![IMG_0342[1]](https://i0.wp.com/starvinlarry.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/img_03421.jpg?w=325&h=243&ssl=1 "IMG_0342[1]")
RM
Five million dollars later, Maryland has officially decided that its 15-year effort to store and catalog the “fingerprints” of thousands of handguns was a failure.
Source: Maryland spent millions on gun database that solved no crimes. – Baltimore Sun
Laws based on the Bloomberg system have been enacted in Colorado, Oregon and Washington. They will be on the ballot in 2016 in Nevada, and perhaps in Maine. A similar law (Fix Gun Checks Act, S. 374) has been repeatedly proposed federally by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.)
The Bloomberg system applies to every firearms “transfer.” In normal firearms law, a “transfer” means “a permanent exchange of title or possession and does not include gratuitous temporary exchanges or loans.” Chow v. State. 393 Md. 431, 473, 903 A.2d 388, 413 (2006).
However, the Bloomberg laws create a very different definition. For example, the Washington state law says that “ ‘Transfer’ means the intended delivery of a firearm to another person without consideration of payment or promise of payment including, but not limited to, gifts and loans.” Rev. Code Wash. § 9.41.010(25). In other words, it applies to sharing a gun while target shooting on one’s own property, or to lending a gun to a neighbor for a weekend hunting trip.
Under the Bloomberg system, transfers may take place only at a gun store. The transfer must be conducted exactly as if the retailer were selling a firearm out of her inventory. So the transferee (the neighbor borrowing the hunting gun) must fill out ATF Form 4473; the retailer must contact the FBI or its state counterpart for a background check on the transferee; and then, the retailer must take custody of the gun and record the acquisition in her Acquisition and Disposition book. Finally, the retailer hands the gun to the transferee and records the disposition in her Acquisition and Disposition book. A few days later, after the hunting trip is over, the process must be repeated for the neighbor to return the gun to the owner; this time, the owner will be the “transferee,” who will fill out Form 4473 and undergo the background check.
Self-defense
How does this affect the Second Amendment’s “core lawful purpose of self-defense”? (D.C. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 630 (2008)). Under the Bloomberg federal model, there is no allowance for lending a firearm to a citizen in case of emergency. S. 374, § 202(2) (exceptions only for family gifts, inheritances, transfers in the home, and for “hunting or sporting purposes” with various limitations).
Under the proposed Nevada initiative, a firearm may be lent if the loan is “necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm” and the loan “lasts only so long as immediately necessary to prevent such imminent death or great bodily harm.” Whatever “imminent” means, the loan is allowed only as long as “immediately necessary.”
Read the rest Here
Amid an unrelenting streak of violence, Baltimore’s mayor said current gun laws miss the mark.
The number of homicides in Baltimore reached 211 on Wednesday, matching the number for all of last year. The 211th homicide was recorded when police found the body of a man who was shot in a vacant house in the Penn-North neighborhood of west Baltimore, the same area hit by riots in April.
Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake’s political career may depend on getting the violence under control. She gave credit Wednesday to city police officers because arrests are back up to a normal pace. She suggested that it doesn’t matter that Maryland has some of the toughest gun laws on the books while other states don’t.
Not since the 1990s has the city seen this many homicides this soon in a given year. In 2007, the city recorded its 200th homicide on Aug. 20 and went on to 282 homicides for that year.
At City Hall on Wednesday, Rawlings-Blake said the city’s violence follows what she called four strands of rivalry and retaliation.
“There are four major strands that are impacting the homicide rate in Baltimore. We can trace it and we can trace the players,” Rawlings-Blake said. “There are known entities who are battling it out on the streets like is this is the wild, wild west, and we need help.”
The mayor implored people with information to come forward.
“If you know someone who is involved in this, who you know are either the next victim or the next perpetrator, if you don’t want to see your loved one die in the streets, we need you to help us do something, because if they are involved in these strands, it’s coming,” Rawlings-Blake said.
Citing similar increases in violence in other cities, the mayor called for a national response, including a controversial target: tougher federal gun laws. She acknowledged that Baltimore’s violence surges on despite Maryland’s gun laws, some of the toughest in the country. The problem, she said, is that laws in other states are more lax.
“What I am saying (is) the current approach, the state-by-state approach, has not been effective,” Rawlings-Blake said.
