VA-ALERT: VCDL Update 4/11/16
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not yet a Virginia Citizens Defense League member? Join VCDL at: http://www.vcdl.org/join
----------------------------------------------------------------------
VCDL's meeting schedule: http://www.vcdl.org/meetings
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Abbreviations used in VA-ALERT: http://www.vcdl.org/help/abbr.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
VA-ALERT archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/727/=now
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Prince William County lowers CHP fees to $15!
2. Heavy Heart: R.I.P. John Taylor
3. VCDL will have first online membership meeting on April 27
4. HELP NEEDED: Dale City gun show on April 16-17
5. VCDL has new Fredericksburg gun show coordinator!
6. Fresh Market adopts anti-gun policy, sort of
7. Shameful: 260,000 vets have their gun rights revoked since December
8. A day at the nations's gun show in Dulles
9. Virginia Firearm sales spike in December, jump 9 percent overall in 2015
10. Virginia gun show attendees no fans of President Obama, or his policies
11. Executive Gun Control: Five seniors Obama might have disarmed
12. In one year, gun owners stopped hundreds of criminals, saved countless lives
13. Gun show loophole [VIDEO]
14. A snarling Obama issues a gun fatwa
15. As Obama prepares executive order on guns, BBC News visits American gun show [VIDEO]
16. Obama, Dems all in on gun control in 2016
17. Why are leftists so gung-ho about shooting Americans for disobeying government?
18. On guns, the Democrats aren't serious
19. What schools can do to reduce gun violence
**************************************************
1. Prince William County lowers CHP fees to $15!
**************************************************
Prince William County Board of Supervisors member Corey Stewart brought up the issue of lowering CHP fees and on his second try got it done!
The CHP fee in Prince William County is now $15.
Good work, Corey!
**************************************************
2. Heavy Heart: R.I.P. John Taylor
**************************************************
It’s with a heavy heart that I have to announce the passing of John Taylor. John was a serious patriot who never settled for lip service in pursuing liberty. He created the Virginia Institute for Public Policy and also Tertium Quids, which hosts the Tuesday Morning Group Coalition that meets in Richmond regularly to bring together legislators and various freedom groups, including Second Amendment organizations, to discuss ways to move forward on liberty. John had invited me to address the group several times over the years.
This article talks about the many contributions to our liberty made by John Taylor:
http://bearingdrift.com/2016/04/08/rip- ... f-liberty/
-
MEMORIAL ON TUESDAY
John’s eldest son, Caleb sent this to me:
For all of my father’s friends,
Please join us for a Memorial Service in honor of my father, John Taylor, to be held at the Hanover Tavern in Hanover, Virginia, north of Richmond. The Memorial Service will begin at 2:00 pm on Tuesday the 12th of April, followed by a reception in the fittingly titled “Taylor Room.”
My mother, brothers and I felt this venue so fitting given my father’s adoration of both history and bourbon in equal measure. We welcome all who held my father in love and esteem to join us to honor his life and work.
Our family requests that, in lieu of flowers, you consider supporting my father’s passion for Liberty. For the last 20 years my father and mother have fought for the freedom of Virginians – all Virginians. They built the Virginia Institute for Public Policy into a force for self-governance in the Commonwealth and it is my mother’s desire to assume this mantle fully and continue the fight on my father’s behalf. For that reason we ask you to consider making a donation that will sow seeds of freedom rather than send flowers that will wilt in days. We also covet your prayers for my mother as the Virginia Institute prepares for the future.
Address:
Hanover Tavern
13181 Hanover Courthouse Rd.
Hanover, VA 23069
**************************************************
3. VCDL will have first online membership meeting on April 27
**************************************************
"Normal" VCDL mebership meetings are held in various spots throughout Virginia. Many people write into VCDL and would like us to have meetings in their area or for other reasons, they can't travel to a meeting.. So, we are going to try something new!
We will have a LIVE membership meeting ONLINE on 4/27/16 from 7PM to 8:30PM at http://www.megahotradio.com/live-radio-stream/
The night of the meeting, we will post how to participate by sending in questions or comments. Before then, if you have questions about this event, you can send them to ed.levine@vcdl.org
Thanks to EM Ed Levine for the idea to do this and making the technical arrangements with megahotradio.com.
**************************************************
4. HELP NEEDED: Dale City gun show on April 16-17
**************************************************
Help needed at the Dale City gun show on the following days/times:
Saturday, April 16: 9 AM to noon, noon to 5 PM
Sunday, April 17, 9 AM to noon, noon to 5 PM
If you can help, please contact Richard Kroh at: gunshows.dalecity@vcdl.org
**************************************************
5. VCDL has new Fredericksburg gun show coordinator!
**************************************************
I would like to thank member Tom Cook for volunteering to be the Fredericksburg gun show coordinator for VCDL!
Call for Fredericksburg volunteers to come soon.
**************************************************
6. Fresh Market adopts anti-gun policy, sort of
**************************************************
Under pressure from Moms Demand Action (but denied by the store), Fresh Market has created a gun policy that matches those at Starbucks, Target, and a few other stores: Fresh Market “asks” that gun owners not carry in their stores. That is NOT an actual gun prohibition, of course, but just a request. Whether you wish to take your business elsewhere or simply decide not to comply with the request, that is up to you, of course.
This article’s headline makes it sound like the policy is a prohibition and that gun owners won’t be served. The article itself indicates otherwise:
http://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendment/ ... ns-stores/
I contacted corporate to confirm and I got this somewhat familiar response, along with the usual nonsense about a “welcoming environment":
—
Thank you for contacting The Fresh Market regarding our new firearm policy. Due to overwhelming response from our customers, we are unable to answer to each inquiry in a personalized way. We do want you to know that customer feedback is of the utmost importance to us and all of the comments both for and against the policy will be shared in their entirety with our Public Affairs and Executive teams.
Also, due to the amount of inaccurate information that has been reported and shared regarding the policy, we would like to offer some clarification. Please know that this was not a decision that was taken lightly, nor in response to pressure from any outside group. To be consistent with our brand, we want to ensure our stores maintain an environment that is comfortable, safe and inviting. After considering feedback from customers, employees and groups in support of both sides of the issue, we believe we have achieved a balanced policy with regards to guns in our stores. We are adopting this policy in full appreciation and recognition of the rights of gun owners and will continue to comply with all federal, state and local firearms laws.
Our full policy reads as follows:
The unique atmosphere of our stores is an essential part of what makes The Fresh Market a special place for both our customers and employees. In order to maintain that comfortable, safe and inviting experience, we respectfully request that our customers refrain from bringing firearms and other weapons into our stores. The Fresh Market complies with all federal, state and local firearm laws, and we respect the rights of all of our customers. We make this request, however, to ensure a welcoming environment where our customers and employees feel safe, and treat one another with kindness and respect while shopping and working.
—
Here’s a reminder of at least FIVE large chains that turned their backs on the Mad Moms:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... nd-action/
5 Businesses That Rejected Moms Demand Action’s Gun Ban Campaign
by AWR Hawkins, 3 Apr 2016
Following news that Greensboro, North Carolina-based The Fresh Market caved to Moms Demand Action and will no longer serve armed law-abiding citizens, Breitbart News thought it timely to provide a list of businesses that refuse submit to the campaign to disarm law-abiding citizens.
Below are 5 businesses that specifically rejected Moms Demand Action’s anti-gun campaign.
Starbucks — Urban legend has developed surrounding Moms Demand Action’s attempts to secure a gun ban in Starbucks stores around the country. Somehow, the legend has it that Moms Demand Action secured a ban on openly carried firearms, but the truth is quite the opposite. In reality, Moms Demand Action launched a campaign against Starbucks gun-friendly policies in 2013 only to have CEO Howard Schultz respond by asking people who carry openly not to be so flamboyant about it. Schultz did request that open carriers quit holding Starbucks Appreciation Days–days in which open carriers flood into a particular Starbucks store to show their appreciation for the company’s open carry rules–but that was as far as Schultz would go.
Staples — On March 4, 2014, a Moms Demand Action chapter went to Staples headquarters to deliver a gun-ban petition to CEO Ron Sargent. The goal was to see guns banned in Staples stores throughout the country, but the Moms Demand Action chapter was marched off the property by security personnel. The FraminghamPatch.com reported that Moms Demand Action was able to give their petition to Staples security, but that was it.
Kroger — On August 18, 2014 Moms Demand Action launched a campaign to force Kroger to ban guns in its stores. Less than two weeks later Kroger responded by saying their policy would remain one of following state and local laws/ordinances on firearms. The Cincinnati Enquirer quoted a Kroger statement which said, “We know that our customers are passionate on both sides of this issue, and we trust them to be responsible in our stores.” On March 25, 2015, Kroger CFO Michael Schlotman told CBNC’s Squawk Box that Kroger rejected Moms Demand Action’s campaign because gun laws are set by lawmakers, not by grocers and other businesses around the country. Schlotman said Moms Demand Action was “opposed to the fact that our policy is to adhere to the local gun laws. If the local gun laws are to allow open carry, we’ll certainly allow customers to do that based on what the local laws are. We don’t believe it’s up to us to legislate what the local gun control laws should be. It’s up to the local legislators to decide to do that.”
