AR-15 Ban Would Not Satisfy Anti-Gunners

In the weeks since the Parkland massacre, liberals and anti-gunners have launched a blistering attack on the AR-15. The rifle has been demonized as a weapon of war with no legitimate purpose other than killing large numbers  of people. If only AR-15s could be banned, the anti-gunners argue, mass killings could be stopped. It isn’t that easy and a ban of AR-15s would not satisfy the anti-gun movement.

Contrary to popular anti-gun opinion, the AR-15 is not markedly different from many other types of rifles. It is not a “machine gun.” It is a semi-automatic rifle. For those unaccustomed to gun terminology, that means that it fires only one bullet for each pull of the trigger.

“AR” does not stand for “assault rifle.” It stands for “Armalite Rifle,” a reference to the original manufacturer in the 1950s. The patent for the design has since expired and the gun is now manufactured by a number of companies under different names.

The AR-15 is also not an especially large caliber rifle. Although there are several different versions, most AR-15s are chambered in .223 caliber or 5.56 mm. The caliber refers to the diameter of the rifle’s bore in inches.

There are a number of other rifle calibers that are larger than that of the AR-15. Other popular hunting rifles include .308 and .3006 calibers. The M1 Garand carried by GIs in WWII was a .30 caliber rifle.

Nor is the AR-15 singularly dangerous in terms of muzzle velocity as some anti-gunners claim. Depending on the cartridge, a.223 bullet fired from an AR-15 typically has a muzzle velocity of about 3,000 feet per second. This is faster than a handgun bullet due to the rifling, larger cartridge and longer barrel, but is not abnormal among rifles. Muzzle velocities for the .223 are not markedly different from the .243 or the .3006, two other popular hunting rifle calibers.

Likewise, the AR-15 is not imbued with a mystical quality that turns anyone who holds it into a remorseless killer. The National Shooting Sports Foundation estimates that there are approximately 15 million AR-15s in civilian hands in the US, but they are only rarely used in crimes. Assault rifles account for only about two percent of annual gun deaths noted the Huffington Post.

They also are not ubiquitous in mass shootings. The Virginia Tech shooter used 9mm and .22 pistols to kill 32 people. The Washington Navy Yard shooter used a 12 gauge shotgun and a 9mm pistol to kill 12. The Fort Hood shooter used two pistols of different calibers to kill 14 people.

On the other hand, AR-15s can save lives. An NRA instructor, Stephen Willeford, armed with his AR-15 stopped the massacre at Sutherland Springs Baptist Church and saved the lives of many in the congregation.

An AR-15 ban would not resolve the problem of school shootings and it would not be the end of the gun ban movement. The gun is not markedly different from a large number of other sporting rifles. If AR-15s were banned, these similar guns would soon be in the sights of anti-gun groups. Gun owners know this instinctively.

Fears of broad bans are not unfounded. Many anti-gun politicians have openly stated that an end to civilian gun ownership is their aim. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said of her 1994 “assault weapon” ban, “If I could have gotten...an outright ban – ‘Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns’ – I would have.” Barack Obama advocated laws similar to the ones in Great Britain and Australia that totally banned private ownership of guns and required them to be surrendered to the government. A bill already introduced would ban 205 rifles, pistols and shotguns that the Democrats deem “semiautomatic assault weapons.”

The leftist quest to ban AR-15s is a distraction. Anti-gun groups are using the Parkland tragedy as an excuse to go after popular semi-automatic rifles rather than focusing on ideas that could actually make schools safer. The dishonest rhetoric and overreach contributes to the distrust that gun owners feel and ultimately makes the problem of mass shootings harder to solve.

Originally published on The Resurgent

How Trump Can Change Congressional Math On Gun Control

As President Trump rallies to the gun control cause, many conservatives are relying on congressional Republicans to block any restrictive new gun laws. The problem is that congressional party breakdowns make it more difficult for pro-gun Republicans to stave off new gun control laws under President Trump than it would if Hillary Clinton was in the White House.

If Hillary was president, resisting gun control would be a simple matter. Republicans control the Senate with 51 seats. As long as Republicans remained unified, they could filibuster anti-gun bills proposed by the Democrats. The anti-gun coalition would need 60 votes to break the filibuster, which would be difficult to achieve.

Things are different with President Trump in office, however. For most of the gun control proposals on the table, the Democrats can probably count on unanimous support from their caucus. The 49 votes controlled by Democrats are not enough to pass the bill alone, but, with a Republican president working to bring Republicans across the aisle, gun control has a chance that it would not have with a Democratic president.

Eleven Republican votes for cloture would be needed to advance the bill to a Senate vote. After cloture, President Trump would only have to flip two Republican votes to pass the bill.

In the current anti-gun climate, any number of Republicans might be pressured to vote with the Democrats on a “common sense” gun control bill. Perennial aisle-crosser Susan Collins (R-Maine), who sponsored a bill in 2016 to ban gun sales to people on the no-fly and terrorist watch lists, would be a senator likely to join the effort. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) is another Republican moderate to watch. Marco Rubio (R-Fl.), Pat Roberts (R-Kans.) and Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) have already expressed support for an increase to the minimum age for purchasing rifles.

Other Republicans joining the coalition might come from both blue states and the strong pro-Trump camp. Republicans from states that lean Democrat would feel pressure from their constituents to support the legislation while pro-Trump Republicans would feel pressure from the White House.

A fail-safe for pro-gun Americans is the Republican congressional leadership. With control of both houses of Congress, Republican leaders have a lot of leeway in deciding which bills are scheduled for floor votes and which are pigeonholed away to die a silent death in committee. Having a president of the same party who supports anti-gun legislation weakens this fail-safe by allowing the president to influence his fellow partisans.

The Hill reports that Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) called on senators to “try to make some progress on the bills we agree on,” in particular bills to enhance background checks and make schools more secure. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), the majority whip, is sponsoring a bill with Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Ct.) that would improve background checks. Cornyn has expressed doubt about the effectiveness of raising the minimum age, but both he and McConnell are undoubtedly under heavy pressure from the White House.

Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) has indicated that gun control may have a more difficult time in the House. Republicans hold a 45-seat majority in the House of Representatives so gun control advocates would need to flip at least 23 Republican votes.

Speaker Ryan told reporters, “We shouldn’t be banning guns for law-abiding citizens, but focusing on making sure that citizens who shouldn’t get guns in the first place, don’t get those guns.”

In the end, the success or failure of the gun control effort will depend largely on Donald Trump. For his part, Trump seems to relish the opportunity to forge a historic bipartisan coalition. The president has engaged in a rhetorical attack on the National Rifle Association in recent days and said that he willing to fight the gun lobby.

“You have a different president now,” Trump said in meeting on gun control in the White House Monday. “I mean, you went through a lot of presidents, and you didn't get it done. But you have a different president, and I think, maybe, you have a different attitude, too. I think people want to get it done.”

Sen. Murphy agrees that Trump is the key. “Mr. President, it's going to have to be you that brings the Republicans to the table on this,” Murphy told the president, “Because right now, the gun lobby would stop it in its tracks.”

“I like that responsibility, Chris. I really do,” the president replied. “I think it's time. It's time that a president stepped up, and we haven't had them -- and I'm talking Democrat and Republican presidents. They have not stepped up.”

It would be an unhappy irony for gun owners if Donald Trump, endorsed by the NRA even though he was a former Democrat who had supported gun control in the past, became the Republican president who overcame the gun lobby to enact the first significant gun control legislation since the 1990s. Stranger things have happened.

Originally published on The Resurgent

NRA Is 'Beer Drinkers,' Not 'Beer Sellers'

In the brouhaha that has followed the Parkland school shooting, the media has repeatedly shown its liberal bias against legal gun owners. Amid the demonization of the National Rifle Association by most media outlets, there is an occasional breath of fresh air. Michael Graham’s op-ed for CBS News is one such point of clarity and honesty.  

Graham cuts to the heart of the liberal attacks on the NRA by comparing the gun rights organization to the National Beer Wholesalers Association. Unlike the beer trade group, which is made up of corporations, the NRA is made up of individuals who have banded together to protect Second Amendment rights.

“The NRA isn't the beer sellers,” Graham points out. “It's the beer drinkers.”

At its core, the NRA is a civil rights group made up of concerned American citizens. The NRA gets its power from the fact that a large segment of the American public believes that the right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed upon.

Much has been made of the money that the NRA donates to political campaigns, but little consideration has been given to where the NRA gets that money. The group does not sell guns or ammunition. Instead, those funds come directly from members who believe in the NRA’s pro-Second Amendment positions.

The NRA does support friendly politicians as well as attacking unfriendly ones. The same is true of many other political organizations on both the right and left from the ACLU to the World Wildlife Fund. The right to band together as an association and to petition members of Congress is guaranteed by the Constitution.

A common trope among politicians and pundits on both sides is to attack “special interests.” In reality, special interests are groups of voters whose positions are on the opposite side of the political spectrum from the speaker. Special interests are union members, environmentalists, feminists and, yes, gun owners.

When the left attacks the NRA, it isn’t because the group is made up of evil people who chortle with glee at the thought of another school shooting. The NRA is a staunch proponent of law enforcement and responsible gun ownership. Instead, the left attacks the NRA because it is effective at defending the right to keep and bear arms and the left desperately wants to outlaw guns.

The problem for the left is not that the NRA’s campaign contributions convince members of Congress to oppose their agenda. The problem is the fact that the NRA has five million members who vote their pro-gun principles. Politicians are much more afraid of angering voters and losing their jobs than they are of losing a few thousand dollars in campaign contributions.

As Jim Butcher wrote, ad hominem attacks are “usually used to distract the focus of a discussion - to move it from an indefensible point and to attack the opponent.” The left’s attacks on the NRA are a reflection of the fact that the liberals have not been able to make a logical case for gun control and have been incapable of winning the American people to their cause.

Originally published on The Resurgent

More guns, fewer crimes

About 20 years ago, criminologist John Lott wrote a book that documented how violent crime decreased in states that passed “shall issue” gun carry permits. Lott’s book, “More Guns, Less Crime,” was a pivotal moment in understanding the harmful effects of gun control laws. The assumption of a positive link between gun control and civic safety was broken. Now, another gun control assumption is being called into question as new data shows that more guns don’t necessarily result in more firearms accidents.

Gun sales have set records several times in recent years. Gun sales as measured by NICS background checks increased after the election of Barack Obama in 2008 and again after his reelection and attempt to impose new gun controls in the aftermath of the Newtown school massacre.

The prospect of a Hillary Clinton presidency caused sales to spike even further. Gun sales in 2016 smashed all previous records. At more than 27 million background checks, more than twice as many guns were purchased in 2016 as in 2008.

Liberal dogma would lead one to believe that the vast numbers of new guns in the hands of private citizens would lead to a dramatic increase in rates of violent crime and firearms accidents. Neither assumption is true.

The Washington Examiner reports that a new report by the National Safety Council puts the number of gun-related accidental deaths for 2015, the latest year that statistics are available, at 489. This is the lowest since recordkeeping began and represents a 17 percent drop from 2014.

Gun accidents make up less than one percent of the accidental deaths studied in the report by the nonprofit organization. Guns caused far fewer accidental deaths than automobiles and drug overdoses, which were leading causes of accidental death in various age groups. The odds of accidental gun deaths fell between “pedacyclist incidents” and “air and space transport incidents.”

Likewise, crime rates across the country remain near record lows despite claims by Democrats and President Trump that crime is at critical levels. FBI data from 2014, the most recent year available, shows the US murder rate at its lowest point since 1957.

Some cities did report an uptick in violent crime in 2015, but Politifact notes that the overall trend has been downward. “Snapshots are not trends. And two or three years of data are far too few to establish a trend,” said Richard A. Berk, professor of criminology and statistics at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School.

