Well, of course, the media’s reporting on gun violence is awful and atrociously inaccurate

posted at 1:01 pm on December 5, 2015 by Matt Vespa

Cry havoc and unleash the dogs of war…for gun control. This appears to be the mantra of the left in the wake of the horrific mass shooting in San Bernardino. The perpetrators were officially identified yesterday as Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik, both in their late-20s, who opened fire at a Christmas party for the county’s health department workers; Farook was a county employee of five years prior to his senseless rampage. They killed 14 and wounded up to 21 people in the worst mass shooting since Newtown in 2012. They were subsequently killed in a firefight with police and both were armed with AR15 rifles.

Yet, the liberal news media saw this as an opening to make their case, yet again, for gun control. Before the suspects were identified, or a motive was established, the LA Times’ editorial board denigrated tens of millions of law-abiding gun owners by saying that our “infatuation with guns is bordering on a society-wide suicidal impulse.”

It’s absurd that one of the richest, freest, and most advanced societies in world history endures such a scourge with such equanimity. But there is hope. A Gallup poll in October found that 55% of Americans support stronger gun control measures, and other surveys have found that even a majority of NRA members support mandatory background checks — something the NRA itself has assiduously opposed. There is broad political support for stronger laws to address the nation’s gun addiction, but gun control advocates have so far been unable to counter the money and organizational heft of the NRA. It’s obscene that a single interest group is able to endanger an entire nation’s safety.

[…]

This crisis in American society must be combated through the ballot box, and through lobbying to loosen the iron grip the NRA holds on Congress and many state legislatures. That is where the pushback against this culture of death needs to occur. And it needs to occur now.

Three days prior, the Washington Post, in an editorial after the shooting at a Planned Parenthood center in Colorado Springs, Colorado, said America’s “unacceptable” level of carnage could be traced back to our constitutionally protected access to firearms:

THE 57-year-old man charged in the murderous shooting spree at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado allegedly made remarks to police about “no more baby parts.” That has led some to speculate that antiabortion rhetoric sparked the rampage. The suspect’s history of aberrant behavior prompted others to theorize that mental illness was the culprit. In the early stages of the investigation, we don’t know what, if any, role was played by either of these factors. In the meantime it is worth restating the obvious: The one factor common to every terrible case of gun violence is access to guns.

[…]

So far this year, according to news reports collected by a Reddit community, there have been at least 351 mass shootings, or more than one a day.

Over at the New York Times, Nicholas Kristof was more measured in his response to the San Bernardino shooting. He acknowledged that the Republican effort to do something regarding mental health was a good policy initiative. Yet, he also repeated the long debunked statistic that 40 percent of all gun purchases were conducted without a background check, along with the pie-in-the-sky assumption that universal background checks makes us safer. Any law-abiding American who buys their firearms though a FFL dealer must undergo a background check. That is the law. Private sales exist, but they’re mostly relegated to transactions among families (i.e. inheritance), which are often given exemptions in these expanded background check laws. The 2013 Manchin-Toomey bill that would have increased background checks included that exemption.

At the same time, he did admit that gun confiscation was simply an unrealistic goal. He also cited that Switzerland, like the U.S., has high rates of gun ownership since all men “spend many years as part-time members of the armed forces.” The result: low crime rates. Then, we came to the left’s boogeyman: the NRA:

Astonishingly, it’s perfectly legal even for people on the terrorism watch list to buy guns in the United States. More than 2,000 terrorism suspects did indeed purchase guns in the United States between 2004 and 2014, according to the Government Accountability Office and The Washington Post’s Wonkblog. Democrats have repeatedly proposed closing that loophole, but the National Rifle Association and its Republican allies have blocked those efforts, so it’s still legal.

[…]

When we tackled drunken driving, we took steps like raising the drinking age to 21 and cracking down on offenders. That didn’t eliminate drunken driving, but it saved thousands of lives.

For similar reasons, Ronald Reagan, hailed by Republicans in every other context, favored gun regulations, including mandatory waiting periods for purchases.

Okay; let’s begin.

I will give the LA Times some credit–they didn’t give the horrifically inflated figure on gun deaths that pro-gun control groups often peddle to make a case that America is a shooting gallery. As I’ve written previously, it’s not. Violent crime is at record lows, firearm-related homicides are down, and this editorial board knows that California is one of the most anti-gun states in the country, right?

California has long banned certain long guns that the left ridiculously calls “assault rifles” since 1989. It also has a universal background check law. Oregon also passed legislation mandating universal background checks for all firearms sales; it did nothing to stop Christopher Harper-Mercer from committing a mass shooting at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg back in October.

Moreover, yes, Gallup did report that Americans want more gun control, but if the editorial board read the whole poll–they would have found that 56 percent felt concealed firearms would make the country safer. Additionally, the Washington Post’s July analysis found that 57 percent feel that guns help prevent crime. As with anything with polls, wording matters. In the wake of Newtown, 58 percent supported a ban on semiautomatic weapons. Yes, Gallup noted that support for a handgun ban is near record lows. The point: a handgun is a semiautomatic weapon. It merely means self-reloading, which adds to the growing evidence that the media and the progressive left know little about the nomenclature of firearms, let alone the laws that apply to them.

As for the Washington Post’s citing the 350+ mass-shooting statistic, it’s pure unadulterated nonsense. Stephen Gutowski of the Washington Free Beacon reported that only 21 of the 355 shootings on this subReddit thread met the standards for the FBI classification of a mass shooting. Second, some of the incidents on the list aren’t even shootings, as indicated by Mediaite’s Alex Griswold. Here’s one that he found:

A pair of township boys are accused of shooting four others with a pellet gun, police said.

Nobody was seriously hurt by the 11- and 12-year-old boys who shot the pellet gun at them on April 25 in the Twinbrook Village apartment complex, Detective Lt. Kevin Faller said in a statement.

Of course, many publications omitted the fact that they’re citing Reddit.

Lastly, Mr. Kristof, and most on the left, needs to read up on the so-called terror watch list–and how there should be healthy suspicion regarding using it as an instrument of gun control. Folks, the American Civil Liberties Union is in agreement, as noted by National Review’s Charles Cooke [bold text indicates ACLU]:

Here, for example, is known conservative attack-group the American Civil Liberties Union explaining why suspicion is justified:

The government is adding people to its already bloated watchlisting system at breakneck pace, and it’s still hungry for more. That’s the unavoidable conclusion from documents published yesterday in The Intercept.

Those documents vindicate our; concerns and warnings about a massive, virtually standardless government watchlisting scheme that ensnares innocent people and encourages racial and religious profiling.

The documents confirm what we have long suspected: It doesn’t take much to get yourself on a terrorist watchlist. The government’s recently leaked Watchlisting Guidance starts with a poorly defined “reasonable suspicion” standard and then subjects it to so many exceptions and caveats as to render it virtually toothless.

The unsurprising result, as is clear from these documents, is a set of watchlists experiencing explosive growth.

Predictably, that “explosive growth” has led to the entanglement of almost 300,000 people who have “no affiliation with known terrorist groups” but who fall under “reasonable suspicion” nevertheless.

Cooke then cites a story from Michigan Radio that shows that the terror watch list has zero “judicial safeguards,” with five Michigan residents, using the state chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations–to file a lawsuit “challenging the government’s broad and unchecked power…to secretly designate American Muslims to be added onto the terror watchlist without due process.”

As a result, the question here shouldn’t be “why does the NRA oppose using this list in a civil context?” but “why doesn’t everybody oppose using this list on a civil context?” Whether the New York Daily News likes it or not, the right to keep and bear arms is protected by the U.S. Constitution and cannot be restricted without serious cause. Of course Second Amendment advocates are opposed to the importation of this list into the firearms background check system. They understand well that it cannot be relied upon as a justification for denial. Whatever Everytown and their friends might imply, we are not talking here about selling guns to people who have been convicted in a court of law; that is already illegal. Rather, we are talking about selling guns to people who, as far as the state is concerned, have done nothing wrong and who must not therefore have their liberties abridged. It is an ugly testament to the illiberalism of many modern-day progressives that they are happily lining up on the authoritarian side against not just one, but two of America’s premier civil rights organizations.

To demonstrate how easy it is to get on that list and not do anything wrong, just look at the Weekly Standard’s Stephen Hayes. He suspects he was added to the list for taking a one-way flight to Turkey last year.

Forbes’ Frank Miniter reiterated the constitutional concerns [emphasis mine]:

A 2010 GAO report found: “From February 2004 through February 2010, FBI data show that individuals on the terrorist watchlist were involved in firearm or explosives background checks 1,228 times; 1,119 (about 91 percent) of these transactions were allowed to proceed because no prohibiting information was found—such as felony convictions, illegal immigrant status, or other disqualifying factors—and 109 of the transactions were denied.”

This does not mean that 1,119 terrorists found a loophole so they could openly buy guns and/or explosives in America. The “Terrorist Watch List,” like the “No-Fly List” and other secret government black lists, includes the names of suspects, relatives of suspects, friends of suspects, former college roommates of suspects, and more. No doubt these inclusions are useful for FBI agents and other officials as they search for terrorists and their accomplices, but they are not vetted lists of bad guys.

