fox files

WHY ALL AMERICANS MUST STAND AND FIGHT

ONLY WE CAN SAVE US FROM KING PINOCCHIO, MR. LIAR, LIAR, PANTS ON FIRE!

  

“I believe in the second amendment.  I believe in people’s lawful right to keep and bear arms.  I will not take your shotgun away.  I will not take your rifle away.  I won’t take your handgun away…I am not going to take your guns away.”

Barack Obama, Sept. 9, 2008

 “We should restore the ban on military-style assault weapons and a 10-round limit for magazines…because weapons of war have no place on our streets…”

Barack Obama, Minneapolis, Feb. 4, 2013

“As many as 40 percent of all gun purchases are conducted without a background check.”

Barack Obama, Obama-Biden Gun-Ban Plan Announcement, Jan. 16, 2013

“Weapons that were designed for soldiers in war theaters don’t belong on our streets.”

Barack Obama, Second Presidential Debate, Oct. 16, 2012

“My administration has not curtailed the rights of gun owners.  It has expanded them !!!???

Barack Obama, Arizona Star, March 13, 2011

“More than 90 percent of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States…”

Barack Obama, April 16, 2009

“Assault weapons…have only one purpose:  to kill people.”

Barack Obama, Illinois Senate Debate, Oct. 21, 2004

You and your freedom are in danger of being buried by a blizzard of lies. President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, the gun-ban lobby and anti-gun politicians across America are using distortions, deception and flat-out lies to try to deceive the American public, frighten families, poison public opinion, silence gun owners and hammer the Obama-Biden Gun-Ban Plan into law.

That is why we need everyone to take action right now.  

Call your congressman and two U.S. senators today at (202) 224-3121.

Tell them you oppose the Obama-Biden Gun-Ban Plan to outlaw your guns. Tell them you oppose the Obama-Biden Gun-Ban Plan to outlaw your ammunition magazines. Tell them you oppose the Obama-Biden Gun-Ban Plan to impose gun registration through “universal background checks.”

Stand And Fight Now to Stop the Obama-Biden Gun-Ban Plan

In my 40 years as a nra, member, never have I seen such a calculated, coordinated, collective assault on the peoples firearms, freedoms and Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms.  And there is simply no substitute for your immediate action now.  Here’s why:

In his 2013 State of the Union address, Obama displayed a level of public deception that cannot be ignored.

For proof, just look at all the false statements in that speech. To push the Obama-Biden Gun-Ban Plan, the president talked about “weapons of war”—yet the guns he wants to ban are not “weapons of war.”

He talked about “massive ammunition magazines”—yet the magazines he wants to ban are not “massive.” Since when is an 11-round magazine “massive”?

Obama used outrage and compassion for the victims of Newtown, Conn., to push laws that he promises will make schools and children safer—yet not one of his legislative proposals would make any child in any school safer.

You and I know that.

But among Obama’s target audience—the millions of Americans who don’t own firearms and don’t understand them—the president’s false statements, and the media’s relentless repetition of them, could give the Obama-Biden Gun-Ban Plan the momentum of a wrecking ball.

So let’s look at some of Obama’s falsehoods in detail and remind him that, as one of his political heroes, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, warned, “Repetition does not transform a lie into the truth.”

The “Weapons of War” Lie

On Feb. 4, 2013, speaking to law enforcement officials in Minneapolis, Obama said, “We should restore the ban on military style assault weapons and a 10-round limit for magazines… because weapons of war have no place on our streets…”

Semi-automatic technology has been around for more than 125 years. The firearms Obama seeks to ban—countless conventional semi-automatic firearms that are currently owned by millions of Americans—are not “weapons of war.” They are not standard-issue guns in the military.

They’re not “machine guns.” They can’t “spray bullets.” They’re no “more powerful” or “more lethal” than other guns. In fact, most of the guns Obama would outlaw with his gun ban are less powerful than most deer rifles.

Despite their appearances, they don’t function any differently from other guns.

They fire once—and only once—each time the trigger is pressed, no matter how long it is held down.

And the dirty secret is that they’re not the “weapons of choice” of criminals. According to the most recent fbi statistics, less than 2.6 percent of all murders are committed with rifles of any kind—so murders committed with so-called “assault rifles” are likely less than 1 percent.

For the sake of comparison, according to the fbi, in 2011 more than twice as many Americans were murdered with “fists and feet” as with rifles of any kind. And nearly five times as many were murdered with knives.

