Hillary Continues Gun Control Gambit but Tempers Her Message for the Masses

Friday, November 6, 2015

Last month, we reported on Hillary Clinton’s brash embrace of Australia’s mandatory firearm surrender program during a campaign stop in New Hampshire. Her remarks came in response to an audience member’s question about whether America could follow Australia’s lead and “take away” handguns until they’re “all gone.” Her bottom line: “I think it would be worth considering doing it on the national level if that could be arranged.” This followed remarks she had made earlier in October comparing the NRA to “Iranians” and “Communists.”

A few days after Hillary endorsed Australia’s approach, her handlers were attempting to walk back the obvious import of her remarks. “Of course” she wasn’t advocating for Australia-style gun confiscation, a senior aide insisted, even though Clinton’s remarks had come in response to a question about the feasibility of that program in America. The aide then pivoted to Hillary’s support for “tougher background checks on gun sales,” what she called, “very common-sense measures that the majority of the public supports.”

On Wednesday, Hillary continued her gun control push, although with a tempered message more in keeping with the modern gun control movement’s phony, unconvincing message of “common sense gun safety measures.” The latest salvo came in a campaign ad called “Together.” 

Speaking to an audience that hangs on her every word and nods with rapturous approval, Clinton rails against “this epidemic of gun violence,” which “knows no boundaries.” 

Her solution this time? “We need to close the loopholes and support universal background checks.” She continues, “How many people have to die before we actually act, before we come together as a nation?”

First, what she calls an “epidemic of gun violence” is actually a period of history in which nationwide rates of violent crime remain at historic lows. The sort of crimes that gun control advocates live to exploit also remain a rare phenomenon in the U.S. “No matter how you cut it,” a prominent Northeastern University criminologist recently wrote in reference to mass shootings, “there’s no epidemic.” Rather, he stated in another article, “the only genuine increase is in hype and hysteria.”

“Gun violence” is an intentionally misleading term that gun control advocates use to inflate firearm-related mortality. The largest source of deaths from guns in the U.S. remains suicides, although nobody would refer to other common means of taking one’s life as rope violence, bridge violence, or pill violence. Needless to say, the guns themselves are not behaving violently. Every firearm homicide is caused by a human being, usually by a criminal whose willingness to engage in violent acts shows complete disregard of any law. 

Moreover, the fact that some firearm sales and transfers do not go through a background check is not a “loophole.” As we explain elsewhere this week [link to McAuliffe piece], it’s an intentional part of how federal law is structured and takes into account obvious (to most people anyway) distinctions between private, casual conduct and commercial activity undertaken repetitively for livelihood and profit.

Finally, the idea that background checks are a serious, effective response to any headline-grabbing violent crime is simply untrue. Even gun control advocates occasionally admit as much in their more candid moments. Most mass murderers who use firearms obtain them after background checks. And the criminals committing the far more common street crimes with firearms will evade any manner of background check, universal or not.  This is why gun control advocates will occasionally break ranks with their PR strategists and allude to their real goal, confiscation and the elimination of private firearm ownership.

Hillary continues to gamble on gun control as her path through her party’s primary. But will a message calculated to appeal to her base and big donors resonate with America at large during the presidential election?

That’s up to you, the American Voter. Hillary Clinton has spoken loud and clear in support of gun control. Assuming she’s her party’s nominee, pro-freedom Americans must speak back even louder next  November at the ballot box.

Oklahoma Police State--WTH

Latching onto the false but popular meme that there is a war on police, a new Oklahoma law makes any so-called “assault” on an off-duty officer a felony. Given that officers often claim almost any contact — even if they initiate it or if it was incidental or occurred in the case of pulling away from the officer’s grasp — is an “assault,” the badge-wearing caste has now been granted great license to abuse the public while off duty and more special privileges not granted us common folk.
Combine this with a law passed in November 2009 making it a felony punishable by a five-year prison term and $10,000 fine to “fortify” a home “for the purpose of preventing or delaying entry or access to a law enforcement officer,” and we see that Oklahoma has gone off the rails.
The law forbids Oklahoma residents to “construct, install, position, use or hold any material or device designed … to strengthen, defend, restrict or obstruct any door, window, or other opening into a dwelling, structure, building or other place to any extent beyond the security provided by a commercial alarm system, lock or deadbolt, or a combination of alarm, lock, or deadbolt.” In other words, Oklahoma residents are forbidden from taking the security measures they feel are necessary to protect themselves in the off chance that police want to one day make a warrantless or no-knock raid on their homes.
Or, as William Norman Griggs writes:

So it is that in Oklahoma, if you fight back when an off-duty cop shoves you in a bar, you can be charged with a felony. If, on the other hand, a SWAT team attacks your home in a no-knock raid, and its effort to breach your dwelling is thwarted because you installed “burglar bars,” you can also be charged with a felony.

