What is better, no guns, or more guns?

[B-Man]

The administration's demand for more gun control crucially rests on the claim of competence.

 

The argument that it is better to rely on state protection than on individual self-defense is only worth having if things work as advertised. But if the administration fails to push back against hostile ideologies and screen refugees, opens the borders, and refuses to heed obvious warnings, the administration has effectively disabled the regulars and you are left with the militia.

 

The failure to anticipate consequences has allowed an outside threat to become an insider attack, and that has weakened the Obama administration's claim to public trust. "Jump, I'll catch you" is credible only when the fireman's net is not surrounded by mashed bodies.

 

If the Second Amendment didn't exist, it might have to be invented to meet the current situation.

 

The more incompetent the Obama administration becomes, the less convincing its demand for public disarmament will be. Conversely, the more competence the administration demonstrates, the more likely the public is to entrust its safety to it.

 

Historically, state failure drives civilian armament, not the other way around. Perhaps the clearest example of this trend is Lebanon, where the inability of the central government to protect the sectarian communities has led each to protect itself. While America is not Lebanon, the same principles hold true: competence inspires confidence, and there is precious little competence in the administration.

 

The president has addressed the nation in the aftermath of terror attacks far too often. His assurances that America can absorb such attacks because he's smarter and tougher than the terrorists fall flat, as they come in the wake of announcements that the government, again, had the suspects in their grasp before letting them go.

 

The administration has a security model that is not working. The FBI is looking for ordinary criminals and "hatemongers." Armed with these descriptions, they keep letting the usual suspects go because they don't fit the bill. Yet time and again they come back as a surprise.

 

Maybe the greatest trick Islamic terrorism ever pulled was convincing Obama it didn't exist.

 

 

https://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2016/06/13/the-brain-surgeon-and-the-cleaning-lady/3/

[Nanker]

Well, when the President of the US says this in the wake of the worst shooting tragedy in history, we should all wonder just WTF does he mean by it.

 

"In the coming hours and days, we’ll learn about the victims of this tragedy. Their names. Their faces. Who they were. The joy that they brought to families and to friends, and the difference that they made in this world. Say a prayer for them and say a prayer for their families -- that God give them the strength to bear the unbearable. And that He give us all the strength to be there for them, and the strength and courage to change. We need to demonstrate that we are defined more -- as a country -- by the way they lived their lives than by the hate of the man who took them from us."

 

What's this? WE have to change. Change how - become Muslim?

[B-Man]

President Obama also said:

 

"We've seen our government mistreat our fellow citizens & it has been a shameful part of our history."

 

 

He followed that right up with the dem's plea to pass a bill that would suspend constitutional rights to individuals based on secret lists with no due process.

 

 

 

[IDBillzFan]

Journalist fires AR-15 for the first time...gets PTSD.

 

The recoil bruised my shoulder. The brass shell casings disoriented me as they flew past my face. The smell of sulfur and destruction made me sick. The explosions — loud like a bomb — gave me a temporary case of PTSD. For at least an hour after firing the gun just a few times, I was anxious and irritable.

 

No toxic masculinity here.

 

Amazing to watch the press so blatantly blame something other than the terrorist for killing 50 people.

[DC Tom]

Journalist fires AR-15 for the first time...gets PTSD.

 

 

No toxic masculinity here.

 

Amazing to watch the press so blatantly blame something other than the terrorist for killing 50 people.

 

"Temporary PTSD?" That's a new one.

 

The definition of PTSD is that IT'S NOT TEMPORARY. That's right up there with "obfuscating with detail."

[IDBillzFan]

 

"Temporary PTSD?" That's a new one.

 

The definition of PTSD is that IT'S NOT TEMPORARY. That's right up there with "obfuscating with detail."

 

He's getting mocked mercilessly on Twitter...mostly by women posting photos of themselves shooting an AR-15.

 

Twitter is loaded today with newspapers posting comments about guns in America. It's pretty embarrassing because they're information is so wrong...given the shooter didn't use an AR-15.

 

Even Mediaite is going after some of the articles.

 

WAPO, NYT Blame Gun That Wasn't Used In Orlando

[/dev/null]

http://thefederalist.com/2016/06/13/the-assault-weapons-ban-is-a-stupid-idea-pushed-by-stupid-people/

[keepthefaith]

Journalist fires AR-15 for the first time...gets PTSD.

