Search
Archives

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

Categories

Archive for the ‘Second Amendment’ Category

Apparently, CNN gave Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School student Colton Haab a scripted question they wanted him to ask during last night’s televised townhall. According to the article, “‘CNN had originally asked me to write a speech and questions and it ended up being all scripted,’ Haab told WPLG-TV.”

“Colton Haab, a member of the Junior ROTC who shielded classmates in the midst of terror says he did not get to share his experience,” WPLG’s Janine Stanwood explained. “Colton wrote questions about school safety, suggested using veterans as armed school security guards but claims CNN wanted him to ask a scripted question instead so he decided not to go,” Stanwood reported.

First, Colton Haab is a legitimate hero for saving his classmates’ lives. If everyone put others’ lives first like Colton, this nation would be infinitely better than it’s currently in. This is Colton’s indictment of CNN:

“CNN had originally asked me to write a speech and questions and it ended up being all scripted,” Haab said. “I don’t think that it’s going get anything accomplished. It’s not gonna ask the true questions that all the parents and teachers and students have.”

What’s required to make substantive changes that improve students’ lives is to listen first. Let the people who just experienced something horrific talk. The panelists should first listen to the students and teachers before responding. Next, it’s essential to answer on point rather than reverting to pre-scripted talking points.

This isn’t about winning political points. It’s about changing things so students and teachers are safe. Period. That’s what Dana Loesch did in this CNN townhall meeting:

CNN’s ratings as a serious news outlet have been questioned. This will just add fuel to that fire.

It’s apparent that Tim Walz will say anything to win the DFL endorsement for governor. This article is proof that, when it comes to governing principles, Walz doesn’t have any.

Walz isn’t a leader. He’s a legislator, aka a talker. On the issue of gun violence, Walz said he’d “build new coalitions to ‘finally end the obstruction, get the NRA out of the way and get us to the common-sense solutions that we all agree on, including universal background checks, a bump-stock ban and yes, after listening hard to Minnesotans, an assault-weapons ban in Minnesota.'” First, banning assault weapons isn’t a solution. It’s a PR ploy meant to make people feel like they’ve done something without fixing anything.

The reason why is because the 1990s definition of assault weapons is mostly about cosmetics. The 1990s definition of an assault weapon is essentially a semi-automatic weapon with a few cosmetic changes. If the definition of an assault rifle stays essentially the same, it’ll be meaningless. If it’s expanded, the Supreme Court will likely strike it down because it’s too vague or expansive. That’s the opposite of a solution. That’s the definition of pandering.

Next, it’s important to highlight how Walz insists that Minnesotans need to “get the NRA out of the way.” How will Walz do that? The NRA isn’t a nefarious boogeyman organization. It’s an organization filled with people who feel passionately about protecting everyone’s civil liberties while protecting their families.

Michael Graham’s article sets the ill-informed straight:

Let’s start with a basic fact about the NRA that seems to have been lost: The “A” is for “Association.” As in “freedom of association?” Or “assembly” as it’s called in the First Amendment. Some 5 million Americans choose to pay dues and “associate” with other like-minded people who share their views on gun ownership.

This distinction doesn’t make the NRA good or bad, but it’s simply wrong to look at them the way we look at, say, the National Beer Wholesalers Association when it comes to the issue of DUI laws. The NRA isn’t the beer sellers. It’s the beer drinkers.

The DFL can’t win without its collection of boogeymen to vilify. Their arguments, like Walz’s, are intellectually dishonest or incoherent.

Admittedly, more significant was the money the two groups spent promoting their cause and attacking their opponents, $15 million by Planned Parenthood and $54 million by the NRA. Both of those figures, however, pale in comparison to the $90 million California billionaire Tom Steyer spent on the 2016 presidential race by himself–his part of more than $2 billion in total spending on the Hillary vs. Trump battle. The NRA’s contribution to Trump’s election, $30 million—is about 1.5 percent of that total.

And once again—remember where most of that money comes from. Not from the profits of Dr. Evil’s “Virtuecon,” but from members and donations. Citizens who pay dues and write checks for a cause they believe in.

It’s time to ignore show-me-the-money politicians. That’s what Walz is. Show him enough money and he’ll fight for anything. Literally:

Kurt Schlichter is onto something in his newest column when he wrote “No one who wants us to give up our guns does so because they want us to be more able to defend ourselves from crime or tyranny. Their agenda is clear, no matter how much they lie and deny. Disarmament is key to converting us from citizens to subjects, and we’re just not playing that game. So they mutter about the NRA, which you need to join if you dig freedom, and we keep buying guns and ammunition to create the facts on the ground that will ensure their long-sought after end state of another Venezuela will never happen here.

After last week’s shooting, Democrats reflexively jumped back onto the gun control bandwagon. That was handed a stinging setback on Friday. That’s when the FBI admitted that they’d recently received specific information that was actionable, then didn’t follow up on the tip that might’ve saved 17 lives.