[…]

The problem with this unconstitutional idea is that you can find yourself on one of these lists by having the same name as a suspected criminal or terrorist or by simply traveling to Turkey [like Hayes], and if you are on a list, you may not be able to determine which one you are on, much less get yourself removed. Basically, such a power would give the federal government the ability to make secret lists that could be used to take away a constitutionally protected right from anyone it chose—even the late Senator Ted Kennedy once ended up on a “no-fly list” for reasons that were never made public.

And, Mr. Kristof–unlike Democrats, Republicans can–and do–disagree with one another. Ronald Reagan was right on a lot of things–he was wrong on guns. Just as it’s wrong to suggest that waiting periods curb gun violence since there’s no evidence to confirm that point.

Given that the San Bernardino shooters seem to have been radicalized; Tashfeen Malik reportedly swore an oath of allegiance to ISIS–this is an issue about possible terrorism, not guns. But there’s no political points to be scored by liberals, Democrats, or the overall left wing in that discussion.

Last Note: Support of gun control dropped to pre-Newtown (below 50 percent) levels by December of 2013. There might be a slight uptick in support, but we should expect support for gun rights to remain strong, especially since this shooting is looking more and more like it was influenced by radical Islam. Also, we shouldn’t be surprised if the number of Americans who feel safer in neighborhoods with firearms increases. In June, Rasmussen found that 68 percent agreed with that sentiment.

Parting Thought:

 

Unbelievable! I don’t understand the reasoning behind the latest New Yorker cover. Radical Jihadists who reportedly…

Posted by Hugh Hewitt on Friday, December 4, 2015

 

This post has been updated.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Common sense gun control measures work again.

corona79 on December 5, 2015 at 1:04 PM

It’s hard to believe they tested this narrative. It’s so dumb, even for liberals, that you wonder what kind of data they’re working off of.

Isn’t the immediate reaction to “2000 terror suspects” . . . why the hell are they walking around in our country?

Who is like “well, they should be here, but no buy guns legally?”

I think you a University Degree to be that fcuking stupid.

Skipity on December 5, 2015 at 1:06 PM

I think you need*

Skipity on December 5, 2015 at 1:07 PM

Aslan’s Girl [email protected]_Girl 26m26 minutes ago
Washington Post: Gun Violence Declining, Except in Gun-Free Zones
http://bit.ly/1TFM6O6

anotherJoe on December 5, 2015 at 1:07 PM

I want to know when laws are going to be passed for mandatory background checks and extended minimal waiting times for the right to purchase and bear pipe bombs as apparently there aren’t any currently. Talk about your loopholes.

parke on December 5, 2015 at 1:21 PM

The Left is running scared. Reality is catching up to hem and their only response is irrational hysteria. A normal person sees right through this and the Left doesn’t understand how idiotic they look.

WC on December 5, 2015 at 1:22 PM

NRA’s Sick Jihad

Isn’t using the word ‘jihad’ cultural appropriation?

Shame on NYDaily.

mudskipper on December 5, 2015 at 1:25 PM

As always the left has to exaggerate their claims, make them up entirely, or use both to push toward their goal (100% ban).

The always start with whatever they think they can get away with … and tragedies temporarily make some people more sympathetic to whatever they’re pushing.

darwin on December 5, 2015 at 1:25 PM

How much of this push is calculated to divert attention from Obama’s colossal and countless failures as yet another act of terror occurs “on his watch?”

Glenn Reynolds:

Remember, when we’re talking about gun control, we’re not talking about how Obama told us us that ISIS was the JV team, or how he’s importing lots of poorly “vetted” middle eastern Muslims, or how he has botched Syria and Libya, or how his hashtag campaign against Boko Haram failed, or how the domestic protections against terror are looking porous and ineffectual, or how . . . well, you get the idea. Plus, gun control is a tribal rallying cry for uninformed Obama supporters. Or, to be less redundant, Obama supporters.

Drained Brain on December 5, 2015 at 1:32 PM

According to the NYT, is Obama letting 2000 suspects on the islamic terrorism watch list buy and have weapons. Why would he do that? He knows they are dangerous and a threat to innocent Americans. Oh wait..

Never mind, I should have known better than to ask.

HotAirian on December 5, 2015 at 1:41 PM

Standard act by the left. When a white guy does something bad, all whites are responsible and it’s due to “hate, racism, privilege” whatever. White guy equals bad.

When a minority does something bad, it’s the object that is to blame. Ban guns.

