It’s safe to say Feinstein, Obama and the rest of the gun control gang face an uphill battle when it comes to limiting any Second Amendment rights. According to a Fox News poll, most Americans—both Republicans and Democrats—would defy any new laws that would take away their guns.
But on to Question 47, addressed to those with a gun in their home: "If the government passed a law to take your guns, would you give up your guns or defy the law and keep your guns?"
The response: 65 percent reported they would "defy the law." That incudes 70 percent of Republicans, 68 percent of conservatives, 52 percent of Democrats and 59 percent of liberals.
The good news is that it probably won’t come to this. Analysis from Bloomberg shows that if a vote were held today, Feinstein’s proposed gun control legislation, which would prohibit the sale or transfer of an estimated 158 “assault weapons,” would fail to pass the Democrat-controlled Senate.
At least six of the 55 senators in the Democratic caucus have expressed skepticism or outright opposition to a ban, the review found. That means Democrats wouldn’t have a 51-vote majority to pass the measure, let alone the 60 needed to break a Republican filibuster to bring it to a floor vote. […]
The five Democratic senators from traditionally pro-gun states who have expressed skepticism about the bill are Max Baucus and Jon Tester of Montana, Mark Begich of Alaska, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Joe Manchin of West Virginia. Independent Senator Angus King of Maine, who caucuses with Democrats, also said he opposes a ban.
Maine Senator Susan Collins, a Republican who supported similar legislation in 2004, has indicated she is unlikely to back the proposed ban in its current form.
The reality, as these and many other lawmakers recognize, is that piling on new laws won’t solve the problem. In fact, The Washington Times’ analysis of recent state laws shows “no discernible correlation between stricter rules and lower gun-crime rates in the states.” It’s time our leaders used reason—not emotion—to guide their legislative endeavors.
On Friday, Georgia Sen. Saxby Chambliss said he will not seek a third term next year. He denied suggestions that the primary had anything to do with the decision and instead pointed to frustration with Washington as the major reason:
“I have no doubt that had I decided to be a candidate, I would have won re-election. In these difficult political times, I am fortunate to have actually broadened my support around the state and the nation due to the stances I have taken.
“Instead, this is about frustration, both at a lack of leadership from the White House and at the dearth of meaningful action from Congress, especially on issues that are the foundation of our nation’s economic health. The debt-ceiling debacle of 2011 and the recent fiscal-cliff vote showed Congress at its worst and, sadly, I don’t see the legislative gridlock and partisan posturing improving anytime soon. For our nation to be strong, for our country to prosper, we cannot continue to play politics with the American economy.”
Chambliss, 69, has been a GOP loyalist for much of his House and Senate career, but he earned the wrath of some in his party for participating in a bipartisan Senate "Gang of Six" intent on finding a way to reduce the deficit. The group advocated a mix of tax increases, anathema to many in the GOP, and spending cuts. The group failed to reach agreement and produce a bargain.
Although no major Republican candidate had announced a challenge to Chambliss, he was facing the distinct possibility of a tough race. His decision was certain to set off a GOP scramble for the seat.
Reps. Jack Kingston, Tom Price and Paul Broun were considering a run against Chambliss, as was former Secretary of State Karen Handel. Herman Cain “quickly removed himself from consideration this morning,” according to the Atlanta Journal Constitution. Without an incumbent, however, other names are beginning to crop up:
More members of Congress – including Phil Gingrey of Roswell and Tom Graves of Ranger – are certain to consider the race now that it lacks an incumbent. In the state Capitol, one name has already popped up — that of state Sen. Ross Tolleson, a Republican who hails from former U.S. senator Sam Nunn’s home town of Perry. […]
Chambliss’ withdrawal could also awaken Georgia Democrats from the torpor they’ve been in since losing the governor’s office in 2002. This statement comes from Guy Cecil, executive director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee:
“Georgia will now offer Democrats one of our best pick-up opportunities of the cycle. There are already several reports of the potential for a divisive primary that will push Republicans to the extreme right. Regardless, there’s no question that the demographics of the state have changed and Democrats are gaining strength. This will be a top priority.”
U.S. Rep. John Barrow of Augusta has said he wasn’t interested in challenging Chambliss. Whether or not that disinterest applies to an open seat may be another matter. State Rep. Scott Holcomb, D-Atlanta, may be another name to add to the mix.
During an online “fireside” chat about gun control, Vice President Biden took the opportunity to offer some advice: For post-earthquake protection, a double barrel shotgun will keep you a lot safer than those “assault weapons.” Pretty bizarre coming from the man who led the gun violence task force—but then again, it’s just ‘Joe being Joe,’ right?
"So you want to keep people away in an earthquake? Buy some shotgun shells."
If Sen. Feinstein has her way, however, Biden may need to be more specific. After all, some shotgun models are on the senator’s list of guns to be banned.
Shotguns: Franchi LAW-12 and SPAS 12; All IZHMASH Saiga 12 types, including the
following: IZHMASH Saiga 12, IZHMASH Saiga 12S, IZHMASH Saiga 12S EXP-01,
IZHMASH Saiga 12K, IZHMASH Saiga 12K-030, IZHMASH Saiga 12K-040 Taktika;
Streetsweeper; Striker 12.
President Obama’s inaugural address was arguably one of the most liberal speeches he’s ever delivered—but one line in particular drew the ire of NRA’s Wayne LaPierre: “We cannot mistake absolutism for principle, or substitute spectacle for politics, or treat name-calling as reasoned debate.”
Speaking at the 56th annual Weatherby Foundation International Hunting and Conservation Award dinner in Reno, Nev., LaPierre said, “Obama wants to turn the idea of “absolutism” into another dirty word, just another word for extremism. He wants you to accept the idea of “principles” as he sees fit to define them. It’s a way of redefining words so that common sense is turned upside-down and nobody knows the difference.”
LaPierre used the example of a fiscal responsibility when it comes to a family versus the government. When families find themselves strapped for cash, with credit cards maxed out, “we’re forced to tighten our belt.” When it comes to our broke government, however, and Obama’s desire for more social programs, “borrowing more money is supposed to be “principled.”
The same concept is being applied when it comes to gun ownership in America—the only way to stop killers is to take away certain freedoms. “We’re told that wanting the same technology that the criminals and our leaders keep for themselves is a form of “absolutism” and that accepting less freedom and protection for ourselves is the only “principled” way to live,” he said.
Words do have meaning, LaPierre argued, and President Obama can’t redefine them any way he wants to. “When “absolutes” are abandoned for “principles,” the U.S. Constitution becomes a blank slate for anyone’s graffiti and our rights and freedoms are defaced.”
To further support his point, LaPierre quoted former Democratic Senator and U.S. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black: “There are ‘absolutes’ in our Bill of Rights, and they were put there on purpose by men who knew what words meant and meant their prohibitions to be ‘absolutes.’”
The Second Amendment states, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” This absolute freedom is not open to reinterpretation.
LaPierre closed by saying, “Mister President, you might think that calling us "absolutists" is a clever way of "name-calling" without using names. But if that is "absolutist," then we are as "absolutist" as the Founding Fathers and framers of the Constitution ... and we're proud of it!”
Sadly, it’s true. Last week, Groupon joined the anti-gun brigade:
"All scheduled and current gun-related deals featured on Groupon North America, including shooting ranges, conceal-and-carry and clay shooting, have been placed on hiatus while we review internal standards that shape the deal inventory we feature. The category is under review following recent consumer and merchant feedback."
A local gun store owner in Texas said the deal he was offering for discounted concealed handgun license classes “went crazy” after President Obama’s gun control speech last week. Recognizing it looked as though the deal would max out, Groupon even asked if he would be willing to raise the deal’s ‘ceiling.’ He did, only to have Groupon pull the deal from the site early, telling him over the phone that the CEO decided to suspend all gun-related deals.
"It's as if people at Groupon equate anybody that believes in the Second Amendment with the armed monsters that occasionally make headlines and that's not the people that sit here in our concealed handgun license course," Cargill said.
Cargill was even more upset because his deal was supposed to run through Saturday.
He's contacted his attorney to see if there's anything he can do.
His Groupon contract does say the company can terminate a deal at any time, but with written notice, which Cargill says he never received.
"If we're able to sue, then I want to sue. But if I cannot do a lawsuit or a class action lawsuit against Groupon, what I am asking...I'm asking all Second Amendment lovers to boycott Groupon," Cargill said.
There were other Austin-area handgun class deals on Groupon earlier today but they have since been removed.
Groupon would do well to remember that there are nearly 90 million gun owners in America—the vast majority of which are responsible, law-abiding citizens who are choosing to exercise their Constitutional right to bear arms.
One couple’s unique background is helping them bring a pro-life message to the black community and beyond.
Excerpted from Townhall Magazine's February Townhall of Fame installment by Leah Barkoukis:
In 2010, the face of a worried looking African-American boy was plastered across 80 billboards in Georgia with a message any passerby would be hard-pressed to forget: “Black children are an endangered species.” In partnership with Georgia Right to Life, this was The Radiance Foundation’s first billboard campaign, highlighting that abortion is the No. 1 killer of African-Americans.
Co-founded by Ryan and Bethany Bomberger, The Radiance Foundation is an “educational life-affirming organization” that launched in 2009 and “exists to inspire people to embrace their intrinsic value and live a life of meaning,” according to its website. Through speaking engagements, media campaigns and outreach efforts, The Radiance Foundation seeks to illuminate, educate and motivate people on a number of issues from abortion and adoption to pop culture pluralism and civil rights.
Ryan, an Emmy-award winning creative director, and Bethany, a teacher, use their occupational backgrounds to shape the work they do, but it’s their stories of personal transformation that have been instrumental in mapping out the foundation’s areas of focus.
“I’m the one percent used to justify 100 percent of abortions,” Ryan tells Townhall. Despite being conceived through rape, Ryan’s biological mother courageously chose life, and he was adopted as a baby into a “loving, multi-racial Christian family of 15”—10 of which were adopted.
“Because I was so loved as an adoptee and I had such a strong foundation of love and faith from my parents, I didn’t fall apart,” Ryan says, recalling when he fully realized how he came to be.>
This experience has laid the groundwork for the organization’s outreach effort, “Adopt. Be the Hope,” which helps illuminate the beauty of adoption and educates about transracial adoption.
“Adoption has been demonized so heavily by the American eugenics movement—a movement that you see with the birth of Planned Parenthood,” he says. ...
Want to read more? Order a subscription to Townhall Magazine today! Remember, our print features are generally 100 percent exclusive ... most won't run in full online!
In an interview with NPR, Whole Foods CEO John Mackey drew a lot of attention—and criticism—by comparing ObamaCare to “fascism.” He said, "Socialism is where the government owns the means of production. In fascism, the government doesn’t own the means of production, but they do control it—and that’s what’s happening with our health care programs and these reforms.” Now, he’s walking back the controversial statement even though his feelings about the health care law haven’t changed. On CBS This Morning, Mackey said it was “a bad choice of words” because it has an association with dictatorships in the 20th century. He continued to say, however, that, “We no longer have free enterprise capitalism in health care. It’s not a system any longer where people are able to innovate. It’s not based on voluntary exchange. The government is directing it so we need a new word for it, I don’t know what that right word is.” Clearly agitated, Norah O’Donnell interrupts, saying that she’s not as concerned about the word, but can’t seem to understand why he’s so opposed to ObamaCare to even use a word "like that." How dare he!
Mackey also released a statement on the matter:
I made a poor word choice to describe our health care system, which I definitely regret. The term fascism today stirs up too much negative emotion with its horrific associations in the 20th century. While I'm speaking as someone who works hard to offer health care benefits to more than 73,000 team members, who actually vote on their overall benefits packages, I am very concerned about the uninsured and those with preexisting conditions.
I believe that, if the goal is universal health care, our country would be far better served by combining free enterprise capitalism with a strong governmental safety net for our poorest citizens and those with preexisting conditions, helping everyone to be able to buy insurance. This is what Switzerland does and I think we would be much better off copying that system than where we are currently headed in the United States.
I believe that health care should be competitive in the open market to promote innovation and creativity. Despite the criticism of me, I am encouraged that this dialogue will bring continued awareness and a better understanding of viable health care options for all Americans. There is an alternative to mandated health care in free enterprise capitalism based on voluntary exchange for mutual gain. This alternative allows individuals and businesses to innovate and develop customized solutions to health care where a “one size fits all approach” fails. Creativity and progress are stifled when government regulations dictate the parameters of what health care plans can be offered. Creative businesses, and the people who work them, can make something that has value for all stakeholders.
I need a new word or phrase to describe the state of health care now because it is something that I, like all folks entrusted with the wellbeing of a team, grapple with daily in this era. I think for now I will simply call it government-controlled health care to distinguish it from free enterprise capitalist health care. Clearly, I would prefer free enterprise capitalism in health care because it would greatly increase innovation and progress —just like it does in every other aspect of our lives, wherever it is allowed to exist. I hope those who are my critics, would recognize that we are all after an improved state of society, and not be distracted by the poor use of an emotionally charged word.
