Tag Archives: ELECTION 2020

On Guns, Joe Biden is Full of It

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Biden is untruthful about gun control plans. READ MORE

biden auto worker

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

Presumptive Democratic 2020 Presidential Nominee Joe Biden is not one for clarity, tact, or a firm grasp of the facts. However, even an American public that has long been aware of his shortcomings was taken aback this week when the former vice president launched an unhinged attack on a pro-Second Amendment auto worker. Aside from further exposing a waning control of his faculties, the exchange revealed Biden’s deep antipathy towards the Second Amendment, his profound ignorance on the firearms issue, and his willingness to lie for political advantage.

The verbal dispute occurred on last Tuesday, as Biden toured a Fiat Chrysler plant in Michigan as the state was holding its primary. As Biden made his rounds, auto worker Jerry Wayne went up to the presidential candidate and asked him about his position on the Second Amendment. Speaking with Fox News’s Fox and Friends the following day, Wayne explained that he “asked [Biden] how he wanted to get the vote of the working man when a lot of us, we wield arms. We bear arms and we like to do that. And if he wants to give us work and take our guns, I don’t see how he is going to get the same vote.”

Wayne told Biden, “You’re actively trying to end our Second Amendment right and take our guns,” to which a visibly agitated Biden responded, “You’re full of **it.” Following Biden’s use of profanity, a female Biden staffer attempted to quell the confrontation. Biden responded by shushing the assistant.

Biden then claimed that he supports the Second Amendment, providing as evidence his ownership of 12 and 20-gauge shotguns. An angry Biden then professed “I’m not taking your gun away” and denied ever having said that he would take guns away. Wayne responded that there was video of Biden expressing his desire to take guns, to which the candidate responded with a denial.

At that point Biden thought it appropriate to point a finger in Wayne’s face and clarify that he was going to “take your AR-14s away.” The befuddled politician presumably was referring to America’s most popular rifle, the AR-15. When Wayne protested Biden pointing a finger in his face, a now irate Biden challenged the auto worker to a fight, telling him “Don’t tell me that, pal, or I’m going to go outside with you’re a**.”

Demonstrating a firmer grasp on U.S. civics than the Syracuse Law graduate*, Wayne responded to the unhinged “public servant” by saying “You’re working for me, man.” Continuing his profanity-laced tirade, Biden responded with, “I’m not working for you. Don’t be such a horse’s a**.”

Confused, Biden then appeared to conflate commonly-owned semi-automatic rifles with machineguns. Wayne was then forced to explain to the former vice president the difference between semi-automatic and automatic firearms. An addled Biden then shouted “Do you need 100 rounds? Do you need 100 rounds?” before wandering off.

Describing the interaction for Fox News, Wayne recalled that Biden “kind of just went off the deep end.”

SEE THE VIDEO HERE

That is an understatement.

Joe Biden does not support the Second Amendment

Biden continues to boast about his role as lead sponsor on the Senate crime bill that contained the 1994 Clinton ban on commonly-owned semiautomatic firearms and magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds. The ban was allowed to expire in 2004 after a federally-funded study determined that “the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.” Despite this record of failure, in 2007 Sen. Biden introduced S.2237. This legislation would have reinstated the so-called “assault weapons” ban.

At present, Biden’s campaign website touts his plan for a more restrictive ban on commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms and magazines. Further, while attending a private $500 a person fundraiser in November, Biden revealed his intent to ban 9mm pistols. According to an article from the Seattle Times, while at the soiree, the 77-year-old asked attendees “Why should we allow people to have military-style weapons including pistols with 9mm bullets and can hold 10 or more rounds?”

The U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that the Second Amendment prohibits the gun bans Biden advocates.

In the landmark Second Amendment case District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court concluded that the types of firearms protected by the Second Amendment include those “in common use at the time” for “lawful purposes like self-defense.” The AR-15, which it appears Biden was attempting to cite in his most recent anti-gun rant, is the most popular rifle in America and therefore undoubtedly “in common use” and protected by the Second Amendment.

In 2015, Heller decision author Justice Antonin Scalia reiterated that the Second Amendment and Heller preclude so-called “assault weapons” bans when he signed onto a dissent from the denial of certiorari in Friedman v. Highland Park. In the dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas explained,

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles [with many millions more owning them in 2020]. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons.

In targeting 9mm pistols, Biden has called for a ban on one of the most popular firearms in America. According to ATF’s Firearms Commerce in the United States FY 2019, there were over 3.6 million pistols manufactured in the U.S. in 2017. This was more than 1 million more guns than the next most popular category of firearms, rifles. Further, over 3.2 million handguns (including revolvers) were imported in to the U.S. in 2017.