On another front, concern about a police slowdown in Baltimore seems to have eased. Between July 15-31, city officers made 1,318 arrests, nearly double the 771 arrests that officers made between May 15-31, right after charges were announced in the Freddie Gray case.
“We are seeing a lot of positive indicators that officers are engaged on every level, and the concerns that were raised, that things are turning around,” Rawlings-Blake said.
The recent arrest numbers are much closer to the level of arrests before Gray’s death.
Via NRL-ILA
Freedom Advocates, Pro-Gun Senators Unite to Oppose the Obama Administration’s Attempt to Censor Information about Firearms Technology
As we reported in June, the Obama Administration’s State Department (DOS) proposed a revision of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) on June 3 that would require anyone seeking to make certain types of information about firearms publicly available to first obtain government approval. Prior restraints of the sort contemplated by the proposal are among the most disfavored regulations of speech under First Amendment case law. Our original alert encouraged gunsmiths, manufacturers, reloaders, serious hobbyists, and others who rely on design, development, production or manufacturing information about firearms to file comments with the State Department opposing the rule and explaining its problems.
The response was overwhelming. By the time the comment period ended on Monday, nearly 10,000 comments had been posted to the Regulations.gov website, the vast majority of them adamantly opposed to the law. A DOS official put the actual number of comments (which can also be submitted by other means) at some 12,000. Those opposing the rule include police officers, engineers, research universities, scholastic rifle teams, defense contractors, gunsmiths, firearm instructors, professors, IT professionals, and thousands of gun owners who enjoy fabricating or working on firearms for their lawful personal use. Their input illustrates not only the proposal’s restraints on free speech but the numerous practical problems it would pose for a variety of professionals, students, researchers, and other law-abiding Americans.
NRA’s own comments were submitted on Monday. The comments begin by emphasizing that the larger Export Control Reform effort of which the June 3 proposal is a part has always intended to move firearms off ITAR’s list of controlled items (the U.S. Munitions List) to a list subject to more flexible controls administered by the Commerce Department. The whole point of having dual systems of control is to recognize that especially sensitive or sophisticated military technology (like that used in nuclear subs or ballistic missiles) requires a different level of regulation than items like firearms that have both military and civilian applications. Yet the Obama Administration, solely for political reasons, continues to treat the same sorts of firearms that some 100 million Americans (and countless foreigners) already have in their homes as if they are as militarily sensitive and consequential as aircraft carriers or strategic bombers.
Our comments also note that a proposed definition of “defense service” is so far-reaching that it could hinder efforts by NRA and NRA certified instructors to provide firearm education and safety training within the U.S. Under the proposal, a foreign person lawfully present in the U.S. could not participate even in “basic” operational training with a firearm unless the person had been approved to receive that firearm as an export in another country. This means, for example, that a foreign exchange student living with an American host family could not lawfully obtain the necessary training to safely use and handle a borrowed bolt action rifle to accompany the family on a deer hunt. Obviously, this is too restrictive and does nothing to further America’s national security.
The bulk of NRA’s comments, however, are devoted to explaining how the proposal would impose an unconstitutional prior restraint on firearm-related speech protected by the First Amendment. We also expose DOS’s falsehood that the proposed requirement for “preauthorization” to discuss technical aspects of firearms and ammunition is merely a “more explicit statement” of current practice and policy. The comments quote extensively from case law and Department of Justice memorandums dating back to the 1970s which warn DOS that it cannot constitutionally impose a broad requirement that Americans first obtain government approval before speaking publicly about unclassified military technology. We also show how DOS, under prior administrations, removed a similar preauthorization requirement in response to these concerns. “Not only is the preauthorization requirement a radical departure from DOS practice as it existed immediately prior to the proposal’s publication date,” our comments state, “it is a return to policy DOS had abandoned in the 1980s as incompatible with the First Amendment.”
Finally, our comments expose how another supposed clarification is actually a massive power grab by DOS, with the proposal’s insistence that speech published online must be treated as an “export,” because of its presumed availability to foreign persons. Not only is DOS’ attempt to seize control of Internet content futile from a practical standpoint, it was never authorized by the Congress that original passed ITAR’s enabling legislation, the Arms Export Control Act (AECA). The Internet had yet to be developed at the time of the AECA’s passage, so it authors could hardly have appointed DOS the government’s official Internet censor. More to the point, even if they had tried, the First Amendment would have stopped them.
