Wednesday, May 15, 2013

VA-ALERT: VCDL Update 5/15/13

Not yet a VCDL member? Join VCDL at:
VCDL's meeting schedule:
Abbreviations used in VA-ALERT:

1. Potts Mountain range vandalized - closed until May 24th
2. Generous VCDL-PAC donations
3. Gun controllers pushing for another vote on universal background checks
4. A quote from Thomas Jefferson
5. Let states set rules for gun permits
6. Here comes the First of the Executive Actions
7. Obama push against gun rights senators could backfire
8. Gun law voted down and liberals are upset [VIDEO]
9. Dear gun control democrats: 6 ways to make a better argument
10. Gun control fight spills over to federal research
11. Poll: 39 percent 'relieved' or 'very happy' about defeat
12. Glock releases new pro-gun commercial [VIDEO]
13. The rise in popularity of the AR-15 among women
14. And how many bullets do you need?
15. 'Be the best lawbreaker you can be'
16. Is gun control Orwellian? Let's ask Orwell
17. NY Times rejects Bloomberg group's demand to correct pro-gun op-ed
18. Shocking Footage: Americans ordered out of homes at gunpoint
19. CA gun confiscation bill passes
20. Terrorists did not have valid handgun licenses
21. No warrant, no entry [VIDEO]
22. Why weren't Watertown residents told to get their guns?
23. 'Terrorist attack' involving axes, knives kills 21 in China

1. Potts Mountain range vandalized - closed until May 24th

Don't bother making a trip to the Potts Mountain shooting range until after May 24th, as it is closed to repair some vandalism.

There is no excuse for this and I hope they catch the scum that did this and put them in jail (after paying restitution). Security cameras are being installed, so hopefully if this happens again, justice will be swift.


2. Generous VCDL-PAC donations

The VCDL-PAC received many generous donations over the last two days, including one for $1,000 from the United States Concealed Carry Association (USCCA - in Wisconsin!

We know that not everyone can make a large donation and we appreciate all donations, whether large or small.

If you wish to donate to the VCDL-PAC, here is the link:

3. Gun controllers pushing for another vote on universal background checks

Please do not think that the war is over for universal background checks. We won a battle last month, but not the war. The antis want to come back to try again later in the year. We will have to mount another major effort to stop them from succeeding. Bloomberg has been bringing a lot of pressure on the Senators who voted against the bill.


From the L.A. Times:

Gun control backers turn up heat on selected senators
By Melanie Mason, Washington Bureau
May 13, 2013, 3:00 a.m.

WASHINGTON — First came the letter-writing campaigns, then the protests at town hall meetings and now the television ads. The last several weeks in New Hampshire have had the feel of a heated electoral season — but the target of this siege, first-term Republican Sen. Kelly Ayotte, isn't on the ballot until 2016.

Welcome to Round 2 in the battle over gun control.

The first round ended last month, when a proposal to expand the background check system to cover most commercial gun sales fizzled in the Senate. Ayotte opposed the measure, as did 40 other Republicans and four Democrats, dealing a blow to the gun control movement animated by the December mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.

Supporters of tougher gun laws vowed not to let the issue fade, as it has in the past. The vote, President Obama declared, was "just Round 1." But with the next election 18 months away and a Senate calendar already filled with immigration reform and the federal budget, the prospects for a renewed fight seemed dim.

Since the April 17 vote, however, the issue has shown unforeseen staying power.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) last week promised a vote on background checks "as soon as I can." Sen. Joe Manchin III, the West Virginia Democrat who worked with Sen. Patrick J. Toomey (R-Pa.) to draft a compromise, said he was seeking to win new support with "clarifications." He hopes for a vote before the August recess.

Background check supporters are counting on a two-pronged strategy: an aggressive campaign by advocacy groups to unnerve senators who might change their votes and delicate legislative maneuvering to create political cover for them.

Pressure to revisit the vote began to build when senators returned home for a weeklong recess in late April. Gun control groups, such as Mayors Against Illegal Guns and Americans for Responsible Solutions, dogged a few senators who had opposed the measure and disseminated polls showing steep drops in their approval ratings.

"The outside game is about convincing those who voted no that they've made the wrong choice. And that is happening. There are definitely second thoughts out there," said Jim Kessler, a gun policy expert at the centrist Democratic think tank Third Way. Senators who opposed the agreement, he said, "expected the politics to work for them after the vote and so far it hasn't."

Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), who was heavily lobbied to support background checks, acknowledged on his Facebook page that his "no" vote probably caused his poll numbers to plunge, ranking him "somewhere just below pond scum."

On Thursday, Organizing for Action, a nonprofit group backing Obama's agenda, delivered a petition for a stronger background check system, with 1.4 million signatures, to lawmakers on Capitol Hill. Mayors Against Illegal Guns staged rallies in eight states over the weekend, delivering Mother's Day cards to senators urging them to side with mothers seeking to end gun violence.

The mayors group, co-founded by New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, also dramatically escalated the air wars in New Hampshire, spending nearly $700,000 for two weeks of television ads battering Ayotte.

The squeeze on Ayotte has roused conservatives to her defense. American Future Fund, a conservative group that does not typically weigh in on gun matters, responded Friday with television ads supporting Ayotte. The weeklong buy cost about $200,000, according to a media tracking source.

The National Rifle Assn., which vigorously opposed the background check measure, has rallied around Ayotte as well, first in radio and television ads and then with a $25,000 television ad buy. The group is also starting a nationwide direct mail campaign aimed at members, with additional mailers sent to non-NRA households in select states, such as New Hampshire and Arizona.

Andrew Arulanandam, an NRA spokesman, dismissed the idea that the background check vote had triggered a backlash as "a manufactured issue by Bloomberg."

The relentless pressure by gun control groups could also harden opposition. In a fundraising email last week, Ayotte dug in and asked supporters for help. "I'm under attack for standing up for the U.S. Constitution by voting against flawed legislation that would have compromised our 2nd Amendment rights while doing nothing to prevent horrific tragedies such as Newtown," she wrote. "I won't back down."

Flake, also facing heat from advocacy groups, vehemently insisted last week that he remained opposed to the original background check measure. "They could change it," he said. "They could do a lot of things. But it wouldn't be the Toomey-Manchin proposal. I voted against that for a reason, and I'm not reconsidering my vote."

Manchin has suggested he was not open to significant revisions. "It's a pretty common-sense bill. I don't know how you make it any more common sense except redefine some areas," he said.

Supporters of the measure are optimistic that this back and forth is just political theater — a way for senators to lay the groundwork for changing their votes and avoiding the dreaded "flip-flopper" label.

"Clearly, this bill is going to have to look differently in order for members to face their constituents and explain why they changed their mind," said Sen. Christopher S. Murphy (D-Conn.). "There are a lot of ways that we can modify this bill without significantly weakening it."

4. A quote from Thomas Jefferson

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;... "
-- Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824

5. Let states set rules for gun permits

So Dan Casey doesn't like states being forced by the federal government to honor permits from other states. Is this the same Dan Casey who would be happy to see an assault weapon ban forced on all the states by the federal government?

EM John Wilburn sent me this:



Let states set rules for gun permits
April 20, 2013

Both of Virginia's senators last week voted in favor of federal legislation to expand background checks for gun purchasers. Sens. Mark Warner and Tim Kaine were rewarded Saturday with a small and hastily organized "thank you" rally by gun-control activists at the Mayor's Monument in Elmwood Park.

The legislation failed even though a majority of senators — 54 — supported it. It needed 60 votes to break the Senate's filibuster threshold.

Mostly lost in the shuffle of that news was another amendment senators voted on that in essence would have created a national right to concealed carry for the holder of any state-issued permit.

It garnered 57 votes — more than expanded background checks did. Though it failed, too, Warner voted in favor of it. And for that he should feel ashamed.

The language was proposed by Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and it's known as concealed-carry reciprocity. It would require every state that issues concealed carry permits to honor any other state's permits. Only Illinois and Washington, D.C., do not issue them.

The gun lobby has long desired federally mandated reciprocity, and gun activists have voiced their frustrations loudly. Central to their argument is a confusing patchwork of state laws regarding eligibility for concealed carry.

Some states recognize only their own permits and make them difficult to get. Other states, such as Virginia, issue permits to just about anyone and honor permits issued in some other states, but not all of them.

"If I go on vacation to Maryland, why am I less trustworthy there?" said John Wilburn, a gun rights activist and handgun carry instructor from Christiansburg.

"They don't do that with my Virginia driver's license, and I have a perfectly valid Virginia concealed handgun permit. My concealed handgun permit should be valid in Maryland, too."

Wilburn noted that Georgia doesn't honor his Virginia permit either, but they accept his New Hampshire nonresident permit.

"It would be nice to fix this confusing system once and for all," he said.

Kevin Hall, a spokesman for Warner, noted the senator had voted for a similar amendment that also failed in 2009.

"Senator Warner believes a Virginian with a legally issued conceal-carry permit should have it honored by other states, and his vote was consistent with a previous vote on reciprocity between states," Hall told me.

