Independence Day: Nothing New Under the Sun

Happy Independence Day, or Fourth of July to those of you who don't know why we light off fireworks and barbecue. It's time to look back into history and read a patriotic editorial that shows us, as far as gun control goes, there is nothing new under the sun. This could be written today. The date will be at the end. Remember and be grateful for the 6,800 men died in battle and many tens of thousands more to disease and climate so that we could celebrate this two-hundred and forty-first year of American independence.

“EDITOR OF THE ARGUS—I do not say, for I do not believe, that the , legislators who passed these laws were all, or any of them, were personally in favor of disarming the people, as a step towards restoration of caste, I do not think this hidden toryism sufficiently wide spread at present to stock the legislatures of a majority of our 'states, with its conscious devotees, but I do say that the sentiment among the people the hidden power behind public opinion which led to the enactment of this law, was secretly inspired by the ' influence of tory minds and flunkey hearts as a means to an end, and that end was the ultimate disarming of the American people, of course I shall be told that there is nothing in this law against bearing arms that the prohibition is only of the concealment thereof. Of course, no one would be idiotic enough to suppose Jesuitism whether religious or political, would spoil its plans by exposing them before the time for full fruition. But sometime there will be bills introduced into our legislatures, prohibiting the carrying of pistols openly or in secret, and the quiescence of the people under those laws will be cited as a precedent in favor of the new ones The same arguments advanced in favor of these laws, will be equally valid in advancing those, indeed as we shall see further on, the clause against concealment in the present statutes, is only inserted to evade that section of our Magna Charta which declares that the right of every man to bear arms, shall not be infringed. These new laws will not be directed against bearing arms as such, but against pistols and small arms only. It will be urged that the right to bear muskets will and shall be intact, but the constitution says nothing in favor of Colts revolver and it will be perfectly lawful to legislate against them. Such a law will be passed at no very distant day, if the present furor in favor of the most rigid enforcement of the present laws to-day continued. And then those men who own the elegant little nickle plated denizens of the hip pocket will be compelled to dispose of them altogether, or to keep them hid behind the clock case or down cellar, where no careless eye may chance to see them. For the right of owning an article implies the right of carrying the same, and when the one is abrogated the other is rendered void.-- Then men will become more and more unaccustomed to the use of firearms, for guns are clumsy and costly, and many people can not afford to procure them, and still fewer would be able to spend the time necessary to become familiar with their use. Then again, laws will be passed debarring the people from forming societies and bearing arms en masse. Later still a license law will be passed prohibiting all persons from bearing or possessing arms, who are not able and willing to pay a license for so doing— license at first ridiculously small and insignificant. And lastly the license will be increased until only persons of a certain opulence will be able to afford the luxury, and this by throwing all the firearms into the hands of the wealthy classes will render the completion of the Toryistic scheme as easy as rolling off a log, and the grand programme of aristocratic restoration will be complete.

“This is the inevitable tendency or all laws against carrying concealed weapons, and the fact seems so self-evident, the person must be stupidly blind who does not perceive it. Nevertheless there are many who profess themselves quite unable to believe there can be any harm in such a law who can read nothing between the lines. They pooh pooh the idea that anyone would try or would wish to try to curtail the privileges of freeborn American citizens. They seem to imagine that laws are incapable of possessing hidden meanings, though in ambiguous terms. Though the uncertainty of legal processes is every day made more glaringly evident. They seem forgetful of the fact that the evident spirit of the Constitution is violated in these laws, though they may be literally constitutional, and that where the spirit of a creed is outraged, the outrages are scarcely liable to conscientious scruples about the strict observance of the letters or the same, perhaps these persons would not be so very deserving of repute had the laws against concealed weapons been the only steps taken thus for in this direction. But, though it is only a very few years since these laws were first passed, the quiescence of the people under them has already led to of more advanced legislation. Already the rights of the people to near arms en mass in civil societies, has been contested in the courts, and eminent legal talent has arrayed itself against the people. The arrest and imprisonment of the Socialistic company leaders of Chicago, not many months ago, though provoking but little comment throughout the land, was a very significant straw, showing which way the current of opinion was tending. And it may not wholly have escaped the reader's memory, that during the "Great Strike" of 1877, the opinion was widely advanced by the partisans of monopoly, that the rights of people to bear arms was a standing menace to the Government, and that some license law should be enacted to limit the possession of arms to those whose interests were supposed to be identical with "Strong Government, in other words, despotism. If such things do not prove that these laws are but pointers, but stepping-stones to something beyond, I cannot imagine what sort of evidence would be considered convincing.

