Showing posts with label gun control. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gun control. Show all posts

Friday, February 8, 2013

February 8, 2013


TOWNHALL
Sandy Hook Father: My Child Is Safer at Home Where I am Armed
by Katie Pavlich 
February 5, 2013

During a recent gun violence prevention public hearing in Hartford, Connecticut, Bill Stevens, a father of a Sandy Hook student who survived the massacre that took place in December, testified. Stevens explained why his daughter is safer at home than she is at school because "911" and "lockdown" are not enough to protect her from an evil person. Stevens also defended the right to bear arms which is not only written in the Second Amendment, but in the Connecticut constitution as well. He argued gun owners shouldn't be turned into suspects no matter how many firearms or rounds of ammunition they may choose to have and that politicians have no right to take away one's ability to defend themselves and their family.
"You want to take my rights are away, lets go to court," Steven's said. "But criminals and tyrants, tyrants especially, beware. Lockdown is not an option at the Stevens residence and 911 will be dialed after the security of my home has been established. Why is that same security my daughter enjoys at home with her dad not available at school in Newtown? That is what you should be considering, not making her dad a criminal. Charlton Heston made the phrase 'from my cold dead hands famous' and I will tell you here today, you will take my ability to protect my Victoria from my cold dead hands."

As the Media Research Center points out, NBC must have been too busy editing video to fit their anti-gun narrative last week to notice this father's testimony.

Just last week the Newtown Board of Education moved to put more armed security in their schools after it was heavily requested by parents.
Last night, they decided to ask the town to approve the request to include one additional full-time Newtown police at each of the elementary schools in next year's budget. 
Today, members of the board will be meeting with state and federal officials about obtaining additional funding for security. 
“Our parents are demanding of us that things are made safe and secure and certain measures are put in place,” Chairwoman Debbie Leidlein said. “So we’re being very thoughtful.” 
Several police officers have been stationed at all Newtown schools since the Dec. 14 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary, where 20 children and six staff members were killed. 
Those officers will remain at the school through the remainder of the school year, but the budget for the next fiscal year funds only resource officers at the middle and high schools. 
Parents said security means more than a police presence. 
“My main concern is with accessibility to these school, said Neil Johnson, a parent of two Newtown students. “On December 14th, that was the main bare-boned reason that occurred.”
President Obama is currently out on a gun control campaign. Yesterday he spoke in Minnesota on the issue.
MINNEAPOLIS – President Barack Obama kicked off his campaign-style push for gun control here Monday, arguing that the changes he started pushing for in the wake of the December mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary are beginning to gain traction. 
The approach was similar to last week’s immigration push in Las Vegas. At both events, Obama said Congress must follow his lead to enact laws on which the American people agree. At each he said the work will be difficult and long. And at each he said the burden was on Congress to act.
Read more: http://goo.gl/0n0U6


THE DAILY CALLER
Levin to Rove: ‘Bring it on, Karl baby. Bring it on, doughboy. Bring on your little whiteboard’
by Jeff Poor
February 8, 2013

The back-and-forth verbal jabs between former Bush White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove, his deputies at American Crossroads and some of the conservative movement’s so-called “critically important figures” took another intense turn on Mark Levin’s radio show on Thursday, with Iowa Republican Rep. Steve King entering the fray.

“[L]et me put something to you folks about Karl Rove — what a propagandist this man is,” Levin said at the end of his program. “He keeps bringing up Christine O’Donnell. Karl Rove has lost more races that he’s been involved in than Christine O’Donnell. She has lost one. Rove has lost scores. And as soon as she was nominated, he went on TV on the ‘Hannity’ show and started smearing her.”

“And he put out emails to all the pseudo-conservatives inside the beltway trashing her. He wanted her defeated,” Levin continued. “He wanted Mike Castle to win — Mike Castle, anti-conservative, pro-abortion, pro-big spending, on and on and on. He’s also up there with that stupid little third-grade whiteboard of his, with his fourth-grade writing style, talking about how they committed $30 million to tea party candidates. Ladies and gentlemen, we’ve had to fight through these primaries to get the tea party conservatives nominated. And then his group has put money into the race.”

Levin, the author of “Ameritopia: The Unmaking of America,” urged American Crossroads’ donor to put their money elsewhere in the future if they are indeed interested in promoting conservative candidates.

“Karl Rove, let me tell you something — you’re despised by the grassroots,” he said. “And let me tell your donors something — stop wasting your money. There are organizations all over this country that need your help, who are organizing at the grassroots level, who aren’t making money. And these people will work harder and do better in terms of nominating candidates to help save this country.”

One of the individuals Levin put his support behind was King, whom Rove’s group targeted for not being truly “conservative.”

“Well, the first thing I thought was the elitist attitude — the idea you can wake up with the checkbook of mostly somebody else’s money and decide in any state who would be the nominee for the United States Senate — that is an arrogant attitude,” King told Levin.

Levin urged King to use Rove as a foil against any opponent he may have in upcoming races.

“Let me tell you something, Steve King and all you conservatives out there who are thinking about running in these primaries and so forth — your best commercial is going to be that your opponent is funded by Karl Rove. I’m serious, Steve King — I think Karl Rove’s name, I think his organization are poison in conservative and Republican circles in many respects.”

At the very close of his program, Levin challenged Rove to give it his best shot.

“Bring it on, Karl baby,” Levin added. “Bring it on, doughboy. Bring on your little whiteboard. We’re ready.”

Read more: http://goo.gl/HuQE8


THE BLAZE
Michelle Malkin Tears Into Celebrities: Obama Ain’t Your Daddy, Boyfriend or God
by Jason Howerton
February 7, 2013

Conservative columnist and Fox News contributor Michelle Malkin, like many Americans, were shocked when actor Chris Rock referred to President Barack Obama as “our boss” and the “dad of the country” on Wednesday. In reality, the president of the United States is an elected official who represents the American people — so they are actually the president’s boss.

“That was a bizarre little appearance there,” Malkin said. “It looked like a hostage video to me.”

She went on: “Maybe it’s dawning on him in some sector of his brain that this is not good for his career…I don’t know a dad who wears mom jeans. So America’s dad wears mom jeans.” Malkin was referring to Obama’s fashion sense, which conservatives have sometimes mocked.


Malkin then focused more on celebrities in general who seem to glorify Obama to the point that they may need “therapy.”

“More importantly, we have Chris Rock treating Obama as his father. Sandra Fluke treating Obama as her boyfriend, and Jamie Foxx who said during the campaign that Obama was our ‘lord and savior.’ These people need group therapy,” she added.

However, she did commend actor Bruce Willis for shooing some “common sense” on the issue of guns. The “Die Hard” star recently came out against gun control.



Thursday, January 31, 2013

January 31, 2013


NEWSMAX
Obamacare Glitch: Some Families to be Priced out of Health Coverage
by Associated Press
January 30, 2013

Some families could get priced out of health insurance due to what's being called a glitch in President Barack Obama's overhaul law. IRS regulations issued Wednesday failed to fix the problem as liberal backers of the president's plan had hoped.

As a result, some families that can't afford the employer coverage that they are offered on the job will not be able to get financial assistance from the government to buy private health insurance on their own. How many people will be affected is unclear.

The Obama administration says its hands were tied by the way Congress wrote the law. Officials said the administration tried to mitigate the impact. Families that can't get coverage because of the glitch will not face a tax penalty for remaining uninsured, the IRS rules said.

