Mark Robinson Is the Majority, Not the Drive-By Media

When Resistance becomes a DUTY. . .

Bill Whittle: YOUR SECOND AMENDMENT

Why Good People Should Be Armed

American Gun Control - a U.K. Warning

Wayne LaPierre at NRA Forum: Expect 'Bare-Knuckled Street Fight' for American Freedom

by Ken Klukowski 
26 Apr 2014

Watch the entire video of Wayne LaPierre below.

 INDIANAPOLIS, Indiana—Wayne LaPierre, the long-serving CEO of the National Rifle Association of America, rallied the troops on Friday with a broad-based liberty theme that made gun rights the centerpiece of what makes America the greatest nation on earth, telling NRA members to gird their loins for a “bare-knuckled street fight.” The NRA is known for focusing on the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms—and with it, every aspect of America's firearms heritage. The NRA’s strength in political battles comes in large part from its ability to hold together a broad coalition of hunters, competitors, political activists, and others from both political parties and independents.



Yet at Friday’s Leadership Forum for the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) in Indianapolis, LaPierre tied the Second Amendment to other American rights and the values that set America apart on the world stage. At one of the first events of the NRA’s 143rd Annual Meeting—which should draw over 70,000 NRA members to the Hoosier state—he touched upon First Amendment rights and constitutional limits on government, speaking of threats to “our right to speak, our right to gather, our right to privacy." He spoke, too, of "the freedom to work, and practice our religion, and raise and protect our families as we see fit.”

Citing a litany of conservative grievances over the past couple years, LaPierre denounced a wide range of policies of the Obama administration.
 “They try to regulate our religion. They collect our cell phone and email data. They give us Solyndra, Benghazi, Fast and Furious, Obamacare, massive unemployment, a debt that will choke our grandchildren, and one executive order on top of another,” he said.

“The IRS is now a weapon,” LaPierre added, pivoting to a number of recent government abuses. “It’s why a majority of Americans, in poll after poll, say we don’t trust the White House, we don’t trust Congress, we don’t trust either national party. And we sure as heck don’t trust the national news media!”

But back in his wheelhouse of gun rights, LaPierre showcased his characteristic style of unyielding support for the Second Amendment. Speaking of “the God-given right of good people to protect themselves,” LaPierre promised, “the NRA stands unflinching and unapologetic and in defense of our freedom. NRA’s 5 million members and America’s 100 million gun owners will not back down—not now, not ever!”

He warned that the upcoming elections would be a no-holds-barred melee, a “bare-knuckled street fight” in which NRA members needed to fully engage. As one of the most successful political field generals in America, LaPierre is known for a hard-hitting style more suited to hand-to-hand combat leading up to Election Day.

LaPierre acknowledged that NRA members face a pitched battle against well-funded opponents who enjoyed the full backing of President Barack Obama and his administration. He also said that all this is part of “laying the groundwork to put a Clinton back in the White House.”
In the face of the Left’s resources, LaPierre vowed to the crowd at Indianapolis’ Lucas Oil Stadium, “But mark my words: The NRA will not go quietly into the night. We will fight.”

Ken Klukowski is senior legal analyst for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter @kenklukowski.

Big Government

As Freedom Destroys Itself

September 20, 2013

By Sarah Palin 

Laws can’t protect a society that has lost its way.  

 
 All of us were horrified by the murders at the Washington Navy Yard this week. Once again, in the aftermath of a shooting, a new installment of the debate about gun laws has broken out. But what we really need is a new discussion about what kind of people we are and what kind of country we want to be.

It’s no secret which side I’m on in any debate involving the Second Amendment (or the whole Constitution, for that matter). We call Alaska America’s Last Frontier, and firearms are a big part of our lifestyle here because they are part of our frontier tradition. And, as I tell my daughters, the ability to use a firearm responsibly and to defend yourself is also part of our heritage as American women.

The iconic musket over the fireplace wasn’t just for the menfolk on the frontier. Those stalwart women who crossed oceans and wilderness to settle our country knew how to protect themselves and their families. (One of my favorite scenes in the miniseries John Adams is when Abigail Adams, alone with her children in besieged Massachusetts while her husband is away at the Continental Congress, shoulders the family musket to protect her little ones when she hears the distant sounds of battle. That’s our heritage, ladies.)

