An Open Letter To The GOP On Gun Control

H/T AmmoLand.

Opinion

Protest Speak Out Shout Activist Gun Ban Assault Weapon iStock-468765816
Protest Speak Out Shout Activist Gun Ban Assault Weapon iStock-468765816

USA – -(AmmoLand.com)- Dears Senator/Representative:

Every time a tragedy happens, you steal a slice of our rights. A silver here, a shaving there. The result is always the same. We lose our rights for meaningless laws that will not make anyone safer or criminals less dangerous. You sell our right as a PR stunt to win votes.

Fine, we all accept that sometimes that needs to happen. But how about you include OUR needs and wants as part of your bipartisan compromise. How about us (The 120,000,000 American gun owners) get our needs addressed. How about we cut a deal?

Background Checks: Sure on all sales of new or used firearms. But we want national insta-check. We want what you originally promised us. That at any gun store or police station, we can walk-in and clear the transfer in 10 minutes. You can still give a gun to a family member or lend a gun to a friend for a day’s  shooting. If we do this, we want an end to waiting periods too.

You want Red Flag: We agree, but there MUST be safeguards. Phony claims must be prosecuted; guns confiscated for legitamte claims may be held no more than 60 days. The purpose of Red Flag is to keep people safe not to punish gun owners. In that 60 day period, you’ll have time for a proper hearing. Penalize any State that exceeds these limits with real consequences.

We want CCW reciprocity. Complete a 16-hour course (The new NRA CCW course will do thank you), and you can carry anywhere in the country.

Declare all AR variants firearms ”in common use.” Better yet simply define in common use as any firearms with 1 million or more in use. End waiting period for firearms.

Any illegal alien who tries to buy a firearm should be jailed and then deported.

So – Stop selling us down the river with the assumption we’ll always be there for you, we won’t. We did not come out for Bush 41, McCain or Romney. Sell us out and well stay home in November 2020.

Got it? Give back some rights and protections for those that you bargain away.

Gun control is about scaring suburban women into voting for democrats. Renovation of the gun laws is about modernizing how guns are managed in our country.

Yours,
Don McDougall

After thoughts:

I know some of you will say no compromise, no surrender. The fact is we can do two things. Get a balance of things we want or lose it all. You blast the NRA when they build compromises, but there is a simple fact. We can get more than we give. We might with this battle, but unless we forge some common ground, we will lose the war. We need more youth shooting, more support for The Friends of the NRA. We need more high school programs and college scholarships. We need to teach the 2A to the next generation.

Right now Wayne LaPierre is the “Mad King” dismantling the NRA so to cling to power while our rights burn. (I had a Nero comparison but went with G.O.T. instead.) We’re on our own. This will be Wayne’s legacy, as the man who sold out American gun owners for his own wealth. He will burn in hell for what he’s doing. I am comforted by the knowledge that in the end, we are all dust.

Here is the site to be able to e-mail your representative, you can use the letter above as a model or write your own. Be polite and professional. At the end of the day, we have the constitution and the people on our side. Do not let cowards give away our rights. To do that, YOU personally must get active. God bless you and god protect our republic.

https://www.usa.gov/elected-officials/

Guns, Knives and Accelerant Control? Why the Weapons Are Not Responsible for the Crimes

H/T JPFO.

You do not need to have a gun or knife to commit mass murder.

swat

By Beth Alcazar. August 27th, 2019 USCCA
Article Source

An attacker screaming “Drop dead!” and “DIE!” recently murdered 34 people and injured three dozen more in a brutal attack. This terrible tragedy occurred only a few months after another rampage in which a man attacked 17 elementary school children and two adults — leaving two dead. It followed yet another mass killing in which a deranged individual wrote a letter claiming that “all disabled should cease to exist.” He then went on to murder 19 people and wound 25 more, the youngest 19 years old and the oldest 70, at a facility for the mentally disabled.

The mainstream, anti-gun bandwagon would claim that these are just three recent examples showing the need for “common-sense laws” and stricter gun control. Surely red flag laws and background checks could have played a significant part in thwarting these evil men. If assault weapons were out of the picture entirely and wait lists were enacted, these horrific attacks could have been prevented … and 55 innocent lives would have been saved.

The Location

Oh, but wait. Here’s something you should know: These mass murders did not take place in the USA. These terrible atrocities occurred in Japan, a country considered one of the world’s safest. According to a United Nations’ global study on homicide, fewer than one person is murdered for every 100,000 in the population of Japan (compared to 4.8 in the United States and 445.7 for Belize). Business Insider reported that Japan’s murder rate has been declining since the 1950s. It is often attributed by some researchers to “a greater chance of detection (according to police data, 98 percent of homicide cases are solved), the rejection of violence after the Second World War, the growth of affluence without the accompanying concentrations of poverty common in many highly developed countries and the stigma of arrest for any crime in Japanese society.”