"This is a very significant problem, and we have urged that it be fixed," said Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA, an advocacy group that supported the overhaul from its early days. "It is clear that the only way this can be fixed is through legislation and not the regulatory process."

But there's not much hope for an immediate fix from Congress, since the House is controlled by Republicans who would still like to see the whole law repealed.

The affordability glitch is one of a series of problems coming into sharper focus as the law moves to full implementation.

Starting Oct. 1, many middle-class uninsured will be able to sign up for government-subsidized private coverage through new healthcare marketplaces known as exchanges. Coverage will be effective Jan. 1.

Low-income people will be steered to expanded safety-net programs. At the same time, virtually all Americans will be required to carry health insurance, either through an employer, a government program, or by buying their own plan.

Bruce Lesley, president of First Focus, an advocacy group for children, cited estimates that close to 500,000 children could remain uninsured because of the glitch. "The children's community is disappointed by the administration's decision to deny access to coverage for children based on a bogus definition of affordability," Lesley said in a statement.

The problem seems to be the way the law defined affordable.

Congress said affordable coverage can't cost more than 9.5 percent of family income. People with coverage the law considers affordable cannot get subsidies to go into the new insurance markets. The purpose of that restriction was to prevent a stampede away from employer coverage.

Congress went on to say that what counts as affordable is keyed to the cost of self-only coverage offered to an individual worker, not his or her family. A typical workplace plan costs about $5,600 for an individual worker. But the cost of family coverage is nearly three times higher, about $15,700, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

So if the employer isn't willing to chip in for family premiums — as most big companies already do — some families will be out of luck. They may not be able to afford the full premium on their own, and they'd be locked out of the subsidies in the healthcare overhaul law.

Employers are relieved that the Obama administration didn't try to put the cost of providing family coverage on them.

"They are bound by the law and cannot extend further than what the law provides," said Neil Trautwein, a vice president of the National Retail Federation.

Read more: http://goo.gl/5RTYl


TOWNHALL
Gun Control Takes Center Stage
by Bob Barr
January 30, 2013

The race to further the gun-control agenda in the wake of last month’s tragic shooting by a crazed gunman in Newtown, Connecticut is moving into high gear. The Grand Old Lady of Gun Control, California Senator Diane Feinstein, last week introduced a bill that not only seeks to reinstate the 1994 “Federal Assault Weapons Ban” (AWB), but goes far beyond the scope of the earlier law (which expired a decade later) in undermining Second Amendment protections for law abiding Americans.

Feinstein’s proposal specifically targets 157 modern sporting rifles -- or, as she almost gleefully refers to them, “assault weapons.” In addition to these firearms, the California liberal’s bill prohibits the sale, transfer, manufacture and importing of semi-automatic rifles and pistols able to accept detachable magazines, and which have at least one cosmetic “military” characteristic (the “Clinton Gun Ban” only banned those types of rifles with at least two such characteristics). The bill goes on to outlaw magazines with capacities greater than 10-rounds, and bans the sale or transfer of larger, grandfathered magazines.

Don’t even think about trying to get a semi-automatic shotgun with a rocket launcher attached; Feinstein specifically listed those as well.

By now, Americans should realize that gun bans such as Feinstein’s have little to do with stopping crime or solving the plague of gun violence. As Feinstein herself said, the goal is eventually to “dry up the supply of these weapons over time,” and completely remove them from our society. In other words: take them out of the hands of the millions of law-abiding citizens who use them without incident every year; and leave the military and law enforcement -- and criminals -- with a monopoly as such firearms and ammunition clips.

Following the Clinton Gun Ban’s expiration in 2004, the federal Centers for Disease Control (CDC) studied the results. Unsurprisingly, they found “insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes.” Additionally, the National Criminal Justice Reference Service reported “the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.”

Gun control advocates, of course, remain undeterred. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, “they may trip over the truth, but get right back up, simply dust themselves off, and keep right on going.”

Read more: http://goo.gl/8YKoY


THE WEEKLY STANDARD
Government Report: Women in Combat to Cost Money
by Jeryl Bier
January 31, 2013

Ever since outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced a week ago that the U.S. military would lift its ban on women in combat roles, the debate, which has been simmering for decades, boiled up again. Much of the argument has centered on cultural, social, and morale-related effects that such a change would bring about, though other practical issues have been raised as well. However, a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report released just this week may bring some other considerations to the fore, among them, the financial impact.

According to the introduction to the GAO report, the National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2012 charged the GAO with conducting “a review of the female-specific health care services provided by DOD to female servicemembers...”  Though not directly addressed by the GAO, the report raises a perhaps unanticipated consequence of lifting the ban on women in combat. With an increasing number of women in combat units, as well as presumably an overall increase in women enlisting in the service now that more positions will be open to them, there may be a corresponding increase in health-related costs. For example, the report says:

DOD has put in place policies and guidance that include female-specific aspects to help address the health care needs of servicewomen during deployment. Also, as part of pre-deployment preparations, servicewomen are screened for potentially deployment-limiting conditions, such as pregnancy, and DOD officials and health care providers with whom GAO met noted that such screening helps ensure that many female-specific health care needs are addressed prior to deployment.

Read more: http://goo.gl/lCsJy



Monday, January 21, 2013

January 21, 2013


MONEYMAX
Preparing for the Unthinkable: A US Default?
by Thomson/Reuters
January 20, 2013

Squabbling in Washington over the debt ceiling is again raising the specter that the United States may be forced to delay payments on its debt.

While the stigma of a default would be damaging enough to investor sentiment, the chaos from a breakdown in financial markets' systems that might result would be even scarier.

A failure to make payments on U.S. Treasurys, however brief, would create widespread damage in short-term funding markets, which are crucial to daily operations of financial institutions, investment firms and many corporations, said analysts and investors.
Editor's Note: How You Lost $85,000 During the Last Decade. See the Numbers.

The U.S. has defaulted once before, in 1979, when lawmakers were blamed in part for allowing negotiations to go down to the wire before raising the debt ceiling.

After that, back-office errors at the Treasury, caused the government to be late in redeeming three series of Treasurys bills, according to an academic paper by Terry Zivney and Richard Marcus published in the Financial Review in 1989. The failure caused rates to rise, and the government faced lawsuits from investors hurt by the delays in repaying the bonds, they said.

Markets now are far more complicated. Battles over ownership, interest paid or owed and a host of other issues relating to the transfer of the securities would likely be mired in legal disputes. U.S. debt is also considerably higher, and there is greater foreign ownership of Treasurys. The economy is also more vulnerable, making the risk of a creditor exodus a far more damaging prospect for the country.

"The minute we default, there would be a complete collapse in the bond market," said Peter Schiff, chief executive officer of Euro Pacific Capital and a critic of U.S. government spending habits.

That would leave the U.S. struggling to refinance more than $4.6 trillion that come due within two years, including $3 trillion of Treasurys due to mature in 2013.

In the event of a default, confusion would be rampant as trading systems struggle to identify, transfer and settle bonds that have matured but have not been repaid. Interest rates would surge and investors would likely sell stocks and commodities as they fled risky assets, analysts said.

But that doesn't mean investors would necessarily run to the safety of Treasurys. Many U.S. government bonds could be shunned as investors worry about which issues are in default — even longer-dated issues that could have a coupon payment due that would potentially be in jeopardy.

A default could also trigger a wider paralysis in the financial system that could quite quickly stall the economy, as happened at the height of the financial crisis in September 2008.