In its annual report on the U.S. firearms industry, Shooting Industry reported that 9mm caliber pistols are the most commonly produced pistol and have been for many years. In 2017 alone, there were more than 1.7 million 9mm pistols produced in the U.S. Cumulatively there are tens of millions of 9mm pistols in the hands of law-abiding Americans.

As with so many anti-gun politician, when Biden claims to support the Second Amendment he is not being honest.

Joe Biden wants to take your guns.

At a campaign rally in Dallas on the Monday before the Super Tuesday primaries, failed U.S. senate and presidential candidate Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke endorsed Biden for president. Sharing the stage with his former rival, Biden stated, “I want to make something clear. I’m going to guarantee you this is not the last you’ll see of this guy.” Biden went on say, “You’re going to take care of the gun problem with me. You’re going to be the one who leads this effort. I’m counting on ya.”

Following the campaign event, Biden and O’Rourke went to local burger chain Whataburger, where the septuagenarian continued to heap praise on the former manny’s anti-gun advocacy. Speaking about Beto and gun control, Biden stated, “This guy changed the face of what we’re dealing with regarding guns, assault weapons… and I just want to warn [Beto’s wife] that if I win I’m coming for him.”

By offering Beto a role on guns in a potential future administration, Biden has made clear that he supports Beto’s gun control position. That position is gun confiscation.

During the September 12, 2019 Democratic debate, Beto O’Rourke was asked about his proposal to confiscate commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms. Beto responded in part by saying, “hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15.” The Beto campaign would go on to sell t-shirts with the anti-gun slogan.

Less than a week later, Beto reiterated his call for gun confiscation on CNN’s Cuomo Prime Time. During an interview, Chris Cuomo asked Beto, “All right, so let’s state the proposition. Are you, in fact, in favor of gun confiscation?” Beto responded with “Yes.”

There can be no doubt that Biden understands Beto would confiscate firearms, as he shared the debate stage with him on September 12.

Moreover, Biden himself has stated that he intends to take firearms. Biden had the following exchange with CNN’s Anderson Cooper when asked about firearm confiscation during an August 5, 2019 interview.

Cooper: So, to gun owners out there who say well a Biden administration means they are going to come for my guns.

Biden: Bingo! You’re right if you have an assault weapon.

Biden must think he can get away with lying to Second Amendment-supporting working people. In the friendly confines of a CNN interview, Biden is more than happy to admit his gun confiscation plans. However, put him in front of a group of workers and he tries to hide his radical anti-gun agenda.

Thanks to autoworker Jerry Wayne, Biden wasn’t able to get away with it this time. Wayne was correct to ask Biden about his history of attacking the Second Amendment and support for firearms confiscation. Biden, on the other hand, was full of it.

“Fact Checker” — Joe Biden’s “Gun Ban” Not a Gun Ban Because Some Guns Wouldn’t Be Banned

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

It’s hard to check facts when the fact-checkers don’t know them… KEEP READING

fact check

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

Facebook has teamed up with what it calls “third-party fact-checkers” to punish users of its platform that post information embarrassing or inconvenient to the political outlook of its principals. Yet like most sources of what passes as “news” or “journalism” these days, these “independent” organizations have knowledge deficits and outright biases that color the information they provide to the public. Take, for example, Politifact’s assertion that a gun ban is not a gun ban if there are still guns left to be banned.

Last month, the NRA’s Facebook page posted a photo of Joe Biden with the message: “Joe Biden calls for gun ban.” This was in reference to Biden’s well-known and very explicit stance that he wants to ban AR-15s and like semiautomatic rifles

There is no dispute about this. As vice-president, Biden responded to a petition by gun control activists demanding a ban on “AR-15-type weapons” by stating: “I want to say this as plainly and clearly as possible: The President and I agree with you. Assault weapons and high-capacity magazines should be banned from civilian ownership.”

More recently as a candidate for the Democrat presidential nomination, Biden published what he called a “Plan for Educator’s, Students, and our Future.” Among its agenda items was to “[d]efeat the National Rifle Association” by “championing legislation to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines – bans [Biden] authored in 1994.”

So yes, he wants a gun ban. And not just on some exotic or unusual types of firearms known only to criminals or the military but on what are in fact the most popular types of centerfire rifles in America today.

After the NRA post, Facebook appended a link to a Politifact story that rated the NRA’s claim as “Mostly False.”

