Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘assault weapons ban’

Politico has the story here.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand on Wednesday suggested she supports a mandatory federal buyback program for assault weapons and criminal prosecution for gun owners who do not sell those firearms to the government — a measure the vast majority of her fellow 2020 Democratic presidential candidates have been reluctant to embrace.

“I think we should ban assault weapons as well as large magazines, and as part of passing that ban, do a buyback program across the country so that those who own them can be … compensated for their money that they spent. But I think both of those ideas are strong,” Gillibrand told CNN.

“You don’t want people to retain them because if you make them illegal, you don’t want to grandfather in all the assault weapons that are all across America,” Gillibrand said when pressed on whether such a buyback program should be mandatory. “You would like people to sell them back to the government so that you can make sure people who shouldn’t have access to these weapons couldn’t have them.”

Most of her fellow Democratic candidates for President favor a voluntary compensated confiscation program but New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, and New Jersey Senator Cory Booker also support the proposal.

The Democrats have been emboldened since the most recent mass shootings.  They believe they have a majority of the public on their side helped by a willing media to spread the narrative created by the gun ban lobby.  It is up to us to effectively counter that with letters to the editor and by contacting our state and federal legislators.

Read Full Post »

On Sunday, NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre appeared on CBS’ Face the Nation to discuss the Obama administration’s failure to protect Americans from radical Islamic terror attacks. He portrayed the administration’s concentration on gun control as a distraction from the very real threats that our nation faces today.

Also NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris Cox appeared on This Week With George Stephanopoulos, explaining where the responsibility lies for Americans’ vulnerability to terror attacks and firing back against false accusations toward the NRA. He affirmed the organization’s absolute stance against arming suspected terrorists and argued against the effectiveness of so-called “assault weapons” bans.

 

Read Full Post »

Apparently Starbucks works differently in some places than they do in Richmond.  That’s the only thing I can take from this CBS This Morning piece.

Did you catch gun control advocate and UCLA Law School professor Adam Winkler saying “in most places you can go in to a gun store and buy an AR-15 much like you can a Starbucks and buy a coffee.”  Really?  The CBS producer bought the firearm after showing the required two forms of ID plus she provided a passport.  Have you ever done that in a Starbucks or any other coffee shop?

Mark Anthony Wright at National Review Online offered some great thoughts on this non-story:

Take a minute to think about the demands of the gun-control Left. Would universal, instant background checks have prevented this purchase? The purchaser passed a background check. How about preventing those on the terrorism watch list from purchasing guns? While I can’t be sure, I assume CBS’s producer was not on the terrorism watch list. How about making sure the mentally ill, those involved in domestic abuse, or minors cannot purchase guns? What about cracking down on “Internet sales” or expanding the definition of “federally licensed firearm dealers” to include most private sellers? What about closing the “gun-show loophole”? It doesn’t appear that any of those reforms would have prevented this purchase either.
CBS’s producer fulfilled the requirements under the law to purchase the weapon — if CBS wants to take the editorial position that all gun purchases should face a mandatory 48- or 72-hour waiting period, that is their prerogative. But as it stands, this is a non-story. What would have made it a story? Perhaps if a CBS producer with a criminal record, or under some other current legal prohibition from purchasing a firearm, had managed to buy the rifle in 38 minutes. Now that would be a scandal.

And they wonder why fewer and fewer people watch network news programs.

Read Full Post »

Jazz Shaw has a great post over on Hot Air that really picks apart those numbers that the main stream media used to take President Obama up on his challenge to compare the number of Americans killed by terrorism and those killed by people who used a gun.

GunDeaths1

He chose to focus on 2011, probably because some government numbers lag behind others and that was the year for which he could get the most complete stats:

First of all, look at the number of gun deaths on that chart from 2011. It’s 32,351. That’s a lot of gun deaths to be sure. So that’s the total number of murders by gun owners, right? The answer is not only Hell No, but it’s not even remotely close. It’s true that this figure is close to the total number of human lives ended in incidents involving a gun, but that’s all incidents. So how did those deaths happen?

Straight from the CDC where most of the media is drawing their numbers (while not as good of a source as the FBI or the Justice Department) we can find out that of those 32,352 gun deaths, 21,175 of them were suicides. That leaves us with 11,177 deaths to account for. But as it turns out, the FBI records that 8,583 deaths were murders of various sorts involving guns of all types. The remaining roughly 2,500 were accounted for by accidents and unintentional injuries. These include hunting accidents, toddlers getting hold of unsecured weapons and shooting somebody or just plain idiots who proved Darwin right.

