Sunday, April 6, 2014

Political Persecution Could Never Happen Here, Right?

Imagine that you decide to exercise your civil rights and become politically active.  You decide to found an non-partisan organization dedicated to making sure that voter fraud does not affect our elections.  Who could possibly be opposed to that?  Who wouldn't be in favor of that?

Well, the answer those questions appears to be the Obama administration and the Democratic party.  Consider what happened to a woman from Texas who did just that:

First, the IRS gave her the "special conservative organization" treatment when she applied for non-profit status.  A decision was delayed for years while she was sent more and more questions.  Of course, this meant that her donations were much lower than they would have been if people could deduct them.  This, of course, meant that she was not able to do as much as she might have done to fight voter fraud.  Excuse me for thinking that this was to point all along.

Many groups got the same treatment but the Obama administration saved their best treatment for this poor woman (Ms. Engelbrecht) - who runs a small business, as a very small part of its' business, is involved in the firearms industry.  In addition to the IRS withholding a decision, the federal government did the following:

The FBI's domestic terrorism unit contacted her six times - supposedly because someone "they were watching" had attended the same Tea Party meetings that she attended.

The IRS audited her business - and when they could find nothing wrong there, they audited her personal returns.

OSHA conducted a surprise inspection and audit of her business.

The EPA showed up too, because "Someone called in a compliant".
"Congressman, I wish I had better answers,"
ATF Director 
B. Todd Jones

Perhaps most frightening of all, the ATF - which was in the news with its' "Fast and Furious" scandal - conducted two surprise inspections - something usually reserved for those suspected of illegal gun trafficking.

Number of times ANY of these agencies had ever contacted Ms. Engelbrecht or any of her associated companies before she established "True the vote" and applied for non-profit status? ZERO.

Of course, we are supposed to believe that all of this is a coincidence.  If it wasn't surely the mainstream media would be telling us how this is a massive abuse of executive power.  They would surely never hush up a story that could at best be a huge embarrassment to the Obama administration and at worst lead to his impeachment.  Or would they?

There is one more question that must be answered: Why is the Obama administration and the Democratic party so afraid of anything or anyone who wants to investigate or control voter fraud?  Why would they be in favor of it continuing - unless that is how they are winning elections?

References:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/02/06/True-the-Vote-Founder-on-IRS-I-Was-Targeted-Because-of-My-Political-Beliefs

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2014/02/07/true-the-vote-president-catherine-engelbrecht-slams-irs-abuse-weaponizing-of-government-n1791240

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/17955-the-irs-targeting-of-catherine-engelbrecht

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/atf-director-wish-i-had-better-answers-about-atf-agents-probing-tea-party?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Marketing&utm_term=Facebook&utm_content=Facebook&utm_campaign=ATFTeaParty

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/atf-director-wish-i-had-better-answers-about-atf-agents-probing-tea-party?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Marketing&utm_term=Facebook&utm_content=Facebook&utm_campaign=ATFTeaParty

Sunday, March 30, 2014

Your Right To A CCW Permit Should Not Depend On Your Address

In a recent article entitled "Want a concealed gun in California? Head north", SF Gate reported on the issue of concealed carry.   In this article, San Francisco Police Chief Greg Suhr made it clear that he thinks concealed carry is a bad idea.  He made it clear that he doesn't think citizens can handle the responsibility involved.  He also doesn't think that trained and licensed citizens can handle the responsibility - and that they don't need to, since the SFPD's average response time is 4 minutes.  Apparently the chief has never heard the proverb that when seconds count, the police are only minutes away - or he doesn't care that all too often getting there in four minutes isn't good enough in the vast majority of violent crimes.  The sad reality is that when you are unable to defend yourself you may not even be able to make the call that starts that 4 minute clock before you are dead.

Listening to Chief Suhr, one would think that his opinion is based in fact - however nothing could be further from the truth.  His opinion is rooted not in fact, but in politics.  The reality is that none of his opinions find support in the nation's 25 years of experience with citizen concealed carry.

43 states currently issue permits to anyone meeting objective training and background check standards.  The only state in the continental US West of the Mississippi that doesn't do so?  CALIFORNIA.  Number of these states that have turned into the "Wild West"? ZERO.  This includes such cities and metropolitan areas as Seattle, Portland, Phoenix, Dallas, Houston, Oklahoma City, Austin, New Orleans, Little Rock, Saint Louis, Boise, Spokane and Las Vegas.  Apparently Chief Suhr believes that San Francisco residents are less competent than the good people who live in these cities.

Additionally is has been over two years since the Sheriff of Sacramento County began recognizing "self defense" as good cause - effectively issuing permits in the same way as in  the states and cities above.  Did you miss the massive increase in homicide and other crimes that resulted?  Of course you did - BECAUSE IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.   It didn't happen in my home county (El Dorado) after the same policy was implemented a year earlier.

We now have over 25 years experience with citizen concealed carry - and NONE of the predictions made by anti-gun rights activists has come true.  A study done in Texas showed that permit holders were less likely to commit crimes or be involved in a bad shoot than police officers.  This fact becomes even more significant when one considers that there are between five and ten times as many permit holders as police officers.  If the predictions of the anti-gun rights crowd were true, then blood should be running in the street.

While the anti-gun rights crowd can point to very few incidents involving concealed carry permit holders, those of us on the gun rights side of the discussion can point to many cases in which crimes have been stopped and lives have been saved.  This convinced a former LA cop - now chief in Detroit that he had been wrong in his opposition.   Chief James Craig went public with his support for citizen concealed carry in January.  He was promptly condemned by gun control advocates and many politically appointed police chiefs.  He was mocked - in spite of the fact that a 2013 study of 15,000 line police officers showed that 91% supported citizen concealed carry.  THAT'S RIGHT - 9 OUT OF 10 LINE COPS SUPPORT "SHALL ISSUE" CCW PERMITS.  IT'S THE POLITICALLY APPOINT CHIEFS (LIKE CHIEF SUHR)  WHO OPPOSE IT. 

Chief Craig did not have to wait long to be vindicated.    In less than three months there have been ten self-defense shootings - most involving CCW permit holders defending themselves against armed attackers.   There were no cases of criminals taking their guns away and using them against the owners.  There were no cases of the CCW holders shooting innocent people by mistake.  There were also no cases where the shootings were found not to be justified.  In short, in ten self defense shootings the armed citizens made zero mistakes.

Are ten self defense shootings a good thing?  No, a good thing would be zero defensive shootings (because they were not necessary) - but ten defensive shootings resulting in dead or wounded criminals is better than 10 incidents in which law abiding victims were killed instead.  That is the only choice these law abiding citizens were given - and they chose life. Chief Greg Suhr  and many others like him feel that they have the right to remove that choice.

Thursday, March 27, 2014

Senator Yee Not The Only Criminal Anti Gun Activist

Mayor Bloomberg's Mayors Against Illegal Guns Riddled With Criminals

With the recent arrest of the rabidly anti-gun rights Sen. Leland Yee on gun trafficking charges, this seemed a good time to examine the leading anti-gun rights organization in the country - Mayor Bloomberg's Mayors Against Illegal Guns or MAIG.  For some time, gun right activists have noted that a huge number of the members (and now former members) have been convicted of serious crimes.

Perhaps the greatest concern is that MAIG seems to have no problem accepting members who are convicted criminals.  This is not surprising given that Mayor Bloomberg himself had the MAIG website hosted on official NYC servers and had NYC personnel maintain the site - instead of hiring staff and paying for hosting.  It is my considered opinion that Mayor Bloomberg lacks a moral compass. 

While it is certainly true that people from every walk of life are convicted of crimes, it is especially troubling that MAIG does not seem to mind admitting convicted felons, when they think they can be helpful.  Does this send the message that they don't care if people commit crimes in office?  I think it does - and the sheer number of MAIG members convicted of serious crimes tends to bear this out.  It is even more troubling that many of these crimes involve the misuse of firearms.   In fact, several members of MAIG are banned by Federal Law from owning, possessing or even holding firearms, due to their convictions.

In addition to the information below, the Second Amendment Foundation has prepared an excellent, if a tad dated, flyer.  It can be found here.

The following members and former members were convicted BEFORE joining MAIG:

Mayor Samuel Rivera, Passaic NJ - Charges: Many - before taking office, convicted of covering up a homicide. After, indicted for extortion and taking a bribe. Plea of guilty, sentence of 21 months' imprisonment.

Mayor Vaughn D. Spencer, Redding PA - Pleaded guilty in county court to aggravated assault, a first-degree misdemeanor, and was sentenced to five years of probation.  Nine other charges were dismissed in exchange for the plea.  His victim suffered head and other injuries and was left with permanent hearing loss.  ALL OF THIS TOOK PLACE PRIOR TO HIS JOINING MAIG, AND HE WAS NEVER THE LESS ALLOWED TO JOIN.

Mayor Frank Melton, Jackson, MI - Charged with conspiracy to violate civil rights (by tearing down a person's house), commission of a violent crime while possessing a handgun.  Died before charges could be resolved.  In 2006, the same year he joined Mayors Against Illegal Guns, he was convicted of violating a "gun free school zone" law and bans on carrying guns in church. 

Mayor Michael Pembleton, Sunflower MS - Arrested, convicted and sentenced for stealing $7,000 worth of designer bags. AFTER HIS CONVICTION MAIG featured Pembleton’s name on an ad asking Congress to do more to keep criminals from getting guns.


The following MAIG members (or former members) have been charged and/or convicted of felonies or violent misdemeanors: 

Mayor James Schiliro, Marcus Hook, PA - Accused of having a police officer "pick up a 20-year old" male and bring him to the Mayor's home. Once there, Schiliro allegedly provided the under-age male with alcohol and asked for sexual favors. When the 20-year old refused to cooperate, Schiliro allegedly lost his temper, grabbed a handgun, and fired "it into some papers."  The charges filed against Schiliro include "unlawful restraint, reckless endangerment, false imprisonment, official oppression, and furnishing alcohol to a minor." 

Mayor Shiela Dixon,  Baltimore, Maryland - Convicted of embezzlement and plead guilty to perjury.

Mayor Eddie Perez, Hartford, CT - Charges: bribery, fabricating evidence, conspiracy. Arrested a second time, on extortion charges.

Mayor Gary Becker, Racine, WI - Plea of guilty to sexual assault on a child and child enticement.

Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, Detriot MI - Guilty plea to two counts of perjury and one of assault on an officer. Sentenced to four months in jail and five years of probation.

Mayor David Delle Donna, Guttenberg, NJ - Convicted of extortion and tax fraud. Sentenced to four years' imprisonment.

Mayor Noramie Jasmin, Spring Valley NY - Faces multiple federal corruption charges. 

Mayor Will Wynn, Austin TX -  Guilty plea to charge of assault. Sentenced to community service.

Mayor Jeremiah Healy, Jersey City NJ - Has quite a rap sheet. In 1999, convicted of disorderly conduct. In 2007, convicted of resisting arrest. Presently, he is a suspect in an official corruption probe.

Mayor Larry Langford, Birmingham AL -  Indicted on 101 counts of bribery, fraud, money laundering and tax evasion.  Convicted on 60 felony counts.

Mayor Richard Corkery, Coaldale, PA - Charged with downloading child pornography.  Violated bail conditions.

Mayor Mayor Beth Flansbaum-Talabisco, Tamarac FL - Faces charges of bribery and official misconduct stemming from dealings with two unscrupulous developers.

Mayor Adam Bradley, White Plains NY - Arrested for third degree misdemeanor assault. Wife Fumiko Bradley acquired a temporary protective order against him. The mayor was sentenced to three years probation.

Mayor Roosevelt Dorn, Inglewood CA - Resigned ahead of pleading guilty to conflict of interest charges. He also faced charges of embezzlement.

Mayor Tony Mack, Tenton NJ - Found guilty of corruption as part of a government sting and removed from office.

Mayor Buddy Cianci, Providence, RI - Convicted of assault and racketeering


Members or former members accused and/or convicted of lesser charges:

Mayor Craig Lowe, Gainesville FL - Charged with DUI.  Prominent member of MAIG.

Mayor Gordon Jenkins of Monticello, NY - DUI charges. Video shows him hurling abusive language to police officers.

Mayor April Almon, New Haven, CT - Charged with  Interfering with police officers.

Mayor Pat M. Ahumada Jr, Brownsville TX - Charged with 3rd DUI
















Monday, February 24, 2014

You Want To Cut Military Numbers? Fine, Provided You Take These Steps....

Today the administration announced plans to reduce the size of our military to pre-WW2 levels.  In addition to huge cuts in active duty military forces, significant cuts will also be made in the Guard and Reserve.  A great many aircraft will be retired, and the Navy is likely to see even more ships retired and not replaced.