So remember, white guy does something bad means all white guys are evil. Minority does something bad, ban guns.

njrob on December 5, 2015 at 1:46 PM

Given that all of the shooters in the “mass shootings? were white, in the past year, anyone want to bet that blacks killed more blacks, in spite of the large numbers associated to the mass shootings? Will Chicago beat San Bernardino for shooting deaths, in the month of December? If they do, where do the problems lie? If gun control laws work, why does Chicago, with some of the toughest gun control laws in the country, have such a high murder rate? Because the laws don’t work.

One more case in point. In 1929, alcohol was illegal and Thompson Sub-machine guns were legal and the murder rate in Chicago was lower (with a higher population) than it is today. I’d love to know why that is. Perhaps Italians kill each other less frequently than blacks do?

bflat879 on December 5, 2015 at 1:46 PM

The left and the media has had quite the week or so going back to the Colorado shooting, they’ve become even more unhinged than usual. Just when I think nothing can surprise me anymore, something happens and their reaction is completely delusional.

supernova on December 5, 2015 at 1:47 PM

Gosh, if just one person were legally packing that day.

John the Libertarian on December 5, 2015 at 1:47 PM

The Left is running scared. Reality is catching up to hem and their only response is irrational hysteria. A normal person sees right through this and the Left doesn’t understand how idiotic they look.

WC on December 5, 2015 at 1:22 PM

They aren’t to be laughed off, though. For too long we’ve assumed that “rational people” would do the right thing. If past is prologue, we cannot in any generation give ground to these seemingly idiotic/irrational people. They are in positions of power and influence, we aren’t.

Bee on December 5, 2015 at 1:55 PM

Gosh, if just one person were legally packing that day.

John the Libertarian on December 5, 2015 at 1:47 PM

That’s the problem, legally. I ain’t gonna say boo if I’m in a room full of illegally packing individuals who save my life from some evil doer. In fact I probably would develop a case of severe short term amnesia when it came to identifying those illegal carriers. Obey the law in California and you become an easy target for a shooter. Disobey the law in California and you live to tell your tale.

NotCoach on December 5, 2015 at 1:56 PM

Yet, the liberal news media saw this as an opening to make their case, yet again

…what is the definition of “news media”?…they don’t qualify!…SHUT THEM DOWN!

JugEarsButtHurt on December 5, 2015 at 1:57 PM

Given that all of the shooters in the “mass shootings? were white, in the past year, anyone want to bet that blacks killed more blacks, in spite of the large numbers associated to the mass shootings? Will Chicago beat San Bernardino for shooting deaths, in the month of December? If they do, where do the problems lie? If gun control laws work, why does Chicago, with some of the toughest gun control laws in the country, have such a high murder rate? Because the laws don’t work.
bflat879 on December 5, 2015 at 1:46 PM

Well, now they simply say that it’s other states with lax gun control laws which get into controlled areas. Get federal gun control for all states and this problem will end because…well, leftist logic.

Bee on December 5, 2015 at 1:59 PM

It’s absurd that one of the richest, freest, and most advanced societies in world history endures such a scourge with such equanimity.

It’s glorious that one of the richest, freest, and most advanced societies in world history also enjoys such a right with great gusto.

Misha on December 5, 2015 at 2:01 PM

The only thing keeping the left from turning our country in to a totalitarian state is an armed, law abiding citizenry.

Deadeye on December 5, 2015 at 2:04 PM

It’s absurd that one of the richest, freest, and most advanced societies in world history endures such a scourge with such equanimity.

It’s glorious that one of the richest, freest, and most advanced societies in world history also enjoys such a right with great gusto.

Misha on December 5, 2015 at 2:01 PM

The ignorant Flukes have it backwards. It’s because we cherish these liberties we are the richest, freest, and most advanced; not not despite.

NotCoach on December 5, 2015 at 2:05 PM

Well, now they simply say that it’s other states with lax gun control laws which get into controlled areas. Get federal gun control for all states and this problem will end because…well, leftist logic.

Bee on December 5, 2015 at 1:59 PM

Yet those ‘other states’ don’t have shooting rates anywhere close to what Chitcago does. If it’s the lax gun laws, why aren’t the shooting rates equal or higher than Chitcago’s?

James on December 5, 2015 at 2:07 PM

For sure, NotCoach. I suspect there will be a time when a lot of these dopes wish they were armed.

Misha on December 5, 2015 at 2:08 PM

Given that the San Bernardino shooters seem to have been radicalized; Tashfeen Malik reportedly swore an oath of allegiance to ISIS–this is an issue about possible terrorism, not guns. But there’s no political points to be scored by liberals, Democrats, or the overall left wing in that discussion.

