Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Charlie T Waite

Super Moderators
  • Content Count

    2,936
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Everything posted by Charlie T Waite

  1. I almost forgot to add that as stated, It would take the votes of 34 state legislatures to call a constitutional convention to order. A majority of legislatures already have voted to do so. Bear this in mind while you contemplate the gravity of this: "Such calls remain valid indefinitely" — until 34 states have joined in a particular cause or the states rescind their appeals. To date only Maryland’s House of Delegates and Nevada’s Senate, rescinded their calls for a federal constitutional convention decades after approving them. Currently, the claims are that 28, of the minimum required 34 state legislatures, have called for an Article V Convention, (which prior to Maryland’s and Nevada’s rescinding we were at 30) so we are closer than most people think. Again, JMHO Charlie
  2. Many of us can point to one constitutional provision or another that we believe we could improve upon if given a chance. But a convention could do great damage to a charter that, on balance, has worked pretty well for a pretty long time. To take such a risk on behalf of a stupendously unworthy causes especially in a country so divided would be foolhardy in the extreme. Nearly everything about this powerful process would be uncertain. Convention rules, which would be written ad hoc, could be manipulated to favor one party, region or interest group over another. It is not even certain that three-fourths of the states would have to approve the convention’s work for it to become the law of the land, as the Constitution currently prescribes. The 1787 constitutional convention ditched preexisting ratification rules; who is to say a 2019 or 2020 convention could not? , so again I fell that nearly everything about this powerful process would be uncertain and foolhardy in the extreme. JMHO Charlie
  3. A week after he told voters that the Second Amendment doesn’t protect “a magazine with a hundred clips in it,” 2020 Democratic Presidential Candidate Joe Biden offered supporters more of his singular brand of anti-gun nonsense. While attending a private campaign event in Seattle, the former vice president reportedly called for a ban on 9mm pistols. According to an article from the Seattle Times, Biden was in town to attend two private fundraisers, one of which was at the home of “a top Amazon executive.” The posh soiree set attendees back a princely $2,800 per-person. The other fundraiser was held at the home of a local philanthropist. That staider event offered donors a relative bargain with a $500 minimum price tag. While speaking to attendees of the latter event, Biden claimed that he supports the Second Amendment. The 77-year-old then went on to ask “Why should we allow people to have military-style weapons including pistols with 9mm bullets and can hold 10 or more rounds?” Biden also shared his tired and inaccurate claim that because there is a shot-shell restriction for migratory bird hunting, “We protect geese from Canada more than we do people.” In targeting 9mm pistols, Biden has called for a ban on one of the most popular firearms in America. According to ATF’s Firearms Commerce in the United States FY 2019, there were over 3.6 million pistols manufactured in the U.S. in 2017. This was more than 1 million more guns than the next most popular category of firearms, rifles. Further, over 3.2 million handguns (including revolvers) were imported in to the U.S. in 2017. In its annual report on the U.S. firearms industry, Shooting Industry reported that 9mm caliber pistols are the most commonly produced pistol and have been for many years. In 2017 alone, there were more than 1.7 million 9mm pistols produced in the U.S. Cumulatively there are tens of millions of 9mm pistols in the hands of law-abiding Americans. The 9mm pistol is the choice of the nation’s leading civilian law enforcement agency, the FBI. Moreover, 9mm pistols are used by countless other federal, state, and local civilian law enforcement agencies. Biden alluded to the 9mm handgun’s military applications, but these agencies are not tasked with waging war on the public, but rather defending the public. This defensive application is the same reason that millions of Americans have chosen a 9mm pistol as their self-defense firearm. The landmark Second Amendment U.S. Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller concerned a complete prohibition on the ownership of handguns in Washington, D.C. The opinion made clear that the Second Amendment at a minimum protects the right to acquire and possess firearms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes such as self-defense. It is impossible to square Biden’s statement with the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment. Many types of firearms, such as the AR-15, are “in common use” for lawful purposes like self-defense and therefore protected under the Second Amendment. The 9mm pistol is not just “in common use” for self-defense. As the production statistics indicate, it may be the most common firearm in use for self-defense. Therefore, it is not permissible under the Second Amendment for a jurisdiction to prohibit 9mm pistols. The law-abiding 9mm pistol-owning residents of the D.C., Chicago, and a handful of Chicago suburbs are a testament to this fact. Biden’s political career is an ongoing spectacle of anti-gun incompetence. However, his high-profile gaffes can serve an instructive purpose. Biden is emblematic of a political class that cannot be bothered to learn the most rudimentary information concerning firearms and the right to keep and bear arms. Despite nearly four decades in the U.S. Senate and eight years as vice president, he is still a complete ignoramus on the subject. Biden and his cohort don’t want to know anything about guns, gun rights, or gun owners. Rather, they prefer to mindlessly indulge their anti-gun prejudice at every opportunity.
