for President

Obama Executive Order bans guns in all films – Quentin Tarantino and the Islamic State respond

President Obama will sign an Executive Order to add additional federal controls impacting the use, ownership, sale and transfer of guns. A key provision requires doctor’s and healthcare providers report mentally ill patients to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Politico’s David Pittman reports:

Delivering on its promise to deliver “common sense” gun control, the Obama administration on Monday finalized a rule that enables health care providers to report the names of mentally ill patients to an FBI firearms background check system.

Read more.

California doctors and healthcare providers have begun reporting the names of numerous Hollywood producers, directors, actors and actresses to the FBI. Among those being reported to the FBI are: Hans Solo, Kylo Ren, Quentin Tarantino, Daniel Craig, and the entire staff of Marvel Studios. The growing list reads like a who’s who of the Hollywood elite.

saf-afra-ken-howard

Screen Actors Guild President Ken Howard.

Screen Actors Guild President Ken Howard and the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA) President Roberta Reardon in a joint press release state:

After all of the money we have donated to President Obama, Hillary Clinton and the Democratic party this un-Constitutional action clearly discriminates against our members. It is racist and Hollywood-phobic. Our members now have a target on their backs, no pun intended.

We have joined with the ACLU to file a lawsuit with the 9th Circuit of Appeals asking for a stay of President Obama’s Executive Order.

This action will take guns, light sabers, samurai swords, knives and other weapons of violence off the silver screen. What would John Wayne say about being disarmed? This action will destroy the biggest draw to our movie theaters –  non-linear story-lines, satirical subject matter, and the anesthetization to gun violence.

We’re talking about taking food out of the mouths of our membership. How will they feed their families, some have more than one, if guns are taken off the table, no pun intended.

Quentin Tarantino interviewed on the set of his next film “8 Guns, 9 Guns, and More Guns” in a brief statement said, “What the (expletive deleted) does Obama think he’s doing?” Tarantino is considering changing the title of his film to “8 Bananas, 9 Bananas, and More Bananas.”

Mohammed M. Mohammed, Islamic State Bureau of Muslim Arts and Film Making spokes person.

The Islamic State Bureau of Muslim Arts and Film Making issued a statement. Mohammed M. Mohammed, their 9-year old spokes person, at the site of the newest Islamic State YouTube video “Beheading the Easy Way or How to Stab a Jew”, stated:

Jews control Hollywood. By the grace of Mohammed, may peace be upon him, Obama has now disarmed our Zionist enemies in Hollywood. We welcome the news of President Obama’s Executive Order. It is now time to disarm non-Muslims, all of whom are suffering from mental illness.

As Muslims we are not bound by President Obama’s Executive Order as we are the world’s only sane people because we follow the Prophet Mohammed, may peace be upon him, and Muslim law which requires us to stab the non-believers.

As the only “religion of peace”, we, the soldiers of the Islamic State, can now expand the slaughter of all non-believers (infidels) in California from San Bernardino to Hollywood and beyond.

It it time to put an end to the fornication and violence we see coming out of the likes of Tarantino, Marvel Studios and their Jewish backers.

black girl with guns

A Trump supporter sent us this photo of how she feels about gun control. A picture is worth a thousand words. Photo: Facebook.

CNN’s Eugene Scott and Tom LoBianco report:

Donald Trump on Saturday vowed to “unsign” President Barack Obama’s plans to tighten gun control via executive action, telling a packed rally in Biloxi, Mississippi, that he would protect the right to bear arms.

“There’s an assault on the Second Amendment. You know Obama’s going to do an executive order and really knock the hell out of it,” Trump said. “You know, the system’s supposed to be you get the Democrats, you get the Republicans, and you make deals. He can’t do that. He can’t do that. So he’s going to sign another executive order having to do with the Second Amendment, having to do with guns. I will veto. I will unsign that so fast.”

Watch the video and read more.