 

 

No toxic masculinity here.

 

Amazing to watch the press so blatantly blame something other than the terrorist for killing 50 people.

And Obama's gone off on Trump today. Why can't he muster the same kind of passion toward ISIS and those they influence?

[B-Man]

"Why do all you nuts cling to your guns ?"

 

"Only paranoid idiots want AR-15s in case the government becomes tyrannical."

 

 

 

 

"What do you think of Trump?"

 

"He's literally the next Hitler"

 

[drinkTHEkoolaid]

President Obama also said:

 

"We've seen our government mistreat our fellow citizens & it has been a shameful part of our history."

 

 

He followed that right up with the dem's plea to pass a bill that would suspend constitutional rights to individuals based on secret lists with no due process.

 

 

 

Somehow I think the irony is lost on him.....

 

Good Lord..

 

He's getting mocked mercilessly on Twitter...mostly by women posting photos of themselves shooting an AR-15.

 

Twitter is loaded today with newspapers posting comments about guns in America. It's pretty embarrassing because they're information is so wrong...given the shooter didn't use an AR-15.

 

Even Mediaite is going after some of the articles.

 

WAPO, NYT Blame Gun That Wasn't Used In Orlando

Its willful ignorance to push an agenda. Period. Lets call it what it is. There is no desire to report accurately.

[Dorkington]

I'm admittedly gun ignorant...

 

What are the effective differences between the AR-15 and Sig Sauer MCX? On initial review it seems like they are effectively similar weapons with not much use for anything other than killing people. I suppose maybe hunting animals like Coyote?

[ALF]

The copy cats for the damage that type of gun can do .

 

The type of ammo that can fragment or tumble after entering is bad stuff .

 

The politicians will do what big money orders them to do , this is not a democracy after all.

Edited June 15, 2016 by ALF

[/dev/null]

I'm admittedly gun ignorant...

 

What are the effective differences between the AR-15 and Sig Sauer MCX? On initial review it seems like they are effectively similar weapons with not much use for anything other than killing people. I suppose maybe hunting animals like Coyote?

Ballistically 5.56mm will behave the same out of the barrel of an MXC as it would an AR15 or a bolt action rifle.

 

Finger squeezes trigger

Trigger extends firing pin

Pin strikes primer

Primer ignites charge

Expanding gas launches bullet

Bullet rotates as at accelerates thru the barrel (like throwing a spiral in football)

Bullet exits barrel

Gas channeled back thru the action to force bolt back, ejecting spent casing

Bolt pushes back on spring which compresses and releases to send the bolt back, which pulls next round from magazine and resets the trigger

 

Rinse and repeat

 

That simple mechanical action my friend, is the super high tech weapon of war that you fear so much

[Nanker]

I'm admittedly gun ignorant...

 

What are the effective differences between the AR-15 and Sig Sauer MCX? On initial review it seems like they are effectively similar weapons with not much use for anything other than killing people. I suppose maybe hunting animals like Coyote?

I think it was Jim in Anchorage who first posted this link to a blog about a single farmer's war against feral pigs in Eastern Texas.

Read it. Get educated. There's a number of legitimate uses for this type of gun.

[Joe Miner]

It was probably the bayonet lug that caused this tragedy.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obama-calls-assault-weapons-ban-fly-buy-law/story?id=39846590

[IDBillzFan]

And Obama's gone off on Trump today. Why can't he muster the same kind of passion toward ISIS and those they influence?

 

Because a nation divided is more easily duped. We have the America most thinking people knew we would have under a man whose leadership resume wouldn't make a decent attachment to a McDonald's job application.

 

He's the first troll president, and I'm convinced he couldn't be happier with his results.

[B-Man]

HOW TO TEAR A NATION APART: Appeal To Liberal Self-Regard:

 

After 9/11 and the Boston Bombings, Americans grieved together and comforted each other. They resolved to fight their attackers as one nation. Insofar as there was partisan dissension, it was mostly contained to cranks on either side.