“I do not know whether the constitutionality of the laws against concealed weapons has or has not been subjected to the test of supreme court examination, nor do I care, since no decision of any court, whether favorable or adverse can have any bearing on the argument. The constitution of the United States is perhaps the best example in existence of terse expression and rigid simplicity of style. It needs for its comprehension no extensive culture, nor legal education nor exhaustive researches in black letter literature. It demands only moderate acquaintance with Webster's spelling book, and a small modicum of common sense. It is so simple straightforward and honest that the wayfaring man though a fool can read and understand. It is true that hired shysters and hair-splitting gibblers may profess to find hidden meanings under the most obvious texts, but the common sense of the American people if not an infallible guide, nearly so at least has long since declared that the value of a magna carta lies in its being easily understood by every person affected by its decrees, and that, hence, the literal interpretation of the text is the most natural and true one. To assert otherwise, is to not only depreciated the wisdom of the framers, but to impeach their patriotism as well. The fathers or our government may not have been the paragons of perfection, our Fourth of July orators would have us believe, but they were certainly as well versed in the English language, as any of our modern constitutional lawyers, and were actuated by motives of patriotism where purity has never been denied, and when they drew up the national constitution, they sought only to preserve and perpetuate by legal enactments the liberties so dearly bought with the sword. It is ridiculous to suppose, and slander to assert that such men would have concocted a charta for the people which not one man in ten thousand of those people would, be able to understand, which would be so obscure its meaning and uncertain in its renderings as to resemble the revelation of St. John the Divine, which ten thousand learned commentations have not yet made clear. They would rather used plain language to express their meaning: they would not have crowded different meanings into one expression, and the meaning they would intend to convey by any one sentence, would be the one apparent on its face. They had no object in using ambiguous language, which could be "made to support contradictory and unthought of hypotheses. When (figuratively, of course), they spoke of a spade, they meant and intended to be so under stood the garden utensil of that name; and when they declared that the right American citizens to bear arms should not be infringed, they meant just what they said, and would have been surprised to learn that their language justified such interference with that right, as is perpetuated in the laws against concealed weapons." —Guy Rivers

“Plea For the Hip Pocket.” The Rock Island Argus.” Nov. 1, 1881. (original)

Obama, Terrorists, and Gun Control

The president, in both Sunday night’s speech and his weekly address, sullied the memories of the victims by beating on the gun control drum. At least he finally one of these attacks by Muslims terrorism, though he watered it down by referring to ‘radicalism.’ In seven years, this was probably the first time President Obama explicitly admitted Islam has a terrorism problem. Gun control, as Obama has admitted, is a priority in his final year of office. In light of this latest Islamic terror attack, Obama is trying to change the subject away from the real issue and push his leftist agenda.

‘Terrorist Loophole’?

There seems to be hidden blueprint for further infringing upon the Second Amendment. After the 2012 Sandy Hook shootings, the call was, among other things, to ban the so-called “gun show and internet loopholes” by banning private sales. After the federal ban failed in Congress, anti-gunners took their show on the road and states, like Nevada, have are facing an onslaught of ‘universal background check’ initiatives and laws.

Each of these infringement offensives have a unique goal to tighten the noose around Second Amendment without addressing the underlying causes of tragedy supporters are tying their efforts to. With universal background checks, all recent high-profile shooters passed a background check or otherwise got their guns in a way that a background check would not have been required (the Sandy Hook murderer killed his mother to get her guns, for example).

Between the Paris attacks and the San Bernardino attacks, leftists began bandying about the term ‘terrorist loophole’ because people on the ‘no-fly list’ of suspected terrorists can legally buy a gun. The ‘boyfriend loophole’, which has less panache, was floating around before that. Interestingly, felonious boyfriends and husbands often get their girlfriends/wives to buy a gun for them in a straw purchase. Leftists see freedom as a series of loopholes. Being consumed by loophole mania, they probably complain about Swiss cheese not being a solid block. One day, they’ll be complaining about the “Melvin M. Johnson loophole” because he’s the last person who can legally buy a gun.

One would suspect that if someone was on a terrorist watch list, then the FBI would have them under surveillance and know if they bought a gun. Or the components for a pipe or pressure cooker bomb. The lunacy of this working is lost on the leftists. Buying ephedrine when a cold has reduced you to mouth-breathing is about as intensive as buying a gun, but meth still gets made.

The cornerstone of American jurisprudence is due process of law.  Without it, we are subject to the whims and Byzantine workings of bureaucracy. All other categories of prohibited persons have been adjudicated in some fashion; the checks and balances of a day in court ensuring that someone isn’t being capriciously deprived of their rights.

"What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semi-automatic weapon?" —@POTUS pic.twitter.com/sfmJiitjZd

— The White House (@WhiteHouse) December 7, 2015

Last time the Democrats, used a list to round up citizens and stripped them of their rights. @WhiteHouse @POTUS pic.twitter.com/p4mAJi3xDZ

— Ryan B. Leslie (@RyanBLeslie) December 7, 2015

The no-fly list, a subset of the Terrorist Screening Center’s list of surveillance targets, lists nearly 50,000 people, though the actual numbers are secret. Wikipedia has a small list of notable cases of persons, not actually terrorists, who have been stopped from flying, including some who were apparently added to the list in retaliation for something the government didn’t like.

The ACLU calls the process “[…] to challenge their blacklisting is grossly insufficient and violates the U.S. Constitution’s due process guarantee.” It goes on to describe the challenge process, which is an entirely bureaucratic process without court review. 

“If you are a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident, and the TSC determines that you are on the No Fly List, DHS TRIP will send you a letter informing you of your status on the No Fly List and providing the option to submit and receive additional information. If you choose that option, DHS TRIP will provide a second letter identifying the general criterion under which you have been placed on the No Fly List and possibly including an unclassified summary of the reasons for your inclusion on the List. You should know that the government’s summary likely will not include all of its reasons for your placement on the List, and in some cases the government will choose not to provide any summary at all. The government also will not provide you any of the evidence it relied upon in deciding to place you on the List, and it may also withhold information in its possession that undercuts its basis for putting you on the list. Finally, the government does not provide a live hearing at which you could testify, or give you an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses against you.” 

