Tag Archives: GABBY GIFFORDS

Former ATF Agent Pulls Mask Off Giffords’s Plans for Federal AR-15 Registration

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

In an odd turn, just before Halloween one prominent gun control group briefly got out of costume: read all about what was underneath it… SEE MORE

giffords

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

When former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and husband Mark Kelly launched Americans for Responsible Solutions (now named Giffords) in early 2013, gun owners were assured that the group sought moderate “common-sense solutions” to gun violence. The group admonished NRA for not working to “to find the balance between our rights” and gun regulation. Giffords and Kelly explained, “we don’t want to take away your guns any more than we want to give up the two guns we have locked in a safe at home.”

This, of course, was all a marketing ploy. From its inception, Giffords has pushed the same warmed-over gun control policies as their less messaging-savvy peers.

To help their anti-gun allies better deceive the public, in 2016 Giffords put out a gun control messaging manual titled, “A Guide to Understanding and Engaging Americans on the Need for Stronger Gun Laws.” In a section labelled, “The Do’s and Don’ts of Talking About Gun Violence,” the guide made clear to gun control supporters that “Talk about creating a national gun registry, or banning or confiscating guns” was a definite “Don’t.” The group went on to falsely contend none of those measures “are policy priorities or have widespread support among gun violence prevention organizations.”

Not only is a national gun registry a priority for gun control advocates generally, as former Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives agent and current Giffords Senior Policy Advisor David Chipman made clear to The Hill this week, it is an explicit policy priority for Giffords.

In response to a question about AR-15 rifles, Chipman responded, “What I support is treating them just like machineguns.”

Reiterating that America’s most popular rifle should be subject to the National Firearms Act (NFA), Chipman went on to state,

To me, if you want to have a weapon of war, the same gun that was issued to me as a member of [the] ATF SWAT team, it makes sense that you would have to pass a background check, the gun would have to be in your name, and there would be a picture and fingerprints on file. To me, I don’t mind doing it if I want to buy a gun.

Chipman and Giffords’s preferred policy is similar to that supported by gun confiscation advocate Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). In early 2013, Feinstein proposed legislation that would have subjected tens of millions of commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms to NFA regulation and registration.

While a former federal bureaucrat might not mind navigating the convoluted federal bureaucracy in order to exercise a constitutional right, most should abhor the prior restraint of NFA regulations.

In order to acquire a machinegun, the transferee and transferor must submit a Form 4 Application for Tax Paid Transfer and Registration of Firearm to the ATF. The form requires identifying information about the firearm and personal information about the applicant. The transferee must submit an identifying photograph along with two completed FBI Forms FD-258 fingerprint cards. This information is compiled in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record, colloquially known as the NFA registry. The transferee must also pay a $200 tax.

The NFA procedure is also a prohibitive waiting period. The latest ATF data measured the wait time for completion of a Form 4 at seven months, or over 200 days. At certain points in 2016, waits stretched to about a year.

Chipman’s policy of treating AR-15s “just like machineguns” would also mean a ban on the civilian possession of newly-manufactured AR-15 rifles. In 1986, anti-gun members of Congress were successful in getting one piece of gun control into the vital Firearm Owners’ Protection Act. A late, and controversial, amendment from Rep. William J. Hughes (D-N.J.) placed a ban on the transfer and possession of machineguns manufactured after May 19, 1986. Treating AR-15s like machineguns would mean a permanent freeze on the total stock of AR-15s Americans could lawfully possess.

There are good reasons gun control advocates seek to obscure such radical goals.

An October Gallup poll showed that 57 percent of Americans oppose “a law which would make it illegal to manufacture, sell or possess semi-automatic guns, known as assault rifles.” For the last seven years, every time Gallup has asked this question opposition to a ban has outweighed support.

Moreover, there is no evidence that further restricting commonly-owned semi-automatics would reduce violent crime. A pair of Department of Justice-funded studies of the 1994 Clinton semi-automatic ban could not determine that the ban reduced violent crime. The later of the two studies, from 2004, stated, “the ban’s impact on gun violence is likely to be small at best, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.” In explaining why, the researchers wrote, “estimates consistently show that AWs [commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms] are used in a small fraction of gun crimes.” More recent research from the RAND Corporation determined, “Evidence for the effect of assault weapon bans on total homicides and firearm homicides is inconclusive.”