Surprisingly (or maybe not), the media has been surprisingly silent on the government’s attempt to censor speech about constitutionally-protected firearms owned by millions of Americans. NRA’s comments quote statements from a press conference in which a DOS official sets up a strawman by insisting the proposal would not ban “general descriptions” or “imagery” of firearms. What the official fails to mention, however, is that more detailed information about firearm technology would be seriously curtailed. Worse, because the proposal is so awkwardly and confusingly drafted, even unregulated speech would likely be chilled because of the inability of individuals and media outlets (like Internet service providers) to determine when the regulatory line was crossed. Is the mass media so hypocritical that it’s willing to sacrifice a whole category of legitimate, constitutionally-protected speech, simply because it supports a gun culture the media detests? So far, that seems to be the case.
Fortunately, pro-gun representatives in the Senate have been more conscientious in protecting the public trust on this issue. Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT) led an effort that resulted in a 28 senators signing on to a letter to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, opposing the June 3 proposal. According to the letter, “certain definitions within the proposal are so broad as to capture actions essential to the exercise of a citizen’s Second Amendment rights.” It goes on to state that the new definitions could capture “information such as how to legally modify or assemble a generally available firearm, such as a hunting rifle or self-defense handgun, or information on the development of new loading information for existing firearm ammunition.” “These types of activities,” the letter warns, “are part and parcel of how many Americans exercise their Second Amendment rights.” The signatories accordingly “urge the State Department to modify or delay these misguided changes to the ITAR in order to ensure they do not violate the First and Second Amendments or until commonly owned firearms and ammunition are not adversely impacted.”
Once again, America’s gun owners, and their elected officials, with the backing and support of your NRA, have risen to the challenge of opposing an attempt from the Obama Administration to use executive authority to limit Second Amendment rights. Whether the proposal will be enacted as written, in a modified form, or will be scrapped, remains to be seen. In the meantime, however, DOS has received a clear message that America’s gun owners will not stand by to let either their First or Second Amendment rights be trampled.
Via David Codrea
“A+”-rated* Sen. John Cornyn has the National Rifle Association’s backing for a “modest” bill “that would reward states for sending more information about residents with serious mental problems to the federal background check system for firearms purchasers,” Fox News is reporting. The legislation is generating no small amount of debate among gun rights advocates, with some supporting it as a pragmatic move designed to thwart more draconian proposals, and others characterizing it as a preemptive surrender (and worse).
Without getting into that debate, because there will be plenty of others weighing in on both sides, I’d instead like to just ask a few questions that all who are interested in due process ought to be interested in seeing answered. By way of disclosure, my longstanding contention is that anyone who can’t be trusted with a gun can’t be trusted without a custodian, but that’s not likely to be reflected in social policy anytime soon, so it’s not the focus here.
Backers of the bill tell us “due process” protections will be increased for veterans and others under Cornyn’s bill. Per his spokesman, “This bill codifies into law that individuals must get their day in court they’re entitled to, and no agency or state can make their own determination without that.”
It would help if we knew what protections equivalent to those provided in a jury trial that will provide. Specifically, will decisions rely on those who may have biases of their own, as can currently be the case, with ATF’s “clarifying the term ‘adjudicated as a mental defective’ to mean a determination by a court, board, commission or other lawful authority,” and with some states applying even broader “standards”?
What protections will exist to offset politically-connected anti-gun judges, politically-appointed boards, and “expert” adherents of the American Psychiatric Association’s “Position Statement on Firearm Access, Acts of Violence and the Relationship to Mental Illness and Mental Health Services.” It’s fair to ask, because APA includes in its advocacy platform registration-enabling, background checks, “smart” guns, storage requirements, “gun-free” zones, doctor-patient boundary violations, tax-funded anti-gun “studies,” all outside the scope of the training and credentialing of those making these proposals.
Significantly though, even APA admits:
Only a small proportion of individuals with a mental disorder pose a risk of harm to themselves or others.
Casting a wide net and leaving the shot-calling up to those with subjective political motivations has historical precedence – predominantly in “gun control” havens.