One still could file a lawsuit, but only after the fact. Most citizens learn of their status on the No Fly List by attempting to board a flight. Imagine going to gun store, only to be denied the ability to purchase a firearm. You would have first find out why you were denied, then begin the appeal process with the FBI, which you couldn’t do until the Dept. of Homeland Security removed you from its terrorist watch list. It’s a Kafkaesque nightmare meant to ensnare people. With the IRS targeting conservative groups illegally, one can imagine a rogue government agency or bureaucrat (or even under direction from President Obama or another leftist president) actually considering some gun owners (such as we of Nevada Carry) potential domestic terrorists.

Placing names on a list to restrict rights that is established by arbitrary criteria, secret information, and nearly impossible to challenge is un-American. If the ‘no-fly’ list didn’t have problems such as government security workers on it or listing children and people with similar names by accident, the argument might be valid. However, as we saw today, the San Bernardino terrorists committed their atrocity without going through a single so-called loophole. In fact, despite coming from countries that are rife with terrorism and radicalization factories and communicating online with suspected terrorist sympathizers, the California jihadist went unnoticed by law enforcement.

As with background checks, the ‘terrorist loophole’ non-sense is coming to the states. California Assemblyman Mike Gatto told the Sacramento Bee “It’s safe to say that if people who are under a mental-health hold cannot buy a weapon, then I think it makes sense that people who have been deemed so dangerous that they can’t board an airplane should be in that same category.” It’s just not that simple, unless Gatto approves of using an inaccurate database and trampling on the Fifth Amendment right to due process. Of course, since it involves guns, the Democrat doesn’t mind. Surely the legislature which banned open carry in 1967 because black people were doing it will easily pass this law.

Chris Cox, executive director, NRA Institute for Legislative Action gave the best reaction to President Obama’s rhetoric earlier this week. 

“The National Rifle Association is not to blame. Neither is our Second Amendment freedom. An act of evil unfolded in California. President Obama used it not as a moment to inform or calm the American people; rather, he exploited it to push his gun control agenda. Policy discussions should be intellectually honest and based on facts, not politics. And the fact remains that California has already adopted President Obama’s gun control wish list: "universal" background checks, registration, waiting periods, gun bans, magazine bans and an expansion of prohibited gun categories. But those laws did nothing to prevent this horrific crime from taking place. Nothing.” 

Obama and the leftists push the ‘terrorist loophole’ because it narrows who can buy guns. It sounds great and they think it can pass in the aftermath of this tragedy. What they are really doing is broadening the definition of who is prohibited from possessing firearms. The terror watch lists have no real criteria. If the Obama Administration decides that those who read this blog as potential terrorists, you could wind up on the list. It’s not far-fetched.

Quit with the Gun Control Already

Leftists and politicians do not understand that laws and disarming the law-abiding will result in safety. They are so deluded by their hate for guns, and some salivating over a disarmed populace, helpless to resist their agenda, they will use any tragedy, any excuse, fabricate any data, manipulate any statistics, and make any lie to promote their evil. Under President Obama’s administration, we’ve seen more true high-profile mass shootings than under any other recent president. Knowing that the media and the White House is behind them, those that would rob you of your rights have gun into full-battle mode. At no time in American history has the Second Amendment been under such.

Anti-gunners like the president are hecklers; they ask only rhetorical questions that ignore truth and facts. They rely on hyperbole, logical fallacies, and capitalizing on crises. They offer no solutions, only restrictions.

Leftists, who have asserted that their policies hold all the answers for life's problems, do not have the humility to admit that they are on the wrong side of the issue. Maybe in the '60s and '70s, we could have forgiven their ignorance, but waves of evidence show guns aren't the problem and leftists are so far gone the truth has lost all meaning to them. Lies and distortions have become such a part of their daily life that their capacity for rational thought has been destroyed.

Any attempt to confiscate or infringe any further upon the Second Amendment is likely to result in revolution. President Obama, Hillary Clinton, and the establishment Left is pushing America to the brink of armed resistance to the trampling of our rights, our faiths, our freedoms, and our way of life.

It is said that Social Security is the third-rail of a American politics. For those unfamiliar with the term, the third rail is a electrified rail that subways and trams (usually in the East), draw power from. Touching it will kill you. The Second Amendment is the hangman’s rope in American politics and politicians are busy pulling the noose over their heads.

Although it is stems from the most unfortunate of circumstances, the reaction of the American public rejecting gun control and supporting citizen’s carrying guns for self-defense is most heartening. This nation is waking up to the reality that criminals and terrorists cannot be stopped by laws and to save our own lives in the face of death, we must have a gun and be willing to use it.

-G. C.

California Number One Supplier of Crime Guns to Nevada*

California Governor Jerry Brown criticized states like Nevada and Arizona for having so-called ‘lax’ gun laws. “California has the toughest gun control laws of any state and Nevada and Arizona are wide open. So that's a gigantic backdoor through which any terrorist can walk.” Governor Brown apparently missed the fact that a whole host of California laws were broken by the terrorists in San Bernardino. His state’s draconian gun laws did not prevent this tragedy, but instead reduced the victims to cowering in the face of Islamic terrorists. Hero Shannon Johnson was killed bravely shielding Denise Peraza with his own body.

