Posts Tagged ‘Nanny State’

From : http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/02/26/new-bill-gives-the-attorney-general-the-power-to-block-gun-sales-to-suspected-terrorists/

Feinstein’s new bill-(link at end of article) sure looks a lot like this bill did…

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr720/text

And this one…

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr2159/text

More than two dozen Democrats in the House and Senate — and one Republican — want to give the U.S. attorney general the power to block the sale of guns and explosives to known terrorists, and also to anyone who is “appropriately suspected” of being a terrorist.

The Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act was introduced this week by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.). They say it makes no sense that people on the terrorist watch list are prohibited from boarding airplanes in the United States, but are still free to buy guns and explosives.

Supporters of a new bill say known or suspected terrorists shouldn’t have access to guns in the United States.

“Federal law already prohibits nine categories of dangerous persons from purchasing or possessing firearms, including the mentally ill and criminals,” said King. “Yet, after almost 14 years, we still allow suspected terrorists the ability to purchase firearms. It’s time for common sense to prevail before it’s too late.”

Feinstein and King noted that according to GAO, people on the terrorist watch list who tried to buy a weapon in 2013 and 2014 were successful about 93 percent of the time.

But it seems unlikely that a GOP-led House and Senate will agree to give the attorney general the power to stop gun sales, especially with President Barack Obama still in office for the next two years.

Under the bill, the attorney general would be able to stop the transfer of a gun or explosive to a “known or suspected” terrorist if it’s possible the person might use the firearm in connection with terrorism. The bill language says the attorney general can stop the transfer if he or she “has a reasonable belief that the prospective transferee may use a firearm in connection with terrorism.”

Sales could be blocked to anyone known to be involved in terrorist activities, or anyone who is “appropriately suspected.” That term is used throughout the bill but is never defined, and would likely be a cause for alarm by defenders of the Second Amendment who might worry about giving the attorney general too much discretion in deciding who is “appropriately suspected” of terrorism.

One example of how that authority could be abused was revealed last week, when it was reported that the Department of Homeland Security had produced an intelligence assessment that focuses on terrorist attacks from right-wing groups interested in defending themselves from the federal government. That led to more criticism that the Obama administration is not worried enough about radical Islamic terrorist threats, and is overly worried about right-wing groups.

The legislation would keep current provisions of the law that allow people who are blocked from buying a gun or an explosive to know why he or she was denied, and to challenge that decision at the Department of Justice, and then through a lawsuit if needed.

The Senate bill is cosponsored by 11 Democrats, and the House bill is cosponsored by 14 Democrats — King is the only Republican on the bill.

Read the bill @ http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve/?File_id=e0e0dab0-d7d7-4dca-83da-7b68f5be2b47

Setting the state up for massive gun owner civil disobedience along the lines of what has occurred in California and is currently happening in New York and Connecticut, Democrat State Senator Jacqueline Y. Collins filed the Firearms Registration Act with the Secretary of State on Friday. The act was then presented for first reading and referred to the Democrat-dominated Assignments Committee.

Is Democrat Illinois State Senator Jacqueline Y. Collins ready to enforce her demands against gun owners who will not comply?

Collins’ measure “[p]rovides that every person in the State must register each firearm he or she owns or possesses in accordance with the Act,” the official synopsis declares. It also “[p]rovides that a person shall not purchase or possess ammunition within this State without having first obtained a registration certificate identifying a firearm that is suitable for use with that ammunition, or a receipt demonstrating that the person has applied to register a suitable firearm under the Act and that the application is pending.”

In addition, it requires “the Department of State Police must complete a background check of any person who applies for: (1) a registration certificate for a firearm that was lawfully owned or possessed on the effective date of the Act, was brought into the State by a new resident, or was acquired by operation of law upon the death of the former owner; or (2) a renewal of a registration certificate unless, within 12 months of the date the renewal application is submitted, the applicant passed a background check conducted by the Department in connection with the applicant’s acquisition of another firearm.”

Ominously, it also “Provides that it is a Class 2 felony to sell or transfer ownership of a firearm to another person without complying with the registration requirement of the Firearms Registration Act.” That can get someone three to seven years, a punishment equivalent to that people who intentionally transmit HIV are sentenced to.

