Awesome: Bloomberg-backed anti-Second Amendment group gets called out by CNN for lying about school shooting statistics

Since the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary, theoretically there have been 74 school shootings. This statistic had been willingly used by the media, until CNN decided to dig a little deeper. According to CNN, only 15 actually are school shootings, similar to the recent shooting in Oregon.

The higher statistic was provided by Everytown For Gun Safety — former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s pet project. Numbers matter, and so do circumstances. The problem with the inflated figures is that they include domestic and drug violence in the vicinity of schools. It’s disingenuous at best, and if anything adds ammunition to something pro-gun advocates have been saying.

Schools are made more dangerous because they are “gun-free” zones. Other than searching for clientele, of course drug dealers would gravitate toward schools because they are aware that they can do business without worrying about law-abiding citizens being armed there.

Bloomberg’s organization is not for gun safety, of course. And it isn’t about making anyone safer either. It must be repeated that these organizations are about control, period.

As for the situation with CNN pointing out the questionable nature of the statistics being promoted by Everytown For Gun Safety, there might still be hope out there. We’ve been seeing the mainstream media slowly wake up from their daze, and start questioning politicians and liberal organizations.

The problem with fingerprint-recognition guns

Ed Markey

The Hill newspaper reports today that Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey (D-umbass) will introduce legislation to require all firearms produced in the United States to be equipped with advanced fingerprint recognition technology.

The monumental stupid and elitist of this suggestion could only have come from someone whose tongue is firmly implanted in the nether regions of Mothers for Justice and Equality, Project R.I.G.H.T. and other organizations dedicating to destroying the right of the people to keep and bear arms, stomping all over the Second Amendment and sporting a big, red “F” rating from the NRA.

A generally untested technology mandated for all firearms purchases? What could go wrong?

Well, imagine the following scenario.

You are a woman peacefully having dinner with your spouse and children. All is calm. All is peaceful. And then…

Three armed thugs stage a home invasion, threatening you and your family.

Your husband grabs his gun, equipped with the latest fingerprint-recognition technology, but the thugs mow him down in a hail of gunfire.

You grab your spouse’s pistol, hoping to protect yourself and your children, but unfortunately, the pistol does not recognize your biometrics. You and your children are helpless.

Oh, but you have your own gun that recognizes your fingerprints? So what happens if both of you are hurt or worse? Do you expect your children to grab your pistol and attempt to place it in your cold, lifeless hand in order to unlock its defensive power?

Philip Seymour Hoffman – A Life Wasted

Philip Seymour Hoffman

A few days ago, Americans were shocked to find out that Philip Seymour Hoffman died of a heroin overdose. Hoffman was an incredible, versatile actor – a massive talent, whose repertoire included the roles of Plutarch Heavensbee in the second and third installments of The Hunger Games films, as well as Truman Capote in Capote and Freddy Lounds in the disturbing and frightening Red Dragon. Hoffman’s immense gift for acting – for becoming these complicated characters, requiring a complete abandonment of self and the occupation of others’ minds and souls – shall be missed.

The man that he was… not so much.

I know about drug abuse and addiction. Someone very close to me chose to destroy his life with heroin and alcohol. He and his wife abandoned everything, including their children, just so they could continue shooting poison into their bodies. They were offered the opportunity to get clean – all expenses paid – and to get their children back at the end of their journey. They declined. They chose heroin. They chose alcohol. They chose to destroy their bodies, and at the end, they caused their own demise.

I have no sympathy for these people, because they made their choices. They destroyed lives, and not just their own lives, but the lives of their children and their parents. His father spent his retirement income bailing him and his wife out of jail, buying him treatment, purchasing the clothing and food they would not purchase for their children, because what little money they had was usually injected into their veins.

I take no joy at their demise, but I certainly have no sympathy for them.

Obama wants to restrict guns in Nashville, Beretta wants to make them

President Obama was in Nashville yesterday paying a visit to McGavock High School on the heels of Tuesday’s State of the Union address. It’s no accident he chose this school at this time, reeling as McGavock still is after a recent shooting there.

Given Obama’s focus on gun control in Tuesday’s speech — even going so far as to suggest he will work around Congress if they refuse to pass legislation that restricts 2nd Amendment rights — it’s a very focused move to test the temperature of a community that may be ready for the discussion in a way they haven’t been in the past. Tragedy has a way of doing that:

“It’s a tragedy, a terrible tragedy,” White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters on Air Force One. “The president will obviously speak about matters of education at the event, but I think you can expect he will have something to say about the tragedy at the top of his remarks.”

The shooting that left 15-year-old Kevin Barbee dead happened Tuesday. Another teenager was playing with a pistol when it discharged, striking Barbee in the face.

Then again, given a recent decision to expand into the state by firearm manufacturer Beretta, he may have more of an uphill climb than he suspects. Economic tragedy has a way of doing that:

Military service doesn’t legitimize anti-gun positions

From time to time, gun rights advocates find themselves in a discussion of the Second Amendment with someone who claims to be a military veteran that supports gun control. Most of the time, it’s easy to dismiss these people as pretenders or whatever, though military service doesn’t make one automatically pro-gun.

That’s the case with Lt. Col. Robert Bateman in a piece over at Esquire:

People, it is time to talk about guns.

My entire adult life has been dedicated to the deliberate management of violence. There are no two ways around that fact. My job, at the end of the day, is about killing. I orchestrate violence.

I am not proud of that fact. Indeed, I am often torn-up by the realization that not only is this my job, but that I am really good at my job. But my profession is about directed violence on behalf of the nation. What is happening inside our country is random and disgusting, and living here in England I am at a complete loss as to how to explain this at all. In 2011 the number of gun deaths in the United States was 10.3 per 100,000 citizens. In 2010 that statistic in the UK was 0.25. And do not even try to tell me that the British are not as inclined to violence or that their culture is so different from ours that this difference makes sense. I can say nothing when my British officers ask me about these things, because it is the law.