Arizona Governor Doug Ducey said: 

"All of Arizona mourns for the victims in California. To politicize a tragedy of this magnitude and use it as an opportunity to attack our state is out of bounds. Not only will we be ignoring Gov. Brown's advice, but I call on him to retract his incredibly thoughtless and ill-advised comments.” 

In regards to the Paris terrorist attacks last month, Gov. Ducey said, “These acts serve as a reminder that the world remains at war with radical Islamic terrorists. Our national leaders must react with the urgency and leadership that every American expects to protect our citizens.” Gov. Brown did not shy away from acknowledging the threat of Islamic terror. At least Gov. Brown got one thing right. 

“At the same time, I don’t minimize the significance of this terrorist attack. […] It’s a very clear indication that this is a global phenomenon and that people who are committed to this jihadist doctrine are going to be killing people in very unexpected places. So we have to be, as I said, we have to be on our guard and we have to do whatever we can do.”

Nevada's governor's office, issued a statement Sunday afternoon.

"Nevadans share California's grief during this time of tragedy following the horrific events in San Bernardino. However, Governor Brown’s assertion that our state laws create an opening for terrorists is wrong and irresponsible. This type of political rhetoric is discouraging to hear at a time when all Americans are looking for thoughtful, honest leadership. Governor Sandoval’s top priority has always been the safety and well-being of Nevadans and the millions of tourists who travel to our state annually."

Nevada, California’s Criminal Arms Market?

Everytown Research, the discredited research arm of former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg's anti-gun organization Everytown for Gun Safety, has published 'research' (really just statistics explained in a way that makes Nevada look bad) supposedly drawing the conclusion that Nevada is some sort of arms bazaar to California criminals. The reality is quite the opposite.

Everytown says: “[...]  since 2006, the number of Nevada guns recovered at California crime scenes has increased 94 percent.” According to an ATF firearms trace data (cited by Everytown), in 2006, 361 guns traced, came from Nevada, versus 2013, where the number was 699 guns. Saying the guns were recovered from a crime scene is a lie. The stats used are for all guns traced by the ATF, which includes not just guns from crime scenes, but guns confiscated from felons, for instance. Of course, California itself was the largest source of firearms recovered from criminals or at crime scenes.

The actual sources of the guns are never mentioned. For this to be an accurate comparison and used as evidence for universal background checks, how the guns got into the hands of California criminals is vitally important.

• How many of these guns were actually bought in sales which would be prohibited by the universal background check initiative?
• How many of these guns were bought/transferred illegally under existing laws (Straw purchases, illegal street dealers)?
• How many of these guns were legally brought in or sold/transferred to Californians?
• How many of these guns were stolen? 

Everytown isn’t interested in answering these questions, only presenting the appearance of a problem where there is none. Now here’s the kicker. The largest out-of-state source for traced guns in Nevada (again, using the same source and definition as Everytown used) is: California!

https://www.atf.gov/file/55016/download

https://www.atf.gov/file/3286/download

Yes, Nevada does have private gun sales that a criminal from California could abuse. However, the onus is on California for infringing upon the Second Amendment rights of its citizens. California is also responsible for an influx of felons. “California’s two-strike felons often come to Nevada to avoid their third felony, and thus a potential 25-to-life sentence, and continue committing their crimes. Nevada’s three strike law doesn’t count out-of-state convictions,” Nevada Carry’s anonymous law enforcement source told us.

California’s Gun Laws Just Don’t Work

An effort, lead by California Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom, the former mayor of San Francisco, seeks to confiscate all grandfathered 10 round plus magazines, among other ineffective measures. California started the ‘assault weapons’ ban back in the 1980s after a mass shooting at McDonalds, later copied at the federal level for ten years. Clearly this ban had no effect on the terrorists. Brown and Newsom, along with Senator Barbara Boxer, who foolishly praised California’s gun laws after the terrorist attack. Boxer, whose brain must be malfunctioning after years of drinking the liberal Kool-Aid, liked the guns law working to speeding law working after illegal street racers plowed into a crowd.

In California, all ‘assault weapons’ must have been registered by 2001 or altered so that they no longer meet the state’s arbitrary criteria. The ‘assault weapon’ ban is predicated on mostly cosmetic and inconsequential features, such as a pistol grip, flash suppressor, detachable magazine, and collapsing stock. It was alleged based upon specious logic that such features make the weapon more deadly.

Media reports are stating that  the rifles used in the attack were purchased by a friend Enrique Marquez. Police have not released any further details on how the weapons were acquired. They may have been solid in a private party transfer, using a gun dealer as California has banned private gun sales without going through a licensed dealer. Or, Marquez may have bought the weapons as a ‘straw purchase’ where they were intended for suspect Sayed Farook the whole time. Another option, most disconcerting to proponents of universal background checks, is that the law didn’t stop Marquez from illegally selling the weapons to Farook.

Media is also mistakenly describing the weapons as having been modified to be more powerful. An AR-15, like most rifles, is capable of penetrating soft police body armor, walls, and vehicles. Nothing was done to enhance the physical ‘punch’ of the weapons. Only modifications to the weapons functionality were made and illegal 10+ round magazines were used.