Hunting is an integral part of our lifestyle in the 49th state. Using guns isn’t just recreation for us; it’s how many of us get our dinner. Granted, today, with a grocery store on virtually every corner, there isn’t the actual necessity to live a “subsistence lifestyle” that there was a generation ago in Alaska when I was growing up, but my family still lives by the motto “We eat; therefore, we hunt.” We live off the healthy organic protein provided by Alaska’s wild fish and game.

Todd and I have taught our kids how to handle firearms responsibly, just as my dad taught me. In fact, we took our girls for a special hunt on Mother’s Day this year at our cabin looking out at the distant majestic peak of Mt. McKinley, and we had a blast teaching twelve-year-old Piper mounted shooting in warm Montana this summer.

 

 I’m proud of my frontier heritage, and I’ll fight vehemently against anything that would limit the constitutional rights of Americans. But I can certainly sympathize with the many well-meaning Americans who desperately feel the need to find a way to prevent these senseless killings. Who among us doesn’t feel sadness, anger, and even despair after these tragedies?

But we must remember that emotion won’t make anybody safer or protect our rights. Beware of politicians who exploit our emotions in an attempt to pass laws that even they admit wouldn’t have prevented the violence.

CNN’s Don Lemon recently saw the light on this issue and highlighted the Centers for Disease Control study showing that so-called military assault rifles account for a small fraction of gun violence. The overwhelming majority of gun-related deaths are inflicted with handguns, but a ban on handguns is not only politically untenable; it would also hinder the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves (especially Americans who live in troubled urban areas where the police are slow to respond to emergency calls).

Instead of offering real solutions based on facts, reactionary politicians offer us the politics of emotion, which is the opposite of leadership. It is the manipulation of the people by the political class for their own political ends. It is so very self-serving, but, worse, it is destructive.

The first thing politicians ask after these tragedies is essentially: “What can we do to limit the freedom of the people?”

And that is the wrong question. The question we should be asking is: “What can we do to nurture and support a people capable of living in freedom?”

Earlier this year I spoke at the NRA convention and reminded a conscientious, patriotic audience that our country’s Founders asked themselves that question and knew the answer. They understood that a free people must either nurture morality or lose their freedom. John Adams wrote, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Not coincidentally, he wrote that to the officers of the Massachusetts militia when the young republic was on the verge of war with France. He reminded those officers who were charged with leading armed men that the freedoms secured by the Constitution take for granted a decent and civil society.

This isn’t just a question for American society. It’s a civilizational question for all humanity. Margaret Thatcher spoke eloquently of this co-dependence of freedom and morality. She said, “Freedom will destroy itself if it is not exercised within some sort of moral framework, some body of shared beliefs, some spiritual heritage transmitted through the Church, the family, and the school.”

I’m reminded of that quote every time I see politicians reach for the easy answers instead of asking the hard questions after tragedies like the one this week. When they seek to strip away our Second Amendment rights instead of suggesting that those who hide behind the First Amendment need to act more responsibly, they are helping freedom destroy itself. When Hollywood glorifies violence with its movies and music, but then underwrites efforts to take away our rights, it is helping freedom destroy itself. When those incorporating virtue into their lives are criticized, mocked, and bullied while pop culture’s kingmakers elevate and celebrate a self-centered “I’ll do what I want and consequences be damned” mentality, those kingmakers and bullies are helping freedom destroy itself. And when We the People shrug our shoulders and duck our heads while society becomes more cynical and our sense of family and community atrophies, we’re all helping freedom destroy itself.

Americans have always had access to firearms. Guns certainly aren’t any more pervasive now than they were back when the Minutemen were stockpiling weapons at Lexington and Concord. But something definitely has changed since then. It’s not the weapons. It’s us.

Instead of rushing to find some magical legislative solution, we need to ask ourselves a few hard questions: Are we creating a culture that can live and thrive in freedom? Do we have bold leaders willing and able to nurture such a culture? Do we have artists whose works reflect and inspire such a culture? Consider the answers to these questions carefully, because, if the answers are no, then we are in much more trouble than any new law can fix.

