You are currently browsing the archives for the Second Amendment category.


Archive for the ‘Second Amendment’ Category

Predictably, Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy were quick to call for more gun laws within minutes of the slaughter of 26 parishioners at a church in Texas. Their mindless diatribe should be ignored. Further, they should get ridiculed for making this argument. According to this article, Devin Patrick Kelley “was court-martialed in 2012 for two counts of assault on his then-wife and assault on their child, Stefanek said. He received a bad conduct discharge, and reduction in rank and confinement for 12 months. The Air Force tells CBS News Kelley’s case was a general court martial, the most serious level of military trial proceedings. It is reserved for more serious criminal allegations, those substantially similar to felonies in civilian jurisdictions. While personnel tried under general court martial can be subject to dishonorable discharge, Kelley received the less severe bad conduct discharge. Federal law prohibits those who have been dishonorably discharged from buying a firearm, but the law does not prohibit those who have received a bad conduct discharge.”

Further, it was reported that Kelley was dressed all in black, including a face mask with a white skull on it. Additionally, “Neighbors said that they heard intense gunfire coming from the direction of the address listed for Kelley in recent days. ‘It’s really loud. At first I thought someone was blasting,’ said Ryan Albers, 16, who lives across the road. ‘It had to be coming from somewhere pretty close. It was definitely not just a shotgun or someone hunting. It was someone using automatic weapon fire.'”

This video should shut up the gun grabbers (but it won’t):

His application was rejected. He wore an attention-getting black outfit. His neighbors heard him firing weapons. How many other warning signs were missed? Shouldn’t we focus on how many existing laws were missed? Shouldn’t we focus on the mental illness part of this equation?

Perhaps, what we should focus on is the fact that we need to enforce existing laws. Another thing that’s likely to pay big dividends is having government do what it’s supposed to do. These sorts of things shouldn’t happen:

Before 26-year-old Devin Kelley received a bad conduct discharge from the U.S. Air Force in 2014, he was court-martialed in 2012 for assaulting his wife and child. Kelley “intentionally” fractured his stepson’s skull, The New York Times reported Monday. “He assaulted his stepson severely enough that he fractured his skull, and he also assaulted his wife,” retired colonel Don Christensen, formerly the chief prosecutor for the Air Force, told the Times. “He pled to intentionally doing it.” As punishment, Kelley was confined in military prison 12 months, received a reduction in military rank and was discharged for “bad conduct” — a step above a dishonorable discharge.

Finally, there’s this:

SUTHERLAND SPRINGS, Tex. — A day after a gunman massacred parishioners in a small Texas church, the Air Force admitted on Monday that it had failed to enter the man’s domestic violence court-martial into a federal database that could have blocked him from buying the rifle he used to kill 26 people.

In other words, existing laws should’ve prevented this horrific slaughter.

Last week, Tim Walz was a moderate with a sterling rating from the NRA. This week, he’s a candidate who can’t run fast enough from the NRA. Preya Samsundar’s article shows how far Rep. Walz has travelled this past week.

Ms. Samsundar reported “On WCCO’s Sunday show with Esme Murphy, Walz recanted his prior support for the NRA and announced that he would donate money given to him by the pro-Second Amendment group to a charity helping veterans and their families. ‘The politics is secondary,’ Walz told Murphy on Sunday. ‘I have got friends who have been, had gun violence in their family and like so many responsible gun owners, it’s what I grew up on.'”

Walz lied when he said that “the politics is secondary.” This time, the politics are primary. Specifically, identity politics if front and center. In this instance, while the DFL and the Democratic Party are whining about the NRA, the NRA has acted quite moderately:

The National Rifle Association said Sunday it opposes any legislation to ban the use of “bump stocks” on semi-automatic weapons, even as it has said some regulation may be necessary. “It’s illegal to convert a semi-automatic to a fully automatic. The ATF ought to look at this, do its job and draw a bright line,” NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre said on Face the Nation.

The truth is that Walz is doing everything he can to prove to Metrocrats that he’s just like them. While he’s doing that, he’s also proving that he’ll say anything to get elected.