This new batch of proposed infringements is in addition to requirements already imposed by Illinois State Law requiring gun owners to have a Firearms Owner Identification Card to purchase firearms and ammunition. In fact, it’s an in-your-face to gun owners from an avowed gun hater.

Collins is a former CBS-TV in Chicago “news” editor with credentials from Northwestern University’s Medill School of Journalism and Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, among other credentials from “progressive” academia. Fittingly, she was a “2001 Legislative Fellow for U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.” She was also endorsed by the Brady campaign at the same time it threw its weight behind (former?) “gun communist” Bobby Rush and future felons (and prohibited persons) Jesse Jackson, Jr. and Rod Blagojevich.

When she joined rabidly anti-gun “priest” Mike “Snuffy” Pfleger for a media blood dance, they were strangely silent on the fact that the ones doing the killings in Chicago are exempt from gun registration schemes they would impose on the law-abiding. That’s because in Haynes v. U.S., the Supreme Court ruled that requiring felons to register guns violated Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination.

Collins knows this, of course, as do all gun-grabbers who would require registration, which is a prerequisite for confiscation. That increasing numbers of gun owners know that and have defiantly told those enacting such Intolerable Acts to get bent is not lost on impotent and enraged state monopoly of violence cultists, who vent their fury by demanding others employ that violence to bend the “scofflaws” to their will.

Whether or not Collins’ latest deliberate act of spitting on freedom stands a chance of being enacted remains to be seen. Regardless, a critical mass of gun owners will not let that alter their resolve to hold fast to their rights and to not back up another inch. There’s a new paradigm, with a growing number of determined citizens recognizing what colleague Mike Vanderboegh has identified as two countries sharing the same territory, and where his fundamental question “Do the people serve the government or does the government serve the people?” has yet to be ultimately tested in our time.

Whether or not it is tested depends on how far domestic enemies with “appetites for the liberty and property” of others are willing to press those they would compel obedience from. If they’re not willing to enforce against all, it will show a self-defeating weakness in the Chicago machine, and encourage other gun owners to join in and spread mass defiance even further. And if they are, we’ll all get an unequivocal answer to that question.

http://www.examiner.com/article/illinois-democrat-s-firearms-registration-act-may-test-new-paradigm?CID=examiner_alerts_article

By Michael Snyder

Are you a conservative, a libertarian, a Christian or a gun owner?  Are you opposed to abortion, globalism, Communism, illegal immigration, the United Nations or the New World Order?  Do you believe in conspiracy theories, do you believe that we are living in the “end times” or do you ever visit alternative news websites (such as this one)?

If you answered yes to any of those questions, you are a “potential terrorist” according to official U.S. government documents.

At one time, the term “terrorist” was used very narrowly.  The government applied that label to people like Osama bin Laden and other Islamic jihadists.  But now the Obama administration is removing all references to Islam from terror training materials, and instead the term “terrorist” is being applied to large groups of American citizens.

And if you are a “terrorist”, that means that you have no rights and the government can treat you just like it treats the terrorists that are being held at Guantanamo Bay.  So if you belong to a group of people that is now being referred to as “potential terrorists”, please don’t take it as a joke.  The first step to persecuting any group of people is to demonize them.  And right now large groups of peaceful, law-abiding citizens are being ruthlessly demonized.

Below is a list of 72 types of Americans that are considered to be “extremists” and “potential terrorists” in official U.S. government documents.  To see the original source document for each point, just click on the link.  As you can see, this list covers most of the country…