Granting one class special “rights” or “privileges” not granted others deprives the others of their rights. Blue privilege is no exception and is further evidence we are living in a police state.

Obama to Police Chiefs: Crack Down on Gun Owners

On Wednesday, President Obama addressed the 122^nd Annual Conference of the International Association of Chiefs of Police (a transcript is available at this link). The president aptly praised the work of America’s law enforcement community. He mentioned the “astonishing statistic” that “[o]ver the last 20 years, police have helped cut the violent crime rate and homicide rate in America by almost half.” He also noted that “over the past few years, the number of police officers shot and killed in the line of duty has fallen to their lowest levels in decades,” with 2013 seeing “the fewest cops shot and killed in the line of duty since 1887.”  We’ll give credit where credit is due – one has to appreciate Obama’s honesty in admitting that crime rates have fallen to historic lows in a period where firearm sales have skyrocketed. 

Clearly, America is doing many things right when it comes to protecting the safety of the public and officers alike. You might think the president’s priority would be to identify, model, and expand the strategies and techniques that have led to these historic gains.  We’ll give credit where credit is due – one has to appreciate Obama’s honesty in admitting that crime rates have fallen to historic lows in a period where firearm sales have skyrocketed. 

Instead, Obama used the occasion to call for a retreat from America’s tradition of lawful firearm ownership and use, a tradition Americans have embraced at record levels while enjoying record progress against violent crime. Clearly, and as usual, Obama fails to grasp an understanding or appreciation of how firearm ownership contributes to the security and safety of our communities.. But then, ordinary, upstanding Americans have never been the president’s main concern. Instead, he is consumed by what he considers the country’s “legacy” of “disparities” and “bias.” He even made a point of telling the chiefs that before he “had a motorcade,” he had gotten tickets he didn’t deserve.   

He also went on to insult their intelligence, and the intelligence of the American people, by ridiculously asserting, “[I]t is easier for a lot of young people in this city and in some of your communities to buy a gun than buy a book. It is easier in some communities to find a gun than it is to find some fresh vegetables at a supermarket. That’s just a fact.”

If by “fact” he meant “lie,” then we agree. But not otherwise. And certainly not as applied to people who are acting lawfully.

Of course, anybody wishing lawfully to buy a firearm at retail has to follow a process that involves appearing in person at a licensed dealer, showing valid government-issued identification, filling out a six-page federal form, and undergoing a mandatory background check.  And those are just the federal requirements. Some states add considerably more, including licensing, training, and waiting periods.  

For criminals who disregard the law, the process is of course considerably easier. But the president only offered policies that would affect the law-abiding, including the same tired suggestions of “universal” background checks and a ban on what he misleadingly called “military-style assault weapons.” His own policy advisors, meanwhile, have told him what additional steps would be necessary to enforce these restrictions, including gun registration and the mandatory surrender of formerly legal firearms. Simply put, the president was not offering serious solutions to crime.

And the cops who work the streets know it. In April 2013, PoliceOne.com, a leading website for law enforcement officers, released a survey of some 15,000 current and former cops.  Nearly 80% opined that a ban on private transfers of firearms between law-abiding citizens would not reduce violent crime. More than 70% said the same thing about an “assault weapons” ban. Meanwhile, more than 91% agreed that the use of a firearm in the commission of a crime should have stiff, mandatory sentences, and no plea-bargains. 

The police chiefs who Obama addressed are of course professionals, and most of them received his comments politely. Comments on a number of law enforcement websites, however, indicated that many officers were not impressed and did not consider the president’s remarks sincere or credible. 

Neither did we. While we can take some comfort in the fact that Obama’s increasingly bold rhetoric is paired with his increasing irrelevance, all that could change with the next election. A number of his would-be successors have openly embraced even more extreme gun control schemes, with Hillary Clinton openly suggesting a national “buyback” program “would be worth considering.” 

Only your activism and your vote can stop them. Next November, make sure your rights are protected. Stand with the NRA and defend the Second Amendment!

PHOTO BOMBS

Immigrants caught at border believe families can stay in US and collect benefits

WASHINGTON (AP) — Hundreds of immigrant families caught illegally crossing the Mexican border told U.S. immigration agents they made the dangerous journey in part because they believed they would be permitted to stay in the United States and collect public benefits, according to internal intelligence files from the Homeland Security Department.

The interviews with immigrants by federal agents were intended to help the Obama administration understand what might be driving a puzzling surge in the numbers of border crossings that started over the summer. The explanations suggest the U.S. government's efforts to discourage illegal crossings may have been unsuccessful. Its efforts have included public service campaigns in Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala to highlight the dangers and consequences of making the trek across Mexico to cross illegally into the United States.

The Associated Press obtained copies of the interview summaries, which were compiled in reports by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection's Office of Intelligence. They said hundreds of people traveling as part of families consistently cited opportunities to obtain permission to stay in the U.S., claim asylum and receive unspecified benefits. Immigrants spoke of "permisos," or a pass to come into the United States.