The Weapon

There’s more. These horrible mass murders were not carried out with firearms. The 34 dead and 30+ injured? The weapon was fire. The 41-year-old attacker from this sickening crime went to an animation studio in Kyoto, Japan, doused the place in flammable liquid and set it ablaze. The New York Times reported that within minutes, the studio “was a scene of horror: a man hanging from a ledge as flames licked the walls; a pile of bodies on a staircase leading to the roof; a barefoot woman so badly burned that all a bystander could do was spray her with water and wait for help.” A BBC Report called the attack “one of Japan’s worst mass casualty incidents since World War II.”

The 19 injured and two dead? The weapons of choice in this terrifying scene were knives. A 51-year-old man wielding blades in both hands stabbed 16 schoolgirls and two parents as they were waiting for the school bus one early morning in Kawasaki near Tokyo. According to witnesses, the suspect slowly approached the children and shouted, “I’m gonna kill you.” Police retrieved two knives at the scene and found two more in a backpack believed to belong to the suspect.

And the 19 dead and 25 wounded at the facility for the disabled? That was also a violent act carried out by an attacker with knives. The 26-year-old murderer claimed he had the ability to kill 470 disabled people in what he called “a revolution.” He targeted innocent lives at his former place of employment, going on a 40-minute killing spree in which he slashed the patients’ throats, claiming them a “mercy killing.”

The Response

You may be wondering why you didn’t hear about these terrible mass casualty events. Well, the U.S. media did not pay much attention. They couldn’t point to these examples as reasons to demand strict accelerant-control laws or blame knife violence. In these cases, they couldn’t demonize guns. And sadly, those 55 innocent lives went mostly unnoticed.

James Alan Fox, Northeastern University professor of criminology, law and public policy (who is NOT pro-gun, by the way), has commented that while the tragedies themselves are atrocious, what should not be overlooked is that “whatever the reason, the lesser attention given to mass killings that do not invoke guns is disrespectful to the victims whose lives are tragically cut short. Is the crime any less serious if there were no gunshots? Are the victims any less dead? In fact, victims of burns, suffocation or stabbing often suffer a much slower and more painful death than gunshot victims.

“It is surely fruitless to assess the relative severity of mass killings on the basis of weaponry. Our sense of outrage and concern for the victims should be the same whether they died from a firearm or fire.”

About Beth Alcazar

Author of Women’s Handgun & Self-Defense Fundamentals, associate editor of Concealed Carry Magazine and creator of the Pacifiers & Peacemakers column, Beth Alcazar has enjoyed nearly two decades of teaching and working in the firearms industry. She holds degrees in language arts, education and communication management and uses her experience and enthusiasm to share safe and responsible firearms ownership and usage with others. Beth is certified through the NRA as a Training Counselor, Chief Range Safety Officer and Certified Instructor for multiple disciplines. She is also a Certified Instructor through SIG Sauer Academy, ALICE Institute, DRAW School, TWAW and I.C.E. Training and is a USCCA Certified Instructor and Senior Training Counselor.

Alyssa Milano, Reveals ‘Key to Beating Trump’, ‘Biden at the Top and a Harris Vice Presidency’

H/T Breitbart.

Slow Joe The Gaff Machine Biden and Kamala “On My Knees” Harris what a team.

Alyssa had better prepared to be shocked in November 2020 when President Trump gets reelected.

Actress turned leftist activist Alyssa Milano revealed the “key to beating Trump” in an op-ed published in The Hill Tuesday evening: “Biden at the top and a Harris vice presidency,” featuring virtually every other candidate serving in tops roles in a hypothetical Biden administration.

Milano — who is, arguably, one of the most outspoken left-wing celebrities in Hollywood — indicated in her op-ed that Joe Biden (D) and Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) serve as the best duo to take down President Donald Trump in 2020.

“Imagine this: Vice President Biden is currently leading the field, so let’s start there. With Biden at the top and a Harris vice presidency we would speak to the majority of Americans who prefer Biden to any other candidate,” Milano argued.

She did not stop there, encouraging Democrats to embrace the majority of Democrat contenders in other capacities within her hypothetical Biden/Harris administration. Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ), for example, would make for a fabulous attorney general, in which he could “take on the NRA and the racial injustices he so often faced as mayor of Newark.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) could head up the Department of Education, Milano wrote, with the Massachusetts senator’s history as an educator likely in mind.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) — a fierce advocate for overhauling the health care system for Medicare for All — could serve as the Secretary of Health and Human Services and would “ensure every person in America could access health care we could afford,” the actress continued.

