A few thoughts on President Obama’s 23 point gun control proposal. It is a natural reflex of gun rights advocates to perceive any attempt at gun control to be an intentional attack by liberals on the 2nd Amendment with the ultimate goal to abolish it. While this is no doubt true of many gun control advocates, there is also no doubt that many of these folks are driven by the altruistic heartfelt need to “do something” when acts of violence like Sandy Hook and Columbine shock our country. Who wouldn’t want to do something to stop such violence?
Tiring of the rancor over this subject, for a change I prefer to opine on the President’s proposals from a simple and detached aspect of the practicality and cost of applying them rather than engage in the usual duel of wills between pro and anti-gun control proponents. The non-extremist tone of this opinion may seem droll, but it is intended and hopefully appreciated.
In general without going point by point though all 23 of the President’s proposals, there should be no objection to any proposal that seeks to expand or enhance background checks to keep convicted felons and persons with mental and emotional instability from owning guns whether the sale if the guns occur in gun stores or at gun shows. Enhancing background checks is not an attack on the 2nd Amendment and it is madness not to endorse that. Background checks in the course of person-to-person sales of privately owned guns is far trickier to accomplish, and I wish nothing but luck and success to the person who is intelligent enough to come up with an effective and efficient way to do it. This increasingly hypothetical someone would certainly not be me.
When it comes to the actual hardware, so much emphasis is placed on the guns themselves and their ammunition capacity, including legally limiting the amount of bullets a gun or magazine can hold. Because there are clearly so many ways that a person bent on carrying a high volume of ammunition to commit mayhem can do so regardless of how the hardware is regulated or changed, the only people who are ultimately regulated, are the law abiding responsible gun owners who don’t need to be regulated. From a cop’s perspective, our worst fear is encountering violent criminals armed with more ammunition than we have, but again the reality is that these criminals cannot be expected to abide by rules that regulate ammunition capacity. The uncomfortable conclusion therefore, is that to truly eliminate violent criminals’ access to high capacity magazines, it would be necessary to embark on a total mass confiscation of these magazines from everyone, even if it takes a house-to-house, car-to-car, building-to-building search across America. I am not being facetious – this is literally what would have to be undertaken in order to truly accomplish this goal. I don’t think even the most anti-gun person would find such a sweeping intrusion on freedom tolerable. It won’t happen.
Let’s ponder a scary analogy to the above. I have long wondered how long it would take for Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda-like enemies of America to up the ante in their jihad, and get around to employing their most insidious terror techniques here in America that they have used with alacrity and great success overseas – the car bomb. By comparison, as shocking and terrifying as the mass school shootings in our country were, all things considered, there have not been a great number them. Yet as we are seeing now, it doesn’t take very many of them to bring the demand for regulation, if not outright ban of weapons by those who truly believe that doing so would prevent the violence. It begs the thought, if America experienced a few car bombings in the heartland with typical body counts of 50 to 80 dead, would there be the same type of hue and cry for the regulation or banning of car ownership?
Here’s the point of the analogy. Although it would certainly be hoped for, there can be no certainty, no assurance, or evidence to show there is even a mere likelihood that the strict gun control measures on hardware sought by gun control advocates would have any effect on gun violence. Even so, the President and gun control advocates would implement these measures based on nothing more than the hope and a possibility that they might. But if we were to compare this to the mass casualty causing car bombings, we would absolutely know with certainty that by banning car ownership we would eliminate car bombings. Yet the President, and the same folks who would impose strict gun controls or bans with an uncertain result, would never think of banning or regulating car ownership even though doing so would bring an absolute certainty of ending the carnage of car bombs. They would never think of it, nor would I, for good reason, because attempting such an undertaking and upheaval to our society would be ridiculous. And that is the point and the question posed by the analogy. Why would we visit such an upheaval on our society with no certainty of positive results on one hand, but then never think of visiting an upheaval on our society with a certainty of positive results. I’m Just provoking thought.
The next conundrum is that the emotionally charged demand for immediate hard line gun control measures stemming from tragedies like Sandy Hook actually causes the opposite effect of what those measures are intended to accomplish. The fevered threat of impending strict gun controls results in a bonanza of gun buying and selling by people who believe they need to beat the implementation of the controls. The result is more guns out in the populace than before, exactly the opposite effect of the goal.
Finally, we come to the price tag, the bean counting. Initial reports put the cost of the President’s gun control plan at $500 million. As we know, no program ever proposed by a politician on the left or the right ever comes close to an original estimate, and if I were to make a prediction, to accomplish everything in the President’s plan would likely run into billions. We’re talking about 50 states here. When it comes to spending this much money the bean counters like to see more certainty, and if not certainty, at least some evidence of probability. It is true that you can’t put a price on a life, and whether you’re on the right or the left politically, we all want to put a stop to violence. But with our country’s economy circling the drain, purely speaking in terms of economics and not 2nd Amendment debates, it’s just not the time to pour billions into a plan with so much uncertainty and lack of expectation of positive results.
The parts of the President’s plan that focus on background checks, education and the like are much more important and have better promise for a positive impact than the parts that focus on the guns and ammunition. The best hope for curbing gun violence is a plan that focuses on the people, not the hardware.
Here is a list of the executive actions taken by President Obama on gun violence, as provided by the White House.
These are separate from the main proposals unveiled by the President on Wednesday at the White House, which include a ban on assault weapons, universal background checks for all gun sales (even private sales) and a 10 round limit on ammunition magazines.
I have added my comments below each “action”.
1. Issue a presidential memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system
This is being done and has been done for years. Nothing new.
2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.
Nothing new here either. This has been the law of the land for years. The States have not been entering the information.
3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.
What incentives? Throwing more money at them? They are already required to enter the information into the database and don’t.
4. Direct the attorney general to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.
Well… Let me get this straight… Eric Holder and Obama give thousands of guns to drug cartels, criminals, illegal aliens through the Fast & Furious Scheme. Law Enforcement officers get killed. Thousands of civilians get killed and he want ERIC HOLDER to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks! Am I missing something here? So when are he and Eric Holder going to jail?
5. Propose rule-making to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.
They already do this. Nothing new.
6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.
They already do this. Nothing new.
7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.
The NRA has been running one for over 50 years. nothing new.
8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).
This is being done constantly not only by the Consumer Product Safety Commission, but also by the safe and lock manufacturers. Nothing new.
9. Issue a presidential memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.
Nothing New. Has been done for years.
10. Release a Department of Justice report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.
Nothing New. Already being done.
11. Nominate a new director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
Waste of time.
12. Provide law enforcement, first-responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.
Nothing new. Constantly being done in training.
13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.
Nothing new. Already being done for years.
14. Issue a presidential memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.
What a waste of time and money! You prevent gun violence by enforcing the already existing laws.
15. Direct the attorney general to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun-safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.
Keep Eric Holder out of it. He gives guns to criminals. The private sector has innovative new technology coming on the market constantly. In fact as I write this the largest gun show on the planet is being held in Las Vegas. Shot Show is for the industry only and debuts the newest, latest in the firearm industry.
16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors from asking their patients about guns in their homes.
It already says they can’t.
