Tag Archives: Gun Control

Another Government Sponsored Abattoir, by Bill Buppert

Orlando is an argument for gun availability among law abiding citizens, not gun control. From Bill Buppert at zerogov.com, via theburningplatform.com:

A nightclub was attacked in Orlando, FL this morning leaving nearly 53 dead and a hundred injured, who knows what these figures will be in the next week. One man with a gun(s) did this. Just one.

It just so happened to be a gay club. But it could have been an octogenarian bingo party or teen rave, the venue may have relevance if it turns out the shooter was motivated by some variation on a human software virus called religion.

I despise analysis of news cycles if they are less than 72 hours old because the facts are fluid and the local authorities are still floating their interpretation of events to benefit their agenda with their media lapdogs in tow.

Here’s what we know and this is subject to change.

Omar Mateen is an American citizen born in New York in 1986 to Afghan parents with a FL issued Concealed Carry Permit and a “guard card” for security guards in the same state. He has been investigated by the FBI an indeterminate number of times. Wait for the authorities to start backtracking and attempting to cook up stories to explain all of the events that led him to legally purchase an handgun and long gun in the past few days.

And a member of the Democratic Party.

I am linking to the National Parrot Radio site to assure the readers that I am being fair and balanced. NPR will broadcast what the government tells them to much like Tokyo Rose (Iva Toguri), Fred Kaltenbach and Axis Sally (Mildred Gillars) during the War to Save Josef Stalin. Whatever swill you hear will be sure to twist the facts and narrative to advance forward the gun prohibitionist standard.

Not only was it a gun-free restriction zone in the club leaving all the patrons unarmed, much like the popular free-fire zones like government buildings and schools but it apparently had an off-duty Orlando Sheriff’s Deputy in the club. If he is anything like his brethren on the street, he was most likely conveniently away during the shooting to avoid any harm to himself characteristic of the cowardly mindset that informs most police behavior in America today.

I’m waiting for the usual suspects to crawl out of their gutters and start mewling and caterwauling for common sense weapons control and more bans because prohibition and heavy regulation has worked out so well for the rest of the pathologies the government has thought so vital like commerce, illegal vegetation, food and drugs. The whole raft of wildly successful program sponsored by your betters in Mordor on the Potomac to improve everyone’s quality of life and keep us safe.

The cold hard fact is that if more than one person had a gun, this murderer would literally been stopped dead in his tracks but the government will do everything it can to dispel that notion and derail that narrative because once people realize that the trillions stolen from them yearly doesn’t even assure something as basic as the ability to survive an attack, the man behind the curtain quickly reveals what a shabby charlatan he is.

To continue reading: Another Government Sponsored Abattoir

 

 

Gun Control Will Lower Crime Rates from The Burning Platform

http://www.theburningplatform.com/2016/05/03/gun-control-will-lower-crime-rates/

The American Public’s Positive Perception of the NRA Soars in the Face of Obama’s Gun Control Agenda, by Michael Krieger

From Michael Krieger at libertyblitzkrieg.com:

When pollsters asked people three decades ago how they felt about the National Rifle Association, 27% said they strongly supported the gun lobby. By last month, that share had grown 38%, an 11-point increase. Meanwhile, the share that didn’t side with the NRA declined.

By an 8-point, registered voters in the Journal/NBC survey last month said they were more concerned that the government would go too far in restricting gun rights than that it fail to do enough to regulate access to firearms. When adults were asked the same question in 1995, the greater fear was that access to firearms was too widespread.

In July polling, the Journal/NBC survey found that 43% of the public had a positive image of the NRA and 32% a negative one—a more favorable view than the public held of the Supreme Court or either political party. By a 15-point margin, political independents, also viewed the NRA more positively than negatively.

– From the Wall Street Journal article: Rising Support for NRA Stymies Obama

Love guns or hate guns, one thing is becoming perfectly clear. The American public’s perception of guns and the NRA is moving in the exact opposite direction of Barack Obama’s message and agenda.

To continue reading: American Publics Perception of the NRA Soars

Internal War Is Now On The Horizon For America, by Brandon Smith

From Brandon Smith at alt-market.com:

If internationalists were to get their way fully with the world and future historians write their analysis from a globalist perspective of the defunct American nation, they will probably say simply that our collapse was brought about by our own incompetence – that we were our own worst enemy. Yes, they would treat America as a cliché. They will of course leave out the destructive influences and engineered disasters of elitists, that would just complicate the narrative.

My hope is that we do not prove these future historians correct, and that they won’t have an opportunity to exist. My work has always been designed to help ensure that resistance thrives, but also that it is pursued in the most intelligent manner possible.

As I write this, China’s stock market has crashed 7% and was shut down by Chinese authorities who are once again initiating outright intervention to stem the tide. U.S. markets are quickly tracking lower. Oil is plummeting.

Relations between Saudi Arabia and Iran have turned ugly, with Iranian protesters overtaking the Saudi embassy and both sides vowing vengeance. Many Americans won’t care much about this because they think it has nothing to do with them. They don’t realize that Saudi Arabia has already publicly suggested a depeg from the U.S. dollar, effectively ending the decades-long relationship between the greenback and oil. The Iranian event and U.S. ties to both nations only make the fall of the dollar’s petro-status more likely in the near term. With the U.S. in the middle, “taking a side” will be a demand. I believe the U.S. government will NOT take a side, and this will elicit a furious response from Saudi Arabia (a currency depeg).

The Obama Administration has just made introductory announcements on new gun control measures through executive order. These announcements were rather light on details and heavy on crocodile tears. Their vagueness is clearly deliberate. Psychological evaluations, redefining who is a lawful firearms dealer, “expanding” background checks; all of these measures could be interpreted broadly to mean almost anything. We will probably know more in the coming weeks.

And in Oregon over the weekend, Ammon Bundy and friends lured hundreds of protesters under false pretenses using the Hammond family tragedy as a vehicle to then initiate a takeover of federal buildings that have no strategic or symbolic value, boxing themselves into a static position and proclaiming themselves to be the “tip of the spear” in the fight against corrupt government. In the meantime, anyone who questions the validity of this idea or the logic behind the “plan” is immediately labeled a coward and “keyboard warrior” by their supporters. Emotionally manipulative arguments abound because there are no tactically rational arguments to be made, which tells me that the plan was doomed before it was implemented.

As I wrote in my article “Oregon standoff a terrible plan that we might be stuck with,” some people (not many but some) in the liberty movement are desperately clamoring for a fight; and they don’t care if the circumstances are intelligently executed or idiotically executed. They only care if it kicks off.

To continue reading: Internal War Is Now On The Horizon For America

How Obama is Using the Grossly Unconstitutional “No Fly List” to Push Gun Control, by Michael Krieger

From Michael Krieger at libertyblitzkrieg.com:

The faux “liberal” who holds the White House was at it once again last night. As he’s accommodated to doing, he presented a radically undemocratic and unconstitutional practice as a common sense appeal to the American public to accept gun control. What I am referring to specifically is the following passage from last night’s speech:

To begin with, Congress should act to make sure no one on a no-fly list is able to buy a gun. What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semi-automatic weapon? This is a matter of national security.

Obama is not stupid. He knows exactly how shady the no fly list is, yet he’s pushing on national television as a way to enact gun control. The effectiveness of his bullshit depends on an unbelievably ignorant voter base, as well as the cultish, thoughtless devotion from what’s left of his zombified supporters.

To explain what I mean, it’s important to understand what the “no-fly” list actually is. As relates to a lawsuit it filed against the government on behalf of veterans placed on the list without notice, the ACLU notes the following:

In a motion for partial summary judgment, the ACLU asked the court to rule that the inadequate redress process for people on the list violates the Constitution’s guarantee of due process. The court partially granted that motion in August 2013, holding that the Constitution applies when the government bans Americans from air travel. In June 2014, the court struck down the government’s redress process as unconstitutional, and it ordered the government to tell the ACLU’s clients why they are on the No Fly List and give them the opportunity to challenge their inclusion on the list before the court. In October 2014, the government finally informed seven of the 13 plaintiffs that they were not on the list, and it then provided the remaining six plaintiffs with unclassified “summaries” of the reasons for their placement on the list. However, the government still keeps its full reasons secret. It also withholds evidence and exculpatory information from our clients and refuses to give them a live hearing to establish their credibility or cross-examine witnesses. Because of these and other serious problems, the ACLU has challenged the revised process as unconstitutional.
Until the government fixes its unconstitutional new process, people on the No Fly List are barred from commercial air travel with no meaningful chance to clear their names, resulting in a vast and growing group of individuals whom the government deems too dangerous to fly but too harmless to arrest.

Just in case you still aren’t aware of how egregiously the “no-fly” list flies in the face of the Bill of Rights, here’s the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The “no-fly” list since inception has without question deprived American citizens of life and liberty without due process. In fact, the government made slight improvements only after being sued by the ACLU. Furthermore, were the San Bernardino shooters on the “no-fly” list? Where any of the other highly publicized mass shooters on it?

To continue reading: How Obama is Using the “No Fly List” to Push Gun Control

About That Kid In Chicago…. by Karl Denninger

From Karl Denniger on a guest post at theburningplatform.com:

Obama has once again tried to turn a nutjob shooting people at a Planned Parenthood clinic into a call for “more gun control”, as if somehow passing more laws against murder will make murder less prevalent.

May I remind you that you may only prosecute someone for the first murder, no matter how many they commit or how many other crimes they commit before, during or after, because you can only serve one life sentence or give someone the death penalty once.

It is therefore idiotic to pretend that passing more laws on guns (the 50,000+ already on the books aren’t enough?) will stop murders. A person willing to commit murder has already decided that the law is no object to their evil intentions, irrespective of whether you like it or not.

But then there’s this case — a 9 year old boy shot by a gang because the gang didn’t like his Dad.

Where’s Obama on that calling for these criminal gangs to be dismantled and every single one of the people involved being tossed in the hoosegow for life?

And why isn’t that shooting his poster child for gun control?

You know the answer, right?

It has a lot to do with the race of the shooter in the two incidents….. and the utterly common incidence of the second sort of thing in Chicago — where a nutjob shooting up a Planned Parenthood clinic is — fortunately — very rare.

Obama’s sons are always ignored when they do things like this, aren’t they?

http://www.theburningplatform.com/2015/11/29/about-that-kid-in-chicago/

Pew: Homicide Rates Cut in Half Over Past 20 Years (While New Gun Ownership Soared), by Ryan McMaken

The argument that gun control will cut murder rates, and the converse, that increased gun ownership leads to more murders, are directly contradicted by the evidence. From Ryan McMaken at mises.org:

The Pew Research Center reported last week that the murder rate was cut nearly in half from 7 per 100,000 in 1993 to 3.6 per 100,000 in 2013. Over the same period, overall gun deaths (including accidents and suicides) have fallen by one-third from 15.2 to 10.6 per 100,000.

In spite of this, Pew reports, the American public believes that homicides and gun deaths are increasing in the United States. Those who think violence is getting worse should probably watch less television and look around them instead. The murder rate in the US is currently similar to 1950s levels.

Meanwhile, the number of privately owned guns (and gun commerce in general) in the United States has increased substantially in recent decades.

According to the World Bank, here are the homicide rates in the US since 1995:

Here’s the homicide rate graphed against total new firearms (manufactured plus imported) in US (indexed with 1995 =100):

To continue reading: Homicide Rates Cut in Half While New Gun Ownership Soared

Gun Control, from The Burning Platform

Hat Tip Boston Bob

A Little Gun History Lesson, by Rense

The primary reason to own guns is that envisioned by the framers of the Second Amendment: to protect yourself from the government and resist attempted tyranny. It is not as if the historical record is not chock full of instances were tyrannical governments banned the private possession of firearms. It only makes sense: it’s a lot easier to tyrannize somebody if they can’t shoot back. From Rense, via theburningplatform.com:

* In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. This doesn’t include the 30 million ‘Uncle Joe’ starved to death in the Ukraine.

* In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

* Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, leaving a populace unable to defend itself against the Gestapo and SS. Hundreds of thousands died as a result.

* China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

* Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

* Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. The total dead are said to be 2-3 million.

* Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, 1-2 million ‘educated’ people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

* Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million at a bare minimum.
* Gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.

The first year results: Australia-wide, homicides went up 3.2 percent Australia-wide, assaults went up 8.6 percent Australia-wide, armed robberies went up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent.

Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns. It will never happen here? I bet the Aussies said that too.

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady DECREASE in armed robbery with firearms, that changed drastically upward in the first year after gun confiscation…since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns.

The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it. You won’t see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens. Take note my fellow Americans, before it’s too late.

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind him of this history lesson. With Guns………..We Are “Citizens”. Without Them……..We Are “Subjects”.

During W.W.II the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED. Note: Admiral Yamamoto who crafted the attack on Pearl Harbor had attended Harvard University 1919-1921 & was Naval Attaché to the U. S. 1925-28.

Most of our Navy was destroyed at Pearl Harbor and our Army had been deprived of funding and was ill prepared to defend the country. It was reported that when asked why Japan did not follow up the Pearl Harbor attack with an invasion of the U. S. Mainland, his reply was that he had lived in the U. S. and knew that almost all households had guns.

http://www.theburningplatform.com/2015/10/19/a-little-gun-history-lesson/

Politicians Exploit School Shooting While Ignoring Bombing Victims, by Ron Paul

From Ron Paul, on a guest post at theburningplatform.com:

Following the recent Oregon school shooting, many politicians rushed to the microphones to call for new gun control laws. President Obama even called on gun control supporters to “politicize” the shooting, while some members of Congress worked to establish a special commission on gun violence.

The reaction to the shooting stands in stark contrast to the reaction to the US military’s bombing of an Afghanistan hospital run by the international humanitarian (and Nobel Peace Prize winning) group Doctors Without Borders.

Our Nobel Peace Prize winning president did apologize to his fellow Nobel laureate for the bombing. However, President Obama has not “politicized” this tragedy by using it to justify ending military involvement in Afghanistan. No one in Congress is pushing for a special commission to examine the human costs of US militarism, and the mainstream media has largely ignored Doctors Without Borders’ accusation that the bombing constitutes a war crime.

The reason for the different reactions to these two events is that politicians prefer to focus on events they can “politicize” to increase government power. In contrast, politicians ignore incidents that raise uncomfortable questions about US foreign policy.

If the political and media elites were really interested in preventing future mass shootings, they would repeal the federal “gun-free” schools law, for example. By letting shooters know that their intended victims are defenseless, the gun-free schools law turns schoolchildren into easy targets.

To continue reading: Politicians Exploit Shooting, Ignore Bombing