There was a time when Rep. Walz proudly touted his A rating from the NRA:

Rest assured, if he’s the DFL gubernatorial candidate next fall, the NRA and like-minded organizations will be working their butts off to defeat him. If that’s the case, Walz better pray the Twin Cities turns out big for him because his NRA flip-flop will hurt him in southern Minnesota.

Let’s remember that Walz’s base in southern Minnesota is slipping. Last year, Walz defeated his virtually unknown GOP opponent by 2,548 votes. Now that he’s sold his soul to the Metrocrats, aka the devil, expect his support in southern Minnesota to slip further.

It’s easy to see that Walz is tracking left to win the DFL primary. I’m betting that he’ll try moving to the center if he wins that primary. Finally, I’m betting that he’ll have a difficult time getting to the middle, though, considering the fact that there’s now video of him trying to have it both ways.

Politicians have tried pretending that video doesn’t exist. Voters won’t pretend that they haven’t seen him trying to have it both ways.

The more I think about it, the more I think Walz won’t be Minnesota’s next governor. That’s because DFL activists are looking for a true believer this time. Settling for Walz, I suspect, is like being told that Hillary’s the candidate and that Bernie supporters better get in line.

Technorati: , , , , ,

This St. Cloud Times Our View editorial is littered with gun control advocates’ BS from beginning to end. It starts with “No matter the body count (and injury count) last week in Las Vegas. No matter how many will die in the next U.S. mass shooting, which statistically is expected to happen today. No matter how long this madness keeps up, don’t expect federal laws to help stem it anytime soon.”

I hate bursting Randy’s bubble but it’s pretty likely that Congress will pass a law prohibiting bump stocks. So much for not expecting new “federal laws” to stop gun violence. It doesn’t end there. The editorial continues, saying “That’s why this board, along with most Americans, sees a good starting point being the long-proposed plan to require background checks for all gun purchases online and at gun shows. It’s not the perfect answer alone. But it is a needed addition to existing laws.”

Actually, it isn’t a needed addition since it’s already the law of the land. Whether a person buys a gun at gun shop or gun show, the buyer must undergo a background check. Period. This paragraph is filled with misinformation:

This board stated in 2015 that’s worth a discussion, given rapid gunfire is common to so many mass shootings. Congress from 1994 to 2004 banned certain semi-automatic assault weapons and magazines holding more than 10 rounds. Did it help? Hard to say, but back then America was not averaging one mass shooting a day, either.

It isn’t difficult to say. Leah Libresco studied the subject.

Here’s what she discovered:

In real life, silencers limit hearing damage for shooters but don’t make gunfire dangerously quiet. An AR-15 with a silencer is about as loud as a jackhammer. Magazine limits were a little more promising, but a practiced shooter could still change magazines so fast as to make the limit meaningless.

It’s apparent that the Times Editorial Board haven’t done the extensive research that Ms. Libresco has done. If they had, they’d know the things that she’s written about.

Remember, though, the priority of any legislative package is to identify people who pose risks, not inanimate objects.

Tell that to the Democrats. Most Republicans understand that inanimate objects can’t kill people without help from people.

I can’t imagine how Hillary Clinton and Jimmy Kimmel will respond to this article. While Kimmel all but officially accused the NRA of not caring if guns killed people, Hillary insisted that a) the NRA owns the GOP and b) the GOP will never vote to protect Americans.

According to the article, “The National Rifle Association, in its first statement on the Las Vegas shooting and in a rare break from its traditional opposition to gun-related regulations, called Thursday for a federal review of so-called bump stocks and suggested new rules might be needed for the device apparently used by the shooter in Sunday’s massacre. ‘The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations,’ the NRA said in a written statement.”

What Hillary didn’t mention during her interview with Kimmel last night was that the “Obama administration’s ATF gave its seal of approval to selling the devices in 2010 after concluding that they did not violate federal law.” The NRA “called on the ATF to review that assessment. ‘In Las Vegas, reports indicate that certain devices were used to modify the firearms involved,’ the NRA said. ‘Despite the fact that the Obama administration approved the sale of bump fire stocks on at least two occasions, the National Rifle Association is calling on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) to immediately review whether these devices comply with federal law.'”