For starters, money market funds are not allowed to hold defaulted collateral. These funds pulled back on making loans in 2011, when the ceiling was last an issue, and some analysts fear this time could be worse, potentially creating broad funding problems and send the cost of borrowing in short-term markets — including those in repurchase agreements or loans based on Libor — surging.

The U.S. Treasury hit its $16.4 trillion debt ceiling — the legal amount it is allowed to borrow — on New Year's Eve. The Treasury Department will run short of funds as early as mid-February, so legislation is needed to increase the borrowing limit. This had been a formality for years but turned into a political standoff between congressional Republicans and the White House over government spending levels in the summer of 2011. The resulting battle roiled markets concerned about U.S. political gridlock and its impact on the economy.

The likelihood of a default on U.S. Treasurys has in the past been seen as so low that many parts of the market fail to even account for it in planning and paperwork. For example, unlike other debt, such as corporate bonds, Treasurys documentation has no grace period to make up for missed interest or principal payments.

Many banks and investors may not even have the systems needed to screen out which Treasurys have principal or interest payments due that are most at risk of not being paid.

"No one is going to build a system to assume you have a defaulted Treasury floating around there; it's not a baseline assumption," said Michael Cloherty, head of U.S. interest rate strategy at RBC Capital Markets in New York.

Treasury bills maturing at the end of February and in March are most vulnerable to default, though analysts said hundreds of other issues also have coupon payments due at the end of February. Rates on some short-term debt maturing in that time have risen and now yield more than similar debt maturing in April, a sign that a dislocation has started.

Read more: http://goo.gl/EEjzi


TOWNHALL
Rand Paul: GOP Must Evolve
by Kevin Glass
January 20, 2013

Rising GOP star Rand Paul made some surprising comments about his own party in an interview on Sunday, acknowledging the GOP's recent public image struggles and the need for a kind of evolution.

Speaking to a New York City radio station, Paul said "we are not popular" while pointedly noting the party's struggles in New England and on the west coast.

"We think the Republican Party needs to evolve and adapt, or we are going to become a permanent minority party... we think a little more of a libertarian Republican, someone who is a strict constitutionalist but also believes in a strong, defensive military but not necessarily in an overly aggressive or bellicose let’s get involved in everybody’s civil war military, I think that has more appeal to independents and some people who have given up in the Republican Party."

The Kentucky Senator has been often mentioned in speculation about frontrunning 2016 GOP candidates. Whether Paul will throw his hat in the ring is obviously still to be determined, but his willingness to criticize his own party has never been hidden.

Read more: http://goo.gl/Od47a


NATIONAL REVIEW
Dems Wary of Gun Control 
Gun-control legislation could give some Democratic senators a chance to show they’re independent.
by Katrina Trinko
January 21, 2013

While Democrats have the majority with 55 senators, not all of them appear open to gun-control measures. Earlier this month, freshman senator Heidi Heitkamp (D., N.D.) expressed concern that the White House’s gun-control proposals were too “extreme.” Heitkamp’s concern isn’t shocking. She, like ten other Democrats in the Senate, currently holds an “A” rating from the National Rifle Association. For these senators, seven of whom represent states that voted for Mitt Romney in the election, demonstrating independence from the Democratic party on gun control can help them win votes.

Some of these senators, despite their past voting records, are suggesting a new openness this time around. Senator Mark Warner of Virginia said last month: “I’ve got an A rating from the NRA. But the status quo isn’t acceptable. . . . There’s got to be a way to put reasonable restrictions, particularly as we look at assault weapons, as we look at these fast clips of ammunition.” Joe Manchin, the West Virginia Democrat who famously shot the cap-and-trade bill in a 2010 ad and who also has an “A” rating from the NRA, said earlier this month that “we have to change the culture of mass violence we have,” although he emphasized that gun owners should be respected and that looking at how the nation treats the mentally ill should also be a priority.
However, Manchin isn’t running for reelection in 2014. (Warner is, but thanks to Virginia’s changing population, the state is becoming bluer, giving Warner political leeway on gun control.) In 2014, there will be as many as 21 Democrat senators running for reelection. (The exact number depends on who will retire and who won’t.) Three of them — Mark Begich of Alaska, Tim Johnson of South Dakota, and Warner — currently have an “A” rating from the NRA. Two more, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Mark Pryor of Arkansas, have ratings of “C” and “C-,” respectively. Most of their Democratic colleagues have “F”s.

Instead of pushing for new gun-control legislation, Begich last week issued a statement saying he supported “an increase in mental health services as well as strengthening the enforcement of laws already on the books.”

Other Democrats are walking the tightrope between supporting Obama’s gun-control initiatives and positioning themselves for a win in 2014. Take North Carolina senator Kay Hagan, who was elected in 2008. She currently has an “F” rating from the NRA, but gun-control issues have been on the back burner during her term. Now they’re not. In a statement, Hagan was non-committal about whether she would vote for Obama’s approach, calling for a “serious commonsense debate in Congress that looks at access to guns, access to mental health care and violent video games,” adding that “while respecting the rights of responsible gun owners, I am committed to working with my Republican and Democratic colleagues toward a comprehensive approach that ensures our communities are safe.”

North Carolina voted for Obama in 2008 but swung red in 2012 — and not just in the presidential race. In November, the Republican gubernatorial candidate won, as did nine of the 13 House candidates. John Dinan, a political-science professor at Wake Forest University, says that Hagan is likely hoping the gun-control legislation never comes up for a vote. “She’s been able to avoid taking a lot of tough votes because Senate majority [leader] Reid has been able to keep a lot of tough votes from having to be taken,” he comments. But if the legislation does “come to a vote, she’d probably want to split the difference and vote for some parts, and maybe not others.”

One Republican involved in North Carolina politics speculates that Hagan might see a potential upside in the legislation coming up for a vote. “She may want it to come up just because it gives her a chance to show some independence from the administration after four years of voting for Obamacare, for the stimulus, and for everything else. ” However, voting against gun-control measures could hurt her with donors.

Read more: http://goo.gl/rDaLw


Saturday, January 19, 2013

January 19. 2013


HUMAN EVENTS
GOP plays small ball (again)
by David Harsanyi
January 18, 2013

So House Republicans will vote next week on a bill that would raise the nation’s debt ceiling for three months. The catch? It will feature a provision that would stop all pay for members of Congress if the Senate doesn’t pass a budget. When we consider that the median wealth for a senator in 2009 was almost $2.38 million; well, this clause isn’t the most effective threat available to snap Harry Reid (worth between $3-$10 million) into action. The chances of the Senate passing it? Zero.

Strategically speaking, this is obviously another attempt to shift the public’s ire from Republicans to Senate Democrats on the ongoing cliff battles. I’m not sure it’s exactly a bad idea, but more than likely it is an ineffective one. The problem with this stuff is that it’s small ball and transparently political. It sounds like a stunt. (UPDATE: Not to mention, probably unconstitutional.)

In a statement released from Republican retreat in Virginia, Eric Cantor said: “The first step to fixing this problem is to pass a budget that reduces spending. The House has done so, and will again. The Democratic Senate has not passed a budget in almost four years, which is unfair to hardworking taxpayers who expect more from their representatives. That ends this year.”
Well, the last time the Senate passed a budget was April of 2009. And the habit is probably not going end this year.

Cantor might be right in substance, but everyone understands: 1 – Republicans were going to vote to raise the debt ceiling. All kinds of Republicans have openly said they’d do it. Whether you agree with taking a stand on the debt ceiling or not, to extract concessions from a president who offers so little, you have to be prepared to take the dive. 2 – Republicans aren’t making compelling big-picture arguments so there’s no way to win the small ones. Even if you believe, like I do, that conservatives are right on these budgetary issues, they’re not very convincing.

As Jonah Goldberg recently argued, the GOP’s problems do not stem from “being insufficiently conservative. Its troubles stem from it being insufficiently persuasive, not to its right flank but to the general public.” Want proof? Most polls – now, and during the debt ceiling showdown in 2011 – show that Americans oppose raising the debt ceiling. As you’ve no doubt heard, this is supposedly the position of the most extremist and radical elements in society. Yet, a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal Survey found that 45 percent of those polled say they will blame Republicans if the debt ceiling is not raised and the United States defaults. Only 33 percent would blame Democrats. That means there is a broad problem communicating to average, disinterested Americans a compelling reason to side with them. At some point, Republicans will have to take a stand, and with it the consequences.

Read more: http://goo.gl/FxdX4


PJ MEDIA
Nothing, and Maybe Worse: A President’s Nonsensical Gun Proposals - He knows not what he speaks.
by John Rosenberg
January 18, 2013

As far as I can tell, here is the totality of what President Obama proposed Wednesday to do about “assault weapons” and high-capacity magazines. (Actually, regarding those guns and magazines, he didn’t really propose to do anything; what he proposed for was Congress to do something — the same thing it did in 1994). In any event, here is the beginning, middle, and end of what he proposed:

Congress should restore a ban on military-style assault weapons, and a 10-round limit for magazines. (Applause.) The type of assault rifle used in Aurora, for example, when paired with high-capacity magazines, has one purpose — to pump out as many bullets as possible, as quickly as possible; to do as much damage, using bullets often designed to inflict maximum damage.

And that’s what allowed the gunman in Aurora to shoot 70 people — 70 people — killing 12 in a matter of minutes. Weapons designed for the theater of war have no place in a movie theater.
Here’s my recommendation: Congress should take the president literally, and do exactly what he says: nothing.

“Weapons designed for the theater of war” have the capability of firing automatically. Such weapons have been prohibited (except to collectors, who pay a very high license fee) since 1934. They are not available to the general public.

They have been used in no mass shootings, and no crime at all, for over 60 years.

Banning them again would ban no weapon currently in production or readily available anywhere. What weapons would the president’s “proposal” ban? Who knows? He certainly doesn’t. The 1994 law dealt with the fact that there really is no such thing as an “assault weapon” by naming a few specific weapons and by listing some required identifying features. For example: a pistol grip or a detachable magazine could qualify a gun as an “assault weapon.” But what would President Obama have Congress do about this rifle?

Note that this Mossberg MVP Varmint Rifle has a very distinctive pistol grip, and it also has a detachable box magazine. Many hunting rifles do, but this one is distinctive: it uses any magazines that will fit AR-15 rifles. It comes with a 10-rounder (of the same caliber, 5.56 NATO/ .223 Remington) that most AR-15s and other scary-looking “military style” weapons fire. Thus, it will accept the 20- and 30-rounders that Obama would like to prohibit.

Yet — since it is a bolt action and not a semi-automatic, this weapon would not be illegal under the terms of the 1994 law, even though it can be fired rapidly enough (as can pump action shotguns, also not banned in 1994) to do extensive damage quite quickly.
Would Obama have it be outlawed? Certainly, he doesn’t know.

The “one purpose” of the weapons used in Aurora (the movie theater in Colorado) and Sandy Hook, according to the president, is “to pump out as many bullets as possible, as quickly as possible.” This description does not distinguish those weapons from the millions of other semi-automatics (and high-capacity magazines) currently in the hands of law-abiding Americans.
The Washington Post reports that when the 1994 ban went into effect, “there were roughly 1.5 million assault weapons and more than 24 million high-capacity magazines in private hands” (and that was just “assault weapons” according to the limited definition of the 1994 ban — not all semi-automatics). There are many more now, and none of those weapons or magazines already produced were affected by the ban. Nor are the bullets those “assault weapons” fire — the .223 Remington — different in any way from those widely in use in all those other semi-automatic rifles.

The president’s reference to “bullets often designed to inflict maximum damage” presumably refers to hollow-points, bullets designed to expand on impact. But is the president seriously proposing to ban all hollow-point ammunition? If so, it is not accurate to say that his attempt to restrict “military style” weapons and limit the capacity of magazines would have no effect whatsoever on the likelihood or lethality of mass shootings. Indeed, banning hollow-points would almost certainly make future shootings — at least future shootings conducted with federally approved ammunition — much more lethal.

Solid bullets penetrate walls, doors, bodies, etc.; hollow points do not, or do so rarely.
In fact, limiting magazine size can also be predicted to cause more rather than fewer fatalities. As I argued here:

Indeed, a perfectly predictable but unintended consequence of banning high-capacity magazines would be to decrease the appeal of 9mm handguns and increase the popularity of more the powerful and lethal .40 and .45 caliber and .357 Magnum, since the main appeal of the 9mm has always been its higher-capacity magazines.

As with many “reforms,” the president’s proposals are sure to be ineffectual if implemented, and in some cases are far worse than doing nothing.

Read more: http://goo.gl/8HHve


REDSTATE
An interesting, if mildly depressing, exchange on Obamacare
by Moe Lane
January 18, 2013

Goodness gracious, but check this out. Background: Whole Foods CEO John Mackey called Obamacare first ‘socialist,’ then ‘fascist,’ then regretted calling it fascist because the Left is generally too ill-educated to understand the difference between National Socialism and economic fascism* -so they were thus all getting hung up in their own ignorance, and thus omitting to address Mackey’s point. Cue CNN Carol Costello, who gave a stunning demonstration of same.

So, once Mackey had dumbed it down again for the nice talking head, we get this exchange:
Costello then asked, “But why inject yourself into the debate over ObamaCare in the first place?” 
Mackey responded that he provides health insurance for 73,000 Whole Foods employees and some provisions of Obama’s health care law will raise his company’s costs. “It’s making it more difficult to provide the insurance at affordable rates to our team members, so I’m trying to protect them as well as I can,” he said. 
“I think, though, that many of your customers probably wouldn’t agree with you since, I don’t know, you kind of run a store that appeals to the more liberal in America in some ways,” Costello replied. 
“I don’t understand what your question or your point is,” Mackey said.
I suspect that Mackey was being nice. The question was Why are you publicly disagreeing with your customers on a political issue? and the point was HERETIC! UNBELIEVER! Which Mackey almost certainly knew, although I’m not sure that Carol Costello did.

Read more: http://goo.gl/MYwjH



Thursday, January 17, 2013

January 17, 2013


THE DAILY CALLER
FLASHBACK: In 1999, Obama wouldn’t support tougher prosecution for school shooters
by Vince Coglianese
January 16, 2013

In 1999, State Senator Barack Obama voted “present” on a bill that would require adult prosecution for discharging a gun in or near a school.

That legislation came as a response to the tragic Columbine High School shooting that year.

SB 759 provided that anyone 15 years of age or older charged with aggravated battery with a weapon in school or within 1,000 feet of a school would be charged as an adult.

It passed the Illinois State Senate in a 52-1 vote, with 5 members voting present — including Obama.

That vote followed a trend for the young lawmaker, whose controversial votes on crime legislation often raised eyebrows.

A Chicago Tribune editorial even accused Obama of being a “gutless sheep” for missing a vote on crime legislation in late 1999.

