John Lott points out Obama’s Second Amendment infringements through executive actions and his ultimate goal: to put guns out of existence. Driving costs up is always a clever strategy and the details are here…
GW: All good information at the link below, but what I never hear about why someone would want particular guns and particular ammo relates to the real reason for the Second Amendment: It’s there to protect citizens from tyrannical rule, which by the way, we get closer to with each passing day. Certainly, government officials avoid such talk at any cost.
“Nobody needs thousands of rounds of ammunition in their home.”
“Nobody needs armor-piercing bullets.”
“Nobody needs a stockpile of guns.”
“Nobody needs assault weapons.”
“Nobody needs…” You finish the statement.
The logical responses to these bogus questions are here…
From John Lott, Jr…
Like so many mass public shootings, the gunman who attacked the U.S. Capitol on Monday first tried shooting a uniformed officer. Fortunately, the lone gunman was quickly subdued and no one other than the attacker was seriously injured. But it raises questions of what would have happened with a more coordinated terrorist attack.
With terror attacks occurring regularly around the world, we can’t ignore the fact that the Capitol would provide a primary target for terrorists. Indeed, an FBI informant foiled such an attack in January.
Police are crucial – probably the single most important factor in reducing crime. But uniformed police have a tough job stopping terrorists since they are often the first targets in any attack.
In late 2013, Ron Noble, who at the time was secretary-general of Interpol, Europe’s version of the FBI, noted two means of protecting people from mass shootings:
“One is to say we want an armed citizenry; you can see the reason for that. Another is to say the enclaves (should be) so secure that in order to get into the soft target, you’re going to have to pass through extraordinary security.”
But with terrorists planning these attacks many months or even years in advance, Noble warned that his experience taught him it was virtually impossible to stop killers from getting weapons.
Share CPRC’s graphic: Do Background Checks on Private Firearm Transfers Help Stop Mass Public Shootings?
Please share our graphic! Click on graphic to enlarge. A copy of the paper upon which this graphic is based is available here
NSSF Corrects the Record on Firearms Industry Liability
NEWTOWN, Conn. – The National Shooting Sports Foundation® (NSSF®), the trade association for the firearms industry, issued a statement today to correct the record and refute ongoing misrepresentation of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) by Hillary Clinton.
In a Democratic presidential primary debate in Michigan Sunday, Mrs. Clinton again falsely charged that the firearms industry is totally immune from liability due to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) and that the law should be repealed. Mrs. Clinton has prevaricated about the law on several occasions. To cite one example, at an Oct. 7, 2015 forum in Iowa, Clinton wrongly claimed, “They are the only business in America that is wholly protected from any kind of liability. They can sell a gun to someone they know they shouldn’t, and they won’t be sued.”
Politifact found Mrs. Clinton’s rhetoric about the law to be entirely false. In fact, Congress has passed limitations on liability for other industries, including small aircraft manufacturers, internet service and content providers, and vaccine makers.
The PLCAA was passed by Congress with support from both sides of the aisle in response to dozens of baseless lawsuits filed in the late 1990s orchestrated out of then President Bill Clinton’s White House to put gun companies out of business by seeking to blame them for the actions of criminals who misused firearms. On Sunday, Hillary Clinton described this spurious line of legal reasoning as “promising.” Read more
BELLEVUE, WA – The gun prohibition lobby is “dancing in the blood of the Kalamazoo shooting victims to push their agenda of public disarmament,” the Second Amendment Foundation said today.
“Yesterday, President Barack Obama had the gall to suggest that executive actions that he took in January might have prevented this tragedy,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “and this morning in an email fund raising blast, Shannon Watts, founder of the Moms Demand Action group, intimated that their gun control schemes could also prevent such incidents.
“It’s not true,” he bristled, “and they know it!”
Kalamazoo murder suspect Jason Dalton had no criminal or mental health record, and that has been reported by every responsible news agency in the country, Gottlieb observed. But the co-author of “Dancing in Blood, Exposing the Gun Ban Lobby’s Playbook to Destroy Your Rights” said the remarks from Obama and Watts both follow a key strategy outlined by gun control strategists more than three years ago.
In their booklet ‘Preventing Gun Violence Through Effective Messaging” anti-gun activists are told to “Always focus on emotional and value-driven arguments” instead of “wonky statistics.” They are advised to tell the public that America has weak gun laws.
“It is bad enough,” Gottlieb stated, “that the gun ban lobby exploits such a crime, but for a sitting president to also press an anti-Second Amendment agenda that will impact tens of millions of his fellow citizens and not accomplish a whit toward truly reducing violent crime is beyond the pale. Read more