The Obama administration has taken exploiting children to a new low. On Thursday, the White House posted four YouTube videos of children reading letters to the president about finding a solution to the gun violence problem (the same kids sitting behind him on Wednesday). In Hinna’s video, for example, she says, “Can we stop using guns? I think if there are no guns on the street no one could get hurt. Bullets don’t have eyes, it can hurt anyone. I’m really scared of guns and criminals around the world. I love my country and I want everyone to be happy and safe. No guns, no guns, no guns, no guns.”
Is this shocking? Yes and no. Yes, of course, because the president is exploiting the murder of children to push a gun agenda and he’s using children to do it. But then again, this is the Obama administration, the same folks that brought us the ad that pretty much accused Mitt Romney of killing a man’s wife (Yes, it was a SuperPAC ad, but don’t forget Stephanie Cutter’s involvement). The White House and Jay Carney have also been tweeting images of the kids’ letters. Whether or not we are surprised by this move, however, is beside the point. The administration is trying to push the gun agenda with emotion, not substance, as Chuck Todd even said about the president’s speech on Wednesday--and the use of children in doing so is absolutely disgraceful.
H/T: The Hill
We haven’t seen much of Stephanie Cutter since the election but she recently appeared on MSNBC’s The Ed Show to let everyone know that the Obama campaign network will be activated very soon to take on the NRA.
STEPHANIE CUTTER: President Obama provides the leadership here, and he said the American people have to speak up and make their voices heard in this debate. Just like the NRA is doing with their membership. And President Obama's network across this country, grassroots individuals, who organize, volunteered with their time to get the president reelected are much more powerful than the NRA lobby.
And I think that you can expect to see that network activated, very soon. And for good reason. We need to pass commonsense legislation to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and those who shouldn't be carrying guns. That's the commonsense nature of this.
It’s already begun. Today, Katie posted about Obama’s top campaign adviser Jim Messina sending out an email to supporters asking for gun control support. We also heard from Cutter when she sent out the frantic “fiscal cliff” email that urged supporters to share their story about what $2,000 a year means to them. The truth is, the 2012 Obama campaign never really ended. Messina’s email today is just the beginning.
Yeah, he really said this:
Where did he get this idea? Jack Coleman over at NewsBusters thinks the claim originated from a Mother Jones article written in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting, but Schultz doesn’t source the statement. The Mother Jones report states: “In the wake of the slaughters this summer at a Colorado movie theater and a Sikh temple in Wisconsin, we set out to track mass shootings in the United States over the last 30 years. We identified and analyzed 62 of them, and one striking pattern is this: In not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun.” (According to the criteria used in their research, a mass shooting is when the "shooter took the lives of at least four people.")
When armed civilians or off-duty police officers are present in active shooter scenarios they respond quickly—usually preventing the situation from becoming a mass shooting. For example, in 2007, former police officer Jeanne Assam volunteered to work security at her church in Colorado and prevented a mass shooting:
There was also the recent incident of a gunman opening fire at the Mayan Palace Theatre in San Antonio just days after the Connecticut shooting. An off-duty cop stopped the gunman.
Of course, there are other examples of “civilians” preventing mass shootings. Mark Hemingway over at The Weekly Standard provides more examples:
-- Winnemuccas, Nev., 2008: Ernesto Villagomez opens fire in a crowded restaurant; concealed carry permit-holder shoots him dead. Total dead: Two. (I'm excluding the shooters' deaths in these examples.)
-- Appalachian School of Law, 2002: Crazed immigrant shoots the dean and a professor, then begins shooting students; as he goes for more ammunition, two armed students point their guns at him, allowing a third to tackle him. Total dead: Three.
-- Santee, Calif. 2001: Student begins shooting his classmates -- as well as the "trained campus supervisor"; an off-duty cop who happened to be bringing his daughter to school that day points his gun at the shooter, holding him until more police arrive. Total dead: Two.
-- Pearl High School, Mississippi, 1997: After shooting several people at his high school, student heads for the junior high school; assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieves a .45 pistol from his car and points it at the gunman's head, ending the murder spree. Total dead: Two.
-- Edinboro, Pa., 1998: A student shoots up a junior high school dance being held at a restaurant; restaurant owner pulls out his shotgun and stops the gunman. Total dead: One.
Believe what you will, Mr. Schultz, but it’s more accurate to say that "civilians" have prevented more mass shootings than “gun-free zones” have.