Under California law, if you took an AR-15 that was legal to possess in Nevada, removed the standard magazine release, and put one on there that needed a ‘tool’ to release it, such as the tip of a bullet, the weapon, though functionally identical to the prohibited ‘assault weapon’ would then be legal. Swapping out the bullet button for a proper magazine release takes about two minutes or less and requires no tools. At least one of the rifles was modified in attempt to make it fully automatic, but it was done improperly and it failed.

Law enforcement hasn’t said yet how the weapon was modified. AR-15 style rifles are distinctly different in semi-automatic and fully-automatic form. The conversion from semi-to-fully auto is not easy. Semi-auto ARs have a ‘denial hump’, or simply an area of the receiver that hasn’t been milled out. This is to deny the room needed for installing the auto-sear, which holds the hammer from hitting the firing pin and detonating the cartridge until the bolt is locked, preventing an explosion. The rifle would also need several different parts—a full-auto hammer and trigger disconnector, a three position safety catch, and a full-auto bolt—changed to function properly.

A “Lightning Link” could also have been made and installed. This is basically two pieces of metal which basically forces the semi-auto trigger to work in full-auto mode while delaying the stroke of the hammer as described as above. Truly modifying a weapon to be an illegal machine gun (under federal law) requires advanced gunsmithing and mechanical knowledge. Simpler solutions, like the SlideFire stock that moves the trigger finger to rapidly pull the trigger nearly as fast as full-auto fire, are already banned in California.

Another so-called modification was using 30 round ‘high capacity magazines’, which in reality are standard capacity. AR-15 designed Eugene Stoner’s original rife was designed to take 20 round magazines, increased to 30 rounds in 1969 for the M16 variant used in Vietnam. Supporters of restricting magazine capacity erroneously believe that ten round (or fewer) magazines will necessitate more frequent magazine changes. Sheriff Campbell of Boone County, Indiana, demonstrates how magazine capacity makes virtually no difference whatsoever in reloading speed, thus negating any alleged safety.

It's Really Islamic Terror and No, We Don't Need More Gun Control

The New Face of Islamic Terror in America

We now know that the terrorists in Wednesday’s attack in San Bernardino were identified as Middle Eastern Muslims, Syed Farook, his wife Tashfeen Malik, and Qatari-born Tayyeep Bin Ardogan. This was Islamic terrorism. The denial of this fact by the government and media is absolutely sickening. Because there is no smoking gun, such as social media posts (they were scrubbed the day before the incident) and the terrorists didn’t shout “Allahu ackbar!”, the government, leftists, and the media can only ‘guess’ at the motive. Other than the fact the perpetrators were all Muslims, their verified ties to suspected radicals and preparation indicates this was not random workplace violence.

It’s becoming apparent that ‘lone wolf’ attacks, not directed by a country or larger terrorist organization like Al-Qaeda, are the new threat. For the first few years of the last decade, America was focused almost solely on major terrorist attacks. Our airplanes got hardened cockpit doors, our pilots got guns, TSA stripped us virtually naked and made us take off our shoes. Lady Liberty closed, barricades sprung up around you local federal offices, and we held out breaths when we were warned to buy plastic sheeting and duct tape. WMDs, dirty bombs, suitcase nukes and sleeper cells were the stuff of nightmares.

FBI agents worked around the clock trying to prevent the next attack. Thankfully, the wars in Afghanistan and later Iraq drew the jihadi’s like moths to flame and they were slain overseas rather than in the United States. It was far easier for a riled-up young Saudi to travel across the border to Iraq and bomb Americans than it was for them to somehow infiltrate our country. Many, many would-be homeland terrorists instead died at the hands of our soldiers and Marines in the desert.

Al-Qaeda, the global terrorist organization dedicated to destroying the United States, was broken, leaving us without a Number One enemy in the War on Terror. It’s fair to mention that it never was some sort of James Bond-esque SPECTRE type organization. Once President Obama withdrew most troops from Iraq (and ended Bush’s War on Terror), a huge vacuum of power was left in the region and was filled with violent jihadists from Syria. ISIS is still only a small regional force. It does not have the power or organization to lead mass attacks abroad like the Bin Laden funded and led Al-Qaeda could. However, its powerful social media has duped thousands.

Despite the rather pedantic and naïve way the political dilettantes fought the Taliban and George W. Bushs’ misguided revenge on Saddam Hussein, there was a benefit to it all. We did not see a single Islamic terrorist attack in the United States until Barack Obama’s presidency in 2009 when a Muslim psychiatrist shot up Fort Hood. ‘Lone wolf’ terrorism was the new wildcard.

Israel’s experiences were the model for the fears of the kind of attacks that were (and still are) expected: suicide bombers and machine gun armed terrorists attacking buses, malls, and pizza shops. Paris’ two attacks this year are a good example of the extreme of non-directed attacks. In America, we had the two brothers  who bombed the Boston Marathon despite any orders from Chechen groups.

Fed by disgusting videos and violent rhetoric, ISIS has encouraged many to travel to Syria and Iraq to swell its ranks. It has claim to have infiltrated Western society with hundreds of terrorists willing to wage jihad. Time will soon tell if we have a rag-tag army among us or just random whack jobs radicalized online.