Vice President Biden even admitted, “Nothing we’re going to do is going to fundamentally alter or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting or guarantee that we will bring gun deaths down to a thousand a year from what it is now”

In other words, they consider the whole thing a charade!

So why are they pushing a gun ban that they don’t think will work? Simple: Because some people think these firearms look scary, Obama and his allies think their ban is achievable and —when it inevitably fails—the first step toward banning more and more guns.

That’s the rationale behind their demands for so-called “universal background checks.”

You and I know that background checks will never be “universal” when criminals ignore them and the mentally ill are not reported to the background-check database. Only law-abiding people will suffer when they have to wait in lines to fill out forms to pay fees to fund a massive federal bureaucracy that will have no other purpose or function than to impose universal registration of gun owners like you and every gun you own.

In fact, on the same night that Obama delivered his State of the Union address, Sen. Charles Schumer—who hosted Obama’s inauguration—admitted to msnbc that the goal is “universal registration” of guns and gun owners.

As we saw this winter in Schumer’s own New York, registries of gun owners are ripe for abuse by antagonistic governments, not to mention hackers and thieves. And as we’ve seen from New York to California, from England to Ireland and from Jamaica to Australia, / gun registration means gun confiscation.

A Strategy of Deception to Turn a Lie Into a Law

What that means is that their strategy amounts to a weapon of mass deception. It’s a lie that uses emotion to trump reason, feelings to overrule facts, and fear to frighten the public into supporting the Obama-Biden Gun-Ban Plan. And the gun-ban lobby admits it

As the head of the gun-ban lobby’s Violence Policy Center, Josh Sugarmann admitted in 1988: “Assault weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons?’

That’s why too many in the national media try to deceive viewers—even after we’ve corrected them countless times— by showing machine guns in news segments discussing semi-automatics.

It’s why anti-gun mayors and their politically appointed police chiefs blur the distinction between legal semi-automatics and machine guns, which have been virtually banned since 1934.

It’s just one of the marry lies behind the Obama-Biden Gun-Ban Plan.

Here’s another: On Jan. 16, Barack Obama said, “As many as 40 percent of all gun purchases are conducted without a background check,” and “nearly 40 percent of all gun sales are made by private sellers who are exempt from this requirement.”

If the president’s calculated qualifiers—”as many as” and “nearly”— raised red flags for you when you heard them, you’re not alone.

The Washington Post gave Obama’s claim the sniff test, and as much as said it stunk to high heaven.

Why?  Because the gun “sales” weren’t necessarily sales, and the “purchases” weren’t necessarily purchases. They were merely “acquisitions” and “transactions”—including gifts and barter—from a tiny survey that was almost 20 years old.

After hearing from both sides of the question, The Washington Post wrote, “We can understand why the president might want to use a word like purchases’ rather than ‘transactions’… But that is no excuse for the president’s language…”

And in the end, the same newspaper that fawns over Obama and seems to support every anti-gun scheme ever proposed, awarded the president with two “Pinocchio’s”—its distinction for politicians who don’t tell the truth.

“Expanding Gun Rights”— by Excising the Second Amendment?

On March 13, 2011,*the Arizona Star published an opinion piece in which Obama proclaimed, “My administration has not curtailed the rights of gun owners, it has expanded them …”

“Expanded gun rights”? How?

By appointing two anti-gun justices to the u.s. Supreme Court, one of them, Sonia Sotomayor, who claimed she considered it “settled law” that the Second Amendment guaranteed  an individual right—but then turned around and voted to deny that right?

By sidestepping Congress to impose an illegal order requiring registration of semi-automatic rifle sales in four Southwestern states?

By trying to gut the armed pilots program that protects airline travelers from terrorist hijackers?

By allowing his Department of Justice to smuggle guns from the u.s, to Mexican drug cartels who used them to murder a u.s. Border Patrol officer—and then using his “executive privilege” to stonewall investigators

How, exactly, do any of these actions by Obama expand the rights of gun owners?

And how does trying to outlaw 125-year-old firearm technology— and standard-capacity ammunition magazines-“not curtail the rights.of gun owners”?

In that same Arizona Star article, Obama wrote, “First, we should begin by enforcing laws that are already on the books…”

Yet Obama would rather pass new laws that only punish lawful gun owners like you, than enforce existing laws against armed, violent criminals the police have already caught.