Also of interest – or it should be – how will rights be restored when there is no longer a compelling mental health prescription to deny them? What universal appeal mechanism – affordable to all, not just to elites for whom money is no object – will exist to declare a person is once more “eligible” to keep and bear arms? What guarantees are there that the same biases that colored the disability ruling in the first place won’t reassert themselves in the “parole” process? And have we identified psychiatric evaluators, risk management administrators and insurers who will be willing to subject themselves to malpractice liabilities should a person deemed “fit” be misdiagnosed? Or will the pressure be to “err on the side of caution”?
Read the whole thing Here
If reports from WBNS 10TV (CBS Columbus) and a whistleblower are accurate, Columbus Mayor Michael Coleman (D) may soon join the lengthy list (see here and here and here) of members of anti-gun extremist Michael Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG) to face serious charges.
From the report:
It was billed as a way to fight rising crime waves and get more guns off city streets and the city’s Gun Stoppers program was announced with much fan-fare.
But 10 Investigates recent review of the program, shows it’s unclear how many guns were taken off the street – if any.
According to the article, Mayor Coleman’s Office introduced the Gun Stoppers program in 2010 utilizing a $50,000 federal grant. The grant paid for Gun Stoppers to be run jointly by the city and Crime Stoppers and gave cash rewards up to $1,000 for “tips that lead to an arrest and the confiscation of an illegal gun.”
The program was brought back in the news recently, when former Crime Stoppers director Kevin Miles claimed: “I can tell you there wasn’t a single gun turned in but I do know that they reported there was guns that were recovered with money from that program.”
Using city, county and court records, 10 Investigates reviewed the program and found Gun Stoppers paid out a total of $19,000 to tipsters. The records, though, never listed any gun that was seized.
Police agency representatives associated with the tips told 10TV they were not directly involved with the program and said they have no records of guns associated with the Gun Stoppers program.
CrimeStoppers told the news station they don’t have any information on guns collected by their Gun Stopper program. 10TV reports that they did provide a list of arrests made in connection to the tips, but that court records show that not all the crimes even involved guns.
One award was paid for information that led to the arrest of Michael P. Reilly. Reilly was charged with multiple counts of aggravated robbery and robbery. Court records, though, show the weapon used was a knife, scissors or sharp instrument.
Another case involving the arrest of Darrian T. Cordell, where a gun was found in a car stop. The trooper testified that he stopped the car because it was following too closely in the early morning hours.
And three tips paid out exceeded the program’s $1,000 cap. (Note: those payouts were for $3,000, $3,500 and $2,500.)
Case files show that some of the cases were where no guns were used in commission of the crime.
The report goes on to say that Columbus Public Safety’s Deputy Director Dan Giangardella said he could not give an exact answer when asked how many guns were taken off Columbus streets through Gun Stoppers. “I don’t have an exact count for that. Dozens?”
Noting that Mayor Coleman once gave public congratulations for Gun Stoppers, 10TV reports that Giangardella described Gun Stoppers as only a “a mildly successful program.” In an email to 10TV, Giangardella admitted that the program was changed in 2011, more than a year in the running, so that it “no longer require confiscation of guns.” (It’s must easier to claim a program’s “mild success” if you move the goal posts once you realize it is failing.)
The Buckeye Firearms Association opposed the Gun Stoppers program since its beginning. Gerard Valentino with the Association’s board said, “This whole program is designed to take illegal guns off the street, yet their own actions show us it must not be that big of a problem because they’re using the money inappropriately and for completely different issues.”
Former Crime Stoppers director Kevin Miles told 10TV that FBI agents recently asked him about allegations of corruption inside Columbus City Hall.
Miles is quoted as saying he saw financial abuses in the Gun Stoppers program committed by Lee Roberts, who Buckeye Firearms Association exposed in 2012 as a MAIG staff member working in a tax-payer funded position created for him in the Columbus mayor’s office (effectively using public dollars to lobby against citizens’ Second Amendment rights).
According to Miles, Roberts told him to spend the money on ads with a GLBT local magazine called Outlook Columbus. Miles told 10TV Outlook got the majority of Gun Stoppers ad dollars because they supported the mayor.
Buckeye Firearms Association has been reporting on corruption within Coleman’s office for years.