Democrats have insisted, dishonestly, that Republicans hate gun regulations. Actually, that’s fairly true, mostly because most of the Democrats’ gun control legislation wouldn’t fix problems. Mostly, though, what’s true is that Republicans understand the importance of protecting their families. This video explains what a bump-stock is:

The difference between possible legislation outlawing bump stocks and gun control legislation offered by Democrats in the past is that this legislation might potentially fix a problem. That’s why the NRA is willing to join the discussion.

Last night, Hillary Clinton stopped past the Tonight Show with Jimmy Kimmel, seemingly to remind people why they rejected her. During her interview, Hillary threw one insult at President Trump after another. When Kimmel “asked if Clinton would have felt differently about losing the election if her opponent had been someone other than Trump”, Hillary replied “I would have. Yeah, I’ve thought about that a lot. If I had lost to another Republican, somebody who I disagreed with, but who I thought was temperamentally capable of being president, who would take the job, and the awesome responsibility seriously, of course I‘d be disappointed, but I wouldn’t be so worried about my country and the world as I am now.”

What a sore loser. It isn’t just that she’s a sore loser, either. It’s that she hasn’t said anything gracious about President Trump. President Trump and his administration did a fantastic job dealing with Hurricane Harvey in Houston and Hurricane Irma in Florida. Why didn’t she compliment him on that? Is she that into running a scorched earth book tour? Apparently, that’s Hillary’s plan.

On Puerto Rico, Hillary said “It’s hard to figure out. What are the priorities if 3.5 million Americans, and Puerto Ricans are Americans, let’s make sure people remember that, if they aren’t the highest priority of your government in responding to such a terrible natural disaster. What are you people spending your time doing? Golfing? Tweeting? Watching cable TV? I mean, find some time to tell the Navy to get down there and rescue people and provide food and provisions and medical care.”

First, Hillary’s dishonesty is breathtaking. Send the Navy in to rescue people, she whines. You mean like Hillary sent troops to Benghazi to protect Ambassador Christopher Stevens? Hillary’s had the opportunity to save lives. Hillary failed at that responsibility. That’s part of why people rejected her.

Next, it’s disappointing to see Hillary imply that President Trump doesn’t care about Puerto Ricans. The reason why the Navy and Coast Guard weren’t dispatched is because President Obama shrunk the size of the military. Hillary didn’t mention that these assets are getting stretched thin thanks to the previous hurricanes. Finally, Hillary didn’t admit that Puerto Rico got hit with back-to-back Cat-5 hurricanes in back-to-back weeks.

Apparently, Hillary doesn’t like reading newspapers any more than she likes reading cables from ambassadors serving in hotspots in northern Africa. Then there’s this:

“I can’t believe that one whole political party in the greatest country on Earth is totally sold to the gun lobby and will do whatever they are ordered to do, despite the loss of life,” she said. “One of the first things that Trump signed as president was to reverse President Obama’s order that people with serious mental health problems should not be able to buy guns.

“And so he signed it, and aren’t you happy that people we already know who have mental health problems can now buy guns?” she added. “This makes no sense, and the vast majority of Americans, and the vast majority of gun owners know we need common-sense gun safety measures, so I’m going to keep fighting for it.”

What dishonesty. People who have mental health problems haven’t been able to buy guns for decades. That’s just a fact. That’s one of the reasons why we do federal background checks on everyone buying a gun.

Hillary’s weekly diatribes aren’t just annoying. They’re hurting our nation. At a time when we need cool heads to prevail, Hillary’s approach is similar to that of the proverbial bull in a china shop. After you watch this video, let’s hear whether you think she’s a thoughtful politician who’s passionate about the issues or just a sore loser:

I have to compliment Leah Libresco because she’s willing to look past the Democrats’ talking points on gun control. I compliment her for saying “As for silencers — they deserve that name only in movies, where they reduce gunfire to a soft puick puick. In real life, silencers limit hearing damage for shooters but don’t make gunfire dangerously quiet. An AR-15 with a silencer is about as loud as a jackhammer. Magazine limits were a little more promising, but a practiced shooter could still change magazines so fast as to make the limit meaningless.”