You may be surprised to read that I actually have mixed feelings about this.  On one hand, the founders never envisioned a large standing military.  We have only maintained a large standing Army since 1941 - prior to that our policy was to raise large armies when needed and disband them at the end of the conflict.  The Navy did maintain larger forces, since it takes time to build ships and train sailors.  The same could be said of Air Forces.

On the other hand, this isn't 1850 - military jobs are now much more technical and require much more training.  This makes it harder to quickly put together a force - land, sea or air - then it was in earlier times.  It also makes maintaining such a force very expensive.

So, what is the answer?  I believe it is the same system that the Founders envisioned: A relatively small national army (and Guard and Reserve), backed up by a large "people's militia" composed of virtually all able bodied persons of military age.

A people's militia worked well for 125 years - it could work today.

The primary mission of the militia would be to provide a large pool of people who have some military training and could quickly be "trained up" to full military standards in time of emergency.  In addition, a database would be maintained of all of their civilian skills so that they could be matched with military jobs (MOSs) as quickly as possible.  Essentially, this would "pre-load" the military's training programs enabling a modern force to be raised much more quickly.

In addition to the above, the militia - which would be under state authority in time of peace - would have units specializing in just one role.  The missions of these "people's militia" units would include the following:

  • To provide backup to state wildland firefighting forces.
  • To provide manpower for disaster relief efforts.
  • To provide backup to police in controlling civil disturbances (riot control)
  • In time of war, when other forces are at the front, to function as a "Home Guard".    The wartime missions of the militia could include providing security for critical infrastructure, the pursuit and apprehension of downed enemy pilots and if, God forbid, the enemy should invade, reinforcement of first line military units.  These are the same roles the British Home Guard fulfilled during WW2. 

Every citizen would be required to undergo 6 months training - with very minimal pay provided  - in all the above roles, and at the end of which they would bid for one of the four specialties based upon their scores - with conscientious objectors only being assigned to disaster relief or fire fighting units.  They then would be assigned to a unit in their community that specializes in one of the four missions.

As in the past, militia members would be required to buy and maintain in good working order, their personal equipment (firearms, fire fighting protection gear, etc) with loans being available for those unable to pay cash for them.  Firearms would be civilian legal weapons capable of firing military ammo.  (Rifles in .223 and .308, pistols in 9mm and .45.)  Prices of other gear, such as protective clothing for firefighting, would likely drop in response to demand.  Used equipment would be avialable as members completed their time of service.

Militia units would report for training and inspection one day per quarter.  Citizens would be assigned to a first line unit for 10 years and a second line unit for an additional 10 years.  They could volunteer for additional service if they are physically able.  

This system served our nation well for 125 years, and with modifications, it could do so again.  Additionally, it would be very important to "mothball", rather than scrap, aircraft and other critical equipment.

In addition to making the nation more secure, this training would take us back to a time when young people learned responsibility and otherwise "grew up" during basic training.  Again, this is a very good thing.

Are there many details to be worked out?  Of course there are - but such a program could be operated at low cost per man, provide a great deterrent to our enemies and potentially enable us to lower our active duty and "ready reserve" forces even further with less risk. 

Friday, February 14, 2014

What The 9th Circuit's Landmark Ruling On Concealed Carry Actually Means

UPDATES ADDED AT BOTTOM OF THIS PAGE

Yesterday, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a landmark ruling in regards to the right to obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon.  In short, the Court ruled that all law abiding citizens must be allowed some method of carrying a functional firearm for self defense, because the 2nd Amendment secures such a right.  Applied to California's Concealed Weapons Permitting (CCW) laws, this ruling requires issuing agencies to issue a permit to any law abiding citizens who fulfill training and background check requirements.  They can no longer simply decide that the applicant does not have sufficient need.  If upheld, this ruling makes a CCW permit a right that can only be denied for cause (such as a felony conviction or other facts that demonstrate the person cannot be trusted with a firearm in public).

Here are a number of facts that have not been made clear in news reports:

1) This ruling is far from unique.  Many news reports - likely relying upon disinformation from anti-gun rights groups - have stated or implied that this is the first time that an appeals court has ruled in this way.  This is not true.  The 7th Circuit issued a virtually identical ruling that forced Illinois to establish a concealed carry system that issues permits to all qualified persons.  (It is significant that Illinois did not appeal.)  In two other cases, the rulings went the other way - but one of these rulings was based upon the fact that the person involved never applied for a permit, and therefore it does not apply.  So, at this point two appeals courts have ruled that a permit is a right under the 2nd Amendment and one has ruled that it is not.  What makes this ruling so very significant is that the 9th Circuit is well known to be the most liberal of all federal appeals courts.  If they cannot win at the 9th Circuit, they probably cannot win at the Supreme Court.

2) This ruling does not take effect immediately.  The 9th Circuit's action sends this case back to the trial court level, with direction that the lower court consider a CCW permit to be a right under the 2nd Amendment.  Appeals may very well delay this by months to years. Once the case gets there, the District Court will basically have no choice but to issue a "summary judgement" requiring the San Diego Sheriff to issue permits to anyone meeting training and background check requirements.  All other jurisdictions under the 9th Circuit will need to conform as well.

This ruling does provide a great deal of legal "cover" to Sheriff's and Police Chiefs who wish to issue permits to all qualified applicants for simple "self defense".  We therefore may see some issuing authorities change their policies to conform with the ruling much sooner than others.

3) As noted above, this ruling will be appealed.   The first appeal, which is virtually certain, would be to the entire 9th Circuit, as opposed to the three judge panel that issued the ruling.  Since the cost is relatively low and a loss would not extend the number of states affected by the ruling, there is no reason why San Diego would not appeal to the entire court.  No matter how this ruling goes, the loosing side has the right to appeal to the Supreme Court.  However, if this case cannot be one by San Diego in the 9th Circuit, it is unlikely that they could ever win in the current Supreme Court.  An appeal to the Supreme Court, if accepted, would result in a ruling with nationwide effect.  Other states, such as New York and New Jersey, would likely quietly ask San Diego not to appeal for this very reason.  Gun right's advocates would like prefer such an appeal for the same reason.

Given that five states (Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Vermont, Wyoming) permit their residents to carry concealed or openly without a permit and four more (Idaho, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico) permit the open carry of firearms without a permit, there is a chance (albeit a small one) that the Supreme Court could rule that states must permit some form of carry without a permit.  After all, if 18% of states are operating under such systems, it tends to indicate that permits are of no benefit.  If they are of no benefit, than the infringement upon the 2nd Amendment right cannot be justified.  San Diego would do well to consider this before appealing.

Should either side appeal to the Supreme Court, there is a very good chance that the appeal will be heard, since either way previous appeals go, there is a split between appeals courts that requires clarification. 

4) 43 states, or 86% of all states, already operate CCW systems virtually identical to
States in Green or Blue already have permit systems in compliance with the ruling.
what the court ruling requires.
 None of them has turned into the "Wild West" or experienced any increase in gun crime.  No state, in the 25 years history of "Shall Issue" concealed carry, has ever seriously considered repealing their law.  The court's ruling simply brings California into step with the vast majority of other states.


So, while this ruling is a huge win for gun rights, the fight is far from over.  Stay tuned, the next few months will be interesting.

Update 2-14-2014:

An excellent article on the ruling, by a lawyer familiar with gun law, can be found HERE.

In it Eugene Volokh explains why the rulings by the 9th and 7th Circuits are almost certain to be upheld.  Quoting from the ruling:

[T]he California scheme does not prevent every person from bearing arms outside the home in every circumstance. But the fact that a small group of people have the ability to exercise their right to bear arms does not end our inquiry. Because the Second Amendment “confer[s] an individual right to keep and bear arms,” we must assess whether the California scheme deprives any individual of his constitutional rights. Thus, the question is not whether the California scheme (in light of San Diego County’s policy) allows some people to bear arms outside the home in some places at some times; instead, the question is whether it allows the typical responsible, law-abiding citizen to bear arms in public for the lawful purpose of self-defense. The answer to the latter question is a resounding “no.”

The bottom line is that the Supreme Court has twice ruled that the 2nd Amendment confers an individual right.  The Amendment is clear that it protect both a right to "keep" (within one's home) and "bear" meaning to carry outside the home.  In it's 2nd ruling the high court held that this protection is "fundamental to or system of ordered liberty" - indicating that it affords a high level of protection.  Furthermore, in the Heller decision, the court foresaw it's application to the carrying of firearms, stating explicitly some places that can be "off limits" while carrying.  If the court did not see the right extending outside the home, the court could have simply said, "this ruling does not extend to carrying a gun outside the home".  They didn't.  Instead they addressed the issue - likely indicating that they do believe there is a right to carry. 