  4. The Democrats seeking their party’s nomination to take on President Donald Trump in 2020 have created somewhat of a clown-car atmosphere, with the field eclipsing two-dozen declared candidates at times. Currently, the number stands at a “manageable” 19 individuals to be vetted by Democrat voters. As befits the clown-car analogy, though, that number could go up or down at any given moment. It dropped to 17 when Beto O’Rourke pulled the plug on his lackluster campaign, but quickly popped back up to 18 when former Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick launched his candidacy. Patrick apparently felt Democrat voters lacked sufficient choice with “only” 17 candidates. Anti-gun New York City billionaire Michael Bloomberg became number 19 yesterday by filing an FEC form showing his intent to run, and perennial presidential wannabe Hillary Clinton is still being discussed as a potential late arrival on the scene. It has been difficult to predict which candidates are poised to throw in the towel, even when it seems patently obvious to even casual observers that certain campaigns are simply destined to fail. Usually, if someone consistently polls in the single digits, or has trouble raising funds, it might be a sign that candidate will drop out. But it is important to remember that many of the Democrats are currently running a vanity project as much as a legitimate campaign. They simply crave attention. The old joke that the most dangerous place in the world is the space between a politician and a microphone comes to mind. All that said, we have noticed one possible trend when it comes to candidates about to drop from the race. Some form of push for confiscating firearms from American citizens. It all started with California Representative Eric Swalwell, who was one of the first declared candidates, and one of the first to quit. To be fair, his support for confiscating firearms came even before he launched his futile campaign for the Democrat nomination, and that position seemed to be the only thing we ever heard from him regarding what he hoped to do as POTUS. O’Rourke, on the other hand, had a number of policies he promoted, both during his failed effort to unseat Texas Senator Ted Cruz and his failed campaign to be the Democrat nominee. His campaign for President never gained traction, and he should have known he was destined for another failure long before he dropped out on November 1. Abandoning his campaign came after O’Rourke apparently decided the primary theme of his drive for the White House, like Swalwell’s, would be firearm confiscation. He pushed the scheme again and again, and was even criticized by some of his fellow candidates and gun-ban proponents for articulating such an extreme position. And then he dropped out. So, with two advocates of confiscation now out of the race, are there signs others that share their zeal for disarming Americans will follow? Perhaps. This week, California Senator Kamala Harris reiterated to NBC News’ Harry Smith her support for the “mandatory buyback” of AR-15s and similar semi-automatics. “Mandatory buyback,” of course, is the euphemism adopted by the pro-confiscation crowd because they know how much the majority of Americans loathe the idea of the government seizing private property from its citizens. Smith pushed, although rather gently, for Harris to consider what would be done if only some of the millions of Americans who own AR-15s and other so-called “assault weapons” agreed to turn in their property. The candidate mentioned that she would “have an incentive for people to turn them in.” An “incentive”? Is this a new euphemism for the threat of door-to-door seizures? After all, the first “incentive,” presumably, is the promise of money for those that turn in their guns. Smith was basically asking what would happen if that “incentive” did not work. Swalwell famously “joked” about using the threat of nuclear warfare on American gun owners as his “incentive.” O’Rourke said during one debate that those that did not abide by the “mandatory buyback” would have their affected firearms taken. He added, during a later interview, that “there have to be consequences” regarding compliance with his gun ban, and those that did not comply would have a “visit by law enforcement.” Is this the direction Harris is heading when she talks about “an incentive”? Is the “incentive” that Americans should turn in their guns to avoid a visit from the police? Unfortunately, Smith did not press further, as his interview seemed more a very friendly discussion, rather than a reporter properly vetting a candidate. We also saw no clarification in the fifth Democrat debate that took place in Atlanta on November 20. In fact, firearms weren’t really brought up by any of the candidates or moderators. Perhaps all parties involved feel the candidates have shown to be sufficiently anti-gun, and it could be seen as damaging to the party to have a fight over who wants to say they support confiscating private property, who wants to simply imply it, and who wants to put it off for another time. Nonetheless, the moribund Harris campaign seems ready to collapse, as she is stuck in the bottom tier of candidates, consistently registering in the low-to-mid-single digits in poll after poll. Perhaps she has finally realized her future is not as the Democrat nominee for President in 2020, and she is slowly rolling out the Swalwell/O’Rourke exit strategy of openly pushing gun confiscation.