Clinton on Confiscation: ‘It’s Worth Considering’

If elected president, Hillary Clinton would consider a federal initiative to confiscate firearms from law-abiding citizens. Yes, it’s true. Clinton would seriously contemplate confiscation were she to become the next president of the U.S.
Yes, those of us with at least half a brain could read between the lines of her anti-gun rhetoric, voting record, and political history and come to that conclusion ourselves, but it becomes a whole different animal when we hear it directly from the horse’s mouth.
Last week, at a Town Hall meeting in New Hampshire, a voter asked Mrs. Clinton, “Recently, Australia managed to get away, or take away tens of thousands, millions, of handguns. In one year, they were all gone. Can we do that? If we can’t, why can’t we?”
Clinton responded by saying, “I think it would be worth considering doing it on the national level, if that could be arranged.”
The National Rifle Association was quick to slam Clinton for her remarks, essentially calling a spade, a spade, a gun grabber, a gun grabber.
“This validates what the NRA has said all along. The real goal of gun control supporters is gun confiscation,” said Chris Cox, executive director of The National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action, in a statement. “Hillary Clinton, echoing President Obama’s recent remarks on the same issue, made that very clear.”
Clinton also made controversial comments about the landmark Supreme Court ruling that held that the Second Amendment is an individual right, not contingent upon militia participation or government approval. Clinton said last month at a private event that the, “Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment. And I am going to make that case every chance I get.”
Cox also addressed that remark, saying, “Hillary Clinton just doesn’t get it. The NRA’s strength lies in our five million members and the tens of millions of voters who support the Second Amendment.”
“A majority of Americans support this freedom, and the Supreme Court was absolutely right to hold that the Second Amendment guarantees the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms,” he added. “Hillary Clinton’s extreme views are completely out of touch with the American people.”
Are they though? I’d like to believe that she’s the radical and I’m the average Joe but I can’t help but to see a change in sentiment. I mean, it used to be that talks of draconian gun laws, let alone confiscation, was political suicide in presidential politics (remember Al Gore?) but the Democrats running now seem very open to the idea of putting the Second Amendment on the chopping block. That was evident at the debate last week.  Perhaps the times are a changing. What’s more, is gun-control organizations are certainly taking note — and the credit for this apparent shift.
“Gun violence prevention has been front and center on the campaign trail this season and again in the Democratic debate tonight, and that’s a reflection of how far the gun safety movement has come in the last few years,” said John Feinblatt, President of Everytown for Gun Safety, in a statement that followed last week’s debate.
“This is a marked change from 2008, when gun safety was largely avoided during the presidential campaign,” he continued. “The political calculus has changed — candidates are now running on gun safety.”
“Less than three years ago moms across the country came together to confront the gun violence in our country that kills 88 Americans and injures hundreds more every day, and tonight we’ve seen the power of our movement,” said Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America Founder Shannon Watts, in a statement.
“The myth that addressing gun violence is a political third rail is now in the past,” said Watts. “As tonight’s debate shows, candidates can talk about solutions to reduce gun violence because there is a growing movement of Americans demanding their leadership on this issue.”
At the risk of sounding like a bit of an alarmist, I’m scared by the normalization of gun-grabbing. I know the political realities are such that enacting gun-control at the federal level is still an uphill battle for gun grabbers, but it is also apparent that they are making real headway, real progress on their mission to Europeanize U.S. gun laws.
Gun owners really need to come together in 2016 because if we don’t show up at the polls to keep a Hillary administration from taking over the White House, Clinton won’t just talk about taking our guns — she’ll actually attempt to do it.

Big City Sheriff Says Black Lives Matter ‘Will Join Forces With ISIS’ To Take Down America

Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke is not shy about his conservative views. He once described men and women protesting police violence in Ferguson, Missouri as “vultures on a roadside carcass.” He’s accused Democratic governors, senators and Attorney General Eric Holder of acting as cat’s paws for the “New Black Panther Party.” And he told a National Rifle Association gathering that open insurrection may be the appropriate response to gun laws he opposes. Similarly, on Tuesday night, Clarke offered a unique take on the Black Lives Matter movement:

Clarke has long straddled the border between mainstream Republicans and the conservative movement’s paranoid extremes. During his aborted presidential campaign, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) described Clarke as a “friend of mine” who has “talked to me about [policing] many times in the past.” Yet Clarke was also named “sheriff of the year” by the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association (CSPOA), a group whose leader backed anti-government rancher Cliven Bundy during an armed standoff between Bundy’s supporters and federal officials.
In a 2013 speech to the CSPOA, Clarke labeled the federal government a “common enemy” and compared the federal government’s current actions to the outrages that triggered the American Revolution.
Despite his views, however, Clarke remains a high-ranking law enforcement officer with a badge, a gun, and a bevy of deputies at his command.