But the attacks at San Bernardino and Orlando have yielded an altogether different response, dominated by hostility, mistrust, and outrageous partisan attacks. Part of this is because the latter two attacks took place during a hotly-contested election season that has brought fevered populism to the fore on both sides of the aisle. But pe

rhaps the most important reason Americans have been divided, rather than united, in the face of terror over the last year is simply because the terrorists elected to kill their victims with bullets. If

Omar Mateen had planted Tsarnaev-style pressure-cooker bombs in the crowded Pulse nightclub on Saturday night, he may well have claimed just as many casualties. But the attack would not have immediately set off a political firestorm over gun control.

Guns occupy a critical space in America’s increasingly acerbic culture wars, a manifestation of the broader social convection currents taking place below the surface. For Jacksonians who are losing faith in the ability of established institutions to preserve order, the Second Amendment is a bulwark against totalitarian movements, like Islamism, that would undermine American liberty. Under this deeply held view, attacks by ISIS-enthusiasts strengthen, rather than weaken, the case for gun rights. But for

cosmopolitan liberals, gun rights are an anachronism—a symbol of all the wrong-headed views espoused by working class whites. Se

t these two warring camps against each other in the context of an ongoing terror threat, and you push an already divided society even further down the path of tribalism and fracture.

The attackers in Orlando and San Bernardino accomplished something the attackers in Boston and New York didn’t: They d

rove a wedge between patriotic Americans, and managed to ensure that our grieving over the dead was polluted from the outset by a din of vicious political assaults. By any measure, they and their fellow travelers must consider this a great success. Perhaps terrorists who choose to carry out their massacres with guns are actually “taking advantage” of American society in a rather different way than many liberals think.

 

 

[unbillievable]

What's easier?

finding and deporting all illegal aliens

finding and confiscating all guns

 

 

...although, only one of these is currently against the law. (even though it's not enforced.)

[B-Man]

dems are now talking filibuster of all other Senate bills until their 'gun bill' is brought up

 

 

Do the facts that the #Orlando terrorist didn't use an AR15,

 

had a background check done,

 

and wasn't on a terror watch list............................... matter at all?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

[What a Tuel]

dems are now talking filibuster of all other Senate bills until their 'gun bill' is brought up

 

 

Do the facts that the #Orlando terrorist didn't use an AR15,

 

had a background check done,

 

and wasn't on a terror watch list............................... matter at all?

 

Is this just the bill to block people on the terrorist watch list? They wish to set a precedent that they can restrict constitutional right with little or no evidence. It would only be a matter of time until they created a no-gun list.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

Is this just the bill to block people on the terrorist watch list? They wish to set a precedent that they can restrict constitutional right with little or no evidence. It would only be a matter of time until they created a no-gun list.

 

That precedent has already been set. Read: The Patriot Act.

[dpberr]

Obama has been a boon for the gun market in the United States. Record sales. Record permits. He's done more to arm American than any one person in American history.

 

He's been able to achieve that on two fronts. One, the desire to ban certain firearms. Creates demand. Two, when Americans don't feel safe, they start arming themselves and this administration does very little to reassure the public they are on the case.

[Azalin]

Obama has been a boon for the gun market in the United States. Record sales. Record permits. He's done more to arm American than any one person in American history.

 

He's been able to achieve that on two fronts. One, the desire to ban certain firearms. Creates demand. Two, when Americans don't feel safe, they start arming themselves and this administration does very little to reassure the public they are on the case.

 

I have several friends who have bought firearms for those very reasons.

[GG]

 

I have several friends who have bought firearms for those very reasons.

 

Good luck getting ammo too.

[B-Man]

U.S. murder rate is also at a 51-year low. Violence is not spinning “out of control” in America, and that’s good.

Slate Goes All In On Second Amendment Trutherism

by Charles C W Cooke

 

In the past four days, no fewer than three of that site’s main writers have offered up a bizarre, revisionist version of the Second Amendment, and done so with all the nonchalance of a man who is proposing that two plus two is four.

On Monday, Mark Joseph Stern informed his readers that “he disagree that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms.” A few hours later, Dahlia Lithwick presented for public consumption one of the most historically illiterate essays that I have ever read, the gist of which was that the “Standard Model” interpretation of the provision was a “hoax” that has little purchase “outside of the GOP”; ”for most of U.S. history,” Lithwick claims, “the freedom guaranteed by the Second Amendment was . . . the right of the people of each state to maintain a well-regulated militia.” And yesterday, citing Lithwick, Jamelle Bouie ruined what was otherwise an excellent and insightful piece by proposing that the recent D.C. v. Heller ruling represented the transmutation of “a fringe right-wing vision of the Second Amendment — an individual right to bear arms” into “the dominant one.”

 

Such claims, to put it impolitely, represent the legal equivalent of Moon landing trutherism

{snip}

Among those professors are “Laurence H. Tribe, a law professor at Harvard,” who “said he had come to believe that the Second Amendment protected an individual right”; Adam Winkler, a professor at UCLA; and “several other leading liberal constitutional scholars, notably Akhil Reed Amar at Yale and Sanford Levinson at the University of Texas,” who “are in broad agreement favoring an individual rights interpretation.”

That a whole host of writers at Slate and elsewhere are still trying to read the right out of existence is outrageous. Indeed, as Fordham’s Nicholas Johnson has observed, the “collective rights” theory advanced as by Stern, Lithwick, Bouie and co. is so wholly incoherent — and so utterly discredited — that “not even the dissenters in Heller tried to keep [it] afloat.”

 

We talk a great deal about “bubbles” in politics, and even more about the problem of the manner in which the Internet can be used to spread heinous ignorance within self-selecting groups. I can think of no better example in contemporary American life than the progressive media’s continuing interest in peddling this line.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner

Edited June 16, 2016 by B-Man

[B-Man]

One thing that you can always count on from the Left......................consistent hypocrisy.

 

 

 

[/dev/null]

http://www.dailywire.com/news/6612/west-hollywood-inundated-poster-rainbow-gadsen-hank-berrien

#ShootBack

[VinceFerragamo]

guns.

 

God made man and gave him free choice.

Man chose to make guns.

 

I dont think God wanted man to make guns but forgives him for doing it.

 

its too late for no guns. To get that would be a police state and another civil war.

 

now govt can use the gun debate as well as all other debates as a pointless thing to make people pick sides and waste time talking about what they will never have control over because the govt

 

does what ever it wants. Your vote stopped counting in the early 1900s

[IDBillzFan]

This just in...while all the fear-mongering leftists are yelling that we need to ban guns...the LGBT community gets smart and starts buying them.

 

Good for them. Because an armed lesbian is a safe lesbian.

[/dev/null]

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/06/16/gun-shop-owners-declined-sell-orlando-jihadi-reported-authorities/

[Nanker]

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/06/16/gun-shop-owners-declined-sell-orlando-jihadi-reported-authorities/

I don't know how they were able to do that without getting sued or protested.

Won't bake a cake for someone - you get sued.

Won't cater a wedding for someone - you get sued.

Don't open your establishment on Sunday to serve the public - you get protested.

 

It's all about freedom of choice - except when it isn't.

[\GoBillsInDallas/]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/why-does-the-irs-need-guns-1466117176

 

Why Does the IRS Need Guns?

After grabbing legal power, bureaucrats are amassing firepower. It’s time to scale back the federal arsenal.

By TOM COBURN and ADAM ANDRZEJEWSKI

June 16, 2016 6:46 p.m. ET

Special agents at the IRS equipped with AR-15 military-style rifles? Health and Human Services “Special Office of Inspector General Agents” being trained by the Army’s Special Forces contractors? The Department of Veterans Affairs arming 3,700 employees?

The number of non-Defense Department federal officers authorized to make arrests and carry firearms (200,000) now exceeds the number of U.S. Marines (182,000). In its escalating arms and ammo stockpiling, this federal arms race is unlike anything in history. Over the last 20 years, the number of these federal officers with arrest-and-firearm authority has nearly tripled to over 200,000 today, from 74,500 in 1996.

What exactly is the Obama administration up to?

On Friday, June 17, our organization, American Transparency, is releasing its OpenTheBooks.com oversight report on the militarization of America. The report catalogs federal purchases of guns, ammunition and military-style equipment by seemingly bureaucratic federal agencies. During a nine-year period through 2014, we found, 67 agencies unaffiliated with the Department of Defense spent $1.48 billion on guns and ammo. Of that total, $335.1 million was spent by agencies traditionally viewed as regulatory or administrative, such as the Smithsonian Institution and the U.S. Mint.

Some examples of spending from 2005 through 2014 raise the question: Who are they preparing to battle?

• The Internal Revenue Service, which has 2,316 special agents, spent nearly $11 million on guns, ammunition and military-style equipment. That’s nearly $5,000 in gear for each agent.

