Boston Terrorists Bought Gun on Black Market (Video)

Former Head Of ATF Says No Law Can Prevent Criminals and Terrorists From Obtaining Firearms.

 Comments Echo Those Of Gun Rights Advocates

Gun Owners and 2nd Amendment Supporters - Boycott Staples!

When a local gun shop entered a Staples contest, they were a bit shocked to get this reply:

“We’re sorry, but your small business entry into the Staples PUSH It Forward Contest has been rejected for the following reason(s): Entry contains content that promotes alcohol, illegal drugs, tobacco, firearms/weapons (or the use of any of the foregoing); promotes any activities that may appear unsafe or dangerous; promotes any particular political agenda or message; is obscene or offensive; or endorses any form of hate or hate group.”

Please note that not only does this policy place legal gun dealers (many of whom are retired cops or military) in the same category as drug dealers, pornographers and Nazis - it also places all of us who own and responsibly use firearms in the very same category.

The complete story is HERE.

Since we are still living in a free country, we have a remedy available: We can choose to shop elsewhere - AND LET STAPLES KNOW WHY WE ARE DOING SO.

They can be reached at: staplessoul@staples.com 

If you wish, feel free to use my email, reproduced below:

---

Dear Staples,

In regards to your actions as described in this story: http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/staples-says-gun-store-cant-enter-contest.html 

I am writing to let you know that I will never shop are your stores again.  Your bigoted, prejudiced and baseless attitude towards the 50% of American households who own firearms is simply inexcusable.  Be assured that I and many others who value our 2nd Amendment rights will spread the word of your actions far and wide.  We will encourage everyone we know to NEVER set foot in any of your stores again.

If you are still clueless in regards to how much trouble you are in, imagine the outcry if you had refused to let a church or a gay bar enter your contest because you found religion or homosexuality unacceptable.  You have every right to do this - and we have every right to take our business elsewhere.  You have underestimated our power and our numbers - just as the national media did.  This may not cost you much in California, New York and D.C. - but it will cost you a great deal in  Nevada, Nebraska, Texas and about 40 other largely pro-gun rights states.

What were you thinking?

---

Don't just sit there and let them insult you - do something about it!

How President Obama stole the 2012 Election

When President Obama was reelected last Fall, I thought he had won fair and square.  Democratic turnout was simply higher.  Obama supporters must have worked harder than Romney supporters.  Sadly this is not the whole story.

In recent days we have learned that the IRS specifically targeted not just Tea Party groups, but hundreds of groups that were likely to support the Republican candidate.  Even theologically conservative religious groups were targeted for audits.  As a result, these groups were not able to raise money that would not only be used for issue advertising - but this targeted IRS harassment hampered efforts to register voters, something these groups commonly do.  Meanwhile, groups supporting the president continued to operate unhindered.  There is zero doubt that this happened, the only question is: Who gave the order?

Then there is Benghazi.  We now know that: 1) Before the attack, Ambassador Stevens requested additional security over 30 times.  Even though the facility had been attacked, his pleas were ignored.  2) During the attack - even though no one knew how long the attack would last - no help was sent.  In fact, military units were ordered not to respond.  Those CIA and State Department  operatives who did respond, did so without orders.  3) After the attack, the administration made up a lie about a demonstration over a YouTube video - and even though they knew from the beginning of the attack that it was terrorism, they stated that it was not.   The constant before, during and after the attack was an effort to maintain the illusion that President Obama had killed Bin Ladin and won the war on terror.  Four Americans died to maintain this illusion.  Who gave the order?

How can we know who gave the order?  Well, let's as a couple of questions any detective would ask:

1) Who had motive, means and opportunity?  Answer: President Obama.  What is more likely, that low level officials made all of these decisions on their own - or that they did so under orders from the top?

2) Is the subject in question acting like he is innocent?  In regards to the IRS, the president is not acting as if he is innocent.  Consider his choice for the new IRS Commissioner.  An innocent president would have picked a distinguished member of the other party and had them take over at once.  Instead, President Obama appointed a White House staffer and let the current disgraced commissioner remain in office for two months.   In the Benghazi scandal, the president has been caught in lie after lie.  His administration has stalled and obstructed the efforts of the press and congress to discover the truth.  In both scandals, he is acting like he is guilty.