I’ve finally found a ‘gun control expert’ who admits that she didn’t know as much as she pretended to know about guns. Good for her. It isn’t easy admitting that you aren’t the expert you’ve always considered yourself to be. Stephen L. Miller’s op-ed highlights the celebrities who lecture gun owners about the virtues of gun control without knowing what they need to know:

Column after column is fired off about how much the National Rifle Association donates to congressional candidates (spoiler: it’s not much, about 200K a year). For every breathless declaration that the NRA has blood on their hands, it’s worth noting more journalists have committed mass shootings in this country than NRA members.

Firearm experts in media such as Washington Free Beacon’s Stephen Gutowski (also an NRA-certified instructor), National Review Online Editor Charles Cooke and Federalist co-founder Sean Davis are sidelined from national cable news and Sunday show appearances in favor of guests who suggest suppressors are used by hunters to prevent deer from hearing a fired shot. Gutowski, Cooke and Davis will never be invited on Jimmy Kimmel or Stephen Colbert’s shows to clear up the falsehoods being spread to mass audiences or to defend the second amendment of the United States Constitution.

In the past, Democrats have insisted that Congress pass gun control legislation without knowing if it would prevent mass homicides. At least this time, Sen. Feinstein has proposed legislation to ban bump-stocks. I’m the first to admit that I’m not an expert on bump-stocks so I’ll quote this man, who seems to be an expert:

In the wake of the Las Vegas mass shooting, lawmakers introduced a bill that would ban bump stocks, the tool investigators said gunman Stephen Paddock used to make his weapons fire like machine guns. Bump stocks are currently legal in the U.S., though some in the gun industry questioned their intended use. “Some people really enjoy watching a lot of bullets fly,” said Warren Lacasse. “It’s not my cup of tea…I like to learn how to put them accurately in one spot.”

Lacasse owns The Gun Room in Southeast Portland, and no longer sells bump stocks. The device enables many semi-automatic weapons to fire like a near-fully automatic one using the gun’s natural recoil to make it fire faster.
“Let’s just say this, it’s a legal loophole,” said Lacasse describing bump stocks. “Somebody figured out a way to make a stock that would slide back and forth on its own.”

I won’t render a final opinion on bump-stocks but I will admit that they sound like something that at least sounds like it might make theoretical sense. In the past, Democrats have insisted on background checks, which is already law, or closing the nonexistent gun show loophole or not letting people with mental health issues buy weapons.

Most Second Amendment activists know that there are laws on the books that cover those things.

Appearing on Dana Perino’s new show (The Daily Briefing), Rep. Trey Gowdy was asked about his position on potential new gun legislation. His reply was thoughtful and the last thing Democrats wanted to hear. It started with Perino quoting from Leah Libresco’s op-ed in the Washington Post. Ms. Libresco’s op-ed said “My colleagues and I at FiveThirtyEight spent three months analyzing all 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States and I became frustrated in a whole new way. We looked at what interventions might have saved those people and the case for the policies that I’d lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence.”

Next, Ms. Perino asked “I think there might be some people who might be persuadable on gun control legislation if there was any way to point to what could’ve been done to prevent this if there was a way to not infringe upon people’s Second Amendment rights. Maybe we would do that. Where do you see the debate on Capitol Hill after this?”

Chairman Gowdy replied “Well, Dana, I think it’s important for your viewers to know that we already have controls on what types of guns you can have and where you can have them, when you can use them and which individuals can even possess a single bullet so the question for me is whether the current controls are adequate and there’s 2 fundamental questions you just put your finger on. What law, had it existed at the time, would’ve prevented this mass killing or another mass killing? What law, but for its lack of implementation, could have prevented this? So that’s one question. The other question I want answered is, among the other panoply of gun laws, how are we doing in enforcing them? It is currently illegal for someone who’s already been adjudicated as being mentally ill to possess a single bullet. But if you look at DOJ’s statistics, you will see very few prosecutions under those laws. So I would ask this Department of Justice the very same questions that I asked of the Department of Justice the last 8 years under President Obama. Before you ask for new tools, convince me that the tools you have now are being fully used and are inadequate. I’ll be open to a piece of legislation that tells me ‘this won’t happen again’ but you’ve got to tell me how you’re using the current gun statutes and I was really underwhelmed at the level of prosecutions the last 8 years.”