History also shows that otherwise law-abiding gun owners are unlikely to comply with gun registration requirements. In the year and a half following implementation of the N.Y. SAFE Act in early 2014, 23,847 people registered 44,485 guns. Estimates of the number of firearms in the state subject to registration were 1-1.2 million. Gun control advocates didn’t have any better luck that year in Connecticut. Despite estimates that Nutmeg State residents owned several hundred thousand firearms and 2.4 million magazines subject to new registration requirements, owners registered a mere 50,016 firearms and 38,290 magazines.

Anti-gun advocates are well aware that the American people, through their elected representatives, have repeatedly rejected the severe gun control measures they support. Faced with this reality, gun control advocates have continually dressed up their fanatical goals in all manner of disguise. Constantly masquerading as moderate, for gun control supporters every day is like Halloween. As for anyone who falls for their ruse, it’s all tricks and no treats.

Muzzleloaders Now Targeted by “Giffords” Gun Prohibition Lobby

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

More deceit, lies, and the emergence of a very clear agenda from the anti-gunners: read how the “Giffords” seeks to disarm Americans and even take away great-grandad’s gun…

muzzleloader

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

It didn’t take long after the events in Las Vegas, Nevada for gun control advocates to resort to their usual tactic of blaming hardware for the acts of an evil man. Numerous anti-gun bills were introduced almost immediately, with arch anti-gun Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) leading the charge. “This is written in clean English,” Feinstein insisted of her bill. “It does not take anyone’s gun.” Less than a month later, however, Feinstein abandoned the pretense of “not taking” guns and introduced perhaps the most sweeping gun and magazine ban in U.S. history.

Close on her heels last week was the recently-rebranded “Giffords” gun control consortium, which released a report that used the current debate over firearm legislation to, well, advocate for gun bans too. But the Giffords report went well beyond the usual gun control talking points in extending its attack all the way to muzzle-loading firearms. From the modern to the archaic, no gun is safe from the newly-emboldened prohibition lobby.

Considering these proposals, it’s hard to imagine how any firearm can thread the needle through all the justifications gun control advocates use to argue for additional bans.

Semiautomatic carbines that use detachable magazines must go, they say, because they can fire too many (relatively small) rounds too quickly.

But muzzleloaders — which fire one shot at a time and must be laboriously loaded through by hand down the barrel — can deliver what “Giffords” calls “a particularly lethal .50 caliber round” and are therefore unacceptable as well.

Bump stocks should be banned, according to the report, because they increase the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle held against the shoulder.

Yet dispensing with the stock entirely — as in the case of AR- or AK-style pistols — also presents a problem for the “Giffords” group because that creates guns capable of firing rifle-sized cartridges that are “concealable like handguns.”

But concealability of course isn’t the only problem for “Giffords.” Exceptionally large guns are out, too. The Giffords report goes on to fault modern .50 caliber rifles for combining “long range, accuracy, and massive firepower.”

Of course, the actual use of .50 caliber rifles to commit crime in the U.S. is vanishingly rare, thanks to their considerable weight, bulk, and price tag. A five-foot long gun that weighs nearly 33 lbs. and costs as much as many used cars is not likely to be the sort of tool most common criminals will lug from one crime scene to the next.

Where does this all lead? The Boston Globe answered that question this week with an article headlined, “Hand over your weapons.” It states: “The logic of gun control lies, at bottom, in substantially reducing the number of deadly weapons on the street — confiscation is far and away the most effective approach.” This thesis is accompanied by the usual celebration of Australia’s mass gun confiscation effort, an almost mandatory feature of any journalistic exploration of gun control these days.

And while admitting that “America is not Australia,” the Globe writer nevertheless asserts “there’s no way around” the conclusion that widespread gun ownership is to blame for violent crime in America and that the solution must involve confiscating “millions of those firearms.”

It’s telling that the “Giffords” organization — once among the more moderate of the gun control advocacy groups — now demands curbs on the sorts of muzzleloaders that it admits “fell out of favor as a firearm of choice almost a century ago, and are generally seen as primitive antiques.”

But what’s really out of favor and antiquated, in the unforgiving worldview of gun abolitionists, is your Second Amendment rights. The values of America’s Founding Fathers are just as obnoxious to them as the revolutionary-era rifles that helped win America’s freedom.

What do you think?

Frightfully Un-Fun: Gun-Grabbers Target Halloween Costume Weaponry

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

What’s TRULY and DEEPLY scary about this Halloween… Read on…

kid in jail

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

For Thanksgiving, Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety issues anti-gun talking points intended to be used to berate your family at the dinner table. At Christmas time, gun control Grinches pester children to turn-in their toy guns. As part of the crusade to ensure no holiday is spared their political commentary, this year the anti-gun scolders finally got around to meddling with Halloween.

Earlier this October, Chapel Hill, N.C. busybody parents Amanda Hanig and Jordan Gillis founded Goodies Not Guns, a campaign that encourages parents to forbid the use of toy weaponry in their children’s Halloween costumes. The group has a Facebook page and Twitter account where supporters are encouraged to share photos of weapons-free costumes.

While unlikely the couple’s intention, Goodies Not Guns is a fitting name for their project, as Hanig and Gillis do come across as uptight goody-goodies. With their earnest appeal to the nation’s parents, the pair seem like the kind of killjoys who delighted in reminding the teacher that she had forgotten to assign homework.

In a testament to Hanig and Gillis’s skill in self-promotion, the campaign has garnered attention from North Carolina television stations WRAL and WFMY, and was the subject of an ABC News article. The anti-gun effort has also received a twitter follow from the Giffords (formerly Americans for Responsible Solutions), and the blessing of the Brady Campaign; who, on Oct. 20, tweeted out, “Shout out to local gun violence prevention advocates for working to promote safety in their communities. #GoodiesNotGuns.”

Despite relishing this support from the institutional gun control lobby, Gillis assured WFMY that Goodies Not Guns “is not about guns and gun ownership.” However, his wife has been more forthright about the group’s goals.

During the same interview, Hanig told the media outlet, “Beyond Halloween one of our missions is to sort of reevaluate how guns are viewed within society.” In an interview with WRAL, Hanig made clear, “Goodies Not Guns was sort of created as a way that we as parents — and as humans — can take back a little bit of the power of what’s happening in our communities with the pervasiveness of guns.”

Goodies Not Guns’ rules are stringent. Even carrying toy arms while portraying our nation’s heroes and public servants is off limits. Gillis told WFMY, “[I]f they wanna be an army man or a police officer, and that’s someone they look up to, Great! That’s awesome! You can be a police officer without a weapon.”

Further, the overbearing couple aren’t content to abolish merely realistic-looking toy guns. The Goodies Not Guns Twitter feed has griped about Star Wars costumes that feature bright orange and white laser blasters. Toy blades are out too, as another tweet objected to a ninja costume complete with sword.

As additional justification for the campaign, Hanig told WRAL, “maybe it’s a good idea to not have Halloween costumes that promote violence, because violence promotes violence promotes violence, and if we want a more peaceful world for our kids, we should start now.” As NRA-ILA has previously pointed out, such assertions about toy guns are unwarranted.

Addressing this issue with WebMD.com, clinical psychologist and best-selling author Michael G. Thompson, Ph.D. noted that “There’s no scientific evidence suggesting that playing war games in childhood leads to real-life aggression.” In a chapter written for the Encyclopedia on Early Childhood Development, Jennifer L. Hart, MEd and Michelle T. Tannock, Ph.D. of the University of Nevada Las Vegas shared a similar sentiment. The researchers stated, “If playful aggression is supported, it is highly beneficial to child development,” and that, “The act of pretending to be aggressive is not equivalent to being aggressive.” In a portion of the chapter explaining the policy implications of their research, the pair noted, “Educators who hold a foundation of understanding will be better able to communicate the importance of not only allowing playful aggression but also supporting it with the inclusion of war toys in early childhood programs.” Moreover, upon surveying the evidence on this subject, a wide range of commentators, including some who have no affinity for firearms, have come to a similar conclusion.

Hanig and Gillis’s campaign has received significant attention from the gun control community, but their project is in line with a broader effort to politicize Halloween. There was a time not too long ago when it was generally understood that All Hallows’ Eve granted Americans reasonable license to be just a little bit scandalous, offensive, or shocking. However, the most infantile portions of the radical left have increasingly turned the holiday into a battleground in the culture wars. Goodies Not Guns is just another front in this lamentable effort to remove all semblance of fun and fantasy from the holiday.

This latest attempt to hijack a holiday raises an important question: when will the anti-gun zealots finally get around to pulling Easter into the political morass? The way the all-consuming culture war is heading, it’s probably only a matter of time until PETA comes out against the gifting of chocolate rabbits as offensive and in need of prohibition.

halloween costumes
Earlier it was Independence Day squirt guns, now here’s the latest step in the anti-gunner’s quest to take all the fun out of everything kids hold near and dear… Folks, get a grip! It’s kids in costumes, not a threat to anything or anyone.