From Obamacare:
(c) PROTECTION OF SECOND AMENDMENT GUN RIGHTS.—
‘‘(1) WELLNESS AND PREVENTION PROGRAMS.— A wellness and health promotion activity implemented under subsection (a)(1)(D) may not require the disclosure or collection of any information relating to—
‘‘(A) the presence or storage of a lawfully- possessed firearm or ammunition in the residence or on the property of an individual; or
‘‘(B) the lawful use, possession, or storage of a firearm or ammunition by an individual.
‘‘
(2) LIMITATION ON DATA COLLECTION.—None of the authorities provided to the Secretary under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act shall be construed to authorize or may be used for the collection of any in- formation relating to—
‘‘(A) the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition;
‘‘(B) the lawful use of a firearm or ammunition; or
‘‘(C) the lawful storage of a firearm or ammunition.
‘‘(3) LIMITATION ON DATABASES OR DATA BANKS.—None of the authorities provided to the Secretary under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act shall be construed to authorize or may be used to maintain records of individual ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition.
17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.
Nothing new. Has been done for years already.
18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school-resource officers.
What incentives? Throw more money at the schools? Let the local scholl districts decide what they want to do.
19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.
Nothing new.
20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.
Nothing new.
21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.
Nothing new. It’s been law since 2008. As part of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, the mental health parity requirements found in ERISA, the Public Health Service Act, and the Internal Revenue Code have been expanded and made permanent. (Public Law 110-343, Division C, Section 512) The new requirements become effective for plan years beginning after October 3, 2009 (i.e., January 1, 2010 for calendar year plans), although a special rule applies to plans maintained pursuant to collective bargaining agreements. New regulations should be issued by the Secretaries of Labor, Health and Human Services, and the Treasury within the coming year.
22. Commit to finalizing mental-health parity regulations.
See answer to #21
23. Launch a national dialogue led by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Education Secretary Arne Duncan on mental health.
Isn’t that what they should have been doing for the past 4 years? Isn’t that part of their JOB?!
Obama must have studied method acting at Julliard. How he can pull this sham off is unbelieveable!
There is an old adage, “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.” This week the media is trying to convince us that support for Senator Feinstein’s anti-gun legislation is weak, but if we are not PRO-ACTIVE, the legislation will pass as written. You will wake up just in time for SHOT Show with new laws that make your AR-15 a Class 3 weapon. This means that if you want to keep your tactical rifles, you will have to register them, pay a $5-$200 tax, and notify the government if you intend to take them out of state. You will also completely waive your 4th Amendment rights to reasonable search and seizure. ATF will have the right to knock on your door and inspect the weapons anytime they want. You will also see an end to standard capacity magazines. This isn’t a threat. It isn’t political posturing. Diane Feinstein and the anti-gun machine have already introduced the legislation, and it will be rammed through Congress and signed by the President if we do not Stand As One and act today.
Please contact your legislators immediately, and post the links above to your discussion boards. Also please contact all of the gun companies you do business with and ask them to take action now and don’t sit on their resources in reaching out to the gunowners of America. All of them have mailing lists, and all of them are sitting on them pretending that they don’t have any responsibility, while doing record business in the stuff that is going to be banned or regulated. This 2nd Amendment crisis is not about KA-CHING. We call out to Midway USA, Gunbroker, Brownells, Sportsmen’s Guide, Cabelas and all the firearms and accessory manufacturers. If you have a list, use it. We must Stand As One if we are to defeat this threat to our freedom. Aside from one NRA-ILA email notifying us about the legislation, even the NRA has been silent. Facebook isn’t enough. Our testing has shown that the effectiveness of Facebook is very small. You MUST EMAIL YOUR LISTS THIS WEEK before the legislation gains public support. We are about to enter a dark time in 2nd Amendment freedom and political wrangling from the NRA isn’t going to cut it this far out from an election. The legislators need to hear from us, that we will work to defeat them in their next election bid.
This is not an alarmist position. The anti-gun machine was prepared for this opportunity, and they are very well organized. Senator Feinstein herself admitted that she has been working since last year to investigate all of the loopholes from the last “Assault Weapons Ban” and eliminate them. That means that this time there will be no thumbhole stocks, no sawed off flashhiders, no California “bullet buttons.” It is almost as though the anti-gunners allowed the old ban to end in hopes of making a better one this time. This legislation is extremely comprehensive and if it passes, every tactical rifle in America will instantly become a Class 3 weapon. No new guns will be produced at all, effectively shuttering every AR-15 manufacturer in the country.
Don’t be fooled by the pollsters this time, for or against. They key point in this legislation is that we are more than a year from the start of the next campaigns for the mid-term elections. The anti-gun lobbyists, as you read this, are contacting the House and Senate members trying to convince them that American voters are not going to punish them for voting for new and sweeping gun control. Few politicians actually stand for anything, so how we react is paramount to defeating this legislation. Your must notify your legislators that you are watching their vote and that you will work to defeat them in their next election bid if they vote for any new gun legislation that comes out of the Sandy Hook shootings. Over 500 people have been killed in Chicago this year, the most gun restrictive city in the USA. We will not sacrifice our 2nd Amendment rights because the media is up in arms about the slaughter of 20 white kids by a mentally disturbed individual who stole his mommie’s guns.
Also don’t think that the Supreme Court is going to help us on this one. The legislation clearly identifies the approach to grandfathered weapons as a tax, and the Supreme Court has recently dealt with this issue on Obamacare, and refused to strike it down. Our swing vote, the George W. appointed Justice Roberts, has already demonstrated that he will not strike down major legislation from the bench if he can find a way to avoid it, and this tax approach to our guns won’t even make the Supreme Court. You may think that the original 2nd Amendment guaranteed us the right to the same guns at the government (muskets at the time), but there is plenty of Federal case law from the 1986 machinegun ban that has laid the groundwork for this Feinstein bill. It will pass, and it will stand.
If we Stand As One this week, the legislation will be stopped. Please contact your reps in the House and your Senators today. Mobilize your friends and family. Email everyone in your contact list. And most importantly post the direct links above (not to GunsAmerica) to every single discussion board, blog or forum to which you frequent.
As we have tried to explain already, GunsAmerica is all alone out here in this fight. Please encourage the gun websites you do business with to join our Stand As One campaign and email their mailing lists to fight this game changing legislation. We are all NRA Life and Endowment members here at GunsAmerica, yet nothing has come from NRA. Our competitors Gunbroker have sent nothing, apparently content with the spike in business. Midway USA has a huge list, yet nothing has come from them. Brownells is in the news for selling 3 1/2 years of magazines in one day, yet nothing has come from their email list. And worst of all, Cheaper Than Dirt actually announced that they would stop selling guns online, supporting the public opinion against our guns. Sportsman’s Guide even had the nerve to send a happy go lucky “After Christmas” sale email on AR-15 accessories. Don’t boycott these companies. Contact these companies! We have to stand together or we are going to lose. Now is not the time to argue and sit on our resources of huge email lists to America’s gun enthusiasts. We Stand As One!
Some of you got upset at us calling Alex Jones a turd in the punchbowl of 2nd Amendment freedom, but it is the truth. The conspiracy theory websites do not stand with us on this one, though they claim that they do. A lot of young people are caught up in a conspiracy theory mindset that is preventing them from seeing the forest through the trees. 2nd Amendment rights were never about hunting, and there has always been an out in the open “conspiracy” against them. if you espouse big government control and oversight of all Americans, you obviously don’t want free thinkers to be armed. It doesn’t take a conspiracy theorist to figure out that Diane Feinstein wants to watch and control all Americans, and disarming us is an important step for her and her ilk. Alex Jones and his gang may seem well intentioned, but what they really want is internet traffic. They want to sell you the movies and the water purifiers and the survival food and the male enhancement pills, PERIOD. Guns are just the latest thing on the conspiracy theory bandwagon because it “gets the buzz going.” They may be gun loving Americans at heart, but what is driving them today is the almighty but ever weakening $$$ dollar.
Diane Feinstein doesn’t care how much survival food you have in your bunker . But what she does have is the actual power to halt the production of an entire class of firearms and magazines, and she plans to do that, this week. Get out of your armchair and get into action.
Do not be fooled by a belief that progressives, leftists hate guns. Oh, no, they do not. What they hate is guns in the hands of those who are not marching in lock step of their ideology. They hate guns in the hands of those who think for themselves and do not obey without question. They hate guns in those whom they have slated for a barrel to the back of the ear.
We need this to go viral. Pass it to as many people as possible. Email your Congresmen and women.
Dianne Feinstein has released details for her proposed 2013 Assault Weapons Ban. This new Assault Weapons Ban is far more restrictive than the 1994 law she helped to pass. This new law will ban many popular handguns, rifles and shotguns and will require registration for most gun owners. Please get involved to stop this legislation now.
You may use this message to send to your Senators, Congressmen and the President:
Greetings,
Due to the recent events at Sandy Hook elementary school we now face renewed threats to our Constitutional rights. While I understand how painful the loss must be for those touched by this tragedy, blaming firearms or their owners and punishing them is not the answer to the challenges we face as a nation.
We already have laws that were violated by a man who was likely psychotic and heavily medicated. This man was stopped by the mandatory background check from purchasing firearms. He then decided to murder his mother and take her legally owned firearms to commit this tragedy.
If your true goal is to protect our children, then enact legislation that will do that. Banning firearms that are rarely used in crime (less than 1% of the time) is not going to stop such tragedies, that was proven in 1999 when the Columbine shooting took place under the 1994 ban. Do something meaningful, please. Make committing the insane easier. Put armed security guards in our schools. But do not strip us of our rights and property by passing additional anti-gun laws that have historically had no positive effect on crime in our nation or others.
Below is the transcript from the NRA press conference held earlier this morning:
The National Rifle Association’s 4 million mothers, fathers, sons and daughters join the nation in horror, outrage, grief and earnest prayer for the families of Newtown, Connecticut … who suffered such incomprehensible loss as a result of this unspeakable crime.
Out of respect for those grieving families, and until the facts are known, the NRA has refrained from comment. While some have tried to exploit tragedy for political gain, we have remained respectfully silent.
Now, we must speak … for the safety of our nation’s children. Because for all the noise and anger directed at us over the past week, no one — nobody — has addressed the most important, pressing and immediate question we face: How do we protect our children right now, starting today, in a way that we know works?
The only way to answer that question is to face up to the truth. Politicians pass laws for Gun-Free School Zones. They issue press releases bragging about them. They post signs advertising them. And in so doing, they tell every insane killer in America that schools are their safest place to inflict maximum mayhem with minimum risk.
How have our nation’s priorities gotten so far out of order? Think about it. We care about our money, so we protect our banks with armed guards. American airports, office buildings, power plants, courthouses — even sports stadiums — are all protected by armed security.
We care about the President, so we protect him with armed Secret Service agents. Members of Congress work in offices surrounded by armed Capitol Police officers.
Yet when it comes to the most beloved, innocent and vulnerable members of the American family — our children — we as a society leave them utterly defenseless, and the monsters and predators of this world know it and exploit it. That must change now!
The truth is that our society is populated by an unknown number of genuine monsters — people so deranged, so evil, so possessed by voices and driven by demons that no sane person can possibly ever comprehend them. They walk among us every day. And does anybody really believe that the next Adam Lanza isn’t planning his attack on a school he’s already identified at this very moment?
How many more copycats are waiting in the wings for their moment of fame — from a national media machine that rewards them with the wall-to-wall attention and sense of identity that they crave — while provoking others to try to make their mark? A dozen more killers? A hundred? More? How can we possibly even guess how many, given our nation’s refusal to create an active national database of the mentally ill?
And the fact is, that wouldn’t even begin to address the much larger and more lethal criminal class: Killers, robbers, rapists and drug gang members who have spread like cancer in every community in this country. Meanwhile, federal gun prosecutions have decreased by 40% — to the lowest levels in a decade.
So now, due to a declining willingness to prosecute dangerous criminals, violent crime is increasing again for the first time in 19 years! Add another hurricane, terrorist attack or some other natural or man-made disaster, and you’ve got a recipe for a national nightmare of violence and victimization.
And here’s another dirty little truth that the media try their best to conceal: There exists in this country a callous, corrupt and corrupting
shadow industry that sells, and sows, violence against its own people.
Through vicious, violent video games with names like Bulletstorm, Grand Theft Auto, Mortal Kombat and Splatterhouse. And here’s one: it’s called Kindergarten Killers. It’s been online for 10 years. How come my research department could find it and all of yours either couldn’t or didn’t want anyone to know you had found it?
Then there’s the blood-soaked slasher films like “American Psycho” and “Natural Born Killers” that are aired like propaganda loops on “Splatterdays” and every day, and a thousand music videos that portray life as a joke and murder as a way of life. And then they have the nerve to call it “entertainment.”
But is that what it really is? Isn’t fantasizing about killing people as a way to get your kicks really the filthiest form of pornography?
In a race to the bottom, media conglomerates compete with one another to shock, violate and offend every standard of civilized society by bringing an ever-more-toxic mix of reckless behavior and criminal cruelty into our homes — every minute of every day of every month of every year.
A child growing up in America witnesses 16,000 murders and 200,000 acts of violence by the time he or she reaches the ripe old age of 18. And throughout it all, too many in our national media … their corporate owners … and their stockholders … act as silent enablers, if not complicit co-conspirators.
Rather than face their own moral failings, the media demonize lawful gun owners, amplify their cries for more laws and fill the national debate with misinformation and dishonest thinking that only delay meaningful action and all but guarantee that the next atrocity is only a news cycle away.
The media call semi-automatic firearms “machine guns” — they claim these civilian semi-automatic firearms are used by the military, and they tell us that the .223 round is one of the most powerful rifle calibers … when all of these claims are factually untrue. They don’t know what they’re talking about!
Worse, they perpetuate the dangerous notion that one more gun ban — or one more law imposed on peaceful, lawful people — will protect us where 20,000 others have failed!
As brave, heroic and self-sacrificing as those teachers were in those classrooms, and as prompt, professional and well-trained as those police were when they responded, they were unable — through no fault of their own — to stop it.
As parents, we do everything we can to keep our children safe. It is now time for us to assume responsibility for their safety at school. The only way to stop a monster from killing our kids is to be personally involved and invested in a plan of absolute protection. The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Would you rather have your 911 call bring a good guy with a gun from a mile away … or a minute away?