A decent and moral society is guided by voluntary self-restraint. The less moral we are, the more legalistic we become. But more laws can’t protect a civilization that has lost its way. At most, they’re just tiny speed bumps for a runaway truck.

The solutions we seek won’t be found in the halls of Congress or state legislatures. Might I humbly suggest that we step back from the TV, take a breath, hug our kids, reach out to friends and neighbors, and say a prayer.

— Sarah Palin is the former governor of Alaska and was the 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee.

National Review

Sarah Palin’s freedom-loving NRA-ILA Leadership Forum Speech

SEAL Chris Kyle's wife Taya Emotional Speech at NRA-ILA Leadership Forum

Watch John Bolton’s NRA-ILA Leadership Forum Speech

Judge Jeanine Pirro Rousing Speech at NRA-ILA Leadership Forum

WATCH: Sen. Ted Cruz Attacks Obama, Challenges Biden at NRA-ILA Leadership

The Most Effective, Logical Solution: Arming School Staff

By Mike McDaniel

 Only one question matters in the school violence debate: when a shooter is attempting to enter a school, what will be done to protect the lives of students and staff?

Asking what can be done to prevent mass school shootings is a secondary matter. Honest commentators — with the background and experience to know what they’re talking about — should be aware that in a constitutional republic, school shootings cannot be altogether prevented, and that gun control can have no effect. The worst school attack in history — in Beslan, Chechnya, leaving 300 dead and 700 injured — took place in a liberty-restricted state with democratic pretensions. Deterrence is possible, but not with past or current policies; the actual defense of the school during an incident is the heart of the debate.

At enormous expense, schools can be hardened, which may help to deter some potential killers, and which may slow down, to some degree, less intelligent and prepared killers. Unfortunately, “slow down” implies seconds, not minutes. Equally unfortunate: the money necessary to harden schools to the point of truly credible deterrence that could slow or stop killers to any meaningful degree is not available during the Obama economy.

Just recently, it was revealed that the Sandy Hook Elementary School killer needed only five minutes to shoot his way into the school and murder 20 children and six adults before killing himself. This fact is fodder for those wishing to ban “assault weapons” and standard capacity magazines so that future killers with five minutes will require a few seconds longer, or might only be able to kill 20 rather than 26. They miss the point, and many intentionally ignore more sensible proposals.

Former Navy SEAL and current educator John A. Czajkowski proposes a solution that embraces the recommendation of the NRA: place armed security in every one of the 100,000-plus American schools.

However, he generally opposes the arming of school staff:

Although I grew up very comfortable with the responsible use of firearms as a boy and then later professionally, I still can’t support arming teachers first when there are still so many other more proactive opportunities for improving our security. Arming teachers is far down my list of recommendations for improving security, per balancing return on investment and risk assessment. Although I am entirely comfortable with the idea at a personal level, the difficulty of applying Kant’s universal imperative makes me hesitate to adopt an armed teacher paradigm.

Only one policy can credibly deter school shooters, will cost little or nothing, and will provide the maximum chance to limit — or even to eliminate — the loss of life when an attack on a school occurs: arming school staff.

When school design, security cameras, hardened doors and glass, magnetic door locks, and every other security measure have failed — as they did at Sandy Hook — and when a killer is seconds from firing, what is that school prepared to do at that moment to prevent any loss of life? Unless they are taking affirmative steps to arm staff so multiple people will always be present and prepared to immediately engage an armed attacker, the schools tacitly admit they are willing to accept a death toll of some size. This, in exchange for “feeling safe” rather than being safe.

NRA chief Wayne LaPierre and Czajkowski’s approach — using trained, armed personnel focused on school security — is not unreasonable, but it is impractical and embraces several faulty assumptions.

La Pierre would even demand federal funds for the purpose. Even so, some schools — usually larger high schools and some middle schools — do have school “resource” or “liaison” officers, who are usually certified law enforcement officers provided by local agencies.  Some schools share an officer from time to time, but most schools have none. This is so for practical and insurmountable reasons. Moreover, those few officers do not function as most of those supporting this concept believe.

