VA-ALERT: VCDL Update 2/15//2016
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not yet a Virginia Citizens Defense League member? Join VCDL at:
http://vcdl.org/join-VCDL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
VCDL's calendar: http://vcdl.org/events
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Abbreviations used in VA-ALERT: http://vcdl.org/help/abbr.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
VA-ALERT archives: http://listbox.com/member/archive/727/=now
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1. VBPD: Suspect used stolen gun in series of violent crimes [VIDEO]
2. Dan Gecker and the politics of gun control: Is the pendulum swinging?
3. Obama has 'essentially given up on any significant' gun control
4. Obama spent Friday talking gun control, not terrorism
5. You have a right to a gun, not a flight
6. Obama now wants guns from these 47,000 people
7. Yes people on terrorist watch list should be able to buy guns
8. Member's rebuttal to Obama's 12/6/15 speech
9. White House: 'Tragic' Americans buy guns after mass shootings
10. Under Obama: More mass shootings than under the 4 previous presidents combined [VIDEO]
11. 72 DHS employees on terrorist watch list
12. Reality Check: The true intent of the second amendment [VIDEO]
13. Rules of engagement for CCW holders
14. Liberalism's gun problem
15. [DC] Police investigating wave of armed robberies in D.C.
16. [VT] Brattleboro vigil planned by Gun Sense Vermont
17. San Bernadino shooting, a gun control response [VIDEO]
18. What San Bernadino terrorist has on his phone will send chills down every parent's spine [VIDEO]
19. Here's how business has been at a gun store less than two miles from the San Bernardino terror attack [VIDEO]
20. Americans stock up on weapons after California shooting
21. More than one mass shooting a day? How the media was misled [VIDEO]
**************************************************
1. VBPD: Suspect used stolen gun in series of violent crimes [VIDEO]
**************************************************
Thanks to member Ruslan K. Ketenchiev for the link:
http://tinyurl.com/p9ju5cy
or
http://wavy.com/2015/12/08/vb-chief-rel ... -shooting/
VBPD: Suspect used stolen gun in series of violent crimes
by Jane Alvarez-Wertz
December 8, 2015
VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. (WAVY) - Investigators have tied weapons recovered
from the scene of a deadly police-involved shooting in September to a
string of violent crimes in Virginia Beach. Police Chief Jim Cervera
held a press conference Tuesday to release the ballistic results.
Police say Angelo Perry and India Kager were sitting in a car parked
outside a 7-Eleven on Lynnhaven Parkway just after midnight on Sept. 5,
when Perry started shooting at officers as they approached the car.
Officers returned fire killing both Perry and Kager. Their infant son
was in a carrier in the back seat, but he was not injured.
Perry fired four shots at officers and the chief said his officers
returned a total of 30 rounds.
There were two firearms recovered from inside the Angelo Perry's
vehicle: a Kel-Tec 9mm semi-automatic pistol and a TEC-DC9
semi-automatic handgun.
"Forensic analysis of the ballistic evidence directly links the weapons
recovered from Angelo Perry on that night to a series of violent crimes
in Virginia Beach," Chief Cervera said Tuesday.
Timeline of violent crimes:
June 13, 2015 - A man was robbed at gunpoint while sitting in his
vehicle in the parking lot of Malibu Palms Apartments. Among the items
stolen from the victim was the weapon discovered on Angelo Perry the
night he opened fire on the police officers, the Kel-tec 9mm, Chief
Cervera said.
July 27, 2015 - A man was shot in his shoulder on Arthur Avenue in the
Pecan Gardens subdivision while he was walking to a nearby basketball
court. Ballistic evidence of the weapon used in this crime matched the
same 9mm stolen in June.
August 11, 2015 - Guy Cuffee was found dead from an apparent gunshot
wound to his head on Wentworth Drive in the Manchester Village
neighborhood of Green Run. As he would often do, police say, Mr. Cuffee
drove from his home in Portsmouth to pick up his daughter to take her to
work so she wouldn't have to walk. Ballistics matched the same Kel-tec
9mm handgun recovered from Perry.
August 17, 2015 - A home invasion robbery was reported on Baker Court in
the Hillcrest Aparments. A man and woman were home when two people
kicked in the front door. The suspects pistol-whipped the man and shot
him in the hand and the woman was shot point-blank in the face. She
survived, but was seriously wounded. Ballistics recovered at the scene
matched both the Kel-tech 9mm pistol and the TEC-DC9 handgun recovered
from Perry. Investigators are keeping this case open because there was a
second person involved.
August 22, 2015 - Devontai Snowden was shot and killed in the parking
lot of the Atlantis Apartments on Sea Cove Court. Again, ballistics from
this homicide matched both the Kel-tech 9mm pistol and the TEC-DC9
handgun. Detectives found 15 shell casings at the scene. This also
remains an open investigation because there was a second suspect in this
case.
September 5 - Virginia Beach police officers tried to take Perry into
custody outside the 7-Eleven, acting on tips from the community. Chief
Cervera said there was "definitive evidence that he was going to do more
violence in our city."
Chief Cervera said over a period of 40 days, six people were shot, two
of them killed - and all of the cases can be linked to the guns found in
Angelo Perry's possession on Sept. 5.
Both the Snowden and Cuffee families were notified by Virginia Beach
Police that their cases will be closed as a result of the forensic
analysis. Angelo Perry's wife in Georgia and the parents of India Kager
were notified that police would be presenting the ballistic evidence to
the public, Chief Cervera said.
Chief Cervera says his department is about a week away from sending the
entire case file to the Commonwealth's Attorney.
**************************************************
2. Dan Gecker and the politics of gun control: Is the pendulum swinging?
**************************************************
Thanks to member Clayton Rhoades for the link:
http://tinyurl.com/nte3kby
or
http://www.chesterfieldobserver.com/new ... itics.html
Dan Gecker and the politics of gun control: Is the pendulum swinging?
By Rich Griset, staff writer
December 9, 2015
In the wake of yet another mass shooting, the calls for gun control
legislation in Washington, D.C., are heating up. But the real question
might be this: Are the recent shootings and fear of terrorism on U.S.
soil making gun control politically viable - or less so?
One recent political race offers a unique perspective: Dan Gecker's
state Senate defeat at the hands of Glen Sturtevant.
Had Gecker won, the outgoing Midlothian district supervisor would have
contributed to a Democratic takeover of the state Senate. Though the
House of Delegates would have remained in Republican control, analysts
say Gecker's loss robbed Gov. Terry McAuliffe of any political sway in
the state legislature for the remaining two years of his term. According
to some, it was Gecker's embrace of gun control that cost him the election.
Still, his embrace of gun control on the stump is, in itself, something
of a tipping point. Not that long ago, cultivating the gun vote was a
rite of passage for Democratic candidates seeking statewide office. Many
political pundits credit former Democratic Gov. Mark Warner's victory to
his relentless pursuit of rural, pro-gun voters - he appeared on an ESPN
hunting show and somehow convinced the NRA not to endorse his Republican
rival Mark Earley in 2001. But as mass shootings like those in Newtown,
Connecticut; Charleston, South Carolina; and San Bernardino, California,
have become nearly weekly headlines, some politicians are embracing gun
control.
Locally, Gecker was backed by $700,000 in ads from Michael Bloomberg's
gun control nonprofit Everytown for Gun Safety. The ads were critical of
Sturtevant and featured Andy Parker, the father of the Roanoke reporter
slain on air in August. Calls seeking comment to Gecker were not
returned by press time, and he declined to discuss the role of gun
control in the election with another Observer reporter during a recent
interview.
So is Gecker's loss as cut and dry as the decision to tackle gun control?
"I think Democrats or gun control advocates are of two minds about the
election," says Quentin Kidd, a political scientist at Christopher
Newport University. "One mind is that making gun control an issue in the
election was the wrong thing to do, that it cost Gecker an election that
everyone thought he could win, and it gave Sturtevant an advantage that
he may not have had initially.
"Then there's another group of people that say gun control as a message
worked in northern Virginia," says Kidd, referring to the 29th District
state Senate race of Democrat Jeremy McPike and Republican Hal Parrish.
McPike, who received $1.6 million from Everytown, won.