In fact, Syracuse University, which tracks enforcement of federal gun laws, reported that under Obama, “weapons prosecutions declined to [the] lowest level in a decade.”  Yet further proof of the government’s inactions!

Out of more than 76,000 firearm purchases denied by the federal instant check system and sent on for further investigation in 2010, only 62 were referred for prosecution, and only 13 resulted in convictions.  That’s less than two one-hundredths of one percent!

Think about what all this means.

Help Defend Your Firearms and Freedoms with the Truth

What kind of politician claims, as Obama did on Sept. 9, 2008, “I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won’t take your handgun away… I am not going to take your guns away”—but then pushes legislation to ban millions of guns?

What kind of commander-in-chief doesn’t Understand the difference between the machine guns his armed forces use, and the semi-automatic firearms millions of Americans use?

Why can the elites not understand that honest, law-abiding, peaceable people want semi-automatic firearms and standard-capacity magazines for the exact same reasons that the-rich, the powerful, the politically connected and the police want them? To protect themselves!

AS IT NOW STANDS, WHAT’S FOR THE GOOSE IS DEFINITELY NOT GOOD FOR THE GANDER. 

IN OTHER WORDS, THE POLITICIANS CAN ALL WALK AROUND WITH THEIR ARMED BODY GUARDS, BUT YOU AND I ARE EXPECTED TO CALL THE POLICE IN THE EVENTUALITY OF A SUDDEN ALTERCATION. 

DOUBLE STANDARDS FOR THEM AND US!

If you limit the access of law-abiding people to these technologies—especially when criminals will not be limited in any way, you limit the ability of good people to survive.

It’s as if the president and the gun-ban crowd can say whatever they want—even if it’s not true.

In 2000, after President Bill Clinton said that the reason other countries have “a lower gun death rate” is “because they don’t have an nra  in their country,” nra  President Charlton Heston called Clinton to account.

Appearing in tv spots from coast to coast, the Oscar-winning actor corrected Clinton’s false statements and said, “Mr. Clinton, when what you say is wrong, that’s a mistake. When you know it’s wrong, that’s a lie?

Today, you and I face an even more aggressive, coordinated cultural war against our firearms and our freedoms—a war waged with distortions and deception that only the truth can combat.

We can’t match the power over public opinion wielded by msnbc, cnn, cbs, nbc, abc, The New York Times

The Washington Post and the rest of the anti-gun media who endlessly repeat the lies behind the Obama-Biden Gun-Ban Plan.

But with your immediate help, we can and must Stand and Fight now.

Make no mistake: This will be the fight of our lives NOT JUST for firearm freedom, BUT OUR FREEDOMS THEMSELVES. But it’s winnable.

If you’re not an nra  member, please join NOW!. If you are a member, please renew or upgrade your membership, or make a contribution.

Whenever you hear someone repeat the distortions and lies behind this plan, do whatever you can to correct them with the truth.

Remember: The Constitution is on our side. The Bill of Rights is on our side. We stand shoulder to shoulder with the Founding Fathers and the Framers of the Constitution. ©

For the sake of our freedoms, join us to STAND AND FIGHT. Call your congressman and your two U.S. senators. If you don’t know the phone number—or even if you don’t know their names—call the Capitol Switchboard at

(202)224-3121.

Get their names, get connected and tell them to VOTE NO on the Obama-Biden Gun-Ban Plan. Then send each one a letter saying the same thing in writing. Together; with truth on our side and our freedom at stake, we can—and must— prevail.

The largest gun show in America was recently “postponed” after the National Rifle Association and hundreds of other exhibitors pulled out in protest over a decision by Reed Exhibitions to ban AR-15S and similar modern semi-automatic rifles (guns the national media often erroneously label as “assault rifles”) from the Eastern Sports and Outdoor Show in Harrisburg, Pa. Reed’s official statement said the show, which was scheduled to run from Feb. 2-10, was postponed until “the time is right to focus on the theme it celebrates.”

Before the start of this brouhaha, the nra tried to clue Reed Exhibitions into the fact that modern semi-auto rifles are commonly used by Americas hunters along with millions of other citizens.  Many of these firearms, such as the Remington R-15, are chambered in calibers used by deer hunters. Predator hunters have long used modern sporting rifles as well.

How would the presence of these firearms at the show “distract from the theme of hunting and fishing”?  Saying that is like banning sports cars from a car show while saying sporty, fast and cool autos shouldn’t be allowed because they’d be a distraction.