These officers are essentially small-town police, responsible for all law enforcement functions in and around their assigned schools. They are generally present only during normal school hours, but must be absent for a wide variety of reasons: court, job-related errands, transporting arrestees, mandatory training, medical appointments, and vacation. At those times, they are virtually never replaced, and they are seldom present for extracurricular activities.

Further, it is not their job to principally focus on building security. And because there is only one of them per school — if that — the chance they will be present at the time and place an attack occurs is small. If no one else is armed, they are better than nothing, but are not the answer.

Most schools don’t have these liaison officers and never will; it’s too expensive. Their salaries, whether paid by their agency, their school, or some combination, come from the taxpayers, an increasingly scarce funding source. Affordably putting more of them in schools is wishful thinking.

As an educator, I deal with colleagues who recoil at the idea of armed police officers in school, as though the mere presence of authority, particularly armed authority, somehow poisons a mystically pristine educational atmosphere. I have heard others argue that teachers are untrained and unqualified to carry firearms, and as such would be tempted to misuse them, or would be more likely to harm themselves, or others, or to be shot by the police in a school attack. I have heard some argue that students will steal teachers’ guns.

However, the most fervent argument I’ve encountered — and only after the Newtown shooting — suggests that teachers must focus 100% of their energy and attention exclusively on teaching. Therefore, they cannot be expected to assume the same duties as school liaison officers, including engaging and stopping school shooters.

Some have gone so far as to suggest that teachers would be particularly bad at even recognizing that a shooting was happening, so oblivious to their surroundings does teaching make them.

This misconception is a related to the idea that anyone carrying a gun on school grounds must be trained to the same level — and must assume the same focus and duties — as a certified police officer, or else they are a tragedy waiting to happen.

No. Armed school staff should have precisely the same duties and responsibilities as any citizen with a concealed carry permit.

They are responsible for keeping their weapon safe, secure, and concealed, and on their person at all times.

A handgun locked in a desk or in an armory in a principal’s office suite is of no use to a teacher meeting an armed killer in a hallway or on a playground.

Above all, they will know to use their handgun only in circumstances where it is necessary to stop the imminent threat of serious bodily harm or death to themselves or others. And that is all.

Police officers undergo lengthy and rigorous training because their jobs encompass far more than this simple directive, whereas armed citizens and teachers need know only two primary things: the law relating to the possession and use of deadly force, and how to shoot straight.

Additional training along these lines is desirable, but if required, will prevent some teachers from being able to save their lives and the lives of students.

The entry qualification should be precisely the same as for any concealed carry license holder. Teachers should in fact be already almost entirely qualified, for like license holders, they have been fingerprinted, photographed, and undergone extensive background checks.

Unlike license holders, they must have at minimum a bachelor’s degree, and must undergo additional extensive testing. The only qualification most teachers lack would be any state-required training course or shooting qualification.

A cornerstone of this policy must be correct publicity. Making the public aware a given school district allows and encourages its staff to carry concealed weapons confers on every school, whether anyone is carrying or not, the benefits of deterrence.

Properly chosen by and for individuals, concealed handguns are quite invisible: this is another strength of concealed carry. Because no criminal can know who is carrying a handgun, they must assume that everyone could be. Just about anywhere in America except schools, this is also the case.

Consider the cognitive dissonance of those who argue that teachers can’t be expected to take extra time to qualify for concealed carry: recall that they already spend hours on “run and hide” drills, hiding students behind locked and easily breached doors to fearfully wait and hope that a killer will not find them. This dependence on the lack of competence and marksmanship of madmen (as well as their mercy) is not a strategy.

Consider too those who argue that teachers aren’t smart enough to understand what is happening, and will thereby shoot innocents. When a school attack occurs, and this was very much the case at Sandy Hook Elementary, the victims knew exactly what was going on. When the killer was shooting his way into the school, if one or more staff had been armed he could have been immediately stopped. No one had to die that day; no one has to die in any school.