Read more: http://goo.gl/BH2ac


NATIONAL REVIEW
The War Between the Amendments - Expanded ideas of free speech have arguably encouraged mass violence.
by Victor Hanson
January 17, 2013

The horrific Newtown, Conn., mass shooting has unleashed a frenzy to pass new gun-control legislation. But the war over restricting firearms is not just between liberals and conservatives, it also pits the first two amendments to the U.S. Constitution against each other.

Apparently, in the sequential thinking of James Madison and the Founding Fathers, the right to free expression and the guarantee to own arms were the two most important personal liberties. But now these two cherished rights seem to be at odds with each other and have caused bitter exchanges between interpreters of the Constitution.

Many liberals believe there is no need to own semiautomatic assault rifles, magazines that hold more than ten bullets, or even semi-automatic handguns. They argue that hunters and sportsmen don’t need such rapid-firing guns to kill their game — and that slower-firing revolvers and pump- or bolt-action rifles are sufficient for home protection.

Implicit in the liberal argument for tighter gun control is the belief that the ability to rapidly fire off lots of bullets empowers — or indeed encourages — mass murderers to butcher the innocent.


Most conservatives offer rebuttals to all those points. Criminals will always break almost any law they choose. Connecticut, for example, has among the tightest gun-control laws in the nation. A murderer can pop in three ten-bullet clips in succession and still spray his targets almost as effectively as a shooter with a single 30-bullet magazine. Like a knife or bomb, a gun is a tool, and the human who misuses it is the only guilty party. An armed school guard might do more to stop a mass shooting on campus than a law outlawing the shooter’s preferred weapon or magazine.
Homeowners should have the right to own weapons comparable to those of criminals, who often pack illicit semi-automatic handguns. If mass murders are the real concern, should ammonium nitrate be outlawed, given that Timothy McVeigh slaughtered 168 innocents in Oklahoma City with fertilizer? Banning semi-automatic weapons marks a slippery slope — each new restriction will soon lead to yet another rationalization to go after yet another type of gun.

Liberals counter that, just as free speech can be curtailed without infringing on the First Amendment (you cannot yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater), the constitutional right to bear arms is not infringed upon by the banning of semi-automatic, large-magazine firearms or by current prohibitions against heavy machine guns.

Conservatives reply that the chief purpose of the Second Amendment was not necessarily just to ensure personal protection from criminals or the freedom to hunt with firearms, but, in fact, to guarantee that a well-armed populace might enjoy some parity to an all-powerful, centralized government. To the Founders, the notion that individual citizens had recourse to weapons comparable to those of federal authorities was a strong deterrent to government infringing upon constitutionally protected freedoms — rights that cannot simply be hacked away by presidential executive orders.

That may be why the brief Second Amendment explicitly cites the desirability of a militia. By intent, it was followed by the Third Amendment, which restricts the rights of the government to quarter federal troops in citizens’ homes.

So which amendment should we begin pruning to deal with monsters like those at Newtown and Columbine?

The Connecticut shooter, Adam Lanza, was known to be mentally unstable. He sat for hours transfixed by violent video games — in a popular culture of cheap Hollywood mayhem where bodies implode on the big screen without anyone worrying over the effect of such gratuitous carnage on the viewer.

Just as semi-automatic weapons mark a technological sea change from the flintlock muskets of the Founders’ era, computer-simulated video dismemberment is a world away from the spirited political pamphleteering of the 18th century. If we talk of restricting the Second Amendment to protect us against modern technological breakthroughs, why not curtail the First Amendment as well?

How about an executive order to stop Hollywood’s graphic depictions of mass killings, perhaps limiting the nature and rationing the number of shootings that can appear in any one film? Can’t we ban violent video games altogether in the same way we forbid child pornography? Isn’t it past time for an executive order to curtail some of the rights of the mentally unstable — given that the gunmen in mass killings usually have a history of psychic disorders and often use mood-altering drugs?

If conservatives have ensured that there are millions of semi-automatic assault weapons in American society, liberals’ unprecedented expansions of free expression have led to an alarming number of unhinged Americans on our streets, nursed on sick games like Grand Theft Auto and hours of watching odious movies such as Natural Born Killers.

Legislating away the evil in men’s heads and hearts can be a tricky — and sometimes unconstitutional — business.

Read more: http://goo.gl/HWelA


HOTAIR
Obama unveils 23 executive actions on guns
by Erika Johnson
January 16, 2013

In full, the White House’s fact sheet and executive summary of the gun-control proposals Obama announced in his presser Wednesday afternoon, with a reinstatement of an assault-weapons ban, universal background checks, and 10-bullet limits on magazine capacities figuring prominently:




I don’t know what was harder to stomach about that speech: President Obama’s completely glib suggestion that “this is the land of the free and it always will be,” as if American exceptionalism is somehow a simple given that does not require constant vigilance, or his lamenting all of the divisiveness around gun-control politics but then turning around and blaming groups like the NRA for “ginning up fear” and daring not to abide by progressive notions of safety and security.

The quick reaction from Sen. Marco Rubio:
Rubio, often mentioned as a likely 2016 presidential candidate, said it would have been better if Obama had decided to announce his proposals without being accompanied by children. … 
“I think ultimately he has a right to do that, and I understand he has a right to do that,” Rubio said. “I think most of us would have preferred if it just had been a straightforward address to the country because it implies that somehow those of us who do not agree with his public policy prescriptions don’t equally care about children.” … 
Rubio called Democrats’ interest in pushing a new assault-weapons ban “misplaced.”
“I think it’s completely misplaced. Because here’s the issue in this public policy debate that’s different from others: There is a constitutional right to bear arms,” Rubio said. “I did not create that and he cannot erase that. It is in the Constitution. If they want to change the Constitution, if they want to believe the Second Amendment should not be in there or if they believe it should be rewritten in the 21st century then let them have the guts to stand up and propose that.”
Read more: http://goo.gl/m5Zri


Wednesday, January 16, 2013

January 16, 2013


NEWSMAX
Texas Lawmaker Seeks to Block New US Gun Restrictions
Stephen Feller
January 15, 2013

Republican Texas legislator Steven Toth plans to introduce a measure that would make it illegal to enforce any new federal firearms restriction within the Lone Star state, according to WOAI radio.

This would be the second such measure in the country after Wyoming state lawmaker Rep. Kendell Kroeker in his state, reported Huffington Post.

Both measures would impose a $50,000 fine and up to five years in prison for any official who attempts to enforce a federal ban on assault weapons or high-capacity gun magazines.

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution declares that federal law supercedes state law, however Toth sees the potential for new gun control laws as an opportunity to challenge that.

"At some point there needs to be a showdown between the states and the federal government over the Supremacy Clause," he said. "It is our responsibility to push back when those laws are infringed by King Obama."

Read more: http://goo.gl/KQofI


TOWNHALL
It Begins: New York State Passes First Gun Control Law Since Sandy Hook
by Daniel Doherty
January 15, 2013

Governor Andrew Cuomo (D-NY) has just passed into law (in the words of the Associated Press) “the nation’s toughest gun restrictions” since the deadly massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School:

Jumping out ahead of Washington, New York state enacted the nation's toughest gun restrictions Tuesday and the first since the Connecticut school massacre, including an expanded assault-weapon ban and background checks for buying ammunition.
Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed the measure into law less than an hour after it won final passage in the Legislature, with supporters hailing it as a model for the nation and gun-rights activists condemning it as a knee-jerk piece of legislation that won't make anyone safer and is too extreme to win support in the rest of the country.