Then he delved into the type of firearms used in those murders:

GunDeaths2

After almost every mass shooting, one of the top three proposals from the gun ban lobby is we have to ban so-called “assault weapons.”  That’s just one more “check off the list” proposal because when we look at the actual 8,583 gun murders committed in 2011, only 323 were committed with rifles. That’s not just “assault” rifles,  that’s all rifles, including bolt action, hunting rifles and all the rest. Shaw notes that the number committed with so called “assault” rifles were a fraction of the total.  Compare that with the almost “1,700 who were stabbed as well as nearly 500 murdered with blunt objects and and more than 700 beaten to death by somebody with their bare hands.”  I guess the advocates for victims killed with hammers and fists will soon be calling for a ban of those too.

Then there are the calls for so-called “universal background checks.  Shaw addresses that:

So we’re down to 8,583 intentional killings using guns. That’s still one heck of a lot of bodies, and surely enough to justify new background checks and other restrictions on legal gun purchases, right? Again… not even close. The Justice Department has been studying the question of legal vs. illegal sources of guns used in crimes for decades, going back to this study issued in the early nineties. They admit that the numbers are simply too hard to track for us to pin down exact figures, but the trends are steady over the years. The vast majority of guns used in crimes were gotten through illegal means outside the legal purchase regimen followed by law abiding gun owners. Roughly one quarter of inmates convicted of gun crimes admitted to having stolen a gun in that study. For the ones that weren’t stolen directly, another 2004 study showed that 40% of convicts bought their guns on the black market and another 37% got them through the “gray market” in various illegal methods.

In fact, one study after another has shown that legally purchased weapons which followed all the normal firearms transfer rules accounted for somewhere between six and eight percent of all murders. And the majority of those were domestic violence incidents, violence between family members, crimes of passion and, yes… murders committed by the insane. But let’s give the gun grabbers the benefit of the doubt, round it up and say that ten percent were committed with legally purchases guns. That works out to around 850.

We can agree that 850 is still too many people, but it’s nowhere near the 32,000 per year that the gun ban lobby typically talk about.

The vast majority of people who die by firearms do so at their own hand, suicide.  As Shaw and others have noted, that’s not a gun control issue.  Accidental (or negligent as I prefer to call them) deaths are also a small part of the total but those numbers have been going down steadily over the years and the NRA and the National Shooting Sports Foundation have done a good job helping to make that happen.

So, the next time someone pushing gun control tries to trot out that over 30,000 people a year die because of “gun violence” you now have the facts to effectively refute them.

Read Full Post »

News reports are already surfacing talking about an increase in gun and ammo sales in the wake of the Oregon Community College shooting.

In Huntington, guns shop owner John Ray Rice said every time the conversation pops up, guns sales go up in suit.
“It’s just common human nature; I need to protect myself and my family,” Rice said.
Much of the common sense legislation proposed in Congress involves stricter background checks, a ban on assault style weaponry and capping magazine size, making it harder for gunmen to kill in large crowds.
“I don’t think that’s common sense,” Rice said.

Look for the monthly NICS reports to show an increase in background checks when the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) shares the information on October sales next month.

Read Full Post »

The Hill newspaper reports that President Obama will use the 100 day anniversary of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting to rebuild momentum for his gun ban agenda.  With Congress and recent polls indicating that few of the proposals still have support wide support, the White House is  battling the perception that the move is out of fear none of their agenda is going to pass.

Earnest also disputed the notion that Obama was pressing now over fear that momentum on a gun bill had stalled as time passed since the Newtown shooting. He noted that by the White House’s count, the president and vice president had held 20 events on gun violence since the shooting, and he said the decision to appoint Vice President Biden as the point man on the issue underscored the importance of the issue.
 
Time is not on their side.  Obama new the longer the country moved away from the shooting, the public would also move on and support for any proposals would drop with it.  That is why he wanted to roll out something within a month.  What he could not control was the timeline of Congress.  By the time the Senate takes up its bill we will be into mid to late April. 
 

Read Full Post »

Roll Call’s At The Races Blog notes that Arkansas Democrat Mark Pryor did not react to Bloomberg’s ads as planned:

“I’ve gotten a lot of questions about NYC Mayor gun ad. My response? I don’t take gun advice from the Mayor of NYC. I listen to Arkansans,” Pryor tweeted Monday afternoon.