Emails obtained by Buckeye Firearms Association and Media Trackers Ohio in 2012 revealed that Roberts and Coleman’s office conspired to use the deaths of three high school students to limit Second Amendment rights within hours of the February 2012 shootings at Chardon High School. The emails also revealed that Roberts also worked with staffers of then-New York Mayor Bloomberg to leverage the shooting of former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords for new federal gun restrictions.
Coleman spokesman Daniel Williamson suggested in a Media Trackers interview that Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG) and Coleman staffer R. Lee Roberts were not involved in lobbying legislators against the legislation. However, internal emails show that not only was Williamson aware of MAIG’s active opposition to the bill, Williamson himself assisted in lobbying efforts. Contrary to Williamson’s claims, the emails proved that Roberts spent months agitating against Ohio’s Restaurant & Car Carry Rules Fix in 2011. After the bill passed, emails prove Roberts also conspired with Williamson to lobby Governor Kasich not to sign it.
It is not known whether reports of an FBI investigation effected Coleman’s decision not to run for a fifth term.
Among the candidates seeking to replace him is the Democrat president of the Columbus City Council, Andrew Ginter.
Instead of expressing concern about the allegations, Ginter chose to attack the whistleblower and his claims.
“They seem a bit bizarre to me. And interesting to me they come about some 5 years after the fact. We all know of the situation with Mr. Miles departure from Columbus and the fact that some things were done under his watch with Crime Stoppers that kind of beg the question , why now and why in this type of approach?” said Ginther.
Ginter, who has received the endorsement of Coleman, stood at the mayor’s side during the 2010 Gun Stoppers rollout.
One recurring truth about the anti-gun movement is how often they try to create new organizations which claim “neutrality” or “moderation” on the Second Amendment, but in reality are nothing more than carbon copies of all the anti-gun groups that have come before them.
As we reported a few weeks ago, fanatically anti-gun Michael Bloomberg has found a new venture to pour his money into. It’s called “The Trace”, which claims to be a fair news organization devoted to researching “gun violence.” The head of the new group, former New Republic Magazine editor James Burnett even went as far as to suggest the group will not publish editorials supporting specific legislation or candidates, but simply provide information and news stories in opposition to “gun violence.” But let’s look at reality.
First, the group has no need to endorse specific legislation or a given candidate to achieve their anti-gun goals. All they have to do is gin up “news” or biased “analyses” that provide specific anti gun messaging which supports whichever draconian law is Bloomberg’s favorite flavor of the day at the national or state level. Obviously, this information will then provide the foundation for countless more news stories from the anti-gun press, countless more anti-gun legislative initiatives, and countless more talking points for anti-gun candidates to use when running for office. And this is exactly what “The Trace” will work tirelessly to make happen.
And we can’t forget who is making this all possible. “The Trace” is funded not only by Bloomberg, but also by the famously anti-gun Joyce Foundation and the cofounder of the reliably anti-gun Huffington Post. With financial support like that, does anyone believe that there will be any information from “The Trace” that is anything other than anti-gun propaganda?
Burnett stated that “The Trace” is needed because there is not enough anti-gun violence coverage in the media. One wonders if he has ever read the New York Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, or any one of a number of big city newspapers that attack our Second Amendment rights on a regular basis. Or perhaps he does not have cable TV and so is not exposed to anti-gun coverage on CNN or MSNBC. It sounds more like Editor Burnett lives where pigs fly and unicorns win the Kentucky Derby.
There can be no doubt that Bloomberg and his allies are focusing resources towards an all-out assault on our rights with “The Trace” simply another move to fulfill their broader mission. As subverting the truth to achieve their goals has been well established as a tactic of choice, we can expect the same from “The Trace.” NRA-ILA will not let their lies and distortions go unanswered, and together we can stand up to Bloomberg and his media allies, especially when he stacks the deck against freedom in such an unmitigated and craven way.
[Recently], Time magazine published a piece that pushes the narrative that today’s firearms laws are permissive in comparison to those of the early 20th century. Titled, “Guns Were Much More Strictly Regulated in the 1920s and 1930s than They Are Today,” the piece contends that “Those who look to America’s past to extol a time when nothing stood between an American and a gun need to look again.” The obvious goal of the work is to convince the uninformed that any notions they might have about America’s long-standing culture of gun ownership should pose no barrier to future restrictions, particularly on the ownership of semi-automatic firearms.