Milano even found positions within the “Democratic Dream Team” for lower-level candidates like Julián Castro (D), Andrew Yang, and Mayor Pete Buttigieg (D), who could serve as the “first Latinx Homeland Security Secretary,” “head of the Council of Economic Advisors,” and secretary of Veteran’s Affairs, respectively.

She continued:

Beto O’Rourke as chief of staff to the president would guide the nation’s most important decisions with compassion and ease. Kirsten Gillibrand as Commerce secretary. Amy Klobuchar as Agriculture secretary. Former candidate Jay Inslee bringing environmental issues to the level they deserve as the helm of the Department of Energy. Strong union supporter Tim Ryan as Secretary of Labor. Treasury Secretary Delaney. Recently withdrawn Congressman and Veteran Seth Moulton as Secretary of Defense. Bullock at FEC. Bennet at Interior.

Milano even recruited former First Lady Michelle Obama to serve as the Secretary of State in her fantasy administration, contending that our “reputation and luster around the globe would be instantly restored” the moment she took the role.

“The fact of the matter is that these candidates all agree on the ‘what.’ Their generally minor differences are in the ‘how,’” Milano argued, encouraging fellow Democrats to “get behind them all.”

“Our country cannot afford another four years of Donald Trump. Desperate times call for thinking outside the box with Democratic measures. If we want to beat Trump, we know whom to elect: All of them,” she wrote. “Or we can just keep proceeding with politics as usual and act shocked when he’s re-elected.”

NEW HAMPSHIRE GOV. CHRIS SUNUNU VETOES 3 GUN CONFISCATION BILLS

H/T Guns In The News.

Thank you, Governor Chris Sununu(R-NH)for vetoing these gun bills.

 

DATE: August 28, 2019
TO: USF & NRA Members and Friends
FROM: Marion P. Hammer
USF Executive Director
NRA Past President

You won’t read this in the mainstream media and we thought you should know that common sense and loyalty to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is alive and well in the New Hampshire Governor’s office.

In the past, Governor Chris Sununu has signed legislation to ensure that law-abiding adults can exercise their right to self-defense without burdensome red tape and fees.  He opposes the failed gun control schemes pushed by well-funded, out-of-state, anti-gun elites such as bans on commonly owned firearms and ammunition.

Read about it below.

HERE IN FLORIDA:  Anti-gun Democrats in the Florida Legislature were soundly rebuffed by the Florida Senate and the Florida House in an overwhelming vote refusing to call a Special Legislative Session on gun control.  The vote fell significantly short of the 3/5 vote needed

Tuesday, Aug. 27 at 5pm was the deadline for voting.

Final Totals

Senate: 14 YES, 20 NO,

    6 DID NOT VOTE (4 Republicans and 2 Democrats did not vote)

House of Representatives: 38 YES, 68 NO,

    14 DID NOT VOTE (7 Republicans and 7 Democrats did not vote)

The call for the Special Session on gun control was nothing more than political shenanigans by the Democrats.

They KNEW the vote would fail, they just wanted to create an opportunity for political grandstanding.

Further, they wanted to get legislators on record for political attacks during the 2020 elections.   (Democrats forget that works both ways.)

Red Flag Laws Cause Permanent Harm

H/T JPFO.

Red Flag Laws are just an end-run around the Second Amendment.

When neighbors can red flag each other
no one wins, everybody loses.

Abandoning constitutional guarantees destroys
American freedom for a false hope of safety

A red flag law allows you to officially snitch on your neighbors, relatives or friends, and have them detained without bringing real charges. You can do it out of fear, or just suspicion that people you know may be “up to something” without proof. The cops can break in, confiscate property (arms), and the person you rat out ends up with giant legal bills, court dates, a permanent blot that can’t be removed — and they didn’t actually do anything — you just used your expanded legal “right” to red flag the person. If that sounds terribly wrong it”s because it is. Mass media didn’t tell you that, did they.

These red flag laws are being promoted by people on the political left who are motivated by fear of psychos, often drugged up, who have been encouraged by mass media, TV and the movies to shoot up schools, theaters, restaurants and their workplaces. Those horrific tragedies, shown endlessly on nightly “news” reports, are being used to get legislators and the public to adopt these red flag laws as a supposed solution. You, Mr. and Mrs. Normal, can notify (“red flag”) authorities about these supposed sociopaths before they explode and we’ll all be safe. It almost sounds good, except you’ve heard that authorities knew about the maniacs many times, did nothing, and then picked up the pieces when it was too late.

No, the red flag laws have a different, hidden and terrible purpose. They are a new clandestine method for taking guns away from innocent Americans — a long-time and frustrated goal of the political left. With these new laws in place, authorities have a permanent excuse, and a way around due process (also known as the rule of law) to confiscate guns with little civil protection for the innocent. People in the know get it, but the public isn’t getting even a hint of the truth, just the blaring loudspeakers of CNN and the networks, promoting a false promise of safety from some new law, where all other similar laws have failed miserably.

