"Gun Free" Means "Victim Enrichment": Target Becomes a Target for Multiple Armed Gunmen [my shocked face]

By Elizabeth Nelson

Something we won't see reported by our MSM, because it goes against our occupying Emperor's gun-ban agenda, and the "feel-good" ideals that your local police will "keep you safe from harm."  I think I've more than pounded the point home that gun-control laws only hurt and oppress the law-abiding citizen, while freeing and empowering the common criminal to victimize the disarmed citizen and anyone they choose to.


So, it shouldn't come as any great surprise that bad things did in fact happen at several recently declared "gun-free" Target stores, and we have only Target and Moms Demand Action to thank for the latest violence against the unarmed citizens that deserved to shop in a safe environment.  Even Jack-in-the-Box, who had decided to follow Targets lead, has been robbed at gun point several times since their announcement. When will these leftist idiots learn, to a criminal, it's not "gun-free" it's "victim-enrichment" to them.


Target's gun ban backfires, here come the robbers.  Within three days of a new policy asking customers not to bring their guns to Target stores, reports have surfaced of armed attacks on customers.

Two Target shoppers at two different stores in Georgia have been robbed by armed thugs since the discount retailer announced on July 2, in a letter from its CEO, that it would “respectfully request” that customers leave their guns at home when they visit Target. Spokeswoman Molly Snyder said it was not a ban on guns, just a “request” that the Minneapolis-based retailer hoped its customers would honor. She said no signs would be posted banning guns, nor would any customer legally carrying a gun in Target stores be asked to leave.


Oh, Ms. Snyder, herein lies the rub, that the liberal left just can't seem to get through their heads.  We Conservative gun owners won't "force our rights and beliefs" down anyone's throat, that's what makes us different than the liberal left.  We will do as we are asked, and give you the desires of your heart, even when we know that what you ask is dangerous.  We will leave you to your dangerous armed, law-breaking criminals and take our offending protection from your sight, and wait until they come and pillage, as they have done, so don't late tell us, "don't obey our wishes, read between the lines and disobey us so you can protect our stupid arses later, when you're worst fears come to fruition."

On the very same day that CEO John Mulligan issued his public statement, a man was robbed at gunpoint in the parking lot of a Target in Gainesville, Georgia. Three days later, on July 5, a woman in the Edgewood area of Atlanta had just parked her Mercedes Benz in a Target parking garage and exited her vehicle when she was approached by a black man who punched her in the head, knocking her to the ground. He took her purse and car keys, then warned her to “stay on the ground or I will f—ing kill you,” according to police reports. He then put her car in reverse and would have run her over if she hadn’t rolled out of the way, she told police. She said she obeyed his commands, according to Decaturish.com.

Just days earlier, the Gainesville Police Department arrested three men on charges of robbing a man of his cash at gunpoint in the parking lot of the Target on Shallowford Road in the city about 50 miles northeast of Atlanta.

Officers were able to get a vehicle and suspect description, according to police spokesman Cpl. Kevin Holbrook. The alleged robbers were arrested later that same day. The victim, Kyle Bledsoe, reportedly had more than $500 cash on him. Officers confiscated one handgun when they made the arrest, Holbrook said.

Jerry Henry, executive director of GeorgiaCarry.org, said he thought Target made a poor decision.


“That’s what happens in gun-free zones,” he told WND. “They actually should be called victim-enrichment zones because that’s what they are. If anyone wants to commit a crime with impunity, take your gun where there are no guns. You can do what you want, get in and get out and there’s nobody to stop you.

“If you notice where most of the so-called mass shootings are happening, they’re in gun-free zones,” Henry continued. “You don’t see them at gun shows or at gun stores. You don’t see people walk in there and start shooting. They’re not going to do it because they know everybody in there is armed.”

Mulligan’s message to Target customers asking them to keep their firearms at home appeared July 2 in the retailer’s online magazine which, as irony would have it, is named “A Bullseye View.”

The alleged gunpoint robbery in Gainesville occurred about 6 p.m. on July 2, followed by the Atlanta robbery on July 5.

Mulligan said in his letter that the company had “studied the nuances” of the gun-rights issue from both sides and decided that it didn’t want its customers to carry weapons into its stores, “even in communities where it is permitted by law.” Georgia is one of those states where carrying a gun at a retail store is legal for those possessing a concealed-carry permit.

Mulligan said this was a complicated issue, but the company’s decision came down to its belief that carrying firearms at Target “creates an environment that is at odds with the family friendly shopping and work experience.”

Read the Target CEO’s complete letter asking its customers not to carry.

The carefully worded statement stopped short of banning guns.

“As you’ve likely seen in the media, there has been a debate about whether guests in communities that permit ‘open carry’ should be allowed to bring firearms into Target stores. Our approach has always been to follow local laws, and of course, we will continue to do so. But starting today we will also respectfully request that guests not bring firearms to Target – even in communities where it is permitted by law.”

Henry, the GeorgiaCarry.org director, said he believes Target issued the “no guns” request in an effort to assuage Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, a group backed by former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg that is pushing for stricter gun-control measures in both the public and private sectors.

“Moms Demand Action was bombarding them with calls and letters telling them that they needed to change or they were going to leave and go elsewhere (to shop),” Henry said. “They were getting a lot of pressure from Bloomberg’s group, and now they’re going to be pressuring somebody else to make the same kind of statement. This will go on until his money runs out.”

Snyder told WND she could not disclose who the company may have consulted with prior to making its decision.

“We typically don’t discuss interactions with specific groups or individuals,” she said. “However, what I would say is that we received feedback from our guests who have shared their varied perspectives on this topic.”

Henry said his group held a “We beat Bloomberg” party when Georgia’s HB 60 law went into effect July 1 and he told Georgia Carry members, “Now we’re going to celebrate with a big sugary drink,” since “he [Bloomberg] wants to ban those, too!”

The former New York mayor infamously led a campaign to restrict the sales of soft drinks there to 16-ounce sizes and smaller. It recently was thrown out by the courts.

Target’s new policy follows that of Starbucks and other major retailers that have issued similar policies. Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz used the same language in a September 2013 letter to customers in which he made a “respectful request” that they not carry guns in his stores.

“Most of them, especially the large companies, say ‘we follow the state law, if you’re allowed to carry you can do so,’” Henry said. “Starbucks started off the policy that Target just adopted, saying we’re not going to ban guns but we request you don’t bring them. Bloomberg’s ladies, the Moms Demand Action, call it a ban. ‘Oh yay, we won, we got bans approved for the stores.’ That’s what they say. But it’s not a ban. They got the companies to issue a letter saying we don’t want you to bring them in here. Target even followed up with a statement saying, ‘This is not a ban, but we just ask you not to bring your guns in here.’”

Henry said he believes at least two groups are operating in Georgia with financial backing from Bloomberg.

“He’s paying a couple of groups down here. One is Moms Demand Action and the other is Mayors Against Illegal Guns,” he said.

Henry said he refers to the latter group as “Illegal Mayors Against Guns” because its members are far more likely to commit a felony than any licensed gun holder in states like Georgia or Texas.

“Somebody did the math, and if you are a member of Mayors Against Illegal Guns then you are 82 times more likely to commit a felony than a licensed gun holder in Texas,” he said. “If you Google ‘gun owners against illegal mayors’ you’ll see all those mayors who have been convicted of or arrested (on charges of) felonies.”

Target’s no-guns “request” sparked more than 4,800 customer comments on Target’s website. The back-and-forth debate between Second Amendment advocates and gun-control progressives reached a fevered pitch.

“Thank you, Target for displaying #gunsense and promoting public safety as a civic duty,” wrote S.K. Boss of Arkansas.

“Public safety is removing my ability to defend myself? Are you on drugs?” responded another customer, Bob Jones.

Boss then struck back with the comment that only police should be allowed to carry guns in a “civilized” society.

“Civilized societies hire police for this purpose (of protecting the public) and don’t rely on random individuals among us,” Boss wrote. “If you are a cop, thanks for taking on that task. We all appreciate the work you do.”

Georgia’s new law, known as House Bill 60, went into effect July 1, allowing permit holders to carry in shopping malls, stores, restaurants and government buildings where there is not a security checkpoint.

“The timing of our announcement was in no way tied to the new law in Georgia. As our interim CEO John Mulligan noted, this was something the leadership team had been monitoring for some time,” said Snyder.

Henry likes to remind skeptics that very few businesses, even those owned by gun-control advocates, will post a sign advertising that guns aren’t allowed.

Taco Mac, an Atlanta-based Mexican eatery, did that several years ago and it backfired.

“They’d been in business for 29 years and never had a robbery,” Henry said. “After we passed our update to the Georgia carry laws in 2008 allowing us to carry in restaurants that served alcohol, as long as we didn’t consume alcohol, Taco Mac posted a sign, and within nine months they had their first robbery.”

It didn’t take that long when Jack in the Box restaurants made a similar demand.

In fact, there have been four robbery reports in the few weeks after the change was announced.

One incident was in Liberty, Texas. Only a few weeks earlier, a Jack in the Box in northwest Houston was hit. The second in the series also was in Houston, but the first one after company officials announced their changed policy, only about a month ago, was in Tennessee, where a man was shot in the restaurant’s parking lot.

The incidents began shortly after an anti-gun group, Moms Demand Action, put pressure on the company to ban guns.

Jack in the Box announced the new policy with an explanation: “Creating a warm and inviting environment for all of our guests and employees is a top priority for Jack in the Box. The presence of guns inside a restaurant could create an uncomfortable situation for our guests and employees and lead to unintended consequences. While we respect the rights of all our guests, we would prefer that guests not bring their guns inside our restaurants.” Read more WND

Sadly, the liberals will never understand, until they are in a situation where they are either saved by a Concealed Carrier or they escape death by the skin on their teeth.  We'll never stop evil intent, and bad men with guns by giving them fish-in-a-barrel, surrounded by "gun-free" "victim-enrichment" zone signs.