  5. Gun control advocates understand the power of language, if not the effective use of it. Over the years the anti-gun establishment has attempted to move away from the term “gun control” to more benign-sounding alternatives such as “commonsense gun safety” or “gun reform.” Their goal of civilian disarmament has remained constant, but the language has changed. Gun control advocates calculate that such shifts in language will further their political aims by obscuring their policy goals. On November 17, waning 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) tweeted the following, Traffic violence kills thousands and injures even more Americans every year. On World Day of Remembrance for Traffic Crash Victims, I'm sending my love to the families and friends of those who have lost loved ones. It's time to #EndTrafficViolence. Warren was not referencing the intentional misuse of motor vehicles to attack drivers or pedestrians. Warren used the term “traffic violence” to refer to the common car accident. According to the Department of Transportation, there were 6,452,000 police reported car accidents in the U.S. in 2017. An insurance industry estimate contended that the average driver files a collision claim about once every 18 years, and therefore will experience about 3-4 accidents over the course of their lifetime. Little did you know that the time you were involved in a fender bender in the mall parking lot you were a perpetrator of “traffic violence.” Motor vehicle accidents are tragic and adversely impact millions of people per year. However, terming such events as violence is purposely misleading and done for political effect. Given Warren’s statist proclivities, she may have some new intrusive government regulation or program in mind. Colloquially understood, the term violence is reserved for the intentional use of physical force against another person. Think about it in the context of other circumstances. If a roofer falls off a ladder, is that ladder or workplace violence? If a doctor makes a medical error, is that medical violence? If a child drowns in a swimming pool, is that water or swimming pool violence? The answers are obvious. Warren’s mischaracterization of car accidents as “traffic violence” has a parallel in the gun debate. Gun control supporters lump many instances where a firearm is involved as “gun violence,” regardless of the facts, such as a criminal homicide with a firearm or purely an accident. This linguistic trick has severe consequences for the public’s understanding of the firearms issue Like Warren, gun controllers understand that words matter. Gun rights supporters must remain skeptical of the language used by anti-gun advocates and equip themselves with the knowledge to effectively confront their deceptive messaging.
  6. STATE FIGHTS CITIES, COUNTIES ON GUN LAW November 25, 2019 Jim Saunders TALLAHASSEE --- Pointing to a “hierarchical relationship” with local governments, the state late Friday asked an appeals court to uphold a 2011 law that has threatened tough penalties if city and county officials approve gun regulations. Lawyers in the offices of Attorney General Ashley Moody and Gov. Ron DeSantis filed a 42-page brief arguing that the 1st District Court of Appeal should overturn a circuit judge’s ruling that said parts of the law were unconstitutional. Florida since 1987 has barred cities and counties from passing regulations that are stricter than state firearms laws, and the penalties in the 2011 law were designed to strengthen that “preemption.” The law, for example, could lead to local officials facing $5,000 fines and potential removal from office for passing gun regulations. The brief filed Friday cited a “hierarchical relationship” between the state and local governments and said the Florida Constitution “subjugates local governments’ authority to that of the Florida Legislature.” “The trial court’s decision is premised on unsupported theories of immunity inconsistent with the constitutional supremacy of the state’s authority over its counties and municipalities,” the brief said.“ If allowed to stand, the decision will not only invite the development of a patchwork regulatory regime in the area of firearms but also render the Legislature impotent to deter power grabs by local officials in other areas.” But as an indication of the potential legal stakes of the case, the Florida League of Cities and the Florida Association of Counties on Monday filed a document requesting approval to submit a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the dozens of local governments and officials challenging the law. “The resolution of the question on appeal is of great importance to the League and FAC (Florida Association of Counties) and their memberships of diverse local governmental entities across the state of Florida,” the request said. “A determination that the penalty provisions are constitutional increases the threat of liability at significant cost to local government officials and will also have a chilling effect on individuals desiring to serve in local government.” Local governments and officials filed three lawsuits challenging the 2011 law after last year’s mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland that killed 17 people. The lawsuits were ultimately consolidated in Leon County circuit court. Attorneys for the local governments wrote in a February court document that city and county officials had been urged to take actions after the Marjory Stoneman Douglas shooting. Those requests involved such things as requiring procedures or documentation to ensure compliance with background checks and waiting periods for gun purchases and requiring reporting of failed background checks. But the attorneys said local governments refrained from going ahead with the proposals because of the potential penalties in state law. Along with officials facing the possibility of fines and removal from office, the law would allow members of the public and organizations to receive damages up to $100,000 and attorney fees if they successfully sue local governments for improper gun regulations. Leon County Circuit Judge Charles Dodson in July found parts of the law unconstitutional, citing issues related to “legislative immunity,” which protects local government officials in their decision-making processes. He also pointed to the constitutional separation of powers, as judges could be asked to rule on penalizing local officials. “Because local governments must have what amount to small legislatures, and because courts cannot interfere in legislative processes, neither this court, nor any other court in Florida, can enforce the civil penalty provisions (of the law) against local legislators,” Dodson wrote. But the attorneys for Moody and DeSantis rejected such arguments in Friday’s brief, repeatedly citing the state’s authority over local governments. “The state’s position is that the Legislature may penalize local officials for acting outside the scope of their authority because there is no ‘separation of powers’ doctrine that bars the Legislature from holding them accountable for their official actions,” the brief said. Attorneys for the cities and counties will file a brief at the appeals court within the next month. But when the state began moving forward with the appeal in July, Jamie Cole, the lead attorney for the local governments, said he expected Dodson’s ruling to stand. “Judge Dodson’s decision was well-reasoned, well-written and supported by decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court, Florida Supreme Court and Florida’s district courts of appeal,” Cole said at the time.
  7. Concealed-carry permits issued in Colorado, and nationwide, continued to rise over the past few years, according to a recent report from the Crime Prevention Research Center, based in Alexandria, Va. The report, published in September, stated that Colorado has issued more than half a million permits issued, which places the state in the top third of all states ranked by percentage of people with concealed carry-permits. Currently, more than one in 10 people in Colorado have a permit. Findings indicate that violent crime has declined since 1999 as the number of concealed-carry permits rose exponentially. Colorado’s violent-crime rate of 361 per 100,000 people is below the national average of over 393 per 100,000 people in 2017. Concealed-carry permit numbers have been on the rise across the nation, with a reported increase of over 300% since 2007, the report concluded. Notably, one in four people in Alabama are licensed to carry concealed firearms.
  8. The Constitution provides for no authority above that of a constitutional convention. This makes it unlikely that the courts or any other institution could intervene if a convention failed to limit itself to the language of state resolutions calling for a convention or to the congressional resolution establishing the convention. Moreover, even if the courts determined that they had the authority to rule, they would be unlikely to intervene if a convention veered away from its original charge. Article V contains only two limited restrictions on the scope of constitutional amendments (one of which expired two centuries ago). Absent guidance from the Constitution’s text, the Supreme Court likely would regard this as a “political question” inappropriate for judicial resolution (consistent with how the Court has treated other highly charged matters on which the Constitution provides no judicially enforceable standard). A court would have great difficulty explaining why a convention should be bound by state resolutions, given that the 1787 convention disregarded both its own stated purpose and the Articles of Confederation’s amendment procedures.