• The Department of Veterans Affairs, which has 3,700 law-enforcement officers guarding and securing VA medical centers, spent $11.66 million. It spent more than $200,000 on night-vision equipment, $2.3 million for body armor, more than $2 million on guns, and $3.6 million for ammunition. The VA employed no officers with firearm authorization as recently as 1995.

• The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service spent $4.77 million purchasing shotguns, .308 caliber rifles, night-vision goggles, propane cannons, liquid explosives, pyro supplies, buckshot, LP gas cannons, drones, remote-control helicopters, thermal cameras, military waterproof thermal infrared scopes and more.

• The Environmental Protection Agency spent $3.1 million on guns, ammunition and military-style equipment. The EPA has put nearly $800 million since 2005 into its “Criminal Enforcement Division.”

• The Food and Drug Administration employs 183 heavily armed “special agents.”

• The University of California, Berkeley acquired 14 5.56mm assault rifles and Yale University police accepted 20 5.56mm assault rifles from the Defense Department. Texas Southern University and Saddleback College police even acquired Mine Resistant Vehicles (MRVs).

Other paper-pushing federal agencies with firearm-and-arrest authority that have expanded their arsenals since 2006 include the Small Business Administration, Social Security Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Education Department, Energy Department, Bureau of Engraving and Printing, National Institute of Standards and Technology and many others.

People from both ends of the political spectrum have expressed alarm at this trend. Conservatives argue that it is hypocritical, unconstitutional and costly for political leaders to undermine the Second Amendment while simultaneously equipping nonmilitary agencies with heavy weapons, hollow-point bullets and military-style equipment. Progressives like Sen. Bernie Sanders have raised civil liberties concerns about the militarization of local police with vehicles built for war and other heavy weaponry.

Meanwhile, federal authorities are silent on the growing arsenal at federal agencies. In fact, we asked the IRS for an asset accounting of their gun locker—their guns and ammunition asset inventory by location. Their response? “We don’t have one [an inventory], but could create one for you, if important.”

Our data shows that the federal government has become a gun show that never adjourns. Taxpayers need to tell Washington that police powers belong primarily to cities and states, not the feds.

[DC Tom]

 

http://www.wsj.com/articles/why-does-the-irs-need-guns-1466117176

 

Why Does the IRS Need Guns?

After grabbing legal power, bureaucrats are amassing firepower. It’s time to scale back the federal arsenal.

By TOM COBURN and ADAM ANDRZEJEWSKI

June 16, 2016 6:46 p.m. ET

Special agents at the IRS equipped with AR-15 military-style rifles? Health and Human Services “Special Office of Inspector General Agents” being trained by the Army’s Special Forces contractors? The Department of Veterans Affairs arming 3,700 employees?

The number of non-Defense Department federal officers authorized to make arrests and carry firearms (200,000) now exceeds the number of U.S. Marines (182,000). In its escalating arms and ammo stockpiling, this federal arms race is unlike anything in history. Over the last 20 years, the number of these federal officers with arrest-and-firearm authority has nearly tripled to over 200,000 today, from 74,500 in 1996.

What exactly is the Obama administration up to?

On Friday, June 17, our organization, American Transparency, is releasing its OpenTheBooks.com oversight report on the militarization of America. The report catalogs federal purchases of guns, ammunition and military-style equipment by seemingly bureaucratic federal agencies. During a nine-year period through 2014, we found, 67 agencies unaffiliated with the Department of Defense spent $1.48 billion on guns and ammo. Of that total, $335.1 million was spent by agencies traditionally viewed as regulatory or administrative, such as the Smithsonian Institution and the U.S. Mint.

Some examples of spending from 2005 through 2014 raise the question: Who are they preparing to battle?

• The Internal Revenue Service, which has 2,316 special agents, spent nearly $11 million on guns, ammunition and military-style equipment. That’s nearly $5,000 in gear for each agent.

• The Department of Veterans Affairs, which has 3,700 law-enforcement officers guarding and securing VA medical centers, spent $11.66 million. It spent more than $200,000 on night-vision equipment, $2.3 million for body armor, more than $2 million on guns, and $3.6 million for ammunition. The VA employed no officers with firearm authorization as recently as 1995.

• The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service spent $4.77 million purchasing shotguns, .308 caliber rifles, night-vision goggles, propane cannons, liquid explosives, pyro supplies, buckshot, LP gas cannons, drones, remote-control helicopters, thermal cameras, military waterproof thermal infrared scopes and more.

• The Environmental Protection Agency spent $3.1 million on guns, ammunition and military-style equipment. The EPA has put nearly $800 million since 2005 into its “Criminal Enforcement Division.”

• The Food and Drug Administration employs 183 heavily armed “special agents.”

• The University of California, Berkeley acquired 14 5.56mm assault rifles and Yale University police accepted 20 5.56mm assault rifles from the Defense Department. Texas Southern University and Saddleback College police even acquired Mine Resistant Vehicles (MRVs).

Other paper-pushing federal agencies with firearm-and-arrest authority that have expanded their arsenals since 2006 include the Small Business Administration, Social Security Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Education Department, Energy Department, Bureau of Engraving and Printing, National Institute of Standards and Technology and many others.

People from both ends of the political spectrum have expressed alarm at this trend. Conservatives argue that it is hypocritical, unconstitutional and costly for political leaders to undermine the Second Amendment while simultaneously equipping nonmilitary agencies with heavy weapons, hollow-point bullets and military-style equipment. Progressives like Sen. Bernie Sanders have raised civil liberties concerns about the militarization of local police with vehicles built for war and other heavy weaponry.

Meanwhile, federal authorities are silent on the growing arsenal at federal agencies. In fact, we asked the IRS for an asset accounting of their gun locker—their guns and ammunition asset inventory by location. Their response? “We don’t have one [an inventory], but could create one for you, if important.”

Our data shows that the federal government has become a gun show that never adjourns. Taxpayers need to tell Washington that police powers belong primarily to cities and states, not the feds.

 

 

Some of those - APHIS and DoE, for example - I can understand. And UC Berkeley, Yale, etc...it's part in response to demands that schools be prepared for "active shooter incidents" (because nowadays, people expect schools to be law enforcement bodies as well ), and part because it's simply cheaper to be used Defense items (if you need a tactical vehicle as part of the outfit for your "active shooter response team," may as well buy a used MRAP rather than a new and modified SUV.)

 

Meanwhile, federal authorities are silent on the growing arsenal at federal agencies. In fact, we asked the IRS for an asset accounting of their gun locker—their guns and ammunition asset inventory by location. Their response? “We don’t have one [an inventory], but could create one for you, if important.”

 

 

 

That's just bull ****, though. Ever federal office I've ever been in has a closely monitored inventory of the most trivial things. They'll keep an accurate inventory of post-it notes. They'll spend more money keeping that accurate inventory and controlling access to post-it notes than they'll spend on buying the post-it notes themselves. If the IRS doesn't have an inventory of weapons, someone needs to be fired post-haste.

[B-Man]

 

 

If the IRS doesn't have an inventory of weapons, someone needs to be fired post-haste.

 

Joking right ?.....................The IRS discipline someone ?

 

 

 

The Real Gun-Control Story

by Kevin D Williamson

It’s not about stopping shooters, it’s about identity politics.

In the wake of the San Bernardino shooting, the actor Samuel L. Jackson said that he hoped it would turn out that the killer was a white man. David Sirota wrote the same thing after the Boston marathon bombing, in an article headlined “Let’s hope the Boston marathon bomber is a white American.” Jackson and Sirota were disappointed: Both atrocities were carried out by Muslims of Middle Eastern origin as expressions of solidarity with the worldwide Islamist enterprise. The massacre in Orlando was perpetrated by a Muslim, the son of an Afghan immigrant, a man of the sort we have been taught to call a “person of color,” I suppose. (Do Afghans count? This is never made clear.) He may or may not have been suffering from some sort of crisis of sexuality: It isn’t clear whether his earlier presence in the Florida gay club was cruising or casing.

But as a son of immigrants and a member of at least one minority group, Omar Mateen makes a poor poster-boy for the Left, which prefers that its enemies be white, male, Christian, and, if possible, middle-aged, middle-American, and overweight. Remember how, during the Tea Party rallies, so much attention was paid to the fact that some participants were obese and using mobility scooters? That wasn’t an accident. It’s loathing substituting for analysis.