What would have happened to President Obama's reelection chances if the whole truth about Benghazi had been made public the next day?  Would the election have been very different if hundreds of conservative organizations had been free to register voters and place issue ads instead of fighting the IRS?  Of course, we will never know for sure - but it is probable that our current president would be named Romney.

Is President Obama The Democratic Nixon?

Well, let's take stock of how the Obama administration has attacked the "charter of negative liberties" (Pres. Obama's words about our constitution):

1) He has attacked the 1st Amendment religious freedoms of Catholics and others

2) He has attempted to muzzle and/or suppress the free speech rights of conservative groups by using the IRS - just as Richard Nixon did.

3) His DOJ has illegally spied on AP reporters - perhaps in an attempt to control the press

4) His DOJ (ATF) sent thousands of guns to Mexican drug cartels, for no good reason - and then used the increase in US guns recovered in Mexico to argue for more gun laws - including laws that violate the 2nd Amendment.  When his DOJ was asked for information by congress, he claimed executive privilege - forcing congress to sue him to get to the truth.

5) In the wake of the Newtown mass murder he renewed his efforts to ban guns.  Many of his proposed laws clearly violate Supreme Court rulings affirming the 2nd Amendment.

Then there is Benghazi.  It now appears clear that:

1) His State Department failed to provide adequate security even though the very Ambassador who was killed requested it OVER 30 TIMES.

2) When the attack took place, and no one had any idea home it would turn out, our president's response was to do absolutely nothing.  He ordered no help sent - and someone actually gave an order forbidding military units that could have helped from doing so.  State Department security forces had to go into battle without them.

3) After being told by both the career State Department personnel and the CIA that this as a terrorist attack - he and highly placed members of the administration lied to the American people so he could win an election.

I lived through Nixon and Watergate - and all of this seems very familiar.....

How Obama Could Have Background Checks Tomorrow

Background checks - of all gun control measures set forth - make the most sense. However here are the facts regarding them - and the recent effort to expand them:

1) Nothing is done when people fail the check - even though prosecution is easy. Local authorities are not even notified. Instead, the criminal or mentally ill person is left on the street, free to find a gun in the black market. This is the biggest reason gun rights advocates think this is not about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.

2) Any background check system is dependent upon having a good database. Until the totally broken mental health system is fixed, many mentally ill people will still be able to buy firearms. The Giffords shooter had 20+ law enforcement contacts and was never sent into a hospital for evaluation. As a former paramedic I find this unbelievable as in CA this guy would have been evaluated. Had that happened, he would not have been able to buy a gun in the legal market. Yet, mental health reform is dead - because the administration only wants gun control.

3) In the initial background check bill,  records of approved background checks would have been retained and would have identified the firearm and the new owner -  it was a back door registration system. There were no exemptions for transfers between family members. This would have amounted to gun registration, hiding under the label of "background checks". This overreach and deceptiveness doomed the bill. Even when a very reasonable compromise was set forth - and supported by the one of the big gun rights groups - the die was already cast. The gun owning public remained focused upon the original version - even with a compromise that actually gave us gun rights folks many things we have been striving to get for decades.

Obama could have his background checks tomorrow. A bill could have NRA support tomorrow. It just needs to have the exemptions and controls that were in the compromise bill, the protections against a registration system that was in that bill, and a significant gain for gun rights.  It should be clear that nothing is going to happen without the support of the NRA and gun owners.

 I can think of two that would work:

1) Mandatory CCW permit reciprocity.  This would likely lead to the remaining 9 states that do not have a "shall issue" system adopting one - since their residents could simply go to another state and get a permit.  25 years have proven the anti-gun rights crowd wrong.  There have been no blood baths, no shoot outs in the streets.  Permit holders have actually been proven to be less of a risk than off duty cops!  Crime has dropped, faster than the national average, in every state that has adopted shall issue and not one state has repealed their "shall issue" law.  This provision got 57 votes in the Senate, only 3 shy of the 60 needed to pass. 