Reed Exhibitions went ahead with the ban regardless. In fact, Reed Exhibitions’ prohibition even extended to images of modern semi-auto rifles.  They wanted to whitewash a firearm category from the show because they deem its appearance too militaristic for civilian use.

They mandated this ban at America’s largest outdoor show, a show that regularly attracts 200,000 outdoor enthusiasts and pumps an estimated $44 million into the region’s economy. In response, the NRA boycotted the show. The NRA’s statement said, in part: the “NRA  strongly disagreed with Reed Exhibitions’ decision to ban popular semi-automatic rifles from the Eastern Sports Show in Harrisburg, Pa. … Due to Reed Exhibitions’ refusal to reconsider their decision, the NRA  decided to withdraw from the show entirely:

The response from other companies and organizations scheduled to attend was also fast and united Cabelas, a major sponsor of the show (Cabelas has a store in Hamburg, Pa), pulled out, as did the National Wild Turkey Federation, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and companies like Ruger, Smith & Wesson, Crimson Trace, Trijicon and hundreds more.  In fact, many of the exhibitors that announced they wouldn’t be attending were small knife makers, outfitters and others that rely on the business they get from this popular show to stay afloat.

Each year at the Eastern Sports and Outdoor Show, families would come together and friends would show up in groups to walk the crowded aisles and fantasize about buying the latest firearms or booking a hunt in Colorado, Alaska or Africa. Some saved all year, even planned years in advance, before showing up to book a hunting or fishing trip. This is an event where Americans come together to enjoy outdoor pastimes, share stories and see what’s new. At press time, it remains unclear what will be the show’s future.

The silver lining is that when hunters and gun owners, organizations and companies pulled together and refused to allow Reed Exhibitions to force them to go along with a nonsensical, anti-gun ideology, they presented a united front politicians should heed. This steadfast refusal to be divided and conquered by a politically correct minority is exactly what’s needed to keep anti-gun politicians from stripping away Americans’ freedoms.

 Gun Banners Beliefs

 Gun-banners are fond of saying citizens shouldn’t have access to the same firearms as the military.

 Only if you ignore more than 200 years of civilian/military arms development that is.

 

There is an insidious lie at the basis of the latest attempt to ban popular semi-automatic rifles such as the AR-15 (what the anti-gun-freedom crowd WRONGLY calls “assault rifles”.

That terms recently came in to use ONLY because Congress CREATED it!  It’s a LIE so simple, yet SINISTER, that people SEDUCED by it think government should take away basic human freedoms.

 

Most Americans believe it is the government’s duty to protect the individual.  That’s why police cars have removed “to serve and protect”.  Most don’t know that it is NOT a peace officer’s duty to protect YOU, the individual.  Their SOLE duty is to only uphold the law.  The duty of protection has ALWAYS fallen on the INDIVIDUAL to secure THEIR OWN safety!

The lie is that, as Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif, is fond of saying, “military-style weapons” don’t belong in the hands of u.s. citizens.

This lie preys on ignorance. Those who don’t know the truth about American history can be conned by this lie. Those who aren’t aware of the link between private and military arms that has always existed in America can be tricked by this lie.

To defeat this lie about semi-automatic rifles, we have to educate those who don’t know our history of freedom. To help, here’s a primer on America’s history of private and public gun making, as well as the views of firearm historians and first-person experiences from soldiers.

A Short History of American Gun Making

To fully understand the harm this one big lie can do to individual liberty, let’s begin with the “shot heard round the world.” Ralph Waldo Emerson coined this phrase decades after the American Revolution in a poem he wrote in 1837 called “Concord Hymn.” Emerson wrote: “Here once the embattled farmers stood /And fired the shot heard round the world.”

School kids learn that on the night of April 18,1775, hundreds of British troops marched from Boston to nearby towns to seize arms caches. They learn that Paul Revere and others sounded the alarm, and that Colonial militiamen mobilized to confront the Redcoat column. They are taught that an initial confrontation on the Lexington town green started the fight that led to a British retreat from a large force of Americans at Concord.

However, one small though important fact few learn about this battle is that the colonists actually had more advanced arms than the British troops.

Phil Schreier, senior curator of the NationalFirearmsMuseum, explains: “Some of the Americans had rifles, whereas the British had Brown Besses—smoothbore muskets. Also, many of the Americans used their rifles to hunt. They could hit a man-sized target at 200, and perhaps 300, yards. The British Brown Bess, by contrast, was accurate to perhaps 50 yards, probably less.”