1. Those that talk about “individual liberties”
2. Those that advocate for states’ rights
3. Those that want “to make the world a better place”
4. “The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule”
5. Those that are interested in “defeating the Communists”
6. Those that believe “that the interests of one’s own nation are separate from the interests of other nations or the common interest of all nations”
7. Anyone that holds a “political ideology that considers the state to be unnecessary, harmful,or undesirable”
8. Anyone that possesses an “intolerance toward other religions”
9. Those that “take action to fight against the exploitation of the environment and/or animals”
10. “Anti-Gay”
11. “Anti-Immigrant”
12. “Anti-Muslim”
13. “The Patriot Movement”
14. “Opposition to equal rights for gays and lesbians”
15. Members of the Family Research Council
16. Members of the American Family Association
17. Those that believe that Mexico, Canada and the United States “are secretly planning to merge into a European Union-like entity that will be known as the ‘North American Union’”
18. Members of the American Border Patrol/American Patrol
19. Members of the Federation for American Immigration Reform
20. Members of the Tennessee Freedom Coalition
21. Members of the Christian Action Network
22. Anyone that is “opposed to the New World Order”
23. Anyone that is engaged in “conspiracy theorizing”
24. Anyone that is opposed to Agenda 21
25. Anyone that is concerned about FEMA camps
26. Anyone that “fears impending gun control or weapons confiscations”
27. The militia movement
28. The sovereign citizen movement
29. Those that “don’t think they should have to pay taxes”
30. Anyone that “complains about bias”
31. Anyone that “believes in government conspiracies to the point of paranoia”
32. Anyone that “is frustrated with mainstream ideologies”
33. Anyone that “visits extremist websites/blogs”
34. Anyone that “establishes website/blog to display extremist views”
35. Anyone that “attends rallies for extremist causes”
36. Anyone that “exhibits extreme religious intolerance”
37. Anyone that “is personally connected with a grievance”
38. Anyone that “suddenly acquires weapons”
39. Anyone that “organizes protests inspired by extremist ideology”
40. “Militia or unorganized militia”
41. “General right-wing extremist”
42. Citizens that have “bumper stickers” that are patriotic or anti-U.N.
43. Those that refer to an “Army of God”
44. Those that are “fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation)”
45. Those that are “anti-global”
46. Those that are “suspicious of centralized federal authority”
47. Those that are “reverent of individual liberty”
48. Those that “believe in conspiracy theories”
49. Those that have “a belief that one’s personal and/or national ‘way of life’ is under attack”
50. Those that possess “a belief in the need to be prepared for an attack either by participating in paramilitary preparations and training or survivalism”
51. Those that would “impose strict religious tenets or laws on society (fundamentalists)”
52. Those that would “insert religion into the political sphere”
53. Anyone that would “seek to politicize religion”
54. Those that have “supported political movements for autonomy”
55. Anyone that is “anti-abortion”
56. Anyone that is “anti-Catholic”
57. Anyone that is “anti-nuclear”
58. “Rightwing extremists”
59. “Returning veterans”
60. Those concerned about “illegal immigration”
61. Those that “believe in the right to bear arms”
62. Anyone that is engaged in “ammunition stockpiling”
63. Anyone that exhibits “fear of Communist regimes”
64. “Anti-abortion activists”
65. Those that are against illegal immigration
66. Those that talk about “the New World Order” in a “derogatory” manner
67. Those that have a negative view of the United Nations
68. Those that are opposed “to the collection of federal income taxes”
69. Those that supported former presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr
70. Those that display the Gadsden Flag (“Don’t Tread On Me”)
71. Those that believe in “end times” prophecies
72. Evangelical Christians

The groups of people in the list above are considered “problems” that need to be dealt with.  In some of the documents referenced above, members of the military are specifically warned not to have anything to do with such groups.

We are moving into a very dangerous time in American history.  You can now be considered a “potential terrorist” just because of your religious or political beliefs.  Free speech is becoming a thing of the past, and we are rapidly becoming an Orwellian society that is the exact opposite of what our founding fathers intended.

Please pray for the United States of America.  We definitely need it.

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-72-types-of-americans-that-are.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+DougRossJournal+%28Doug+Ross+@+Journal%29

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Department of Justice is preparing to sue the Ferguson, Missouri, police department over allegations of racially discriminatory practices unless the police force agrees to make changes, CNN reported on Wednesday.

The network, citing sources, said the Justice Department would not charge the white Ferguson police officer involved in the fatal shooting of unarmed black teenager Michael Brown last August but was expected to outline allegations of discriminatory Ferguson police tactics.

The department would file suit if Ferguson police did not agree to review and change those tactics, CNN reported.

The shooting of Brown last August by officer Darren Wilson led to months of sometimes violent protests in Ferguson and galvanized critics of the treatment by police and the U.S. criminal justice system of blacks and other minority groups.

A St. Louis County grand jury decided last year not to prosecute Wilson, who has since left the Ferguson police force. The Justice Department has been conducting probes of the shooting and the operations of the Ferguson police force.

