Obama's New Executive Orders on Gun Control and Why the Liberal Mainsteam Media is a Farce

Reading this article by the New York Daily News, one would come away with the impression that Obama is doing all he can to combat gun violence in this country in bypassing Congress with two new executive orders. However, one would have to take the New York Daily News at face value in order to believe that. For those that really want to analyze the executive orders and their efficacy in combatting gun violence, these new executive orders make us wonder what planet this administration and the New York Daily News is from when they try to frame this as 'common sense' gun laws.

One of the executive orders now restricts the importation of military surplus firearms that have been sold overseas. While this sounds good, it really has zero effect on gun crime. Some might think that military surplus firearms refer to machine guns or 'weapons of war' that gun control proponents like to refer. True machine guns or modern weapons that our military use are already highly regulated and extremely difficult to buy. So much so, that what this executive order actually does is restrict the importation of your great grandfather's old rifle that he might have used in World War 2. How many gun crimes are committed with old World War 2 era rifles?

Obama's other executive order has to do with restricting NFA trusts. NFA items are those items like machine guns that require one to go through a thorough background check with the BATF in order to purchase as well as requiring a tax stamp. These items are highly regulated and the violation of NFA laws come with very harsh penalties. However this administration and the article would have us believe that criminals obtain machine guns and other NFA items through NFA trusts in order to obtain these highly regulated firearms without a background check. This claim is blatantly outlandish. Criminals do not go through NFA trusts to obtain firearms. Why would they? If they are interested in buying a machine gun from an associate, why would they go through legal channels to do it? Please Mr. Biden, explain to me how this is common sense.

The only thing these two executive orders accomplish for this administration is making it appear that this administration is addressing gun violence by targeting firearms that were never really used in gun crimes to begin with. In the end the only one that loses is law-abiding gun owners. Criminals will shrug and continue being criminals while this administration and gun control advocates pat themselves on the back.

Police Are Supposed to Help Us Right?

I would like to preface this post with the fact that I have the utmost respect for police officers. They have extremely difficult jobs, and they put their lives on the line day in and day out to uphold the law and maintain peace. With that said though, there is a reason why we hold police to a higher standard (or should hold them to a higher standard) than most other people. We do not expect that when we call the police to help in a particular situation that the police would actively contribute in bringing about the worst possible outcome of that situation. This story out of Arizona just makes me sick because that is exactly what happened.

Michael Angel Ruiz decided to climb on to the roof of a building for unknown reasons. He may have had personal problems, but he was known to have substance abuse issues. Police were called to the scene to assist in the situation. Ruiz was unarmed so in this instance the only danger he posed was to himself if he were to fall off of the roof and injure himself.

But when police arrived at the scene, they decided to use their taser on Ruiz multiple times to coax him off the roof. When Ruiz complied and dropped down onto a landing area, he was immediately met by multiple police officers with one of the officers placing him in a chokehold for minutes. Once Ruiz was cuffed (and unconscious), police carried Ruiz down the stairs of the landing without securing his head. During this time, Ruiz's head was allowed to smash against the stairs multiple times. When Ruiz arrived at the hospital, he was pronounced brain dead. Five days later, Ruiz's family decided to take Michael Angel Ruiz off of life support.

Though Michael Angel Ruiz posed a safety risk to himself, it looks like the greater risk to his safety in this case was that of police abuse and negligence. We can rest assured though that the police will investigate themselves in this matter, but as of this writing, I have not seen a statement by police indicating that any of the officers involved in this incident being placed on administrative leave pending the outcome of the investigation. They are still out there "serving" the public.

It's Official: Gun Control Advocates Want to Rely on Emotions Rather Than Reason

The Second Amendment Foundation recently got ahold of this document being distributed among groups that advocate for more gun control. The document outlines a strategy for engaging other people with the purpose of advancing gun control policy. I was not shocked upon discovering that the document emphasizes the use of emotional arguments rather than facts in trying persuade others to support stricter gun control.

This is something that many gun rights advocates have known for quite some time, in that arguments for gun control appeal to emotions rather than facts, but now we know officially that it is part of the strategy. With that aside though, there are still glaring falsities being put forth in the document, such as pushing ideas and statements that don't even make logical sense. When you apply critical thinking to some of their statements, we realize just how vapid their arguments are.

Here is one example of a ludicrous statement put forth:

"Our police officers are at risk every day when they confront criminals who are armed to the teeth with military-style weapons that are freely available."