Referencing the northern Virginia race, Everytown believes that gun
control is an issue that politicians can run on and win.
"The Jeremy McPike race speaks for itself - guns was the issue that put
him over the edge," reads a statement from Everytown spokeswoman Stacey
Radnor. "Voters were exposed to Hal Parrish's unpopular gun positions,
and that was what made the difference to move a race that began within
the margin of error to McPike's favor."
According to Lars Dalseide, spokesman for the National Rifle
Association, pushing gun control has the potential to sink any candidate.
"I think what we saw in Virginia was that it was definitely unpopular,"
Dalseide says. He says that while gun control advocates refer to the
northern Virginia election as a victory, he points out that McPike
largely outspent Parrish, $2,939,360 to $1,185,523. Everytown
contributed $1,618,469 of McPike's war chest. "If that counts as a
winning message, I don't know."
To prove that their side of the issue is more popular, both sides like
to play the underdog card. In a Washington Post editorial dated Nov. 5,
Delegate Scott A. Surovell (D-Fairfax) stated, "Hal Parrish, the NRA
'A'-rated, popular mayor with high name recognition, was handpicked by
the GOP to win an open seat but was soundly defeated by McPike, an NRA
'F'-rated candidate who had never held elected office."
So do Democrats think they can win on gun control in the future?
"I think Democrats are all over, which means they're nowhere on the
issue," Kidd says. "I don't think they come out of this election feeling
any differently about gun control than they did before the election,
which is if you can avoid talking about it, you should, and it's not an
easy path to see if gun control is a plus for you in an election in
Virginia."
Where you once had large rural, Democratic districts that wanted to hear
a pro-gun message, Kidd says the gun issue has become more partisan over
the past three decades.
"It's the result of the Clinton administration successfully passing the
[Federal] Assault Weapons Ban and then the Republicans successfully
pushing back on that and getting rid of the assault weapons ban," Kidd
says. "In the early 1990s, the NRA really ramped up its political
activism and made gun control a much more partisan issue than perhaps it
was before then. Remember, it was the election of 1994 when - the NRA
claimed, anyway - that it knocked off three or four incumbent Democrats."
According to local Democratic strategist Paul Goldman, what ultimately
doomed Gecker was the decision to move left in his shift from an
independent supervisor to a Democratic state Senate candidate.
"He started to run as a much more typical Democrat," Goldman says. "What
he did was run on issues that had never really been important [to Gecker
as a supervisor]. Abortion rights, gun control - he didn't get elected
on those as a supervisor. He made the rookie mistake that I've seen any
number of people make."
In future elections, Kidd says choosing gun control as an issue to run
on may simply depend on the makeup of a district.
"I think what Everytown is trying to do in Virginia this last election -
and I think they're trying it in other parts of the country as well - is
they're trying to change the narrative on gun control," Kidd says.
"They're trying to demonstrate that Democrats can run on the issue, and
they can win. That's why last month in Virginia they claimed victory
with Jeremy McPike.
"If they're successful, we may see Democrats in particular kinds of
districts run on gun control when at the same time we may see other
Democrats in other parts of the state avoid the issue like the plague."
**************************************************
3. Obama has 'essentially given up on any significant' gun control
**************************************************
Thanks to member Bill Albritton for the link:
I'll believe it when I see it!
hhttp://tinyurl.com/ne2vdpp
or
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... n-control/
Presidential Aides: Obama Has 'Essentially Given Up on Any Significant'
Gun Control
by AWR Hawkins
December 5, 2015
On December 3 Politico reported that while Obama is pushing for more gun
laws when the cameras are rolling, behind the scenes aides say he has
"essentially given up on any significant gun control."
They reported a similar situation among some of the most prominent gun
control groups - a situation in which they are pushing gun control
publicly while "leaders of the groups grumble" privately because the
White House seems to be all talk, no action on gun control.
According to Politico, "Aides say he's essentially given up on any
significant gun control passing during his presidency."
The aides stressed that the number of pro-gun members in Congress has
only grown since the first big push for gun control following Sandy
Hook. Because of this, the White House has "no strategy for dealing with
Congress that leads to significantly tighter gun laws."
The Congressional and popular opposition to gun control is so strong,
that aides have shifted from talking about gun control Obama will pass
to talking about why his supporters should give him credit for trying.
Politico reports:
White House aides often insist people should pay more attention to their
actual efforts rather than whatever emoting does or doesn't come out of
the president. Aides claim soft progress: People are talking about gun
control more, and all the Democratic presidential candidates are all
pushing for stronger gun control, in a change. Obama aides say the
president deserves credit for both.
**************************************************
4. Obama spent Friday talking gun control, not terrorism
**************************************************
Thanks to member Robert Risacher for the link:
http://tinyurl.com/ootcsvh
or
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/12/06/o ... terrorism/
Obama spent Friday talking gun control, not terrorism
by Taylor Millard
December 6, 2015
President Barack Obama's big meeting on Friday wasn't to discuss
terrorism, but to discuss gun control. He met with former Arizona
congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and husband Mark Kelly, in what POLITCO
called an "unannounced meeting" which had been planned before the
terrorist attack in California. The White House certainly didn't tip its
cap into exactly what was being discussed, except for a brief blurb on
its website.
As part of the Administration's ongoing effort to address gun violence
in America, today President Obama met with former Representative Gabby
Giffords and her husband Mark Kelly to talk about possible ways to help
reduce gun violence. They discussed what more can be done to keep guns
out of the hands of those who should not have them including ongoing
efforts by the Administration to identify additional actions within
existing authorities. The President also thanked the two for their
leadership and on-going efforts to prevent and address gun violence. The
President's Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett was also in attendance.
For those wondering, Obama's meeting with Giffords happened after FBI
Director James Comey announced agents considered the California attack
to be terrorism. It's completely possible the White House kept the
meeting on because Giffords and Kelly live in Tucson, and Obama didn't
want to keep them in town for longer than necessary. But it seems odd to
hold the meeting, and publicize it, when the concern isn't gun control
but terrorism. White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest did say Friday
morning the President had been briefed on what happened in San
Bernardino, but only called it a "regular update" on what was going on.
The President hasn't uttered a peep about terrorism since then, except
for a mention about it in his weekly address. Via the White House:
It is entirely possible that these two attackers were radicalized to
commit this act of terror. And if so, it would underscore a threat we've
been focused on for years - the danger of people succumbing to violent
extremist ideologies. We know that ISIL and other terrorist groups are
actively encouraging people - around the world and in our country - to
commit terrible acts of violence, often times as lone wolf actors. And
even as we work to prevent attacks, all of us - government, law
enforcement, communities, faith leaders - need to work together to
prevent people from falling victim to these hateful ideologies.
This isn't stopping the White House from pushing the "people on the
No-Fly list can buy guns" narrative. Obama did it again in his weekly
address, claiming it will keep more people safe.
We know that the killers in San Bernardino used military-style assault
weapons - weapons of war - to kill as many people as they could. It's
another tragic reminder that here in America it's way too easy for
dangerous people to get their hands on a gun.
For example, right now, people on the No-Fly list can walk into a store
and buy a gun. That is insane. If you're too dangerous to board a plane,
you're too dangerous, by definition, to buy a gun
This completely ignores the fact it appears the San Bernardino shooters
may have gotten their neighbor to buy the rifles they used, and the fact
they were illegal under California law. It also ignores how secretive
and vague the federal government is on what gets people on the "No-Fly
list." The Justice Department was ordered to release its criteria last
year, but refused, claiming state secrets. This is why it doesn't make
sense to ban people from getting guns if they're on the "No-Fly list"
because there's too much room for error. Right now, it looks like the
address will focus on terrorism, but I wouldn't be surprised to see the
"No-Fly list" comment pop up at some point.
There something else which doesn't make sense. Why did Obama wait until
tonight to fully comment on the terrorism angle in San Bernardino? Is
Obama seriously worried about the ratings that he has to wait until
Sunday to talk about what happened? It certainly didn't stop him from
commenting on past Fridays when tragedy struck. Obama addressed the
nation July 20, 2012 when the Aurora shooting happened, and did the same
thing after Sandy Hook. The other strange part of this is the fact
Obama's comments on Aurora and Sandy Hook didn't go that long. He spent
a total of 13 minutes delivering addresses on those tragedies when they
happened. President George W. Bush's address on September 11th was only
4:32. It's completely possible Obama could have walked out into either
the White House press room or the Oval Office on Friday, given remarks,
then gone about his weekend. It just seems like a complete failure of
logic for the President to wait two days to comment on terrorism. Maybe
he just didn't want to be late to the White House reception that night.