Justice Department spokesman Peter Carr declined to comment on the CNN report.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, who is preparing to leave office, said earlier this month he hoped to complete the civil rights investigation of the shooting before he steps down.

CNN said the potential Justice Department lawsuit could include allegations that police targeted minorities in issuing minor traffic infractions and then jailed them if they could not pay the fines.

It reported the agency would seek court supervision of changes taken by Ferguson police to improve its dealings with minorities.

(Reporting by Peter Cooney; Editing by Lisa Shumaker)

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – The U.S. National Security Agency has figured out how to hide spying software deep within hard drives made by Western Digital, Seagate, Toshiba and other top manufacturers, giving the agency the means to eavesdrop on the majority of the world’s computers, according to cyber researchers and former operatives.

That long-sought and closely guarded ability was part of a cluster of spying programs discovered by Kaspersky Lab, the Moscow-based security software maker that has exposed a series of Western cyberespionage operations.

Kaspersky said it found personal computers in 30 countries infected with one or more of the spying programs, with the most infections seen in Iran, followed by Russia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, China, Mali, Syria, Yemen and Algeria. The targets included government and military institutions, telecommunication companies, banks, energy companies, nuclear researchers, media, and Islamic activists, Kaspersky said. (http://reut.rs/1L5knm0)

The firm declined to publicly name the country behind the spying campaign, but said it was closely linked to Stuxnet, the NSA-led cyberweapon that was used to attack Iran’s uranium enrichment facility. The NSA is the agency responsible for gathering electronic intelligence on behalf of the United States.

A former NSA employee told Reuters that Kaspersky’s analysis was correct, and that people still in the intelligence agency valued these spying programs as highly as Stuxnet. Another former intelligence operative confirmed that the NSA had developed the prized technique of concealing spyware in hard drives, but said he did not know which spy efforts relied on it.

NSA spokeswoman Vanee Vines declined to comment.

Kaspersky published the technical details of its research on Monday, which should help infected institutions detect the spying programs, some of which trace back as far as 2001. (http://bit.ly/17bPUUe)

The ONLY thing Bloomberg got right was this…

“They just don’t have any long-term focus or anything. It’s a joke to have a gun. It’s a joke to pull a trigger.”

What he has wrong is it’s not the gun that’s the problem-it’s the PERSON WHO PULLS THE TRIGGER.

When you have an entire subculture of kids who aspire to be rappers,dope dealers,and gang-bangers-then THAT’s the problem,not an inanimate object that’s a tool,nothing more-nothing less.   

Speaking of tools-Shannon Watts and the rest of hizzoners minions in his bought and paid for “grassroots gun control groups” keep trying to bully store and business owners to ban guns on their premises,and continue to call for a ban on “assault rifles” despite the fact that other tools-namely blunt objects-are used to commit more homicides than ALL rifles combined-including the scary looking misnamed by the anti-gun media “assault rifle”. Just as a gun is a tool that can be misused-so are the hammers,baseball bats,and other “blunt objects” that are responsible for more homicides than all rifles are-why isn’t Ms. Watts braying about banning hammers and baseball bats?

Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg reportedly argued Friday that guns need to be kept out of the hands of minorities in order to keep them alive.

While speaking at the Aspen Institute, Mr. Bloomberg, 72, said 95 percent of murders fall into a specific category: a male minority between the ages of 15 and 25, The Aspen Times reported.

In this Sept. 16, 2014, file photo, former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg smiles prior to be conferred with the Chevalier de la Legion d'Honneur by France's Foreign minister Laurent Fabius, at the Quai d'Orsay, in Paris. (AP Photo/Thibault Camus, File)

Cities need to get guns out of this group’s hands and keep them alive, the former three-term mayor said, according to The Times.

“These kids think they’re going to get killed anyway because all their friends are getting killed,” Mr. Bloomberg said, The Times reported. “They just don’t have any long-term focus or anything. It’s a joke to have a gun. It’s a joke to pull a trigger.”

Mr. Bloomberg brought up the New York Police Department’s stop-and-frisk practices, recalling a time during his last year in office when a Baptist minster in Harlem invited him to speak at their church, The Times reported.