Bateman makes his desire for gun control amply clear throughout the rest of the piece, yet he manages to make Army officers as a whole look like complete and total idiots. After all, he can’t understand basic sentence structure:

Anti-gun columnist calls for intervention…in the US

Somehow, I get the feeling that columnist Henry Porter isn’t a fan of the Second Amendment.  As he’s a British subject, it doesn’t really matter a whole lot.  After all, he doesn’t get to vote on American issues.  Porter seems to understand this.  That’s why he’s calling for the international community to intervene here in the United States:

That’s America, we say, as news of the latest massacre breaks – last week it was the slaughter of 12 people by Aaron Alexis at Washington DC’s navy yard – and move on. But what if we no longer thought of this as just a problem for America and, instead, viewed it as an international humanitarian crisis – a quasi civil war, if you like, that calls for outside intervention? As citizens of the world, perhaps we should demand an end to the unimaginable suffering of victims and their families – the maiming and killing of children – just as America does in every new civil conflict around the globe.

Maybe because these deaths aren’t even remotely related to one another except that the implement used is the same?:

The annual toll from firearms in the US is running at 32,000 deaths and climbing, even though the general crime rate is on a downward path (it is 40% lower than in 1980). If this perennial slaughter doesn’t qualify for intercession by the UN and all relevant NGOs, it is hard to know what does.

Facts of Navy Yard shooting undermine gun control arguments

Media Guide to the AR-15

In the initial flurry of hasty, largely incorrect reports about the horrific Navy Yard shooting this week, the infamous AR-15 again reared its evil, black, “military-grade” head. Unfortunately for everyone involved, it was not in the deadly bogeyman fashion the media expected and reported. An AR-15 rifle was later said to be found at the scene, but no one has seen one since.

CNN and many other outlets seized upon the initial report of the AR-15 and ran with it, even calling the weapon an “AR-15 shotgun”, which does not exist. In fact, the shooter did attempt to purchase an AR-15 rifle last week in Virginia, but he was prevented from doing so by state law, since he was from out of state. Instead, he bought a shotgun, which is legal to purchase for out-of-state residents, and went about his murderous ways. This stunning sequence of events undermines nearly every gun control talking point being used right now.

School wants parents to contract against guns

Imagine you’re looking through the typical first day of school paperwork that kids invariably bring home.  Stuck in the stack of forms asking about school lunch and who can pick your kids up is a contract.  This “contract,” however, deals with your guns.  What would you do?

Well, some parents in Arizona know exactly what they will do…since they’ve been dealing with it for a couple of years (emphasis added):

The parents of junior high and high school students in the Flowing Wells Unified School District in Tucson are being asked to sign a contract agreeing to teach their children to settle arguments without violence. The “Student/Parent/Principal Contract For Eliminating Guns and Weapons at School” was sent as part of the district’s registration packet for the 2013-2014 school year.

Under the contract, parents must agree to teach “…including by personal example, my teenager about the dangers and consequences of the misuse of guns and weapons and I will keep any guns and all weapons under lock and away from school grounds and away from my children.

Now, on the surface, this isn’t a big deal.  The school system says there are no ramifications for students whose parents refuse to sign the contract.  In addition, it asks that you keep guns secured and away from school grounds.  All sound pretty reasonable.  However, it also says that you will keep guns away from your children.

Gun Control Advocates Hate Us for Our Freedoms

gun control

Let’s face it — the fight for stricter gun control measure is an assault on civil liberties, just the same as laws that infringe on Americans’ right to privacy or free speech. That’s something the Left won’t admit to, but the intent is clear.

The talking point is that expanded background checks and reinstatement of the Assault Weapons Ban, policies for which the White House and many Senate Democrats are pushing, is consistent with “reasonable regulation” of gun rights. But these measures are a step toward the long-held policy views of gun control advocates, and they will lie and fear-monger until they get their way.

Just last week during a visit to Mexico, President Barack Obama said that many of the guns that are being used by the drug cartels wreaking havoc in the country come from the United States.

“[We] recognize that most of the guns used to commit violence here in Mexico come from the United States,” said President Obama. “I think many of you know that in America, our Constitution guarantees our individual right to bear arms, and as President I swore an oath to uphold that right and I always will.”

“But at the same time, as I’ve said in the United States, I will continue to do everything in my power to pass common-sense reforms that keep guns out of the hands of criminals and dangerous people,” he continued. “That can save lives here in Mexico and back home in the United States. It’s the right thing to do. So we’ll keep increasing the pressure on gun traffickers who bring illegal guns into Mexico.  We’ll keep putting these criminals where they belong — behind bars.”

Gun Control Push Could Hurt Senate Democrats in 2014


Tom Knighton already touched on the new Washington Post/Pew Research poll showing that not even a majority of Americans express disappointment or anger for the Senate failing to enact the Manchin-Toomey amendment. In fact, the only group that is disappointed in failing to expand background checks is Democrats. A plurality of independents — 48%, to be exact — and 51% of Republicans describe themselves as “very happy” or “relieved” that the measure failed to pass.

As Chris Cillizza concludes, President Barack Obama “wound up losing the message fight over the gun legislation.” Of course, this is what happens when you waste political capital, as President Obama and the White House did, on an issue that only 4% of Americans really care about.

“Rather than a conversation centered on widely-popular measures supported by members of both parties,” he explained, “the debate — at least as people perceived it — became a wider referendum on the proper place for guns in society.”

The views and opinions expressed by individual authors are not necessarily those of other authors, advertisers, developers or editors at United Liberty.