Ms. Libresco’s op-ed offers these important insights into the gun control issue:

As for silencers — they deserve that name only in movies, where they reduce gunfire to a soft puick puick. In real life, silencers limit hearing damage for shooters but don’t make gunfire dangerously quiet. An AR-15 with a silencer is about as loud as a jackhammer. Magazine limits were a little more promising, but a practiced shooter could still change magazines so fast as to make the limit meaningless.

The depraved domestic terrorist that killed 59 and wounded over 500 others was a skilled rifleman. It’s apparent that he’d meticulously pre-planned this attack. I’d be surprised if he hadn’t trained extensively for his killing spree. Nothing about this horrific event sounds like the work of an amateur.

Republicans should tell Democrats the things that Chairman Gowdy told Dana Perino. If they did that, they’d silence the gun control debate in minutes.

Technorati: , , , ,

I won’t question Jimmy Kimmel’s sincerity because of his anti-NRA, anti-GOP rant the night after a domestic terrorist with an automatic weapon killed 59 people while wounding over 500 more people. After reading this transcript of Kimmel’s monologue, what I will do is demand that he try to propose actual solutions. It isn’t good enough to express outrage. If you’re going to speak out on the issues of the day, then you’d better have a solution. Ranting to express your outrage is just a waste of time.

What’s obvious is that Kimmel hasn’t thoroughly thought things through about this. He all but officially admitted it when he said “All these devastated families who now have to live with this pain forever because one person with a violent and insane voice in his head managed to stockpile a collection of high-powered rifles and use them to shoot people. The guy was an accountant; he has no criminal record. His brother who lives in Florida seems totally shocked, genuinely dumbfounded, he said he saw no sign of any of this. The owner of the store that sold the killer some of the rifles said he passed the government-mandated background check when he was in the store.”

Everything that Kimmel said is accurate. In other words, all of the well-thought-out policies that have been signed into law throughout the years didn’t prevent a depraved individual from killing 59 people. What are the odds that hastily-written new legislation will stop the next depraved individual from killing dozens of people? Passing new laws will help people feel better about themselves because they didn’t just do nothing but it won’t stop the next killer with a death wish.

Kimmel continued:

He wasn’t on any watch list. He didn’t seem to have been a religious or political extremist. Came out of nowhere. Because of that, because there weren’t any of the usual signs, I’ve been reading comments from people who say, “This is terrible, but there’s nothing we can do about it.” But I disagree with that intensely. Because of course there’s something we can do about it, there’s a lot of things we can do about it.

I’d love hearing Kimmel explain what we could do that would’ve stopped this mad man. Disagreeing intensely might feel therapeutic for a minute but it isn’t a solution.

The point I’m attempting to make is that we’ve been down this path more times than I’d care to admit. Within minutes of a horrific massacre, Democrats insist that we need new laws. Their policy prescription is virtually always the same thing: universal background checks, banning assault weapons, large capacity clips and bump stocks, banning people with mental disorders from purchasing weapons.

Why do we always go after a maniac’s tools rather than going after the maniac? Why don’t we attempt to identify the maniacs more proficiently? Why don’t we attempt to be a more virtuous society that strives to live up to higher ideals?

I’m tired of getting lectured by the Jimmy Kimmels of the world. I’m tired of people who try treating the symptoms rather than fixing the disease. Attempting to take a maniac’s tools away is a fool’s errand. If history has taught us anything, it’s that depraved individuals will invent new tools to kill with.

On 9/11, terrorists used box cutters and airplanes to kill 3,000 people. In the 1990s, Timothy McVeigh used a truck and some fertilizer to bring down the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City. The point is that terrorists will always invent new ways to kill people. Anyone thinking that it’s possible to eliminate evil from the world isn’t dealing from a full deck of cards.

When a disgusting person kills people, whether it’s at a mall in Phoenix, a school in Connecticut or a casino in Vegas, Democrats rush to the microphone to offer their one-size-fits-all cure-all, aka gun control. Clueless celebrities get in front of microphones to be the first to criticize Republicans.

This time, Brian Williams was one of the first idiots to a microphone, saying “Why don’t we act? What is the problem? What was it about first graders losing their lives that wasn’t sad enough to result in changes?. When do you believe the American people will have had enough; enough to push back against the edges of the Second Amendment argument enough to say we can live under the Second Amendment but there should be limits?”

The American people will push legislation when it makes sense, not a second before that. They don’t trust Democrats on this issue. Perhaps that’s because of the things people like Trevor Noah say. “Comedy Central’s Trevor Noah accused Republicans of valuing guns more than the lives of Americans. ‘So the people of Las Vegas, I can’t give you thoughts and prayers, I can only say that I’m sorry,’ Noah said. ‘Sorry that we live in a world where there are people who will put a gun before your lives.’ Noah also said Americans prefer blaming Muslims and blacks for mass shootings, rather than the guns themselves.”

What a bigot. First, I’ve yet to find a gun that fires itself. Guns are inanimate objects. Why blame an inanimate object for a human tragedy? Second, when the terrorist attack in San Bernardino or the Fort Hood shooting happened, those tragedies were committed by Muslim terrorists. When people get shot in Chicago, the violence-filled city liberals won’t talk about, it’s frequently the case that African-Americans pulled the trigger. Further, when was the last time people said that white teenagers didn’t commit the crime in Columbine?

It’s BS to insinuate that we don’t gather facts before ascribing blame to specific people. It isn’t Republicans who affix blame to policies without first conducting an investigation. That’s the Democrats’ specialty. They’re more than willing to blame gun laws rather than questioning whether the murderer had mental health issues or a gambling problem or just lived a very dark life.

Then there’s idiots like Rosa DeLauro:

Connecticut Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro said Congress already knows what it can do to stop these attacks. “What we need to do now is bring to the floor of the House of Representatives votes on banning assault weapons, banning high-capacity magazines, having background checks,” she said Monday.

The weapon used to kill or injure most of the people in Vegas was an automatic weapon, which is already banned by law. As for background checks, they’re already part of the gun-buying experience. There isn’t a gun-show loophole. That’s a liberal myth. We’ve dealt with the things that Rep. DeLauro demands action on years ago.

Technorati: , , , , , , ,

Watching Nancy Pelosi call for gun control in the wake of another shooting incident isn’t a pretty sight. Nonetheless, it’s part of the news cycle so I’ll cover it. In her letter to Speaker Ryan, Ms. Pelosi called for the creation of “a Select Committee on Gun Violence.”

Sen. Chris Murphy, (D-CT), posted this tweet, saying “To my colleagues: your cowardice to act cannot be whitewashed by thoughts and prayers.” One of the people responding to Sen. Murphy’s tweeted “There in lies the problem. We need to get the NRA out of politics and make common sense gun laws a priority!” That’s the only proof I need to show that Democrats oppose the First Amendment and the Second Amendment.

The queen of never missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity, aka Hillary Clinton, outdid herself Monday by inventing “an ancillary argument that more people would have died if Paddock had used a ‘silencer.'” After that, Gregg Jarrett took Mrs. Clinton to the proverbial woodshed:

But Clinton’s claim that Paddock could have used such a device on his automatic weapon only underscores that Clinton is nothing, if not obtuse. Suppressors do not function well on automatic weapons. They tend to melt or malfunction under the intense heat of automatic fire. For this reason, there are only a few companies that even manufacture them for use on automatic weapons. And there is almost no marketplace for them.

Yet, Clinton is calling for a ban on a device that has no significant history of use in U.S. crime.

The law on suppressors is already strong. Pursuant to federal law, a person has to have a permit to own or possess one and only after undergoing a criminal background check. Violation of the law is a felony punishable by up to ten years in prison. If it is used during the course of a crime, the penalty is enhanced to 30 years.

I don’t recommend Speaker Ryan creating a commission/committee to study gun violence, I’d recommend that their first assignment is to study gun violence in Baltimore and Chicago, then publish a report on those findings.

As poorly as the politicians behaved, civilians quickly turned into that night’s heroes:

Thompson, a former EMT in Compton, California, and his friends broke into police cruisers to get medical supplies. “Our triage area was just civilians,” Thompson says. “I had a firefighter with me, a trauma nurse, and we were going down the line, doing what we could.” They marked their triage patients with Sharpies and lipstick, Thompson said.

I just wish our ‘leaders’ thought like this nation’s army of Davids.