Fred Meyer — When Moms Demand Action launched its gun ban campaign against Kroger on August 18, 2014, they subsequently focused on Kroger subsidiary Fred Meyer. But Fred Meyer rejected the campaign on the very day it was launched. KOIN CBS-Portland quoted a Fred Meyer Public Affairs representative saying, “The safety of our customers and associates is one of our most important values. We don’t want to have to put our associates in a position of having to confront a customer who is legally carrying a gun. That is why our longstanding policy on this issue is to follow state and local laws.”
Target — On July 2, 2014, Breitbart News reported that Target interim CEO John Mulligan “respectfully [requested] that guests not bring firearms into Target.” The backlash was immediate.. On July 3, 2014, Target PR group manager Molly Snyder followed up by saying Mulligan’s announcement was “a request and not a prohibition.”
The Los Angeles Times points out that Chipotle took an approach to guns that was very similar to the one taken by Target. The restaurant chain first issued an announcement which seemed like a blanket gun ban in response to Moms Demand Action, then quickly clarified to say it “strongly and respectfully” asked customers “to not bring any guns into [Chipotle] restaurants,” but made clear that the request “is not a ban.”
**************************************************
7. Shameful: 260,000 vets have their gun rights revoked since December
**************************************************
http://freedomoutpost.com/260000-vetera ... mber-2015/
or
http://tinyurl.com/hkqay6d
260,000 Veterans have had Their Gun Rights Revoked by the VA since December 2015 - Freedom Outpost
The Second Amendment has been under attack for some time now in the united States, and there has been a relentless assault by the Obama administration at attacking the rights of the people to keep and bear arms. At the forefront of that attack has been America's veterans, and according to a report, at least 260,000 veterans had their gun rights revoked by the Department of Veteran's Affairs since December 2015.
Guns in the News reports:
-
Last December the VA started reporting thousands of veterans to the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check system, which is responsible for determining whether or not a potential gun buyer is legally allowed to own a firearm.
Specifically, they've been reporting veterans who have a fiduciary trustee to act on their behalf for legal or financial matters. All veterans with this arrangement are being automatically declared "mentally defective" according to Guns.com, and are having their second amendment rights revoked. Over the past 4 months alone the VA has reported over 260,000 veterans to the NICS, which now accounts for 99% of all "mentally defective" claims to the database.
Of course, not all veterans with a fiduciary trustee are a danger to themselves or others, and unfortunately the VA hasn't bothered to investigate any of these individuals to see if they should be reported. Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa has been questioning the VA on this matter, and hopes to put a stop to it. "The very agency created to serve them (veterans) is jeopardizing their Second Amendment rights through an erroneous reading of gun regulations. The VA's careless approach to our veterans' constitutional rights is disgraceful.”
-
This is not new and doesn't seem to be going away. In February, the National Rifle Association was attempting to discover which veterans this was happening to across the country.
Once again, Guns in the News reported:
-
As we have reported several times in the past (including here and here), the Veterans Administration (VA) has been reporting to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) the identities of its beneficiaries who have been assigned a "fiduciary" to manage their benefits. The VA claims that such determinations constitute an "adjudication of mental defectiveness" under federal law, thereby prohibiting the beneficiary (presumptively for life) from acquiring or possessing firearms.
The NRA has for several years been supporting legislation to correct this unjustified infringement on Second Amendment rights, including the Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act (H.R. 2001, Rep. Jeff Miller, R-FL) and the Mental Health and Safe Communities Act of 2015 (S. 2002, Sen. John Cornyn, R-TX).
Recently, this issue has taken on even broader importance with the planned implementation of a similar program concerning Social Security Administration (SSA) beneficiaries who have been assigned a "representative payee." We reported on SSA's plans last summer, and then the White House itself announced the program would be part of President Obama's latest "executive actions" on gun control.
-
Since December 2013, we have been reporting on American veterans, those who have served their country honorably, who are having their right to keep and bear arms violated by Washington and state gun grabbing bureaucrats who will not uphold their oath. It's time the American people stood up for our veterans and said, "Enough!”
**************************************************
8. A day at the nations's gun show in Dulles
**************************************************
Thanks to EM Ed Levine for sharing this:
http://bit.ly/1OPulak
or
http://www.loudountimes.com/news/articl ... _dulles432
A day at the nations's gun show in Dulles
by Dale Peskin
January 6, 2016
Just days before President Obama took executive action to close the “gun show loophole,” an estimated 20,000 Virginians attended The Nation’s Gun Show at the Dulles Expo Center, just across the Loudoun County line in Chantilly.
Attendees and organizers were already preparing for a fight. Annette Elliot , who manned the information desk for Showmasters Gun Shows, took direct aim at the governor and the president as enemies of gun-rights advocates, but also credited the leaders for a surge of interest in the Chantilly show.
“There are three reasons why people are waiting in line to get into our show,” Elliott explained. “One is ISIS. Two is McAuliffe. And three is Obama.
“See, that’s CNN over there,” she said, pointing to a camera crew at the bustling registration desk. The crew was waiting for permission to film inside the Expo Center, which was lined with 1,300 tables or 1.5 miles of guns and accessories, she said.
On Thursday, President Obama takes to CNN for a one-hour live town hall on gun control at George Mason University in Fairfax. The event's timing coincides with the fifth anniversary of the shooting of former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords , D-Arizona, in a rampage that left six dead and 13 others wounded.
On Tuesday, the president announced new executive actions intended to reduce the number of mass shootings, suicides and killings that have become routine in the nation’s communities. He is seeking to expand background checks for buyers and compel individuals "in the business of selling firearms" to register as licensed gun dealers, effectively narrowing the so-called "gun show loophole," which exempts most small sellers from keeping formal sales records.
As tears streamed down his face, the President condemned the repeated spasms of gun violence across America. Obama has repeatedly expressed his frustration with Congress' inability to pass new gun laws, and has frequently spoken out about increased gun control in the wake of mass shootings such as Sandy Hook Elementary School, where 20-year-old Adam Lanza fatally shot 20 children and 6 adult staff members in December 2012, and in Roanoke where a reporter and cameraman were shot and killed filming a TV interview in August.
On Capitol Hill and throughout Virginia, Republican lawmakers joined the National Rifle Association in challenging Obama’s executive actions.
Gun control advocates and White House officials say one focus is the so-called "gun show loophole," which allows certain sellers of guns -- at gun shows such as the one in Chantilly and elsewhere in Virginia -- to avoid conducting background checks before making sales.
Gov. McAuliffe (D) has criticized gun shows in Virginia for making firearms, including semi-automatic weapons, available to Virginia residents who can purchase a firearm by presenting two forms of identification but are not required to undergo a background check.
Showmasters Gun Shows, which conducts 30 gun shows a year in Virginia including eight planned in 2016 at the Dulles Expo Center, is the largest organizer of guns shows in the commonwealth. Vendors at last weekend’s show required the obligatory two forms of identification -- a valid Virginia driver’s license and a credit card -- to purchase any gun at the show.
The Times-Mirror could not find any vendor who required a background check for purchasing firearms, even semi-automatic handguns or rifles.
From table to table, much of the antipathy was reserved for the president, who was mocked on t-shirts, bumper stickers, posters and, even shooting-range targets, that ranged from racist to outrageous.
Politics aside, vendors stressed “making peace with your violence.” Robert, a sales agent in a camouflage t-shirt, touted the innovation and craftsman from Alexander Arms, a Radford, Va.-based manufacturer of automatic rifles. Originally designed for hunters of “varmints and groundhogs,” the more advanced versions of Alexander’s rifles feature military applications with pin-point accuracy for supersonic and subsonic ammunition.
“Enough firepower to blow away a groundhog from 100 yards,” Robert said proudly.
Firepower could be found in a variety of versions , some licensed, others not. Despite signs at the entrance prohibiting patrons from bringing firearms into the exhibition hall -- attendees were asked if they were carrying a gun, but they were quickly hand-stamped without being checked -- a number of attendees carried rifles or displayed handguns that were holstered on their belts.
Frank Demith of Ashburn carried a Kriss Vector carbine, one of a series of weapons that was developed from a submachine gun design, as well as a 50-caliber, semi-automatic pistol. Several unlicensed dealers walked the floor with automatic rifles strapped to their backs, “for sale” signs inserted into the barrels.
Other attendees included hunters shopping for the latest sporting gun equipment and collectors seeking to add to their collection of gun and war paraphernalia. The patrons at those booths seemed indifferent to the gun violence debate that was being expressed around them.
But it would have taken an elephant gun to take down the elephant in the room: the presumed need for protection in a dangerous country that loves its guns.
“Guns keep us safe,” said Deborah Anderson, a former Loudoun County resident who operates Discover Shooting in Fairfax, which holds classes for operating handguns and provides training to use an AR-15, a small arms rifle developed for the U.S. armed forces.
More guns were sold in December than almost any other month in nearly two decades, continuing a pattern of spikes in sales after terrorist attacks and calls for stricter gun-buying laws, according to federal data released on Monday.
The heaviest sales last month, driven primarily by handgun sales, followed a call from President Obama to make it harder to buy assault weapons after the terrorist attack in San Bernardino, Calif.
Fear of gun-buying restrictions has been the main driver of spikes in gun sales, far surpassing the effects of mass shootings and terrorist attacks alone, according to an analysis of federal background check data by The New York Times.
Advocates of “open carry,” Anderson and her husband Mark also advise gun owners on how to navigate concealed weapons regulations from state to state. They said their business has boomed since Virginia acted to restrict agreements with other states that allow for openly carrying a firearm in public.
Virginia Attorney General Herring ruled in late December that Virginia will no longer recognize concealed carry handgun permits from 25 states that have reciprocity agreements with the commonwealth. The move means Virginians with a history of stalking, drug dealing or inpatient mental health treatment cannot obtain a permit in a state with comparatively lax laws and carry a handgun legally at home.
Herring said severing the out-of-state agreements can prevent people who may be dangerous or irresponsible from carrying a concealed weapon.
The Andersons, as well as gun show organizer Elliott, said the Virginia attorney general and President Obama have it wrong. Guns, they said, are a deterrent to crime.
“When good guys fight back, bad guys go elsewhere,” Deborah Anderson said.
While thousands of attendees shopped for firearms to keep bad guys at bay -- sales from gun merchants at the show were reportedly brisk -- several organizations lobbied for gun-rights and recruited new members.
At a nearby booth beyond tables of automatic rifles, the Virginia Citizens Defense League signed up new members. The state’s dominant gun lobby, described by Herring in 2013 “as being more radical than the NRA,” sought signatures on a petition enabling gun owners to tote firepower everywhere in Virginia, including outdoor festivals, schools, government facilities and college campuses.
The NRA, with headquarters in Fairfax, cast a long shadow over the local gun show. Instead of paying a $13 entry fee, attendees could join the NRA or renew their membership.
**************************************************
9. Virginia Firearm sales spike in December, jump 9 percent overall in 2015
**************************************************
Records have actually been set for the last NINE months!
http://tinyurl.com/jc7we4d
or
http://www.richmond.com/news/virginia/a ... 9f996.html
Virginia Firearm sales spike in December, jump 9 percent overall in 2015
By Mark Bowes
January 4, 2016
Virginia firearm sales spiked in December after the California shootings that killed 14 people, boosting an overall 9.5 percent rise in state gun transactions last year that experts believe is tied to political demands for more gun control.
“There was almost a perfect storm of events going on that made this past December an almost near-record gun sale period,” said William V. Pelfrey, a criminologist and an assistant professor at Virginia Commonwealth University’s L. Douglas Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs.
“Between the San Bernardino shooting, the pickup in the economy, the political movements towards gun restrictions at both the federal and state level, people have been buying guns in (near) record numbers,” Pelfrey added. “I expect that to continue as well. People are going to be buying guns in droves over the next few months.”
December’s total of 70,626 transactions is the second highest for that month on record, trailing only the 75,120 transactions recorded in December 2012. The 2012 record occurred after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings in Newtown, Conn., that killed 20 children and six adults, and prompted calls for increased gun control.
A similar phenomenon appears to have occurred this past December in Virginia after the Dec. 2 San Bernardino attack that killed 14 and wounded 22 others. The incident involved an Islamic radicalized husband and wife who targeted a San Bernardino Department of Public Health training event and holiday party of about 80 employees.
Since then, President Barack Obama and Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe have been among those calling for tighter firearm restrictions that gun rights groups have decried.
Estimated firearm sales based on mandatory criminal background checks of gun buyers rose from 405,838 in 2014 to 444,627 last year, according to newly released Virginia Firearm Transaction Center figures. That total is second only to 2013’s record year of 479,253 transactions.
Gun transactions increased every month but two in 2015 and rose most significantly in December, jumping 46 percent from 48,428 transactions in 2014 to 70,626 last year, figures show.
Last year’s 9.5 percent rise in gun transactions followed a 15 percent drop in 2014 that ended three consecutive years of steep growth statewide. Those increases were fueled in part by so-called “panic buying” that generally follows high-profile shootings and calls for increased gun control as a response, criminologists say.
Aside from December’s high volume of sales, criminologist Thomas R. Baker, a former assistant VCU professor who recently took a job at the University of Central Florida in Orlando, noted that Virginia set single month firearm sales records last year in July and October.
Those months correspond to the July 16 fatal shooting of five service men on two military installations in Chattanooga, Tenn., the July 23 shooting at a movie theater in Lafayette, La., that killed two and injured nine, and the Oct. 1 shooting at Umpqua Community College in Oregon that killed nine and injured seven others.
“The media showed the lines in California that were forming outside of gun shops after San Bernardino, because (people) were concerned about what was going to happen in response,” Baker said.
“People talking about gun control is what causes the spike — the mass shooting not as much,” he added. “People are afraid that they’re not going to be able to get the gun in the future.”
Baker said he believes Obama’s planned executive action on guns “is probably going to have a similar effect — where you’re going to see big numbers in January and maybe February, depending on when it actually goes into effect.”
Obama has said he will announce a set of measures over the next few days to tighten the nation’s gun-control restrictions.
Exact sales of firearms in Virginia are neither reported nor recorded, but the background check records provide a rough estimate of the number of firearms sold. There is not a one-to-one correlation between background checks and the number of guns sold because some customers buy multiple firearms.
Also, about 1 percent of the background checks in Virginia typically result in people being denied permission to buy a weapon. The background checks also do not reflect activity between private parties, such as family members or collectors at gun shows.
Mark Tosh, president of Town Gun Shop Inc., said his stores in Collinsville and Chesterfield County experienced similar booming sales last year, particularly in December. He believes it’s related to San Bernardino and Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring’s decision to end reciprocal concealed handgun permit agreements with more than a dozen states — a move backed by Virginia’s governor.
McAuliffe previously issued an executive order to ban guns in most state buildings, and has pushed unsuccessfully for other gun-control measures such as universal background checks.
“The shooting in California was one thing,” Tosh said. “But (McAuliffe) alone has created more gun sales. In reference to concealed permits, he has created an environment where people are saying, ‘If we don’t have reciprocal agreements with other states, what else is he going to change?’ That’s caused a flood of buyers right there. It’s created far more first-time buyers than I’ve ever seen.”
McAuliffe spokeswoman Christina Nuckols responded to Tosh’s comment Monday evening. “Governor McAuliffe has worked closely with law enforcement leaders to keep guns out of dangerous hands by enforcing existing laws and supporting commonsense reforms to keep Virginians safe,” Nuckols said in an email. “Polls consistently show broad public support for the policies he has proposed.”
Tosh said December sales spiked among all four of his stores’ divisions: retail, individual public safety officer sales, police agency purchases and dealers who buy from him and resell to local law enforcement.
“We saw across the board (increases) for the first time,” he said. “Our standard commercial sales, individual officer sales to police, fire, EMS and military, our law enforcement dealer sales and our agency sales all incredibly spiked. I’ve been in this industry 34 years and I have never seen where all four divisions were cranked.”
Thomas Lacy, general manager of Colonial Shooting Academy in Henrico County, said he believes many of his new customers are reacting to what happened in California and public statements by some law enforcement officials about a greater need for self defense.
“California made them realize how vulnerable they can be in that type of situation,” Lacy said.
Lacy said the rise in sales can also be attributed in part to people who are alienated by “the avenues the politicians are choosing to get gun control.”
“I know some of it is politically driven in that regard,” he said. “I think everyone agrees that there’s no system that’s perfect and they all need improving. But a lot of customers have said the process (being used by politicians) is somewhat backdoor gun control.”
Along with gun sales, Lacy said the demand for classes have skyrocketed among new firearm owners who “want to learn how to use it and learn how to defend themselves — and not just be someone with a firearm in a holster.”
**************************************************
10. Virginia gun show attendees no fans of President Obama, or his policies
**************************************************
Thanks to member Mark Shinn for the link:
http://tinyurl.com/hnloeoa
or
http://wtop.com/fairfax-county/2016/01/ ... -policies/
Virginia gun show attendees no fans of President Obama, or his policies
By Dennis Foley
January 3, 2016
CHANTILLY, Va. – President Barack Obama is expected to meet with Attorney General Loretta Lynch Monday to discuss ways he could use executive action to expand gun restrictions.