The left remains fixated on ‘never letting a crisis go to waste’ – and to them, the far greater threat to them and their agenda is not Islamic terrorism or global warming. It’s an armed citizenry. Any and every opportunity to try to gin up a rationale or justification for expanded gun control leading ultimately to revocation of the 2nd Amendment and gun confiscation is a legitimate one to them.

This is standard operating procedure. We saw this in 2009-10. The Administration focused attention on the carnage in Mexico from the drug cartels and the connection with weapons from the US being the cause at the same time the Administration was conducting an operation to facilitate the sale and export of guns to those cartels. This is a case of creating / fueling a crisis to leverage.

The other extreme vapidity of this latest terror attack is the entire focus on the ‘radicalization’ of Malik and Farook. To term this as ‘radicalization’ is no different than the moronic remarks from this Administration that Islam isn’t the threat, that ISIL isn’t an Islamic organization despite it’s name, that Islam is a ‘religion of peace’.

The Islamic terrorists themselves tell us that they are acting in the name of Islam. That they are conducting jihad – an Islamic term, to establish a global caliphate – another Islamic construct. They aren’t radicalized – they consider themselves as devout and faithful Muslims. The more devout and faithful they are, the more they are willing to embrace the use of the the sword to either obtain the submission of the infidel or to kill the infidel. For 1400 years, the Qu’ran, the Hadiths, Sharia law have all defined what is necessary for the devote and faithful to ‘prove’ their devotion and faith. And for 1400 years jihad and the sword have waged war against all who weren’t devoted and faithful to Islam.

Progressive-fascists and Islamofascists are at war with us. They are allies who share a common enemy, anyone who isn’t them. One fuels and enables the other. For both, the ends justifies the means.

Athos on December 5, 2015 at 2:08 PM

More fun news:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/06/magazine/white-debt.html?_r=1

Buckshot Bill on December 5, 2015 at 2:10 PM

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

Get on it leftists, get the ball rolling now. Your boy is a “Constitutional Professor”, he should be able to help you.

Otherwise, just admit that this isn’t about gun control, it’s about population control, then, GDIAF…

wytshus on December 5, 2015 at 2:21 PM

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon him not understanding it.”

U. Sinclair (the socialist Utopian, who saw some light, gave the media an ethics code, they ignored, and now pay the consequences)

Schadenfreude on December 5, 2015 at 2:28 PM

Dog eater said his main goal his last year would be gun control.

Never let a crisis go to waste.

Ruckus_Tom on December 5, 2015 at 2:30 PM

I support stricter laws to curb the destructive use of the press. Our founding fathers never envisioned electronic mail or communications so I’m sure those technologies were not covered by the first ammendment.

All left wing journalist should be registered in a national data base. (We will eventually register all of them but the leftiees are the most harmful so we’ll start there.) Any that have been arrested or have had a mental illness should be banned from writing or reporting the news. Any stories for public consumption should be subject to a five day waiting period so as not to be inflammatory. Ink should be rationed so it’s not used to upset anyone. Markers should be placed in the ink so that the illegal use of the ink can be traced to the writer.

There should be little push back since I’m applying the same common sense reasoning that is applied to the second ammendment.

Deadeye on December 5, 2015 at 2:32 PM

I think we should have background checks for “journalists” and media outlets.

“Reporters” with radical ideologies and agendas are doing and probably have done more damage to this country than any terrorists or mentally deficient mass shooters.

Oxymoron on December 5, 2015 at 2:39 PM

Listen, you gun nuts are on the wrong side of history. You people support allowing ISIS sleeper cells to purchase guns! How screwed up is that! It’s un-American and disgusting.

OliverB on December 5, 2015 at 3:20 PM

Listen, you gun nuts are on the wrong side of history. You people support allowing ISIS sleeper cells to purchase guns! How screwed up is that! It’s un-American and disgusting.

OliverB on December 5, 2015 at 3:20 PM

I didn’t know you couldn’t read. Now I understand your problem.

itsspideyman on December 5, 2015 at 3:25 PM

What the president and the media don’t want out is that this disaster was a total picture of the liberal idea of how to deal with this situation.

California has some of the most stringent gun laws in the nation and everything the progs want was being done there.

In San Bernardino the Department of Homeland Security was less than 15 minutes away from the attack.

It took the police only four minutes to respond to the attack. The response saved untold extra lives that they were fully prepared to take.

Yet with all this, 14 lives were lost.

Furthermore, how do they respond to the heroic work of the police? The question the cruelty of taking 130 rounds to take this couple down.