Though barrel rifling is thought to have been invented in Augsburg, Germany, at the end of the fifteenth century, American gun makers improved on previous designs with the American Long rifle (what later became known as the “Kentucky rifle.”). The American Long rifle was longer and used a smaller caliber than other muzzleloaders at the time. As this firearm’s name indicates, it had a “rifled” barrel.

The British preferred the smoothbore Brown Bess because it lobbed a big bullet and was faster to load than a muzzleloader with a rifled barrel. The Redcoats were geared for close-quarter engagements between masses of troops. The Americans at Concord didn’t fight that way. They used their rifles to fire before the Redcoats could get close enough to take advantage of their less-accurate muskets.

There were downsides to Kentucky rifles. They were comparatively expensive and their production rate was slow, as small-arms makers produced them one at a time. As a result, although Gen. George Washington made significant use of American snipers, most American Revolutionaries were later armed with smoothbore muskets.

Nevertheless, small-arms makers who had served the private market made it possible for the war to begin on good footing for the colonists. This helped to get the public behind the revolution. Thus began the relationship between American citizens, the firearms they owned and carried, and the u.s. military.

After the American Revolution, George Washington established the Springfield Armory in Springfield, Mass., to produce and develop arms for the military. The armory began making flintlocks in 1795. These firearms were basically copies of the French “Charleville” flintlock musket. But from then until its closing in 1968, James Woolsey, superintendent of the Springfield Armory, says: “The armory worked to match and surpass advances in weapons by foreign and private manufacturers. In fact, civilian gun designers influenced and collaborated with the u.s. military to design new and better firearms. The civilian gun market and the government have always been in step with each other!’

Woolsey used Samuel Colt as an example. In 1836, Colt perfected and patented a revolving handgun by bringing together features from previous guns and fashioning them into a mechanically reliable revolver. Colt also advanced manufacturing processes by making guns with interchangeable parts (made by machine and assembled by hand). An order of 1,000 revolvers from the Texas Rangers in 1847 later solidified Colt’s business. His factory in Hartford, Conn., would later build handguns that were used on both sides in the American Civil War and in many conflicts in the American West.

Meanwhile, other innovators were also at work. In 1852 Horace Smith and Daniel B. Wesson formed a company to produce a lever-action handgun nicknamed the “Volcanic Pistol.” After it failed, the two men came out with a revolver in 1856—the Smith & Wesson Model 1. This was the first revolver that fired a fully self-contained cartridge.

At about this time, in 1857, Oliver Winchester hired a gunsmith named B. Tyler Henry. By i860, Henry had created a breech-loading, lever-action rifle. Citizens and the u.s. military quickly embraced this rifle. In 1866, Winchester improved on the Henry with the Winchester Model 1866.

A few years later, the two most iconic guns of the Old West were produced: the Winchester model 1873 (see Jimmy Stewart in the 1950 classic “Winchester 73”) and the Colt Model 1873, otherwise known as “The Peacemaker’ None of these firearms, though they were major advances in technology, were thought to be exclusive to law enforcement or the military.

Innovators like Sir Hiram Stevens Maxim, John Browning, John Thompson and many more kept working to please the public, who wanted firearms for self-defense, hunting and sporting uses. They also made firearms for the U.S. military. The American consumer market propelled firearm development. Manufacturing innovations by gun makers even helped the u.s. step into the Industrial Age.

We owe much to the gun and to gun designers. It’s hard to name a firearm type used yesterday or today that wasn’t used by both civilians and the military. Some military snipers use Remington’s Model 700, a rifle very popular with hunters. Pump-action shotguns from the Winchester Model 12 to Mossberg’s 500 are, or have been, used by both private citizens and the military.

Actually, the rest of this article could be filled with a list of examples of guns used by both citizens and the military. Suffice to say, today’s semi-automatic rifle is merely the latest example of private citizens using and helping to develop a firearm type that also happens to be used by the military.

The NRA Connection

The original reason for the founding of the National Rifle Association in 1871 also highlights this military-civilian connection. William Conant Church and Gen. George Wood Wingate first chartered the nra in the state of New York on Nov. 17,1871, because they recognized a need to train citizens to shoot Poor marksmanship exhibited by the Union Army in the American Civil War made it clear that many Americans didn’t know how to shoot As the Founders, often expressed, Church and Wingate felt our nations very independence depended upon having an armed and skilled citizenry.

Gen. Ambrose Burnside, the nra’s first president, also noticed “Out of ten soldiers who are perfect in drill and the manual of arms, only one knows the purpose of the sights on his gun or can hit the broad side of a barn,” Burnside said.

The nra  soon constructed a modern rifle range at Creedmoor, Long Island, and the nra’s  shooting programs for civilians and the military quickly began to grow and to produce quality marksmen. For example, after winning the team through an amateur rifle club.

Remington Arms and Sharps Rifle Manufacturing Co. produced breech-loading rifles for the team. At the time, muzzleloading rifles were thought to be more accurate.  This changed after the American riflemen won the match with breech-loading rifles.

At the same time, with links to private manufacturers, the Springfield Armory developed and produced the Springfield “Trapdoor” rifle in 1873 (watch the 1952 film “Springfield Rifle” starring Gary Cooper to see what a big deal it was). These rifles were used by the military, by citizens in the West and by shooters in national matches, international championships and the Olympics.

For the rest of the 19th and into the 20th century, nra  competitions and training kept producing good marksmen.  This continually resulted in innovations in firearms for both private citizens and the U.S. military.

A favorite saying of both President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden is that more gun control laws must be instituted because “even if just one life was saved, it would be worth it.”

 

Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s Gun Control Alchemy

We now have a view of the new gun control proposal that some have labeled Feinstein’s Grand Plan. Grand?  Feasible?  Passible?  That remains to be seen.  What is plain is that Feinstein’s proposal illustrates the inadequacy of supply-control policies that attempt a purely public response to an intensely private crisis.

The impulse here is the horror in Connecticut.  The main worry from Connecticut is not that an incomprehensibly mad young man killed with an AR-15.  At one level we all know that virtually any sort of firearm and a variety of other deadly weapons are easy substitutes against the helpless.

But that is a difficult thing to say in this climate and it does not satisfy people who are hurting.  And that hurt is very much a driver here.  The pain from Newtown is intense.  Many people desperately seek something to ease that pain and affirm that our society is not irretrievably off the rails.  For those under the delusion that the state can stop imminent violent threats, Feinstein’s supply-side gun control proposal will have appeal.

Feinstein’s proposal marks a point of profound disagreement. Most gun owners will acknowledge that when seconds count, government is minutes away.  This means that in those critical moments when violence sparks, you are on your own.

Many people resist this fact and its implications.  Supply controls appeal to those people (just get rid of the guns and these crimes would stop). They believe it can moot the need for armed self-defense.  But that is a pipe dream in a country that already has upwards of 300 million guns distributed across at least 40 percent of households.

Much of the political class operates under a kind of moral hazard here.  Their standard coin is the promise of public solutions; even for those private crises where our ancient law of self-defense emphasizes that the state is structurally incompetent.  The state loses its monopoly on legitimate violence in that window of imminence where government cannot act and people must protect themselves.

Many on the left are aligned with a gun control movement that has continuously denied the need, utility and legitimacy of armed self-defense.  This crowd has the floor now and will lead the legislative charge with proposals that are really a diversion.

There is real danger that we will undertake what’s essentially a grand charade—a policy debate grounded on the premise that 10- vs. 30-round magazines make a crucial difference in these attacks. The vitriol suggests Feinstein’s supply-control proposals are a clear and obvious fix against horrors like Sandy Hook. Ultimately, we all really know that’s false.

A serious debate about the risk would involve detailed assessment of fictitious gun-free zones.  This has been raised first by the NRA, so there is a good chance it will be maligned by much of the media. But if we press for substance rather than symbolism, there is some chance that this issue will rise up out of the rancor.

As we go through the dubious enterprise of identifying “bad guns” to ban and “good guns” to approve, someone might actually move past how guns look and consider how they function. Is the AR-15 more deadly against unarmed people than a pump shotgun or a lever-action rifle or the stealthy, quickly re-loadable handgun or, frankly, any other gun?

The core issue here is the exposure of helpless people against a twisted individual with a gun … any gun.  Supply controls are no answer to this problem unless you eliminate virtually all guns. Only when you fully acknowledge that it is impossible to get rid of guns in America (and that the failed attempt would make things worse by sending a hundred million guns into the black market) do you see the substantive emptiness and folly of Feinstein’s plan.

This reveals a crucial sticking point. Some of us genuinely appreciate that it is impossible to ban guns in America.  Others still imagine that we might someday fulfill the supply-control dreams hatched in the 1970’s and actually get rid of guns.