RELATED ARTICLE: America Doesn’t Have a Gun Problem, It Has a Democrat Problem

RELATED VIDEO:  Trump train still running strong:

EDITORS NOTE: This political satire column originally appeared in the Not Hollywood Reporter and Americans without a Rifle magazine.

Syed Farook and San Bernardino: MSM narrative fails, Muslim CAIR steps in

mass-shooter-syed-farook-islam-in-america-religion-of-peace-933x445

As America reacted to Wednesday’s horrific mass shooting at the Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino, California, in which 14 people were killed and 17 wounded, some mainstream media were racing to craft their preferred narrative.

That narrative creation process was in high gear throughout the early afternoon, while the situation was still quite “fluid,” as some would say. At about 3:20pm, MSNBC was reporting that a Planned Parenthood clinic was “only a few blocks away.” After Twitter erupted with ridicule once people began checking their Google Maps, Bloomberg Business tweeted at 4:29pm,”San Bernadino [sic] shooting happened less than two miles from a Planned Parenthood health clinic.”

Bloomberg’s “less than” qualifier was “less than” sufficient to convince anyone the attackers were somehow targeting PP. Aren’t all map apps and GPS more accurate than within a two mile radius?

Calls for gun control from President Obama and Hillary Clinton failed to address why San Bernardino’s gun-free zone status did not prevent the shooting.

By mid-afternoon EST, the Liberal narrative had failed, and details were beginning to leak out.

The facts released thus far present a complex scenario with the main suspect, Syed Farook, having possible connections to a person investigated for terrorism a few years ago, and having travelled recently to Saudi Arabia.

RT France was first to report the chief suspect’s name, Syed Farook. NBC followed a few hours later, citing multiple sources. Soon after, the New York Daily News had interviewed Syed Farook’s father, who described the suspect to be a “very religious” Muslim.

Over at CNN, ex-CIA analysts were describing the assault as having “the hallmarks of the sort of attacks you see in the Middle East,” multiple shooters, IEDs, etc.

The Daily Beast seems to be the first news organization to locate and approach the Farook family’s home in Corona CA:

Farook lived at a home with his wife and children in Corona, California. The Daily Beast knocked on the home’s door and was met by a man who said, “My name is Farook.” When asked if he knew Sayed, the man said, “Of course I know him but I have nothing to say.” When asked about Syed being named as a suspect, he said, “I have nothing to say.” […]

Five minutes after he answered the door, Farook got into a white car and drove away, answering questions again with, “I have nothing to say.”

The Daily Beast contacted Farook’s sister, Saira Khan, by phone on Wednesday shortly after the shooting. She said the media was jumping to conclusions on identifying the suspect and said that her brother was at work. Khan said she would try to get in touch with her brother and pass along his contact information.

Some additional pieces to the puzzle have emerged:

CNN reports that Farook had “abruptly left” the holiday event for county employees. And from the Wall Street Journal: “Government records show Mr. Farook, a U.S. citizen, traveled to Saudi Arabia last year.” (Thanks to Breitbart News for these links.)

The NY Times reports on possible international connections:

One senior American official said that Mr. Farook had not been the target of any active terrorism investigation, and he was not someone the bureau had been concerned about before Wednesday’s shooting. Other officials said the F.B.I. was looking into a possible connection between Mr. Farook and at least one person who was investigated for terrorism a few years ago.

There were also accounts by investigators that one of the attackers had recently had a dispute with fellow employees, according to law enforcement officials who did not want to be identified.

Chief Burguan confirmed that someone left the party after a dispute, “but we have no idea if those were the people that came back.”

This last assessment seems at odds with CNN’s reporting cited above.

At the late evening press conference, however, Fox News reports, “I’m now being told…[police] are going on the premise there wasn’t a disagreement…he was there to case the location.”

MSNBC relates a survivor’s account:

The shooters who opened fire in a conference room at a California center for the developmentally disabled Wednesday didn’t say anything before they started spraying the room with bullets, the husband of a woman who was shot but survived said.