Good response Senator.  Bloomberg is likely to get similar responses from the Senators in Georgia, Nevada, and Arizona, which are also states with pro-rights Senators to which he hopes to apply pressure.  The fact that a “vulnerable” Democrat has already dismissed Bloomberg’s powerplay does not bode well for his tactics.

Read Full Post »

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s gun ban group Mayors Against Illegal Guns is launching a campaign in states with senators considered to be persuadable on a package of gun control legislation making its way to the Senate floor in April.  Bloomberg confirmed on today’s Meet the Press that he plans to spend $12 million to run ads in at least 10 states.  He is trying to make them believe there will be a political price to pay for opposing gun control.   The ads are more of the recent attempts to drive a wedge between segments of gun owners and the NRA with the ads featuring what are supposed to be hunters who support gun control.  This from Fox News:

In one ad, the man says he’ll defend the Second Amendment but adds “with rights come responsibilities.” The ad then urges viewers to tell Congress to support background checks. 

In the other ad, the man, a hunter, is shown with the rifle and children playing in the background. 

“I believe in the Second Amendment, and I’ll fight to protect it. But with rights come responsibilities,” he says. “That’s why I support comprehensive background checks.” 

NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre, who also appeared on the program was not impressed:

“He can’t spend enough of his $27 billion to try to impose his will on the American public,” LaPierre said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “He can’t buy America.” 

NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam went further:

“What Michael Bloomberg is trying to do is … intimidate senators into not listening to constituents and instead pledge their allegiance to him and his money,” said spokesman Andrew Arulanandam.
Bloomberg all but admitted this is nothing but exploitation of the Newtown shooting and its victims:

Bloomberg defended the ad buy Sunday , speaking on the same program as LaPierre, saying it would be a “great tragedy” if the momentum for gun control generated after the Newtown mass shooting withered. At the same time, Bloomberg said “I think we are going to win this.” 

We was blunt about the purpose of the ad buys. “We’re trying to do everything we can to press upon the senators this is what the survivors want.” 

We need to keep the pressure up on our U.S. Senators.  Both Mark Warner and Tim Kaine cast their first anti-rights votes this past Friday when they voted against an amendment that would prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty in order to uphold the Second Amendment. 

Read Full Post »

So, I get my daily email from National Journal giving me the low down on the goings on around Washington and I see this:

THE ASSAULT-WEAPONS VOTE WAS A HIGHLY PRODUCTIVE SHAM.

Now, when you go to the article the title is not quite that provactive but the point is still the same.

The Senate Judiciary Committee’s vote Thursday approving an assault-weapons ban was a sham—if you think the purpose was to ban assault weapons. If you think the committee’s vote offered an opportunity for lawmakers to parse and deliberate complicated and unresolved questions about the Constitution, guns, and violence, then it was a highly productive 90 minutes.

You can’t read an article about Feinstein’s bill without reading that it is doomed to failure.  If I was a tin foil hat type of guy, I would swear the fix is in to lull gun owners to sleep then surprise the crap out of them when a ban passes. 

But National Journal does have a point that we got to see what a sham the proposed ban really is.  Take amendments sponsored by Texas Senator John Cornyn:

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, made a point of highlighting the “absurdity” of Feinstein’s bill by offering several amendments carving out exceptions—for rural residents, residents near the U.S.-Mexico border, women victims of domestic violence, and recipients of protection orders. Even if any of Cornyn’s amendments had passed (they didn’t), he still would have had no intention of voting for the assault-weapons ban. His theatrics in committee were “designed to show the flawed logic in their bill,” said Cornyn spokeswoman Megan Mitchell. “Why have exemption for retired police officers, but not for veterans? Why not victims of domestic violence, et cetera?”

And of course there was the great questioning by Texas Senator Ted Cruz that really got under Senator Feinstein’s skin.

So, while I might not call it a sham, the vote was useful to see which of our representatives stand for Liberty and which stand for statism.

Read Full Post »

Sebastian over at Shall Not Be Questioned has coverage of today’s Senate Judiciary Hearing on Diane Feinstein’s bill banning so-called “assault weapons.”

It appears from most of the coverage I’ve read, the comment of the day was Feinstein referring to our rights as “personal pleasures.” Sebastian picked up on that too.

He also noted that the fact the anti-rights folks in attendance were overtly rude to the pro-rights witnesses may be an indication that we are winning on this issue.

I echo Sebastian’s call to keep up your contacts with your legislators.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »