Study -- Four of Five Criminals Acquire Guns Illegally

From Breitbart's Big Government:

A study conducted by the Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health shows that four out of five criminals acquire their guns illegally, while one out of five acquires them through legal means, prior to building up a criminal record.

The Washington Post published the study, which looked at guns recovered from Pittsburgh crime scenes in 2008 and found that “in approximately 8 out of 10 cases, the perpetrator was not a lawful gun owner but rather in illegal possession of a weapon that belonged to someone else.”
...................

The quick takeaway from both these studies is that more gun control will not do anything to prevent criminals from arming themselves and carrying out evil deeds.

This study and the one from the University of Chicago both prove, what pro-gun people have been saying for years.

Bad guys don't buy or obtain guns through legal sources.

Dem Delegate Admits: ‘Common Sense Gun Control’ Is Just Code For Repealing Second Amendment

From The Daily Caller:

The latest video from Project Veritas shows Mary Bayer, a former Democratic delegate and a volunteer organizer for Hillary Clinton’s campaign, admitting that the party is using “common sense” gun control to trick America into supporting a ban on all firearms and effectively repealing the Second Amendment.

As if theis really shocks anyone?

58 Bipartisan Lawmakers Condemn Massachusetts ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban

From Breitbart's Big Government:

Fifty-eight Massachusetts lawmakers — both Democratic and Republican — signed a letter to state Attorney General Maura Healey (D) condemning her July 20 issuance of a directive expanding the state’s nearly 20-year-old “assault weapons” ban.
...........................

The letter said, “We are particularly concerned that your Enforcement Notice was issued unilaterally, with very little, if any, advance notice for licensed gun dealers and lawful gun owners to adequately prepare for this new interpretation of the 1998 assault weapons law.” Breitbart News pointed to this same issue on July 25 when we reported that gun stores across the state could face financial ruin because of Healey’s actions. Gun store owners said the abruptness of Healey’s action coupled with the lack of clarity regarding which semiautomatic rifles — if any — remain legal to sell, has them in a lurch.

The 58 lawmakers who sent the letter to Healey made it clear that they wish she had pursued the gun control by asking the legislature to take it up and debate it, either passing or rejecting it, whatever the case may be. As it stands, House Minority Leader Jones believes Healey’s actions betray political calculations that have been in the works for some time.

Jones said:

She should have proposed legislation and said, “here is the problem, we want to solve this problem.” We’ve had attorney generals of her party — and she’s worked in the AG’s office — and this wasn’t an issue. We had eight years of a Democratic governor and this wasn’t an issue, and we just did a major gun bill in 2014 and this issue wasn’t debated. This seems much more politically calculated to take advantage of the moment, if you will, of some of the tragedies that have unfolded nationally or beyond.

I think she wants to raise her national stature.

FBI Stats Undercut Massachusetts ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban

From Breitbart's Big Government:

FBI crime stats for 2014 show that no rifles of any kind–“assault” rifles or otherwise–were used to murder state residents in 2014, the last year for which such stats are available.

This is crucial information because it was just on July 20 that Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey (D) unilaterally expanded the state’s “assault weapons” ban under the guise of saving innocent lives.

Healey announced her expansion of the ban by pointing to murders committed with “assault weapons” in other states–Newtown, CT; Aurora, CO; San Bernardino; CA; and Orlando, FL–but mentioned none in Massachusetts. According to The Boston Globe, she pointed out that “10,000 assault weapons were sold [in Massachusetts] just in the last year,” but did not mention a murder committed with any of the weapons.

According to the FBI, there were no murders to list. No rifles of any kind were used to murder Massachusetts residents in 2014. Moreover, no shotguns were used. The fact that no shotguns were used is important because many gun-grabbers, when banning “assault” rifles, will include a number of semiautomatic shotguns in their ban, as well. We saw this with Senator Dianne Feinstein’s (D-CA) attempted “assault weapons” ban following the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre.

It's about disarmament ad control. Big Government control of the populace.

Californians are Putting Their Money Down on a Sure Bet: Guns

From The BearingArms

Just two weeks short weeks after Governor Jerry Brown showed his hand by signing a number of gun control measures into law, Californians are putting their money down on a sure bet: AR-15 rifles.