It just seems like a weird, unnecessary, and unneeded delay. Just like
Friday's meeting with Giffords.
**************************************************
5. You have a right to a gun, not a flight
**************************************************
Thanks to member Clayton Rhoades for the link:
http://tinyurl.com/gq9kxn7
or
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... ot-flight/
Fact Check: You Have a Right to a Gun, not a Flight
by Ken Klukowski
December 6, 2015
President Barack Obama needs a fact check. His argument that people on
the "No-Fly List" should be banned from buying a gun shows a fundamental
misunderstanding - or rejection - of constitutional rights.
In response to the Islamic terrorist attack in San Bernardino, Obama and
other Democrats have complained that, "right now, people on the No-Fly
List can walk into a store and buy a gun. That is insane."
The president is referring to a list the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA) maintains of those who are not allowed to board
airplanes in the United States.
The comparison is shocking. No one has a constitutional right to board
an airplane.
For over a century, most recently reaffirmed in its 1999 case Saenz v.
Roe, the Supreme Court has recognized the constitutional right to
interstate travel. But you can drive, ride, or even walk across state
lines (though the latter may take a while). No one has a constitutional
right to board a plane to travel.
For that matter, even driving a car is a privilege granted by the state,
not a constitutional right.
By contrast, all law-abiding and peaceable adult American citizens have
a Second Amendment right to keep and bear firearms.
The Supreme Court has even recently - as in 2010 in McDonald v. Chicago
- recognized that owning a gun is a fundamental right, on the same level
as rights to free speech, free exercise of religion, being free from
unreasonable searches and seizures, avoiding self-incrimination, and
choosing a jury trial when you are charged with a serious crime.
The Constitution allows the government to infringe upon a person's
freedom, but only if certain conditions are satisfied. The Fifth
Amendment provides that, "No person shall … be deprived of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law."
As the Supreme Court held in an important line of cases, this Due
Process Clause requires that the government must provide a person a
meaningful hearing before the government deprives that person of his rights.
If the situation is so urgent that a hearing is not feasible beforehand
(called a "predeprivation hearing"), then - and only then - does the Due
Process Clause allow the government to offer an "adequate
postdeprivation hearing" after the fact to restore what was taken.
TSA's No Fly List is developed by the Terrorist Screening Center (TSC).
The TSC does so with no hearings and no notice, and no opportunity for a
person to assert his trustworthiness before being placed on the list.
While a person can challenge being placed on the No Fly List, it is a
cumbersome administrative process, and it can take years for who someone
who should never have been put on the list to be removed.
Fundamental constitutional rights cannot be denied for years at a time
without due process. So unless Obama wants to call for a federal law
under which people receive a hearing before a judge before being placed
on the No-Fly List, with the opportunity to bring in lawyers and have an
evidentiary hearing, then he cannot equate purchasing a firearm with
being able to board an airplane.
The president's statements of outrage represent one of two things. One
is a complete disrespect for Americans' fundamental rights, particularly
Second Amendment.
The other is that Obama is perfectly aware of why buying a gun and being
on the No Fly List cannot be compared, but doesn't care so long as he
can score cheap political points at the expense of America's
90-million-plus gun owners.
Or both.
**************************************************
6. Obama now wants guns from these 47,000 people
**************************************************
Thanks to member Mark Shinn for the link:
http://tinyurl.com/q3p6dtv
or
http://www.wnd.com/2015/12/obama-now-wa ... 00-people/
OBAMA NOW WANTS GUNS FROM THESE 47,000 PEOPLE
Not even Marines, air marshals, congressmen, journalists and babies safe
from scheme
by Chelsea Schilling
December 7, 2015
If the federal government doesn't want the 47,000 people on its No-Fly
List to board airplanes, those individuals should be banned from ever
owning guns, President Obama argued in his Sunday address from the Oval
Office - but if his proposal ever becomes law, America could see U.S.
Marines, congressmen, journalists and even federal air marshals
mistakenly stripped of their firearms.
"To begin with, Congress should act to make sure no one on a No-Fly List
is able to buy a gun," Obama said Dec. 6. "What could possibly be the
argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semi-automatic
weapon? This is a matter of national security."
But while San Bernardino, California, terrorist Syed Rizwan Farook
managed to fly to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia under the radar of federal
authorities in 2014, thousands of innocent people have been mistakenly
linked to U.S. terror watchlists. Some experts and critics contend the
federal list process contains many errors and relies on an overly broad
standard of reasonable suspicion.
'No guns' for congressmen, Marines and feds?
Under Obama's standard, even the late-Sen. Ted Kennedy, an ardent
advocate of gun control while he served in Congress, would be blocked
from purchasing a firearm.
In March 2004, Kennedy was stopped three times at airports in
Washington, D.C., and Boston. Airline agents told the senator he
couldn't purchase a ticket because his name was on a list, according to
USA Today.
"If they have that kind of difficulty with a member of Congress, how in
the world are average Americans - who are getting caught up in this
thing - how are they going to be treated fairly and not have their
rights abused?" Kennedy asked then-Homeland Security undersecretary Asa
Hutchinson.
Kennedy wasn't alone. Many other unsuspecting Americans have had similar
experiences. In 2014, Politico reported Fox News contributor Steve Hayes
was listed in the federal terrorist database after he traveled to
Istanbul for a cruise.
"When I went online to check in with Southwest, they wouldn't let me. I
figured it was some glitch," he said. "Then I got to the airport and
went to check in. The woman had a concerned look on her face. She
brought over her supervisor and a few other people. Then they shut down
the lane I was in, took me to the side, told me I was a selectee and
scrawled [something] on my ticket."
Hayes said a Southwest Airlines agent later informed him that he was on
the government's terrorist watchlist.
Many children under the age of five have generated false positives when
their names were listed among those on the No-Fly List. One 18-month-old
baby was pulled off a JetBlue flight in 2012.
In 2003 , 71-year-old Milwaukee nun Sister Virgine Lawinger had her
travel plans interrupted.
In 2006, a U.S. Marine had his trip home to Minneapolis from Iraq
delayed when his name appeared on the list.
Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., said he was stopped between 35 and 40 times in
only a year after his name appeared on the list in 2003.
Even members of the Federal Air Marshal Service said they were blocked
from boarding planes in 2008 after their names appeared in the database.
One marshal told the Washington Times it's "a major problem, where guys
are denied boarding by the airline."
"In some cases, planes have departed without any coverage because the
airline employees were adamant they would not fly," said the air
marshal, who requested anonymity due to the nature of his job. "I've
seen guys actually being denied boarding."
Another air marshal told the Times one agent had been "getting harassed
for six years because his exact name is on the no-fly list."
Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., told CNN Sunday that most people on the No-Fly
List don't even belong there: "These are everyday Americans that have
nothing to do with terrorism. … The majority of people on the No-Fly
List are often times people that just basically have the same name as
somebody else who doesn't belong on the No-Fly List."
Even the left-leaning website Vox.com noted, "While the criteria for
what sorts of 'threats' get placed on the no-fly list is specific, the
evidence that can be used to put someone on the no-fly list - or any
government watch list - is pretty thin. The government is trying to
predict whether people who have never committed any acts of terrorism
before will commit one now, and that involves a lot of what the
government calls 'predictive judgments' and its critics call guesswork."
Terrorist Screening Database and the No-Fly List
The FBI maintains the Terrorist Screening Database, which was estimated
in a 2009 Justice Department audit to contain "more than 1.1 million
known or suspected terrorist identities."
In many cases, a single person on the list was found to have more than
one identity. According to leaked government documents published by the
Intercept, in 2013 there were 680,000 people actually on the list.
And more than 40 percent of those names (280,000 people) were found to
have "no recognized terrorist group affiliation." Tim Healy, an FBI
veteran who runs the Terrorist Screening Center, told CBS News, "We
don't confirm anyone's existence on the watch list."