Salaheen Kondoker’s wife, Annie, an environmental engineer who works for San Bernardino County, was inside the conference room when gunfire erupted at around 11 a.m. local time.

“They just started shooting … they didn’t yell or say anything beforehand,” Salaheen Kondoker said his wife told him.

News reporting continued late into the evening at a San Bernardino police press conference, with tantalizing bits of evidence being tweeted. From Raheem Kassam at Breitbart:

20-21 officers in shootout with suspects, both dead. First suspect Syed Rizwan Farook, 28. Second is Tashfeen Malik, 27.

“There was a relationship” between Farook and Malik…
“It really looks like we have 2 shooters…”
“We have not ruled out terrorism…”
“Based upon what we’ve seen… how they were equipped… there had to be some level of planning”
Journalist asks if any connection to ISIS: “I’m not gonna weigh in on that one” says police spox
“We have multiple addresses for [the suspects]…”

Did political correctness enable the shooter’s plot to be carried out? Will Carr of Fox News tweeted this:

@KNX1070 reporting a neighbor did not call authorities about suspicious activity bc she did not want to racially profile

CAIR steps in

Once Syed Farook’s name was released as one of the suspects, CAIR-LA immediately scheduled a press conference. The full text of CAIR-National’s press release can be read here. The key statement reads:

“We condemn this horrific and revolting attack and offer our heartfelt condolences to the families and loved ones of all those killed or injured,” said CAIR-LA Executive Director Hussam Ayloush. “The Muslim community stands shoulder to shoulder with our fellow Americans in repudiating any twisted mindset that would claim to justify such sickening acts of violence.”

Breitbart reports Farook’s family was “in shock”:

At the CAIR press conference, Syed Farook’s brother-in-law Farhan Khan is present and delivers a statement. “I have no idea why he would he do something like this. I have absolutely no idea. I am in shock myself.” Khan does not answer questions from reporters. Executive Director of CAIR-LA says “We unequivocally condemn the horrific act that happened today.”

The reaction of some to the CAIR presser is that it seemed odd:

Toby Harnden: Weird weird weird @CNN right now. No mention of Islam & then live to CAIR presser w multiple people saying it’s nothing to do with Islam.

toddstarnes: Not quite what to make of that CAIR presser….Odd.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Obama on SB: “We do not yet know why this terrible event occurred”

San Bernardino-area man didn’t report suspicious activity for fear of being called racist

VIDEO: Playing Politics with a Tragedy

In this News Minute from the NRA Institute for Legislative Action, Jennifer Zahrn reports that gun control activists like Hillary Clinton and Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe are exploiting the recent tragedy in Roanoke, Virginia to push gun control.

Research Findings a Blow to Anti-gun Academics

For decades, anti-gun academics have attacked firearms and firearm owners by conducting “research” that purportedly offers insight into the psyche of gun owners. The dubious findings of these psychology studies typically portray gun owners in a negative light, and are frequently published in uncritical academic journals, and then touted by gun control activists and the mainstream media as legitimate science. However, as a study published this week in the journal Science reveals, the entire field of psychology research warrants severe skepticism; and consequently the field’s frivolous attacks on gun ownership.

Perhaps the most famous item on this topic that has long been heralded by gun control activists is Leonard Berkowitz and Anthony LePage’s, already largely debunked, “Weapons as Aggression-Eliciting Stimuli,” published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology in 1967. This research popularized the notion of a “weapons effect,” where supposedly the mere presence of a firearm elicits aggression in an individual.

More recently, in 2012, researchers James R. Brockmole and Jessica K. Witt’s article “Action Alters Object Identification: Wielding a Gun Increases The Bias to See Guns,” was published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. This paper contended that when individuals are armed with a gun, they are more likely to perceive others as being armed. Gun control advocates were quick to seize on the findings to promote the idea that gun owners are paranoid and prone to react with outsize responses to potential threats.