"Common sense can win," Cuomo said. "You can overpower the extremists with intelligence and with reason and with common sense."

Owners of an estimated 1 million previously legal semiautomatic rifles, such as the Bushmaster model used to kill 20 children and six adults in Newtown, Conn., a month ago, will be allowed to keep their weapons but will have a year to register them with police. The sale of any more such weapons is prohibited.

"When there's a pileup of events, when the federal government does not do it, the state of New York has to lead the way," said state Assemblyman Joseph Lentol, a Brooklyn Democrat and co-sponsor.

Meanwhile, as Katie noted earlier, the White House plans to unveil new federal gun-control "proposals" Wednesday morning:

President Obama will unveil a sweeping set of gun-control proposals at midday Wednesday, including an assault weapons ban, universal background checks and limits on the number of bullets that ammunition clips can hold, according to sources familiar with the plans.

The announcement, which press secretary Jay Carney said is scheduled for about 11:45 a.m. at the White House, is also expected to include a slate of up to 19 executive actions that the Obama administration can take on its own to attempt to limit gun violence.

The White House has invited key lawmakers as well as gun-control advocates to appear at Wednesday’s policy rollout, according to two officials who have been invited to the event.

Joining Obama and Vice President Biden for the announcement will be children from across the country who wrote Obama letters after last month’s elementary school shooting in Newtown, Conn., Carney said.

In typical fashion, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) is taking the president’s soon-to-be-released “executive actions” very seriously. How? By accusing him of acting like a “king” -- and vowing to expose his monarchical tendencies in the upper chamber, or something:

Saying President Barack Obama is acting like a "king" by threatening to take executive action on gun laws, Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul cautioned the president to be ready for a fight on Capitol Hill.

"I'm against having a king," he said Tuesday in an interview in Jerusalem with the Christian Broadcasting Network. "I think having a monarch is what we fought the American Revolution over and someone who wants to bypass the Constitution, bypass Congress - that's someone who wants to act like a king or a monarch."

Stay tuned. Wednesday's going to get interesting.

Read more: http://goo.gl/3cvkU


THE BLAZE
NRA Blasts ‘Elitist’, ‘Hypocrite’ Obama in Scathing New Video
by Jason Howerton
January 15, 2013

The National Rifle Association on Tuesday provided TheBlaze an exclusive look at its new video, which criticizes President Barack Obama’s opposition to having armed guards in more schools across the United States. The gun rights organization refers to the commander-in-chief as a “hypocrite” and an “elitist” in the scathing production.

Noting that Obama’s children are protected by armed guards at their school, the video asks: “Are the president’s kids more important than yours?”

“Mr. Obama demands the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes, but he’s just another elitist hypocrite when it comes to a fair share of security,” the video adds.

“Protection for their kids and gun free zones for ours,” the video concludes.


An NRA spokesperson told TheBlaze via email that the organization will also release a series of videos in addition to the one above following a statement later today. Visit NRAStandAndFight.com for more information.

Read more: http://goo.gl/La9bp


Thursday, December 27, 2012

December 27, 2012


WALL STREET JOURNAL
The Biggest Cliff of All
by Daniel Henninger 
December 26, 2012

If you're looking for optimism as the world turns toward 2013, stay up late watching paid-for television explaining how to turn wrinkles into miracles. Past that, my own reservoir of uplift is a bit dry this year.

A famous and successful American optimist, Ronald Reagan, put his finger closer to the problem when he suggested there was little limit to what people could accomplish if government would get out of the way. As Barack Obama flies from Hawaii's beaches to Washington's cliff, there may be four or five liberals who've come to agree with the Gipper.

Indeed, a reality has become too obvious for the world's dazed inhabitants not to notice: The greatest threat to the upward arc of human progress is the collapse of public policy making. That is the biggest cliff of all.

Governments are giving government a bad name.

Japan's once-thriving economy has been in the dumpster for years. California, said to be the world's sixth-largest economy, is joining Japan in decline. The euro crisis, now in its third year, is less a crisis than a chronic condition of policy failure across Western Europe. As to America's fiscal cliff, no comment.

Then came the Newtown massacre. A few days after this event, a familiar American policy-making consensus called for federal gun-control laws. More precisely, they want Congress to re-pass the ban on big, dramatic-looking assault-type weapons that existed from 1994 until the law sun-setted in 2004.

Government, for the past 80 years or so, has seen its purpose as mainly to "respond" to society's failures the moment they occur or whenever they are imagined. Adam Lanza killed with guns, so modern policy-making logic posits that government must pass a law. Whether that law will accomplish its goal is . . . irrelevant.

Policy making has become an activity that supports the genetic and financial needs of policy makers and their follower tribes. The community's role, we've lately learned, is to provide revenue. Medicaid, for example, is medical care for the poor. As administered by the policy professionals, it has been allowed to become awful.

The experience with guns is hardly better. In November 2011, the National Institute of Justice convened its Firearms and Violence Research Working Group to examine what the best research reveals about reducing gun-related violence. In 2005 the National Research Council produced a 250-page study of this subject. Both concluded that the quality of data about gun violence and prevention programs is poor, and that it is possible to reach very few policy conclusions about what works or not.

Programs and laws abound already. For years the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has run the National Tracing Center that operates the firearms eTrace system. Every new U.S. firearm goes into the eTrace system from point of manufacture to first retail sale. But past first sale, tracing guns or bullets has proved impossible.

A real-world look at where killers and other career criminals get guns emerged in October when the New York Police Department put on display 154 guns—most of them bizarre-looking handguns—that it obtained in a high-risk sting operation in Brooklyn. Incidentally, these police antigun efforts are about the only program that research has identified as effective.

Buying or possessing a gun legally in New York City is so difficult that it is a non-subject for most New Yorkers. So where did the NYPD get these guns? A Mr. Kerwin "Trini" Gobin allegedly sold undercover cops 87 of the weapons, including a Sten machine gun able to fire 550 rounds per minute. Machine guns have been illegal since the 1930s. But not in Trini Gobin's world. The illicit firearms market is global. Canada, Australia and New Zealand are all wrestling with how to control black-market gun traffic after recent outbreaks of firearm violence, much of it gang-related.

A consensus has formed around the unacceptability of young people being killed by guns—as bystanders in the inner cities or as mass-murder victims in the suburbs and on campuses. Policy making today ordains that we pass laws no matter how little we know and ignore what we've already learned.

After Newtown happened, mental-health experts pointed out the hardly disputed linkage between violent behavior and some untreated or poorly medicated patients who have a severe mental illness. But legislation to monitor or mandate effective treatment for individuals already identified as dangerous is frequently voted down by various civil libertarians. Public programs that exist are often poorly administered.

Government's problem for a great many people around the world today is that its advocates are enacting policies that do damage or don't work. The public record of national governments—America's and others'—as we approach the new year calls to mind the minimalist optimism of a prescient book title from the 1960s: "Been Down So Long It Looks Like Up to Me."

Read more: http://goo.gl/ejRqA


HUMAN EVENTS
Geithner: Treasury runs out of cash Monday
by Neil W. McCabe
December 26, 2012

The 75th man to hold the office of Treasury Secretary informed congressional leaders from both parties by a letter dated today that the U. S. Treasury would hit its debt limit Dec. 31.

As of Dec. 24, the national debt stood at $16,337,556,561,533.65.

The current debt ceiling is: $16,394 trillion.

“Under normal circumstances, that amount of headroom would last approximately two months.  However, given the significant uncertainty that now exists with regard to unresolved tax and spending policies for 2013, it is not possible to predict the effective duration of these measures,” wrote Timothy F. Geithner, who served as the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York prior to his current posting.

