Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Obama Prepares for Next Gun Control Fight

Obama Prepares for Next Gun Control Fight

Meanwhile, study commissioned by his administration contradicts his agenda

In the twilight of his administration, President Obama is renewing his fight for stricter gun control laws.

Tuesday, President Obama will travel to his hometown Chicago. But he’s not there to visit family, the President is headed to Chicago for one reason — to renew the fight for gun control.

The LA Times reports President Obama will be speaking to the International Association of Chiefs of Police and there he will make his case for tougher gun laws.

Obama will talk about the need for tougher gun laws with police chiefs gathered in Chicago on Tuesday, aides say, as part of a broader conversation about violence and how police can work more effectively with their communities to combat it.

He’s traveling to Chicago simply because that’s the site of the annual gathering of the International Assn. of Chiefs of Police, but advisors say he’s well aware of the symbolism in returning to his hometown amid this debate.

Chicago has long been a battleground for both pro- and anti-gun forces. Three decades ago, in the wake of the assassination attempts on President Reagan and Pope John Paul II, the City Council banned new sales and registration of handguns in the city in 1982. Chicago was the first major city to take that step.

Now, with Obama renewing his rhetoric about more gun control in the wake of massacres at a church in South Carolina and a community college in Oregon and considering imposing gun safety rules by executive order, critics once again are pointing to the president’s hometown for proof of the folly.

According to Virginia Gun Rights:

Obama will have a receptive ear as many big city chiefs are in favor of gun control and the IACP has in the past endorsed such policies as banning modern sporting rifles. Obama’s remarks come however at a time when multiple polls of the public show Americans oppose stricter gun laws or that addressing mental health issues are more important.

After the mass shooting in Oregon, President Obama lashed out saying these types of instances had, “become routine.”

If only data supported President Obama’s second amendment loathing.

The results of a study conducted by the CDC at the behest of Obama administration contradict the President’s current gun control agenda. The CDC’s study concluded, “self-defense can be an important crime deterrent.” CNS News reported at the time [emphasis added]:

“Most felons report obtaining the majority of their firearms from informal sources,” adds the report, while “stolen guns account for only a small percentage of guns used by convicted criminals.”

Researchers also found that the majority of firearm deaths are from suicide, not homicide. “Between the years 2000 and 2010, firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearm-related violence in the United States.”

…The report expresses uncertainty about gun control measures, stating that “whether gun restrictions reduce firearm-related violence is an unresolved issue,” and that there is no evidence “that passage of right-to-carry laws decrease or increase violence crime.” It also stated that proposed “gun turn-in programs are ineffective.

And what about concealed carry permits? A study released by researchers at Texas A&M University last week revealed there is no correlation between Concealed Handgun Licenses and an increase in crime rates.

“The basic question underlying the hypotheses investigated in this research is simple — Is CHL licensing related in any way to crime rates?” the study reports. “The results of this research indicate that no such relationships exist.”

Phillips and his associates looked at over a decade of data on crime rates and concealed carry licenses in every county in Texas, Michigan, Florida and Pennsylvania.

“More people acquired concealed carry permits in counties where more businesses or individuals sold firearms,” the study reports. “The number of CHLs issued was driven more by the number of individuals or businesses offering handguns for sale (the supply of handguns) than by changes in the real threat of victimization as measured by county crime rates.”

Because it’s never a ballot winning initiative, Democratic candidates tend to shy away from second amendment encroachments during election years. Bucking the norm, presidential frontrunner, Hillary Clinton, said Australian-style gun confiscation would be “worth considering,” nationally.

Follow Kemberlee on Twitter @kemberleekaye

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Why does anybody care what this doofuss says about guns. Nothing new comes out of his piehole. He will never succeed in any of his gun grabbing schemes and neither will anyone else. After Sandy Hook, the idiots in the state legislature passed all sorts of gun control laws.

Most of the population ignored those laws and the cops said they weren’t going to enforce them. What if they passed a law and no one cared? That’s called the birth of liberty.

    MattMusson in reply to platypus. | October 26, 2015 at 1:25 pm

    Just remember that Obama can basically order banks not to do business with gun shops or gun makers. He can attack them with the IRS (with impunity). He can restrict the supply and sale of ammunition.

    (Boy it is good to be King!)

I’m going to leave this right here.

http://mallardfillmore.com/comics/october-26-2015/

I am old enough to remember hearing about the first school massacre, from the Tower at the University of Texas.

I notice that the Wikipedia article makes mention in passing of something significant, namely that civilians (students) retrieved their hunting rifles from their cars, and pinned him down enough to restrict his ability to continue killing.

“Approximately 20 minutes after first shooting from the observation deck, Whitman began to encounter return fire from both the police and armed civilians. One Texas Ranger used a student as spotter to help locate the sniper. At this point, Whitman chose to fire through waterspouts located on each side of the tower walls. This action largely protected him from gunfire below, but limited his range of targets.[64]”

Recently, a bunch of really stupid University of Texas professors demonstrated their ingratitude by announcing that they feel safer with all the students being unarmed. Odd, that.

Chicago has strict “gun control” laws already. We have a test case! So, what is the evidence say?

Oh, he gets heavily armed security and the citizens get heavily armed criminals. Sounds fair to O.

Let’s add this to the mix:

“Next weekend, 6,000 federal prisoners are set for release, one of the largest mass releases ever.”

http://www.npr.org/2015/10/25/451749820/doj-to-release-some-6-000-nonviolent-inmates-from-federal-prison

Now that felonious illegals run the streets of the “Welcoming City” of Chicago and elsewhere those proposed gun laws will definitely make them think twice-about not thinking first before they act.

Humphrey's Executor | October 26, 2015 at 1:16 pm

Since they can’t get past congress they’re going to have to use intentionally vague and open ended treaties to suppress the right to bear arms.

    1. Treaties need 2/3 of the senate to pass, which is usually harder to get than the simple majority in both houses that statutes need.

    2. Treaties are subject to the same restrictions as statutes; neither can infringe the right to keep and bear arms.

      DaveGinOly in reply to Milhouse. | October 27, 2015 at 12:56 am

      Correctamundo.

      “There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result. These debates as well as the history that surrounds the adoption of the treaty provision in Article VI make it clear that the reason treaties were not limited to those made in ‘pursuance’ of the Constitution was so that agreements made by the United States under the Articles of Confederation, including the important treaties which concluded the Revolutionary War, would remain in effect. It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights—let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition—to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions. In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V.”

      Justice Hugo Black
      Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957)

nordic_prince | October 26, 2015 at 1:21 pm

Can’t wait until that jackass is out of the White House ~

King Obama could not pass any phony gun control after the Sandy Hook shooting in the US Senate which was controlled by the democrats? All votes failed!

Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 (AWB 2013) The Assault Weapons Ban of 2013, failed on a vote of 40 in favor to 60 in opposition.

Manchin-Toomey background-check proposal The vote was 54 in favor to 46.(Short of the 60 votes needed)

Assault-weapons ban The vote was 40 in favor to 60 (not even close)

Limiting the size of ammunition magazines. The vote was 46 in favor to 54 (Short of the 60 votes needed)

The anti’s scream we must pass new gun control laws to stop
other Sandy Hook shootings.

Just one small problem NONE of the laws they tried to pass would stop Sandy Hook!!

Obama is a serial liar!
He attacks lawful gun owners when ever he can! This has NOTHING to do with “Gun Safety” or “Common Sense”. It’s part of the progressive plan to dis-arm people how ever they can! They don’t trust citizens with firearms!

This Communist Leader that we have who wants to be Dictator, Will do anything to ” Grab our Guns.” This is the first thing a Dictator does to grab Freedom from the people. He has shamelessly brought the families of the victims on AF1 to parade them to the MsM to pass anti-Freedom Laws.

Chiefs-of-Police are appointees of the mayor, so they will parrot the mayor’s line or be replaced. In the crime-infested big cities, guess who the mayors are? Right – Democrats. So naturally they are anti-gun. But ask the rank-and-file city policemen or sheriffs an they are mostly pro-gun as their positions are not dependent on a political party and can speak their true minds.
In any case, why doesn’t Obama, as the consummate community organizer he is, convene a convention of the criminal element in Chicago, who are the true gun-abusers, rather than speak to a collection of police chiefs yes-men?
I know, just dreaming!

The Texas A&M study contradicts itself. They say CHL licensing isn’t related to crime rates, and then say that counties with many licenses have lower crime rates. Which is it?

Perhaps those amongst the LI followers reading this article should look at the other side of the flipping coin of death in this country. The medical profession between the negligent practice of medicine and abortion clinics have terminated many more American lives than the firearms industry has in the measured period of time quoted in this article!!!

G. de La Hoya | October 26, 2015 at 6:28 pm

@ Paladin: Obama has no street cred to hold such a summit. In other words, he ain’t badass enough to hang with the big dogs. He never has & he never will. He will better prosper flailing from behind skirts & judicial robes.

Once you realize that Obama is not on our side, everything he does makes perfect sense. His stance on “gun control” has nothing to do with public safety or violence. It’s only about power and control. The obvious end game is the confiscation of all firearms, and the repeal of the 2nd Amendment. I would like to say that this will not happen in my lifetime, but one can never underestimate the stupidity of progressives (Moonbatus Americanus).

Henry Hawkins | October 26, 2015 at 8:54 pm

The Dems/Obama would take any gun control legislation they could get, of course, but the reason they keep bringing it up every several months is to gin up the liberal base and for fundraising, especially now that the 2016 cycle begins. They know they have little chance of actually passing anything, but that doesn’t mean they can’t exploit what they call a crisis. Even a fake crisis is ripe for exploitation.

‘“More people acquired concealed carry permits in counties where more businesses or individuals sold firearms,” the study reports. “The number of CHLs issued was driven more by the number of individuals or businesses offering handguns for sale (the supply of handguns) than by changes in the real threat of victimization as measured by county crime rates.”’

This makes it sound like “if you build it, they will come.” Building a store very rarely creates a demand where there previously was none. Every other retailer builds where there already is a demand. Most gun stores probably follow this model. It seems to me that the researchers have put the cart before the horse.

In the last 35 years, the homicide and violent crime rates have fallen 50%. During that same time, the number of firearms in private possession in this country has increased by tens of millions, and the number of concealed carry permit holders has increased by millions.

This does not prove that “more guns equals less crime” (correspondence is not necessarily indicative of causality – it could be mere coincidence), but it falsifies the proposition that “more guns equals more crime” without doubt.

The first responders to the Westgate Mall (Nairobi) attack were armed citizens, who went into action while the police were standing around outside, afraid to enter the mall:

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/09/20/nairobi-kenya-westgate-mall-attack-al-shabab/

Americans will not give up their weapons voluntarily. Ever. Period. The only recourse is to take them by force. That will spark a genuine revolution. The government will lose that fight. Period.

“Obama will have a receptive ear as many big city chiefs are in favor of gun control and the IACP has in the past endorsed such policies as banning modern sporting rifles.”

So long as they get to keep their own, because some animals are more equal than others.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend