Posts Tagged ‘anti-gun asshattery’

The arguments Kristof uses are far beyond stupid,and prove his exceptional lack of knowledge concerning rights,the Constitution,and gun laws.

I’m not even going to bother to re-post any of this drivel-read for yourself-if you want to either get really pissed off-or have a good laugh-or maybe both.

These people hate guns,they hate the second amendment,and want to get rid of both.

They hate gun owners just as much.

Kristof’s NY Slimes nonsense

Advertisements

“Some criminal in the upper midwest is still running around with the selective-fire M4 that an ATF agent left in his G-ride while doing the horizontal bop with another ATF agent, unbeknownst to either’s spouse. No ATF employee was ever investigated on that case, either. Brandon’s answer? More power to the lawless agents that released that firearm into the wild.”

RTWT @ Weaponsman here

 

Fairfax, VA -(AmmoLand.com)- At a time when it’s more important than ever to maintain the right of the American people to keep and bear arms for self-defense, law professor David S. Cohen is calling for repeal of the Second Amendment.

“Americans’ rights are in mortal danger,” he says, unless Hillary Clinton is elected president and stacks the Supreme Court with progressive judges.

In the repeatedly discredited rag, Rolling Stone, Cohen writes, “sometimes we just have to acknowledge that the Founders and the Constitution are wrong. This is one of those times. . . . The Second Amendment needs to be repealed because it is outdated, a threat to liberty and a suicide pact.”

By “outdated,” Cohen means that the Framers of the Bill of Rights were unable to conceive of 19th century semi-automatic firearm technology. “When the Second Amendment was adopted in 1791, there were no weapons remotely like the AR-15 assault rifle (sic),” he said.

However, as the late, great Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, “Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.”

And in any case, there is nothing outdated about the underlying principle of the Second Amendment: to prohibit the government from interfering with the ability of people to acquire, possess and develop proficiency with arms they might one day need to defend themselves and their loved ones.

Cohen’s rant is just one example of an astonishing amount of sheer nonsense that has filled the Internet since the terrorist attack in Orlando. Anti-gun politicians, and so-called opinion columnists and TV talking heads – who pretend to be “experts” on every topic under the sun, but who in reality know virtually nothing about even one topic – are confidently calling the AR-15 an “automatic” weapon, a “military” weapon,” and a “weapon of war,” and telling everyone that the most popular rifle in America should be banned.

Of course, the First Amendment protects the right of pundits to demonstrate that the size of their egos are only matched by the depth of their ignorance on firearms and the Second Amendment. And so it should be.

If history repeats itself, the recent slew of half-baked, culture-war-based, ideologically-motivated, attention-seeking statements against guns will only increase support for the right to arms, and additional support may develop as people increasingly realize that President Obama and Hillary Clinton, who are urging gun bans, are the very politicians most responsible for the rise of overseas terrorist groups who inspire and possibly direct evildoers within our midst.

All the more reason for the American people to protect their right to protect themselves.

Since December 2010 the government program known as Operation Fast and Furious has morphed into a program that could be accurately labeled as Operation Slow and Tedious. The objective is to delay exposure of the truth until that exposure has no political or personal impact on the various players involved.

Efforts to get at the truth of the scandal got a boost in January when an Obama-appointed federal judge ruled that thousands of documents subpoenaed by congressional investigators could not be withheld under claims of executive privilege. In keeping with the Slow and Tedious strategy, the Department of Justice finally released a large block of the documents three months later on a Friday afternoon in April but continues to withhold many others.

The recent document dump supports speculation that then-Attorney General Eric Holder knew more about the ill-conceived gunwalking operation than he has claimed, and that he and other high-level DOJ officials actively worked to conceal details of the operation from Congress and the public. Emails released earlier in the investigation indicate that White House adviser Valerie Jarrett gave guidance in the coverup, but so far, none of the recent documents provide a direct link to the White House. What they do show is a concerted effort to keep the details of the operation under wraps for political purposes.