Red flag laws have zero effect on the reason children want to slaughter their classmates. They do nothing on top of the background checks we’ve had for decades that do nothing to disarm the inner cities where historically black neighborhoods endure 6,000 murders every year. Officials are lying to you, and so-called reporters merely perpetuate the lie.

You get truth from a group like us, JPFO, and others, but the mass media is a mass of deception. Red flag laws are wrong for America from every angle. We already have a half dozen of them on the books, did you know that? Does a wife sleep better with a paper restraining order against an abusive husband, even if they forcible take the guns she knows he has, with a drawer full of kitchen knives? It doesn’t even make sense.

People too dangerous to have their own firearms are too dangerous to be left out on the street by themselves. Join JPFO to learn more. We’ll give you the real deal, not a false flag to wave. Get and read Dial 911 and Die from JPFO.

Feeding and Occupying Japan

Pacific Paratrooper

MacArthur’s first priority was to set up a food distribution network; following the collapse of the ruling government and the wholesale destruction of most major cities, virtually everyone was starving. Even with these measures, millions of people were still on the brink of starvation for several years after the surrender.  As expressed by Kawai Kazuo, “Democracy cannot be taught to a starving people”.  The US government encouraged democratic reform in Japan, and while it sent billions of dollars in food aid, this was dwarfed by the occupation costs it imposed on the struggling Japanese administration.

Initially, the US government provided emergency food relief through Government and Relief in Occupied Areas  (GARIOA) funds. In fiscal year 1946, this aid amounted to US $92 million in loans. From April 1946, in the guise Licensed Agencies for Relief,  private relief organizations were also permitted to provide relief.

MacArthur and Hirohito, first meeting

Once the…

View original post 604 more words

Thousands Returned to Mexico Under Trump Immigration Policy

H/T The Washington Free Beacon.

This is what securing the border looks like slowing illegals from crossing our border.

Records show ‘Remain in Mexico’ policy is cutting illegal immigration.

Thousands of would-be illegal immigrants are being returned to await asylum hearings in Mexico as part of a program the Trump administration has credited with curbing the recent wave of family migration at the southwestern border.

The Migrant Protection Protocols—more colloquially known as the “Remain in Mexico” policy—are regulations issued by former secretary of homeland security Kirstjen Nielsen in December 2018. Under the MPP, a subset of individuals who claim to be seeking asylum after being apprehended at the border now must await the results of their immigration court hearings in Mexico, rather than being detained—or, more often, released on their own recognizance—in the United States.

Asylum seekers, especially from non-contiguous countries, pose a unique challenge to the immigration system. Preexisting laws and regulations mean that asylum seekers can only be detained for so long before being released, while the large immigration court backlog essentially guarantees that these time thresholds will be passed. The result is a system of de facto catch-and-release, in which an individual can simply claim asylum at the border and then disappear into the interior while his or her case is processed.

The stated goal of the “Remain in Mexico” policy at the time of its implementation was to curb the then-swelling crisis at the southwestern border, which was in no small part a product of this asylum loophole. Individuals apprehended seeking asylum would await the results of their hearings in Mexico, meaning that they could not abscond into the United States before their application is denied. Nearly 90 percent of applications are denied.

How effective have the MPP regulations actually been? New data released Monday by the nonpartisan Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) show that the program has taken off in recent months. Nearly 12,000 people were returned to Mexico in July, compared with about 5,000 in May, and just 15 at the start of the year.

MPP cases make up a small share of the immigration court’s total backlog, just 2.7 percent, according to TRAC. But it made up a substantial proportion—22.3 percent—of new cases added to the docket in July. A third of those apprehended traveled from Honduras, 28 percent from Nicaragua, and 22 percent from Guatemala.

The new data support Department of Homeland Security claims that a substantial drop in monthly apprehensions in June and July is partially attributable to the implementation of the MPP. While the protocols have been in place since January, ramped up implementation in May, and their expansion to the Laredo and Brownsville ports of entry, likely drove the dips evident following May’s peak.

Notably, the “Remain in Mexico” policy does not work by stopping individuals before they enter at the southwestern border, only returning them back once they cross. This means that to the extent the policy is effective, the MPP reduces immigration by deterring would-be crossers, who may not attempt to enter because they know they are less likely to be able to stay in the country.

The MPP’s success suggests two conclusions. One is that at least some individuals migrating north and seeking asylum are doing so explicitly because they know they will likely be able to abscond—a sign that the loopholes in America’s asylum rules are known south of the border. The other is that these data supply tentative evidence that immigration reduction policies—such as the administration’s now-withdrawn “zero tolerance” prosecution approach—actually work.