No, there’s a reason they’re leaning on gun control besides they hate guns and they’re stupid. The other is that this was the exact kind of control the progs demand and the response by the police was as good as it could get, and still 14 people died.

itsspideyman on December 5, 2015 at 3:33 PM

If You Want To Increase Your Odds Of Getting Murdered, Move To A State Obama Won In 2012!

Obama States: 7,678

Romney States: 5,233

Bishbop on December 5, 2015 at 3:39 PM

Well it pretty clear that in the eyes of Obama and the current, as well as previous) AG Black Lives don’t matter.

whbates on December 5, 2015 at 3:46 PM

Listen, you gun nuts are on the wrong side of history. MY people support allowing ISIS sleeper cells to purchase guns! How screwed up is that! It’s un-American and disgusting.

OliverB on December 5, 2015 at 3:20 PM

FIFY

dougmva on December 5, 2015 at 3:47 PM

Before the suspects were identified, or a motive was established, the LA Times’ editorial board denigrated tens of millions of law-abiding gun owners by saying that our “infatuation with guns is bordering on a society-wide suicidal impulse.”

We are advised to NOT judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics.

timberline on December 5, 2015 at 3:47 PM

Listen, you gun nuts are on the wrong side of history. You people support allowing ISIS sleeper cells to purchase guns! How screwed up is that! It’s un-American and disgusting.

OliverB on December 5, 2015 at 3:20 PM

My, my, my. What a pants-on-fire friggin’ leftard troll we got here. Hey, ignoramous, did you miss the part where explosive devices are illegal to manufacture and yet, there was a “virtual IED factory” in the apartment of the Muslim idjits in San Bernardino? Does it ever cross your small pea brain that even if…IF…guns were made completely illegal here in the states, that terrorist cell groups would still find some way to get guns? Does that thought ever cross your two functioning brain cells? Apparently, it doesn’t. BTW, France also has strict gun control laws there, too. Yet every single one of the Paris terrorists had..wait for it… a GUN! Ask the residents of Paris how that worked out for them.

Cannon Fodder on December 5, 2015 at 4:10 PM

This is a simple argument. No, you can’t have my firearms, period.

Either to give to your muslim leader or when you want to defend yourself against muslim terorists…no, you can’t have my firearms.

a5minmajor on December 5, 2015 at 4:31 PM

Yet, the liberal news media saw this as an opening to make their case, yet again, for gun control

This should surprise no one. Yet the GOP continues to blunder about whenever these events happen. Just call this a Jihad attack, and defend gun rights by pointing out that American need to be armed to protect themselves because Obama is not protecting them due to his polices on immigration, attacking law-enforcement, and coddling jihadists.

Instead what does GOP leaders do? Ryan says we need more mental health facilities, and Rubio talks about Assad. All of them defend gun rights for the most part (guess they deserve a cookie), but they are defensive instead of offensive. Trump is smart by saying if only the people were armed in Paris and California we would not have so many dead innocents. That is flipping the script on Democrats by showing the American people that guns protect people from a inept government unwilling to protect them….just recounting the 2nd amendment protects gun rights is not good enough.

Also – Because Rubio, Ryan, and others are so committed to more immigration, including bringing the Syrian refugees in, and not blaming Islam for any of this…we end up in with a confused and mixed strategy. The Democrats, by contrast, are consistent and firm…which is guns are to blame. Look how the Dems are now flipping the word terrorists on us because we never defined it to mean only Jihadists. The GOP is trying to be PC and handing the democrats victories they should never have had, but instead these should all be defeats politically for Dems.

William Eaton on December 5, 2015 at 4:43 PM

Cannon Fodder on December 5, 2015 at 4:10 PM

It’s a sock puppet.

CurtZHP on December 5, 2015 at 4:47 PM

It’s a sock puppet.

CurtZHP on December 5, 2015 at 4:47 PM

Whose stinky sock?

Cannon Fodder on December 5, 2015 at 5:00 PM

I support stricter laws to curb the destructive use of the press. Our founding fathers never envisioned electronic mail or communications so I’m sure those technologies were not covered by the first ammendment.

All left wing journalist should be registered in a national data base. (We will eventually register all of them but the leftiees are the most harmful so we’ll start there.) Any that have been arrested or have had a mental illness should be banned from writing or reporting the news. Any stories for public consumption should be subject to a five day waiting period so as not to be inflammatory. Ink should be rationed so it’s not used to upset anyone. Markers should be placed in the ink so that the illegal use of the ink can be traced to the writer.

There should be little push back since I’m applying the same common sense reasoning that is applied to the second ammendment.