Americans will now have to worry about being shot in our workplace by our friends. A Muslim turns his hatred of the Western lifestyle against his friend and co-workers. This soft target wasn’t a mall, but the mastermind’s workplace. We expected schools, shopping malls, churches to be shot up—not a Christmas Party at work. Look around at your co-workers. Sure, we joke about someone being the type to go postal and blast the office when they have a bad day, but we don’t actually imagine that our dependable Muslim colleague is going to practice the parts of the Quran that call for jihad. Literally anywhere can become a target for terror, not just the obvious targets like malls, casinos, crowds, and high-profile attractions.  Being California, none of the employees could be armed (same story in most Nevada government offices).

Denial of Islamic Terror

Federal and local law enforcement delayed and prevaricated in placing the blame of this attack squarely where it belongs; Islam. This was a pre-planned attack, not a case of sudden rage from a disgruntled co-worker. Not even the most irrational people who decide to commit a sudden act of murder stock up body armor, weapons, and pipe bombs ‘just in case’ they want to go off on a particular day. The media took forever to confirm the information, despite it being available for half the day.

CAIR, the Council on American Islamic Relations, jumped out in front of the press Wednesday night trying distance Islam from this Islamic terrorist attack. CAIR has been tied to Palestinian terror group Hamas. CAIR is the group that comes out every time Muslims are implicated in an Islamic terrorist incident to lie about Islam being a religion of peace. Interestingly, the Arabic root work that Islam is derived from means ‘surrender’ and not surrender of the self, but surrender as give in to Islam (or die). Islam didn't spread across the Arabian desert through missionaries, but by war and slaughter.

Make no bones about it; Islam calls for the death of those who will not convert (kaffirs, or unbelievers). Islamic end-times prophecies hold that Isa, the Muslim incarnation of Jesus, will finally slay all remaining unbelievers on behalf of the Muslim messiah, the Mahdi. I’m not getting too much into how Islam is an existential threat to the west or how the Quran really is violent. I’ve done that in a previous post and you can find better articles online yourself. Thankfully, most Muslims in America aren’t going to kill you even if their more religious kin might.

Excuse for Gun Control

Even before any substantive details were out, politicians were calling for gun control and the media lamenting gun violence and mass shootings in America. I predicted this. You know, the same old story that helps push the narrative that guns are bad and need to be banned. Capitalizing on the crisis, senators attempted to ram universal background checks down the throats of Americans, but the measure was defeated.

Unfortunately, Democrats have lately been calling for closing the so-called ‘Terrorist Loophole’ by adding anyone on the terror watch-list to the roles of prohibited persons. This is at the same time when it has become fashionable for anti-gun leftists, who are calling the NRA a terrorist organization and its members terrorists. I don’t think any of the terrorists in San Bernardino were NRA members, nor has Wayne La Pierre called for murdering anyone. Can you imagine giving these mentally unbalanced individuals the power to put average American gun owners on a terror watch-list?

It could very well happen. TSA agents, innocent grandparents, people with a name similar to actual terrorists have wound up on the list, without due process, lost their right to fly, and had to endure a Kafkaesque process to get their name off the list. If people can wind up on the list by accident, for stupid reasons, or even protect airplanes from terrorists, and yet be on a list of suspected terrorists, do we really want to trust that kind of source?

No one wants terrorists to buy a gun, but the whole ‘terrorist loophole’ bullshit it just that. First, innocent until proven guilty. No one should have a right taken away until they’ve had their day in court, first. Second, the FBI or other law enforcement should be paying attention to anyone on the list if they buy a gun. Third, true terrorists, like in San Bernardino, will find another way to get guns, such as smuggling them as was done in the Paris attacks.

Never mind the fact that Wednesday’s terrorists bought their weapons legally in a state that has universal background checks and some of the strictest gun control laws in America. Those gun control laws deterred the terrorists as much as the laws against murder did.

Last, going back to the idiots who consider the NRA to be terrorists for using their right to free speech and democratic political action, just who constitutes a ‘terrorist’ is up for grab. Imagine the Obama administration finding a way to declare all gun owners who support the Second Amendment unfettered terrorists. “Those who believe they have the right to own guns to overthrow a government they disagree are a clear and present threat to the government of the United States.” Imagine your ‘Molon Labe’ or ‘Don’t Tread On Me’ bumper stickers being used to justify your support for a 'terrorist' civilian militia movement. Just take a look at the demonization of gun owners; it’s plausible and very frightening.

-G. C.

Democratic Gun Control Debate Elder Abuse; Bernie Gets Beaten Up

Last night, Las Vegas hosted the democratic candidates’ debate and a major segment of the debate centered on gun control. Hillary and former Maryland Governor O’Malley basically beat up on Bernie Sanders (elder abuse, anyone?) because he didn’t support the Democratic position on gun control one hundred percent. Independent thought is not allowed in that party and Sen. Sanders was chastised for deviating from the party line. Even if a gun owner considers themselves to be a liberal, they should not support Democrats for the single reason of gun control and the Democratic Party’s apparent goal to destroy gun rights entirely.

All you need to know about the debate and the left’s (including the media) view on guns is contained in this short video clip. There was a time when Democrats were just another viewpoint on the world. Today, their party represents the virtual eradication of gun rights and a vehement hatred against guns and gun owners. In a shrill voice, Hillary decried gun rights, working herself into apoplexy, like some sort of revolutionary denouncing capitalism. The Democrats fervor for gun control is akin to a religious obsession and their loathing of gun owners would be unimaginable if gun owners were a racial minority.