2) Preemption of state laws regarding purchase, possession and ownership of firearms. Gun control advocates have always argued that state laws don't work because of other states having more "lax" laws.  Indeed, the states rated highest on the gun control advocates lists (California, New York, New Jersey, etc) actually have the highest crime rates.  Since these laws are not working, and the federal laws will be greatly tightened, federalizing the whole matter of gun regulation makes sense.  Additionally, many of these state laws may be struck down in the wake of recent Supreme Court rulings.  States could be empowered to pass laws that mirror federal law, enabling them to enforce federal law.  Since the NRA has lots of members in states hostile to gun rights, this would be a huge win for them.  It would be an answer they could not refuse.


Either of these measures would protect the NRA from charges that they "sold out". However, the administration won't do either because the real goal is not "reasonable gun control" - it is ever tighter gun laws, until there is a virtual ban.  I'm actually disappointed that a compromise that expanded background checks (with exemptions for private sales) AND gun rights was not adopted. It could have been a huge WIN - WIN, but the gun control side was not prepared to recognize the huge influence of millions of gun owners who are single issue voters.  

What The Media Isn't Reporting About Federal Background Checks

In reporting the defeat of the background check bill, the mainstream media has toed the liberal line by refusing to report the real story: The Obama administration does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING when criminals lie of the background check form and are rejected for a "legal" gun purchase.  Instead of busting them for this felony and getting them off the streets, they leave felons who are looking for guns in the community so the can find an illegal gun and go on to commit crimes.  The Obama DOJ doesn't even notify local authorities - who in many cases could prosecute or just simply violate their parole.

How often does this happen?  Well, every year well over 40,000 people fail background checks due to a previous felony or a restraining order.  Every one of these people knew they were not eligible to buy a firearm and every one lied about the restraining order or felony conviction on the 4473 form.    Every one of them presented ID, completed the form in their own handwriting and their finger prints are all over the form.  These are easy cases to win.

So out of over 40,000 criminal attempts to buy a firearm, how many convictions are obtained each year?  LESS THAN 20!  In fact the chances that a criminal attempt to buy a firearm from a dealer will be prosecuted is less than one chance in 300 - and in spite of these cases being easy to win, the vast majority of these cases will not result in convictions.

If the administration was making good use of current background check laws, expanding the system would make some sense - but they aren't.  Instead, these people are left on the streets, where they frequently buy guns on the black market.  Many go on to use these guns in crimes - including homicides.  This total lack of concern for the victims of gun crimes causes the administration's calls for more background checks to ring hollow.

If the administration really wants to expand the background check system, they need to use the current system to actually stop violent crimes by prosecuting the vast majority of these cases.  Do that, and many gun owners will support the expansion of the system to private sales.

Connecticut Drives Gun Makers Out Of State - Other States Losing Jobs Too

Connecticut Gov. Malloy has no problem slandering the gun companies that employ thousands of his citizens, by saying they don't care who they sell their products to. This idiot actually said, "There aren't that many gun companies in Connecticut."

Really? Have you ever heard of a little company named COLT? They are in Hartford. Then there is MOSSBERG. They are in North Haven. In addition there is RUGER. They are in South Port. In addition to these companies, there are lots of smaller, newer companies (such as PTR Rifles) that have started up in the last few years. In fact, Connecticut is the gun manufacturing headquarters of the nation - literally. The National Shooting Sports Foundation, the industry's association, is headquartered in Newtown - for now.

Gun manufacturers are not just making a statement. Every gun sold in the US must have the city and state of manufacture stamped on the barrel. These companies are extremely concerned that customers will not buy guns made in a state that is so hostile to gun rights. 

Maybe Malloy's statement is simply forward looking - because these companies won't be there much longer. COLT IS LEAVING THE STATE due to it's hostility towards the 2nd Amendment (they are moving to TX). PTR is leaving for the same reason. TX, ID, UT and other western and southern states have put out the welcome mat. Sadly, Connecticut can kiss the last of it's previously huge manufacturing base goodbye.

Some references:

Major firearms manufacturers to relocate their operations from gun-hating Connecticut

Beretta may leave after Maryland passes strict gun control law

Plenty of other states are happy to have the jobs:

Unhappy About New Limits, Gun Makers Urged To Move

Texas Gov. Rick Perry Tells Connecticut Gun Makers to ‘Come on Down’

Maine Governor Courting Gunmakers

Idaho Aims For Job Growth Through Gun Manufacturing

Idaho Town Wants To Lure Gun And Ammo Makers