“While I’m sitting there waiting for him to introduce me, he said to his congregation, ‘You know, if every one of you stopped and frisked your kid before they went out at night, the mayor wouldn’t have to do it,’” Mr. Bloomberg said. “And so I knew I was going to be OK with that audience.”

The former mayor spoke to a sold-out crowd Friday about a variety of topics, including poverty, education and marijuana legalization.

Mr. Bloomberg argued that Colorado’s legalization of recreational marijuana use was a terrible idea and is hurting children, The Times reported.

“What are we going to say in 10 years when we see all these kids whose IQs are 5 and 10 points lower than they would have been?” he asked. “I couldn’t feel more strongly about it, and my girlfriend says it’s no different than alcohol. It is different than alcohol. This is one of the stupider things that’s happening across our country.”

Not as stupid as the mayor’s anti-gun asshattery.

ALEXANDRIA, Va. (AP) — A federal judge expressed skepticism Friday about the constitutionality of the government’s no-fly list, suggesting that those who find themselves on it ought to be allowed a meaningful opportunity to clear their names.

http://news.yahoo.com/judge-hear-arguments-constitutionality-no-fly-list-094428655.html

As of now-there is no meaningful appeal for anyone placed on the no fly list,just like there’s no relief from weapons disability at the fed level for those who made a mistake 10,15,20,30years ago to get their second amendment rights restored-which should never have been taken away in most cases.

This case will hopefully be decided for the appellant,and the courts will stop this massive overreach by the federal government.

No way in hell is the no-fly list Constitutional-it’s a secret government list of “enemies”,in the past young children have been placed on the list,and the late Sen. Kennedy was placed on the list at one time.

The list is a clear violation of the fourth amendment-among the many other things that are wrong with the list.

Facets of federal government have isolated themselves from the public they serve. They covet and withhold public information that we, as citizens, own. They bully and threaten access of journalists who do their jobs, news organizations that publish stories they don’t like and whistleblowers who dare to tell the truth.

When I reported on factual contradictions in the administration’s accounts regarding Fast and Furious, pushback included a frenzied campaign with White House officials trying to chill the reporting by calling and emailing my superiors and colleagues, and using surrogate bloggers to advance false claims. One White House official got so mad, he angrily cussed me out.

The Justice Department used its authority over building security to handpick reporters allowed to attend a Fast and Furious briefing, refusing to clear me into the public Justice Department building.

Advocates had to file a lawsuit to obtain public information about Fast and Furious improperly withheld under executive privilege. Documents recently released show emails in which taxpayer paid White House and Justice Department press officials complained that I was “out of control,” and vowed to call my bosses to try to stop my reporting.

Let me emphasize that my reporting was factually indisputable. Government officials weren’t angry because I was doing my job poorly. They were panicked because I was doing my job well.

Many journalists have provided their own accounts.

The White House made good on its threat to punish C-SPAN afterC-SPAN dared to defy a White House demand to delay airing a potentially embarrassing interview with the President.

Fifty news organizations, including CBS and the Washington Post wrote the White House objecting to unprecedented restrictions on the press that raise constitutional concerns.

A New York Times photographer likened White House practices to the Soviet news agency Tass.

Former Washington Post executive editor Len Downie called the Obama War on Leaks “by far the most aggressive” he’s seen since Nixon.

David Sanger of the New York Times called this “the most closed, control freak administration” he’s ever covered.

New York Times public editor Margaret Sullivan said it’s “the administration of unprecedented secrecy and unprecedented attacks on a free press.”

ABC News correspondent Ann Compton calledObama “the least transparent of the seven presidents” she’s covered.

Months before we knew the Justice Department had secretly seized AP phone records and surveilled FOX News’ James Rosen, before Director of National Intelligence James Clapper incorrectly testified under oath that Americans weren’t subject to mass data collection… I was tipped off that the government was likely secretly monitoring me due to my reporting.

http://sharylattkisson.com/attkissons-free-press-statement-to-senate-judiciary-committee/

  It will be interesting to note differences in tone and attendance between  Thursday's group-supported "Rally for Your Rights" and last month's "I Will Not Comply" rally.