But not everyone likes the idea, and many gun owners, collectors and advocates are showing their displeasure by heading out to the nearest gun show.
“Obama,” Roger Gooden explained as his reason for being at the Dulles Gun Show in Chantilly on Sunday with a chuckle. “Nah, me and my daughter shoot and collect guns and because of his policies — and you never know what the heck he is going to do with his executive orders — just adding to the collection.”
Gooden says he bought his first gun when he was 14. He’s now in his fifties and only owned no more than nine guns — until recently.
“Since Obama’s been in office, I’ve gone from nine to close to 50 (guns),” he said. “It’s just every time something happens and he [President Obama] starts running his mouth, it’s like ‘Well, let’s go to the gun show.”
Others weren’t as politically motivated to make the trip to the gun show.
“It started out with a basic handgun,” Dave Darling shared. “They’re like tattoos. When you get one, you want more.”
But he, too, is no fan of the president’s plan or strategy to reduce violence.
“People aren’t getting shot to death in Texas because everyone carries guns. It’s places like California that are very liberal,” said Darling.
Richard Graham decided to go with his buddies to the Dulles Expo Center to see what was there after a morning of shooting.
“I think he’s an idiot,” Graham said of Obama, with a smile and a chuckle. “That’s all I’m going to say.”
His friend, Chris Dugan, had a more direct reason for making the trip from Woodbridge to Chantilly on Sunday. “I’m just kinda shoving it in Obama’s face.”
Dugan says background checks are important and necessary to ensuring only qualified people have access to firearms, but he feels that more gun ownership would keep the country safe.
“These guys with the guns that are going and blowing people away in the malls and in movie theaters, if they thought that everybody else had a gun,” he offered, “they’d think twice about doing that.”
**************************************************
11. Executive Gun Control: Five seniors Obama might have disarmed
**************************************************
Thanks to member Walter Jackson for the link:
http://tinyurl.com/jnxa7fr
or
http://www.breitbart.com/california/201 ... -disarmed/
Executive Gun Control: Five seniors Obama might have disarmed
by AWR Hawkins
January 5, 2016
On January 4–the day before President Obama announced his executive gun control to the nation–the White House released an executive order fact sheet showing that a gun ban for some Social Security beneficiaries was being brought under the auspices of Obama’s executive action.
This particular gun ban immediately brings to mind the frequency with which grandmas and grandpas use guns to defend themselves and their families and forces the reader to consider what the plight of such seniors might be if Obama took away their guns.
What would have happened to these five seniors if Obama had taken away their guns?
1. On April 21, 74-year-old Jewell Turner was sitting in her truck in Fort Worth, Texas, when a man walked up and stuck a knife to her throat. She was able to convince him to change his mind by sticking a gun in his face and telling him to “back off.”
2. On May 15, 72-year-old Robert Dietz walked outside to check on his surveillance cameras after they had “gone dark.” According to KHOU.com, Dietz then “found a man rummaging through a storage trailer he keeps parked under his carport.” The suspect hit Dietz in the head with a gas can, so Dietz opened fire, shooting the suspect in the stomach.
3. On September 2, 67-year-old Harvey Lembo grew tired of the frequent robberies of his one-bedroom apartment and bought a gun for self-defense. The Portland Press Herald reports that Lembo is confined to a wheel chair and felt defenseless in the face of the robberies.
Lembo said his place has been robbed “five or six times” over the past few years, including a robbery in August 2015 in which the robber took his prescription pain pills and money.
When a robber entered on the night of September 2, Lembo grabbed his newly purchased gun, wheeled his chair around to face the robber, and held him at gunpoint without incident until the robber tried to escape. Once the attempt at escape was made, Lembo shot the suspect, wounding him.
4. On September 21, an alleged home-intruder entered an Indianapolis home and pointed a gun at the head of an elderly woman, only to be shot numerous times by her husband. The suspect had entered the home believing the woman was alone, but the husband was in the back of the house and responded with a gun in his hand when he heard his wife under assault.
5. On September 22, an elderly homeowner in Phoenix, Arizona, had to use a gun for self-defense after a suspect repeatedly tried to enter his home in broad daylight. According to CBS 5, the elderly homeowner was alone when he saw the suspect in his backyard. The homeowner grabbed a gun and met the suspect as he was allegedly attempting to enter through a window. The homeowner said he warned the suspect that he was armed, but the suspect allegedly continued trying to enter. The homeowner then opened fire, striking him at least once.
The police said, “The homeowner reported perceiving a threat and fired at the subject, striking him.”
Where would these elderly people and their families be right now if Obama had taken away their guns?
**************************************************
12. In one year, gun owners stopped hundreds of criminals, saved countless lives
**************************************************
http://tinyurl.com/zvtj6p5
or
http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/05/gun-c ... criminals/
In one year, gun owners stopped hundreds of criminals, saved countless lives
by Casey Harper, Ethan Barton and Luke Rosiak
January 5, 2016
Gun carrying, private citizens who used firearms to stop criminal attacks saved at least 283 potential victims in a period between July 2014 and July 2015, according to a Daily Caller News Foundation analysis.
TheDCNF concluded its analysis as President Barack Obama announced Tuesday another push by his administration to tighten federal gun control laws in an attempt to curb gun violence.
While Obama quotes the more than 30,000 gun deaths in a year — omitting that 60 percent are suicides, 6 percent are gang related, 3 percent are accidents, and the vast majority of the rest occur in urban areas — TheDCNF found that a noteworthy number of kids, the elderly, and women successfully defended themselves against criminals by use of gun fire.
TheDCNF analyzed 195 random incidents where gun owners used firearms to save their lives, and often the lives of others. We wanted to know, not just how many perpetrators were killed, but how many potential victims were saved.
In the interactive graphic below, clicking demographics boxes will narrow your results to see specific data points. For example, see handgun incidents in Texas by clicking “TX” in the State category and “handgun” in the Gun category. Click on individual pins on the map for more details.
Of the nearly 200 cases we analyzed, people carrying guns saved at least 283 potential victims, whether it was a man protecting his family from thugs or a 9mm-toting grandma warding off a burglar in her living room.
In 60 of those cases, the single gun carrier was the only potential victim. In 43 cases, there were 2 potential victims. In nine cases there were three victims and in nine more cases there were four or more victims.
In 74 cases, it was unknown how many potential victims were present but it can be assumed there was at least one. If the 74 potential victims followed the same distribution as the other cases, then the number of potential victims would actually be at least 335.
In one case, four Florida men put on masks and grabbed weapons in a planned burglary attempt of a Melbourne home in June of 2015. When one of the men came inside, he held a woman and her child at gunpoint. As the woman protected her child with her own body, the homeowner pulled out his handgun and opened fire on the robbers. The criminals fled, one injured, and the three victims were left unharmed.
The data shows that little less than a third of the people defending themselves with guns were women. Of the 173 cases where gender is known, 133 were male and 40 were female.
The most common age of a defender was middle aged, in their 40’s or 50’s. It’s also worth noting that of the 72 cases where the age of the defender is known, 15 defenders were elderly people over 60 years old and nine were minors under 18 years old. They were most often defending themselves against adult males under 30 years old.
Phyllis Law, a 63-year-old Alabama grandmother, was a victim of multiple robberies to her home and had even boarded up her windows to keep thieves out. But in July of 2014, a male robber broke into her home, and Law hid with her 9mm pistol while her granddaughter hid in the closet.
Law told Fox 10 News that when the man came into her home, “I jumped up and just started shooting and he hollered and turned around and ran A lot of them come in people’s house, kill them, take what they want and leave. Like I said, not here.”
Young people used guns for self defense as well. In September of 2014, an 11-year-old Oklahoma girl awoke around 4 a.m. to find that a man had broken into her home and stabbed her mother. The girl grabbed a handgun and shot the man twice, saving her mother’s life. The mother said she had just taught the daughter how to use the gun for self defense the week before.
Gun carriers were able to defend themselves usually without killing the suspect. Of 217 suspects in our analysis, 148 survived their encounter with a gun carrier, whether they survived a gunshot wound or simply fled. The remaining 69 were killed, so more than half the suspects involved survived.
Most often, when people used guns to defend themselves, it was in the home. Of the 194 cases where location is known, gun owners used firearms to defend the home 114 times. They pulled the trigger in a place of business or in public about 40 times each.
In many cases, it’s unclear how many potential victims would be saved. For example, if a man robbed a convenience store at gunpoint but was stopped by a man with a gun, it may not be documented how many people were in the store who could have been harmed.
Handguns were by far the most popular firearm of choice for self defense, with more than half of defenders using them. The DCNF obtained the stories from gunssavelives.net and independently verified the data.
**************************************************
13. Gun show loophole [VIDEO]
**************************************************
Setting the record straight on the Gun Show Loophole. Excellent 60 second video promoted by Guy Smith of Gun Facts:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAYXr2YxUXg
**************************************************
14. A snarling Obama issues a gun fatwa
**************************************************
Thanks to member Clayton Rhoades for the link:
http://tinyurl.com/hmytoqe
or
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2016/ ... _gun_fatwa
Snarling Obama issues gun fatwa
By Rush Limbaugh
January 5, 2016
RUSH: Man, I'll tell you, Obama is mad. I have not seen this kind of expression on the face of Barack Obama as often and as consistently as I have the last 15 minutes watching this fatwa he's announcing on his executive action on guns. This is amazing. He's really, really ticked off about this.
Anyway, folks, greetings. How are you? Great to have you. Rush Limbaugh back at it. Three straight hours of broadcast excellence headed your way. Telephone number, if you want to be on the program, 800-282-2882, and the e-mail address, ElRushbo@eibnet.com.
This is striking, what I have been watching and listening to for, I guess it's the last fifteen minutes, maybe a little bit longer. But Obama's got a bunch of sycophants and supporters gathered in what looks like the East Room of the White House, and he's mad, he is scowling, he's getting all kinds of support and ovations, but he is angry. He is scowling. His facial expressions, his eyes are piercing. He looks at that camera as though whoever is on the other side of it he hates.
He's just saying nonsensical things about guns. I mean, he admits on one hand that everything he's talking about here is not going to stop any of the events that have taken place with guns, like the San Bernardino massacre and that. Then on the other hand he says but even if we just stop one act of violence, it's worth what we're doing here. And then he's going on and on, "I don't understand why anybody would oppose what I'm trying to do. We're not trying to take guns out of the hands of people. We're just trying to make it harder and harder for people who have criminal intent to get guns." How do you know?
The fact of the matter is that gun control is such a mandatory issue if you're a liberal Democrat, you have to have this particular point of view on it, and the point of view is that you've got to get rid of guns. The point of view is that it is not who uses the gun that's the problem; the gun is the problem, the ammunition is the problem and you've gotta get rid of it. And he stands up there and acts like people would be crazy to think he really wants to take away people's guns. People are not crazy. We have listened to liberals all of our lives. We know exactly what they want to do. And those of us who've been paying attention know exactly how they go about it. We know how they go about getting everything they want. If they have to deflect, if they have to lie, if they have to distract, if they have to state that exactly what they want is not what, whatever. We know what they want.
They want ultimate power and control. We know why. They have contempt for average, ordinary Americans and every other type person, don't think they're capable of leading their own lives responsibly and don't even want to give them the chance to. It's just an unquenchable thirst that they have for power and control over people. And getting guns out of the hands of people would represent the pinnacle of wresting control, wresting freedom and liberty away from people and gaining control over them. And it's just amazing to sit here and watch this, because he tries to smile now and then to soften the message, but it is clear he's angry.
I think what I'm actually watching here is pent-up rage and anger over whatever it is that has made him angry the last seven years. Whatever he's wanted to do and hasn't succeeded, this clearly is one of them, securing significant gun control measures. He's mad at Congress. You know, here's the thing. He's up there issuing his latest fatwas today, his executive actions, that implement -- see, this is what the media is not gonna tell you. But what he is implementing today, or what he is suggesting be implemented via his executive action, are the very things, legislation that has been rejected in Congress at least three times by wide bipartisan majorities. Wide bipartisan majorities have voted down, have rejected the very things that he is seeking to implement here by executive action.
These are the same people who say we don't need guns to protect ourselves because we can count on the police, and the very same people who say we can't trust the police to do anything. You don't need a gun; you've got the police to protect you. But then the police come under fire, are accused of being incompetent, un trustworthy, corrupt, what have you. But who gets to decide who has criminal intent? At the background check phase of this, who gets to decide that? How does anybody know who has criminal intent unless they already have a record.
But I mean even to answer that argument is to fall for the trap that Obama and the leftists lay and try to secure you into debating on the term and within the frameworks that they suggest. They want you to debate the idea that there are ways of identifying criminal intent before it happens, and they want you to say, "Well who could oppose keeping the guns out of the hands --" He's quoting Reagan, he's quoting George W. Bush, claiming they are just like him, and what he wants is no more than what they wanted, and all they wanted to do was to make sure that it was tougher and tougher for criminals to get guns.
Don't be fooled. He's not worried about the criminals getting guns; that's not his focus. His target is on the innocent. Everybody, every liberal Democrat, every gun control advocate wherever you find them, in order to succeed, they have to take guns away from the law-abiding. Otherwise there's no gun control, otherwise there's no success. So how about a presumption that everybody with a gun is capable of committing a crime? See, this is where we're headed with this. If Obama and the leftists, his buddies in the media could do it, they would try to establish as public opinion that anybody with a gun is a potential criminal and has an agent of deadly force at their disposal, and we must not tolerate this, and we must not let this happen.
Make no mistake, the effort is to taint and impugn the reputations of law-abiding people. That's where the majority of guns are. That's the greatest repository of gun ownership outside the military in our country, is law-abiding people. It's like taxes. If you're really gonna raise taxes because you want to raise revenue, you've gotta raise taxes on the middle class. Raising taxes on the rich will not net you that much money, compared to raising taxes on middle class. It's the same way of thinking. You really want to get guns off the street?
You've got to go where most of them are, and most of them are in the hands of law-abiding people who do not and have not used them to commit criminal acts. Isn't it interesting that every time we have a criminal act of mass shooting like San Bernardino, the immediate reaction is that we've gotta get guns out of the hands of law-abiding people? In the case of the San Bernardino Two, in addition to that we had to listen to how they were nice, ordinary, common, everyday people, members of a religion of peace -- and then they got radicalized!
See, they weren't even bad people to start with. It was just they got radicalized and then they got guns, and the kind of guns they had are not the kind of guns Obama's talking about trying to control. I mean, RPGs, rocket launchers, whatever you name that was in that arsenal in that basement, in that home in San Bernardino. But Obama is not concerned about stopping gun crime; otherwise he wouldn't be doing everything he can to release major drug dealers and other criminals from prison by shortening their sentences.
So make no mistake... (interruption) There he is. That scowl! That look! You have not... I have not been able to miss that. By the way, what makes that stand out to me is he's got nothing but love and adoration in this room. Everybody in that room thinks Obama's a rock star. Everybody in that room think's Obama's the Second Coming. He's being applauded practically every sentence, and it's not making him happy. He is just sneering and scowling. He's really... When that happens, that's when you need to pay attention.
He says, "Why are people so afraid of background checks?"
I don't know anybody who is "afraid of background checks."
There are some people who suspect them. I mean, when you have people like Obama and people of his ilk in charge of the background check who can and want to basically establish the fact that if you have a gun, you are a potential criminal. And make no mistake that's what they want people thinking. They're aiming right at the low-information voters and looking right at 'em, and they're trying to create this impression that if you have a gun -- if you know somebody who has a gun -- they're dangerous.
"You need to be on the lookout for 'em! They are potential criminals. They've got guns. They could shoot you; they could shoot your dog with that." This is the kind of thing they want people to think. It's the only way they can get what they want is to get guns out of the hands of legal, law-abiding people. You know, there's... What's her name? Jennifer Rubin. She's a blogger. Changing subjects here, 'cause Cookie's rolling sound on this. We'll have some examples, some sound bites from Obama.
It's still going on here. He said, "We can't wait for Congress to act on this! No, we can't wait for Congress. No way. Why are people so afraid? Congress needs to get on board!" The room erupted when he said, "Congress needs..." He said, "We're no longer gonna allow Congress to hold America hostage." The room erupted. He's scowling and he's sneering in a... It's not defiance. He's really, really ticked off at something here.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: You know what else? Obama trotted out this, "We're the only advanced country in the world where mass shootings happen with the frequency they happen. There's no advanced country in the world where things like this happen as often as they happen here." It's a constant straw dog that he is always bringing up. "We're the only industrialized nation... We're the only advanced industrialized country that doesn't have health care for its people." We only had the best health care system in the world, and he's running around saying, "We're the only advanced nation the world that does not have health care for all its people"?
But we do. We did. And now he wants us to believe that we have more random gun violence in this country than anywhere in the world? Maybe we have more random gun violence in Chicago than we have anywhere in the world, but he won't say it that way. But it's bogus, anyway, what he's saying. It always comes down to how the United States is at fault, or the United States is incomplete, or the United States is flawed somehow, some way -- and he's, by God, gonna fix it.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Back to the phones we go, the EIB Network. This John in Jacksonville, Florida. Hey, John, great to have you on the EIB Network. Hello, sir.
CALLER: (noise) Hello?
RUSH: Is anybody there?
CALLER: I'm here.
RUSH: Okay, great. Yeah. Yeah, go ahead. I just heard a bunch of noise there. It sounded like a hurricane happening. I didn't know.
CALLER: Oh, yeah. I was standing next to a guy cleaning the floors.
RUSH: Oh, okay. Okay. That would explain it.
CALLER: All right. Well, good morning. Thanks for taking my call.
RUSH: You bet.
CALLER: The reason I called was to take a minute to discuss some of this presidential action on the gun show loophole and the fact that there really isn't one. Yet all the media keeps talking about how it's gonna close the gun show loophole. But it does not exist.
RUSH: Well, I didn't get a chance to watch all of Obama because he was still going when the program started, so I didn't hear him talking about the gun show loophole.
CALLER: Right. Well, it was multiple times. While I was on hold waiting to talk to you they did news break-ins, and three times during that the lady talked about how he's "closing the gun show loophole" and "the Internet sales loophole." And there's really not one. If you go to a gun show as a licensed dealer and display guns for sale on your table, you have to do a call-in, a background check, just like you're at your store. And in fact, you're forbidden from selling guns anywhere but at the address at your store or at an organized gun show. So if you're a licensed dealer, you can't just go meet somebody at the Sears parking lot and make a gun transaction. That's not legal.
RUSH: I know. You're right. This "gun show loophole" is nothing more than a manufactured distraction. It may have been a reality in the old days, but the truth of the matter is the vast majority of gun show sellers are dealers with licenses who are simply doing a satellite location that day at the gun show rather than at their shop. But the "gun show loophole" just sounds so sexy. The gun show loophole! It's an effort to taint gun shows and so forth. But it's one of these things that doesn't really exist. It's this phantom target that Obama and people like him on the left can aim at. I like that: "Aim at!" Yeah, yeah.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Here's Rebecca in Englewood, Colorado. Glad you waited, and welcome to the program. Hi.
CALLER: Rush, I cannot believe I'm talking to you. Hello.
RUSH: I'm glad you got through.
CALLER: Yes. My issue is that with the doctor thing and the guns, what is going to happen is people are going to fear going to their doctor for certain things. I'm going to tell my kids, "Don't tell them anything," and that's such an issue. That's what they're doing.
RUSH: Well, it does... I understand it. It blows the whole notion of doctor-patient confidentially sky-high. If you go to the doctor aware that if he decides that you're mentally disturbed -- even just that day. You don't have to be every day. He doesn't see you every day, obviously. But all the doctor has to do is consider or worry or fear that a patient might be unbalanced, and if he thinks that, he's required to report it.
Here's the way the doctor's gonna think about it. So a screwball comes in, a regular patient that he knows. That day the patient's wacko, doing some weird things, and the doctor says, "What if this guy goes out and gets in an accident or what if this guy kills himself or hurts himself and I haven't reported it? Oh, my God! What if they come after me and ask, 'Why didn't you report it?'" So he's gonna feel pressure to report the patient, just to keep the Feds off him. I mean, this is the way our society is being conditioned:
Fear of the government to enforce compliance with government policy. So if you've got a doctor, they're already under the gun because of Obamacare. They're already targets. I mean, Obama's out there talking about how they do unnecessary surgeries to pad their income. They do unnecessary tests. I mean, they're aware of that, so the government's already got them in the microscope and the crosshairs, and then now the doctors are supposed to report unbalanced behavior or mental illness.
And doctors in California can have their patients' homes raided. You have doctors now permitted to ask patients about guns in their homes. If the doctors fear the government, they're gonna take the safe approach and report it, and then this government says, "Okay, we've had a doctor report that Patient X over here is a nutcase." That puts 'em on notice. So you're right. People, as patients become aware of this, they are probably going to be withholding some information from a doctor so the doctor doesn't think that they're wacko.
CALLER: Yes. I agree. Well, thank you, Rush. Thank you very much. I've read all your Rush Revere books.
RUSH: I appreciate that. I really do. We had a banner year again with the two Rush Revere Time-Travel Adventures with Exceptional Americans books. We put out two more books this past year. The most recent is Rush Revere and the Star-Spangled Banner. I appreciate that. I really do. But these are legitimate concerns people are gonna have, and you have to understand this is exactly the kind of thing that the Regime banks on. I mean, the IRS is probably the most successful collection agency in the history of the world. And how do they do it?
Fear.
Everybody is scared to death of what the IRS can do to them. Even though the odds of the IRS actually zeroing in on a citizen are not very high, the people they do zero in on often have horror stories to tell. So you do whatever you can to stay clear. Do you know how many people willingly, knowingly overpay their taxes? I don't know if you know people today. If your taxes are withheld, there's not much you can do. Well, you can. You can actually have more withheld than necessary by claiming fewer exemptions.
But a lot of people do this. I know a lot of people that overpay some significant amount (a little amount, whatever) just because they think it's gonna buy them anonymity. Or the way they figure it is this. I've had 'em tell me they think if they come up for audit and an IRS agent's going through tax return and looks at that, they'll say, "Well, this guy paid more than he should have, based on this. We don't need to audit this guy," and throw it away. That's what they hope happens. But it's not by any means guaranteed to work because the IRS has successfully constructed this attitude of fear in so many people that they just happen to...
This is what the Regime has tried to do with as many other departments of government as they can, and now they're empowering doctors to report instability or mental illness and empowering doctors to conduct surveys of their patients on gun ownership: "Where the guns are in the house? Who has access to them? Where is the ammo?" You know, a lot of people -- doctors -- are gonna lead the pack of being afraid not to report, and they're going to use a wide berth in determining somebody's mental illness.
'Cause the last thing the doctor is gonna want is some knock on the door from a federal agent claiming, "So-and-so, one of your patients, just got into an accident out there, and you didn't tell us that they're mentally unstable." He might have a liability issue. This is the way totalitarian regimes work. Well, we tried to warn everybody about this before all of this happened. But, sadly, this is the kind of stuff that before it happens nobody wants to believe is possible. "Ah, come on, Rush. You're exaggerating."
"Oh, come on, Rush! You're being paranoid."
"Come on, Rush! Can't you just can't you get past the fact all they are is Democrats?"
"Screw it, Rush, they're gonna be out of office someday. Don't worry about it! That kind of thing would never happen in America."
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Here's Brian in Iowa as we head back to the phones. Brian, I'm glad you called, sir. Welcome to the Rush Limbaugh program. Hello.
CALLER: Hello. So I was talking to your screen caller about the unlawful executive order that our president has done, again, but --
RUSH: Well, let me ask you Brian, before you, let me ask you a question. Are you aware that the president started crying today at the end of the ceremony or the appearance in the East Room where he announced his executive action? Did you know he started getting a tear running down his cheek, started crying about it. Variety magazine's even written about this it was such a great act.
CALLER: No, I had no clue. You know, I listened to him for a little bit and then I shut him off because I can't stand to listen to him. What I was saying was, if you look back at the last five mass shootings that we've had, each one of those people had passed a criminal background check.
RUSH: Yeah.
CALLER: They had no criminal activity on their rap sheet. They had nothing on them.
RUSH: And they all, by definition, were loony.
CALLER: Yeah. Yeah. And, you know, how is it that you're gonna close up these loopholes? You can't. You can't do it. I buy guns privately through people off of Facebook.
RUSH: Ah, the old Facebook loophole, eh?
CALLER: Yeah. How can you stop it? There's nothing. If I'm around a bunch of my friends that hunt, and I say, "Hey, you know, I like that gun," and he says, "Oh, you know, I don't like it." And I'm like, "Well, I'll buy it from you."
RUSH: Brian, let me tell you --
CALLER: I can just do a private purchase that you can't stop.
RUSH: Let me tell you how they're gonna stop it. You've asked a really good question. And the answer to your question is what I think this is really all about. This little thing off to the side here where your doctor can ask you about guns you own and where they are in your house, do you know what happens if you refuse to answer?
CALLER: No.
RUSH: The doctor notes that you refused to answer. And that answer is assumed to mean you are not being truthful and therefore you do have guns, and you become a person of suspicion. The other thing that they're going to do is now doctors have to report any of their patients who they think are mentally ill or unstable. Brian, the objective of this, as I said, they know they can't stop your purchase and sale example that you gave, buying a gun on Facebook, or trading guns with some hunter out there in the field with the wild boar running around, they can't stop that. The ongoing effort here is to stigmatize people like you, Brian.
The effort on the part of Obama and Democrat Party, they know full well they can't succeed in getting guns out of the hands of people unless they succeed in getting the guns out of the hands of people that don't commit crimes. The law-abiding. So the challenge for them is how do they get guns out of the hands of the law-abiding? That's what this effort is all aimed at. This effort is aimed at stigmatizing. It is an effort to allow them to create in as many minds as possible the very fact you have a gun means you pose a threat.