The other appeals courts have chosen to ignore these facts and will not recognize any right to carry until the Supreme Court forces then to do so.  Chance are very good that this is going to happen in the near future.


Update 2-15-2014:

Many in the gun rights community were critical of Governor Brown when he signed the ban on unloaded open carry of firearms - while others predicted that by doing so, he was "teeing up" a win on concealed carry.  Well, according to a well respected and unbiased expert, it appears that Governor Brown indeed set up Thursday's decision:

"UCLA professor Adam Winkler, an expert on gun laws, called the ruling "a huge victory for gun owners in California."

"They have been seeking the right to carry concealed weapons for years now," Winkler said.

Citing the 2012 ban on the open carrying of guns, Winkler said: "Gun control advocates have no one but themselves to blame for this ruling. You have to give someone some option to carry a gun."

He said that the ban on openly carrying unloaded guns affected relatively few people because most gun owners don't want the attention and questions that guns in public attract. But many more people might apply to carry concealed weapons, he said. "If you don't want many guns on the street, the answer is open carry," Winkler said."

(Source - LA Times Article)

Gun control advocates continue to be in denial in regards to the scope of the Heller/McDonald Supreme Court rulings.  They just cannot accept the fact that the 2nd Amendment protects a personal right.  This is but the latest example of what happens when gun control advocates act like these rulings never happened.  Even though the court was abundantly clear that firearms "in common use" by the public cannot be banned, they continue to attempt to ban so called "assault weapons" - even though they are the best selling firearms on the market.  Expect the next big ruling to strike down one of the many bans of such guns, probably in California.





Tuesday, February 11, 2014

Why Gun Control Has No Effect On Suicide Rates

Why Dr. Vivek Murthy, Pres. Obama's Surgeon General Nominee, Is Lying or Incompetent

Dr. Vivek Murthy (via tweet): "18,000 annual gun suicides. 80% suicide success with guns, 2% without. Most survivors never reattempt."

Dr. Murthy is wrong - furthermore, he either knows that the above statement is false, or he is too incompetent to know that it is wrong.  In either case, he is not qualified to be Attorney General.

Unlike this doctor, I have actually worked in field EMS.  I was called to literally thousands of "suicide attempts".  I saw this problem up close, virtually every day, for a decade.  I put that in quotes because the vast majority of people who supposedly attempt suicide DO NOT INTEND TO ACTUALLY DO SO.  They are simply acting out to manipulate others (most common) or as a cry for help.  When I was working, the stats I saw indicated that this was the case in over 98% of females "attempting suicide" and about 75% of males - and my experience bears this out.  These people do not want to "succeed" so they use a method that kills slowly and can be reversed.  They do not use a gun, jump from a building or step in front of a bus - because they would actually die!  (Understand: I believe these people do need help!)  By the way, these people "reattempt" many, many times.

Those who actually want to die are much more likely to use a firearm, jump from a building. slash a major blood vessel, or simply step in front of a bus or train.  They may take a quick acting drug or poison and hide without telling anyone.  They may drown themselves or use another method.  They usually "succeed:" because they actually want to die.

The doctor commingles these two very different groups in order to achieve the goal of promoting gun control.  Of course, if firearms are a huge factor, than we should see a lower suicide rate in nations where they are not available.  As one might expect, this is not the case.

The countries listed below (except the US) have virtual or actual bans on civilians owning guns.  The US has the highest rate of gun ownership in the world.  The suicide rate is expressed in the number per 100,000 of the population.



South Korea (Actual ban), China (Actual ban), Japan (Virtual ban), Russia (Virtual ban), Taiwan (Virtual ban), 
United States (Highest gun ownership rate in the world)

Two things are clear:

1) Removing guns does not prevent or limit suicides, it only changes the method.  If it helped, than we would see a lower rate in nations where they are not available. Dr. Murthy is wrong.

2) Cultural and social factors likely are much larger factors that the availability of any one method of suicide.  Two factors seem to dominate the nations with the highest suicide rates: Oriental culture and/or a high rate of alcohol abuse. Looking at the highest rates of suicide on  this chart, all but one of the 13 nations with the highest rates of suicide are either oriental or part of the former Soviet Union or it's satellites - which are well known for having very high rates of alcohol abuse.