The piece was written by long-time anti-gun author and SUNY Cortland Political Science Professor Robert J. Spitzer. Since the 1990s, Spitzer has been writing columns and books advocating for gun control; often focusing on semi-automatic firearms. In these pieces Spitzer pushed – now mostly recognized as silly – misconceptions about popular semi-autos, such as “The lighter weight, compact design, and pistol grips give the ability to ‘spray fire’ – often from the hip,” and, “Their concealability adds to their criminal appeal.”
Further, Spitzer advocated for the – now thoroughly rejected – notion that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right to bear arms. In his 1995 book, The Politics of Gun Control, Spitzer claimed, “The desire to treat the Second Amendment as a constitutional touchstone by gun control opponents is understandable… Such claims are, however, without historical, constitutional, or legal foundation.”
However, the thesis laid out in the column’s title only works if one completely ignores the federal government’s entrance into the field of firearms control, and subsequent restrictions on firearms enacted in several states. In the 1920s and 1930s, Americans purchasing firearms could simply order rifles or shotguns by mail right to their front door. The Gun Control Act of 1968 brought about much of the modern federal gun control regime, including federal prohibitions certain categories of persons from purchasing or possessing firearms, importation restrictions, and the licensing and regulation of firearms dealers. The Brady Bill was passed in 1993, which requires background checks on those purchasing a firearm from a dealer. In the 1990s and 2000s, several states restricted access to semi-automatic firearms, and some states have continually expanded their categories of prohibited persons. A quick glance at two of BATFE’s publications, the “Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide,” and “State Laws and Published Ordinances,” makes it abundantly clear that 2015 America isn’t some sort of unfettered gun rights utopia in comparison to the early 20th century.
Perhaps most bizarre about Spitzer and his work is that even after decades of advocating for gun restrictions, the professor still appears to know little of the firearms he seeks to ban, botching terminology at every turn. In his latest piece, Spitzer notes that modern hunters are likely to use something he describes as a “semi-automatic long barrel gun.” Later, he claims that in the early 20th century states had little patience for “semi-automatic firing married to the ability to fire multiple rounds without reloading.” Anyone with a cursory knowledge of firearms would know that the latter characteristic is a prerequisite of the former. Further on, Spitzer uses the term “large capacity bullet magazines.”
Over the years Spitzer has been wrong on the history of gun control, wrong on the Second Amendment, and displayed a severe lack of basic firearms knowledge. Unfortunately, when it comes to an anti-gun periodical like Time, the ability to further the publication’s political agenda, rather than accuracy, appears to be the chief requirement for publication.
© 2015 National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action. This may be reproduced. This may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.
Editor’s Note: TheTrace.org recently contacted Buckeye Firearms Association about the closing of the media access loophole. The resulting article, entitled “Another State Just Made It Impossible for Reporters to Access Concealed Carry Records,” is posted here.
Readers Beware.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg recently revealed a new tactic in his ongoing campaign to impose his anti-gun agenda on Americans with the launch of “The Trace .” The new website describes itself as a “media organization dedicated to expanding coverage of guns in the United States.” Bloomberg, of course, already owns and controls one of the largest media empires in the world in Bloomberg LP , but apparently it is not adequately biased to serve his anti-gun agenda.
According to editorial director James Burnett, “The Trace” is not an “anti-gun” organization, but hopes to “appeal to people across the spectrum on the issue.” But the content makes it clear that the organization is just another Bloomberg-funded gun control project. The site even states, “We bring an admitted bias to our beat.”
Huffington Post further illustrated this intentional bias while celebrating the launch of the new “news” organization. “We believe that the rate of gun violence is too high and we believe that there is not enough information about the issue as a whole,” editorial director James Burnett said in his interview. “As journalists, we have it as our mission to address that shortage of information.”
Like other Bloomberg backed organizations (Everytown for Gun Safety, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, and Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America), “The Trace” has already earned a lack of credibility among gun owners. Within the first few days of operation, the organization has readers outraged over one-sided reporting on issues and reckless disregard for facts.
It is clear that Bloomberg’s true goal is not to increase education and awareness on firearms and firearm safety, but to even more thoroughly color the information that reaches Americans about their Second Amendment rights. Orwellian propagandists have nothing on the sprawling Bloomberg newspeak machine.