“The California compliant rifles right now are non-existent. There is nothing out there,” said Ray Parga, owner of Del Valle Gunsmithing in Marina, CA.

Parga told local reporters that sales of AR-15 style firearms are through the roof. Not only are the guns he had in stock completely sold out, but replenishment orders were sold before they’ll ever touch store shelves.

“We’re getting right now, probably 20 calls a day and we are a small shop,” said Parga. “Generally they just want to be able to have one before they aren’t allowed to buy them anymore.”

The Law of unintended consequences.

The Week in Pictures -- Notorious Edition

From the guys at Powerline Blog:

Investigators -- Dallas Gunman Purchased All Guns Legally

From Breitbart's Big Government:

On July 11 investigators looking into the Dallas Police ambush said the gunman purchased his weapons “legally.”

This means the gunman–Micah Xavier Johnson–joins a growing list of attackers and alleged attackers who complied with gun controls in order to acquire their firearms.

That list includes Omar Mateen (Orlando), Mainak Sarkar (UCLA), Sayed Farook and Tashfeen Malik (San Bernardino), Noah Harpman (Colorado Springs), Chris Harper Mercer (Umpqua Community College), Vester Lee Flangan (Virgina), John Russell Houser (Lafayette), Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez (Chattanooga), Dylann Roof (Charleston), Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi (Garland), Jared and Amanda Miller (Las Vegas), Elliot Rodger (Santa Barabara), Ivan Lopez (Fort Hood 2014), Darion Marcus Aguilar (Maryland mall), Karl Halverson Pierson (Arapahoe High School), Paul Ciancia (LAX), Andrew John Engeldinger (Minneapolis), Aaron Alexis (DC Navy Yard), Tennis Melvin Maynard (West Virginia), Wade Michael Page (Sikh Temple), James Holmes (Aurora theater), Jared Loughner (Tucson), Nidal Hasan (Fort Hood 2009), Jiverly Wong (Binghamton), Seung-Hui Cho (Virginia Tech), Naveed Haq (Seattle), and Mark Barton (Atlanta).
..................

On July 8 the Congressional Black Caucus responded to the Dallas Police ambush by calling for a ban on AR-15 rifles. But Breitbart News reported that Johnson used a Russian-made rifle–the Izhmash-Saiga is Russian made–thereby demonstrating that a ban on AR-15 rifles would have done nothing to prevent the attack from taking place.

Mna, liberals just can't get a break where the facts actually fit their narrative on gun control.

Ban on AR-15 Rifles Would Not Have Prevented Dallas Police Ambush

From Breitbart's Big Government:

In the wake of Dallas Police ambush, left-wing voices renewed their calls for a ban on AR-15 rifles. However, a CBS News report shows that such a ban would have been impotent because the gunman used an SKS rifle rather than an AR-15.

The SKS is an antique rifle that was designed during WWII and used during the Vietnam War. It is a semiautomatic rifle with a fixed magazine. And while the fixed magazine can be removed and the rifle adapted to detachable magazines, the firearm was designed with a fixed magazine in place.

Whoops!!!

So here is another case when the assault weapons ban would not have have been effective in stopping a mass shooting.

But it's the first place Preisident 4Putt went.

Micah Johnson Was Kicked Out of the Army for Stealing Panties

From The Daily Beast via H/T at Hotair:

But by numerous reports, Johnson and his Army Reserves engineering unit did not see so much as a moment of combat.

At least part of Johnson’s manifest transformation seems to have been the result not of PTSD, but of what might be termed PTDD, Post Traumatic Disgrace Disorder.

As reported by one of his bunkmates in Afghanistan, Johnson suffered a particular shame.

“We all knew he was a pervert cuz he got caught stealing girls’ panties,” the bunkmate later said in a Facebook post.

Wow! He should have gotten a dishonorable discharge. The would have flagged his universal background check and possibly prevented him from getting a gun.

Obama, Democrats Exploit Dallas Attack To Push For More Gun Control

From The Federalist:

It didn’t take long for the political blame game to begin after the Dallas shootings Thursday night. As in Orlando, so in Dallas. But this has become an established pattern in American politics.