"When this issue comes back before the Senate, he would prefer to see a proposal that sets some minimum standards for reciprocity across state lines."

But Warner's vote in essence would have granted a national right to concealed carry without any national standard as to who is eligible. The de facto standard would be set by states with the most lax permitting requirements.

By design, some states have made concealed carry permits difficult to obtain. For example, California, New Jersey, New York and Maryland issue permits at law enforcement authorities' discretion. In general, applicants have to show why they need one. Relatively few are issued. [PVC: And those are states that you absolutely need a gun when visiting!]

Other states, such as Utah, have decided to hand them out to just about any sane and law-abiding Tom, Dick and Harriet who applies, provided they get classroom handgun training. Some states, like Michigan, require experience on a firing range.

And then there are places like Virginia and Georgia, where concealed carry permit requirements are ridiculously lax. Virginia requires no gun-handling or classroom or firing-range experience, although applicants must demonstrate "gun competence."

That's a joke because of a 2009 law sponsored by then-Sen. Ken Cuccinelli. It allows concealed-carry applicants to demonstrate "competence" by watching a 60-minute online video gun course and correctly answering a handful of simple questions.

In 2009, I took the online course and got a Virginia concealed handgun permit, even though I'd never touched a handgun in my life. In Georgia, there's no training requirement whatsoever for a concealed carry permit.

Though all states require that concealed carry applicants pass a criminal background check, those are hardly foolproof. [PVC: Good point, Dan! Let's scrap background checks for gun purchases.]

A 2007 investigation by the South Florida Sun Sentinel found more than 1,400 Florida carry permits issued to people who had pleaded guilty or no contest to felonies that included homicide, sex offenses and aggravated assaults. That was largely because of a loophole in Florida sentencing laws.

The Cornyn amendment would have allowed me to carry concealed in New Jersey, when most New Jerseyans couldn't even get a permit from their own state. Should a permit-holder from Georgia who had never fired a gun be allowed to carry a concealed pistol in Michigan, when a Michigan resident who had never fired a handgun could not? Should New York be forced to accept a carry permit held by a killer from Florida?

Sen. Tim Kaine voted against the amendment because he understands that one state shouldn't be forced to accept loopholes in another state's laws or gun permitting processes. That would be a step backward rather than forward. [PVC: Nah - Tim Kaine voted against it for a much simpler reason - he's a "big government" guy who hates guns and their owners, voting anti-liberty every chance he gets.]

What a pity Mark Warner doesn't comprehend that.

6. Here comes the First of the Executive Actions


Here Come the First of the Executive Actions
April 23, 2013

Just as I warned SurvivalBlog readers, it appears that the BHO Administration is taking executive action on firearms importation. Take a few minutes to read this: After Senate setback, Obama quietly moving forward with gun regulation. Here is the key portion of the article:

"The Importation of Defense Articles and Defense Services -- U.S. Munitions Import List references executive orders, amends ATF regulations and clarifies Attorney General authority "to designate defense articles and defense services as part of the statutory USML for purposes of permanent import controls," among other clauses specified in heavy legalese requiring commensurate analysis to identify just what the administration's intentions are. Among the speculations of what this could enable are concerns that importing and International Traffic in Arms Regulations [ITAR] may go forward to reflect key elements within the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty." [Emphasis added.]

Depending on how it is implemented, the implications of this change could be huge. With the stroke of a pen and without the consent of Congress, ATF bureaucrats could make ANY gun part or accessory (including magazines) or ammunition that were originally manufactured or perhaps even those designed for military use no longer legal for importation for civilian use. That might mean no more milsurp parts sets. No more milsurp magazines. No more milsurp ammo. No more milsurp optics. Perhaps not even spare firing pins. This could be ugly.

I strongly recommend that you stock up on magazines, ammunition and spare parts for any of your imported military pattern guns, as soon as possible! Once an import ban is implemented, prices will skyrocket. Importation of Chinese military guns and ammunition was banned during the Clinton Administration, but importers quickly worked around that, by tapping other sources. But imagine if all of the channels for military surplus are cut off. That mean no more spam cans of any of the Russian calibers, no more battle packs of .223 or .308, and no more affordable AK, HK, FAL, Galil, or SIG magazines.

This may be just the first of several executive actions/orders. There is also the possibility of a blanket ban on the importation of any civilian magazines (Glock, SIG, Beretta, etc.) of more than 10 round capacity, by declaring them "non-sporting." There is a precedent for that, as well, set in 1989. That ban could be grossly widened. And don't look for too much support from American gun makers on this issue. They actually benefit from import bans. They benefited in 1968, when import of most of the milsurp rifles stopped. And they benefited again with the 1989 Import Ban.

Don't dawdle. Be proactive! If you wait until after the door slams shut, then you will be paying two or three times the price. If there is a gun show near you this weekend, then you should be there, with a wad of cash. - J.W.R.

7. Obama push against gun rights senators could backfire

Member Walter Jackson sent me this:



Obama push against gun rights senators could backfire
by David Lightman, McClatchy Newspapers
April 22, 2013

WASHINGTON — "You've got to send the right people to Washington" to deal with gun control, President Barack Obama insists. In fact, the people voters send to Washington next year could prove to be Obama's nightmare.

Obama's effort to pressure senators to back gun control could very well cost several Democrats their Senate seats. Promoting gun control in conservative states could mobilize gun rights supporters. And blasting Democrats who back gun rights could sour liberals on those senators, keeping left-leaning voters home and helping elect Republicans.

Obama and Democrats face a huge dilemma. Do they rail against gun control, hoping to push opponents out of office? Or do they take a cold look at political reality and realize they may be jeopardizing Democratic gun rights advocates whose Senate votes they badly need on other issues?

Republicans need a net gain of six to control the Senate, and the eight most vulnerable seats are all held by Democrats. Among the Democrats voting against tougher background checks were Alaska's Mark Begich, Arkansas' Mark Pryor and Montana's Max Baucus. Pryor and Begich face tough re-elections next year, while Baucus, who also was up for another term, said Tuesday he is retiring.

Democratic Sens. Kay Hagan of North Carolina and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana backed the gun control plan, and they could find that vote makes their already uncertain re-election prospects even shakier. Three others who voted yes – Iowa's Tom Harkin, South Dakota's Tim Johnson and West Virginia's Jay Rockefeller – are retiring, and Republicans have decent chances to win those seats.

At Organizing for Action, which promotes views closely identified with Obama, executive director Jon Carson urged backers to keep up the pressure. Senators "who decided that not crossing the gun lobby was more important than making our kids and communities safer – OFA supporters will call them out and hold them accountable to their constituents," he vowed.

Asked whether such actions could harm Democrats, spokesman Ben Finkenbinder pointed out, "OFA is a nonpartisan issue advocacy group that will not engage in electoral politics."

The liberal Progressive Change Campaign Committee last week went further, beginning an estimated $100,000 ad campaign railing against gun votes by Democratic senators from Alaska, Arkansas, Montana and North Dakota. Adam Green, the group's co-founder, insists that his group only wants senators to "represent their constituents, and then they'll be successful on Election Day."

The senators targeted by the ad who are facing re-election say they are doing just that.

Begich, for example, said he'll keep working to curb gun violence but "without undermining Alaska values or infringing on our fundamental rights."

Green's effort could very well sour liberal Democrats on these candidates, motivating them to stay home and inadvertently elect Republicans. He said he's not worried, that Democrats made a mistake in 2010 not pushing hard enough to support the controversial new health care law. Republican opposition, he said, helped give that party majorities in both houses in those elections.

"These Democrats are voting this year out of fear," he said. "We're trying to stop that."

As he does, gun rights interests are mounting their own big political effort. "Gun owners are stirred up and there is plenty of talk already on the gun rights forums about getting out the vote in 2014," said Dave Workman, senior editor of The Gun Mag, a gun rights publication.

Here's a look at the biggest tossups:

– Alaska. Begich won his first term in 2008 with 48 percent of the vote against a weak incumbent. He could face Republican Joe Miller, who won the party's 2012 Senate nomination with strong help from the conservative tea party movement.

– Arkansas. Pryor, the son of a former governor and senator, won his last term with no Republican opposition. But he's running in a state trending Republican, where Obama got 36.9 percent of the 2012 vote. Political analyst Stuart Rothenberg has dubbed Pryor the most vulnerable Senate incumbent.

– Iowa. Rep. Bruce Braley is considered a strong Democratic candidate, and it's unclear who the Republican challenger could be. Iowa's a state where liberals and conservatives both have strong, active constituencies, making the results of a statewide race unpredictable.

–Louisiana. Landrieu is a veteran of tight, tough races in a state where gun rights are sacred. But nearly one-third of the voters are black, and if they turn out in big numbers, she'll have an edge.

– Montana. Former Gov. Brian Schweitzer, a Democrat, is expected to be a leading contender for the seat of Senate Finance Committee Chairman Baucus, who on Tuesday announced he's retiring.