  9. by David Keene - Sunday, November 24, 2019
  10. Suburban women are expected to play a pivotal role in the 2020 elections, which is why a lot of political groups are attempting to appeal to them. One of Bloomberg’s groups, Moms Demand Action, is styled to fool voters into thinking their extreme beliefs are representative of all suburban moms. And earlier this month in Virginia, this billionaire-funded group spent an enormous amount of money to flip a few seats and win a thin, anti-gun majority in the state legislature. Pro-gun suburban women in Virginia were outraged by the misleading campaign. We spoke with one, NRA member Megan Boland, who says the tactics employed by anti-gun groups in Virginia should serve as a cautionary tale to pro-gun suburban women across the country. Q. What was your initial reaction when you heard gun control politicians took control of the Virginia House and Senate? A. I was disappointed, but not surprised. As a communications professional, I could tell from the political ads that gun control groups were targeting suburban women with emotional messages. They were clearly trying to shame women like myself into believing that law-abiding gun owners are the problem in Virginia. Q. As a long-time Virginian, what do you think is going on in Virginia politics? A. It’s no longer Virginia politics. Virginia was flooded with out-of-state money from people like New York billionaire Michael Bloomberg. It’s very clear what he’s doing. He’s reaching into local- and state-level elections and beta testing his political message with the strategic and long-term goal of getting these local politicians eventually into national office. Personally, I’m really tired of billionaire men determining women’s futures and that’s what is going on here. If they really believe that women's rights are important, why attempt to strip me of a Constitutional right? Q. Do you think Gov. Northam and anti-gun lawmakers in Richmond will stop at “common-sense” gun measures? Where do you think they are headed with gun control? A. There is nothing common sense about taking away people’s right and ability to defend themselves. Gov. Northam speaks about women’s equality, but the Second Amendment already guarantees my equality: Firearms are the ultimate equalizer. I think Northam and Bloomberg’s end game is to try and destroy the NRA and then, unopposed, eliminate the Second Amendment. I’m worried they’ll use things like red flag laws to silence us. For example, many of us fear an anti-gun nut job could try to red flag us and have our guns removed for simply talking about a weekend trip to the range. If we can no longer share our stories without fear of government retribution, it’s just one small step away from losing our rights. History is riddled with the systemic silencing of populations intended to dilute and destroy the culture until it is no more. Q. What did you see the Bloomberg moms do in Virginia that upset you? A. The big thing I see is that the Bloomberg Moms are getting into our schools and influencing administrators, teachers and, de facto, our children. Our side needs to do a better job of that. I’ve seen it time and again where gun control activists show up at playgrounds, local parks, and community parades and push their nonsense on other parents. I’ve tried getting equal access by going to my children’s school and inviting the NRA’s Eddie Eagle in the classroom. I’ve worked with my local law enforcement to make sure they are working with Eddie Eagle. There are a lot moms can be doing in their schools and communities to get our message out. The NRA is the only organization in the world dedicated to promoting the safe and responsible use of firearms, we need to talk about that! We need to make noise in our communities and be willing to have uncomfortable conversations with those who disagree with us. We have to do more than just gather for rallies and talk to people who are like-minded. We must engage respectfully with our opponents. Q. Any final thoughts on what the rest of the country can learn from the Virginia elections? A. The big thing we need is more pro-Second Amendment women to run for office, any office, school board, city council, judicial, state legislature and federally. I know [the head of Moms Demand Action] is working to get women to strategically build their resumes to run for office. We should be cultivating local women to do the same, and start by running for local office. This is such a huge issue, it requires those who support the 2A to get active and involved — not days before an election, but years before the election.
  11. When seeking to pass whatever the anti-gun flavor of the month is when it comes to gun legislation, anti-gun advocates often claim to be seeking only “reasonable” solutions. They often claim that if just one more marginal restriction on our rights is enacted, then we will be “safer.” Nowhere was this more evident than earlier this year when anti-gun advocates and members of Congress worked to pass two anti-gun bills through the U.S. House of Representatives. That fight involved what gun-control supporters frequently claim is the most “reasonable” of all gun-control laws—H.R. 8, the so-called “universal” background check bill. However, as we pointed out at the time, there was nothing reasonable about a bill that would turn law-abiding gun owners into criminals for harmless conduct, while doing nothing to stop violent criminals who actually are responsible for the crimes often used to justify such laws. If H.R. 8 were to become law, it would make the simple act of handing a firearm to another person a federal crime. There are exceptions, but they are so narrowly written that common and well-intentioned firearms transfers would still be crimes under the bill. Letting a friend borrow a rifle to go hunting—federal crime. Giving a gun to a female neighbor who is a stalking victim—federal crime. Selling a firearm to your own brother—federal crime. There’s nothing reasonable about turning the gun owners in any of these examples into criminals, but even worse, anti-gun researchers already have found that expanded background checks are ineffective. In 2018, researchers at U.C. Davis (who are subsidized by California taxpayers to study gun control), and at Michael Bloomberg’s own school at Johns Hopkins found that California’s expanded background-check law didn’t reduce firearm homicides or suicides. That finding was consistent with a review of past studies on expanded background checks by the RAND Corp. that found that “evidence of the effect of private-seller background checks on firearm homicides is inconclusive.” Faced with this evidence, the gun-control lobby’s own witness testifying on H.R. 8 admitted that expanding background checks was not really the ultimate goal of those supporting the law. During testimony, Robyn Thomas, executive director of the Giffords Law Center, stated: “H.R. 8 is absolutely the right first