Democrats mistakenly view the Second Amendment, at best, as a soft throw to hunters. In the debate,  O’Malley said of his draconian anti-gun legislation: “We were able to pass this and still respect the hunting tradition.” It was one of the knee-jerk reactions to the Sandy Hook school massacre that the left used to push their gun control schemes in their typical exploitation of such tragedies. Those who advocate for such bans fail to realize that the notorious Columbine school massacre occurred during the height of the Clinton-era Assault Weapons Ban.

Gun control is the one area where Democrats and the progressive, statist regime must hammer to crush all opposition. Whether they acknowledge it publicly or even internally, they are aware that civilian gun ownership will derail their ultimate agenda. Though they are nominally for the public good, instead of the individual good, they know that the socialism they seek to enact will be resisted with violence once it inevitably attacks individual freedoms. We’ve seen socialism and communism fail in all its forms in the past century and all those regimes tolerated no dissent towards their failing policies.

Democrats are the same way. Internal dissent cannot be tolerated, just as external dissent must be ridiculed and drowned out with a chorus of mindless, chanting drones. The same topics come up, time and time again, repeating the same manipulated data, overly simplistic talking points, and offering the same pointless solutions. This debate was no different.

The gun control portion of the debate focused on the need for more background checks and being able to sue gun manufactures. Background checks were mentioned because they are the gun control cause du jour, and bans from suing gun manufacturers because it was something Bernie Sanders supported. In 2004, the gun control talking points were the Assault Weapons Ban, while in 1992, the Brady Bill. It’s the same non-sense, just with different gibberish.

Suing Manufacturers

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was passed in 2005 to prevent firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable for negligence in nuisance lawsuits when crimes have been committed with their products. This was found to be necessary when dealers and gun makers were being successfully sued because someone used their product to commit a crime. Protecting manufacturers and dealers was needed because without it, they could be sued to force them out of business by vengeful or greedy victims of gun crimes.

Frivolous lawsuits are nothing new to Americans. We all know of the tragic McDonalds hot coffee scalding which could have been prevented with a simple ‘Caution—Hot’ warning label.

Such suits would be like suing Sunbeam because an angry wife dropped a toaster in the tub to electrocute her husband. No one sues car dealers for selling a car to someone that later drove drunk and killed a family in a crosswalk. Manufacturers and dealers would only be liable for a defective or dangerous product or if they knowingly sold a firearm to a prohibited person.

Background Checks

The major issue of the night was the relentless harping on background checks; our nation’s ‘need’ for more and Bernie Sanders softness on them. Background checks are going to be a very big deal in 2016 here in Nevada. You can bet big the candidates and their lackeys on the left will stump for them. Never mind that background checks never stopped the recent high-profile shootings and that most criminals don’t utilize (legal) private gun sales.

The Universal Background Check initiative will have the effect of forcing all gun sales to go through a dealer. No more private sales; they will all require the same NICS check, Form 4473, and the sale recorded in the dealer’s bound book just like a commercial sale. This isn’t a voluntary thing or something that will only be required in Clark County (like the blue cards were). This will be mandatory across Nevada, and across the country if Democrats have their way.

President Obama’s token action after the Umpqua Community College shooting was to propose that Curio and Relics dealers be required to get background checks on their sellers. C&R licenses are basically meant for collectors to obtain older, antique firearms by receiving them directly, instead of going through a dealer. This proposal would do nothing.

Yet Obama and the left has what they believe to be a moral duty ‘to do something’ after a school shooting. So they choose the little they can do without a majority in Congress. One small nibble at a time, they make it harder to buy guns. It’s part satisfying their base and part exploitation of a crisis to further their disarmament agenda. We have seen it enough in the past few years to know this is their M.O.

If you cherish your Second Amendment rights, don’t vote for a Democrat. Until the two-party system is broken in America, we can’t afford to have anyone other than true conservative or libertarian representatives in office at that doesn’t mean voting Republican either. The whole system needs to change, but we must be aware that the Democratic party in control would severely curtail gun rights.

-G. C.

Why Nevada is a Battleground

This is a response to a Las Vegas Sun article: "Why would gun control advocates see Nevada as a source of hope?" (2/10/2015)

In 2014, Washington State’s I-594 initiative on universal background checks on firearm sales and transfers, basically outlawing private gun sales, with a roughly 60/40% vote. I-594 was the brainchild of former New York City mayor and billionaire Michael Bloomberg’s many-headed gun control groups, including Every Town for Gun Safety and Mayors Against Illegal Guns. A similar petition is headed for the 2016 ballot in Nevada. Why is Nevada the next big battle ground for gun control?

First, we need to look at why the initiatives are being used to push gun control. Initiatives are not subject to party-line votes in the legislature or vetoes on the governor’s desk, as Gov. Sandoval vetoed the universal background check bill in 2013. In a way, initiatives bypass the checks-and-balances system to take the matter directly to the public. Direct democracy was seen by our founding fathers as mob rule. Wisely, they instituted a representative republican form of government that we know today. Why initiatives are great tools for the voters to change things, they are subject to abuse.

If enough people go along with something, right or wrong, it becomes law. Many criticize the initiative system as being inflexible; poorly-written bills cannot be changed or deficiencies corrected.

Partisan politics is replaced with sound-byte politics. Let’s face it, people today have too much going on in their lives to truly care about a system that often changes despite their wishes or input. Americans feel disconnected from their political process and don’t spend a great deal of time educating themselves on the topics. That’s why 30 second TV spots and ‘attack ads’ are such a big deal—short snippets of information is how we get our opinion on new idea, candidates, and new laws.