Deadeye on December 5, 2015 at 2:32 PM

That waiting period idea is not too bad.
The goal of the Leftist media is always to get the narrative set their way before any of the evidence emerges to contradict it.
Right-leaning media could live with the pause, because they think about the question before writing it up anyway.

AesopFan on December 5, 2015 at 5:03 PM

I support stricter laws to curb the destructive use of the press. Our founding fathers never envisioned electronic mail or communications so I’m sure those technologies were not covered by the first ammendment.

All left wing journalist should be registered in a national data base. (We will eventually register all of them but the leftiees are the most harmful so we’ll start there.) Any that have been arrested or have had a mental illness should be banned from writing or reporting the news. Any stories for public consumption should be subject to a five day waiting period so as not to be inflammatory. Ink should be rationed so it’s not used to upset anyone. Markers should be placed in the ink so that the illegal use of the ink can be traced to the writer.

There should be little push back since I’m applying the same common sense reasoning that is applied to the second ammendment.

Deadeye on December 5, 2015 at 2:32 PM

Now that’s some common sense press restrictions I could get behind, especially after the vultures descended on the Muslim kook’s apartment yesterday. The First Amendment is so outdated. And anyone who is for an unrestricted free press is on the wrong side of history. (Not sure a snark tag should be used here.)

Cannon Fodder on December 5, 2015 at 5:24 PM

Listen, you gun nuts are on the wrong side of history.

OliverB on December 5, 2015 at 3:20 PM

Yeah, like at Lexington and Concord.

Thanks for playing. You’re dismissed.

Alien on December 5, 2015 at 5:57 PM

Heads, I win: The guns the perp used were acquired legally, therefor gun laws do little to stop violence and only burden the law-abiding.

Tails, you lose: The guns the perp used were acquired illegally, therefor gun laws do little to stop violence and only burden the law-abiding.

HakerA on December 5, 2015 at 6:04 PM

Call me all the names in the world, but the truth is you people support allowing potential terrorists on the no fly list to buy guns. You Republicans are arming ISIS

OliverB on December 5, 2015 at 6:10 PM

And another thing. Terrorism is the political process of an individual with a gun. The two topics are linked.

OliverB on December 5, 2015 at 6:13 PM

Call me all the names in the world, but the truth is you people support allowing potential terrorists on the no fly list to buy guns. You Republicans are arming ISIS

OliverB on December 5, 2015 at 6:10 PM

Reading comprehension– F-
Use of logic– F-

Let me write it slower so maybe you might (and that’s a big might) get it:

It does not matter if we ban legal ownership of all guns. Terrorist (or criminals; same scum bucket) can and will find a way to obtain a gun. It does not matter if they are on a “No-Fly” list or not. The only thing that a ban on legal gun ownership does is not allow an otherwise defenseless person to defend himself. what part of this eludes you?

Cannon Fodder on December 5, 2015 at 6:31 PM

And another thing. Terrorism is the political process of an individual with a gun. The two topics are linked.

OliverB on December 5, 2015 at 6:13 PM

So an individual who defends himself with a gun is committing an act of terrorism? And what about 9/11? Nobody used a gun, so was that not an act of terrorism?

I’ll tell you what OliverB. If you can take my weapon from me you can have it. Now come and get it.

NotCoach on December 5, 2015 at 6:41 PM

Call me all the names in the world, but the truth is you people support allowing potential terrorists on the no fly list to buy guns. You Republicans are arming ISIS

OliverB on December 5, 2015 at 6:10 PM

And you are an enemy of the United States in your desire to punish without due process.

NotCoach on December 5, 2015 at 6:43 PM

Listen, you gun nuts are on the wrong side of history.

OliverB on December 5, 2015 at 3:20 PM

Yeah, like at Lexington and Concord.

Thanks for playing. You’re dismissed.

Alien on December 5, 2015 at 5:57 PM

It’s always funny listening to these dim bulbs talk about the wrong side of history when they are so ignorant of history themselves.

NotCoach on December 5, 2015 at 6:44 PM

The Left is running scared. Reality is catching up to hem and their only response is irrational hysteria. A normal person sees right through this and the Left doesn’t understand how idiotic they look.

WC on December 5, 2015 at 1:22 PM

They aren’t to be laughed off, though. For too long we’ve assumed that “rational people” would do the right thing. If past is prologue, we cannot in any generation give ground to these seemingly idiotic/irrational people. They are in positions of power and influence, we aren’t.

Bee on December 5, 2015 at 1:55 PM

Bee is exactly right. If the Left is “running scared” that means that, like a wounded, cornered Jackal, they are even more dangerous and a much greater threat to our rights, the Constitution that protects those rights and our independence as free American citizens.