step . . . I think once H.R. 8 is passed there is a number of steps that this Congress can take to adequately address and reduce gun violence in America.” It didn’t take long to see what those other “steps” would be. Only one day after an anti-gun majority in the House of Representatives passed H.R. 8, they took up and passed H.R. 1112. That bill would flip the American concept of “innocent until proven guilty” on its head—at least when it comes to law-abiding Americans exercising their Second Amendment right to acquire a firearm. H.R. 1112 would eliminate a provision in current law that gives an option to federally licensed gun dealers to proceed with a sale if the FBI does not respond to a National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) request within three days. Under current law, the onus is on the FBI to show that a person is legally prohibited from possessing a firearm before they deny a NICS check. This bill would grant the FBI blanket authority to indefinitely delay lawful firearm transfers. An indefinite delay on the purchase of a firearm by someone who is not actually prohibited from purchasing a firearm is not “reasonable.” But anti-gun lawmakers in Congress have not stopped with just these “reasonable” proposals. In September, the House Judiciary Committee again moved gun legislation that proponents describe as “reasonable.” The Democrat-controlled committee took up H.R. 1236—the federal version of extreme-risk protection orders, or “red flag” laws. This legislation would establish a federal grant system to promote these laws at the state level and create a system in which these orders would be available in federal court. The problem with this concept, however, is similar to the problem with H.R. 1112; flipping the “innocent until proven guilty” standard to “guilty until proven innocent.” At the state level, these laws frequently allow confiscation of firearms before gun owners ever have a chance to tell their side of the story. With only one side of the story and a person’s liberty on the line, these laws are a perfect storm for abuse. A former roommate with an axe to grind could petition to have one’s right to keep and bear arms suspended. And in many cases, this will happen at an ex-parte hearing in which a gun owner has no opportunity to participate. And, this was still only the beginning of the “reasonable solutions” pushed by the anti-gun leadership in the U.S. House of Representatives. At the same hearing when H.R. 1236 was advanced, the House Judiciary Committee took up H.R. 1186—which would ban magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. As NRA members are well aware, the idea of setting arbitrarily-determined limits on ammunition capacity for firearms has been promoted for decades. Pro-gun members of the committee tried to point out that this kind of experiment in gun control was already tried with the federal magazine ban that was in effect from 1994-2004—and the government-mandated review of the law found no drop in violent crime attributable to the ban. Undeterred, the anti-gun members of the committee passed the bill. In doing so, they made clear the contempt they have for our right to self-defense. As you know, magazines holding more than 10 rounds are used in the vast majority of firearms that law-abiding Americans keep and bear to protect themselves and their families. Just two weeks later, the House Judiciary Committee chaired by anti-gun Democrat Jerry Nadler (N.Y.) was at it again. This time, the gun-control extremists on the committee were after America’s most-popular rifle, the AR-15. And, just as we have seen with previous hearings in the House on firearms, anti-gun Democrats ignored reason, facts and any semblance of respect for the rights of law-abiding gun owners to push through another anti-gun bill. This one, H.R. 1296, is a reimagining of the failed federal “assault-weapons” ban of 1994-2004. Yet again, proponents of the ban ignored the study that exposed that ban’s failure. This time they also ignored testimony from retired law-enforcement officer Dianna Muller who was active before, during and after the ’94 ban. Muller explained that in her experience the ban had no impact on violent crime. What these hearings and these numerous bills show is that anti-gun lawmakers and advocates are not, as they claim, merely promoting “reasonable” gun laws. What they are actually promoting is a death-by-a-thousand-cuts strategy. Or you could call it incrementalism. Whatever label you attach to their strategy, the fact is that the anti-gun movement is clearly looking to inundate law-abiding American gun owners with as many restrictions as they can. And, if they can pass what they have proposed thus far, they have already admitted the desire for even more. The hearings in the House this year have even further confirmed this. During the hearings on H.R. 1236 and 1186, Washington Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D) referred to a “tapestry of laws” her party will try to pass. One can only imagine how many more bills she and other anti-gun members of Congress intend to force through their chamber to complete this “tapestry.” Whatever is included, we know that confiscation of the over 400 million firearms in America is the ultimate goal. While proponents of gun control have generally avoided publicly voicing support for gun confiscation, failed presidential candidate Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) made it a key part of his platform last year. And he wasn’t alone. Former Texas Representative Beto O’Rourke famously pledged during a recent presidential debate, “Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47!” And while he may very well have dropped his presidential bid by the time you read this, other candidates continue to advance the confiscation strategy. Even some politicians who are not as open, or perhaps honest, as O’Rourke about their ultimate goal of confiscation, often give away their less-discussed agenda when fantasizing about enacting Australia- or New Zealand-style gun control in America. As we’ve pointed out numerous times in the past, when a politician says they support the gun laws of England, Australia and New Zealand; they’re supporting the forced confiscation of lawfully acquired firearms. Fortunately, adoption of these extreme gun-control policies isn’t inevitable. In only one year, Americans will once again have an opportunity to decide the direction of our country. Before that happens, I ask you to join me in the fight to preserve our freedoms. The NRA’s network of grassroots volunteers can use your help to ensure we elect candidates who respect the Second Amendment next November. Please go to nraila.org/grassroots/volunteer to sign up to help. As long as we work together—NRA members and like-minded—freedom-loving Americans will continue to be an unstoppable political force for protecting our right to keep and bear arms for generations to come.