Indeed, if this is not the agenda, then the Feinstein plan is nonsense.  It cannot be true that the senator is saying we want to stop mass shootings using certain semi-automatic rifles, but that shootings using other semi-automatics, pumps, lever actions, revolvers, double barrels or bolt actions are OK.   If your policy tool is supply controls, you must ban those guns as well.

If we find consensus that the supply-control formula is dubious and the bad-gun formula incoherent, we might press forward to the actual tough question that deserves our full attention. What about these episodes of insanity? For adults, the idea that people must protect themselves within the window of imminence is the longstanding reality, as the modern wave of shall-issue concealed-carry laws acknowledges. We must have a conversation about how adults can best protect children.

Sen. Feinstein will get lots of opposition to her proposal: that it is an unconstitutional taking of property; that it irrationally treats semi-automatics more harshly than true machine guns; that it is an unconstitutional application of the taxing power; that it attempts to ban guns in common use in violation of D.C. -vs- Heller; that it attempts to ban the quintessential militia firearm which seems protected, even under a non-deceptive version of Justice Stevens dissent in Heller, and that it will drive the targeted guns into the black market.

The worst thing is that Feinstein’s Grand Plan obscures the core question of how to protect children in the classroom, with tired, oversold ideas that mainly serve to mask the structural state of incompetence that the political elites cannot profitably acknowledge.  Here, Here!  ‘Bout time SOMEONE said it!

 

A longer version of this article is available at www.libertylawsite.org.

 No Calm Before the Anti-Gunners’ Storm

 

You know you’re on the right side of an issue when those on the other side want their extreme proposals rushed into law before the American people and their elected representatives have had a chance to give them careful thought.

THE SIEGE BEGINS

NRA WARNED GUN OWNERS EXACTLY

WHAT TO EXPECT IF OBAMA WON A SECOND TERM.

AS THE FULL ON ATTACK AGAINST OUR GUN RIGHTS

BEGINS, ONLY AMERICA S GUN OWNERS JOINING TOGETHER

TO STAND AND FIGHT UNDER THE BANNER OF THE NRA,

CAN STOP THE COMING ONSLAUGHT FOUR YEARS

                                 IN THE MAKING.

LaPierre’s warnings leading up to the election were distinctly prescient—eerily so, considering the atmosphere surrounding firearms when LaPierre foretold in the months, then weeks, then days before Election Day 2012 of the anti-gun offensive we now face.

Looking back, the tenor of the gun-rights debate when LaPierre raised the alarm in that December 2011 issue would be considered quaint in comparison to the horrific accusations and despicable lies leveled at lawful gun owners—and the National Rifle Association in particular—in post-election, post-Newtown, Conn., America. Consider that in the same issue, frequent Freedom contributor Dave Kopel, in a feature entitled “Will Gun Owners Get Caught Sleeping?” warned that nra members shouldn’t be lulled into a sense of complacency due to years of firearm victories at the state and federal level, along with poll results from varied sources that frequently reported a corresponding rise in public opinion regarding gun rights.

Though the question raised in the article’s title was obviously rhetorical, a similar headline today, when the atmosphere surrounding gun rights is so charged, would seem nonsensical. The gun rights debate today has shifted 180 degrees from what existed just three months ago.

Recall that it wasn’t so long ago that the Obama administration proudly boasted that, rather than curtail gun rights, it had actually expanded firearm freedom in its time in office by signing legislation allowing Right-to-Carry in national parks.

Because the administration had delayed any large-scale offensive against the Second Amendment, admirers of Obama in the media could try to paint LaPierre’s warnings as paranoia, nra’s warnings of an imminent fusillade against the right to keep and bear arms were lampooned by the national media, who pointed toward Obama’s first-term record of avoiding gun issues (while obscuring his dismal record on Second Amendment issues as a state and federal legislator) as proof the man was a friend of gun owners.

While the media dusted off its favorite synonyms for “paranoia” when it gave any coverage at all to the nra s predictions, the Obama administration bided its time until a second term was secured No longer beholden to voters, its plan to dismantle the Second Amendment could commence. The only thing needed would be a large-scale tragedy to exploit. Thus, the pieces were arranged and waiting on Dec. 14, 2012, when evil descended upon Sandy HookElementary School in Newtown, Conn.