North Carolina. Hagan beat an incumbent senator five years ago with 53 percent, a year when Obama narrowly won the state. She won't have those coattails now, and the state voted heavily Republican in 2012. Her background check vote is likely to make her a favorite target of the gun rights crowd.

– South Dakota. Even if Johnson had run, he would have been vulnerable to popular former Gov. Mike Rounds or Rep. Kristi Noem. Republicans have thrived here lately, electing over the last three years a governor, an at-large congressman, a senator and a heavily Republican legislature.

– West Virginia. Long a Democratic stronghold, the state has been trending more Republican. Rep. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., is the favorite to take the seat, though she faces a primary challenge from the right.

8. Gun law voted down and liberals are upset [VIDEO]

Member Bill Watkins sent me this this:



9. Dear gun control democrats: 6 ways to make a better argument

Member Paul Henick sent me this:



Dear Gun Control Democrats: 6 Ways to Make a Better Argument

Dear Gun Control Democrats:

It's been less than a week since national gun control in America died. No "assault weapons" ban. No "high-capacity" magazine ban. Not even the Manchin-Toomey background check compromise that, according to Senator Mark Kirk, was reached by getting drunk on a 54-foot mega-yacht named Black Tie, which is part-owned by Manchin.

Over the last several days, I've watched Democratic politicians, lobbyists and Facebook meme-sharers calling down shame on the senators who voted against every single gun control measure proposed in the Senate. Yes, it's true that none of the measures would have passed the Republican-controlled House anyway, but to have lost in the Democrat-controlled senate was to truly be trounced. I have seen the Democratic pundits all over the nation looking across their podiums and well-lit television studio desks with stunned expressions. "How could this have happened," they all ask? Only four months after Newtown?

I write this letter as someone who is politically far left of center. You and I have a lot in common, though you may not want to admit it by the end of this article. I think it's time we had a talk.

I live in the state of Virginia, a place where it's not easy to be a leftist. Just last week, our State Board of Health voted to approve TRAP (Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers) regulations that would close most abortion clinics in the state. It was a devastating loss for myself and other organizers, and it will be even more devastating to the women of Virginia, most of whom will not have access to safe, legal abortions for years to come. I mention this not only so that you have context for the sort of political work I'm involved in, but because I want you to know that *I do know*, from very recent experience, what it's like to feel powerless as you watch a group of people vote for social policy that you think is absolutely insane.

But I'll be honest with you: I watched the Senate votes live on Wednesday, and when these gun-related bills were defeated, I literally celebrated. Obviously, you and I have a lot in common, but plenty to differ on. And that's kind of what I want to talk to you about.

I've owned guns since childhood, and it's an issue that I've thought and written a lot about. It's very difficult for me to communicate with the mainstream Democratic establishment about guns. But because I know how painful it sometimes is to listen to Republican and other Right-leaning people talk about things that we on the Left care strongly about, I thought I would try to help you out.

There are are a few things that you can do to improve your game in the gun control debate, and I thought it would only be fair to point out what they are. So here's my best shot. Here are the things that you MUST keep in mind if you wish to further the dialogue on gun policy in America.

1. Stop Sending Mixed Messages

I wish I had a dollar for every Democratic politician and commentator that has looked into a television camera over the past few months and said, "No one is trying to take your guns away!"

Allow me this humble suggestion: The best way to convince the American public that you're not interested in taking guns away is to stop talking about taking guns away.

Firstly, when your politicians are asked, "Do you support state legislation to ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns?" as Obama was in his 1996 Senate campaign, you should never answer "Yes," as Obama did. Publicly advocating a ban on all handguns is not the way to convince people that you're not interested in banning guns. Furthermore, when you are campaigning for president, never say the phrase "I continue to support a [federal] ban on concealed carry," as Obama did in 2004. This gives people the impression that your intention is to prevent the states from setting reasonable guidlelines on who can defend themselves outside of their home.

If you then win the election, do not go on to fully support gun bans in two US cities – Chicago and D.C. – in which law-abiding citizens are disarmed, citing them as models for gun policy while trying to convince the rest of the country that you really aren't interested in banning their guns. (Guess which two US cities you're most likely to be killed by a gun in.)

It has become almost cliché for smirking Democrats to attempt to ridicule people like myself by crooning, "Obama wants to take our guns!" in a stereotyped hillbilly drawl – something particularly offensive to some folks here in the south – when in fact, Obama has said exactly that.

Some of you will argue that regardless of the President's conflicted/dishonest assertions, the legislation that died in Senate earlier this week had nothing to do with taking anything. But let us not forget the "assault weapons" ban, which enacted slow confiscation over a generation. I wouldn't have to immediately surrender any firearms, but because of the angle of the grip on the shotgun I own, it would be a felony offense to pass it on to a family member (or anyone else) upon my death. It would instead be confiscated by the government and presumably destroyed.

The same would happen to tens of millions of firearms all over the country, including more than 3 million of just one single model, the AR-15. In this case, gun control advocates literally want to pry the most popular rifle in the country from every owner's cold dead hands. "We're not taking any guns away from you, just all future generations." Needless to say, this is not the way to convince people that no one is interested in taking guns away.

This sort of message and legislation has come not just from the president, but on down the chain of command. We have known that the ideal scenario (and presumably ultimate goal) for Dianne Feinstein – sponsor of the assault weapons ban and most outspoken advocate for all of the defeated legislation – has always been a total, door-to-door confiscation of firearms. She told us so in a 60 Minutes interview.

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them – 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in!' – I would have done it. I could not do that."

But it's not just the Democratic leadership. Cultural icons of the Left have also joined the fray. On Real Time with Bill Maher, the host wanted to know why Democratic leaders are pretending that they believe in the second amendment, when they ought to just come out and say what they mean:

"Everyone on the left is so afraid to say what should be said, which is the Second Amendment is bullshit. Why doesn't anyone go at the core of it?"

Every episode of the show is watched by 1 – 1.5 million (almost entirely Democratic) viewers, and the studio audience cheered his comment. Chilling. The followup comment is that the ballot box is our guarantee of liberty. Ask Germany (and countless others) how that worked out for them.

It is important to note that according to the Supreme Court (and most Americans), the views espoused by Obama, Feinstein, Maher, et all are unconstitutional. Is it really so difficult to understand why some folks might think that Democrats are just being politicians by giving lip-service to the second amendment while pushing new legislation? Taken collectively, these and many other open confessions by party members are more than probable cause for suspicion of intent. Constitutional voters don't have to be ignorant or fearful to sound the alarm about these people. They just have to take them at their word and actions.

You can either tell people that you're not interested in taking guns and stop thinking of ways to take them, or try to abolish the second amendment (good luck). But you cannot do both.

2. You Have To Understand What You're Regulating

This is common sense for any sort of regulation, but especially when you're dealing with something specifically protected in the Bill of Rights. Unfortunately, it has not been the case.

New rule: If you don't know how guns work, you don't get to craft legislation about them. There is nothing so embarrassing as watching a Democratic politician who has never held a gun in their life attempt to talk about why and how they should be regulated.

This is not a new problem. I included this classic video in my article on the assault weapons ban, which shows how a senator doesn't even understand what's in her own legislation.

Added to the list over the past several months has been die-hard gun control advocate New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg not understanding the difference between automatic and semi-automatic firearms.

"Pistols are different. You have to pull the trigger each time. With an assault weapon you basically hold it down and it goes ::machine gun noise::"

This is a man that has built a cornerstone of his career on gun control legislation. He has headed and commissioned panels on guns. He runs a whole group of pro-gun-control mayors. This is an issue he has supposedly been devoted to for a long time.

He doesn't know how guns operate. He doesn't understand basic terminology. He doesn't know what an "assault weapon" is, even though he supposedly was involved in drafting legislation. How is this possible? And how is it possible that we who actually understand the topic are supposed to cede to his judgment on it?

He's not alone in his utter baffledness about this. Obama recently told donors at a Democratic Congressional Campaign committee meeting that students at Sandy Hook were gunned down by a "fully automatic weapon". From the White House transcript:

"I just came from Denver, where the issue of gun violence is something that has haunted families for way too long, and it is possible for us to create common-sense gun safety measures that respect the traditions of gun ownership in this country and hunters and sportsmen, but also make sure that we don't have another 20 children in a classroom gunned down by a semiautomatic weapon – by a fully automatic weapon in that case, sadly."
This is the President of the United States, who has been personally touring the country pretending to understand the issue of how guns function in society. This person has had entire panels and committees at his disposal specifically to educate him on this topic (so we're told). There is no excuse for ignorance of this magnitude to be centered around conversations involving civil rights specifically enshrined in the constitution. (It is either astounding ignorance or dishonesty. I'm being generous and assuming the former.)

But the award for atomic facepalm goes squarely to Democratic representative Dianne DeGette of Colorado. During one of the many public forums on gun control that took place across the country recently, Dianne explained to the panel and a stunned audience that magazines and ammunition were the same thing, and therefore all the "high-capacity" magazines would soon be used up.