Three days after the Orlando nightclub massacre last month, the New York Times ran an editorial blaming the attack on a political environment created by the GOP’s “corrosive politics” and anti-gay bigotry:

While the precise motivation for the rampage remains unclear, it is evident that Mr. Mateen was driven by hatred toward gays and lesbians. Hate crimes don’t happen in a vacuum. They occur where bigotry is allowed to fester, where minorities are vilified and where people are scapegoated for political gain. Tragically, this is the state of American politics, driven too often by Republican politicians who see prejudice as something to exploit, not extinguish.

Today, less than 24 hours after a gunman ambushed and killed five Dallas police officers and wounded more than a half-dozen more, the Congressional Black Caucus convened a press conference to condemn Republicans for not supporting stricter gun control legislation. “Republicans, what on Earth—why are you recoiling and not giving us a debate on gun violence?” said Rep. G.K. Butterfield. “Why not give it a hearing? Give us a debate. Give us an up or down vote on legislation on gun violence.”

Hours later, President Obama gave a statement commending the Dallas police and law enforcement officials everywhere. But he couldn’t resist adding a comment about gun control.

We will soon find out that the Dallas Shooter passed a universal background check. So since the background check failed, confiscation should be the next step, according the President 4Putt!

California Bites the Bullet with Background Checks

From The American Thinker Blog:

If strong gun laws worked, Chicago would be the safest place on the planet. Gun laws didn’t work at Ft. Hood, in Orlando, or in San Bernardino, where the wife of one of those slain noted that the killers knew their victims couldn’t shoot back and a gun in a good guy’s hand would have made a difference:

In the past, California’s gun control laws already closed many of the so-called “loopholes” related to gun purchases. In fact, some of the weapons owned by the San Bernadino shooters, Syed Farook and his wife Tashfeem Malik, were legally bought within the state by a friend named Enrique Marquez. The man is pleading not guilty to providing material support to the two shooters, but he’s also being charged as a co-conspirator in the terrorist plot…

Amy Wetzel is the widow of San Bernardino shooting victim Michael Wetzel and she is also applying for a concealed carry weapons permit. During a recent interview, she speculated that the outcome of the San Bernardino terrorist attack could have been very different if someone had been carrying a concealed gun.

“What if someone in that room (at the Inland Regional Center) had had a permit to carry (a concealed weapon),” she said.

Yes, Governor Brown, what if? Guns used at San Bernardino were purchased legally and so too was the ammo. Making it difficult for the shooters to get ammo or reload quickly makes no sense if you make it impossible for victims to shoot back at all. What if, as Sayed Farouk reloaded his weapon, someone with a concealed carry weapon had used theirs to kill him?

Liberal Logic!

California -- A Case Study in the Failure of Gun Control

From Breitbart California:

In 1989, California became “the first state to ban assault weapons.” Since that time, it has enacted a steady stream of gun controls, only to see violent crime rise and high-profile shootings — including terror attacks — betray the lie that gun control saves lives.

Just days ago, Governor Jerry Brown signed new gun controls into law. Those controls include a requirement that ammunition purchasers go through a background check just like firearms purchasers and “impose new restrictions on assault weapons,” according to the New York Times.

It is crucial to note that the “new restrictions on assault weapons” are the result of the old restrictions being circumvented. Although this circumvention was lawful in some cases — via the use of bullet buttons to remove magazines — the fact that it happened so easily only bolsters arguments from the NRA, Gun Owners of America, Breitbart News, and others who stress that gun control does not prevent criminals from getting the guns they need.
..........................

So crime must be dropping, right? On the contrary, violent crime is up.

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, murder in California rose ten percent last year. Additionally, in San Francisco — a city with some of the most stringent gun controls in the state — “smash-and-grab car burglaries … were up 31 percent in 2015 and have nearly tripled since 2010.”
..........................

Jerry Brown’s solution to these gun control failures? More gun control.

Progressive have the same solution for all the world's problems, more government spending and/or control.

Thought of the Day

From Instapundit:

California will now require an ID and a background check for ammunition purchases, but ..................

(Wait for it!)

...... Not to vote.

(H/T: Cary Cheshire)

Jerry Brown -- We’re Coming for Your High-Capacity Magazines

From Breitbart California:

Regarding the ammunition background checks, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence told the New York Times that the hope is they will serve as a backdoor tool for finding guns that aren’t on the books — something gun control advocates have been trying to do on the national level for decades. The Brady Campaign’s Amanda Wilcox said,

It can give us a handle on who has illegal guns in the state, as well as limiting access to ammunition by dangerous people who may have illegal guns.

However, there is a difference between “illegal guns” and non-registered guns, which may include legal guns (and legal gun owners) that are not in the state government’s database.

The quote from the Brady Campaign spokesperson should leave little doubt the forced registration list will leads to a master list that will eventually lead to confiscation.

The week in Pictures -- Brexit of Champions Edition

From the guys at Powerline Blog:

And one that should be added

Oh, so European-style gun control didn’t stop these extremists from storing rifles near this German mosque, huh?

From Hotair:

So, yeah—Germany has probably what American liberals would want to institute here if they could, and Islamic radicals were able to obtain mass quantities of firearms. That’s not to say we should do nothing, but when it comes to fighting terrorism—maybe divert monetary and political resources to intelligence services and law enforcement, rather than disarming law-abiding Americans.

But then the people who support that idea are bigots.

Today’s gun vote wouldn’t stop recent mass shootings, admits leading proponent

From Hotair:

Sen. Chris Murrphy (D-CT) is one of the leading proponents of Monday’s senate votes to inhibit the 2nd amendment. Days after the Islamic terror attack in Orlando, Murphy led a filibuster on the floor of the senate demanding votes on a whole host of bills and he said this to his fellow senators as he ended his filibuster speech:

“Ask yourself what can you do to make sure that Orlando or Sandy Hook never ever happens again.”

................

So it’s worth noting that during an interview on ABC News Murphy was forced to admit that the bills he has proposed and will be voted on today would have not stopped either Orlando or Sandy Hook or any of the other recent mass shootings in America.

So preventing gun violence had nothing to do with the vote. It's all about control.

ABC Hammers Dem. Sen. -- 'Your Proposal Would Have Done Nothing' To Prevent Orlando

From The Daily Caller:

ABC’s Jonathan Karl hammered Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy over his push for increased gun control in the wake of the Orlando terrorist attack by a man who pledged his allegiance to ISIS, saying, “Your proposal would have done nothing.”

In an interview on ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday, Karl said to Murphy, “You’re pushing a bill and have been pushing the bill that will be voted on on Monday to close the so-called ‘gun show loophole.’ Would that have done anything to stop the massacre in Orlando?”
...............

“But wait a minute, [the Orlando shooter] didn’t buy those guns at a gun show. And he would have passed the background, he did pass a background check,” Karl said.

“He did pass a background check,” Murphy admitted.
...............

“But what I’m trying to get at, and we hear every time there’s on of these terrible tragedies, there’s these proposals,” Karl said. “Your proposal would have done nothing in the case in Orlando, it would have done nothing in the killing in San Bernardino, and in fact, is unrelated to the killing in Newtown.”

“So why, why are we focusing on things that have nothing to do with the massacres we’re that we are responding to,” Karl insisted.

1.) I must applauded ABC News for committing a random act of journalism!

2.) All the laws proposed and will be proposed by liberals/progressive have nothing to do with stopping violence, but with disarming the populace. Notice the regular comment about Australia and Great Britain.

3.) France has extremely strict gun control laws and it didn't stop the terrorists from the slaughter in Paris.

The same party that wants to take away your guns wants plans to bring in 1,000,000 muslim refugees into the country THIS YEAR!!!

Guess Who A Watch-list Firearms Ban Would Have Missed?

From Ed Morrissey at Hot Air via H/T at Instapundit:

Senate Democrats plan to thunder back to the upper chamber today to demand passage of a gun-control bill in the wake of the Orlando terrorist attack. As was the case in 2015, the proposal contains provisions to deny firearms sales to anyone on a federal terror watch list or no-fly list. Guess who would have managed to slide by that ban? The Orlando terrorist himself, of course:

The man who police say killed 49 people in a brutal rampage in Orlando, Fla., early on Sunday morning was on a federal watch list for roughly 10 months in 2013 and 2014, while he was the subject of an FBI probe.