Had these documents been made public when they were originally subpoenaed, they could have had a serious negative impact on Obama’s re-election campaign and might have prevented implementation of new regulations requiring gun dealers in border states to report information about purchasers of semi-auto rifles. By delaying the release until now, those political consequences have been avoided, but there are other potential consequences the administration is continuing to try and avoid. Recent criminal charges filed against government officials in the Flint, Michigan, water scandal are a reminder that politicians and bureaucrats might not be beyond the reach of the law. So far, no one has paid a significant price for their roles in Fast and Furious, and the administration clearly wants to keep it that way.

It has been more than five years since the tragic death of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry at the hands of Mexican bandits. The bandits were armed with guns acquired with the assistance of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives – the agency tasked with enforcement of federal gun control laws. In January of 2011, just one month after Agent Terry’s death, I asked the question in this column whether the Obama administration had intentionally allowed guns to be smuggled to Mexican drug gangs as a way of boosting the administration’s gun control agenda. That column was based on the investigative reporting of citizen-journalists David Codrea and Mike Vanderboegh, who developed the story from sources within the BATF and worked tirelessly to bring it to the attention of Congress and “mainstream” reporters. The WND column was the first mention of the scandal in a major national media outlet. That was followed in late February with a report by Cheryl Atkisson on CBS News in which she interviewed one of Codrea and Vanderboegh’s BATF sources. After that, other reporters slowly started mentioning the growing scandal, and Congress intensified its investigation.

Fast and Furious was the codename given to a still-unexplained program under which the BATF instructed certain gun dealers to go ahead with firearm and ammunition sales to suspected Mexican arms traffickers. Once the sales were made, BATF agents were ordered to break off surveillance of the suspects, and no effort of any kind was made to track the suspects or the guns they possessed. BATF officials – and the media – continue to refer to the program as a “botched sting,” or a “failed attempt to track guns to Mexican drug cartels,” but those labels don’t come close to fitting the program. The only monitoring that was done – or even possible under the plan – was to trace serial numbers of guns found at crime scenes.

That information provides no actionable intelligence, and only marginally enhances the prosecution of low-level, straw buyers. When Agent Terry was killed, both guns recovered at the scene turned out to have come from the Fast and Furious program. That resulted in the program being quickly shut down and swept under the rug. Had it not been for Vanderboegh noticing an off-hand comment on a BATF employee gripe site, and following up on the comment, the whole Fast and Furious debacle might have never been made public.

Codrea and Vanderboegh never got the credit they deserved for breaking the story, but they weren’t in it for the notoriety; they just wanted the truth to be known. Vanderboegh, a prolific blogger and rabble-rouser, is currently dealing with serious health issues and is sadly not expected to be with us much longer. As cantankerous and disagreeable as he can be, he has done the republic a great service by challenging authority and exposing the threads of truth in this case. Readers are encouraged to remember him and his family in their current struggles.

After the story started gaining legs in 2011, the administration, the Department of Justice and the BATF hierarchy disavowed any knowledge of the program. They pointed fingers at local agents and made some superficial changes. The acting head of BATF was laterally transferred to a new position, as were the supervisory agents in charge of the operation. A politically connected federal prosecutor in Arizona and a DOJ deputy resigned, and the agents who blew the whistle on the operation faced career-ending retribution. No other consequences have resulted from the ill-conceived program except hundreds of dead and injured in Mexico.

For now, Operation Slow and Tedious drags on. Attorneys for Congress continue to battle attorneys for the administration over release of the remaining documents, but the public’s interest is waning, and the trail is growing cold. Slow and tedious is once again proving to be a successful strategy for consequence avoidance in Washington.

©2016 The Firearms Coalition, all rights reserved. Reprinting, posting, and distributing permitted with inclusion of this copyright statement. www.FirearmsCoalition.org.

The goal of the group will be to push national adoption of the same universal background checks that have failed in California, Colorado, Washington state, and Paris. In fact, Petraeus will be pushing the same background checks that Giffords’ attacker passed in order to acquire the gun he used to wound her on January 8, 2011.
According to The Hill, Kelly announced the launch of the group by talking about military members’ commitment to “protect our constitution and homeland.” He suggested political leaders now need to step up and “do more to protect our rights and save lives.”
Kelly did not mention that more lives are lost in parts of the country where gun control is most stringent–places like Chicago–nor did he explain how passing more laws that interfere with the exercise of Second Amendment rights is somehow akin to protecting those rights.
In addition to Petraeus, former CIA director Michael Hayden and retired Admiral Thad Allen have pledged to push for more gun laws with Mark Kelly.

source

The anti-gun press couldn’t contain their excitement. A new study published in the UK’s prestigious The Lancet medical journal purported to show that certain gun control measures could lead to incredible reductions in the firearm mortality rate. CNN blared, “Study: 3 federal laws could reduce gun deaths by more than 90%,” the L.A. Times touted, “Aiming to drive down gun deaths? Put these three laws on the books, researchers say,” and the Christian Science Monitor proclaimed, “Federal gun control laws could reduce deaths up to 90 percent, study says.” What these outlets weren’t anticipating is that the study has proven so flawed that the most influential members of the anti-gun research community have been forced to denounce it; lest the public realize the larger problems attendant to the entire field of study.

The controversial study is titled, “Firearm legislation and firearm mortality in the USA: a cross-sectional, state-level study,” and was authored by a team led by epidemiologist Bindu Kalesan of Boston University’s Department of Medicine and School of Public Health. The researchers attempted to determine the effects that more than two dozen different types of gun control measures – ranging from fingerprinting requirements to child access laws – had on homicide mortality, suicide mortality, and overall firearm mortality rates. As has been the focus of the laudatory news items, the researchers concluded that implementation of a federal “universal” background check law, in concert with federal ammunition background checks and “firearm identification requirements,” could reduce overall firearm mortality by more than 90 percent.

Unsurprisingly, most media outlets have given less attention to the research team’s findings pertaining to a host of other gun controls. The team found many gun control measures have little, no, or even a detrimental effect on firearm mortality rates.

According to the study, gun dealer licensing, dealer state record reporting requirements, dealer police inspections, gun owner fingerprinting, closing of the “gun show loophole,” ammunition purchaser recordkeeping, child handgun restrictions, child access laws, juvenile handgun purchases, magazine bans, and may-issue carry permits, have little to no effect on firearm-related deaths. Further, their results show, semi-auto bans, firearms locks, “bulk purchase limitations,” and mandatory theft reporting, increase firearm-related deaths.

Likely fearing the flawed study will result in a massive backlash that could further expose the shortcomings of their own work, the anti-gun research community has turned on Kalesan, her team, and The Lancet.

Daniel Webster, director of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health’s Center for Gun Policy and Research, told the Washington Post, “Briefly, this is not a credible study and no cause and effect inferences should be made from it.” Webster is later quoted, stating, “What I find both puzzling and troubling is this very flawed piece of research is published in one of the most prestigious scientific journals around… Something went awry here, and it harms public trust.”

David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, said of the findings, “That’s too big — I don’t believe that.” Pouring cold water on the schemes of politicians peddling gun controls as societal cure-alls, Hemenway went on to tell the Post, “These laws are not that strong. I would just be flabbergasted; I’d bet the house if you did [implement] these laws, if you had these three laws and enforced them really well and reduced gun deaths by 10 percent, you’d be ecstatic.” Offering a glimpse into the broader deficiencies of the field, Hemenway told U.S. News & World Report, “I could find serious problems with virtually any U.S. study about gun laws.”

This bout of public infighting and candid admissions as to the credibility of the entire field of gun violence research should give the public and policymakers pause when presented with studies supporting further gun restrictions. As Webster so eloquently alluded to, the peer-review process and stature of a journal offer little indication of the veracity of its contents when it comes to the politically-charged topic of gun control. Further, this episode provides important evidence as to why NRA works with federal lawmakers to ensure that this type of shoddy and politically motivated research is not federally funded through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It is bad enough that such defective anti-gun research finds its way into distinguished publications, without forcing the taxpayer to foot the bill.

From NRA/ILA here

Hayley Tsukayama The Washington Post

It just became much harder to buy a gun through Facebook.

Although Facebook itself doesn’t sell guns, it has wrestled for years with the right way to handle sales of regulated goods such as firearms, adult toys and prescription drugs on its social-media network.

On Friday, the firm changed its policy regarding firearms, banning any such peer-to-peer sales on its network. That means users can no longer offer or coordinate the private sale of firearms on the site. This policy also applies to the sale of gun parts and ammunition, said a Facebook spokeswoman.

That’s far more strict than the company’s previous policy.

Two years ago, the company announced it would treat the sales of firearms in the same way it handles alcohol, tobacco and adult products. Under that policy, those selling firearms were sent a message reminding them to comply with all rules and regulations. It also restricted access to those posts to users older than 18 and displayed an educational message to anyone who searched for firearms sales on Facebook or Instagram, which the company owns. In general, advertisers also are not allowed to boost advertisements that feature regulated goods on Facebook.

The new policy brings the regulation of firearms sales in line with the company’s bans on the sale of marijuana and prescription drugs on its network. If Facebook detects any posts that violates the new directive, it will review the posts and remove them, if necessary.

When Facebook first addressed its firearms policy in March 2014, it was in part at the behest of groups such as Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America and Mayors Against Illegal Guns. According to the company, it decided to make this latest change in response to the way commerce has evolved on the network since then.

“Over the last two years, more and more people have been using Facebook to discover products and to buy and sell things to one another,” said Monika Bickert, Facebook’s head of global product policy. “We are continuing to develop, test and launch new products to make this experience even better for people and are updating our regulated-goods policies to reflect this evolution.”

Still, the new policy does allow licensed firearms retailers to post about their goods and services on Facebook. However, they must complete any such transactions off the network.

Facebook did not have data on how many sales are completed this way.

The policy change encouraged some gun-control advocates, who see it as a way to crack down on transactions that potentially violate regulations on firearms sales.

“We spoke with Facebook regarding this important new policy decision, and I appreciate the company’s willingness to work with my office over the past two years on this issue,” said New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman. “Today’s announcement is another positive step toward our shared goal of stopping illegal online gun sales once and for all.”

The National Rifle Association did immediately respond to a request for comment.

One would get the impression listening to gun control advocates or, indeed, to President Obama and those Democrats vying to succeed him that the United States is in the midst of an epidemic of violence; awash in blood with murderers and mass killers roaming the streets carrying guns they’ve bought at gun shows, over the Internet or from crazed neighbors. In fact, many Americans share this view. A recent Pew poll asked respondents if they believe the U.S. homicide rate has gone up or down over the last twenty years. Fifty-six percent of those polled said it has gone up and only twelve percent believed we are safer today than two decades ago.

The perception here and abroad has little to do with reality and a lot to do with political grandstanding. In fact, over the last twenty years or so the U.S. homicide rate has not just receded, but has been cut in half. The United States does indeed have a higher homicide rate than some industrialized nations in Europe and Japan, but is very, very different in size and complexity to those nations usually cited by those who wish to blame guns for the differences.

Here is one simple fact for those who blame firearms ownership and availability in this country for the murder and violent crime rate that plagues some of our major cities: while crime and violence were being cut in half, gun ownership was doubling.

It is too simple to claim that there is less violence in the United States today because more of our citizens are armed, but it is clear that there is no correlation between the number of guns in private hands with either the murder or violent crime rates as claimed by most gun control advocates.

The president likes to talk about ‘gun violence’ which is something that includes firearms accidents, suicides and those killed with guns. There are statistically very few firearms accidents in this country thanks to safety training and common sense. Two-thirds of all gun deaths are suicides and while some claim that making it more difficult for potential suicides to get guns would decrease the total number of suicides, international data suggest otherwise. That leaves two additional categories although former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s groups lump those killed by police and even the death of the Boston Marathon Bomber as a firearms homicide. They are criminal gun violence and so-called mass shootings.

Criminals using firearms are the biggest problem, but it is a problem we as a society know how to handle. If a thug walks into a convenience store with a gun and robs it, he has committed both a state and federal crime. Robbery is a state crime, but committing a felony with a firearm is a federal crime and prosecutable as such with a five year minimum sentence. A felon in possession of a gun is also prosecutable and can get five to ten years for having one in his possession.