And if they can get a doctor one way or the other or some other agent permitted to report on you, then they can find out and have what they would hope for in the future to be a legal way to go get your gun from you. They're not gonna abridge the Second Amendment, they're not gonna get it written out. They've gotta find a way culturally to pull this off. And they're very patient about it. It may take 'em ten years to do this.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: I'm just sitting here thinking, CNN's interviewing a gun owner, and where do you think the gun owner's store is? Georgia. (imitating Southern accent) "Yes, they're gonna go find gun shops in the South and they gonna talk to gun shop owners in the South." Now, you might be thinking, "Rush, CNN is in Georgia. It would makes sense they'd find them there." They are also in New York. But they sent somebody out to find a gun shop in Georgia. It fulfills the image that they have of Second Amendment supporters and gun enthusiasts, hunters and so forth, a bunch of hayseeds.
You know, Obama, I mentioned this, he had a tear. He cried at the end of his show today in the White House. And he said (imitating Obama), "I think, you know, I got nothing to prove. I'm in my last year, and I really don't -- I don't know why, uh, we have to impugn people's motives. I don't know why we have to." Well, sir, I tell you, your motive is all that matters, because your motive tells us the why, obviously. The motive is what's crucial here. The motive tells us how serious you are about this. The motive and the objective are all we need to know.
You know, they've tried this with alcohol, as you well know. Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, they've tried to penalize, punish bartenders and bars for selling adult beverages to people who later had accidents or a DUI. Don't think that they're not gonna go to doctors here. You know, folks, who do you think might be, as far as the left is concerned, a prime target for somebody a family member could claim is mentally ill or a doctor could decide is unstable or not all there? How about veterans returning from the theater of combat? I mean, as far as many Americans are concerned, they're all upset.
How many movies have there been portraying returning veterans as incapable of adjusting to peacetime, posttraumatic stress disorder. I would wager that many Americans think that your average returning soldier from Afghanistan, Iraq, anywhere where there are hostilities comes back and cannot cope for some reason or other. Insomnia, flashbacks, undiagnosed and diagnosed PTSD. And, by definition, these returning vets need medical treatment, and so they go to doctors. And now doctors are required to call the FBI, report to the FBI about any patients that might appear to be upset, mentally unstable, maladjusted, whatever term you want to use.
And many of these veterans of course have firearms, do they not? They have been trained in their usage. The very people who are most familiar, trained and proficient with these weapons would be among the prime targets for having their guns taken away from them simply on the basis that they're not mentally competent to possess them anymore. And all it might take with Obama's new regulations here is their doctor calling the FBI and saying, "Staff sergeant so-and-so Kowalsky just left my office, and I don't know, FBI, I'm very, very concerned about the mental state of staff sergeant Kowalsky."
"Thank you, Doctor," says the FBI, "we appreciate your call. Leave it to us. We'll take it from here." Liberal members of your family who know that you have a gun and don't particularly like it, might they now have avenues. And you think the doctor might not cooperate. Well, how many doctors can no longer afford malpractice insurance simply because of Obamacare? And do you think the doctor is ever going to claim that any member of a minority group is unstable? Can you imagine a doctor reporting, what's her name, the prosecuting attorney in Baltimore, what's her name? Mosby, Marilyn Mosby goes to the doctor. She's obviously unstable. She goes to the doctor, do you think the doctor would report to the FBI that the DA was just here, and I don't know, she doesn't seem right. Or that Mahmoud Sahib Skyhook was just here, and Mahmoud didn't seem to be all that right to me, you think that's gonna happen?
No, it isn't, because the doctor is not gonna be accused of bigotry or religious prejudice or racial prejudice. So guess who's gonna get reported on here? At least the odds are. And Obama's crying. "I have nothing to prove. I'm in my last year. I'm just doing what I think is right." Well, these leftists, folks, Obama's quest to transform the country is not gonna end with him leaving office. He's not just gonna sit around idly in his post presidential days and watch people dismantle what he's done. He's gonna try to preserve it. We haven't seen anything yet.
I'm telling you, the next 12 months and then the aftermath when Obama's out of office he's still gonna have his media cadre on his side, whoever the incoming president is, Trump, Cruz, whoever it is, is gonna have Obama on their case and the media every day. And if there's just the slightest shred of evidence that anything they're doing is unraveling what Obama did, look out. Don't doubt me. In fact, make a note of the prediction.
**************************************************
15. As Obama prepares executive order on guns, BBC News visits American gun show [VIDEO]
**************************************************
Filmed at Chantilly show and includes interviews of VCDL members.
Thanks to member Dennis Corl for the link:
http://tinyurl.com/jojaolg
or
http://theweek.com/speedreads/597523/ob ... n-gun-show
As Obama prepares executive order on guns, BBC News visits American gun show
By Peter Weber
January 5, 2016
On Tuesday, President Obama is going to issue some modest executive orders aimed at curbing gun violence, mainly by broadening the pool of U.S. gun dealers that need to perform federal background checks. "In America, where the right to bear arms is engrained in the Constitution, any moves by the president to tighten the rules will be fiercely resisted," says BBC News correspondent Jon Sopel, reporting from a big gun show in Maryland. Sopel talks with a Burberry scarf–wearing mother buying a laser sight for her gun, a member of the "Virginia Citizens Defense League," and an unlicensed gun seller who actually agrees with Obama that the "gun hole loophole" is ludicrous.
"In America, guns are seen as a symbol of freedom and liberty, an intrinsic component to national identity," Sopel says with dramatic flair, "and it's part of the national psyche from an early age." You can watch this British perspective on American gun culture below.
**************************************************
16. Obama, Dems all in on gun control in 2016
**************************************************
The Party of Gun Control marches on.
What is the Party leadership’s infatuation with control since the 1800s? From supporting slavery before, during, and after the Civil War, to wanting to control everyone today by stripping away our gun rights...
http://tinyurl.com/h6g69zt
or
http://thehill.com/homenews/administrat ... ol-in-2016
Obama, Dems all in on gun control in 2016
by Jordan Fabian
January 5, 2016
President Obama and Democrats are going all in on gun control.
Obama on Tuesday will issue executive actions intended to curb gun violence by expanding background checks on people buying firearms online or at gun shows.
Gun control has divided Democrats in the past, and Obama barely touched the issue in his first term. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence gave him an “F” in 2009, calling his record an “abject failure.”
Yet at the beginning of a year that Democrats hope will end with Hillary Clinton’s election as president and their party winning back control of the Senate, the party believes Obama’s actions will help it send the political message that Republicans are blocking common-sense reforms that would reduce the number of mass killings in the country.
“If you’re a Democratic congressional candidate running in the House or Senate, it makes a great argument about how unresponsive Congress is and how beholden Congress is to special interest groups like the [National Rifle Association],” said Democratic strategist Brad Bannon.
Party strategists believe a seemingly ever-escalating spate of mass shootings in recent years has shifted the politics of the issue.
Bannon touted an October CBS News/New York Times poll showing 92 percent of the American public supporting background checks for all gun buyers, including 87 percent of Republicans.
“In years past, Democrats have been a little shy about this issue, but I’ve noticed a fairly significant change in tone and tenor in the last couple of months,” said Jim Manley, a former adviser to Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (Nev.). “This kind of action is going to be aggressively supported by most, if not all, Democrats.”
The NRA and Republicans argue Obama is overstepping his authority with the new actions, however.
“This is a dangerous level of executive overreach, and the country will not stand for it,” Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said in a Monday statement.
GOP candidates for the White House vowed to undo Obama’s actions.
“I will veto that. I will unsign that so fast,” GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump said this weekend at a campaign rally in Mississippi.
Gun control in the past has pitted urban and rural Democrats against one another.
Many Democrats saw the 1994 assault weapon ban as a major reason why they lost control of Congress to Republicans that year.
When Bill Clinton’s own vice president, Al Gore, lost the White House to Republican George W. Bush in 2000, some saw gun control as playing a role in states such as West Virginia and Gore’s home state of Tennessee.
More than a decade later, the number of House Democrats representing conservative districts has dropped precipitously, and the party appears largely unified about the need to take action on guns.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who represents a rural state and has backed gun rights legislation in the past, found himself playing defense at a Democratic presidential debate in December against Clinton and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley.
Democratic presidential front-runner Clinton voiced support for the new background check rules before Obama, saying she intended to go further than the president on gun control.
“Hillary Clinton has been making a big issue of guns,” said Bannon. “The president jumping on board increases the size of the audience for her message.”
The December 2012 killings of 20 school children and six adults in Newtown, Conn., spurred Congress to take up the issue of gun control, though a bipartisan Senate bill to impose tougher background checks on gun sales failed to move forward in the Senate in part because of objections from Senate Democrats.
After Newtown, Obama issued 23 executive actions designed to curb gun violence, including enhanced information-sharing for background checks and requiring private health insurers to cover mental health services.
The background check action was considered in late 2013 after the effort failed in Congress. But federal lawyers disagreed about whether it would be legally defensible in court, according to The Washington Post.