Now let's put aside the hyperbole of "military-style" weapons for a moment. This statement wholly ignores that 'assault weapons' have been statistically shown to make up such a small percentage of crime that even banning these weapons outright would have little to no impact on crime. Criminals simply do not use these 'military-style' weapons. In addition to that, convicted criminals are already barred from purchasing firearms under existing laws, so one might wonder how exactly are they 'freely' available. 

While I applaud the authors of this document for creative use of language to form a powerful message, it just goes to show that they are trying to mislead and deceive the public. When people resort to  measures like this to push an agenda, reasonable people must question whether their argument has any merit or credibility.

On the topic of credibility, much of the document focuses on demonizing the NRA. This is a common tactic where one side will label an organization or institution as being representative of their opposition because it is easier to attack a faceless organization than to attack the millions upon millions of individuals who actually believe in what that organization stands for. 

The document readily admits that the NRA is a mainstream organization with a lot of support, but at the same time tries to demonize this institution. Furthermore, it outlines that gun control advocates should not get bogged down in an institution versus institution debate. With the recent reports that the gun control group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns has been misusing public resources for their own purposes,  losing members because they misrepresented themselves, and even went so far as trying to bribe members into staying in the group, it's no wonder that gun control advocates want to stay away from such discussions.

While I could refute much of the documents 'arguments' for gun control piece by piece, the big takeaway here is that gun control advocates' positions rely heavily on emotional impact rather than rational debate, and although many gun rights advocates already know this, we now have the document that actually confirms what we've suspected all along.

To Hollywood: Make Movies, Not Political Statements

Sometimes I wish that Hollywood stars would just keep quiet about their politicking and just make good movies. I already think about politics enough that I don't need to be reminded of it when I walk into a movie theatre. Matt Damon is just the latest example of what I mean by this.

When the weekend rolls around, by habit I check out what's new in the movie theatre that week. This week I see Elysium is opening up, and I was interested in seeing it as it received fairly good reviews on Rottentomatoes.com. However, I am then reminded that it stars Matt Damon who was in the news recently as being a hypocrite.

Education is a subject that I have a strong opinion on, as I believe the current system of education is deeply flawed. I won't get into those reasons in this post as they are irrelevant to the point here, but let me state that I am all for giving parents as many options as possible for educating their kids.

A while ago Matt Damon let it be known that he did not support school vouchers and charter schools, and instead deeply supported the public school system. While I don't agree with him, I respect that he has a right to his opinion.



However, recently Damon moved to Los Angeles, and lo and behold he has decided to enroll his kids in private schools rather than let them go to public school. So, he is ok with having the choice for his kids on which schools to enroll in, but not everyone else.

This is not the first time that Damon has been called out for his hypocrisy. On the topic of guns and gun control, Damon famously stated that he hated guns, and he recently appeared in the Demand A Plan video for more gun control. An actor who has made a career out of portraying gun violence on the movie screen is advocating for more gun control? Hypocrisy at it's worst.

To the fine actors of Hollywood, I recognize that you are entitled to your opinions no matter much I disagree with you. However, when you become a hypocrite to the level that you can't even follow through with the ideology that you shove in my face, then you are destroying whatever chance I have at enjoying your movies and your skills on the silver screen.

7 Gun Control Facts That Are Actually Myths

Dianne Feinstein introduced her Assault Weapons Ban fresh on the heels of Obama laying out his 23 executive orders to curb gun violence, and now gun control advocates are in full force laying out their arguments to restrict our Second Amendment rights. I am sure those on PolicyMic have heard the arguments before, but here we will lay out some of the most popular talking points in favor of more gun control and debunk those myths.

1. Myth: The Second Amendment does not guarantee the individual right to bear arms and only applies to a well-regulated militia.





In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment does apply to the individual's right to bear arms independent of any involvement in a militia. Many gun control advocates however point towards the phrase that the right does not extend to "dangerous and unusual weapons"; however, it does say that those weapons that are in "common use at the time" are protected. One would have to argue that semiautomatic rifles are not in common use depsite millions of them being in circulation in the United States alone.

2. Myth: More guns equals more gun crime.



A comprehensive Harvard study shows that the burden of proof that "more guns equal more deaths and fewer guns equal less death" has not been observed by evidence across a wide array of nations. This can also be seen in the United States over the past two decades, as more guns have gone into circulation while both the violent crime rate and homicide rate (including those committed with firearms) have declined dramatically.