This person is making laws about the very thing she is completely ignorant of. How can people who actually understand the issue be brought to the table and expect to have productive, meaningful conversation when the people sitting across from them are this clueless?

These are a few selected, higher-profile incidents that represent a vast culture of ignorance in the mainstream Democratic left when it comes to even the basics of gun use and policy. I shouldn't have to say it, but: Until people know what they're talking about, none of us should care what they have to say.

3. Stop Using Children

It was the dead children of Newtown that were intoned as the push for gun control legislation began. As I have just evidenced, it was the dead children intoned during the drumming up of support. And it was the dead children intoned in Obama's "concession" speech as every gun control measure in the Senate failed.

And let's not forget ads like this one:

Fortunately for America, the FBI says that citizens of all ages are literally more likely to be struck by lightning than to be killed with a rifle of any kind – not just "assault" rifles. In fact, you are more than twice as likely to be killed be hands and feet than rifles of any kind, and about 5 times more likely to be killed by a knife.

What about unintentional firearms deaths? Fortunately for children, the National Safety Council says that they are less likely to be accidentally killed by any firearm than most other causes of death. Children ages 0-19 (which technically includes two years of life that aren't childhood) are about 8 times more likely to drown or be poisoned, 4 times as likely to be killed by smoke or fire and almost 50 times more likely to be killed in a car accident.

No wonder the Left's alarmist warnings had no effect on the people of Newtown, who voted for the NRA's suggestion to put armed guards in schools.

Aside from the fact that a statistically insignificant number of children die from firearms, not a single person who advocated these gun control measures has suggested a way in which any of the proposed legislation could possibly have prevented the massacre in Newtown. (None of it would have.) Which could make someone wonder, "What's with all the talk about kids?"

Children are no longer just pawns in the gun control story. They are now integral players. Sometimes the stories play out like Obama's photo-op above. Sometimes they were never supposed to be stories in the first place.

A father in Florida was furious recently when his fourth grade son brought home this colorful page:

The teacher seemed to gotten the idea of this little gem from Democratic Attorney General Eric Holder, who asked for all schools nationwide to advocate an "anti-gun message" every single day. "Every day, every school at every level… We need to do this every day of the week and really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way."

Such an anti-gun fever pitch has been reached that very young children are now being suspended and expelled from school for pointing fingers and saying "pow" on the playground, chewing a Pop-Tart into the shape of a gun, pretending a chicken nugget was a gun and shooting bubbles from a Hello Kitty bubble gun.

As I'm writing this, news has broken of a middle school student suspended and arrested for wearing an NRA t-shirt to school.

Recently a man's house was raided after he posted a photo of his 11-year-old son – who had a hunting license – safely handling a .22 rifle. The father was a certified firearms instructor, an NRA range safety officer, and a New Jersey hunter education instructor. His house was raided without a warrant and the state threatened to take his children away.

04/23/13 Edit: I have been asked – reasonably, I think – not to refer what happened as a raid. A whole group of police and Dept. Children and Families officials showed up at Moore's house, demanded to be let in to see his gun safe, threatened to take his child away, but did not enter without a warrant. Moore was told that by asking for a warrant he was acting suspiciously (specifically counter to a ruling by the Supreme Court – exercising rights is never cause for suspicion), and they threatened to find a way to get one. He told them they were welcome to do so. They ended up leaving.

How far we have come.

In some areas of the country, children are not props in a game of political football, but are giving testimony before their state legislatures about why new gun control measures are a terrible idea, like this 15-year-old who shoots those evil AR-15s every day.

In some areas of the country, children are given proper handling and safety training the way I was as a child, and are capable of safely handling rifles and "assault weapons" to defend their homes and family.

Most Americans know when they're being emotionally played for political gain, and so do the senators who voted against the barrage of legislation that went down in flames this week. Until you can stop marching children around as your cause celeb for no apparent logical reason, and until you propose legislation that at least has something to do with protecting them, no one is going to listen.

4. Stop Pretending Background Checks Don't Already Exist.

Yes, it's true that 90% of Americans like background checks for firearms purchases. Well it's a good thing we have them!

04/21/13 Edit: Four months after the shooting rampage at Sandy Hook Elementary School, USA TODAY Poll finds backing for any new gun control legislation has slipped below 50%. The "90% approval for new background check legislation" has turned out to be very false indeed.

If you go to a sporting goods store and buy any firearm, you have to get a background check done. If you buy a gun from almost any table at a gun show, you have to have a background check. If you buy a gun across state lines on the internet, it has to go through a licensed FFL dealer who runs a background check. The same goes for Wal-Mart, flea market dealers, and everywhere else.

The "gun show loophole" you've heard so much about simply means that private individuals can sell a gun to each other without asking the federal government for permission. Which is to say that I don't have to pay $150 (the cost for a check in D.C.) to ask the FBI whether a family member or friend to whom I would like to lend my shotgun for a hunting trip is a convicted felon.

Background checks are a relatively new priority for Obama's Justice Department, which only prosecuted 44 of the 48,000 felons and fugitives that submitted background checks to purchase a firearm (and were denied because of the functioning system) in 2012. When the NRA pointed out this out to Biden, the Vice President explained that they "simply don't have the time or manpower to prosecute everybody who lies on a form".

Then how, pray tell, is adding to that number thousands of private transaction between individuals (who are already inherently law-abiding by filing the paperwork) going to help?

Aside from practicality and enforceability concerns, there are the ever-present privacy concerns. The Democratic left got a rude awakening from allies on this topic when the ACLU came out against universal background checks, citing the record keeping on law-abiding citizens as a "significant" privacy concern:

"We think that that kind of record-keeping requirement could result in keeping long-term detailed records of purchases and creation of a new government database."
"And they come to use databases for all sorts of different purposes. For example, the National Counterterrorism Center recently gave itself the authority to collect all kinds of existing federal databases and performed terrorism related searches regarding those databases. They essentially exempted themselves from a lot of existing Privacy Act protections."

The Deputy Director of the National Institute of Justice noted in a recent internal memo that the effectiveness of universal background checks would "require gun registration". (It also went on to note that "gun buybacks are ineffective", that a high-capacity magazine ban wouldn't have any discernible effect, that "assault weapons are not a major contributor to gun crime", and that even a complete elimination of all "assault" weapons "would not have a large impact on gun homicides".)

When your own Department of Justice thinks your ideas are bad ones, it's time to move on.

But the ACLU and Department of Justice are not alone in their rejection of universal background checks. Recently, the most comprehensive survey ever conducted on the views of 15,000 law enforcement professionals asked about the relationship between recently-dead legislation proposals and violent crime. 79.6% of them said that expanded background checks would do nothing to reduce violent crime. Here are three other questions and their responses:

These figures speak for themselves. When the nation's police force, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Justice Department aren't on board, you might want to rethink your strategy.

No wonder only 4% of Americans think that gun control is an important political issue.

5. Treat the NRA As What They Are: Other American Citizens

The story from the media – and certainly from your Democratic leadership – is that the "powerful corporate lobby" of the NRA is so indomitable that they single-handedly bought and scared off politicians from supporting legislation that they actually believed was going to do some good. But aside from the questionable legislation, this narrative still falls short.

After gun control legislation was defeated this week, I opened a friend's Facebook link to an unrelated article on, a popular leftist news and opinion site. The full screen poll that popped up before I could read the article asked: "DOES THE NRA CONTROL CONGRESS?" along with an urgent call to sign up for their mailing list to email-shame politicians.

The problem here is the complete dissociation of the NRA as an entity and its membership base. As someone who participated wholeheartedly in the Occupy movement and in the national campaign to expose ALEC – the group of Right-wing politicians and corporate lobbyists who write laws together – I have no love for the influence of money on politics. But by making this narrative the dominant one, the Democratic left has missed a very, very important fact: the power of the NRA lies not in corporations, but in its membership.

The NRA definitely receives some contributions from the firearms manufacturers whose interests are tied up with their own. Of course they do. That's how lobbying works: you pay people to take the time to represent your interests well to lawmakers, whether you're a gunmaker contributing to the NRA or a high school teacher's union paying The American Federation of Teachers lobbyists.

What you're missing is that the vast portion of the NRA's funds come not through corporate donors, but through contributions from average Americans. It was not a coincidence that between December 2012 and January 2013 the NRA grew 10,000 members every day, adding a full quarter-million new contributors to their roster since gun control reappeared in the national discussion last year. That's just what happens when a populace that cares a lot about something gets mobilized. But the NRA – by which the Democratic party should mean "the American citizens who comprise the NRA because they believe in gun rights" – has consistently been characterized as the heartless, monolithic boogeyman.

I have already mentioned the young man who was just this week suspended and arrested for wearing an NRA t-shirt to school. How is this possible? How can the demonization of 5 million Americans engaged in strictly legal activity literally put a child in jail in 2013?