Some recent psychology studies have attacked gun owners more personally. A 2013 item published in PLS One titled, “Racism, Gun Ownership and Gun Control: Biased Attitudes in US Whites May Influence Policy Decisions,” tried to link gun ownership to racism. The researchers concluded “Symbolic racism was related to having a gun in the home and opposition to gun control policies in US whites.” Anti-gun publications, such as the New York Daily News, Huffington Post, and Salon.com were all-too-willing to parrot the findings.

The study recently published in Science is the result of a four-year effort to improve the accuracy of psychological science. A team of 270 scientists led by University of Virginia Professor Brian Nosek attempted to replicate 98 studies published in some of psychology’s most prestigious journals by conducting 100 attempts at replication. In the end, according to a Science article accompanying the study, “only 39% [of the studies] could be replicated unambiguously.”

In the same article, University of Missouri Psychologist and Editor at the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (which published the Berkowitz and LePage study) Lynne Cooper, was quoted as saying of the findings, “Their data are sobering and present a clear challenge to the field.” She went on to note that the journal is working on reforms that will push “authors, editors, and reviewers… to reexamine and recalibrate basic notions about what constitutes good scholarship.”

The scale of the problem could be even greater than the recent study reveals. In an article on the team’s findings, the journal Nature noted, “John Ioannidis, an epidemiologist at Stanford University in California, says that the true replication-failure rate could exceed 80%, even higher than Nosek’s study suggests.

Further, psychology isn’t the only field to suffer these problems. In reporting on this matter, the New York Times noted, “The report appears at a time when the number of retractions of published papers is rising sharply in a wide variety of disciplines. Scientists have pointed to a hypercompetitive culture across science that favors novel, sexy results and provides little incentive for researchers to replicate the findings of others, or for journals to publish studies that fail to find a splashy result.” For better, or worse, results involving guns might accurately be described as “sexy,” and the editors of the nation’s major newspapers appear willing to splash any gun control supporting findings all over their publications.

These findings and the accompanying comments by those in scientific research community encourage a healthy dose of skepticism when examining studies; regardless of how prestigious the journal, or the schools the authors hail from. The problems outlined in this study, along with pre-existing knowledge of the political bias in some portions of academia, should embolden gun rights supporters to further confront the findings of anti-gun studies, while hopefully also causing those who report on these topics to question research findings more critically.

White House, Media Mislead on Crime Trends, Ignore Evidence that Could Save More Lives

Tragedy strikes – and the White House immediately shifts into exploitation mode, trying to use raw emotion to push “solutions” that don’t fit the facts. From Charles C. W. Cooke at National Review comes a timely reminder, however, that despite well-publicized crimes, the nation as a whole is getting safer and less violent.

As Mr. Cooke notes, the U.S. firearm homicide rate peaked in 1993 and has fallen dramatically since then. Meanwhile, he adds correctly, gun control has been rolled back and the number of firearms in private hands has increased dramatically. Yet 88% of the public were unaware of favorable crime trends in a May 7, 2013, Pew Research Center Poll. Mr. Cooke attributes this knowledge gap, in part, to the increasing prevalence of “round-the-clock news” and more powerful forms of social media.

It’s a sad commentary that more news and more communication may have somehow led to greater ignorance on important matters of public policy. Your NRA, for its part, has been doing its level best to keep the record straight, including with the reports mentioned here and here.

Yet it’s no accident on gun control advocates’ part that they mislead the public on the true state of affairs. As we’ve mentioned before, a PR firm hired to produce a gun control messaging guide advises, “Always focus on emotional and value-driven arguments about gun violence, not the political food fight in Washington or wonky statistics.” It also counsels advocates to act quickly after a highly-publicized event, while emotions are at their highest. As for the facts, gun control advocates are told, “Don’t wait for them.” Instead, “The clearest course is to advance our core message about preventing gun violence independent of facts that may shift on us over time.”