Readers who may stumble across an article in “The Trace” — and any legitimate reporters seeking to inform themselves and the public on Second Amendment issues — should ignore the advocacy “journalists” at the “The Trace” and treat them like the Bloomberg, anti-gun staffers they are.
Click here to read the entire op-ed at NSSFBlog.com.
h/t MaddMedic
Fresh off their recent victory in having same-sex marriage legalized, many of the movement’s organizers are now turning to gun control as the next hot social issue, or so reports the New Yorker.
Marriage-equality activists in every state were armed with a talking-points tip sheet from WhyMarriageMatters.org whose logo reads “Love. Commitment. Family.” The one-page memo talks about the protection of religious freedom, the golden rule, family stability, and mutual respect. In the fight for marriage equality, the left borrowed the language of the right, in other words, and used it consistently and explicitly to bring the opposition along. Now similar tacks are being taken on guns…
When Zach Silk thinks about how to articulate the values of the renovated gun movement, he uses the same words that the gun advocates use: “Community. Safety. Responsibility. Protecting my family.” In this redefining, he hopes to make a point. “Protection” isn’t an individual matter (a canard in any case, because having a gun in the house makes you exponentially less safe) in which individual patriarchs safeguard individual offspring. “Protection” is a communitarian thing, in which the safety of one’s own children depends on the safe habits of one’s neighbors.
Gun people underestimate these guys at their own peril. I shudder to think that in the face of savvy, patient, successful operatives like Zach Silk, we’re offering the tone-deaf and thoroughly unlikeable Wayne LaPierre, along with mass mailings filled with fear-mongering fever swamp boilerplate about black helicopters and the NWO.
We need an NRA 2.0 to go with Gun Culture 2.0, and we need it now.
Leadership, Tactics, Innovation
-Reviews, Advice & News For All Things Tech and Gadget Related-
Uncomplicated, Freedom-Loving, Conservativism
I don't know if the truth is out there but the freaks certainly are.
Read. Learn. Train. Do More PT. Be a pilot-operate your own controls.
Curated News and Information on Chronic Pain and Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome
Just another WordPress.com site
Read. Learn. Train. Do More PT. Be a pilot-operate your own controls.
At the Forefront of the Counterculture Movement
Read. Learn. Train. Do More PT. Be a pilot-operate your own controls.
Pursuing the truth to preserve our nation
Read. Learn. Train. Do More PT. Be a pilot-operate your own controls.
An online Journal by Bill Buppert devoted to the total abolition of slavery and the State.
Always assume you are being watched
Where misinformation stops and you are force fed the truth
Read. Learn. Train. Do More PT. Be a pilot-operate your own controls.
Read. Learn. Train. Do More PT. Be a pilot-operate your own controls.
Freedom is Worth the Fight!
Read. Learn. Train. Do More PT. Be a pilot-operate your own controls.
Understanding the Constitution
Read. Learn. Train. Do More PT. Be a pilot-operate your own controls.
Read. Learn. Train. Do More PT. Be a pilot-operate your own controls.
Read. Learn. Train. Do More PT. Be a pilot-operate your own controls.
"once more unto the breach, dear friends..."
"You can't starve us out and you can't make us run 'cause we're them old boys raised on shotguns" -Bocephus
Read. Learn. Train. Do More PT. Be a pilot-operate your own controls.
Read. Learn. Train. Do More PT. Be a pilot-operate your own controls.
Read. Learn. Train. Do More PT. Be a pilot-operate your own controls.
Powered by Specialized Medical Standards
President of The Rutherford Institute, Author of 'Battlefield America' and 'A Government of Wolves'
Read. Learn. Train. Do More PT. Be a pilot-operate your own controls.
The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change
Born Free
EVERY DAY THAT WE'RE NOT AT WAR IS ANOTHER DAY WE GET TO SHARPEN OUR HATCHETS
State collapse is inevitable when a society's leaders are insulated from the negative consequences of their bad decisions. Mike Shelby
The Blog of Arizona Weaponcraft Solutions
Never underestimate the power of a question
Read. Learn. Train. Do More PT. Be a pilot-operate your own controls.
Starvin Larry 