Politifact did not deny that Biden wants to ban AR-15s and similar guns, nor did it deny those types of firearms are very common and popular in the U.S.

Nevertheless, it insisted that “saying Biden calls for a gun ban could lead readers to believe he’s seeking to outlaw all firearms.”

This is classic use of a strawman by Politifact.

In other words, Politifact fabricated a theoretical misperception about what the NRA actually said to make a true statement “Mostly False.”

But the NRA made very clear exactly what sort of “ban” we were referring to by linking to a Fox News article about Biden’s “education” plan.

The Politifact article also used details of the 1994 “assault weapon” ban that Biden helped author and shepherd into law to make claims about what he means now when he says he wants to ban “assault weapons.”

But anti-gun Democrats have in intervening years introduced far more extensive bans under the phony “assault weapons” rubric, making it clear that prominent members of the party think the old ban did not go far enough.

Just how far Biden is proposing to go in banning guns is therefore unclear. He has not actually released legislative language for his proposed ban, nor a comprehensive list of the guns or design features he would seek to prohibit. There is no reason to believe, however, that he would (as Politifact takes for granted) feel bound by limitations in an old law that leaders of his party now view as inadequate.

In any case, a leading firearm industry source estimated there were more than 16 million AR-15-style rifles owned by civilians as of 2018. Merely banning future sales of those types of guns would unquestionably be a sweeping and dramatic incursion on access to the very types of firearms that Americans, left to their own devices, choose for lawful purposes.

It’s also notable that the old law Biden referenced was often referred to in news sources, that Politifact undoubtedly would consider reputable, as a “gun ban” or “Clinton’s gun ban,” including PBS, the Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times. Were they also being misleading or hyperbolic in the use of that term?

Politifact additionally mentions in passing that Biden insisted during a nationally televised debate on June 27, “We should have smart guns,” and, “No gun should be able to be sold unless your biometric measure could pull that trigger.” He went on to characterize “gun manufacturers” as “our enemy.”

What Politifact conveniently omitted from its story is that no firearm currently available in the U.S. meets Biden’s fanciful “biometric” activation test.

It would therefore not be much of a stretch, given Biden’s own words, to suggest he doesn’t think any of the guns currently available for sale in the U.S. are acceptable.

Finally, Politifact ignored the fact that during the same debate, Biden also said: “I would buy back those weapons. We already started talking about that. We tried to get it done. I think it can be done. It should be demanded that we do it and that’s a good expenditure of money.”

Again, what “weapons” Biden was referring to or the details of his proposal were not clear, but the sort of “buybacks” the Obama administration promoted while Biden was vice president were modeled on policies adopted in Australia during the 1990s. These “buybacks” would more accurately be characterized as orders of mandatory firearm surrender. While owners of the affected guns were offered some bureaucratically set compensation for their property, it was an offer they couldn’t refuse. Failure to sell the banned guns could have resulted in the owners being criminally prosecuted and even jailed.

Given the foregoing, we rate Politifact’s article “politics, not fact.”

In this case the “fact-checker” was clearly trying to discredit a true statement from the NRA and minimize the increasingly radical nature of the anti-gun agenda being pursued by leading Democrats, namely Joe Biden.

 

Joe Biden’s “Education” Plan Aims to “Defeat” the NRA, Reprise Failed Gun Control Law

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Looks like Creepy Uncle Joe wants to retry the “Assault Weapons Ban” that failed under Bill Clinton and Big Brother both. READ MORE

biden

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

Last week the campaign website for presidential hopeful Joe Biden published what it called an “Education … Plan for Educators, Students, and Our Future.” Among its agenda items was to “[d]efeat the National Rifle Association” by “championing legislation to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines — bans [Biden] authored in 1994.” In other words, Biden would reprise a law that was widely recognized (including among gun control advocates) as a failure and the cause of his party losing control of Congress in 1994.

Halfway through his first term, President Bill Clinton signed the Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 into law. That 356-page bill included a ban on certain semi-automatic firearms and limits on the capacity of firearm magazines. It’s ghoulish and Orwellian short title was the “Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act.”

Firearms misleadingly dubbed “assault weapons” were banned by the law in three ways: by name, as “copies or duplicates” of the named firearms, and by a test that limited what features could be incorporated into a semi-automatic rifle with the ability to accept a detachable magazine. Firearms that were lawfully possessed before the ban’s effective date were exempt.

The ban included a provision that required the U.S. attorney general to “investigate and study the effect of this subtitle and the amendments made by this subtitle,” and in particular, “their impact, if any, on violent and drug trafficking crime.” The study was to be reported to Congress not later than 30 months after the law’s enactment.