I hope that one thing this latest loss has taught you is that you cannot advance the discussion on gun policy by treating the NRA as if they were something other than the citizens who intentionally pay for them to do exactly what they do. (Even if members do have to grit their teeth at brash methods sometimes.) Your opponent is not the corporate profits of Ruger or Beretta, it is the beliefs and ideas and the resulting money of other citizens just like yourself. Speaking of which…

6. Don't Forget About Us!

Gun policy is not really as partisan a debate as mainstream media would suggest. There are plenty of left-leaning citizens and Democratic voters who love our guns. Some of us are in the south, some of us are out in Colorado, and some of us are right in the middle of New York City. Some of us not only like the process of shooting guns, but actually think that it's important to know how. Some of us hunt to supplement food/income. Some of us believe that the safety of our selves, families, communities and yes, even our nation are our own responsibility as citizens. It's not such a radical thought.

And don't forget that we are the swing voices in this debate. After the mass shooting in Aurora, I posted an article on why the "assault weapons" ban should not be renewed. Much to my surprise, it garnered a half million reads. This was not because I'm a great writer. This was because it spoke to other leftist people with gun-interests in a way that an NRA newsletter was not going to. And those people shared it with their leftist friends, and so on.

You cannot pretend that we don't exist, and you cannot be surprised when we let our representatives know that we do not support gun control legislation.

10. Gun control fight spills over to federal research

Another angle to attack RKBA. I sure hope our brethren in West Virginia can get Manchin off of his gun-control kick.

Banning people on the terror watch list from getting guns is not a good idea. You don't end up on that list based on some kind of adjudication where you can offer a defense. Nope, you get on there by magic and getting off is almost impossible, even if you should never have been on it in the first place.

Member Bill Hine sent me this:



Gun control fight spills over to federal research
by Alan Fram, Associated Press
April 24, 2013

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Washington's fight over firearms restrictions isn't limited to Congress. It's also taking place in the halls of science -- literally -- where gun control advocates and the National Rifle Association differ over the direction federal research on gun violence should take.

John Frazer, research director of the NRA's legislative arm, told a committee of experts on guns and public health Tuesday that better data is needed on the benefits of gun ownership, such as peoples' use of firearms to defend themselves.

Dan Gross, the president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, focused on obtaining more information on how people get guns and the deaths and injuries the weapons cause.

The experts were meeting in a building used by the National Academies, a private organization that provides science advice to the government. The committee is deciding what recommendations to make about federal research of gun violence, which President Barack Obama ordered resumed after nearly two decades in which the work has been blocked by Congress.

"This is not about developing a policy agenda for guns. This is about developing a research agenda," said Alan I. Leshner, chief executive officer of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, who is head the research committee. "We are the science folks."

This year's debate over gun control, sparked by December's killing of 20 first-graders and six educators at a Connecticut elementary school, was hampered by old, at times unreliable data on guns. The Senate last week rejected a series of gun control proposals, and Democratic leaders put aside their effort to restrict firearms after realizing they lacked the votes needed for approval.

Now, the battle is carrying over to the type of research each side thinks is needed.

Gross told the panel about the estimated 30,000 gun deaths and 70,000 gun injuries that occur annually but spoke of the need for better information, including precise breakdowns of how many of the weapons involved were obtained illegally.

The Brady group leader estimated that 5,000 to 10,000 of the deaths were caused by firearms obtained illegally, but said, "It would be a lot easier to make that leap if we had the data around it."

The NRA's Frazer also recommended conducting surveys of inmates to determine how they choose victims, and figuring out how many guns are obtained from private transactions.

Currently, transactions by licensed gun dealers require background checks of buyers, but those sold privately do not.

"It would be worth knowing how many transactions this would actually affect," Frazer said of proposals to extend background checks to private purchases.

The Senate defeated a proposal last week to extend the background checks to all firearms bought at gun shows and online.

The experts plan to make gun research recommendations to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in two months.

Meanwhile, an author of a defeated bipartisan plan for expanding background checks for more gun buyers said he is considering changing the measure to try to get additional Senate votes.

Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., said that after last week's Boston Marathon bombings, he might change the legislation to bar people on the government's terror lists from obtaining firearms.

"It might get people more comfortable with it," he said of his colleagues.

It was unclear which terror list Manchin meant. The government has investigated hundreds of thousands of people for possible terrorist ties, but many are not guilty and only a few are on a "no-fly" list that bars them from flying.

11. Poll: 39 percent 'relieved' or 'very happy' about defeat

Bill Hine sent me this:



Poll: 39 percent 'relieved' or 'very happy' about defeat of gun background-check legislation
By David Sherfinski - The Washington Times
April 24, 2013

A new survey shows that nearly half of adults are angry or disappointed about the Senate's failure to pass a measure that would have expanded gun-purchase background checks, but 39 percent are "relieved" or "very happy."

Public polls have shown that about nine in 10 people support universal or near-universal background checks on gun purchases, but of those watching the vote "very closely," sentiments are evenly divided — 48 percent angry/disappointed and 47 percent relieved/happy — in a Washington Post-Pew Research poll released Wednesday.

Nor surprisingly, the numbers cut sharply across party lines. Twenty-two percent of Democrats are happy or relieved, compared with 67 percent who are disappointed or angry, while 51 percent of Republicans are happy or relieved and 34 percent disappointed or angry. A plurality of independents — 48 percent to 41 percent — are happy/relieved.

But the numbers illustrate a key distinction between the Obama administration's claims that an overwhelming majority of voters demanded that Congress pass background-check legislation and public polling that showed a majority of voters did favor stricter gun controls post-Newtown (though those numbers dipped below 50 percent in a USA Today survey released this week), but which didn't necessarily outline a specific "enthusiasm gap" between gun-control and gun-rights supporters.

For example, while December's school shooting rampage helped catalyze a push for new laws from gun-control advocacy groups, that push, in turn, awakened vociferous gun-rights advocates as well, notably the National Rifle Association. Of those polled who felt most passionately about the issue, 20 percent say they're "very happy," while 15 percent are "angry." Nineteen percent are relieved, and about a third are disappointed.

The Pew-Post poll of 1,002 adults was taken April 18-21 and has a margin of error of 3.5 percentage points.

12. Glock releases new pro-gun commercial [VIDEO]

Guns Save Lives!


13. The rise in popularity of the AR-15 among women

Music to my ears. We need more women in the fight and enjoying their right to own and carry a gun.

Bill Albritton sent me this:


THIS CAN'T BE!!!!! VP Joe says she only needs a double-barrel shotgun!!!!


The Rise in Popularity of the AR-15 Among Women
by Caitlin O'Kane, Special to
April 17, 2013

It's a clear, sunny day on the shooting range. Only the crack of gunshots breaks the silence.

What's unique on this range is that all the gun owners are members of A Girl and A Gun Women's Shooting League—and they're all firing AR-15 semiautomatic rifles.

"I think there is a small bit of status for a gal that says she owns an AR-15," said Juliana Crowder, president and co-founder of A Girl and a Gun. "Especially right now, since they're so hard to get a hold of."

Recent attempts to pass stricter gun laws are having an unintended effect: AR-15s are flying off store shelves. The rifles and their accessories account for roughly a billion dollars of the $4 billion U.S. gun industry.

"The AR-15 is becoming extremely popular among women," said Crowder. "Some women are very gadgety or want to be personalized, they're painting them, getting these different grips and colors, and stylizing it. It's very popular because they can build it to their own specifications-- use it for fun, and feel pride of ownership in it."

Crowder's own AR-15 is purple—the same color as her former dance studio. An ex-dance teacher, Crowder now focuses her time on her all-female shooting league. In just two years it's grown to 28 chapters in eleven states. (Read more: New York's Assault Weapon Registration Begins)

"[It's] a friendly, supportive environment—making everybody feel welcome when they walk in the door," said Crowder. "Like they've got a whole new set of friends and sisters that they can depend on."

Club members attend a variety of events, which include the League's National Conference and even a "Girls Night Out," to socialize over dinner after a long day at the range.

Crowder says she trains women on the AR-15 because there is a longer frame to work with and more things to hold on to. This makes it easy for people with smaller frames—like their Youth Members, ages 10 to 17—to wield the gun.

"My favorite thing about my AR-15 rifle is the confidence I feel when I shoot it at the range," said Girl and a Gun member Jennifer Galle. "It gives me a sense that I can defend myself, that I can do this, and it brings me peace of mind knowing that this is a weapon that I can use for my own personal protection."

"We know we can be safe," Crowder agrees. "We can be efficient. We can be effective to defend ourselves with that particular tool as our husbands and our fathers can."

14. And how many bullets do you need?

Member Bill Watkins sent me this:



And How Many Bullets Do You Need?
Jim Yardley
April 21, 2013

Last night, I watched the amateur home video of the shootout between Boston and Watertown police and the person referred to as "Suspect #1."

I learned that there were something on the order of 200 shots fired during that firefight.

Think about that for just a moment. It took a dozen or more cops, who are trained professionals, who practice on at least a weekly basis with their firearms, to fire 200 rounds before he finally died.

Yet our politicians (at least here in New York, and some in Washington -- as well as other places, I'm sure) are saying that the most anyone needs to have to protect himself from armed intruders is seven rounds in the magazine.

Only seven?!

Of course, it took trained police, who were not dealing with an unexpected attack, who were not roused from a peaceful slumber, who were not worried about their wives and kids, some 200 rounds to kill one dangerous man.

Makes you wonder if those politicians have even the slightest, tiniest hint of anything connected with the real world, doesn't it?

15. 'Be the best lawbreaker you can be'

Bill Watkins sent me this:


Interesting message delivered to the Connecticut Citizens Defense League...


Gun rally speaker urges crowd to 'be the best lawbreaker you can be'
By Mary E. O'Leary
April 20, 2013

HARTFORD — The theme of the gun rally at the state Capitol Saturday was tyranny, and the need of an armed citizenry to resist such, with a former Minuteman pushing them to ignore the new firearms laws and bragging that he already had done so.

Michael Vanderboegh of Alabama had the crowd on the Capitol grounds cheering Saturday, as did other speakers who offered this message tied to their interpretation of the Second Amendment.

The rally was organized by the Connecticut Citizens Defense League, which, along with other gun rights groups, is opposed to Connecticut's new firearms restrictions that are among the toughest in the nation.

"Civil war is staring us in the face," Vanderboegh warned, blaming it on those who voted for enhanced gun controls in Maryland, Colorado, New York and here, which he deemed to be unconstitutional.

"We must if we wish to avoid our conflict get across this message to the collectivists who have declared their appetites for our liberty, our property and our law. When democracy turns to tyranny, the armed citizenry still gets to vote," Vanderboegh said.

He said, "like King George," political leaders who implemented the new controls won't listen to what you say.

"They will only pay attention to what you do. So defy them. Resist these laws. Evade them. Smuggle in what they command you not to have," Vanderboegh said, to more cheers.

He said if they "mean to have a civil war, they will at least have been informed about the unintended consequences of their tyrannical actions."

Vanderboegh told the estimated 1,500 people in attendance, that if they wished to "stay free ... you can do no less than to become the lawbreakers that they have unconstitutionally made of you. ... Resolve to be the very best lawbreaker you can be."

The loudest cheers came when he told them that on Thursday he smuggled a half-dozen 30-round magazines into the state.

The gun law adopted April 4 immediately put 100 more weapons on the state's list of banned firearms, and also banned magazines with more than 10 rounds. Citizens who already own them can keep them, but their use is restricted and they must be registered by January.

"To Martin Looney, Don Williams, Larry Cafero and John McKinney, I'd like to say this: I just commited a class D felony, you tyrannical morons. ... Catch me if you can," Vanderboegh taunted, threatening to be back with more in July. Vanderboegh singled out the Democratic and Republican leaders in the Senate and House, who along with Gov. Dannel P. Malloy got no love from the crowd.

Vanderborgh is known for his incendiary rhetoric, posting a blog last November, "VOTE: At least later on you can say you tried everything else before you were forced to shoot people in righteous self-defense of life and liberty."

When national health care passed in 2010, he told his followers that "if you wish to send a message that (former Speaker Nancy) Pelosi and her party cannot fail to hear, break their windows." This did happen at Democratic Party offices across the country and in a Washington Post story, Vanderboegh said: "Glad to know people read my blog."

John Lott Jr., the author of "More Guns, Less Crime," argued that the three-day waiting period to get a firearm adversely affects those in need of a firearm for personal safety the most. He said registration rules tie up police who could be put to better use and said fees only hurt low income people from buying guns.

Lott is a controversial figure whose methodology for his book has been widely discredited by other academicians. He also created an imaginary former student named "Mary Rosh" which would appear in comment sections defending him. Lott was also unable to produce the data behind a survey where he found 98 percent of defensive gun uses involved only brandishing a weapon.

Cheryl Lemos, membership coordinator for CCDL, which jumped from 2,499 to more than 7,000 after the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown Dec. 14, said the Second Amendment is all about "the balance of power."

"The Constitution gives the Congress the power to raise and support a standing army. The people have a Second Amendment to keep that standing Army in check," she said.

The slayings of 20 children and six educators at the school sparked a national debate on gun control, led by many of the families of the victims, both in Connecticut and at the national level.

Lemos dismissed so-called "commonsense" legislation and comromises which she said "chip away at our rights ... it is a step forward in the incremental disarmament of the American people."

Saul Cornell, a history professor at Fordham University and an expert on the Second Amendment, said there is a great deal of misinformation about the Second Amendment which focuses on a "privatized view of guns not defined by civic obigation ... this is very much kind of anti-government, almost insurrectionary. The Founding Fathers were not anarchist libertarians."

He made his remarks at a recent meeting sponsored by the Newtown Action Alliance.

He said the Constitution was adopted to prevent insurrections, not encourage them. "They believed in something called well regulated liberty," Cornell said and came down hard on rebellions. One of the most well known is Shays Rebellion, where George Washington lead the forces against them.

The Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Cornell said he is struck by gun rights advocates who only quote the second half of the Second Amendment.

"It really is the most incredible case of selective anmesia or aggressive editing. The fact is we have to honor the whole amendment, not just the parts of the amendment we like," Cornell said.

The professor said the only crime defined in the Constitution is treason, which is taking up arms against the government. He said it is "ridiculous and historically inaccurate" to essentially interpret the Second Amendment as overriding the treason clause.

Much was made of the upcoming elections, with those lawmakers who voted in favor of the reforms targeted for replacement, such as Mitch Bolinsky, R-Newtown, and, at the federal level, both Democratic senators in Connecticut, Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy.

Bill Stevens said he'd be happy to be the CCDL candidate to oppose Bolinsky. Stevens said he thought "the families (of the Newtown victims) are being exploited. It's disgraceful."

Wayne Winsley, the Republican candidate for the 3rd District congressional seat, said he follows "the Winsley doctrine, which is, if you don't protect my bullets, you don't get my ballot."

The second out-of-state speaker, Stewart Rhodes of Montana, national founder of the Oath Keepers, compared the activists to the "first wave of Normandy Beach in this current battle for the Republic."

He said the media, academia and politicians in Washington, D.C., have been taken over by Marxists. "You have to have the same resolve as the men at Iwo Jimo had," to fight this, he said.

Rhodes said the purpose of the Second Amendment is not about hunting or personal defense.

"It is about the military capacity of the American people ... of you to be the militia. ... You will not be secure and you will not be free unless the military power of this nation is in your hands," Rhodes said as the crowd agreed.

He said to those who argue that civilians should not have weapons of war, Rhodes said: "You tell them it is a weapon of war and it is supposed to be in my hands. We are supposed to have the same military capacity as any infantry squad, any infantry platoon."

Among those in attendance was Charles Pomeroy of New Milford, who said he objects to the new gun law because it "creates two classes of citizens, those who are in a protected class — law enforcement — and citizens who have limited rights." Law enforcement is allowed AR-15s and high-capacity magazines when acting in a professional capacity. "It should be the choice of the citizen to pick whatever they think is right," he said of what firearms to possess.

Pomeroy pointed to the situation in Watertown, Mass., Friday, when thousands of law enforcement officials, both federal and state, looking for Boston Marathon bombing suspect, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, flooded the area while residents were asked to stay indoors."They were running around with their AR-15s protecting themselves, while people are stuck in their homes with nothing," Pomeroy said.

16. Is gun control Orwellian? Let's ask Orwell

EM Greg Trojan shared this on facebook:



by Ron Capshaw
April 22, 2013

For those who believe, like the administration that Second Amendment enthusiasms are expressed solely by the black-helicopter-fearing Right, I offer a decided socialist.

George Orwell, who Christopher Hitchens once wrote, was "conservative about many things but not politics," nevertheless would be more in tune today with the anti-gun control crowd than any fellow socialists.

The easy riposte to this claim from the Left would be that it is only natural that a former coolie-crushing colonial policeman such as Orwell would be a gun enthusiast.

But Orwell viewed gun control through a socialist and not any law-and-order lens:

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.

These sentiments were not based on any theory, but hard worn experience. As a soldier on the Loyalist side during the Spanish Civil War, Orwell was aware that it was only the citizenry breaking into the armory that initially repelled Franco's fascist rebellion. When Stalin sought to import his murderous purge trials into Spain, and thus kill off any leftist opposition, his first order of business was confiscating their weapons. Having the misfortune of belonging to a Trotskyite militia, Orwell engaged in street fighting with these gun confiscators.

Aware of how Stalin crushed his weaponless opposition, Orwell was determined for this never to happen again. In 1940, when a Nazi invasion seemed all but imminent, Orwell joined a citizen's militia, the Home Guard, which was deliberately modeled on the "people's army" of Spain (many of the volunteers had fought for the Loyalists). This group was tasked with protecting bridges and railroads and if necessary, fighting from house to house, but Orwell saw a bigger role: that of ensuring that a home-grown fascist coup and/or separate peace would never happen. Predictably, Colonel Blimps worried about any sophisticated weaponry getting to these "reds" and sought to halt it (a better example of gun control cannot be imagined). But Orwell believed that the Home Guard should remain weaponized beyond the war so as to protect individual liberty.