Where an inflexible initiative and short blurbs about the issue go wrong is they turn the initiative into a form of mob rule. You’re either for it or against it; there is no middle ground and no mediation. If a poorly written initiative is passed, as many, many problems with Washington’s I-594 bill have been found, there is no remedy, aside from the courts, to address those issues, until the statuary period passes when the legislature may alter the law. Once the people have spoken, there can be argument with the law that they have passed, for good or for bad.

Initiatives have emerged as a favorite of gun control proponents because they bypass checks-and-balances. No congress or governor can stand in the way. All it takes is votes. And lots and lots of money.

Money is important. It takes a lot of effort to get the approximately 100,000 signatures to put a ballot on the petition. But backed by billionaires like Michael Bloomberg, or in Washington’s case, the founders of Microsoft, hiring signature gatherers is no obstacle.

When the signature gathers go out, they are often paid by the signature. Forget your noble ideas of a concerned citizen rallying his fellow voter to the issue with a rousing argument. Nope. It’s often just a one-sentence question, phrased to be as unobjectionable as possible. Since it sounds reasonable, the citizen signs, usually not bothering to read the description of the initiative printed at the top of the petition page or even the full text, as must be attached too.

In the case of universal background checks here in Nevada, the spiel I received was “Hey, do you want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals?” Imagine if I said “Sure!” and signed away. Now imagine if that bill was written to say that the right to own guns would be abolished. Wouldn't that be stupid?

That’s an extreme example, but in the case of the initiative here in Nevada, it’s not far from the truth, except in the goal of the petition. Universal background checks will require that all private face-to-face gun sales to go through a licensed dealer who runs a background check through the established FBI system. Currently, it’s perfectly legal to sell your gun to someone without a background check. 150 years and it’s worked for Nevada. Essentially, private gun sales, just like you'd sell your car, would be dead.

Signature gatherers here in Nevada basically pitched the idea that no background checks were done on any gun sales or that requiring checks on private sales would magically stop gang members from selling guns to each other. An example that I heard was the Sand Hook school shooting and how “Wouldn't you want to keep guns out of the hands of people like that?” Well yes, except that murderer killed his mother in order to steal his guns. Most of the infamous mass murderers either passed a background check or they obtained their guns in a way that universal background checks wouldn't have stopped anything.

Nevadan’s should be upset that people are lying and misrepresenting facts to get signatures and ultimately votes. Misleading statistics and out-of-context statements are used to sway voters every election. Just think of any election ad you can remember. It’s all about emotion and making the other person look terrible in as short as time as possible.

With tons of money flooding in, voters can be bombarded with newspaper articles, Twitter links, TV and radio commercials, billboards even. This is the scary part. If one side has more money, they can pump out more ads that skew to their side more than the other. I’ll rephrase that again: whoever has the most money can run the most ads and reach the most people. If voters are being educated by partisan 30 second commercials, are they really informed? Doesn't the idea that hundreds of thousands of people make decisions on a TV commercial scare you?

Now I've been down in the weeds giving out a lot of background information. Nevada itself is a battleground ripe for these new tactics. We have a population that has swollen over the last twenty years, full of those who have left other states. Nevada of the 1950s onward is a mélange of Americans. Most importantly to the gun control crowd, there is about ten percent more registered Democratic voters than Republican voters, and the Democrat party is known for supporting gun control.

Gun control supporters see Nevada as an easy win. We only have two major metropolitan areas and a whole lot of tiny, rural communities.  Northern Nevada is largely Republican, yet are outnumbered by Clark County, home to about 2 million, who vote mostly Democratic. Gun control supporters think they can win here and start a domino effect across the nation because they are taking advantage of Nevada’s composition.

Essentially, it’s gaming the system. Two concentrated areas of voters with the largest block predisposed to vote for you. With the millions of dollars they can easily garner from out-of-state interests and casino billionaires, the small TV and newspaper market can be dominated with adverting that supports gun control. There is no large, spread-out rural population that thinks differently which can balance the vote.

Gun control supporters are taking advantage of Nevada because they can engineer it through deceptive, but not illegal, campaign practices to become a win for them.

Illustrated Guide to Gun Control

http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2013/11/08/cake-and-compromise-illustrated-guide-to-gun-control/

Article: It's Not About Safety, It's About Control

It's Not About Safety, It's About Control, an article on The BangSwitch about how gun control progressed in France.

The article is a few months old and a long read, but it's a good detail about European gun restriction and why the right to keep and bear arms is so important. Like a frog in a pot of boiling water, things slowly change before we know we're cooked.

I like how it was considered common sense and no big deal for a woman to carry a pistol in her purse. 

We already have restriction (NFA weapons, the 'assault weapons' hype). What's next?

First it's universal background checks; can't have people buying guns that can't be tracked.

Then it's registration; can't enforce background checks without registration.

Registration is broken down into registering new purchases or transfers, then requiring retroactive registration of everything else.

Finally, confiscation comes, because they know who has the guns.

Only bad governments need to fear an armed citizenry. They don't want you to have guns because they want you to be dependant on the government for protect and ultimately, so you cannot rebel.

Say no to universal background checks and say no to gun control.