3. Myth: The UK and Australia gun bans have reduced violent crime.



Both the UK and Australia instituted strict gun control legislation which basically eliminated private gun ownership in 1997. However, neither countries' legislation had an impact on lowering violent crime, and in both cases violent crime actually went up in the years following the enactment of the gun legislation.

Some gun control advocates, like Piers Morgan, would point towards the lower homicide rate of each country, but the fact of that matter is that both countries enjoyed the same lower homicide rates than the United States even before enacting their gun legislation, making those claims disingenuous.

Moreover, despite the UK having its gun ban, the violent crime rate is still far above that of the United States, and the country has also earned the title of violent crime capital of Europe.

4. Myth: Assault weapons are firearms that our military uses in war.



In 1988, the term assault weapon came into use to describe a broad array of semiautomatic firearms that looked like machine guns. These firearms being called assault weapons are not the same firearms that our military uses. The military uses firearms that are capable of "select-fire", meaning they have the ability to fire a single round or multiple rounds with each pull of the trigger (the M4A1). Civilian semiautomatic firearms can only do the former, not the latter (AR15).

Gun control advocates knowingly pushed the term assault weapon to gain public support against these firearms. John Sugarmann of the Violence Policy Center stated:

The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons — anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun — can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.

5. Myth: The 1994 Assault Weapon Ban didn't work because it wasn't strong enough.



The fact is that the Assault Weapons Ban did not work to reduce violent crime because the firearms that it targeted were used very rarely in criminal activity. In his 2004 study of the original Assault Weapons Ban passed in 1994, Koper pointed out:

"Similarly, the most common AWs prohibited by the 1994 federal ban accounted for between 1% and 6% of guns used in crime according to most of several national and local data sources examined for this and our prior study" and "the overwhelming weight of evidence from gun recovery and survey studies indicates that AWs are used in a small percentage of gun crimes overall."

6. Myth: You don't need an AR-15 because it has no legitimate purpose.



AR-15's can serve many purposes. Its utility and modular design is one of the reasons why the platform is so popular. As this New York Times article points out as well, the AR-15 can be used for competition shooting, target shooting, hunting smaller game (varmint hunting), as well as self-defense. Just ask the Korean shopkeepers during the L.A. riots of 1992.

7. Myth: 40% of firearms are sold without background checks.



This myth came from this 1997 study of a small sample of 251 interviews. 60% percent of the respondents in the study purchased their firearms through a retail store or pawn shop, which must be FFLs or licensed firearms dealers that conduct background checks. The assumption is that the remaining 40% did not go through an FFL and background checks.

This number runs into problems though, as the study explains that 3% were obtained through the mail, 4% from a gun show or flea market, 17% from a family member, 12% from a friend or acquaintance, and 4% other. However, it does not explicitly say that these transactions did not go through an FFL or background check.

The study concedes, for example, that the 3% who obtained a firearm in the mail probably went through an FFL dealer. Retailers at gun shows and flea markets who are FFL's are still required to run background checks as normal. Even firearms from family members, friends or acquaintances may still be required to go through an FFL depending on state law. One can see that the 40% number quickly falls apart.

Hopefully this will put to rest many of those talking points or myths that some have heard time and again regarding gun control. But with all of this said, what is there left to talk about? Oh right... mental health and the actual causes of violent crime.

Originally posted on PolicyMic.com - February 2013

Race Baiting - The Disturbing New Trend

People that know me know that I am a shooting enthusiast, and that I own a few firearms. There's nothing that I like more than just going to the shooting range on weekends to shoot some paper targets. Recently though, I came across an article in bloomberg.com that noted that gun magazines were missing pictures of minorities in their pages.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-30/guns-are-for-white-people.html

As an American of Chinese descent, it is appalling that opponents of firearms ownership seek to divide people along racial lines in order to drum up support for their political agendas, whether it be Stand Your Ground laws or gun control.

If I were to buy gun magazines, I want to read about guns and look at pictures of said guns. The last thing on my mind is whether there are enough asians pictured in the magazine. The people that use tactics to divide the public along racial lines are doing nothing to help society. They only seek to drum up support for their own political self interests. Make no mistake, these people are not looking out for you and me, or even society as whole.

The above article from bloomberg.com does absolutely nothing except indirectly label the firearms community as racist and make an attempt to place a wedge between minorities and other responsible gun owners. I for one am sick of people that resort to these tactics. These people need to be called out for the race baiters that they are and treated as pariahs who will sacrifice the well-being of society for their own selfish political gains.

Enough is enough. End the race baiting now.