The idea that teachers’ guns will be stolen and misused, while possible, is hardly a reasonable argument for failing to protect lives: all of life is a matter of balancing benefits and risks.  Fortunately, there is an experience model. Utah has for many years allowed teachers to carry handguns: there has not been a single instance of such misuse. Texas also allows it, and South Dakota has recently passed a law allowing on-campus concealed carry. Other states are considering legislation.

What about the argument that teachers can’t shoot straight?  It’s not well-known, but the police are hardly firearm experts. They are required to qualify only once a year on less-than-demanding courses of fire with equally non-demanding qualifying scores. Many citizens surpass the police in shooting skill. Wearing a uniform and badge does not confer magical shooting skills beyond the capability of the private citizen.

Consider the plight of teachers holding concealed carry licenses. Off of school property, their inalienable natural right to self-defense is operative. They may protect the lives of themselves and their children, at home and anywhere they may be. But step on school property, and due to those that claim to be most concerned with protecting children, they and their children lose the affirmative means to preserve their lives. Are the lives of teachers and children worth less on school property than off?

In any school attack, two things matter most: time and distance. Armed killers have the advantage of both.

Every second matters, and time is not on the side of victims or the police. At Newtown, a life was lost approximately every 11.5 seconds. From the time the killer shot his way into the school until he shot himself, only five minutes elapsed, but it took the first police officer 20 minutes to arrive. This is normal, and must be expected in the future: in virtually every school shooting, the police have had no active role in stopping the shooter.

Even if the Newtown police had arrived within five minutes, they still would have had no role in stopping the killer.

If there is no one present to immediately engage and stop a school shooter, the only factors determining the eventual body count will be the killer’s lack of marksmanship and dumb luck.  Depending on the mercy of a madman, or luck, for the lives of innocents is quite insane. Even an armed teacher running from one hallway to the next to engage a shooter is far preferable than waiting for police that will virtually never arrive in time, and will be summoned only after some children and teachers are already wounded or dead.

One may conjure any number of objections to allowing armed teachers and school staff, but every possible objection can be addressed with proper — and inexpensive — procedures and training. The undeniably positive benefits of armed teachers, people always present and always ready and able to stop armed killers, greatly outweigh any potential objection. Which possible negative consequence outweighs the preservation of innocent lives?

Consider Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker, commenting on the defeat in the legislature — only a short time before the attack — of a bill that would have allowed students and faculty to carry firearms on campus. He said:

I’m sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly’s actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus.

Signs, doors, locks, and good intentions do help some to feel safe, but teachers and staff ready and able to stop killers is actual safety.

PJ Media

How the Media Blew the Gun Control Debate

by John Nolte 18 Apr 2013

  With the total and complete defeat of gun control legislation late Wednesday afternoon, the media learned something they had obviously forgotten since pushing Obama over the reelection finish line: They do not run the country. And from what we are seeing across the media landscape since the handing down of this defeat (which was followed by a full-blown presidential hissy fit), this realization has been quite a slap to the face.

The first mistake the media-complex made was the decision to immediately make the National Rifle Association the "Newtown Bogeyman." This happened even before the bodies had been removed and was an immediate "tell" into the media's motives. This wasn't going to be about protecting children; this was going to be yet-another culture war launched to marginalize the dreaded NRA and hand Obama a win.

This was also a media so full of its own power, they simply assumed they could exploit another tragedy into yet-another another Us vs. Them cultural victory. Out of the box, though, the plan was tactically stupid.

But the media's first fatal error wouldn't come for another week.

Wisely, the NRA refused to make any kind of statement until a week had passed after the murders. During that time, as they always do during their partisan crusades, the media ordered up and reported on polls showing that they and Obama happened to be right about everything related to gun control,  and the NRA was "out of touch."

The media trap had been set and the knives sharpened. Either the NRA would compromise its beliefs or the Second Amendment civil rights group would face a savage media campaign that would push it into the margins. The media were sure they had a win-win on their hands. But what the media forgot is that Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President and long-time public face of the NRA, is nobody's fool.