  12. Dianna Muller lost count of how many times she responded to chillingly desperate calls for help during her 22 years as a police officer in Tulsa, Okla. The crime scenes she worked taught her that people need their right to bear arms. “I don’t wish for anyone to be defenseless,” Muller told the NRA. “I would like for everyone to be prepared to be their own first responder.” This is a message she’s been bringing to the nation’s capital. Since retirement, Muller has brought to life “The DC Project,” a nonpartisan group that draws women from all states and all walks of life to Washington, D.C., in an endeavor to share with lawmakers why they own and carry firearms. For some, it is because they were the victim of a rape. For others, it is because they are single mothers with young children they need to protect. Whatever their story, they are all people who refuse to be unarmed victims. By meeting with lawmakers, they are bringing their human stories to this issue—the type of thing the mainstream media just won’t report. Muller tells politicians that gun rights are a fundamental right specifically protected in the U.S. Constitution. She explains that police officers can’t be everywhere all the time. In the minutes it takes officers to get to a call for help, anything can happen. After two decades of investigating crimes and helping victims of criminals, she argues that gun rights are also women’s rights. Muller, along with several other women, have recently had high-profile confrontations with politicians who blame law-abiding gun owners for the actions of criminals. “I will not comply with the assault-weapons ban,” said Muller, as she testified to members of the House Judiciary Committee in September. She was referring to the desire of some Democrats to ban and confiscate AR-15-type rifles from the public. Her “I will not comply” declaration went viral as a rallying cry for freedom. “There are a lot of politicians that believe disarming American citizens will make the country safer. They don’t have much experience with firearms, and it’s easier for them to chalk all the violence up to the tool instead of the human,” Muller explained to the NRA. “It seems as though our country is not teaching our children history or what kind of power they have as citizens. They are all too eager to give up their rights, thinking that it will give them safety.” Meanwhile, Dr. Suzanna Hupp, a former member of the Texas House of Representatives who, after surviving the 1991 “Luby’s shooting” in which a murderer killed both of her parents, has continued to speak out as a passionate advocate for the law-abiding citizen’s right to carry. “Please consider the high cost of gun control,” she told the Joint Economic Committee hearing in September. “I reached for my gun, but my gun was 100 yards away, dutifully left in my vehicle. I can tell you that the cost of gun control was my parents and 23 innocent lives.” Lauren Boebert was yet another woman who made her mark in September. She challenged aspiring Democratic presidential nominee Beto O’Rourke’s gun-confiscation scheme at a town hall event. A video of the incident made waves across social media. “I am here to say: Hell, no, you’re not,” she told O’Rourke, countering his “hell yes” that he’d ban and confiscate so-called “assault weapons” from the American citizenry. Boebert further elaborated to the NRA that, in her home state of Colorado, politicians have long been “shaving off pieces” of the Second Amendment. “When I heard Beto was coming to my state to push for more gun control, I knew I had to speak up,” she said. “There were a couple of hundred people who didn’t want me there. But I had to put those fears aside, because who am I to lose that opportunity to speak on behalf of millions of Americans everywhere? We must educate those around us and teach them that a firearm is for self-defense and protection.” These three bold women are just a few examples of millions more who don’t want to lose their right to personal defense. Their voices are strong and powerful, yet all too often they are dismissed by the narratives the mainstream media pushes. As the nation heads into the 2020 presidential election with gun rights at the forefront of the political rhetoric, they are speaking up to make sure lawmakers and the American public are aware that gun rights are also women’s rights. “We are the silent majority, and because we are so silent, it seems like we are the minority,” Boebert said. “It’s time that we rise up and speak up.” Muller put it this way: “Women are likely to be smaller and less suited for a physical confrontation than an attacker. A firearm is the great equalizer. It doesn’t guarantee my security, but it does give me a chance. If I’m in that Walmart in El Paso, I want to be armed. If I hear a bump in the night, I want to be armed. Defending yourself is the most basic human right.”