Taking a different approach than December’s “I Will Not Comply” rally, in which participants defiantly flouted I-594 prohibitions against “unapproved” firearm transfers, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) and the Washington Firearms Leadership Advocacy Group (WFLAG), which did not participate in last month’s protest, will instead be driving forces behind this Thursday’s “Rally for Your Rights” in Olympia. The event is deemed moderate enough that even the National Rifle Association is sending a speaker — not that “progressive” media critics won’t still assail them for being “uncompromising” and “extreme,” regardless if that’s true or not.

Among those scheduled to address gun owners will be Democrat Rep. Brian Blake. Unfortunately, that’s part of the “bipartisan” strategy that doesn’t pay off as much as we might believe when examining what else such politicians enable. But Blake looks good on paper.

After all, he supported I-591 (which not everyone agrees was the optimum use of resources) and he’s been given a 100 percent A+ rating by NRA.

He’s also been endorsed by “Washington State Labor Council, SEIU Healthcare 1199NW, Planned Parenthood Votes Northwest” and Progressive Voter Guide. That means he lives in one of those areas where union-first members hunt and sport shoot, and want to have their cake and make the rest of us swallow it too, so the party can give him a pass on guns as long as the rest of its agenda is advanced.

Still, where’s the beef?

Just this: If the guy is that great a pal to gun owners, why did he enthusiastically help a committed anti-gunner get elected to Congress?

Why did he endorse Denny Heck?

That guy’s rated “F” by Gun Owners of America, meaning he’s an “Anti-Gun Voter: a philosophically committed anti-gunner.” Heck voted against prohibiting Washington DC from implementing “gun control,” and has been rated 50 percent by NRA. Heck also supports Obama’s immigration plan to create millions of new anti-gun Democrat voters (as does Blake), and anti-gun Obamacare (as does Blake).

But wait, as the late pitchman Billy Mays used to say, there’s more. Blake also endorsed Bob Dingethal for Congress. That a guy who used the “I’m a gun owner with a big BUT” oxymoron to tell voters how he supports the Second Amendment AND Michael Bloomberg’s registration/confiscation precursor plan, and a mental health blanket dragnet.

In other words, “Who’s infringin’? We’re usin’ common sense.” We’ve heard that type of transparent equivocation before, but this time, it’s not entertaining.

I could highlight more, but the point has been made. Blake is going to stand up there and tell everyone how he supported federally-licensed, registered and taxed sport shooters using suppressors, and go heavy on the rah-rah about how the Second Amendment is a right and he’s a leader in protecting it. What he won’t address is why he values that behind putting party über alles and enabling Democrat allies to legislate against the rights to keep and bear arms. He’ll present himself as a gun rights leader, but he won’t be able to point to one act of leadership where he has worked to expose, condemn and unseat any from his side of the aisle who betrayed their oath of office to advocate disarmament of the very people Blake will be eliciting cheers and applause from.

But don’t take my word for it. Ask him.

Anyone who helps citizen disarmament advocates gain power is no true friend to gun owners and has no business being presented as one. And anyone who politically supports someone playing to both sides of the street likewise relegates gun rights to a lower priority than doctrinaire political and economic special interests. To them, the Second Amendment comes second, or third, or even lower. No amount of pointing out what bills have been advanced or voted on “the right way,” and no amount of “dinner dates” can alter that fundamental reality.

No matter. There will be no shortage of “pragmatic” apologists who will make excuses for the inconvenient truths that apply to all so-called “pro-gun Democrats.” After all, we’re constantly told, politics is the art of the possible, and the perfect is the enemy of the good.

Let them keep enabling enemies of the right to keep and bear arms and we may just find out what really is possible, along with just how “good” those who place party loyalty above the Bill of Rights really are.

http://www.examiner.com/article/washington-rights-rally-to-headline-supporter-of-gun-control-politicians?CID=examiner_alerts_article

Advocates for gun control are liars. They specialize in taking some little snippet of fact and presenting it in a way that totally misrepresents reality. Statements like “3000 children are killed with guns every year,” don’t inform people that most of those “children” are late-teen gang-bangers who are actually killed by adults, or that accidental firearm deaths among children and youths have been falling for decades and are currently at historic lows, despite the fact that guns and gun ownership are up dramatically. The claim that “gun deaths exceed traffic deaths” in this or that state, conceals the fact that two thirds of those deaths are suicides, and that suicide rates in “gun friendly” states are comparable to rates in “gun restrictive” states. Still these misleading “factoids” are unquestioningly parroted by “journalists” based solely on press releases from professional anti-rights lobbyists.