In a masterful speech carried live across the cable networks, LaPierre completely caught the media off guard by refusing to budge an inch on America's Second Amendment civil rights. Immediately, the objective, unbiased, not-at-all-liberal media collectively bared their corrupt backsides on Twitter, spewing the kind of partisan hate you might expect from a Daily Kos blogger.

Then LaPierre delivered his masterstroke: a federal plan that would ensure that someone armed and trained to stop a spree-shooter, like the one at Newtown, would be on guard in every school across the nation.

Checkmate.

Caught completely off guard, and having no idea how to respond, the media moved into the default position they  always assume against all-things conservative --which is that we can never do anything right. And what followed was the media making an unbelievable spectacle of themselves, from which they would never recover.

Blinded by frustration, rage, and an insufferable sense of entitlement, and before finally getting a grip on themselves, the media as a whole would spend the next thirty-six hours mocking, marginalizing, and publicly pushing back against ... guarding schoolchildren against madmen with guns.

Just a week after learning 20 elementary schoolers had been gunned down, the American people watched as the media savaged a common sense proposal to ensure a Newtown couldn't happen again -- simply because the NRA proposed it.

It was during these 36 hours, and before tens of millions, that the enraged media got way out over their partisan skis. Anyone who hadn't already figured out the media were using these dead children in the most mercenary of ways certainly did now. Poll after poll would quickly show that Americans favored the NRA plan. Suddenly it was the NRA on the right side of Newtown, and the media out of touch.

And with that, the slow-motion train wreck got fully underway.

Now that they had fully exposed themselves, and polls were starting to show that the American people were slowly coming to their senses on gun control, an increasingly desperate media changed tactics. The new offensive was a two-track attack -- one fraught with risk -- but one the media obviously thought was worth taking.

Track One -- Emotional Blackmail: As personified by NBC's Joe Scarborough and CNN's Piers Morgan, shameless demagoguery was employed. You either agreed with them on gun control or you wanted children to die and the terrorists to get guns.

Track Two -- Fabricate Reality: As personified by NBC's Chuck Todd and the two days CNN spent lobbying for stricter gun control, the idea was to narrow-cast the news onto a single subject and direct it at fewer than 600 people -- the lawmakers on Capitol Hill. Like the media did with ObamaCare, a propaganda bubble was manufactured to convince lawmakers that gun control was The Most Important Issue In The History of the World.

The risk I mentioned above was eternal damage to reputation, which all involved ultimately suffered, especially CNN.

Meanwhile, Democrats only made the media's job harder. As polls turned against gun control, the actual legislation became increasingly watered down until it was practically nonexistent.

Off the table (other than symbolically) was the assault weapons ban and all the rest. What remained was the tiniest tweaking of background checks.  

But again, faced with this, the media made another tactical error -- and this one would be fatal mistake number two.

Rather than report on the reality of what was happening -- that Obama and Democrats had lost the country on their sweeping gun control proposals -- the media (specifically NBC) moved the political goalposts and immediately went into divisive partisan mode again, this time with the absurd and totally false claim that Obama's push for gun control was always about strengthening background checks, and not the rest…

Therefore -- and this is key--  passage of these stricter background checks would still represent a huge political win for Obama (and by extension the media) and a historical defeat for the NRA.

Other than the obvious politicization, what the media failed to understand here was that the American people were witnessing Obama and his media place all their chips on a law that would do absolutely nothing to stop another Newtown. Suddenly gone, as though it didn’t matter, was anything having to do with mental health or media violence.

In other words, all we had left was a nothingburger bill designed only to deliver a symbolic political defeat to the NRA, the GOP, and America's law-abiding gun culture.  The Us vs.Them media campaign was unrelenting, but it was also spiraling out of control and into outright farce.  

Though Senators Manchin and Toomey provided a day or two of hope with bipartisan legislation on background checks, by now the writing was pretty much on the wall. And it was at this point that the media's desperation became even more desperate.

The news-cycle went 24/7 into Track One and Track Two propagandizing. But as we all now know, rather than being effective, the bias, demagoguery, and outright lobbying drifted into self-parody.

As the Chuck Todds and Joe Scarboroughs and Piers Morgans sanctimoniously raged about their silly and flawed  90% polls, out here in the real world, the media's stupid decision to make this a culture war only managed to ensure that 96% of Americans had tuned out and moved on.