For much the same reason, cartoons purporting to depict gun-rights supporters after Orlando almost invariably depicted obese, aging, white, and downscale (rumpled, ill-kempt) subjects. That is whom the Left believes to be the problem when it comes to violence in these United States — and most other problems, too. The relevant psychology here is that of intellectual development arrested in adolescence. If you’ve ever heard a 50-year-old lefty raging about Middle America and thought that it sounded a lot like a 14-year-old raging about his stick-in-the-mud father, you’re not the first to whom that has occurred.

 

You’ll notice that we generally have these national crises about gun control when there’s a Newtown or an Aurora, not after a typical weekend in Chicago, during the course of which several dozen people will be shot, and many killed. Part of this is because we have a tendency to worry more about shark attacks (which almost never happen) rather than lethal bee stings (which happen all the time), but part of it is that the Left is not culturally inclined to organize one of these pageants of exhibitionistic grief over the low-level criminal escapades of young black men in Chicago or Philadelphia. For the same reason, almost all of the gun-control measures that excite our progressive friends — bans on so-called assault weapons, restrictions on gun shows — are aimed at the hobbies of middle-aged white guys, rural types, Second Amendment devotees who mistrust the federal government, etc.: the enemy, in other words. These proposals have little or nothing to do with the vast majority of crime.

{snip}

Yes, sometimes we get an Oklahoma City bombing. Sometimes, a shark does attack. But the reality of violence in the United States is practically unspeakable. And because this is fundamentally a question of social-status-jockeying rather than one of effective public policy, gun-control policies that might actually reduce crime are overlooked or opposed because they do not annoy the NRA. Indeed, gun control that doesn’t annoy the NRA isn’t considered proper gun control at all. We could be putting violent criminals away for gun-related crimes for longer terms and monitoring them more aggressively through an improved parole system. We could do that before they graduate to murder — remember how many of those charged with possession offenses have prior arrests and convictions. But this isn’t on any gun-control agenda.

Why?

For one thing, it probably would mean locking up a lot of young black men in Chicago rather than hassling a lot of old white guys living out weekend-warrior Rambo fantasies in Tulsa. And for the Democrats, that isn’t an option. The enemy is the enemy, and, guilty or not guilty, he must be punished.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/436739/orlando-shooting-gun-control-left-wing-identity-politics

.

[B-Man]

We don’t punish people who are merely under suspicion.

 

The dems "chanting" “common sense” doesn’t change that.

 

 

 

New RepublicVerified account ‏@NewRepublic 3h3 hours ago

No, gun control won't prevent terrorism. But that's not the point. http://bit.ly/1YxaZ2x

 

The point is sticking it to those flyover rubes and showing them who's boss.

[/dev/null]

http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2016/06/17/gun-store-sells-30000-ar-15s-since-orlando-shooting.html

[B-Man]

The (misnamed) Daily News continues it's slander

 

 

Follow

New York Daily NewsVerified account‏@NYDailyNews

A look at tomorrow's front page... MADMEN WITH GUNS: @NRA threatens pols who vote for a ban http://nydn.us/1UiPBOP

 

 

[What a Tuel]

http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2016/06/17/gun-store-sells-30000-ar-15s-since-orlando-shooting.html

 

Not to mention the millions of AR-15's out there, and what 6 have been used in mass shootings of that scale in the last 5 years? Not so sure accessibility is the problem, and something tells me the government won't effectively control the millions of weapons out there.

[B-Man]

All hail the Narrative !

 

 

CBS’S JOHN DICKERSON TRIES TO LINK OMAR MATEEN TO GUN SHOWS.

 

 

 

Related: CBS News Political Director John Dickerson: ‘Our Job’ to Steer Away from the Clintons’ Past — “Elections are supposed to be about the future.”

 

Flashback: New Host of Face the Nation John Dickerson Advised Obama in 2013 to ‘Destroy the GOP.’

 

Democrats with bylines.

 

 

 

.

 

I’M SO OLD, I CAN REMEMBER WHEN DEMOCRATS SAID THIS:

 

“We don’t deprive a person of rights in this country simply because the executive branch put that person on a secret list.”

 

 

.

Edited June 20, 2016 by B-Man

[ALF]

Supreme Court lets stand law banning some semi-automatic assault weapons

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/20/politics/supreme-court-declines-consideration-of-law-banning-some-semi-automatic-assault-weapons/index.html?adkey=bn