Advocacy organizations like Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the Gun Violence Policy Center, or the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, all have “gun safety” or prevention of “gun violence” in their names, but even their names are lies. All of them focus exclusively on restricting firearms – gun control – while ignoring the fact that gun control laws have no impact on gun violence and no relation to gun safety.

They don’t just lie in their names and about their objectives, they also lie about who and what they are. They present themselves as grassroots organizations – some claiming as many as two million “supporters” – or as research foundations, but they have few, if any, actual members, and they don’t do any actual research. None are funded primarily by contributions of regular concerned citizens, though they will take some misguided rube’s $20. These not-for-profit corporations are funded primarily by huge grants from “charitable foundations” like the Joyce Foundation or the deep pockets of billionaires like Mike Bloomberg and George Soros. A little digging reveals that their “supporters” include anyone who ever “signed” one of their on-line petitions, signed up for their email alerts, or “Liked” their page on Facebook, and many are probably counted two or three times. I, like many gun owners I know, am probably counted as a “supporter” because I signed up for their email alerts as a way of monitoring their activities. And the “research” these charlatans put out could be compared to me calling my columns research papers. The only difference is that my columns are more factual and less biased.

Back in December of 2012, shortly after the horror at Sandy Hook Elementary School, columnist and Obama sycophant Jonathan Alter wrote a piece for Bloomberg View in which he laid out a blueprint for advocacy operations wishing to advance a gun control agenda. The piece was titled “To Get Better Gun Control, Don’t Use the Phrase.” In it Alter called for the building of a “smarter, more effective movement for commonsense gun laws” to counter the intimidating influence of the NRA. He compares such a movement to the abolition of slavery and women’s suffrage, noting that “every great stride forward in U.S. history has come from ordinary people defying the odds and bringing organized pressure to bear on politicians.”

He advises the retirement of the phrase “gun control,” in favor of more appealing terms like “gun safety,” “anti-violence regulation,” and especially, “common sense.” The Brady campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, and the National Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, which changed their names from Handgun Control, Inc., and the National Coalition to Ban Handguns, respectively, apparently figured some of this out decades ago, but Alter insists that lack of funds kept these groups from being able to reach “moderate, compassionate people” in the suburbs.

Alter’s solution to the problem of ordinary people not rising up in righteous indignation to demand that the government repress their constitutional rights, take away their means of protecting themselves, their families, and the Constitution, and make criminals of them should they dare to swap guns with their shooting buddies, is to further obfuscate the language of the debate and inject massive funding – which he intimates is on the way – into the coffers of those who advocate for further restrictions.

One year later, the guy who signs Alter’s paycheck, Mike Bloomberg, rolled out his new and improved gun control gun safety advocacy conglomerate, Everytown for Gun Safety, which incorporated his previous gun control common sense advocacy group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, and a floundering new group called Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America. Bloomberg, who was already propping up other gun control gun violence prevention agencies with hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants, promised to fund the new effort with at least $50 million of his personal fortune to take on the NRA head-to-head.

This past November he did just that and was trounced at the polls nationwide. It wasn’t because he didn’t spend enough money, or because his sophisticated social media campaign didn’t burn up the internet; the reason was, unlike his astroturf organizations, the pro-rights movement has actual grass roots organizations with real, live members who refuse to be swayed by his impressively deep pockets and his deceptive marketing.

The only real win Bloomberg and his minions managed to pull off was in Washington state where NRA made little effort, and fellow billionaires like Bill Gates and Paul Allen gave Bloomberg an 8 to 1 spending advantage. With that he managed to dupe a majority of voters into believing that forcing all firearm transfers – even swaps with buddies or loans to friends – through federal dealers, with all of the associated paperwork and expense, isn’t gun control.

Now Bloomberg is bringing his lie machine to Nevada, Oregon, Arizona, and Maine, while already pushing additional restrictions in Washington State. Let’s hope voters are smart enough to realize that any organization that is unwilling to openly disclose their full agenda to the people cannot be trusted to be working for the benefit of the people

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/anti-gun-groups-even-their-names-are-lies