As I have written before, and as Charles Krauthammer said Wednesday night on "Special Report," as a Senator I personally would have voted for the Toomey-Manchin bill. But the media blew it.

Had the media chosen to unite rather than divide, educate rather than propagandize, debate rather than shout down opposition, and cared more about 20 innocent children than one Barack Obama -- things might look entirely different today. 

Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC 

Big Journalism

NRA President Slams Obama's 'Public Rant'

by Larry O'Connor 18 Apr 2013

 

 "He's attacking the NRA, he's attacking our members, he's attacking citizens and senators of the United States, threatening them and all the rest. I think that's really not a seemly way for the President of the United States to respond to a legislative defeat."

So said NRA President David Keene Thursday morning on "Mornings on the Mall" on WMAL-FM in Washington DC.  Keene was responding to President Obama accusing the gun lobby of "willfully lying" about the Toomey/Manchin/Schumer background check in a statement at the White House Wednesday.

"(Obama complained) that we used the victims of these tragedies as props, and he did it while he was standing with all of these victims behind him, using them as props," Keene said.

Listen to the entire segment here:



Big Journalism

Politico: NRA's Total Defeat of Obama, Media Likely

by John Nolte 16 Apr 2013
 

  In the immediate aftermath of the tragic Newtown murders, Obama and His Media joined forces to exploit the deaths of innocent children for all it was worth -- with a series of laws that would have done absolutely nothing to stop the very crime they were exploiting. This naked political move to leverage the murder of innocents as an excuse to attack the National Rifle Association and gun owners, who live predominantly in red states, is about as cynical and craven as it gets.

According to Politico, though, all this soul selling is likely to come to nothing. Politico reports on Tuesday that the gun control bill Obama, liberal Democrats, Piers Morgan, Chuck Todd, and all of CNN want so desperately to pass "has little if any, chance of passing this Congress – it’s struggling in the Senate and facing outright rejection in the House."

Obama and His Media kept moving the goal posts for victory until they reached a point where assault weapons and the size of magazine clips were completely off the table. All that remains today is a small tightening of background checks. That doesn't mean, though, that victory wouldn't still be declared and Obama celebrated as Caesar back from the wars. But even that piece of practically-nothing looks unlikely to pass -- in part, because of three Senate Democrats who, as of now, are unwilling to support it.

But even if the Toomey-Manchin compromise passes in the Senate (which is unlikely), Politico writes, "the House is certain to rewrite the bill – or discard it altogether."

How craven were the media's politics during all of this? So craven that when the NRA's Wayne LaPierre suggested we guard school children from gun-carrying maniacs, the media publicly ridiculed him. My god, the media was despicable. And driven only by a seething hatred and bigotry towards a culture they have never bothered to try to understand.  

Personally, I am in favor of tightening background checks and would probably vote for the Toomey-Manchin compromise were I a United States Senator. But that does not make me blind to the media's appalling behavior in this crusade -- the coordinated Narratives, the release of polls to back the coordinated Narratives, the open propagandizing, the marginalizing and ignoring of reasonable opposition voices…

And while I would personally prefer to see a reasonable law tightening these background checks pass, if it does die, I intend to enjoy every moment of bitter disappointment I see on the faces of Chuck Todd, Piers Morgan, and their corrupt colleagues.

And maybe, just maybe, had Obama and the media not used the Newtown massacre as an excuse to launch yet-another culture war against the right, something good might have come from this.

 Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC  

Big Journalism

Boehner: I Don't Need GOP to Pass Gun Law...

by Ben Shapiro 11 Apr 2013 

  On Thursday, in the midst of ongoing national debate over prospective gun control and comprehensive immigration legislation, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) said that he didn’t need the approval of a majority of his own party to move forward with legislation. Referring to the so-called Hastert Rule, named after former House Speaker Denny Hastert (R-IL), which dictated that House leadership not bring up any bill for a vote without the support of a majority of the majority party, Boehner said, “Listen: It was never a rule to begin with.”