The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) contracted with the Urban Institute to complete that assessment, and it was published on March 13, 1997. The study, while bemoaning the necessarily limited amount of data for review, failed to substantiate any significant reduction in violent crime attributable to the ban. In particular, the authors “were unable to detect any reduction to date in two types of murders that are thought to be closely associated with assault weapons, those with multiple victims in a single incident and those producing multiple bullet wounds per victim.”

The authors did posit a “6.7% reduction in total gun murders between 1994 and 1995, beyond what would have been expected in view of ongoing crime, demographic, and economic trends,” but they admitted this could simply have been a year-to-year variation, “rather than a true effect of the ban.” They also acknowledged that other provisions of the 1994 crime bill, “or a host of state and local initiatives that took place simultaneously,” could have accounted for the drop.

More fundamentally, the authors pointed out that the ban from the outset missed the point when it came to reducing violent crime. “At best,” they wrote, “the assault weapons ban can have only a limited effect on total gun murders, because the banned weapons and magazines were never involved in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders.”

The ban, in other words, actually went after guns and magazines that were underrepresented in firearm related homicides.

What debate over the law did seem to accomplish, according to the study, was to raise interest into the firearms targeted for banning. Production of the targeted guns surged during 1994, “so that more than an extra year’s normal supply of assault weapons and legal substitutes was manufactured during 1994.” The upshot was that prices for grandfathered and substitute guns remained near pre-ban levels for the early years of the law, and consumers could go on as before purchasing them for legal uses.

But that’s not all.

The lead authors of the study later received another NIJ grant to update their findings, which they did in July 2004 under the auspices of the Jerry Lee Center of Criminology at the University of Pennsylvania.

Again, the authors indicated that the ban missed the point. “The AW provision targets a relatively small number of weapons based on features that have little to do with the weapons’ operation,” they wrote. They also reiterated that “AWs were used in only a small fraction of gun crimes prior to the ban: about 2% according to most studies and no more than 8%,” with most of those “assault weapon” crime guns being pistols, rather than rifles.

The authors also conceded that the ban had no effect on the criminal use of what today’s gun control advocates consider the paradigmatic “assault rifle,” the AR-15. “There has not been a clear decline in the use of ARs,” they wrote, an assessment that was “complicated by the rarity of crimes with these weapons … .” Likewise, the authors saw no drop in the use of banned magazines in crime and could not “clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence.”

Overall, the authors concluded that “the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.”

The only good thing about the ban’s language was that it contained a 10-year sunset clause, the expiration date of which just happened to coincide with the waning days of President George W. Bush’s first term. Congress allowed the law to expire, giving it the ignominious death it so richly deserved.

Since then, even staunch gun control advocates have often admitted that trying to ban certain types of semi-automatic firearms under the guise of “assault weapons” is a fool’s errand.

The Atlantic, in a June 25, 2016 article, referred to the law as “Bill Clinton’s Costly Assault Weapons Ban.” The article quotes a lengthy oral history by Clinton’s chief congressional affairs lobbyist, who indicated he was caught off guard when he learned that Clinton was committed to pursuing the law. “It was,” the lobbyist said, “a disaster from day one.” Democratic party leadership pleaded with Clinton not to pursue the ban. When he insisted, they tried to distance themselves from the effort as much as they could.

While deals were made, the lobbyist recounts, they “were not necessarily made on the substance of the issue. The candy store was open. . . It was a very transactional kind of setup.”

In the 1994 midterm elections soon after the ban’s enactment, Clinton’s party lost a net of 54 seats in the House, as well as 8 Senate seats. The lobbyist attributed at least 40 of those losses to the “assault weapons” ban. Clinton himself later concurred that he had pushed too hard on the ban, effectively handing control of Capitol Hill to the opposition party.

Bill Clinton had no stronger critic in 1994 than the NRA.

Yet that episode is what Joe Biden now calls a “defeat” of the NRA.

Of course, Biden and his fellow Democrats are counting on the idea that the politics around “assault weapons” have changed since then.

And while it’s certainly true that the Democratic base remains committed to the idea of resurrecting an “assault weapons” ban, it’s not true that the American public at large agrees with them or is showing any sustained fervor around the issue. As we reported last October, Americans oppose a ban on AR-15s and similar semi-automatic firearms by robust double-digit margins, with support for such a ban 7% lower than the historical trend dating back to 1996, when Gallup first began polling on the issue.

Defeating the NRA may be a nice rallying cry for people who maintain committed to disarming law-abiding Americans, but taking their semi-automatic rifles won’t improve public safety. Some of the more honest members of the gun control movement admit this, including in articles published in such staunchly anti-gun publications as the New York Times, the Washington Post, Mother Jones, the Los Angeles Times, and Vice.com.

And let’s not forget, Joe Biden himself was the figurehead for Barack Obama’s post-Newtown federal gun control blitz in late 2012 and early 2013.

But, as Politico recounted, “Biden did not deliver.” In that same article, a Senate aide recounted how even as Biden was publicly calling for restoring the federal “assault weapons” ban, “[b]ehind the scenes, [he] was ‘instrumental’ in convincing more liberal Democrats that there was no point in fighting for anything beyond a background check bill … .”

You might even say ol’ Joe himself recognized he was already defeated by the NRA.

It of course remains to be seen if Joe Biden will even prevail in his party’s presidential primary, much less have the opportunity to pursue his legislative agenda from the Oval Office.

But it only takes a little homework to show that when it comes to gun control, all he is offering with his “education” plan are empty promises and failed policies.

 

Kamala Harris and the News Media Don’t Know What They Don’t Know

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

By now gun owners have become accustomed to a certain measure of ignorance from anti-gun politicians and their lapdogs in the mainstream press, but it’s the flamboyant stridency of that ignorance that remains shocking. READ MORE

kamala harris

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

Last week, the presidential campaign of Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) announced that if elected president the candidate would ban the importation of AR-15-style “assault weapons.” Characterizing the campaign’s proposal, Politico reported,

Harris wants to ban AR-15-style assault weapon imports and suspend all other assault weapon imports until the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives can analyze whether they should be permanently banned under U.S. law. Her campaign argues the weapons could be banned because they aren’t “suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes.”

At a campaign event in Nashua, N.H. Harris herself told those gathered, “I’m announcing for the first time today here with you to take executive action to ban the import of assault weapons into our country.”

Predictably, Harris’s proposal was trumpeted by an uncritical press.

Apparently unbeknownst to the candidate and her media sycophants, the federal government already prohibits the importation of so-called “assault weapons.”

Under the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Attorney General has a measure of discretion regarding what firearms may be imported into the United States. 18 U.S.C. § 925 states,

(d) The Attorney General shall authorize a firearm or ammunition to be imported or brought into the United States or any possession thereof if the firearm or ammunition–

(3) is of a type that does not fall within the definition of a firearm as defined in section 5845(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and is generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes…

The “generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes” language has become known as the much-maligned “sporting purposes test.”

In 1989, the George Bush administration used the sporting purposes test to prohibit the importation of certain types of commonly-owned semi-automatic rifles. In 1998, under the direction of President Bill Clinton, ATF used the sporting purposes test to expand the 1989 import ban to encompass a larger category of semi-automatic firearms. The Clinton import ban included what the bureau termed “large capacity military magazine rifles,” or LCMM rifles. LCMM rifles are those capable of accepting standard capacity magazines; like the AR-15. In an April 1998 document titled “Department of the Treasury Study on the Sporting Suitability of Modified Semiautomatic Assault Rifles,” ATF determined that “LCMM rifles are not generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes and are therefore not importable.” At the time, White House official Jose Cerda told the press, “We are taking the law and bending it as far as we can to capture a whole new class of guns.”

NRA-ILA opposes the sporting purposes test as well as ATF’s application of the test. The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as interpreted in District of Columbia v. Heller protects an individual’s right to access firearms in common use for lawful purposes. Self-defense is a lawful purpose, and therefore firearms suitable to that purpose should be available independent of any “sporting” application.

Regarding interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 925, ATF has adopted a cramped reading of the operative passage. As explained in ATF’s January 2011 “Study on the Importability of Certain Shotguns,” the agency refuses to recognize informal sport shooting such as plinking and practical shooting competitions like 3-gun as falling under the scope of “sporting purposes.” Moreover, the agency has read the “or readily adaptable” language out of the statute entirely, as evidenced by the popularity of commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms for the traditional sports of target shooting and hunting.

However misguided, for more than 20 years the federal government has prohibited the importation of commonly-owned semi-automatic rifles that Harris would term “AR-15-style assault weapons.”

Harris’s proposal to enact a policy that has already been in place for two decades reveals the candidate’s appalling disregard of the facts. The mainstream media’s complicity in this embarrassing episode reveals their inability or unwillingness to correct even the most egregious statements from their preferred candidates.