Thus far, I haven’t heard anyone say that the US should adopt Australia’s gun laws — yet. President Obama and Secretary Clinton have touted those laws in the past as a model the US should follow. They talked specifically about Australia’s ‘gun buyback’, which was actually a gun confiscation program:

The crucial fact they omit is that the buyback program was mandatory. Australia’s vaunted gun buyback program was in fact a sweeping program of gun confiscation. Only the articles from USA Today and the Washington Post cited above contain the crucial information that the buyback was compulsory. The article by Smith-Spark, the latest entry in the genre, assuredly does not. It’s the most important detail about the main provision of Australia’s gun laws, and pundits ignore it. That’s like writing an article about how Obamacare works without once mentioning the individual mandate.

In this video, Mark Halperin took time to engage in a debate with Charles C.W. Cooke on gun control:

Saying that it didn’t end well for Halperin is understatement. Halperin initially states “I agree with the President. People have to find solutions to this and not talk about what won’t work and that it’s so complicated. We can’t be the only country in the world that’s like this.” Cooke quickly replies “Alright then, what’s your plan?” Halperin spends the next minute dodging and slipping Cooke’s question. Ultimately, Halperin’s answer is that he isn’t a “gun policy expert.” Talk about stating the obvious.

What’s required is to harden the schools. Have only 1 entry/exit point. Shut and lock the doors when school starts anyone wanting in or out has to ring the alarm and be let in. It’d be great if government didn’t miss the tips they’d received about the various shooters, most recently, the Parkland shooter.

What’s painfully obvious is that Democrats are ideology-driven, not solutions-driven. That’s why the generic ballot is trending away from them.

When I read articles like this one, I want to punch the author for being this dishonest or this ill-informed. Ill-informed diatribes like this don’t get us to a solution on stopping school shootings. In his ill-informed rant, Scarborough wrote “More than 90 percent of Americans agree that Congress should pass tougher background checks. More than 80 percent of Americans at least somewhat favor a ban on “bump stocks” that make rifles fire much like automatic weapons. And nearly 80 percent believe that assault-style weapons should be banned.”

Guess what, Joe? You’ve been pumping out this BS about tougher background checks for years. It’s a myth. Whether a person buys a gun at a gun show or at a gun shop, the dealer must perform a background check. The so-called ‘gun show loophole’ is a myth. As for banning bump stocks, I’m totally fine with that. Nobody needs an automatic weapon. Finally, Scarborough’s elitism and ignorance is showing when he talks about “assault-style weapons.” The difference between “assault-style weapons” and regular semi-automatic weapons are entirely cosmetic.

Banning assault-style weapons is a feel-good thing that won’t affect a solution. The old liberal saw that ‘Well, if it would save one innocent life, it’s worth it’ is hogwash. That change won’t save a single life. Period. Earlier in the article, Scarborough wrote this:

And once again, I and many other reasonable conservatives find ourselves at odds with GOP — read: National Rifle Association — orthodoxy.

Apparently, Joe isn’t bright enough to understand that the NRA isn’t an evil boogeyman. The NRA is a potent political force because it’s made up of people who feel passionately about guns and gun safety. The NRA is We The People, not some bunch of right-wing lunatics.

Rants like Scarborough’s do more harm than good. It’s what makes conservatives distrust liberals like him. He should step out of his liberal echochamber and watch thoughtful shows like this:

One of Gutfeld’s panelists was Tyrus. Elitists will roll their eyes when they hear that he’s a professional wrestler. These elitists will ignore the fact that he used to be a licensed body guard. Here’s his thoughts on how to prevent these shootings:

This is coming from being an executive of security and, for a short stint, I was a teacher. When I was listening to this, first of all, if we outlawed guns tomorrow, no more guns in this country, all you would do would be opening the business market to the black market. That’s just not who we are. We have freedom of speech and we’re allowed to have guns. When 9/11 happened and the planes crashed into the Towers, airports were changed forever. Our children are getting hit. It’s time to change the schools forever. There’s a population out there, and I’ve checked — they didn’t have the new stats out but they had last year’s stats — 4.3% unemployment rate of returning veterans. That’s 435,000 trained men who have eyes and ears. We need to have them in schools.

Hardening soft targets makes sense. This notion that we don’t want the nation’s children exposed to guns is dangerous. It’s time we admitted that gun-free zones are where these killers feast. They know they don’t have to worry about getting shot.

Another thing that isn’t talked about is how many of these mass shooters were on the FBI’s radar with very specific information, only to not get kept under scrutiny. That’s leading to people on social media starting a new hashtag: #SeeSomethingSaySomethingDoSomething. That’s because the government failed us. According to this article, “police responded to his home 39 times over a seven-year period.”

Scarborough didn’t mention that in his anti-gun diatribe. Isn’t it time we held the FBI accountable for their failures? That likely wouldn’t sit well with Scarborough’s pro-government tendencies. He’d probably join with other liberals in singing the ‘Republicans hate law enforcement’ anthem. When government makes a deadly mistake, should we pretend that everything is fine? I don’t think so.

While elitists like Scarborough predictably retreat to their ‘let’s ban guns’ corner, people living in the real world attempt to find a solution. It’s a shame that elitists don’t think things through and pursue a solution.

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.