Now, I can imagine the shocking headlines you’ll print tomorrow morning: “More guns,” you’ll claim, “are the NRA’s answer to everything!” Your implication will be that guns are evil and have no place in society, much less in our schools. But since when did the word “gun” automatically become a bad word?
A gun in the hands of a Secret Service agent protecting the President isn’t a bad word. A gun in the hands of a soldier protecting the United States isn’t a bad word. And when you hear the glass breaking in your living room at 3 a.m. and call 911, you won’t be able to pray hard enough for a gun in the hands of a good guy to get there fast enough to protect you.
So why is the idea of a gun good when it’s used to protect our President or our country or our police, but bad when it’s used to protect our children in their schools?
They’re our kids. They’re our responsibility. And it’s not just our duty to protect them — it’s our right to protect them.
You know, five years ago, after the Virginia Tech tragedy, when I said we should put armed security in every school, the media called me crazy. But what if, when Adam Lanza started shooting his way into Sandy Hook Elementary School last Friday, he had been confronted by qualified, armed security?
Will you at least admit it’s possible that 26 innocent lives might have been spared? Is that so abhorrent to you that you would rather continue to risk the alternative?
Is the press and political class here in Washington so consumed by fear and hatred of the NRA and America’s gun owners that you’re willing to accept a world where real resistance to evil monsters is a lone, unarmed school principal left to surrender her life to shield the children in her care? No one — regardless of personal political prejudice — has the right to impose that sacrifice.
Ladies and gentlemen, there is no national, one-size-fits-all solution to protecting our children. But do know this President zeroed out school
emergency planning grants in last year’s budget, and scrapped “Secure Our Schools” policing grants in next year’s budget. With all the foreign aid, with all the money in the federal budget, we can’t afford to put a police officer in every school? Even if they did that, politicians have no business — and no authority — denying us the right, the ability, or the moral imperative to protect ourselves and our loved ones from harm.
Now, the National Rifle Association knows that there are millions of qualified active and retired police; active, reserve and retired military;
security professionals; certified firefighters and rescue personnel; and an extraordinary corps of patriotic, trained qualified citizens to join
with local school officials and police in devising a protection plan for every school. We can deploy them to protect our kids now. We can immediately make America’s schools safer — relying on the brave men and women of America’s police force.
The budget of our local police departments are strained and resources are limited, but their dedication and courage are second to none and they can be deployed right now.
I call on Congress today to act immediately, to appropriate whatever is necessary to put armed police officers in every school — and to do it
now, to make sure that blanket of safety is in place when our children return to school in January.
Before Congress reconvenes, before we engage in any lengthy debate over legislation, regulation or anything else, as soon as our kids return
to school after the holiday break, we need to have every single school in America immediately deploy a protection program proven to work —
and by that I mean armed security.
Right now, today, every school in the United States should plan meetings with parents, school administrators, teachers and local authorities — and draw upon every resource available — to erect a cordon of protection around our kids right now. Every school will have a different solution based on its own unique situation.
Every school in America needs to immediately identify, dedicate and deploy the resources necessary to put these security forces in place right now. And the National Rifle Association, as America’s preeminent trainer of law enforcement and security personnel for the past 50 years, is ready, willing and uniquely qualified to help.
Our training programs are the most advanced in the world. That expertise must be brought to bear to protect our schools and our children now. We did it for the nation’s defense industries and military installations during World War II, and we’ll do it for our schools today.
The NRA is going to bring all of its knowledge, dedication and resources to develop a model National School Shield Emergency Response Program for every school that wants it. From armed security to building design and access control to information technology to student and teacher training, this multi-faceted program will be developed by the very best experts in their fields.
Former Congressman Asa Hutchinson will lead this effort as National Director of the National School Shield Program, with a budget provided by the NRA of whatever scope the task requires. His experience as a U.S. Attorney, Director of the Drug Enforcement Agency and Undersecretary of the Department of Homeland Security will give him the knowledge and expertise to hire the most knowledgeable and credentialed experts available anywhere, to get this program up and running from the first day forward.
If we truly cherish our kids more than our money or our celebrities, we must give them the greatest level of protection possible and the security that is only available with a properly trained — armed — good guy.
Under Asa’s leadership, our team of security experts will make this the best program in the world for protecting our children at school, and we will make that program available to every school in America free of charge.
That’s a plan of action that can, and will, make a real, positive and indisputable difference in the safety of our children — starting right now.
There’ll be time for talk and debate later. This is the time, this is the day for decisive action. We can’t wait for the next unspeakable crime to happen before we act. We can’t lose precious time debating legislation that won’t work. We mustn’t allow politics or personal prejudice to divide us.
We must act now.
For the sake of the safety of every child in America, I call on every parent, every teacher, every school administrator and every law enforcement officer in this country to join us in the National School Shield Program and protect our children with the only line of positive defense that’s tested and proven to work. And now, to tell you more about the program, I’d like to introduce the head of that effort — a former U.S. congressman, former U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Arkansas and former administrator of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, the Honorable Asa Hutchinson.
ASA HUTCHINSON
Thank you, Wayne.
One of the first responsibilities I learned at Homeland Security was the importance of protecting our nation’s critical infrastructure, and there is nothing more critical to our nation’s well being than our children’s safety. They are this country’s future and her most precious resource.
We all understand that our children should be safe in school, but it is also essential that the parents have confidence in that safety. As a result of the tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut, that confidence has been shattered. Assurance of school safety must be restored with a sense of urgency.
That is why I am grateful that the NRA has asked me to lead a team of security experts to assist our schools, parents and communities. I took this assignment on one condition: That my team of experts will be independent and will be guided solely by what are the best security solutions for the safety of our children while at school.
Even though we are just starting this process, I envision this initiative will have two key elements: First, it would be based on a model security plan — a comprehensive strategy for school security based on the latest, most up-to-date technical information from the foremost experts in their fields.
This model security plan will serve as a template — a set of best practices, principles and guidelines that every school in America can tweak, if needed, and tailor to their own set of circumstances.
Every school and community is different, but this model security plan will allow every school to choose among its various components to develop a school safety strategy that fits their own unique situation, whether it’s a large urban school, a small rural school or anything in between.
Armed, trained, qualified school security personnel will be one element of that plan, but by no means the only element. If a school decides for whatever reason that it doesn’t want or need armed security personnel, that of course is a decision to be made by parents at the local level.
The second point I want to make is that this will be a program that doesn’t depend on massive funding from local authorities or the federal government.
Instead, it’ll make use of local volunteers serving in their own communities.
In my home state of Arkansas, my son was a volunteer with a local group called “Watchdog Dads,” who volunteer their time at schools to patrol playgrounds and provide a measure of added security. Whether they’re retired police, retired military or rescue personnel, I think there are people in every community in this country, who would be happy to serve, if only someone asked them and gave them the training and certification to do so.
The National Rifle Association is the natural, obvious choice to sponsor this program. Their gun safety, marksmanship and hunter education programs have set the standard for well over a century. Over the past 25 years, their Eddie Eagle Gunsafe Program has taught over 26 million kids that real guns aren’t toys and, today, child gun accidents are at the lowest levels ever recorded.
School safety is a complex issue with no simple, single solution. But I believe trained, qualified, armed security is one key component among many that can provide the first line of deterrence as well as the last line of defense. And I welcome the opportunity to serve in this vital, potentially lifesaving effort.
There are no words for what happened in Connecticut this past week. It was a travesty like nothing else. My heart breaks for the children and adults that were killed by a tortured young man and for the families and friends who were devastated by this act of a lunatic.
Our president and the press immediately jumped on this to go after the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. They have been using jargon, incorrect terminology, statistics, as if it were fact.
The president called on Congress Wednesday to reinstate an assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 and to pass legislation that would close the gun show “loophole,” which allows people to purchase firearms from private dealers without a background check. Obama also said he wanted Congress to pursue the possibility of limiting high-capacity ammunition clips. [6] Nancy Pelosi is now asking for a ban of “Assault Magazines”. Again there is NO SUCH ANIMAL! If you are going to try to argue, PLEASE learn the correct terminology. Otherwise you sound like a total fool. [9]
Let’s get something straight. An AR-15 IS NOT an assault weapon. It is a semi-automatic rifle. The media put the label assault weapon on guns with plastic furniture. To be honest, you can do more damage with a 12-gauge shotgun than with an AR15. The term “assault weapon” was a spin-off of the U.S. military’s definition of assault rifles. The U.S. Department of Defense has long defined assault rifles as fully automatic rifles used for military purposes, not semi-automatic. In 1954, Eugene Stoner designed the AR15 for Armalite. Armalite sold the patents to Colt and in1959 the AR15 was introduced to the public. Early Colt AR-15s, their magazines, and their operator’s manuals were marked with ArmaLite’s name. Colt retained the AR-15 designation on commercial rifles. To this day Colt has a model designation with the letters AR, which stands for “ArmaLite Rifle” NOT “Assault Rifle” which most people assume it means. [8]
Fully automatic weapons have been prohibited in the U.S. since the National Firearms Act of 1934. Fully automatic firearms can spray fire with a single pull of the trigger, while semi-automatic guns fire one shot with each pull of the trigger. You can purchase full auto but the paperwork and price is prohibitive. For example: A Class III M16 which is what the AR15 is based on starts at $15,000 IF you can even find one for sale. The National Firearms Act of 1934 is very strict. [10]
I would love for someone to explain what the gun show loophole is? Do any of you really know? There is no loophole. All firearms purchased at gun shows must have the proper paperwork filled out and a background check is done on each person who purchases a firearm. Each purchase is run through the national database run by the ATF, FBI and State Police in each State. The purchase cannot be completed until the background check is run and approved. There is no such thing as a “private dealer”. All dealers MUST possess a Federal Firearms License more commonly known as an FFL and run the background check. It is a felony not to.
Obama has no idea what he is talking about. There is no such animal as a “high capacity clip”. There are magazines and clips. Clips feed a magazine a magazine feeds the firearm. He is referring to a magazine that holds more than ten rounds.
I would appreciate everyone to watch this video “The Truth About Assault Weapons” and educate yourself as to what an assault weapon really is. Once you get your terminology straight we can have an honest discussion about this. I can almost bet that 99.9% of the people in this country have no real knowledge of firearms except what they hear and see in the news, movies and television. Here is the link to the video:
Semi-automatic firearms were introduced in the late 1800s, but gun control supporters didn’t begin calling them “assault weapons” until the 1980s, when they realized that they had failed in their original goal—getting handguns banned—and needed a new issue. That assessment is not based upon a mere hunch. In 1988, an anti-handgun group led by the former communications director for the National Coalition to Ban Handguns encouraged gun control supporters to recognize that efforts to get handguns banned had failed and to shift their energies to semi-automatic “assault weapons,” describing it as a “new topic” that could “strengthen the handgun restriction lobby.”
For the benefit of people who aren’t familiar with firearm terminology, a fully automatic firearm can fire repeatedly and very fast when the trigger is pulled; an example is the military’s M16 rifle, which can fire 30 rounds of ammunition in about 2.5 seconds. Fully automatic firearms are defined as “machine guns” under federal law, and are heavily regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, and longstanding state laws. Hollywood movie studios are allowed to use fully-automatic firearms for movie-making purposes, so most people are familiar with them from their use by fictional action heroes, pretending to mow down extraterrestrial aliens and other sensational adversaries with exaggerated amounts of make-believe gunfire. However, other than for gun control supporters’ propaganda purposes, fully automatic firearms have nothing to do with semi-automatic “assault weapon” legislation or laws, all of which have come about since the early 1980s.
Semi-automatics and all other firearms, such as bolt-actions, pump-actions, lever-actions, revolvers, double-barreled shotguns, and single-shot firearms, fire only once when the trigger is pulled. They’ve been commonly used for self-defense, hunting and target shooting for more than a century. Though gun control supporters initially demanded that only semi-automatic firearms be banned as “assault weapons,” today they want pump-actions banned as “assault weapons” too, apparently on the theory that people who don’t know one century-old firearm type from another will go along with banning it, so long as it’s called an “assault weapon.” (2)
So-called “assault weapons” aren’t fully automatic machine guns, or “military,” or “rapid-fire” “weapons of war” “designed for “combat” or “the battlefield,” or “designed to be spray-fired from the hip.” But gun control supporters and some in the media refer to the guns in that manner. TV news programs even go so far as to show fully automatic machine guns being fired during stories about semi-automatic “assault weapons.”
Dow Jones Factiva search found over 90,000 newspaper articles and editorials referring to semi-automatic firearms as “assault” guns since Jan. 1, 1985, and thousands of them used other verbiage appropriate only to fully automatic machine guns. Many appeared in the weeks before the federal semi-automatic “assault weapon” ban was imposed in 1994, and before it expired in 2004, periods during which gun control supporters were trying to panic the public into urging Congress to vote for the ban.
As noted above, in 1980 the New York Times incorrectly and oxymoronically referred to moderately powered semi-automatics designed for civilians as “high-powered semiautomatic military assault weapons.” In 1985, Newsweek incorrectly and hyperbolically referred to semi-automatic firearms as “machine guns,” “automatic weapons,” “military-style assault guns,” and “modern combat weapons,” and with other such terms. And in 1988, the New Right Watch said “[T]he public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons — anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun — can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.”
In 1989, following a crime involving a semi-automatic rifle, Time magazine, having previously said that it didn’t consider itself obligated to be objective about guns, after having been challenged about its earlier articles containing unsupported, provocative statements advocating gun control, led the media’s campaign for a national gun ban with its “Armed America” issue, employing a Halloween-style cover. Scary covers are a newsstand sales gimmick for which Time has become known, inspiring Reason magazine to compose a “Top 10 list of the most horrifying, silly, irresponsible, or downright ridiculous Time cover panics from the past 40 years.”
Other than for gun control supporters’ propaganda purposes, fully automatic machine guns used by the military “on foreign battlefields” have nothing to do with the semi-automatic “assault weapon” issue. As noted, fully-automatics — commonly seen on TV or YouTube.com being used by our troops against al-Qaeda and the Taliban, or by Hollywood action heroes, mowing down extraterrestrial aliens and other sensational adversaries — can fire repeatedly, as long as the trigger is held down. For that reason, they’ve been defined as “machineguns” and heavily regulated by the National Firearms Act since 1934, their importation and manufacture for private purposes have been prohibited under the Gun Control Act since 1968 and 1986, respectively, and they’ve been prohibited in about half the states for decades. By comparison, semi-automatic firearms, which gun control supporters call “assault weapons,” fire only one shot when the trigger is pulled.
On Nov. 17, 1993, just before the Senate voted for the federal “assault weapon ban,” NBC’s Today show tried to encourage the legislation’s passage with a story that showed fully automatic machine guns being fired, falsely portraying such guns as the type covered by the legislation. Criticized for its error, NBC admitted in writing that it had made a “mistake,” but it ran more machine gun footage in another “assault weapon” story two weeks later, and again in April 1994, just before the House of Representatives voted on the proposed ban.
A decade later, just before the 10-year federal “assault weapon” ban expired in 2004 — when gun control supporters were trying to panic people into urging Congress to make the ban permanent — CNN’s John Zarella teamed with gun control supporter Ken Jenne — later convicted of mail fraud and tax evasion, and sent to a federal penitentiary — in a story showing a fully-automatic machine gun being fired, followed by Zarella and Jenne falsely claiming that guns of that type would be freely sold if Congress allowed the 1994 “semi-automatic assault weapon” ban to expire.
Similarly, in 2009, NBC-5 Chicago reporter Kim Vatis teamed with gun control supporter Andrew Traver, the Special Agent in Charge of BATFE’s Chicago office, nominated by President Obama to be promoted to the agency’s director, to deceive TV viewers about the kinds of guns that were affected by the federal “assault weapon” ban. “It’s a killing machine. Assault weapons (sic) made for the war zone,” Vatis intones, as video footage of overseas war zones rolls, the sounds of machine guns being fired echoing in the background. Vatis’ and Travers’ sham continues with the pair taking turns recklessly firing a fully-automatic machine gun, a type of firearm that is indeed common to overseas war zones, but which has nothing to with the semi-automatic “assault weapon” ban.
Pretending that she is about to fire a semi-automatic “assault weapon,” Vatis says that the gun–in fact, a fully automatic machinegun possessed by the BATFE–is “almost impossible to control.” Then, to prove the point, Vatis appears to deliberately wave the machine gun back and forth as she wildly fires a large quantity of ammunition over a wide area, a dangerous stunt that Travers should have known better than to allow. The text version of Vatis’ story–as inaccurate as her gunfire–disapprovingly notes, “The assault weapon ban expired in 2004.” [3]
I do feel that anyone who is going to own a firearm should have to go through a psych exam, training and qualification in order to purchase and own. Just as you have to take classes and qualify to drive a car. There are more car fatalities than gun fatalities in the United States. http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/05/bruce-krafft/comparing-car-and-gun-fatalities-is-misleading-and-irrelevant/ and have to re-qualify once a year or every other year just as law enforcement does.
What happened in CT is horrible and should have never have happened. However, if this whack job wanted to kill people he didn’t need guns. He could have built a bomb just like the crazies in Oklahoma City. They used kerosene and fertilizer to make the bomb and a rental van to deliver it. So should we ban fertilizer, kerosene and rental vans? Richard Speck the serial killer strangled women with their own panty hose and then stabbed them with a knife. Should we ban panty hose and knives? What about the lunatics running around stabbing children to death in China? No guns involved and children are dead. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/7715249/China-censors-attack-news-to-calm-panic-after-ninth-child-stabbing-in-weeks.html. If these nut jobs want to kill, they will. No regulation is going to stop them.
It has now been over 10 years since gun owners in Australia were forced by law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own Government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. It didn’t work. Crime is up in Australia.
While the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns. Criminals in Australia now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws ONLY adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens. I find it interesting that the States with the very strict gun laws are the States where all these killings are happening. The revisionist history of anti-rights proponents who claim that since Australia instituted their gun ban, there have been no mass murders, despite the recent “gun-free” massacre of 135 Australians. [7]
Look what happened in Norway last year. Did the gun ban prevent a mass killing? I think not. (1)Norway already has strict regulation of firearms, but this is an irrelevance when considering the actions of Anders Breivik. There are also laws in that country against impersonating a police officer, against setting off bombs, and against massacring children. Most people follow these. But then, most people are not the problem. Most people do not get out of bed and plan terrorist attacks. Those who do are beyond the law and will not be constrained by changes to it. In a free society, maniacs will always find a way.
This is not a new concept. Cesare Baccaria outlined this truth in his seminal book Crimes & Punishments in 1764, in a passage that made such an impression upon Thomas Jefferson that he copied it into his daybook and quoted it at length in letters to his nephew and to
James Madison:
The laws of this nature are those which forbid to wear arms, disarming those only who are not disposed to commit the crime which the laws mean to prevent. Can it be supposed, that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, and the most important of the code, will respect the less considerable and arbitrary injunctions, the violation of which is so easy, and of so little comparative importance? Does not the execution of this law deprive the subject of that personal liberty, so dear to mankind and to the wise legislator? And does it not subject the innocent to all the disagreeable circumstances that should only fall on the guilty? It certainly makes the situation of the assaulted worse and of the assailants better, and rather encourages than prevents murder, as it requires less courage to attack unarmed than armed persons.
A better question than “How did the shooter get his guns?” is “What would have happened had others at Utøya had had access to weapons too?” If Breivik had been denied his monopoly on violence, we may have read a different story. As it was, Breivik could have been fairly confident that he would not be challenged — even by the police, who are unarmed except in special circumstances, and who took an hour and a half to get to the scene.
Norway’s system is the worst of both worlds. Licenses are tied to interests — farming, hunting, sports — rather than to rights. Transportation of firearms is heavily restricted, and there is no such thing as a concealed-carry permit. The police are unarmed. We have heard much about how “uncontroversial” the issue is in Norway, but it should be more so. Currently, it is a veritable paradise for those with ill intent who know that their actions will go unchecked.
The United States is no stranger to gun violence, but it is inconceivable that a shooter could have terrorized such a large area for an hour and a half with impunity in, say, Idaho. When Charles Whitman ran amok at the University of Texas in 1966, his intended victims started shooting back. A policeman eventually killed him. As John Lott Jr. has persuasively argued, the relationship between guns and crime is counter intuitive; even those who do not own guns are protected by those who do, both actively and, because criminal behavior is affected by calculation of risk, passively.
To live in freedom is to expose ourselves to the occasional outburst of the insane and the criminal. We cannot stop those who have evil in their hearts, but we can make sure that those who do not — the citizenry and the police — are given a fighting chance to protect us all.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention studied the “assault weapon” ban of 1994 and other gun control attempts, and found “insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence.” A 2004 critical review of research on firearms by a National Research Council panel also noted that academic studies of the assault weapon ban “did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence” and noted “due to the fact that the relative rarity with which the banned guns were used in crime before the ban … the maximum potential effect of the ban on gun violence outcomes would be very small.”
The United States Department of Justice National Institute of Justice found should the ban be renewed, its effects on gun violence would likely be small, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement, because rifles in general, including rifles referred to as “assault rifles” or “assault weapons”, are rarely used in gun crimes.
That study by Christopher S. Koper, Daniel J. Woods, and Jeffrey A. Roth of the Jerry Lee Center of Criminology, University of Pennsylvania found no statistically significant evidence that either the assault weapons ban or the ban on magazines holding more than 10 bullets had reduced gun murders.
Research by John Lott in the 2000 second edition of More Guns, Less Crime provided the first research on state and the Federal Assault Weapon Bans. The 2010 third edition provided the first empirical research on the 2004 sunset of the Federal Assault Weapon Ban. Generally, the research found no impact of these bans on violent crime rates, though the third edition provided some evidence that Assault Weapon Bans slightly increased murder rates. Lott’s book The Bias Against Guns provided evidence that the bans reduced the number of gun shows by over 20 percent. Koper, Woods, and Roth studies focus on gun murders, while Lott’s looks at murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assaults. Unlike their work, Lott’s research accounted for state Assault Weapon Bans and 12 other different types of gun control laws.
Again I will say that a psych exam, training, qualification and re-qualification should be required for anyone to own a firearm.
China has censored news of school attacks in an attempt to calm public panic after seven toddlers were hacked to death with a cleaver in the ninth violent assault on children in weeks. [5]
All Israeli children are protected by at least one armed person in every school, on every school bus, at school functions and field trips. Parents and teachers are trained and armed. They volunteer to protect their children because they love them. They made a conscious decision that killing them would never again be made so easy. Last week, a total of zero children died in school shootings in Israel. [4]
So you don’t need a gun to commit a mass murder. As I stated earlier, did the whackjobs in Oklahoma City use guns? No, they used fertilizer and kerosene with a truck delivery system. So should we ban fertilizer, kerosene and trucks? Richard Speck the serial killer used panty hose and knives to kill his victims. Should we outlaw panty hose and knives?
The bottom line is this: The Connecticut shooter was an emotionally disturbed young man who snapped, took his mother’s guns and killed as many people as he could. A knife, a baseball bat, a chainsaw or even his bare hands could have had the same results.
The “conversation” we should be having is whether there are ways to identify such troubled individuals early and intervene with appropriate mental health services so that the Adam Lanzas of the world never get to the point of picking up a gun or any other weapon.
With guns, we are ‘citizens’. Without them, we are ‘subjects’.
So once again, please know what you are talking about before you start making statements about what you think you know is fact.
Myself and a few friends have been bantering back and forth via emails about the shooting in Sanford, Florida last month. A few of the guys on the email list are cops and a few are lawyers. The lawyers wanted to hear about this from a cop’s perspective. Here is just one of them:
It does sound like Zimmerman took some lumps but that’s problematic too if he forced the confrontation with Trayvon thus causing Travon to have to kick his ass in self defense. Could be a chicken or the egg thing that only a patient investigation can answer, which is why it was reasonable for cops not to arrest him on the spot, something that the Sharptonites are not capable of understanding.
This is an email a cop friend in Florida wrote to a lawyer friend of mine:
The Sanford situation has been blown way out of proportion. Yes the police made mistakes but not because they did not arrest the shooter on the spot. Here’s the problem from my perspective as a cop. First, you have to understand how the machinery works in bringing criminal charges. The police can make an arrest on the spot if they have the necessary probable cause, a term I don’t have to explain to you since you’re an attorney. Or, if the case is not so incredibly clear enough to be comfortable in making the physical arrest on the spot, the police can conduct an investigation, compile all the investigative prosecutive information into a case package and then forward it to the prosecutor’s office (the State Attorney’s Office as it is known in Florida), and the State Attorney will give it the review and do whatever they want to do, which can be to issue a warrant for an arrest, take it to the grand jury, or nolle prosse (not prosecute the case), or or maybe send the bad guy to some other diversion program, yada yada.
In the Sanford case, the complication is that there were NO eyewitnesses to this shooting. Yes, there are some folks who consider themselves witnesses for having heard a shot and came outside to see the fallen body and the guy with the gun etc,, but not a single one of these witnesses when it comes down to it SAW the shooting or the scuffle between Zimmerman and Martin that preceded it. Does it seem like Zimmerman is some type of cop wannabe who thinks of himself as neighborhood protector – absolutely, did Zimmerman follow the kid even after the police dispatcher told him he should stop, absolutely, was Zimmerman heard to make comments about “these assholes getting away with it,” absolutely. Could Zimmerman have self-created his own dilemma by forcing the confrontation that made the kid feel that he himself was in fear of Zimmerman and felt he had no option but to fight with Zimmerman, absolutely. A lot of good questions, that could not be answered on the spot in the absence of eyewitnesses. Thus, this case required further investigation, much more in-depth investigation. Another issue is the speedy trial rule, which in Florida means that when an arrest is made, the trial must be held within 175 days, unless of course the defendant himself asks for a continuation. An investigation of this scope could well take longer than 175 days, so it could very possibly jeopardize the case to make the arrest on the spot with very little to support the case, and then be under pressure to try to build the case before speedy trial runs. A hurried investigation is too often a mistake riddled investigation. The prudent thing for the police to do in the absence of eyewitnesses and physical evidence, is to take the time to investigate fully, find answers to all of these questions and hopefully even for more evidence, not for the benefit of Zimmerman to keep him out of jail because he is white as the Sharptonites want everyone to believe, but to put the strongest case together against him so that when the case is presented to the prosecutor and or grand jury, it would be the strongest possible against Zimmerman. This is what Sanford PD chose to do.
The mistake that the Sanford police made is that they failed to hold press conferences immediately early on to explain to the family of Trayvon and the community, exactly all of this that I just explained to you. There was not one single iota of that kind of community outreach by the Sanford police to explain this process. And that lack of communication and outreach is what led the family and community to conclude that just because an arrest wasn’t made on the spot, Sanford PD was doing nothing. And you know the rest, without answers and communication, they left the community to come up with their own answers and explanations, and considering, I’ll try to put this delicately – the “demographic” of the community involved as is often the case, they supplied the answers and explanations themselves in the worst possible light – racism of course. What a shock. Begin the Million Hoodie march, begin the Occupy Sanford movement, bring in the Sharpton – the king (and by the way confirmed discredited) race-baiter purveyor or race hatred, and here is where we are.
Again Sanford PD’s error was not in not making the arrest on-scene the night of the shooting, their mistake was in their piss poor public relations in reaching out to the family and community with the whys and wherefores of the investigation. And because of that failure by Sanford PD we are now at a bad place that has me nervous. The Governor has now appointed a special prosecutor to prosecute the case. Well and good, but what happens if in the end, the prosecution still feels that even though we all believe Zimmerman is every bit the bad egg that everyone makes him out to be, there isn’t enough to prosecute him for some degree of homicide, or if they do, he isn’t convicted. I fear the black community will never accept it, and the result will be Rodney King styled riots again, with violence and more death.
As for the Stand Your Ground Law, it should not surprise you that I don’t see a problem with this law and I support it. I don’t think the stand your ground law caused this problem. I believe Zimmerman was hell bent to cause that confrontation with Trayvon Martin, and he was probably far too dim witted, and it’s giving his dim witted brain far too much credit, to have processed that he would intentionally kill Trayvon with the well thought out plan to then invoke the stand your ground law’s “I was in fear of my life and had the right to defend myself” intent. Again, Zimmerman is a known cop wannabe who would have done this if not now, at some time, to someone else, regardless of the stand your ground law.
Here’s what else turns my stomach. The Sharptonites have put the Sanford city commissioners in such fear that they have voted a no confidence on the police chief and the chief has now stepped down. So another words, the black community went crazy pumped up by the race card playing Sharpton baiters and through fear and intimidation they got the bb balled city commission to cave and oust the police chief. The message then – anytime something doesn’t go just right for someone in the Sanford’s black community, I’ll go ahead and even exaggerate just a little to make the point – say, a traffic ticket that a black person feels was unfair, the racism accusations will fly, the Sharptonites will rally the masses to descend on City Hall, the bb balled city commissioners will then cave again and oust another police chief. Who in the hell would want to apply for the police chief job in that town now. I can tell you that over the past 10-15 years there has been talk of disbanding the Sanford PD and just let the county sheriff’s office take over law enforcement service there. The reasons for that talk in the past had been mostly budgetary, but I can assure you the talk will pick up again, and that town could conceivably lose its police department over this. I wish that Sanford PD had the common sense to have employed the proper public relations and community outreach at the beginning of this case with the reasons and explanations for why they went the direction they did, and we might not be where we are today. Sanford PD’s incompetence in that regard is indisputable.
This is a special notice to warn you of impending new gun regulation. The BATFE has proposed to require gun dealers to provide directly to the BATFE the names, addresses, and serial numbers for every purchase of two or more semi auto, mag fed rifles within a five day period!! They are trying to force this in by January 5th, without any approval from Congress, calling it a needed “emergency” regulation. This is backdoor registration of guns and gun owners.
Here is a quote from the notice by the NSSF (National Shooting Sports Foundation) regarding this burdensome and illegal move:
“The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is moving to require federally licensed firearms retailers to report multiple sales of modern sporting rifles beginning January 5, 2011. Specifically, the ATF requirement calls for firearms retailers to report multiple sales, or other dispositions, of two or more .22 caliber or larger semi-automatic rifles that are capable of accepting a detachable magazine and are purchased by the same individual within five consecutive business days.”
We are encouraging everyone to contact the relevant officials to protest this move. The office that approves regulation changes like this that bypass Congress is the Office of Information and Regulation affairs of the DOJ and they can be reached at 202-395-6466. You can call your Senator and Representative at the US Capitol switchboard at 202-224-3121.
The NSSF offers the following points to make when calling
“Multiple sales reporting of long guns will actually make it more difficult for licensed retailers to help law enforcement as traffickers modify their illegal schemes to circumvent the reporting requirement. Traffickers will go further underground, hiring more people to buy their firearms. This will make it much harder for retailers to identify and report suspicious behavior to law enforcement.”
“Long guns are rarely used in crime (Bureau of Justice Statistics).”
“Imposing multiple sales-reporting requirements for long guns would further add to the already extensive paperwork and record-keeping requirements burdening America’s retailers – where a single mistake could cost them their license and even land them in jail.”
“Last year, ATF inspected 2,000 retailers in border states and only two licenses were revoked (0.1%). These revocations were for reasons unknown and could have had nothing to do with illicit trafficking of guns; furthermore, no dealers were charged with any criminal wrongdoing.”
“According to ATF, the average age of a firearm recovered in the United States is 11 years old. In Mexico it’s more than 14 years old. This demonstrates that criminals are not using new guns bought from retailers in the states.”
“Congress, when it enacted multiple sales reporting for handguns, could have required multiple sales of long guns – it specifically chose not to.”
Read the full notice by the NSSF here: http://www.nssfblog.com/atf-to-require-multiple-sales-reports-for-long-guns/
How simple is this concept to understand. ARE YOU LISTENING BARRY, MAYOR DALEY, UN, et al? Listen to this Swiss gentleman’s last quote: “The key to freedom is the ability to be able to defend yourself, and if you don’t have the tools to do that, then you are at the mercy of whoever wants to put you away – and the tools for us are guns!”
No mystery why Switzerland has never been attacked.
During WW II a Japanese admiral was once asked about invading the US. He said the Japanese equivalent of saying: “No way! There’d be a sniper behind every blade of grass.”
This was sent to me by a friend. He gave me permission to post this:
Dear Attorney General Holder,
I assume you’re aware of the perpetual drug-war with Mexico is in “full swing” in these early days of 2009 since this war is broadcast on CNN every night. As reported by the Anderson Cooper 360 Show on 3/26/09 I learned a U.S. Marshall named Vincent Bustamante was shot in the head at the Mexican border. I believe it is safe to assume that Mr. Bustamante was killed on American soil then his body was dragged over to Mexico so the patronizing news networks couldn’t report the truth as it happened so as to not inflame things anymore than they are right now. As reported by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, “….kidnapping are up in Phoenix.” -CNN 3/24/09. Also as reported by Leo Shane III of Stars and Stripes “…In the last year more than 7,000 people have been killed in fighting in Mexico as the country’s military battles drug cartels entrenched throughout the country.” “…Phoenix officials reported a sharp rise in kidnappings last year, with more than 300 kidnappings in 2008. Most involved Mexican immigrants with family ties to the drug cartels.”.
The Batista family as reported by Larry King had a family member that was recently kidnapped and held for ransom by the Mexican drug cartel back in December of 2008. The Batista family still has no answers to their relative’s whereabouts.
Do you really feel it would be a wise decision for you to go to the good American people of Phoenix Arizona and El Paso Texas and tell them that they will soon be disarmed caused by your insistence with the Office of The President to once again implement an archaic and failed idea? The first “weapons” ban in 1993 helped nobody but criminals because as you know, they obtain their weapons illegally. Americans have grown tired of out-of-touch law makers thumbing their nose at our 2nd Amendment and we don’t want this posturing again.
It matters not you’ve said “during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make…” sir. -February 25 2009. Disarming Americans, ignoring or attempting to re-write the 2nd Amendment, over-regulating the 2nd Amendment out of existence has not and will not work. I should remind you that the first gun ban didn’t stop at “just a few guns”.
In the midst of a war with a drug cartel so close to American soil that obviously have automatic weapons and no qualms in kidnapping Americans on American soil I will add, rekindling a socialist idea when it directly and immediately affects people’s lives may just create lawlessness and of course another spike in gun sales which is what you and President Obama want to avoid in the first place.
We the people have the right, whether you like it or not, to defend ourselves, our property and person. No governing body can legislate self-protection into oblivion.
It also should be obvious to you sir the number of U.S. Reserves or law enforcement officers at the border is almost irrelevant: the killings and kidnappings are still occurring, the thugs are still finding their way into America sir.
The American people will not sit ideally by and watch the eroding of their rights, especially today. The good folk near the drug border obviously can not depend, nor should they have to, on law enforcement when they have a right to bear arms at least for a little while longer right?
If your anti-2nd Amendment legislation passes, which it probably will due to a liberal House and Senate, then the law abiding citizens near the two thousand mile long drug border will have only but a telephone to defend themselves come their inevitable clash with the machinegun toting killers they lay in wait for them so close to their home. What a shame sir, what a shame.