  13. After reading this read the Post - Far Reaching Consequences The evidence that Elizabeth Warren has a bot programmed to run her Twitter account in the voice of an extremely online millennial keeps growing. On Monday, for instance, the candidate tweeted: "Traffic violence kills thousands and injures even more Americans every year. On World Day of Remembrance for Traffic Crash Victims, I'm sending my love to the families and friends of those who have lost loved ones. It's time to #EndTrafficViolence." 4,015 people are talking about this For a moment, this tweet reminded me of someone suffering from memory issues. Perhaps she forgot the word "accident" and her brain settled on "violence" instead. But, it turns out, that the term "traffic violence" was not made up by whoever or whatever runs the candidate's Twitter. Apparently there's been an effort to rebrand car accidents as "traffic violence" going back at least a few years. The first reference I was able to find for the term "traffic violence" comes from a 2013 post on StreetsBlog, a site that advocates for safer streets for pedestrians and cyclists. That post, by Angie Schmitt, is called, "It’s Time for the AP to Nix the Term 'Accident' to Describe Car Collisions." Schmitt argues that the term "accident" misrepresents what happens in most car collisions: "Words matter, and the way car crashes are framed has a powerful effect on how they are perceived. If thousands of preventable traffic injuries and deaths per year are described as accidental, why support thorough investigations to uncover causal factors and determine potential solutions?" She's got a point. Human error causes an estimated 94 percent of car crashes, and when we label these "accidents," we're acting as though they can't be prevented. They just happen; there's nothing that can be done to stop them. What's more, the term "traffic violence" is meant to de-sanitize the reality of vehicular crashes, says Tom Fucoloro of Seattle Bike Blog. To him, Warren's tweet shows that she really gets it. "What this signals to me is that someone in her campaign is aware of Vision Zero [an international campaign to end traffic fatalities] and that we need a national intervention to address this problem," he said. This was echoed by Roger Rudick, a writer for Streetsblog San Francisco, who told me that even crashes than aren't caused by human error are often due to poor design and planning. "The word 'accident' eliminates blame," Rudick said. "Do crashes happen that are truly accidental? Yes, but even in those cases [if] you look at the way roads are designed, there's usually a reason for it." Still, while I am persuaded that the term "accident" is a misnomer—and one that those in criminal justice, law, insurance, and the media should probably avoid—I'm not so sure using the term "traffic violence" will benefit Elizabeth Warren. Liberals are already accused of misapplying the term "violence" to everything from speech to getting someone's pronoun wrong. Calling car crashes "traffic violence" may signal to those in the know that Warren gets it. The question is, what does it signal to everyone else?
  14. AR-15, AK-47 CONFISCATION A TOTAL FRAUD: What about every similar gun? Leave them all out there? Government will insist on mandatory "buy ups" or confiscating everything. While people in mass media on the left and right continue to harp about proposed confiscations, forced "buybacks," sales bans and contrabanding AR-15s and AK-47s, there is no way either party or any candidate can attack those guns in isolation. Those are simply poster children for every basic firearm Americans own. Why isn't the so-called "news" media making this clear? Are they hiding truth? "How can you go into a person's home, confiscate or even buy their AR-15, and leave them with a Smith and Wesson M&P? Or a Steyr AUG? Or any gun with a normal magazine--all of which can take what media ignoramii like to call 'hicapacity clips'? The firearms are all virtually the same thing. Banning AR-15s does nothing," according to Alan Korwin, a gun-law expert and consultant to JPFO. Six national experts contacted by JPFO agree with Mr. Korwin. The AR-15 or AK-47 is no different from other standard magazine-type firearms. Demands to ban them are either hopelessly ignorant or deliberate deceptions. Such bans would have to ban almost everything to have any effect. Politicians know this. Hello, CNN? "If you read the current bill, HR1296," Mr. Korwin notes, "which the media apparently has not, it does ban almost everything, by banning guns with 'any characteristic that can function as a grip.'" What gun, JPFO asks, doesn't have a grip? It's rhetorical. All guns have grips, so you can pick them up and hold them. The media is misleading everyone, including themselves. It's clear the talking heads are unaware of this, just listen to them. They should have their licenses confiscated, except the media are unlicensed and unregistered -- and it shows.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.