What gun owners face today is what LaPierre warned would come to pass should Obama I retain the presidency Obviously, it wasn’t prophecy on his part, but a clear-eyed, sober summation of the Obama administration’s gun-ban calculus. It was simply recognizing what was there in front of all of our eyes all along.

None of this is truly in response to the Newtown tragedy; this anti-gun onslaught was the plan all along. A brutal symptom of a nation awash in a culture that celebrates violence, greed and a lack of responsibility, to the anti-gunners Newtown was a cue in a script they’ve followed since Obama was elected to his first term in office.

In the December 2011 feature, LaPierre warned, “The steps they’ve taken so far clearly indicate—and concretely support— the all-out war on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms that they positively plan for their second term.”

In this and in countless other nra articles and other association communications, LaPierre, nra-ila Executive Director Chris W Cox, nra President David Keene and others reiterated the point that a second Obama term would be disastrous for the Second Amendment.

Sadly, too many Americans failed to heed these warnings, and so it begins. Election Day 2012 could one day be looked back upon as the moment the nra’s last 25 years of hard-fought gun-owner victories started to slip away. Worse still, history could remember Election Day 2012 as the moment the Second Amendment began to be reduced to a relic, nothing but an empty husk that once contained the one right that ensured the survival of all other individual rights.

Right now, though, hope survives. To preserve our rights, every gun owner and freedom-lover must answer the call to join beneath the banner of the nra, before it is too late.

As a state senator and a U.S. senator, up until his presidential election in 2008, when nra named him the “most anti-gun president in history’ Obama cultivated a reputation as a rising star in “progressive” politics by supporting all manner of anti-gun proposals.

Obama undoubtedly entertained anti-gun fantasies despite his lack of public action on guns in his first term, as LaPierre and Cox warned. Occasionally, though, there would be a sinister glimpse of what awaited gun owners. As LaPierre noted, within a week of Obama’s first presidential victory, the presidential transition web page at http://change.gov listed these anti-gun proposals as priorities of the Obama-Biden White House:

• Renewing and strengthening the Clinton “assault weapons” ban;
• Opening up sensitive batfe “trace” data for manipulation by anti-gun politicians;
• Imposing restrictions that would severely restrict gun shows in an effort to close the fictitious “gun-show loophole.”

No sooner had these “priorities” appeared online than the page was pulled down by the Obama team without a single word of explanation. Yet today, with a second-term victory behind them, the Obama administration and its friends in Congress have begun speaking freely of instituting these anti-gun proposals—along with many others—in the name of the children killed in Newtown, despite the fact not one would have saved a single child’s life that morning.

As with the web page, Obama the tactician was quick to keep a cover over any overt talk of gun control during his first term. Even before his first inauguration, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, d-n.y., was insistent that Obama’s team should lend White House support to a magazine ban. “They told me that’s not for now, that’s for later?’ she told Newsweek. Brady Campaign head Sarah Brady was similarly told that anti-gun initiatives during the first term would remain, for the time, out of sight. Obama reportedly told her in a 2011 meeting, “I just want you to know we are working on [gun control] … We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar”

Under the radar, of course, Attorney General Eric Holder’s Justice Department was coordinating the government-sanctioned delivery of thousands of American firearms straight into the hands of Mexican drug cartels. This covert operation, “Fast and Furious,” was designed to lend credence to the administration talking point, long ago proven false, that 90 percent of the firearms used in cartel violence originated in the United States— the better to ban the guns, come a second Obama term.

Obama’s first term was also spent quietly shoring up Supreme Court support for a future gutting of the Second Amendment. Obamas two nominations to the u.s. Supreme Court—Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan—both professed unyielding respect for the individual right to bear arms that the Second Amendment protects and the Heller case upheld. They would support it, that is, until it actually came time to make a ruling on the matter; in the McDonald v. Chicago case, Sotomayor turned her back on individual rights and voted with the 5-4 minority. Kagan’s pedigree as an operative in President Clintons administration reveals her likely stance on a future Second Amendment ruling. And chances are, President Obama could appoint upwards of three justices to the Supreme Court, which could allow both of these landmark cases to be reversed in this second Obama term or soon after.

LaPierre and others have also pointed to those who populate Obama’s cabinet as a reason to fear a coming onslaught From Hillary Clinton, Rahm Emanuel and Eric Holder to Cass Sunstein and Harold Koh, a common thread has run through his appointments past, present and, we can only assume, future—an abiding hatred of gun rights.