CNN notes that the uptick in violent crime was due to increases in specific cities, such as Chicago, which doesn’t even make USA Today’s list of the most violent cities in the country when crime rates are adjusted for population, although its suburb of Rockford, Ill. does. None of the cities on the list are known for large illegal immigrant populations, making the president’s claims that illegals are driving the uptick in the crime rate problematic.

Chris Eger at Guns.com credits the increase in safety programs with the decline in gun accidents. “The basic gun safety rules as advocated by the National Rifle Association are mentioned at least as far back as Jeff Cooper’s ‘The Complete Book of Modern Handgunning’ in 1961,” he writes. “The gun rights group has also backed their Eddie Eagle GunSafe, which they contend has reached more than 28 million children since 1988.” Eger also gives a nod to the 2005 law that required including gun locks with new gun sales and the distribution of gun locks by the National Shooting Sports Foundation as part of Project Childsafe.

“This latest release from the National Safety Council shows that the vast majority of the 100 million American firearms owners meet the serious responsibilities which come with firearms ownership,” said NSSF President and CEO Steve Sanetti. “They store their firearms safely and securely when not in use, and follow the basic rules of firearms safety when handling them.”

Perhaps we should question more liberal dogmas.

Originally published on the Resurgent

In search of Senate RINOs

Of late the Republican Party has become distracted from the battle against Obamacare by an intraparty witch hunt for RINOs, shorthand for “Republicans in name only.” It is believed by many that the RINOs are destroying the party and undermining the efforts of “true conservatives” to stymie Barack Obama and his Democratic minions. Join us then as we go on safari to the Senate to hunt the fabled Republican RINO.

When RINOs are discussed, the name of John McCain (R-Ariz.) is usually at the top of the list. The list of grievances against McCain is long and includes belief in global warming, putting his name on the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law that was struck down in the Citizens United ruling, and even voting to consider new gun control measures this year. McCain has long been a moderate Republican who was willing to reach across the aisle. In 2005, he was a member of the Gang of 14 and in 2004, Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry offered McCain the vice presidential slot on the Democratic ticket. McCain told the New York Times in 2008 that Kerry was “a liberal Democrat” and “I am a conservative Republican. So… that’s why I never even considered such a thing.”

But is McCain a conservative? Several conservative organizations provide scorecards on how members of Congress rate based on actual votes. The most famous of these is the American Conservative Union. On that scorecard, McCain has a lifetime average of 82.84 out of a possible 100. In 2012, he scored 92. (The Republican average was 77.83 percent. The overall Senate average was 39.28 percent.) The Club for Growth ranked McCain at 85 percent overall and 90 percent in 2012. On the Freedomworks scorecard, McCain scored 44. (Of the 45 Republican senators, only seven scored 90 or better on the Freedomworks scale. The Republican average was 68 and most Democrats scored zero.)

President Reagan famously said, “The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally — not a 20 percent traitor.” Using the Reagan standard, John McCain is a friend and ally of conservatives. As confirmation, McCain is listed as an ACU Conservative, a title bestowed on senators with scores higher than 80.

Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is Senate minority leader and also often considered a RINO. In the deal that ended the recent government shutdown, McConnell was accused of securing a $3 billion earmark to build a dam on the Ohio River near Paducah, Ky. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) have since said that they, not McConnell, requested the appropriation in order to avoid canceling contracts that would cost taxpayers $160 million.

When it comes to the scorecards, McConnell gets a 90.09 lifetime average from the ACU with a score of 100 for 2012. The Club for Growth gives him a 74 for 2012 and lifetime 84. He gets a 71 from Freedomworks. McConnell, who faces reelection in 2014, would meet Reagan’s 80 percent rule. Sen. McConnell is listed as a Defender of Liberty by the American Conservative Union, confirming his 100 for 2012.

Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has also been frequently tagged as a RINO. Graham called for an end to the government shutdown in mid-October and has been accused of supporting amnesty for illegal aliens because he favors immigration reform.

Graham earned an 89.12 lifetime average from the ACU with a 92 in 2012. According to the Club for Growth scale, he has a lifetime score of 77 and an 86 for 2012. He scores a 41 on the Freedomworks scale. Graham, who is also running for reelection in 2014, is also listed as an ACU Conservative.

Kelly Ayotte, a Republican from the blue state of New Hampshire, earned a lifetime 85.5 from the ACU with a 76 in 2012. The Club for Growth gives her a lifetime 92 and an 86 in 2012. She gets a 59 from Freedomworks. Ayotte’s 76 score is not good enough to be labeled as a conservative by the ACU, but it is still markedly better than the Democratic senator from New Hampshire, Jeane Shaheen, who scored zero in 2012 and has a lifetime average of 4.5.

Georgia’s two Republican senators are also alleged RINOs. The retiring Saxby Chambliss has a 92.03 lifetime ACU score while Johnny Isakson is at 87.57. Their Club for Growth scores are 83 and 78 percent respectively. Chambliss received a 47 from Freedomworks, while Isakson scored 47.

As a comparison, the lowest Republican on the ACU survey was Susan Collins (R-Maine) with 20 percent. Her score was less James Webb (D-Va.), the highest Democrat at 32 percent. Olympia Snowe, also a Maine Republican, also had 32 percent.

Even though Collins can be fairly described as a RINO, she does have saving graces for Republicans. Writing on Newsmax, Christopher Ruddy points out that she is pro-gun and is rated B-plus by the NRA. She also voted against Obamacare, for the Bush tax cuts and their extension, for the Iraq War resolution, and is generally pro-military. She is also a fiscal conservative who supports a balanced budget amendment and spending caps.

Tea Partiers should be leery of ousting moderate Republicans like Collins. When fellow Mainer Olympia Snowe retired in 2012, she was replaced by independent Angus King. The Maine Sun Journal reported last May that King voted with Democrats 90 percent of the time. A dozen Democrats have broken with the party more often than King.

A review of 2005 list of RINOs in Human Events yields similar results in other states. The top ten list includes four senators (including Collins and Snowe), four representatives, and two governors (including then-governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney). Of the ten, only Susan Collins is still serving. Of the remaining nine, only one, Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican who later switched parties, was replaced by another Republican. In the other eight cases, the RINOs were replaced by authentic Democrats. One, Mike Castle, a popular Delaware Republican, was defeated in the Republican primary for Joe Biden’s senate seat in 2010. He lost to Christine O’Donnell, the Tea Party favorite, who subsequently lost to Democrat Chris Coons amid revelations of her experiments with Wicca.

Republicans would do well to look at the voting records of elected officials before writing them off as RINOs. Many of the senators often derided as “liberal” Republicans are actually among the most conservative members of Congress. Others represent blue or purple states where a staunch conservative could not win.

There are worse things than having liberal Republicans in Congress. They could be Democrats.

 

Originally published on Atlanta Conservative Examiner

Obama may use UN to bypass congress on gun control

Political pollster and strategist Dick Morris believes that President Obama may use the United Nations to bypass congress and enact new gun restrictions. In a video message released today, Morris pointed out that Obama’s gun control proposals are unlikely to pass the senate because a number of Democratic senators are opposed to gun control.

Currently, the Democrats control the senate with 55 senators (including two independents) to 45 Republicans. Many of the Democratic senators have been endorsed by the National Rifle Association and hail from red states. In particular, Morris cites Joe Manchin (D-W.V.), Mary Landrieu (D-La.), Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), Kay Hagan (D.-N.C.), Tim Caine (D-Va.), Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), and Bob Casey (D-Pa.). Even Harry Reid (D-Nev.), the senate majority leader, has been endorsed by the NRA in the past although the group stayed neutral in his 2010 election. So far no Republican senators have signed on to Democratic gun control proposals such as a new assault weapons ban.

Under senate rules, a simple majority, 50 votes, is needed to pass legislation. However, if Republican senators filibuster gun control bills, 60 votes will be needed to overcome the filibuster. If, as seems likely, at least five Democratic senators vote against Obama’s proposals, they will not pass. Even if no Democrats oppose the bills, there would not be enough votes to overcome a filibuster without Republican help.

Morris believes that Obama’s strategy will involve the UN Arms Trade Treaty. As Examiner reported last summer, many critics believe that the treaty would allow the United Nations to define what measures the United States would have to take to combat illegal arms trafficking.

As Morris noted then, the U.S. is a signatory to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Under this treaty, once the U.S. signs the Arms Trade Treaty, it would be bound by its terms until it is rejected by the senate. Under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, treaties are the “supreme law of the land,” equal in weight to the Constitution itself. President Obama could have Secretary of State Kerry sign the treaty and then refuse to submit it to the senate for ratification. Harry Reid could also simply not bring the treaty up for a vote as he has done on budgets and other legislation. Under this scenario, the U.S. would be bound by a treaty that could effectively repeal the Second Amendment without congress ever having voted on it.

Because of the vague language of the treaty, Senate Democrats might be more likely to vote for ratification of the treaty than to vote for a specific gun control measure. Morris notes that the treaty won’t immediately ban assault rifles or other guns, but it “empowers each country to adopt national means to stop these [illegal] exports from taking place. And that’s the key. It means that over the next three or four years this UN mandate, which is now sort of open ended, will increasingly close in on the Second Amendment.”

Under the Constitution, ratification of a treaty requires the approval of two-thirds of the senators present. If all senators are present that would mean 66 votes would be needed for ratification. Some Republican votes would be needed in order to ratify the treaty. The House of Representatives, which is controlled by Republicans, would not vote on the treaty.

After strong opposition from Second Amendment groups the administration declined to sign the treaty last summer, but Reuters reports that the day after Obama’s reelection victory the UN voted to reopen talks. The new round of negotiations will be held March 18-28, 2013.

Recent polling by Rasmussen shows that Americans are split on the issue of gun control. Fifty-three percent favor background checks for existing gun owners and 57 percent believe that enforcing current gun laws is more important than enacting new laws. Only 41 percent believe that the U.S. needs stricter gun laws. The strongest agreement came from those who believe that there is a constitutional right to own a gun (74 percent) and that background checks should be required for anyone who wants to buy a gun (86 percent).

Originally published on Examiner:

http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-may-use-un-to-bypass-congress-on-gun-control?cid=db_articles

Armed citizen helped stop Tuscon shooter

Clinton & Charles Robertson

The Tucson shooting will doubtless prompt calls for new gun control measures in Georgia and across the country.  Arizona, like Georgia, offers citizens the rights to own and carry weapons legally.  Georgia requires a firearms license, but a new law in Arizona allows residents who are over 21 years old to carry weapons without a permit.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Joseph Zamudio was legally carrying a 9mm semiautomatic pistol at a Walgreen’s near the Safeway store where the shooting occurred.  Mr. Zamudio heard the shots and ran toward them.  “In that moment, I didn't think about it. I just reacted,” he said.

Mr. Zamudio saw “almost a smirk” on the shooter’s face.  By the time he was in pistol range, other bystanders had knocked Jared Lee Loughner, the shooter, to the ground.  Zamudio assisted in restraining him.  “If I'd gone down there sooner, maybe I could have shot him myself,” Mr. Zamudio said.  If he had been closer, or if other armed and law-abiding citizens had been in the crowd, Loughner’s spree might have ended sooner and lives might have been saved.

According to the NRA, there are forty right-to-carry states.  Arizona and Alaska are the only two states where no permit is required.  Studies show that where law-abiding citizens are allowed to own and carry legal guns, crime is reduced.  Quite simply, criminals don’t like to prey on people who can fight back.

Ironically, it appears that Mr. Loughner also carried a legally purchased gun.  Although there are laws against selling guns to those who are mentally ill, or in Arizona, to anyone who “constitute(s) a danger to himself or others,” Loughner had never been found to be mentally incompetent.   His college had requested Loughner to take a mental health screening.  Instead he dropped out and law enforcement was never informed.

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-atlanta/armed-citizen-helped-stop-tuscon-shooter "> 

Please click the SUBSCRIBE button at the top of this page to receive future updates.