Looking at more of an apples to apples comparison, let's compare the US, Canada (more gun control but still lots of guns) and the UK (very low gun ownership rate, very strict gun control):



So, above we see three nations that are culturally similar, but with very different gun laws ranging from relatively permissive (the US) to a ban on all handguns and very strict controls on other guns (the UK).  The suicide rate in all three nations is virtually identical (within 4% of each other).  Again, gun laws have absolutely no effect at all.  More proof that Dr. Murthy is wrong.

This is very basic research and very basic facts.  The doctor surely knows them very well.  The fact that he is willing to prostitute his medical credentials in order to advance his political goals disqualifies him for the office to which he is nominated.





Obama's Plan To Use His New Surgeon General To Ban Guns

A few months ago Sen. Harry Reid (undoubtedly at the urging of Pres. Obama) DESTROYED 200+ YEARS OF SENATE TRADITION BY ABOLISHING THE FILIBUSTER FOR POLITICAL APPOINTMENTS.  While not mandated in the Constitution, the requirement that 60 Senators had to agree to end debate served as a critical check on executive power.  It is quite rare for the president's party to hold 60 votes in the Senate, thus it was necessary for the president to appoint people to positions requiring confirmation who could get at least some support from the other party.
 This system worked exceedingly well for the nation's entire history - until Reid and Obama decided to scrap it in their pursuit of raw political power.  Now the most radical president we have ever had can appoint people just as radical as he is with no fear that they will not be confirmed.  Another step in the fundamental transformation of America.

Many have wondered why Reid and Obama would do this, since, when the other party gains power, it could be used against them.  Hopefully they are only short sighted - but my question is: What if they aren't?  What if the plan is to make sure - by any means necessary - that they never face that situation?  After all, no one in over 200 years made this move for precisely that reason.  Why are these two men so confident that they will never be in the minority?  What are they willing to do to make sure this doesn't happen?  More about this later.

One exception to this could be Obama's appointment of a new surgeon general (Dr.Vivek Murthy) who is an anti-gun rights zealot.  After vowing to accomplish radical gun control by going around congress, this comes as no surprise.  MAKE NO MISTAKE, THIS IS AN EFFORT TO ACCOMPLISH GUN CONTROL VIA, YOU GUESSED IT: OBAMACARE.  Think about it.  If the surgeon general were to find that gun ownership posed a "significant health risk" (not true, but since when does that matter?) - could the administration rig the system so gun ownership required the payment of a huge health insurance "premium surcharge"?  But nothing in the law permits this you say.  Since when has this mattered in Obamacare?  The president has simply modified it as he has seen fit.  Obamacare is the greatest expansion of government power in the history of our republic - because healthcare touches everyone.  Instead of banning guns, this approach is one that gun control advocates have often used: Make owning guns so difficult and expensive that only a well off minority can afford to do so.  

The NRA and other gun rights groups know this and have begun to lobby against Dr. Murthy's appointment, as have pro-gun rights reporters.  Some have seen this coming since the inception of Obamacare.  None of this should surprise gun owners, since the gun control movement twists and misapplies laws at will in order to accomplish its' goals - witness California AG Harris's move to ban all semi-auto handguns using existing law. 

Given that doctors kill (via medical malpractice) over 600 times as many people as are killed with so called "assault rifles" and roughly 17.5 times as many people as are murdered any kind of firearm, one might very well ask why the medical community isn't dealing with its' own problems first?  Why are they going after our gun rights?  After all, this could save many more lives.  The truth is that saving lives is but a pretense - the real goal is the systematic disarming of the American people.  Anything that does this must be made a priority,  This must be accomplished by any means necessary.  IT DOES MAKE ONE WONDER WHY.  It makes me wonder if this has something to do with why Reid and Obama think their party will never loose power.

While the filibuster existed, there was zero chance that anyone as radical as Dr.Vivek Murthy could ever be confirmed.  Now it is at least a chance that he may be confirmed.  However, given that gun control could not get past the Democratically controlled Senate, and that the election is even closer now, there is a very good chance that he may find it impossible to get the 50 votes he needs.  One thing is sure, if this man is confirmed, he will do everything possible to abolish your right to own guns.  He must be stopped.   The future of our constitutional republic may depend upon it.