Geithner said the reason for the short notice and the short leeway is the confusion caused by the failure of President Barack Obama and the Congress to resolve tax and spending issues regarding what has become known as the “fiscal cliff,” the mandatory spending cuts and tax increases written into the Budget Control Act passed in August 2011.

800px-US_Public_Debt_Ceiling_1981-2010

“If left unresolved, the expiring tax provisions and automatic spending cuts, as well as the attendant delays in filing of tax returns, would have the effect of adding some additional time to the duration of the extraordinary measures,” Geithner said.

Speaker John A. Boehner (R.-Ohio) released a joint statement today, before the Geithner debt ceiling letter was released, with the other members of the GOP House leadership team: Rep. Eric I. Cantor (R.-Va), the House Majority Leader, Rep. Kevin O. McCarthy (R.-Calif.), the House Majority Whip and Rep. Catherine McMorris Rogers (R.-Wash.) stating his case for resolving the fiscal cliff.

The House Republicans have already acted to meet the crisis, he said.

“The House has acted on two bills which collectively would avert the entire fiscal cliff if enacted.  Those bills await action by the Senate,” he said.

“If the Senate will not approve and send them to the president to be signed into law in their current form, they must be amended and returned to the House,” he said.

The House will act, but the Senate, controlled by Democrats, must act first, the Speaker said.

Boehner said he and the House GOP will continue to communicate, but they are convinced the problem that the governement spends too much, not that the people are taxed too little.

Geithner sent his letter to all Capitol Hill leaders,  including Boehner, House Minoity Leader Nancy P. Pelosi (D.-Calif.), Senate Minority Leader A. Mitchell McConnell Jr. (R.-Ky.), Rep. Sander M. Levin (D.-Mich.), the ranking member on the House Ways and Means committee; Sen. Max S.Baucus (D.-Mont.), the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R.-Utah), the ranking member on the Senate Finance Committee, recieved the same letter as well as individual members of the outgoing 112th Congress. The 112th Congress expires Jan. 3.

The text of the letter sent to Sen. Harry Reid (D.-Nev.), the senate majority leader is below:

December 26, 2012
The Honorable Harry Reid
Majority Leader
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
 
Dear Mr. Leader:
I am writing to inform you that the statutory debt limit will be reached on December 31, 2012, and to notify you that the Treasury Department will shortly begin taking certain extraordinary measures authorized by law to temporarily postpone the date that the United States would otherwise default on its legal obligations.
These extraordinary measures, which are explained in detail in an appendix​ to this letter, can create approximately $200 billion in headroom under the debt limit. Under normal circumstances, that amount of headroom would last approximately two months. However, given the significant uncertainty that now exists with regard to unresolved tax and spending policies for 2013, it is not possible to predict the effective duration of these measures. At this time, the extent to which the upcoming tax filing season will be delayed as a result of these unresolved policy questions is also uncertain. If left unresolved, the expiring tax provisions and automatic spending cuts, as well as the attendant delays in filing of tax returns, would have the effect of adding some additional time to the duration of the extraordinary measures. Treasury will provide more guidance regarding the expected duration of these measures when the policy outlook becomes clearer.
Sincerely, 
Timothy F. Geithner
Read more:  http://goo.gl/Aoz67

Monday, December 17, 2012

December 17, 2012


THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
Town United by Grief Searches for Answers
by Tamer El-Ghobashy, Matthew Dolan and Josh Dawsey
December 16, 2012

SANDY HOOK, Conn.—President Barack Obama spoke of every parent's grief and singled out the bravery of teachers who tried to save children from a gunman's attack on a Newtown, Conn., elementary school.
"I am very mindful that mere words cannot match the depths of your sorrow, nor can they heal your wounded hearts. I can only hope that it helps for you to know, that you're not alone in your grief. That our world, too, has been torn apart," Mr. Obama said at an emotional interfaith prayer service Sunday evening. "Newtown, you are not alone."

Before the speech, the president met with victims' families and first responders in six classrooms set aside in Newtown High School.

The president said the nation was failing to protect its children and that he would commit to an effort to prevent such shootings. He concluded the 19-minute address by reading the first names of each child who was killed.

Earlier on Sunday, authorities said the gunman who killed his mother at home and then fatally shot 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School had hundreds of rounds of unspent ammunition when he apparently heard the approach of police sirens and shot himself.

Authorities investigating how 20-year-old Adam Lanza allegedly carried out the killings Friday morning said it could take weeks to draw a clear picture of what motivated the reclusive man to target two first-grade classrooms in one of the worst mass shootings in U.S. history.

As parents and local townspeople mourned the loss Sunday of the gunman's 27 victims, Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy suggested in an interview on ABC the toll could have been even greater. "We surmise that it was during the second classroom episode that he heard responders coming and apparently at that, decided to take his own life," he said.

Some residents seeking comfort in church services Sunday at St. Rose of Lima Roman Catholic Church were evacuated around 12:30 p.m. after "a menacing call that threatened to disrupt the Mass in a violent way," said Brian Wallace, a spokesman for the Diocese of Bridgeport. The church campus was closed for the rest of the day without incident.

Police investigators, meanwhile, worked to reconstruct the movements of the suspected attacker, beginning with interviews of two adults who were shot and wounded at the elementary school, said a spokesman for the Connecticut State Police. Detectives next move to the task of interviewing the rest of the many witnesses from the school, which enrolled about 600 students and employed approximately 40 teachers.

"Our goal is to answer every single question," state police spokesman Lt. J. Paul Vance said. "It's a huge case, we're using every single resource and our goal is to paint a complete picture so that we all know…exactly what happened here."

Mr. Lanza emptied multiple high-capacity magazines from an assault rifle that was registered to his mother, 52-year-old Nancy Lanza, Lt. Vance said. Each magazine was capable of carrying 30 rounds, he said.

Churches in and around Newtown, Conn., held vigils and special services to help comfort those affected by the shootings that took place at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Video by WSJ's Evan Simon.

A law-enforcement official said the rifle used in the campus attack was a Bushmaster XM-15 model, an assault rifle popular for its light weight and reliability. A similar model was used in the July mass shooting at a Colorado theater that killed 12 people.

Police also found two handguns, a Glock 10mm and a Sig Sauer 9mm, and additional magazines for each weapon containing hundreds more bullets at the school, Lt. Vance said. Ms. Lanza was shot several times in the head at her home before the school attack, authorities said. A shotgun was recovered in a car the gunman used to drive to the school, he said.

Authorities said it would be weeks before they issue a final report, involving about 250 investigators. But interviews with eyewitnesses, police reports and a 40-minute, chaos-filled recording of one of the emergency response calls outlined how the attack unfolded.

At approximately 9:30 a.m. Newtown Police received a 911 phone call.

"Call indicates she thinks someone is shooting in the building," a public safety official said at the start of the recording. Another voice chimed in: "Units responding to the Sandy Hook school. The front glass has been broken, and they're unsure why."

Mr. Lanza had shot his way into the school through a plate-glass partition next to a locked front door, Mr. Malloy said. Soon, the halls were filled with the sound of children screaming. Then the voices fell quiet, "and all you could hear was the shooting," said school therapist Diane Day.

Principal Dawn Hochsprung and psychologist Mary Sherlach, who were in a meeting with Ms. Day and others, left to investigate. Both were shot dead.

Someone turned on a campus loudspeaker system, which broadcast cries and screams that warned others, one teacher said.

First-grade teacher Kaitlin Roig, whose classroom was located near the school's entrance, said in a TV interview that she put a bookshelf in front of her classroom door and hustled her students into the bathroom.

Mr. Lanza moved past her room to two nearby first-grade classrooms, killing 20 children, two teachers, an aide and a therapist with the assault rifle. He used one of the handguns to kill himself with a single bullet to the head, according to a spokeswoman for the state medical examiner.

Asked about Mr. Lanza's mental state, Mr. Malloy said to NBC that "this is not a person who maintained normal relationships."

Mr. Lanza's mother was the first victim in the shooting spree in the sprawling home she shared with the suspected shooter in Newtown, which includes the village of Sandy Hook. Authorities discovered her death after the school killings.

Authorities, meanwhile, said Sunday they have begun returning the bodies of victims to their families.

Daniel Honan, whose Honan Funeral Home is on Main Street in Newtown, said he was handling the arrangements for 11 of the children killed. The company's online memory book shows 12 services were conducted in 2012.

"Basically we're going to be doing two a day," Mr. Honan said. "We're doing what we do, helping families to bury their dead and follow their wishes. This is great tragedy."

Read more: http://goo.gl/vOvEM


NEWSMAX
Gun Expert Lott: Let Teachers Carry Arms, Ban Gun-Free Zones to Halt Mass Shootings
by David A. Patten
December 15, 2012

Banning gun-free zones and allowing teachers to carry concealed weapons could help eliminate mass shootings at schools, John R. Lott, one of the nation's leading gun experts, tells Newsmax in an exclusive interview Saturday.

Lott, an author and college professor, told Newsmax that gun-free zones become “a magnet” for deranged killers who hope to burn their names into the history books by running up a big body count.

Lott’s landmark book "More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws" is in its 3rd edition. He told Newsmax there is a “very good chance” the Connecticut school shooting could have been averted, if teachers there were permitted to carry concealed handguns.

It is no accident, he said, that mass shootings repeatedly have occurred in designated gun-free zones, which attract lunatics looking to murder as many souls as possible before they turn their guns on themselves.

Newsmax: Dr. Lott, your work suggests people are more secure, rather than less so, when firearms are readily available in society.

Dr. Lott: Simply telling them to behave passively turns out to be pretty bad advice . . . By far the safest course of action for people to take, when they are confronting a criminal, is to have a gun. This is particularly true for the people in our society who are the most vulnerable.

Newsmax: The media typically spins these mass shootings as an American phenomenon. They suggest we ought to be more like Europe, with strong gun control, because then we would not have these problems. Is that true?

Dr. Lott: No. Europe has a lot of multiple victim shootings. If you look at a per capita rate, the rate of multiple-victim public shootings in Europe and the United States over the last 10 years have been fairly similar to each other. A couple of years ago you had a couple of big shootings in Finland. About two-and-a-half years ago you had a big shooting in the U.K., 12 people were killed.

You had Norway last year [where 77 died]. Two years ago, you had the shooting in Austria at a Sikh Temple. There have been several multiple-victim public shootings in France over the last couple of years. Over the last decade, you’ve had a couple of big school shootings in Germany. Germany in terms of modern incidents has two of the four worst public-school shootings, and they have very strict gun-control laws. The one common feature of all of those shootings in Europe is that they all take place in gun-free zones, in places where guns are supposed to be banned.

Newsmax: Can you give readers an example of an incident where a teacher or authority-figure with a gun was able to thwart a violent shooting?

Dr. Lott: There was the university case in the Appalachian law school. You had the K through 12 in Mississippi and the one in Edinboro, Pa. You had New Life Church [in December 2007] — you had 7,000 parishioners there when the person broke into the church with about a thousand rounds of ammunition.

But there was a woman there, a former Chicago police officer who had gotten a concealed handgun permit because she was being stalked by her ex-husband. She had asked permission from the minister there to be able to carry a concealed handgun. She was worried if she couldn’t carry it at the church there, that she would be vulnerable going to and from the church. She shot at him 10 times, wounding him, and he committed suicide . . . These types of cases occur all around us, and they usually don’t get much attention, especially if they are stopped before people are injured or killed.

Newsmax: How can society prevent such mass shootings, or are they avoidable at all?

Dr. Lott: About 75 percent of the time when these attacks occur, the killers themselves die at the scene. Even the times when they don’t die, it seems pretty clear their intent was to die, but they just couldn’t bring themselves to commit suicide, pull the trigger, and shoot themselves at the last moment.

But in their warped mind, what they want to do is commit suicide in a way that will get them attention, so people know who they were when they were here. I’s a pretty sick idea, but if you read the documents that they leave, the diaries and the video tapes, it is pretty clear that these guys know that they get more attention the more people they can kill.

Read more: http://goo.gl/aJ3El


TOWNHALL
Rep. Louie Gohmert: I Wish to God that the Principal Would Have Had an M4
by Leah Barkoukis 
November 16, 2012

Many people are insisting we all sit down and have a thoughtful, calm reflection on the Second Amendment after the Connecticut massacre. Others, particularly on the Left, are more forthright and are demanding more gun control. If we are to engage in the former, however, I want to share some of the arguments Rep. Louie Gohmert made today on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace.

The segment with Gohmert began with footage of Eric Holder saying we need to discuss who we are as a nation, talk about the freedom and rights we have, and how they can be used in a responsible way. In other words, he wants to talk about gun control. Rep. Gohmert’s response, which brought up Fast and Furious, was priceless:

“Well I think coming from him that’s really important to note coming from a man who’s in a department that forced the sale of guns to people that would bring about the death of people like Brian Terry and there should be national outrage about Mexicans, our neighbors, 200 or more that have been killed by the guns his department have forced to be sold, so he’s right. And Sen. Durbin is right but the conversation we’ve got to have has got to have everybody open-minded. I mean, we all react emotionally that’s why we’ve all shed tears…”

Wallace then brought up the Aurora movie theater massacre and Gohmert making the argument in its aftermath for more people to carry weapons to prevent a similar situation from happening. Wallace asks: “Do we really want folks in movie theaters, and shopping malls, and schools, armed?


Gohmert responds: “Once we have this actually open dialogue about the situation you find out…every mass killing of more than three people in recent history has been in a place where guns were prohibited, except for one. They choose this place. They know no one will be armed. You know, having been a judge, having reviewed photographs of these horrific scenes and knowing that children have these defensive wounds, gun shots through their arms and hands as they try to protect themselves and hearing the heroic stories of the principal lunging trying to protect…Chris, I wish to God she had had an M4 in her office locked up so when she heard gun fire she pulls it out and she didn’t have to lunge heroically with nothing in her hands, but she takes him out, takes his head off before he could kill those precious kids.”

Then the obligatory question by the media: Why do people need semi-automatic weapons? Wallace says these are weapons created for law enforcement, for the military, but why does the average person need these “weapons of mass destruction”?

Gohmert: Well, for the reason that George Washington said: A free people should be an armed people. It ensures against the tyranny of the government if they know that the biggest army is the American people, then you don’t have the tyranny that came from King George. That’s why it was put in there. Once you start drawing the line, where do you stop? And that’s why it is important to not just look emotionally – emotionally our reaction is to immediately say lets get rid of all guns…you do it as a judge. You react emotionally but you use your head and you look at the facts and the facts are that every time guns have been allowed, concealed carry have been allowed, the crime rate has gone down.

Read more: http://goo.gl/B9T6g