But then Omar Mateen was taken off the list soon after the investigation ended in March of 2014, FBI Director James Comey said on Monday

“He was watch-listed with the opening of the preliminary investigation and he was taken off the watch list when the investigation was closed,” Comey told reporters.

In other words, the Senate bill demanded by Democrats would have done absolutely nothing to keep the terrorist in Orlando from purchasing his weapons. That has been true of every event which has prompted this proposal. This came up most recently in the wake of the San Bernardino terrorist attack, when not only were neither of the attackers on any watch list, DHS had just let Tashfeen Malik into the US despite her publicly expressed radical-jihadist sympathies.

Not surprising! One can't let a crisis go to waste.

The Assault Weapons Ban Is A Stupid Idea Pushed By Stupid People

From The Federalist:

It happens like clock work: as soon as there’s a mere whisper of a terrorist attack or a mass shooting, the usual suspects kick in to high gear. Their destination is always the same: a faraway land where a so-called assault weapons ban magically eliminates not only guns but also prevents guns from walking of their own volition, without need of human agency, into crowded places and killing people.
....................

But before we dive into whether the assault weapons ban was merely dumb, or if it was monumentally stupid and counterproductive, it’s important to define what the previous federal ban covered and how it defined an “assault weapon.” The 1994 assault weapons law banned semi-automatic rifles only if they had any two of the following five features in addition to a detachable magazine: a collapsible stock, a pistol grip, a bayonet mount, a flash suppressor, or a grenade launcher.

That’s it. Not one of those cosmetic features has anything whatsoever to do with how or what a gun fires. Note that under the 1994 law, the mere existence of a bayonet lug, not even the bayonet itself, somehow turned a garden-variety rifle into a bloodthirsty killing machine. Guns with fixed stocks? Very safe. But guns where a stock has more than one position? Obviously they’re murder factories. A rifle with both a bayonet lug and a collapsible stock? Perish the thought.

A collapsible stock does not make a rifle more deadly. Nor does a pistol grip. Nor does a bayonet mount. Nor does a flash suppressor. And for heaven’s sake, good luck finding, let alone purchasing, 40mm explosive grenades for your rifle-mounted grenade launcher (and remember: the grenade launcher itself is fine, just as long as you don’t put the ultra-deadly bayonet lug anywhere near it).

The complete unfamiliarity with guns and how they work that led to the inept definitions in the 1994 law was on full display in a now-infamous television interview with Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, a New York congresswoman who backed the so-called assault weapons ban. In the interview, Tucker Carlson asked McCarthy to define “barrel shroud,” a firearm feature regulated by the law. Here’s how she answered:



“The shoulder thing that goes up.” It’s not the “shoulder thing that goes up.” There is no “shoulder thing that goes up.” The “barrel shroud” (a term nobody uses) is simply a hand guard that goes around a barrel. That embarrassing spectacle happened over seven years ago, and yet over that period of time, McCarthy’s fellow gun banners still haven’t seen fit to learn the slightest thing about the objects they wish to regulate.

She's a moron. And remember, idiots like her write legislation! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U Up there with Diana Degette:

As a sife note, Degette was the one who took over Patsy Schroeder's seat in the House.

Are you ready for a mind-blowing statistic? In 2014, you were six times more likely to be murdered with a knife than you were with a rifle. Knives were the weapon of choice in 1,567 murders in 2014, according to the FBI. It gets crazier. You were also nearly three times more likely to be killed by someone’s fists or feet than you were to be murdered with a rifle. In 2014, 660 people were murdered with what the FBI calls “personal weapons”–hands, fists, feet–compared to 248 with rifles.

In the United States, knives are more deadly than rifles. So are fists. And feet. This is not my opinion. It is an incontrovertible fact. And it’s a fact that highlights a point that far too many people refuse to acknowledge: the human desire to kill is far more deadly than any weapon. Weapons do not of their own volition and agency decide to kill people. That requires human intervention. Humans hell-bent on death and destruction will get their hands on whatever tools they need to wreak their desired havoc. Restricting the use of those tools by innocent people who only want to protect themselves and their families is delusional madness.

Facts getting in the way of the narrative