For those government officials such as Joe Biden who assert that the populace doesn't need sophisticated weaponry (i.e assault rifles) to protect themselves Orwell can again be consulted. In a post-war essay, "You and The Atom Bomb," Orwell noted that when there is "no answer to it," "rifles" are "inherently democratic weapons" and "gives claws to the weak;" complex weapons, however, when owned solely by the government "make the strong stronger."

Today Orwell would be written off as a gun freak by the Democrat's war room. Dianne Feinstein would lump him in with the NRA for his belief that citizens armed with assault weapons were necessary also in peacetime to ensure the government remained democratic. His extrapolation that the enslaved popularce of Nineteen Eighty-Four occurred because Big Brother had disarmed them would land him on the Democrat's list of paranoids.

17. NY Times rejects Bloomberg group's demand to correct pro-gun op-ed

Poor Bloomberg. He was denied his chance to censor an editorial by David Kopel, a gun-rights attorney. Bloomberg is not used to being denied.

Member Walter Jackson sent me this:



New York Times rejects Bloomberg group's demand to correct pro-gun op-ed
by David Codrea
April 23, 2013

Despite a request from Mayors Against Illegal Guns to issue a correction to a Friday editorial, The New York Times declined and instead backed its author, attorney and Independence Institute Research Director David B. Kopel informed Gun Rights Examiner today by email.

"David Kopel's Claims Regarding the Manchin-Toomey Amendment are False," MAIG alleged in a "fact sheet" that is very similar in content and format to one Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Chairman Alan Gottlieb sent out by email on April 16 under the identical heading. When approached to comment for this story, Gottlieb denied authorship and stated "I just forwarded what was circulating in the Senate."

Because that email did not indicate it was a forward nor have an attachment, but instead appeared to be an original correspondence sent by Gottlieb under the subject title "Kopel critique," the assumption Gun Rights Examiner and Kopel reasonably operated under was that it was Gottlieb's/CCRKBA's creation.

That said, The Times backing a prominent Second Amendment advocate instead of Mayor Michael Bloomberg, is surprising to the point of shocking.

"MAIG requested that the Times run a correction of my Friday op-ed," Kopel explained. "My NYT editor, after reviewing my detailed explanation of the legal issues, declined to issue a correction.

"My op-ed was correct as written, with its claim that Manchin-Toomey would have legalized BATFE creating a complete computer database of all sales, guns, and buyers which are identified in the 4473 forms of retired FFLs," he concluded.

18. Shocking Footage: Americans ordered out of homes at gunpoint

I would note that one of our members emailed me to say that he used to live in Watertown and was in communication with people there during the search for the bomber. His friends claimed they were not locked down and that it was nothing like the media reported. Yet, we have videos and photos showing that at least in some areas of Watertown, there was indeed a lockdown. Perhaps it was more localized than we were led to believe.

Walter Jackson sent me this:


The guy in the HumVee is pointing his rifle at the man taking this photo.


Shocking Footage: Americans Ordered Out Of Homes At Gunpoint By SWAT teams
by Steve Watson,
April 22, 2013

Note from Alex Jones: Even though we have seen countless instances of lone gunmen on the street, we have never seen an entire city locked down as we witnessed last week in Boston and its suburbs. The very definition of martial law is when due process is suspended and Americans are under military rule. has reviewed hundreds of photos, many sent to us by our listeners, of militarized police pointing guns at them and treating citizens like terrorist criminals.

Below are samples of these images. We also saw a clip on CNN during the prison lock down in Boston showing a woman in a park playing with her children and a police helicopter told her to get out of the park.

Shocking footage has emerged from Friday's lockdown in Boston, where police, federal agents, national guard troops and SWAT teams enforced door to door searches of everyone's home within twenty blocks as the entire city was placed under orders to stay off the streets.

The video, shot by a resident from their own house across the street, shows police barking orders at men and women as they order them at gunpoint to identify themselves, put their hands on their heads, and get out of their own home. They are then ordered to run down the street to be further frisked by police as scores of armed militarized cops look on.

The scenes look like something out of a disaster movie, with the backdrop of suburban America juxtaposed with what is essentially martial law playing out in full daylight.

The story floated in the mainstream media that the door to door searches were conducted with the voluntary consent of the residents of Watertown is clearly false. 9000+ Police locked down an entire city and went in with full force, with armored vehicles and combat gear, all to search for an injured 19 year old kid who turned out to be cowering in someone's back yard.

While armies of police roamed around people's homes and private property, Public transportation was shut down, businesses were forced to close, and a no-fly zone was enacted over Boston in an unprecedented show of force.

At this point, as military helicopters buzzed over neighborhoods, the Fourth Amendment had ceased to exist in Boston, which quickly resembled a war zone.

The compliant mainstream media reported on the activity without alarm or question. Katy Waldman of Slate wrote an article claiming that under dire circumstances police can suspend 4th Amendment rights against unreasonable searches:

In exigent circumstances, or emergency situations, police can conduct warrantless searches to protect public safety. This exception to the Fourth Amendment's probable cause requirement normally addresses situations of "hot pursuit," in which an escaping suspect is tracked to a private home. But it might also apply to the events unfolding in Boston if further harm or injury might be supposed to occur in the time it takes to secure a warrant.

This activity, once again, sets a shocking precedent. Police and military are training in these circumstances every single day of the year. They are fully acclimatized to the process, as if it is completely normal. They do not hesitate in carrying out such orders, which are now being implemented whenever the authorities deem a situation to be an emergency.

This is what fully fledged martial law in America looks like.

19. CA gun confiscation bill passes

So we are paranoid that the government wants to disarm us, eh? California, again, leading the way toward resurrecting Stalin.


California Gun Confiscation Bill Passes, Approves $24 Million To Expedite Illegal Gun Seizure
by Kathleen Miles
April 19, 2013

The California state legislature passed a bill Thursday approving $24 million to expedite the confiscation of the estimated 40,000 handguns and assault weapons illegally owned by Californians.

SB 140, authored by Sen. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), seeks to remedy the gun-confiscation backlog that has left thousands of illegal guns on the streets, including those owned by those with criminal convictions or serious mental illness.

"We are fortunate in California to have the first and only system in the nation that tracks and identifies individuals who at one time made legal purchases of firearms but are now barred from possessing them," Leno said in a statement. "However, due to a lack of resources, only a few of these illegally possessed weapons have been confiscated, and the mountain of firearms continues to grow each day."

The measure will take $24 million from the Dealer Record of Sale (DROS) surplus funds and give it to the California Department of Justice, which is in charge of confiscating illegal guns. The DROS account holds fees that are imposed upon every transfer or sale of a firearm in California.

Assemblyman Brian Jones (R-Santee) said he voted against the measure because the fees that make up the DROS funds are intended to cover the cost of background checks -- not confiscations.

"For example, if you go to the DMV and pay for a driver's license, that fee is for processing the driver's license, not for setting up sting operations for catching drunk drivers," he said.

"If the legislature wants to raise extra funds for the DOJ, it would have to impose a tax on firearm sales, which requires a two-thirds vote," he added.

Brandon Combs, executive director of the gun advocacy group Calguns Foundation, agrees that gun confiscation should be paid for out of the state's general fund. His and other pro-gun groups have argued that California's fees on gun buyers are exorbitant.

"The state should not be stealing millions of dollars from gun owners who were overcharged," Combs said.

The funds will go toward enforcing the California DOJ's Armed Prohibited Persons System (APPS) program, which began in 2007. APPS cross-references various databases to check people who have legally purchased handguns and registered assault weapons since 1996 against individuals who are prohibited from owning or possessing firearms.

APPS also cross-references gun owners with individuals who have reported to the state DOJ as mentally ill. Doctors and hospitals are required to report to the state individuals who were found to be a danger to themselves or others, or who were certified for intensive treatment for a mental disorder.

Lynda Gledhill, spokesperson for the California DOJ, said that of the individuals deemed unfit to own guns, about 30 percent have a criminal record, 30 percent are mentally ill, 20 percent have a restraining order out on them and a small percentage have a warrant out for their arrest.

California is the only U.S. state where law enforcement officials confiscate guns from the homes of individuals not legally permitted to own them. Because gun-confiscating agents do not obtain search warrants, their job involves convincing people to let them into their homes and hand over their guns. If an individual does turn over a gun, he or she can be arrested on suspicion of illegally owning a firearm.

Over the past five years, agents conducting twice-weekly sweeps have confiscated more than 10,000 guns. Using the $24 million from SB 140, the California DOJ says it would take three years to catch up with the backlog of confiscated illegal guns.

Leno's bill returns to the Senate for approval of some noncontroversial amendments before heading to Gov. Jerry Brown's (D) desk. If SB 140 is signed by the governor, it would take effect immediately.