Back in the nineties, the NRA partnered with law enforcement officials and prosecutors in Richmond, Virginia, which was at that time listed as America’s murder capital. The message was simple. Use a gun to commit a crime and you will get five years in a federal penitentiary with no possibility of a plea bargain. The murder rate dropped 32 percent the first year and another 20 percent the next, but the U.S. attorney who participated in what came to be known as “Project Exile” was criticized by Eric Holder, then Deputy Attorney General, for wasting prosecutorial resources.

Today felons or criminals using firearms are rarely prosecuted by the federal government. In fact, today’s U.S. murder capital is Chicago, the jurisdiction with the lowest rate of such prosecutions. Before President Obama issued his recent series of “Executive Orders” on gun violence, it was suggested that they would include instructions to U.S. prosecutors to begin charging gun criminals under existing law. That idea was dropped in favor of actions that don’t target criminals, but will make it harder for non-criminals to buy firearms.

The final category involves mass shootings such as the killing at the Sandy Hook Elementary School and the Washington Navy Yard. These tragedies rarely if ever involve criminals. They are invariably perpetrated by the severely and dangerously mentally ill. This category of violence is the most difficult to deter or prevent, but beefed up school security, getting the states to put the most potentially dangerous into the background check system and rebuilding the U.S. mental health system are the keys to dealing with them.

The American people are lucky in that the nation’s founders wrote the age old right of self defense into our Bill of Rights. Many nations don’t recognize such a right, but Americans do. It is estimated, in fact, that as many as 200,000 crimes are deterred in a typical year by armed potential victims. It’s why in every jurisdiction that has legalized what we call ‘concealed carry’ has seen a drop in violent crime. Burglars don’t break into a house with a Rottweiler in the yard and are reluctant to use violence against a man or woman who just might be able to fight back.

source

Via Christian Mercenary

Excerpt…

“When it was revealed that the Obama Administration was responsible for walking illegally purchased guns to Mexican drug cartels claiming that they were tracking the purchases back to the true buyer, without putting in place a means of tracking the guns past the border, the media covered it up. Who knows how many lives were lost as a result of that policy? It was so bad that ATF agents contacted Mike Vanderboegh and David Codrea, often considered “anti-government,” to get the word out about the actions of the FBI. The story didn’t really get any traction until Brian Terry, a Border Patrol agent, was killed with one of the guns walked down to Mexico near Rio Rico, AZ.

We all know the names Woodward and Bernstein, but almost no one knows the names Vanderboegh and Codrea. Why is this? Why was no one ever convicted in the Fast and Furious scandal? The only ones punished were those agents who leaked the story to Vanderboegh and Codrea. Eventually, myself and many others contacted enough conservative radio talk show hosts and  Vanderboegh and Codrea chronicled it so successfully that Sharyl Atkisson of CBS took it up and put the national story out there. Not only has she not been celebrated by her colleagues in the media, her computer was hacked by federal agents and she has been harassed and drummed out of her job at CBS.”

Read the whole thing @ Christian Mercenary here

Fairfax, Va. – The executive director of the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action, Chris W. Cox, released the following statement on Tuesday regarding President Barack Obama’s Executive Gun Control Order:

Once again, President Obama has chosen to engage in political rhetoric, instead of offering meaningful solutions to our nation’s pressing problems.  Today’s event also represents an ongoing attempt to distract attention away from his lack of a coherent strategy to keep the American people safe from terrorist attack.

The American people do not need more emotional, condescending lectures that are completely devoid of facts.  The men and women of the National Rifle Association take a back seat to no one when it comes to keeping our communities safe.  But the fact is that President Obama’s proposals would not have prevented any of the horrific events he mentioned.  The timing of this announcement, in the eighth and final year of his presidency, demonstrates not only political exploitation but a fundamental lack of

seriousness.

The proposed executive actions are ripe for abuse by the Obama Administration, which has made no secret of its contempt for the Second Amendment.  The NRA will continue to fight to protect the fundamental, individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms as guaranteed under our Constitution.  We will not allow law-abiding gun owners to be harassed or intimidated for engaging in lawful, constitutionally-protected activity – nor will we allow them to become scapegoats for President Obama’s failed policies.