Assuming the Left is anything but an increasing threat to our lives, livelihood and the nation itself is giving them respite, space and time to redouble their nefarious efforts.

DrDeano on December 5, 2015 at 7:06 PM

And another thing. Terrorism is the political process of an individual with a gun. The two topics are linked.

OliverB on December 5, 2015 at 6:13 PM

If that were true you’d have been at room temperature a long time ago.

Deadeye on December 5, 2015 at 8:52 PM

Will Chicago beat San Bernardino for shooting deaths, in the month of December?

bflat879 on December 5, 2015 at 1:46 PM

On a per capita basis? Almost certainly not.

San Berdoo is a pretty ghetto, violent place though, much like a certain city that begins with a “C”, ends with an “O”, and in the middle is a “hicag”…

JohnGalt23 on December 5, 2015 at 10:07 PM

Listen, you gun nuts are on the wrong side of history. You people support allowing ISIS sleeper cells to purchase guns! How screwed up is that! It’s un-American and disgusting.

OliverB on December 5, 2015 at 3:20 PM

Dude! All you gotta do is point out these sleeper cells! Law enforcement will do the rest!

Ricard on December 5, 2015 at 10:45 PM

…oh…addendum…got my Beretta 92fs today!

Ricard on December 5, 2015 at 10:46 PM

“…even the late Senator Ted Kennedy once ended up on a “no-fly list” for reasons that were never made public.”

I know, right? It’s not like he went out and killed someone.

pat buchanatar on December 6, 2015 at 12:10 AM

” You Republicans are arming ISIS”

Why are you Demonrats bringing ISIS into America? And why did you allow ISIS to take over Iraq and Syria to begin with?

pat buchanatar on December 6, 2015 at 12:12 AM

Call me all the names in the world, but the truth is you people support allowing potential terrorists on the no fly list to buy guns. You Republicans are arming ISIS
.
OliverB on December 5, 2015 at 6:10 PM

.
POTUS Barack Obama has been arming ISIS, since before they organized under the name ISIS. I don’t believe it’s too far-fetched to say he created ISIS.

listens2glenn on December 6, 2015 at 12:28 AM

other surveys have found that even a majority of NRA members support mandatory background checks — something the NRA itself has assiduously opposed.

That’s only true if you mean one thing when you’re talking about what the NRA members supposedly support, and another thing entirely when you talk about what the NRA opposes. You’re setting up against each other two things that are NOT equivalent.

GWB on December 6, 2015 at 12:49 AM

All law-abiding Americans buy their firearms from dealers with federal firearms licenses, which require background checks on all sales. That is the law. Yes, private sales exist, but they represent a miniscule percentage of all sales (it’s in the single digits) and they’re mostly relegated to transactions among families (i.e. inheritance).

Wow, you really should have an editor read your stuff before posting, Matt. Within those two sentences are three falsehoods, and two contradictions.

Falsehood 1) Not “all” law-abiding Americans buy through dealers. Which leads to contradiction 1) If “all” law-abiding Americans buy through dealers, then how is there a “miniscule percentage” that don’t? And, contradiction 2) If if it’s the law that we all buy through dealers, then how is there even a “miniscule percentage” of “law-abiding” Americans that don’t?
Falsehood 2) It is NOT the law that Americans buy through dealers. Period. Or 3) That all purchases require background checks.

PLEASE have an editor read this stuff before posting. Preferably one knowledgeable on the subject, as well as the rules of grammar and logic (called “internal consistency” in writing).

GWB on December 6, 2015 at 1:08 AM

The New Yorker cartoon (pathetically executed as ever) says all you need to know about what leftists think about gun owners – down at the supermarket loading up the cart with a stack of military weapons, as if they were buying groceries. This is the image they expect you to have before you read one sentence of their guncontrol piece.

Not blaming the cartoonist, but the editor for pretending to offer informed opinion delivered in a thickly padded envelope of blind prejudice.

virgo on December 6, 2015 at 1:18 PM

Call me all the names in the world, but the truth is you people support allowing potential terrorists on the no fly list to buy guns. You Republicans are arming ISIS.

OliverB on December 5, 2015 at 6:10 PM

I know of people on the list who are not potential terrorists at all. Your point is not only invalid, it flows from the ‘after-because’ logic flaw.

Ricard on December 6, 2015 at 8:34 PM

If it was a Straw Purchase and it certainly looks like it was, then it WAS NOT legally purchased, now was it.

Pole-Cat on December 7, 2015 at 12:15 AM