"This makes enormous sense and is one of the only ways available to reduce access to already purchased firearms," Deborah Azrael, associate director of the Harvard Youth Violence Prevention Center. "Universal background checks, as much as we should have them, can affect only the next gun purchased, not the sizable reservoir of guns already out there." [PVC: And there is the justification for all guns to be registered - so that universal background checks can be enforced. That registration will eventually be used to take our guns.]

Adam Winker, UCLA law professor and expert on constitutional law, commented on the passage of the California bill after the U.S. Congress' failure to enact national gun background checks.

"We're likely to see much more activity at the state level in the wake of Congress's failure to act," Winkler said. "The gun-control movement's best options now are gun-control laws at the state."

20. Terrorists did not have valid handgun licenses

Really? Did they at least have a permit from Massachusetts to build bombs to kill and maim innocent people? After all, without a properly issued permit, they surely wouldn't have done so.

Member Bill Watkins sent me this:



Terrorists did not have valid handgun licenses
by Rick Moran
April 22, 2013

Well, we better do something about that right away. Close the "terrorist loophole" in our licensing procedures. Can't have terrorists walking around our cities with unlicensed firearms.


The two brothers suspected in the Boston Marathon bombings, who police say engaged in a gun battle with officers early Friday after a frenzied manhunt, were not licensed to own guns in the towns where they lived, authorities said on Sunday.

In the confrontation with police on the streets of a Boston suburb, Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev were armed with handguns, at least one rifle and several explosive devices, authorities say.

But neither brother appears to have been legally entitled to own or carry firearms where they lived, a fact that may add to the national debate over current gun laws. Last week, the U.S. Senate rejected a bill to expand background checks on gun purchases, legislation that opponents argued would do nothing to stop criminals from buying guns illegally.

Tamerlan Tsarnaev, 26, who was killed in the shootout with police, would have been required to apply for a gun license with the local police department where he lived in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

But there is no record of him having done so, according to Cambridge Police Department spokesman Dan Riviello.

Even if he had earlier received a gun license from somewhere outside Cambridge, that license would have to be registered with Cambridge police upon becoming a resident of the city, Riviello said. In Massachusetts, gun licenses are issued by municipal police departments.

"There is no record of him having a license to carry," Riviello told Reuters.

OK - we get it. No license. It will be interesting to see where the brothers got their armaments. Tamerlan had a 2009 domestic violence conviction - a red flag that would have denied him a license for a gun. But that would have only been an inconvenience because the younger brother Dzhokhar had a clean record and could have purchased any firearm he wanted.

Finding out where the brothers got their guns, and the materials to make the bombs, could lead to other suspects, perhaps even a terrorist cell, although the FBI is denying that they have any hard evidence the brothers weren't acting alone.

In the meantime, I'm sure gun control advocates are busy working on closing that "terrorist loophole" in licensing guns.

21. No warrant, no entry [VIDEO]

EM Greg Trojan shared this:


Shall not be questioned has video of the swat teams in Boston pulling home owners out of their houses. My question is what would happen here in VA where a terrorist on the loose would bring me to my door with an AR or shotgun. Would we have more citizens killed in the search than in the bombing? [PVC: Darned good question, Greg! I would hope Virginia police would respect the rights of citizens to defend themselves and not act like a bunch of storm troopers.]


No Warrant, No Entry
by Bitter in Civil Liberties
April 21 , 2013

If this video represents how the Watertown "voluntary" searches were conducted at all, then I seriously wonder how the officers would have reacted to this doormat.

Now this may be the nutty libertarian in me, but being met at the door by SWAT teams with guns pointed at you and orders barked to keep your hands up no matter what isn't what I call a "request" to search your home on a "voluntary" basis. Nor is it just checking the premises to have multiple officers patting down innocent people as they exit said house to screams for them to keep their hands up and to run down the street for further body searches.

I sincerely hope that some government official somewhere is so ashamed of this video that they end up releasing some kind of evidence that there was specific probable cause for this house to be searched in this manner. However, the pessimist in me doubts that will be the case. The video makes it appear as though the only cause for such a response was the delayed answer to non-stop door knocks.

If there was no reasonable suspicion that the suspect had specifically entered this property, I sincerely hope that those people find themselves a damn good lawyer quickly.

22. Why weren't Watertown residents told to get their guns?

I would have a lot more respect for a government that tells its citizens to arm themselves when there is a terrorist on the loose.


Why weren't Watertown residents told to get their guns?
By Dr. Keith Ablow,
April 22, 2013

Before the capture of Dzhokar Tsarnaev, with the heroic police manhunt for him in full swing in Watertown, Massachusetts, Governor Deval Patrick and public safety officials admonished residents there and in surrounding communities to stay inside, lock their doors and answer only for uniformed police officers.

These steps, while perhaps wise for many residents of Massachusetts, also suggested that all residents of Massachusetts were defenseless and should act accordingly.

One piece of information, for example, was left out of every press conference that took place in the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombings: If you have a licensed firearm, make sure it is within reach, that it is loaded and that your family members are nearby.

This directive, in my opinion, would have been a proper public safety message and public health initiative to safeguard many homes in Watertown and the metro-Boston area.

It also would have avoided the unfortunate subconscious message to Bostonians that they cannot or should not take steps to protect their own lives and their loved ones and their homes in the future, in one very clear way: By exercising their Second Amendment rights to own firearms and to use them when gravely threatened or attacked.

It strains the imagination to wonder why any adult in Watertown, Massachusetts who does not currently own a gun and who lived through the horror of a terrorist hiding out in that city would not be applying for a firearms permit this coming week. So, too, for Boston. And, of course, citizens around the country would do well to learn the same lesson.

The reason that residents of Watertown and Boston were not told to keep their guns close by (or to congregate in the dwellings of gun owners) is only because of the liberal political tide that seeks to take guns out to sea with it.

Almost inexplicably, gun control efforts from the president and members of Congress continue, despite recent mass attacks with a knife (in Texas, where 14 innocent people were slashed) and in Massachusetts, where bombs made of crock pots, ball bearings and nails brought horrific casualties.

Were Dzhokar Tsarnaev or someone of similar ilk to seek a home to enter in the Boston area or any other town or city in America, I can say with near certainty that an NRA sticker clearly visible on the front door or an adjacent window would make him choose another door to break down. And, in any case, a gun in the house, at the ready, would have been the best defense against being another of his victims.

23. 'Terrorist attack' involving axes, knives kills 21 in China

Get rid of guns and stop mass murders. Well, maybe not.


'Terrorist attack' involving axes, knives kills 21 in China
By Sally Huang, Reuters
April 24, 2013

BEIJING - A confrontation involving axes, knives, at least one gun that ended with the burning down of a house left 21 people dead in China's troubled far-west region of Xinjiang, a government spokeswoman said on Wednesday.

It was the deadliest violence in the region since July 2009, when Xinjiang's capital, Urumqi, was rocked by clashes between majority Han Chinese and minority Uighurs that killed nearly 200 people.

Nine residents, six police and six ethnic Uighurs were killed in Tuesday's drama, said Hou Hanmin, spokeswoman for the Xinjiang government. "It's certainly a terrorist attack," she said.

It was not immediately clear how many burned to death.

Hou did not name any group, but China has blamed previous attacks in energy-rich Xinjiang - strategically located on the borders of Afghanistan, Pakistan, India and Central Asia - on Islamic separatists who want to establish an independent East Turkestan.

Many Uighurs, a Turkic-speaking Muslim people native to Xinjiang, chafe at Chinese controls on their religion, language and culture.

Three "community workers" were patrolling a neighborhood of Bachu County, known as Maralbexi by Uighurs, in Kashgar after a tip-off that there were "suspicious people" in a private house, Hou said.

One of the three used a phone to call for help after they found a number of knives, resulting in their being killed by 14 Uighur "rioters" in the house, Hou said.

"The community people were just conducting regular checks, but the action from the rioters was planned and well prepared," Hou said.

Several police and other "community workers" came in different groups to the home where the Uighurs used axes and large knives to slash the police officers and workers, Hou said.

Only one police officer was armed with a gun, she said.

The battle ended with the gang members burning down the house, killing the rest of the people there, Hou said. Eight people had been detained.

Some Chinese officials blame such attacks on Muslim militants trained in Pakistan. But many rights groups say China overstates the threat to justify its tight grip on the region.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said the "violent terrorist acts" would not win popular support.

"The current situation in Xinjiang is good, but a small group of terrorist forces is still trying every possible means to disturb and destroy the present stability and trend of development in Xinjiang," Hua told reporters.

VA-ALERT is a project of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc.
(VCDL). VCDL is an all-volunteer, non-partisan grassroots organization
dedicated to defending the human rights of all Virginians. The Right to
Keep and Bear Arms is a fundamental human right.

VCDL web page: []
IMPORTANT: It is our intention to honor all "remove" requests promptly.
To unsubscribe from this list, or change the email address where you
receive messages, please go to: []

Modify Your Subscription:
Powered by Listbox:

No comments:

Post a Comment