Once again, sadly, we see that advice in action. Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe, for example, was using Wednesday’s televised murders in Roanoke to call for universal background checks, even before the suspect had been apprehended and before news emerged that the perpetrator had, in fact, passed a background check to buy the gun he used.

Evil and violence are terrible things, and Americans understandably react with horror and sadness when confronted by them. Yet denying reality and exploiting emotions do not solve problems. Ensuring that peaceable, responsible people have the means to defend themselves is why NRA remains resolute in its mission to defend and protect the Second Amendment.

Rather than promoting “solutions” that offer false promises, like “universal” background checks, policy makers should study what’s working redouble their efforts on those fronts. Dismissing the crime deterring benefits of firearm ownership is neither smart nor compassionate. Empowering good people to defend themselves against violence is, and this defining principle will continue to drive everything that NRA does.

Reduce Firearm Ownership, Say Anti-Gun Researchers

A new “study” by David Swedler, trained at the (gun control crusader Michael) Bloomberg School of Public Health, and co-authored by longtime anti-gun researcher David Hemenway, of the Harvard School of Public Health, uses rigged methodology to conclude that law enforcement officers are more likely to be murdered in states that have higher levels of gun ownership. As a result, Swedler and Hemenway say, “States could consider methods for reducing firearm ownership as a way to reduce occupational deaths of LEOs.”

In what may be the understatement of the century, Swedler and Hemenway concede that it’s “possible” that law enforcement officers are more likely to be murdered than other Americans because they have “more frequent encounters with motivated violent offenders.” To say the least. According to the FBI, from 2004 to 2013, 46 percent of officer murderers had prior arrests for crimes of violence, 63 percent had been convicted on prior criminal charges, 50 percent had received probation or parole for prior criminal charges, and 26 percent were under judicial supervision, including probation, parole, and conditional release, at the time of the officers’ murders.

On the other hand, Swedler and Hemenway say, law enforcement officers are able to defend themselves because they carry handguns, an argument that on its face endorses the carrying of handguns by private citizens, which is certainly not what the anti-gunners intended.

In painstaking academic detail, economist John Lott shows that Swedler and Hemenway skewed their study by comparing the number of law enforcement officers murdered with firearms in each state, to the percentage of suicides committed with firearms in each state, pretending that the latter accurately measures each state’s level of gun ownership. Additionally, the anti-gun researchers didn’t extend their comparisons over time to determine whether law enforcement officer murders increased or decreased in each state or did so in comparison to other states.

The anti-gunners also try to measure gun ownership with survey data, which is problematic, because over-reporting takes place in states where people are more supportive of gun ownership, while under-reporting takes place in states where anti-gun viewpoints are more common.

For the obvious reason, Swedler and Hemenway didn’t point out that law enforcement officer murders have been decreasing while ownership of firearms has been increasing dramatically. From 1993 to 2013, the most recent year of data from the FBI and BATFE, the annual number of law enforcement officers feloniously killed with firearms dropped 61 percent, while the American people acquired 140 million new firearms. In 2013, the number of law enforcement officers feloniously killed with firearms was less than half the annual average of the last 20 years.

That, however, is not what you want to point out if you’re jockeying for a cut of the $10 million that President Obama has asked Congress (p. 8) to throw at so-called “gun violence research” or to continue to promote an anti-gun agenda.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on the NRA/ILA website.

Background Check Bill Seeks to Create Backdoor Gun Prohibition

Demonstrating why he’s rated an “F” by the NRA, anti-gun Representative James Clyburn (D-S.C.) on Tuesday introduced a bill that would in effect vastly expand federal prohibited person categories. Worse, he is exploiting a recent tragedy and misinformation reported in the media to do so.