The FBI says a person's name may be added to the federal watchlist "when
there is reasonable suspicion that the person is a known or suspected
terrorist. To meet the reasonable suspicion standard, nominating
agencies must rely upon articulable intelligence or information which,
taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably
warrants a determination that an individual is known or suspected to be
or have been knowingly engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation
for, in aid of, or related to terrorism or terrorist activities."
The No-Fly List - a subset of the Terrorist Screening Database -
reportedly listed 47,000 people in 2013.
According to the FBI:
"Inclusion on the No Fly List prohibits an individual who may present a
threat to civil aviation or national security from boarding a commercial
aircraft that will fly into, out of, over, or within United States
airspace … Before an individual may be placed on the No Fly List,
there must be credible information that demonstrates the individual
poses a threat of committing a violent act of terrorism with respect to
civil aviation, the homeland, United States interests located abroad, or
is operationally capable of doing so."
David Gomez, a former senior FBI special agent, told the Intercept the
watchlist system is "revving out of control."
"If everything is terrorism, then nothing is terrorism," he said.
Gomez expressed concern that the database is being compiled based merely
on a vague concept of reasonable suspicion.
"You need some fact-basis to say a guy is a terrorist, that you know to
a probable-cause standard that he is a terrorist," Gomez told the
Intercept. "Then I say, 'Build as big a file as you can on him.' But if
you just suspect that somebody is a terrorist? Not so much."
Vox.com said the government's "reasonable suspicion" standard includes
Facebook and Twitter posts.
"There's also a way for the government to add whole categories of people
(like anyone who 'traveled to a particular country in a particular year)
to the no-fly list temporarily - if it has specific reasons for doing
so," Vox explained. "The 'upgrade' (as it's called) can last for 72
hours without official review, and can get extended indefinitely every
30 days if 'senior officials' agree it's necessary.
"The temporary 'upgrade' could be an implementation nightmare in and of
itself for making the no-fly list a no-gun list. Would people who'd
temporarily been put on the no-fly list be told they couldn't buy a gun,
period? Would they be told to come back after the upgrade had been
lifted? Would the government put in place a way for an individual person
to exempt himself from the group terror 'upgrade?'"
Anyone may request removal from the terror watchlist by contacting the
DHS Traveler Redress Inquiry Program. From fiscal year 2006 to 2008, the
FBI processed an average of 2,710 watchlist record removals each year.
TSA misses 73 people with suspected terror links
While many innocent people continue to find themselves on the federal
watchlist, other individuals with suspected terror ties are finding jobs
in America's "secure airport areas."
In another twist this week involving the terror list, Rep. Stephen
Lynch, D-Mass., told Boston Public Radio that the inspector general of
the Department of Homeland Security found at least six-dozen individuals
"on the terrorist watch list that were actually working at the
Department of Homeland Security."
Asked why he supported a GOP bill to tighten screening requirements for
Syrian and Iraqi refugees earlier this month, Lynch said, "I have very
low confidence based on empirical data that we've got on the Department
of Homeland Security. I think we desperately need another set of
eyeballs looking at the vetting process."
Lynch mistakenly identified the suspects as DHS employees. The 73
employees he referenced were airport and airline employees screened by
the Transportation Security Agency, or TSA.
WND contacted TSA to ask whether any of the 73 workers on the terror
watchlist carried firearms in the line of duty, as would likely be the
case for Federal Air Marshal agents, who fall under TSA supervision. But
a TSA spokesman didn't answer the specific question and instead provided
several links to congressional testimony.
Every day, TSA is responsible for screening an estimated 2 million air
passengers at 441 airports across America. TSA agents also screen
airport and airline workers before they enter secure areas, and the TSA
conducts security background checks for those workers.
When a person wants to work at an airport or for an airline, TSA checks
the names against the Terrorist Screening Database and performs criminal
background and immigration status checks.
However, according to a June 2015 OIG report, TSA missed the 73
individuals with "terrorism-related category codes because TSA is not
authorized to receive all terrorism-related information under current
interagency watchlisting policy."
Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General spokeswoman
Erica Paulson told WND:
"TSA has concurred with our recommendation to seek additional
terrorism-related records for review during aviation worker vetting. We
believe that TSA is moving toward that goal, although the recommendation
in our report remains open at this time, until we receive evidence from
TSA that it has completed the request."
**************************************************
7. Yes people on terrorist watch list should be able to buy guns
**************************************************
Thanks to member Timothy Wise for the link:
http://tinyurl.com/oae36wc
or
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/ ... s-n2091102
LA Times: Yes, People On Terrorist Watch Lists Should Be Able To Buy Guns
by Matt Vespa
December 08, 2015
Well, well the LA Times' published this interesting editorial today,
where they wrote about the ongoing debate about barring people on the
terrorist watch list from buying firearms. Democrats want it;
Republicans don't; yet both parties share blame that this grossly
unconstitutional anti-terror program has continued under the Bush and
Obama presidencies. Unlike the paper's rather inflammatory editorial the
day of the San Bernardino shooting, which said that our "infatuation
with guns" bordered on suicidal impulses, they were somewhat more
measured in their response to this Democratic gun control initiative:
yes, people on the watch lists should be able to buy guns.
One problem is that the people on the no-fly list (as well as the
broader terror watch list from which it is drawn) have not been
convicted of doing anything wrong. They are merely suspected of having
terror connections. And the United States doesn't generally punish or
penalize people unless and until they have been charged and convicted of
a crime. In this case, the government would be infringing on a right
guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution - and yes, like it or not, the right
to buy a gun is a constitutional right according to the U.S. Supreme Court.
How certain is it that the people on the two lists are dangerous? Well,
we don't really know, because the no-fly-list and the broader watch list
are government secrets. People are not notified when they are put on,
nor why, and they usually don't discover they have been branded
suspected terrorists until they try to travel somewhere.
But serious flaws in the list have been identified. According to the
American Civil Liberties Union, which is suing the government over the
no-fly list, the two lists include thousands of names that have been
added in error, as well as the names of family members of suspected
terrorists.
[...]
What's more, it's not clear how much impact Feinstein's law would have.
The broader watch list, which is actually a database maintained by the
FBI's Terrorist Screening Center, apparently had about 480,000 names on
it in 2011, according to the FBI, and it has since swelled to about 1.1
million names, according to the ACLU. Of those, the vast majority are
noncitizens living overseas; the number of American citizens on the list
is believed to be fewer than 10,000 people.
That's important because federal law already bars gun sales to most
people who are not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents or
holders of valid visas, which means the vast majority of the people on
the suspected terror list would already be barred from buying a firearm
in the U.S. even without Feinstein's law. That leaves us with about
10,000 American citizens (and some legal residents) who, under the
proposed law, would be barred from exercising a constitutional right.
That gives us pause.
They also note that this wouldn't have stopped Syed Farook or Tashfeen
Malik since they weren't on the list.
"Ending gun violence is critically important, but so is protecting basic
civil liberties," they wrote. "Although we agree to the ends here, we
object to the means." Nevertheless, they also noted that they disagree
with the Supreme Court's 2008 interpretation of the Second Amendment
(Heller case), and that they support a ban on assault rifles. Yet, they
also acknowledge that this is the law of the land, which should be
cannibalized due to "mere suspicion."
This is a somewhat more refreshing op-ed from the LA Times, noting the
lack of due process that dot these secret government lists. Keeping guns
out of the hands of terrorists is common sense, but so is honoring our
constitutional right to be formally charged, know what those charges
are, and then be acquitted - or convicted - of said crime.
**************************************************
8. Member's rebuttal to Obama's 12/6/15 speech
**************************************************
Thanks to member Troy Hayes for the link:
I am so tired of Obama's self-proclaimed common sense, as in his speech
yesterday. I wrote the attached thought piece, which I grant permission
to you to send out, should you think it good enough.
Engineers sometimes use the term "necessary and sufficient" to describe
conditions for something to occur. In my view, Reagan proved that going
to Harvard Law School was not a necessary condition to being a good
President, and Obama has proven that it's not even a sufficient
condition to being a good President.
Keep up the good work. I read your newsletters with great interest.
Rebuttal to Obama's 12/6/15 speech
By Troy Hayes
December 7, 2015
In his speech to the nation on December 6, 2015, Obama voiced his desire
to prevent anybody on a no-fly list from buying a gun. He then laid down
this challenge: "What could possibly be the argument for allowing a
terrorist suspect to buy a semiautomatic weapon? This is a matter of
national security." I will take up that challenge.
Of course it's obvious to anyone who has thought about it carefully and
honestly, the law Obama is asking for has no more chance of being truly
effective than universal background checks, as straw purchasing would
easily bypass either of these approaches. For me, if it cannot possibly
work and it infringes on the rights of citizens, common sense says don't
do it. Obama's common sense says to do it anyway. It seems to be true
of all too many politicians that if you cannot do something meaningful,
then do something that has the illusion of being meaningful.
Unfortunately, way too many citizens don't notice the difference.
But the best reason for not using the no-fly list to outlaw certain
people from buying guns is more fundamental: the process is not an open,
judicial procedure in which a citizen has his day in court; it is a
closed, secret, self-regulated, bureaucratic procedure in which there is
no impartial judicial involvement. This is exactly the type of fear that
led our founding fathers to enshrine our basic human rights into our
Constitution. The Bill of Rights was purposely added to prevent
minorities from ever being held hostage to the tyranny of a democratic
majority.
In taking the oath of office Obama promised to preserve, protect and
defend the Constitution of the United States. And yet, even though he
once taught constitutional law, he thinks it's OK to put his version of
common sense above the Bill of Rights. As for me, I'm going with the
founding fathers.
Citizens need to wake up and return to the fundamentals that helped make
the United States a great country. This includes a serious effort to
stop the erosion of rights in the hope of more security. And to me it
also means that in today's complex world, there is no safe haven from
random acts of violence. I know I must take some responsibility for my
own safety and that of my loved ones. Part of this is awareness and I am
certain that I once avoided a mugging by taking aversive action twice.
Today I'm trained, I practice regularly at action shooting matches, and
I carry. That, to me, is common sense.
**************************************************
9. White House: 'Tragic' Americans buy guns after mass shootings
**************************************************
Thanks to member Dave Albritton for the link:
Once again, the White House is upset about OUR Constitutional rights!
TOO BAD!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://tinyurl.com/j63f4uo
or
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... shootings/
White House: 'Tragic' That Americans Buy More Guns After Mass Shootings
by Charlie Spiering
December 10, 2015
The Obama administration signals that it's "tragic" that more people buy
guns after mass shootings, lamenting that there are more guns in America
than ever.
"It's tragic that in the immediate aftermath of a series of high profile
mass shootings that people feel like they have to go out an purchase a
gun," White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said during a press
briefing with reporters today.
Earnest said that the White House thinks that there are enough guns in
the country, insisting that more guns had not led to fewer gun deaths.
"Our nation is awash in guns," he said. "That ready access to guns and
that proliferation of violent weapons of war has not lead to fewer gun
deaths."
Earnest claimed that more guns on the streets was likely causing more
innocent gun violence victims.
"That's tragic and ironic," he concluded.
He confirmed that a process to further restrict Second Amendment gun
rights was ongoing at the White House, as staffers were scrubbing the
laws looking for more ways for Obama to use his executive authority on
gun control.
When challenged by Wall Street Journal reporter Byron Tau to provide one
example of how stricter background checks or an assault weapons ban
could have prevented any of the recent mass shootings, Earnest was
unable to do so.
**************************************************
10. Under Obama: More mass shootings than under the 4 previous
presidents combined [VIDEO]
**************************************************
Thanks to member George McCall for the link:
http://tinyurl.com/ozna8qo
or
http://eaglerising.com/27344/under-obam ... -combined/
Under Obama: More Mass Shootings than Under the 4 Previous Presidents
Combined!
By Tim Brown
December 9, 2015
It's amazing how much we see and how much we forget. Mass shootings and
mass murders are nothing new. However, under Barack Hussein Obama, both
have increased exponentially when we view the numbers in light of
previous occupants of the Oval Office. In fact, when it comes to mass
shootings and mass murders, more have occurred under the
Marxist-in-chief than the previous four presidents combined.
While the administration and the Democrat National Committee Chair have
been throwing out overblown numbers regarding mass shootings, the
reality, though still disturbing, is nothing like what they have been
presenting.
Using information compiled via a database with incidents, fatalities and
injuries from real mass shootings in the united States, take a look at
the real numbers under Hussein versus our previous four presidents, and
remember, unless Congress does its duty and removes this guy from
office, he still has over one year left!
Ronald Reagan (1981-1989) - saw 11 mass shootings with 101 fatalities
George H. W. Bush (1989-1993) - saw 12 mass shootings with 94 fatalities
Bill Clinton (1993-2001) - saw 23 mass shootings with 141 fatalities
George W. Bush (2001-2009) - saw 20 mass shootings with 158 fatalities
Barack H. Obama (2009-2015 - 7th Year) - saw 162 mass shootings with 864
fatalities
The data was compiled by TruthStreamMedia.com via several sources. To
put things in perspective, take a look at the chart below regarding the
number of mass shootings under these presidents.
That isn't all, TruthStreamMedia also produced the following chart that
shows in the listed shootings where there were eight or more people killed.
As Aaron and Melissa Dykes point out, "Obviously this isn't so easily
simplified as more guns in the hands of more crazy people, the way the
media likes to spin it. We have more gun laws now than ever before. Less
types of guns are legally available to the average citizen than ever
before. We also have more 'gun-free zones,' zones where, just by the
way, most of these shootings happen (because mass shooters do not follow
laws or care about zones, obviously). So that's not it."
While the Dykes have talked about pharmaceutical use playing a part in
these shootings, and we have too, there seems to be something else going
on here, especially when you consider that five out of the 12 deadliest
mass shootings in American history occurred in Barack Hussein Obama's
first term! That's almost half!
For those who understand his Saul Alinsky tactics and his Marxist
thought, you can clearly see that he is one that encourages these kinds
of shootings in order to advance a gun grabbing agenda in violation of
the Constitution and the rights of the people.
Perhaps Steven Seagal is correct about many of these mass shootings:
They are simply engineered for a political agenda.
Following the controversial Sandy Hook shootings, Obama implemented 23
executive actions. He followed up just months later with two more
executive actions. After every single Islamic jihad attack on US soil,
he fails to identify the ideology that he loves so much as the reason
behind the killings. Instead, he simply attacks gun owners and the
rights of gun owners. In fact, he openly lies to the world about mass
shootings, claiming that they don't happen in other countries. He did
this recently in the very city where a mass shooting by Islamic
jihadists claimed the lives of nearly 130 people and injured hundreds.
With just one more year to go in his second term, Obama has said that he
will give "sustained attention" to gun control. Hold onto your guns
America, and keep your powder dry! This is going to be a heck of a year
that we stare down tyranny and terror on our own soil!
**************************************************
11. 72 DHS employees on terrorist watch list
**************************************************
http://tinyurl.com/h3hhyrj
or
http://freebeacon.com/national-security ... atch-list/
72 DHS Employees on Terrorist Watch List
by Adam Kredo
December 6, 2015
At least 72 employees at the Department of Homeland Security are listed
on the U.S. terrorist watch list, according to a Democratic lawmaker.
Rep. Stephen Lynch (D., Mass.) disclosed that a congressional
investigation recently found that at least 72 people working at DHS also
"were on the terrorist watch list."
"Back in August, we did an investigation - the inspector general did -
of the Department of Homeland Security, and they had 72 individuals that
were on the terrorist watch list that were actually working at the
Department of Homeland Security," Lynch told Boston Public Radio.
"The [former DHS] director had to resign because of that," he said.
DHS continues to fail inspections aimed at determining the efficiency of
its internal safety mechanisms, as well as its efforts to protect the
nation.
Lynch referred to a recent report that found the Transportation Security
Administration, which is overseen by DHS, failed to stop 95 percent of
those who attempted to bring restricted items past airport security.
"We had staffers go into eight different airports to test the department
of homeland security screening process at major airports. They had a 95
percent failure rate," Lynch said. "We had folks - this was a testing
exercise, so we had folks going in there with guns on their ankles, and
other weapons on their persons, and there was a 95 percent failure rate."
Lynch said he has "very low confidence" in DHS based on its many
failures over the years. For this reason, he voted in favor of recent
legislation that will tighten the vetting process for any Syrian
refugees applying for asylum in the United States.
"I have very low confidence based on empirical data that we've got on
the Department of Homeland Security. I think we desperately need another
set of eyeballs looking at the vetting process," he said. "That's
vetting that's being done at major airports where we have a stationary
person coming through a facility, and we're failing 95 percent of the time."
"I have even lower confidence that they can conduct the vetting process
in places like Jordan, or Belize or on the Syrian border, or in Cairo,
or Beirut in any better fashion, especially given the huge volume of
applicants we've had seeking refugee status," Lynch said.
**************************************************
12. Reality Check: The true intent of the second amendment [VIDEO]
**************************************************
Thanks to member Robert Matthews for the link:
I just wanted to share this video that a journalist did about explaining
the intent of the Second Amendment.
He is Ben Swann. Here is his bio: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Swann
Ben is about my age, and I personally knew him since about 1995. My
parents had a restaurant in El Paso Texas at the time that I worked at
and I remember him as being one of our most loyal customers. He is a
no-nonsense straight shooter. I am pleased that he is a staunch
supporter of the Second Amendment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONqcBKhikfk
**************************************************
13. Rules of engagement for CCW holders
**************************************************
Thanks to member Amy Barnes-Birnbaum for the link:
http://tinyurl.com/nhvzybx
or
https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/rules- ... w-holders/
Rules of Engagement for CCW Holders
by Scott W. Wagner
The reason that law-abiding citizens obtain a concealed carry permit is
to prevent or avoid a life-altering event of the severest kind from
befalling them, a member of their family, or their friends. That is the
same reason that I have carried a concealed firearm as a cop, off-duty
for the past 33 years.
The last thing a law enforcement officer wants to do is to take human
life. This is true due to many reasons in addition to the natural
aversion that exists in people of good will. One such reason is the
legal aftermath that follows the event. Most of the time, the
law-abiding citizen or cop will encounter no major problems from the
legal system. But in rare circumstances you can be right and still have
the "system" find you wrong, with dire consequences. A recent incident
that illustrates this involves the victim of an armed carjacking. The
victim gave up his wallet and vehicle to the carjacker - the victim was
free and safe. As the carjacker started to drive away with the victim's
car, the victim drew his concealed pistol and fired at the carjacker,
killing him. While many folks applaud the outcome, the citizen has come
under fire for his actions, and appears to be facing above-average
scrutiny by a potentially hostile prosecutor and court system.
I am asking you to reevaluate some of your own self-defense concepts by
considering some of the basic rules we follow as cops. If you can avoid
a life-changing event in the court system, isn't that part of the
ultimate goal?
First, defend yourself with deadly force only when the threat is
imminent. "Stand Your Ground" laws notwithstanding, if you can move
yourself to safety and avoid the situation altogether, make that your
first choice.
Second, the 1985 U.S. Supreme Court Decision "Garner vs. Tennessee"
prevents cops from shooting at all fleeing felons. Shooting at DANGEROUS
felons is ONLY permitted if the officers' failure to stop or apprehend
them would result in extreme danger to the community. For civilians,
driving the danger away from you should be your primary goal. Once that
happens you have "won."
Third, never shoot at a moving vehicle unless the most extreme
circumstances exist. Even when permissible, shooting a suspect in a
vehicle brings more grief upon cops than any other shooting situation.
The only way I would shoot at a moving vehicle is if someone was fleeing
in a car with one of my loved ones.
Fourth, don't shoot to defend property. The police can only use deadly
force in property situations if conditions escalate and they shoot to
defend themselves. Follow the same guidelines.
Fifth, just like plainclothes cops, be extremely careful if you must
draw or use a firearm in public. It is way too easy to have your intent
and identification mistaken. When challenged by arriving officers do
exactly what they tell you to do. Keep the palms of your hands open and
in plain sight.
Six, never give a statement to the police immediately after a shooting.
Wait until you have an attorney present versed in the use of force. Period.
While you, as a civilian permit holder or home defender, do not have to
follow our rules as required by court decision or law yet, I would
advise that you give them some thought. You may avert a life-changing event.
**************************************************
14. Liberalism's gun problem
**************************************************
Thanks to member Clayton Vieg for the link:
I don't usually read the New York Times much anymore; however, along
with their well-publicized front page editorial calling for new gun
restrictions, there also appeared the following op-ed piece titled
"Liberalism's Gun Problem", written by one of their regular op-ed
contributors, Ross Douthat (http://www.nytimes.com/column/ross-douthat).
One of its interesting points concerns an observation that I've been
making for some time - namely, that in order to impose truly effective
gun restrictions in the U.S. (including the Australian-style
buyback/confiscation scheme that some on the left are suggesting),
police powers would have to be dramatically increased, possibly to
include a partial or even total suspension of the Fourth Amendment,
including the suspension of the search warrant requirement.
I do not for a moment believe that most people would willingly give up
their Fourth Amendment rights, and when people realize that's where some
of these gun control proposals will eventually lead to, there will be
such an uproar that it would cause Washington DC's foundations to
literally shake.
Anyhow, thought you might find it interesting.
http://tinyurl.com/zhrlkka
or
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/06/opini ... oblem.html
Liberalism's Gun Problem
by Ross Douthat
December 5, 2015
I DO NOT own guns, and the last time I discharged a firearm was on
"Second Amendment Day" at a conservative journalism program many years
ago. (Yes, dear reader, that's how conservative journalism programs
roll.) My political commitments are more communitarian than libertarian,
I don't think the constitution guarantees a right to bear every kind of
gun or magazine, and I think of myself as modestly persuadable in the
gun control debate.
Of course that doesn't mean I really am, since we're all tribal
creatures and gun rights advocates are part of my strange and motley
right-wing tribe. But at the very least I understand why the idea of
strict gun control has such a following, why it seems to many people
like the obvious response to mass shootings - whether the perpetrators
are ISIS sympathizers, mad right-wingers, or simply mad - and why the
sorrowful public piety of Republican politicians after a gun massacre
drives liberals into a fury.
That fury, though, needs a little more cool reasoning behind it. It's
fine to demand actions, not just prayers, in response to gun violence.
But today's liberalism often lacks a clear sense of which actions might
actually address the problem - and, just as importantly, a clear
appreciation of what those actions might cost.
Sometimes, it's suggested that all we need are modest, "common-sense"
changes to gun laws: Tighter background checks, new ways to trace
firearms, bans on the deadliest weapons.
This idea was the basis for the Manchin-Toomey bill that failed in 2013
in the Senate. It was also, though, the basis for two major pieces of
gun legislation that passed in the 1990s: The Brady Law requiring
background checks for handguns and the assault weapons ban.
Both measures were promoted as common-sense reforms - in the case of the
Brady Law, by none other than Ronald Reagan. But both failed to have an
appreciable impact on homicides - even as other policies, like hiring
more police officers, probably did. That double failure, some gun
control supporters will tell you, has to do with the loopholes those two
laws left open - particularly the fact that individuals selling guns
aren't required to run background checks when they sell within their
home state.
But that claim's very plausibility points to the problem: With 300
million guns in private hands in the United States, it's very difficult
to devise a non-intrusive, "common-sense" approach to regulating their
exchange by individuals. Ultimately, you need more than background
checks; you need many fewer guns in circulation, period. To their
credit, many gun control supporters acknowledge this point, which is why
there is a vogue for citing the Australian experience, where a sweeping
and mandatory gun buyback followed a 1996 mass shooting.
The clearest evidence shows that Australia's reform mostly reduced
suicides - as the Brady law may have done - while the evidence on
homicides is murkier. (In general, the evidence linking gun ownership
rates to murder rates is relatively weak.) But a lower suicide rate
would be a real public health achievement, even if it isn't immediately
relevant to the mass shooting debate.
Does that make "getting to Australia" a compelling long-term goal for
liberalism? Maybe, but liberals need to count the cost. Absent a total
cultural revolution in America, a massive gun collection effort would
face significant resistance even once legislative and judicial battles
had been won. The best analogue is Prohibition, which did have major
public health benefits … but which came at a steep cost in terms of
police powers, black markets and trampled liberties.
I suspect liberals imagine, at some level, that a Prohibition-style
campaign against guns would mostly involve busting up gun shows and
disarming Robert Dear-like trailer-park loners. But in practice it would
probably look more like Michael Bloomberg's controversial stop-and-frisk
policy, with a counterterrorism component that ended up heavily
targeting Muslim Americans. In areas where gun ownership is high but
crime rates low, like Bernie Sanders' Vermont, authorities would mostly
turn a blind eye to illegal guns, while poor and minority communities
bore the brunt of raids and fines and jail terms.
Here the relevant case study is probably not Australia, but France. The
French have the kind of strict gun laws that American liberals favor,
and they have fewer gun deaths than we do. But their strict gun laws are
part of a larger matrix of illiberalism - a mix of Bloombergist police
tactics, Trump-like disdain for religious liberty, and campus-left-style
restrictions on free speech. (And then France also has a lively black
market in weaponry, which determined terrorists unfortunately seem to
have little difficulty acquiring.)
Despite their occasional sympathies for Gallic socialism, I don't think
American liberals necessarily want to "get to France" in this illiberal
sense.
But to be persuasive, rather than just self-righteous, a case for gun
control needs to explain why that isn't where we would end up.
**************************************************
15. [DC] Police investigating wave of armed robberies in D.C.
**************************************************
Thanks to member Mark Shinn for the link:
http://tinyurl.com/h2bk5nn
or
http://wtop.com/dc/2015/12/police-inves ... es-in-d-c/
Police investigating wave of armed robberies in D.C.
By Kathy Stewart
December 7, 2015
WASHINGTON - There is growing concern over what's being described as a
surge of armed robberies in certain parts of the District.
On Sunday night, for example, an incident occurred in a section of the
city thought to be relatively safe.
Shortly after 9 p.m., police say a group of teenagers tried to rob a
young man at knife point - in the 4400 block of Davenport Street, right
off River Road in Northwest.
Officers say the man was walking home when as many as 10 teenage boys
approached him. They allegedly put a knife to his stomach and said they
would take anything he had. The teens were described as black males in a
police report.
"Don't make any noises [or] we are going to put you down," the teenagers
said, according to a police report.
The man wasn't hurt. One of the teens patted him down and discovered he
only had keys in his pockets. "You can have these back," one of the
teens said, before they all fled the scene.
The man told his parents about the incident once he got home.
Police are calling it assault with a deadly weapon. There have been
armed robberies in Capitol Hill and Navy Yard.
In October, a man robbed Sarah Pitluck in Capitol Hill, taking her phone
and scratching her in the process. In another incident, a victim was
talking on a cellphone when he was approached and pushed to the ground.
**************************************************
16. [VT] Brattleboro vigil planned by Gun Sense Vermont
**************************************************
Thanks to member John Anderson for the link:
Antis Changing Color to Hunter Orange
At numerous events around Vermont the fact that the pro-gun groups
vastly outnumbered the antis was obvious by the orange displayed by the
gun rights folks and the green T-shirts worn by the antis. Only at a
Syracuse University basketball game would that much orange be displayed
by a crowd.
So, in an attempt to off-set how glaringly clear the displayed orange
showed how few antis are in attendance, they are changing their anti-gun
color to orange. Announcement of their new color
is in the Brattleboro Reformer article.
Could it be that these antis are so unsuccessful in bringing supporters
into their ranks that they have had to surrendered their color green and
take up the color of pro-gun, pro-hunting folks to hide their lack of
grassroots support? Antics rather that substance...
http://tinyurl.com/jp4888t
or
http://www.reformer.com/latestnews/ci_2 ... se-Vermont
Brattleboro vigil planned by Gun Sense Vermont
Set for Dec. 12 at 11 a.m. at Pliny Park
By Maggie Brown Cassidy
Special to the Reformer
December 8, 2015
BRATTLEBORO - A local group is planning a vigil this weekend for victims
of gun violence.
Ann Braden, the founder of Gun Sense Vermont, said that her group
originally planned the vigil to mark the third anniversary of the school
shooting in Newtown, Conn., as well as the on-going toll of gun violence
from domestic violence and suicide that Vermonters face.
"When we had a meeting in early October, the shooting at the community
college in Oregon had just happened," she recalled. "We wanted to show
our support for all the victims of gun violence, so we decided to
schedule a vigil in December. We never imagined that between then and
now there would be more attacks like the one in Colorado Springs and the
shooting in California. At the same time, our overriding concern is
about gun violence that happens here in Vermont."
Braden said that the public is invited to join the vigil, which will
take place from 11 a.m. to noon on Saturday, Dec. 12, in Pliny Park, at
the corner of Main Street and High Street in Brattleboro. Speakers will
include a local survivor of gun violence who has resolved to speak out
on the issue.
Braden noted that the recent wave of shootings has caused a strong
reaction across the country.
"A lot of people are really frustrated by how lax the gun laws are in
the U.S., compared with other countries," she said. "Last week Congress
refused to pass a law to limit gun sales to people on the terrorism
watch list."
On Dec. 3, in the wake of the attack in San Bernardino, California, the
Senate considered a bill that would not allow individuals on the federal
government's "no-fly" list to purchase guns. The bill was voted down on
a party-line vote, as one Democrat joined Republicans in voting against
the bill, and one Republican joined all the Democrats in voting for it.
Braden commented that it was important for people not to lose faith in
their power to make a difference.
"Showing our support for sensible gun safety laws is important," she
said. "In the absence of any progress at the national level, taking
action at the state level is critical. We know that there are fewer gun
deaths in states where gun-safety laws are stronger.
"We hope a lot of people will turn out for this vigil," she went on.
"Many of us are planning to wear orange as part of the national campaign
to focus on gun violence. This campaign is totally non-partisan - it
includes groups like the American Academy of Pediatrics.
"As a group, we need to stand up and show that the current level of gun
violence is unacceptable to us - and that we refuse to become numb to
it," Braden concluded. "We know we won't prevent every shooting, but we
have a responsibility to all of the people who have already suffered
from gun violence to come together in support."
**************************************************
17. San Bernadino shooting, a gun control response [VIDEO]
**************************************************
Colion Noire hits a home run!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHAnTa_cxEg
**************************************************
18. What San Bernadino terrorist has on his phone will send chills down
every parent's spine
**************************************************
http://tinyurl.com/gvka5ro
or
http://www.ijreview.com/2015/12/490251- ... nts-spine/
What San Bernardino Terrorist Had on His Phone Will Send Shivers Down
Every Parent's Spine
by Justen Charters
December 2015
As the FBI is investigating what led Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik to
launch the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11, disturbing
photographs have emerged among Farook's belongings.
The photographs, which show Carter High School in Rialto, California,
were found on Farook's cell phone.
According to The Sun:
San Bernardino mass shooter Syed Farook had multiple photos of a Rialto
high school on his cellphone, according to sources close to the
investigation.
As a health inspector for the San Bernardino County Department of
Health, Farook inspected the majority of Rialto Unified School
District's 30 food preparation facilities twice a year, according to the
district.
According to sources close to the investigation, FBI investigators
searched Carter High School in Rialto on Monday after multiple exterior
photos of the school were discovered on a cellphone owned by Farook.
Since the massacre in San Bernardino, it's been reported that Farook,
who was a food safety inspector, had been radicalized for some time and
that he might have even planned to carry out a terrorist attack in 2012.
However, it's unclear if Carter High School was a target for Farook and
Malik.
Susan Klein-Rothschild, who is an employee with the Public Health
Department, told Fox News:
"Our inspectors do typically take photos in the food-servicing
environment, but it's very unusual for any of our inspectors to take
exterior photos."
Fortunately, Carter High School was searched by the authorities, and
they didn't find signs of any threats.
**************************************************
19. Here's how business has been at a gun store less than two miles from
the San Bernardino terror attack [VIDEO]
**************************************************
http://tinyurl.com/gq5cruh
or
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/12 ... or-attack/
Here's How Business Has Been at a Gun Store Less Than Two Miles From the
San Bernardino Terror Attack
by Mike Opelka
December 9, 2015
In the wake of last week's terrorist attack in San Bernardino that
killed 14 and injured 21, gun sales and applications for concealed carry
permits have spiked around the country, and surveys show Americans are
increasingly concerned for their safety.
That sentiment is particularly apparent at a gun store less than two
miles from the site of the San Bernardino shooting. They're so busy at
Turner's Outdoorsman that customers have been asked to "take a number"
and come back later, KCAL-TV reported.
"My children who are in their 20s decided they wanted to learn how to
shoot," Milton Strickland told the station. "After the incident the
other day, they figured it would be a good skill to have in case they
ever get caught in anything like that."
At the Riverside Magnum Range - where one of the suspected San
Bernardino killers, Syeed Farook, practiced his shooting skills -
firearms sales are up 60 percent in the last week.
Concealed carry permit applications also have skyrocketed. The San
Bernardino Sheriff's office told the Los Angeles Times it's received
seven times the typical number of applications for permits in just the
past seven days.
"After the shooting, we have to be prepared," Angelica Carrillo of Lake
Arrowhead told KCAL, who's looking to buy her first gun. "You can't mess
around."
Carrillo added that she's "had Christmas parties the same place they had
it. So, it's like, you know what, you can never be too prepared. You
have to protect yourself."
Desiree Pagliuso, a single mother of three, told KCAL that she's never
had a gun - until now: "I've had, you know, multiple conversations with
women that have never even shot guns that are looking into buying guns
to be able protect themselves."
**************************************************
20. Americans stock up on weapons after California shooting
**************************************************
Thanks to member Bill Albritton for the link:
hhttp://tinyurl.com/z7fvukc
or
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/americ ... li=BBnbcA1
Americans stock up on weapons after California shooting
by Rich McKay and Daina Beth Solomon
December 7, 2015
"If people were armed, it would have changed the outcome totally,"
Langley said of Wednesday's assault by a heavily armed husband and wife
that killed 14 people and wounded 21 in San Bernardino, California.
"Instead of 14 victims, there would have been zero, except for those two
(attackers)."
Many Americans agree and are stocking up on weapons after the country's
worst mass shooting in three years. Gun retailers are reporting surging
sales, with customers saying they want to keep handguns and rifles at
hand for self-defense in the event of another attack.
"Everyone is reporting up, every store, every salesman, every
distributor," said Ray Peters, manager of Range, Guns & Safes, a company
that sells firearms and safes in Atlanta with an indoor firing range.
"People are more aware of the need to protect themselves."
Peters usually carries a pistol with him. But since last week's
shooting, he says he's added a Ruger semiautomatic rifle.
In a country where more people own more guns than anywhere else in the
world, the shooting has reignited a long-running national debate over
Americans' constitutional right to bear arms and whether gun ownership
should be curbed or expanded as a way to stop even more bloodshed.
A recent spate of mass shootings, capped by Wednesday's massacre in San
Bernardino, has pushed those issues to the fore in the presidential
campaign.
Wednesday's shooting follows an attack that killed three on Nov. 27 at a
Colorado Planned Parenthood clinic and an Oct. 1 rampage by a gunman who
killed 10 at an Oregon college, prompted Hillary Clinton, the leading
candidate for the Democratic nomination, to renew her call to "stop gun
violence now" with new firearm purchase restrictions.
Conversely, those who top the polls for the Republican nomination,
Donald Trump and Ben Carson, insist the answer to gun violence is to
empower citizens to thwart such attacks by making it easier, not harder,
to buy and carry weapon.
That viewed was echoed in the showroom of Turner's Outdoorsman, a San
Bernardino firearms dealer just a few blocks from where Syed Rizwan
Farook, 28, and Tashfeen Malik, 29, gunned down their victims at a
center for people with disabilities.
At Turner's, business has been brisk since the shooting with about 40
shoppers gathering on Sunday morning, far busier than usual, clerks said.
Shivneel Singh, 27, said the shooting prompted him to buy a gun on
Saturday. He already owned three handguns, a shotgun and a rifle. But he
said he felt he needed another gun after the San Bernardino assault.
"I want to have it in the car, so it's always ready," said Singh, as he
shopped at Ammo Brothers in Riverside, about 15 miles (24 km) from San
Bernardino. He said he had several friends and neighbors planning to buy
their first guns.
"I just want to feel safe."
"FREE SOCIETY"
Gun sales have spiked after previous mass shootings, as reflected in
Federal Bureau of Investigation data on background checks for people
seeking to purchase guns.
The week the agency performed the most background checks since 1998 came
immediately after the December 2012 school shooting in Newtown,
Connecticut, that killed 27 people. Potential gun buyers that week
numbered 953,600.
Gun sales were already on the rise this year. On Black Friday, the
popular shopping day on Nov. 27 after the U.S. Thanksgiving Day holiday,
a total of 185,345 applicants were processed through the FBI's National
Instant Criminal Background Check System, a 5.5 percent increase from
the year before.
The Pew Research Center found last December that 57 percent of Americans
say they believe owning a gun helps protect people from crime, up from
48 percent in 2012. The rest said owning a gun would put personal safety
at risk.
Critics of America's gun laws point to an array of statistics
highlighting the risks of widespread gun ownership.
This includes data compiled by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun
Violence, an advocacy group in Washington, that shows, on average, 89
people die each day from gun violence in the United States and 32,514
people are killed on average each year.
President Barack Obama repeated on Sunday his call for tighter gun
purchase controls after the San Bernardino shooting, urging in a
prime-time address that Congress pass provisions banning assault weapons
and gun sales to people on a terrorist no-fly list.
But gun advocates say new regulations would not stop people determined
to commit mass murder.
Langley, at Stoddard's Range and Guns in Atlanta, said guns are needed
in "a free society" - a view also expressed by Jasneil Singh, 19, as he
shopped at Ammo Brothers in Riverside, California.
"It's not the guns who do damage, it's the people," he said.
**************************************************
21. More than one mass shooting a day? How the media was misled [VIDEO]
**************************************************
Thanks to member Montford Oakes for the link:
http://tinyurl.com/qhk9f59
or
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/12 ... isled.html
More than one mass shooting a day? How the media were misled
By Howard Kurtz
December 07, 2015
The Washington Post headline didn't mince words: "The San Bernardino
Shooting Is The Second Mass Shooting Today and the 355th This Year."
The New York Times led its piece this way:
"More than one a day.
"That is how often, on average, shootings that left four or more people
wounded or dead occurred in the United States this year, according to
compilations of episodes derived from news reports."
MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, the Los Angeles Times and others have used the
stunning statistic. I've heard at least one guest repeat it on Fox.
But it's way off base.
It certainly feels like there's a shooting every day. There was
something about the San Bernardino massacre, coming so soon after the
Planned Parenthood shootings (not to mention the Paris attacks), that
seems to me like a tipping point. There was a collective groan in the
country: Not again!!??
But as Mark Folman of Mother Jones reports--and the Times deserves
credit for putting his piece online--there have been four mass shootings
this year in the way most of us understand the term.
The misleading figures come from a site called ShootingTracker.com,
built by members of an online Reddit forum that supports gun control,
called Guns Are Cool. The larger number includes gang shootings,
robberies and other violent outbreaks - not exactly in the same category
as the Planned Parenthood killings in Colorado or Newtown or Charleston.
As the Post noted in an updated piece, ShootingTracker even included a
couple of incidents involving pellet guns (though these were removed
after criticism).
On the other side of the debate, the FBI has defined mass shootings as
those that those in which three or more people were killed, recently
changed from four - regardless of circumstance.
But this can be too restrictive: "Earlier this year, a gunman killed two
people and wounded nine others during a shooting at a theater in
Lafayette, La. Because only two people died, not including the gunman,
that incident wouldn't meet the federal definition of a 'mass killing' -
even though it garnered widespread media attention."
It can be tricky stuff, reminding us of the old adage about lies, damned
lies and statistics.
But the bottom line is that the ShootingTracker founder said he wanted
to broaden the definition of mass shootings - and he obviously has an
agenda. Too bad some in the media were initially taken in by that
agenda. But at least they're now grappling openly with these questions.
***************************************************************************
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 2/15//2016
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