By offering the change now, Ryan said “the president is at minimum subverting the legislative branch, and potentially overturning its will.”
Obama, after huddling on Monday with Attorney General Loretta Lynch and FBI Director James Comey, voiced confidence the new action would survive legal challenges.
“I’m ... confident that the recommendations that are being made by my team here are ones that are entirely consistent with the Second Amendment and people’s lawful right to bear arms,” he said.
The actions also reflect Obama’s intention to dictate the political debate as he begins the final year of his presidency.
Ryan and GOP leaders had hoped to dominate the headlines of the first week of 2016 by for the first time sending Obama legislation to repeal much of ObamaCare and defund Planned Parenthood.
Instead, Ryan on Monday was forced to respond to the president on guns.
The core measure would urge more sellers to register as federally licensed gun dealers. The move is intended to close the “gun show loophole” that allows certain unregistered sellers to avoid checking buyers’ backgrounds.
“This is not going to solve every violent crime in this country,” Obama said Monday of the pending actions. “It’s not going to prevent every mass shooting, it’s not going to keep every gun out of the hands of a criminal. It will potentially save lives and spare families the pain of these extraordinary losses.”
**************************************************
17. Why are leftists so gung-ho about shooting Americans for disobeying government?
**************************************************
Thanks to member Bill Albritton for the link:
http://tinyurl.com/goqzlp3
or
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... overnment/
Why are leftists so gung-ho about shooting Americans for disobeying government?
by Ben Shapiro
January 4, 2016
In the aftermath of Ammon Bundy’s group takeover of an empty government hut in the wilderness in response to the government’s egregious miscarriage of justice against the Hammond family, the left has given in to its ravenous, Twilight-style bloodlust. Jonathan Chait of The New Yorker tweeted:
Do we get to vote on this? Because I’m voting for #2 https://t.co/1uS3C4xmee
— Jonathan Chait (@jonathanchait) January 3, 2016
Montel Williams tweeted:
Totally fine with a massive use of deadly force in Oregon to take out Ammon Bundy. #OregonUnderAttack pic.twitter.com/A9F90qnBaW
— Montel Williams (@Montel_Williams) January 3, 2016
All right. Let’s ignore for a moment that these militia types have taken over a shack in a wildlife refuge without violence. Let’s ignore that the left has routinely made excuses for actual violence from groups ranging from Baltimore and Ferguson rioters to Occupy Wall Street.
Wouldn’t it be worthwhile asking, just for the sake of argument, whether violation of a particular law is worth killing someone?
Now, that question applies less to the Bundy group than to the Hammonds. The Bundy group is trespassing on federal property; if they resist removal with armed force, the government would naturally have to use force or risk the unacceptable precedent of accepting a full-scale armed takeover of federal installations.
But would Montel and Chait be so gung-ho about the shooting if the Hammonds were to stay on their ranch and tell the government that they won’t go to jail for another five years based on the Bureau of Land Management’s bizarre edicts regarding setting backfires on your property? Let’s extend the logic: would the left be willing to shoot the Klein family, also in Oregon, if they refused to hand over $140,000 to a lesbian couple for failing to bake them a cake? How about if a black man sold loose cigarettes on a street corner in New York City?
Every law is backed by a gun. So before we pass a law, we ought to ask whether we’re willing to use that gun.
We’ve become so accustomed in the United States to reams upon reams of legislation from every agency, so accustomed to heavily-armed bureaucracies with their own SWAT teams, that we rarely stop to ask a simple question: is the law worth the consequences of enforcement?
Rule of law is only sustainable when laws are carefully chosen. As laws become more and more intrusive, as government becomes larger and larger, the risk of resistance – rightful resistance – grows. The left seems quite casual about the use of government force when it comes to implementation of their myriad priorities. That sort of thinking will end in more blood, not less.
**************************************************
18. On guns, the Democrats aren't serious
**************************************************
http://tinyurl.com/qd4ux3p
or
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2 ... erious.php
On guns, the Democrats aren't serious
By John Hinderaker
January 1, 2016
News reports indicate that next week, President Obama will unveil new regulations intended to force some non-firearms dealers to run background checks before selling guns. Since the database against which background checks are run is close to useless with respect to mental illness, and since lawbreakers won’t run searches in any event, such a change will have, at best, symbolic value. I will have more to say about that later in the weekend.
For now, I want to note that gun crime–suddenly the Democrats’ favorite topic–is something about which the Democrats have never been serious. We already have many federal and state laws and regulations on the books. Gun rights advocates often suggest that instead of enacting still more laws and regulations, the government would do better to enforce the ones already on the books. They are right.
President Obama purports to be deeply concerned about gun crime. But how has his administration done with respect to prosecuting those who violate the laws already on the books? This chart, from Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, tells the story:
The Clinton administration talked a good game on guns–remember the “assault weapons” ban?–but when it came to actual law enforcement, its record was horrendous. (Someone should mention that to Hillary.) Things shaped up considerably under the Bush administration, which achieved record levels of gun-crime-related convictions. But when Barack Obama became president and Eric Holder took over the Department of Justice, enforcement went straight downhill. Over the course of the Obama administration, it has only gotten worse. Today, gun convictions are down 35% since the Bush administration peak in 2005 and 2006. Obama and Holder had an agenda, but it wasn’t law enforcement.
So on guns, as with regard to most other issues, Barack Obama is all talk. He isn’t interested in solving problems, he is just seeking political advantage. His corrupt administration can’t end soon enough.
**************************************************
19. What schools can do to reduce gun violence
**************************************************
And it isn’t gun control.
http://tinyurl.com/zsrfwnm
or
http://donsurber.blogspot.com/2016/01/w ... e-gun.html
What schools can do to reduce gun violence
By Don Surber
January 1, 2016
In a farewell speech as Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan decided to boo-hoo-hoo about gun violence in America. He wants gun control now, now, now.
Sixteen thousand. In my first six years as secretary of education, that's the number of young people who were killed across our country. That's an average of seven a day. That's a devastating loss.
Well, 16,000 young people in 7 years in a nation of 320 million is far less than the people under 18 we lose to suicide, or car accidents, but gun violence can be reduced. We have to be smart about it.
While there are homicides of teens across America, most of the perpetrators and the victims are black males who live in the ghetto. That is where we should concentrate our efforts.
Gun control is a proven mistake. We have had gun control since 1968 (although federal laws date back to 1934, the 1968 law was the biggy). A Democratic Congress and a Democratic president enacted the law after the assassinations of JFK and Martin Luther King. Both were shot by rifles. The law had little effect on rifles. Democrats went after handguns. The result was disastrous. The homicide rate rose from 6.2 homicides per 100,000 Americans in 1967 (the last full year before the law was enacted) to 10.2 by 1980. It dropped slightly but stayed above the pre-gun control rate for 30 years, falling only after states eased restrictions on concealed weapons permits (Vermont never required a permit).
The government can use schools to reduce gun violence by concentrating on schools where young black males kill other young black males. We already dole out extra money for reading teachers under Title I to these schools, and have for 40 years. OK, the reading scores are worse but that is because they do not attack the real problem. It is not that these kids are stupid, it is that they are undisciplined. Most have no father or any other positive male role model in their life. And yes, that happens to white kids too (I was one) and it sucks too. Race is not the issue. Lack of discipline is.
Schools need to be run by principals who will instill pride and discipline. That means principals should be given free rein to run the schools, and teachers should be given free rein to run the classrooms.
Sadly, we now give free rein to the children.
By discipline, I do not necessarily mean paddling them. A drop in octave and volume in one's voice has a menacing way of getting a message across. But I do not necessarily mean we shouldn't paddle them.
We should let boys be boys. Recess should be monitored but with the knowledge that boys do stupid stuff. Boys also should be taught to respect their elders and to respect girls. Foul language should be met with a soap bar in the mouth.
What we should give boys in ghetto schools is a safe place called school. They need to teach them at an early age that actions have consequences. It is cheaper than prisons, as the saying goes.
They also need to learn that someone cares about them.
But of course, the Brainiacs in government are going in the opposite direction, pushing to end the racial disparity between black kids who get disciplined at school and white kids. I think Duncan and the others know what they are doing by undermining discipline. Frankly, the Democratic Party must somehow benefit from ghetto violence because every city they run seems to have a Third World-level homicide rate.
***************************************************************************
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: http://www.vcdl.org [http://www.vcdl.org/]
VA-ALERT: VCDL Update 4/11/16
Moderator: Taggure
Forum rules
Only VCDL VA Alerts and associated calendar entries are to be posted here. You may reply to the threads here, but please do not start a new one without moderator approval.
Only VCDL VA Alerts and associated calendar entries are to be posted here. You may reply to the threads here, but please do not start a new one without moderator approval.
-
OakRidgeStars
- VGOF Gold Supporter
- Posts: 14108
- Joined: Sun, 22 Mar 2009 10:13:20