The bill, H.R. 3051, seeks to repeal a critical safety valve in federal law that allows for a firearm transfer to proceed three business days after a NICS check is initiated, provided “the system has not notified the [FFL] that the receipt of a firearm by [the buyer or transferee] would [violate federal law.]” This provision ensures that Americans’ rights to acquire firearms are not arbitrarily denied because of bureaucratic delays, inefficiencies, or mistakes in identity.

The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) was designed to be just that: instant. Recognizing, however, that some determinations might require additional research to resolve authoritatively, the law states that if an immediate answer is not available, the transfer must be put on hold for three business days to give the FBI more time to research the matter.

After the three days, the FFL has the option to release the firearm to the buyer or transferee, so long as the FFL has no other reason to believe the person is prohibited from possessing it. The FBI will then continue trying to resolve the case for up to 90 days. If it turns out the recipient is determined to be prohibited, the FBI queries the dealer to see if the firearm was transferred. If so, the FBI notifies the BATFE, so appropriate action can be taken (for example, confiscation of the firearm and prosecution of the illegal possessor, if appropriate).

The safety valve provided by the three-day provision is necessary for several reasons. First, and most obviously, mistakes happen. Identities can be confused or records can be incomplete (for example, an arrest record could have been followed by dismissal of the charges or an acquittal at trial). Second, it encourages the FBI to administer the system quickly and efficiently. Third, it preserves a critical aspect of America’s constitutional system, the due process principle that the government cannot arbitrarily deprive a person of his or her rights without making its case against that person.

According the FBI’s most recent NICS operations report, 9% of FBI NICS checks in 2014 were delayed “for additional review.” The report does not go on to detail how many of those delays extended beyond three days. Nevertheless, based on the total number of NICS check the FBI ran in 2014, these delays affected some 743,102 people.

Meanwhile, the delays resulted in only 2,511 actions for firearm retrievals (or three-tenths of one percent of total delays). Thus, in over 99.6% of delayed cases, the delay was less than three days, the FBI could not substantiate the person was prohibited, or the FFL did not transfer the firearm.  That hardly seems to indicate a public safety crisis demanding congressional intervention. This is especially so, because where prohibitions are substantiated after firearms are transferred following the three day window, law enforcement authorities already have the tools to act under current law.

None of this matters to Rep. Clyburn, of course, who is hoping the recent tragedy in South Carolina will give his legislation the momentum it needs to succeed. Clyburn claimed in his press release announcing the bill that “[u]nder current law, the Charleston shooter should have been barred from purchasing a firearm from a licensed dealer.” That assertion is by no means clear, with media outlets now reporting that the suspect was arrested for a misdemeanor, not a felony, as originally reported. A single misdemeanor arrest, without more, is not cause for a denial under federal law (on the other hand, if the suspect had been formally charged with a felony, he would have been federally prohibited from buying a gun).

Should Clyburn’s bill become law, people who are unjustly subjected to NICS delays for reasons beyond their control would, in effect, be prohibited from exercising their rights to obtain firearms from dealers. In essence, every extended delay would become an extra-legal firearm prohibition. The FBI could affect denials without having to substantiate them, as they must under current law. Meanwhile, determined criminals can always obtain firearms illegally to carry out their plans.

Piling on the bandwagon, as usual, is Bloomberg’s front group, Moms Demand Action, who are now demanding that large firearm retailers like Cabela’s “voluntarily” adopt the restrictions Clyburn hopes to make law. As with Clyburn, they are insisting that the Charleston suspect was a prohibited purchaser at the time he obtained his firearm, although they have no legal basis for this claim. As with Clyburn, they also believe Americans should be presumed legally ineligible to possess firearms, even where the government lacks substantiation.

All of this just goes to show what we all already know. Gun control advocates are shameless in their willingness to exploit tragedy to achieve their agenda. We urge you to contact your Congressional representative and urge him or her to oppose H.R. 3051.

EDITORS NOTE: Readers may contact your U.S. Representative at 202-224-3121 or use the “Write Your Lawmakers tool.