Then, realizing the gravity of admitting that he could move without a majority of his own party, Boehner added, “And certainly my prerogative – my intention is to always pass bills with strong Republican support.”

That may be his intention, but it has not been his history. On the fiscal cliff deal at the end of 2012, for example, he ignored a majority of his own party. That prompted a mini-rebellion in the House resulting in a supposedly humbled Boehner retaining his speakership. Should he buck the House Republicans again, he may face a stiffer challenge this time.

Ben Shapiro is Editor-At-Large of Breitbart News and author of the New York Times bestseller “Bullies: How the Left’s Culture of Fear and Intimidation Silences America” (Threshold Editions, January 8, 2013).

BigGovernment

45 Reps Urge Boehner To Reject Expanded Background Checks

by AWR Hawkins 12 Apr 2013

  Reps. Steve Stockman (R-TX), Paul Broun (R-GA), and 43 others have sent a letter to House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) urging him to oppose the gun control currently being discussed in the Senate on grounds that a "'universal background check' system would be a violation of Constitutionally-protected rights on an unprecedented scale." The letter states:

The principle that no person can purchase or sell a firearm without first receiving government permission transforms the Second Amendment from a "right" that should be protected by the government into a privilege granted by the government.

In addition to constitutional concerns, even if every private transfer of firearms were regulated by the federal government, it would not be an effective crime fighting tool. Typically, criminal shooters steal firearms (Adam Lanza), pass a background check (James Holmes and Jared Loughner) or receive their firearms through straw purchasers (which is already illegal).

The letter includes a list of gun rights groups who join the representatives in opposing gun legislation currently being discussed in the Senate: the Gun Owners of America, the NRA, the National Association for Gun Rights, and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, among others.

The letter close with the forty-five representatives asking "that no gun control legislation be brought to the floor of the House unless it has the support of a majority of [their] caucus."

Big Government

Obama Budget Skyrockets Gun Control Funding

by Ben Shapiro 10 Apr 2013

  President Obama’s budget contains a significantly elevated level of spending dedicated to enforcement of federal gun control. According to the budget, the Department of Justice will be granted some $395 million “to combat gun violence, and ensure that those who are not eligible to purchase or possess guns are prevented from doing so.” More importantly, the budget includes funding designed to “increase inspections of the firearms industry.”

The budget includes “an increase of $173 million” for more federal gun control enforcement. It is unclear how much the federal government spent in 2012 on gun control enforcement. The budget also reportedly includes $10 million for research on gun violence and $222 million on school safety measures including “increasing firearms safety.”

Ben Shapiro is Editor-At-Large of Breitbart News and author of the New York Times bestseller “Bullies: How the Left’s Culture of Fear and Intimidation Silences America” (Threshold Editions, January 8, 2013).

Big Government

National Association For Gun Rights: Don't Expand Gun Control, Repeal It

by AWR Hawkins 10 Apr 2013
 

 On April 9, Breitbart News spoke to National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) Executive Vice President Dudley Brown about the tact his group takes toward preserving the 2nd Amendment and opposing the incremental expansion of government into the private gun purchases of law-abiding citizens. Brown quickly made it clear that NAGR isn't like other gun rights groups, inasmuch as NAGR is not looking for compromise but for victory. And they don't accomplish this by kissing up to moderates.

Brown explained this by using hockey verbiage to say he, "is willing to drop the gloves with any politician who would take away our 2nd Amendment rights."

NAGR has over 1.1 million likes on Facebook, over three million recipients on its email list, and had a $7 million budget last year.

Brown says all these contacts and funds are being utilized every day, in every way, to take the pro-gun fight to DC instead of waiting for the fight to come to them. 

NAGR does a conference call with staffers and personnel in DC and around the country every day. These calls include Congressional and Senate contacts as well, and they are aimed at putting pressure on legislators to kill the gun control package Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is cramming down America's throat.

In fact, when Breitbart News asked Brown what he believed was the biggest threat gun owners in America face, his answer contained two words: "Harry Reid."

He said other prominent gun rights groups take a milder approach to Reid, and described him as a pro-gun Senator who won't do anything too extreme. But Brown said, "Reid's agenda is no different than that of Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY)."

Big Government