Because Gun Control Worked so Well in the Past and for Others?

by Elizabeth Nelson

I have yet to have one "open minded" anti-gun zealot answer this question: if gun control works

(in a liberal, Utopian world), only cops had guns and criminals "obeyed gun laws," then how is it that men get robbed, raped and killed in prison? 

This is probably why over the 4th of July holiday, in Chicago, more than 50 people were shot which led to 15 people dying from their injuries; but hey, the homicide rate is down, while the "shooting rate is up" in Chicago. What a way to liberally spin gun violence, when they have the "toughest gun laws" in the nation.

Chicago's Fourth of July weekend death toll has climbed to 15 with the death of a man who was shot just before midnight Sunday.

The Cook County Medical Examiner's Office says 25-year-old William Allen was pronounced dead shortly before 2:30 p.m. on Monday afternoon. Police say Allen was shot Sunday night.

Allen was one of more than 50 people shot over the long holiday weekend. The killings continued Monday with the slayings of three people — the first two early Monday and the third on Monday night on Chicago's South Side.

The Chicago Sun-Times reports that the latest victim was a 19-year-old woman who was shot in the back by a gunman who rode up on a bicycle and opened fire.

However, why stop there, let's see what our future would be, if we allowed our Government to "Molon Labe," come and take it. Let's look to Australia and see how they are doing.


It has now been over 10 years since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own Government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.

The statistics for the years following the ban are now in:

 

Accidental gun deaths are 300% higher than the pre-1997 ban rate

The assault rate has increased 800% since 1991, and increased 200% since the 1997 gun ban.

 

Robbery and armed robbery have increase 20% from the pre-97 ban rate. From immediately after the ban was instituted in 1997 through 2002, the robbery and armed robbery rate was up 200% over the pre-ban rates.

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 171 percent.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort, and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns.

Let's examine the overall murder rate and the gun murder rate in Australia.  Take note both are virtually unchanged and unaffected by the gun ban.

The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.  While the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns. Criminals in Australia now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws ONLY adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Source: Australian gun ban facts statistics.

One final statistic, so easy that a Liberal anti-gun zealot could understand it

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 170 million

"The sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental."- John Steinbeck

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" - George Santayana

Intelligence is learning from our mistakes, wisdom is learning from other's mistakes.  Before we find ourselves in a prison of our own making, stripped of liberties and freedoms we will never get back; a warning from our Australian friends:

Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late! The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson. With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subjects'. 

    
 
I found this video as entertaining as much as terrifying, because we can literally see our liberal incompetence and future, in another country, before it happens;  "we can't explain why crime increased, after the gun ban," and "we can't explain or legally define what a home invasion is."  

Funny, we conservatives have no problem defining evil intent. "Home invasion:"  any armed assailant who invades our home, uninvited, and enters our sanctuary with the expectation of freely taking something that wasn't theirs, by any means necessary: our property, lives and even our body, if they want it.  It is the firearm in our homes and on our bodies that equalizes their "wants and desires."  

Before liberals repeat our own history, and create another "ban," explain this one thing for me, not even why people die in a gun-controlled prison; in Sept. 13, 1994 our Assault weapons ban went into effect, and crime went up by 4%, and our Assault Weapons ban lasted 10 years and was allowed to expire because, it had no impact on crimes committed. Explain to me how and why, if the '94 gun ban was supposed to "stop school violence" how it is it that it didn't stop the Columbine massacre on April 20, 1999, or ANY of the other 19 school shootings during the Assault weapons ban?

The answer is in the report presented before Congress, when our Assault ban was expiring, under point 4.2.1. and blows the anti-gun zealots theory for more gun laws away:

Secondary markets encompass second-hand gun transaction s made by non-licensed individual. Secondary  market participants are prohibited from knowingly transferring guns to ineligible purchasers (e.g. convicted felons and drug abusers). However, secondary transfers are not subject to the federal record-keeping and background check requirements placed on licensed dealers, thus making the secondary market almost entirely unregulated and, accordingly, a better source of guns for criminal users.  Easily explained, criminals don't obey gun laws, they will always find a way to get guns and gun control only hurts the law-abiding citizen.

Now, our Country has decided that it wasn't only going to try to repeat our own history, but that we were going to try to replicate Australia's gun law, and do it in American Style and go one step further.  We've managed to not only make the gun the villain but the legal-gun owner and Concealed Carrier as well.  When common sense should tell us to make the Concealed Carrier the hero, when this is the person that is willing to put themselves in harm's way, to protect another, if the situation to do so ever arose.

We don't need gun control laws, we need to enforce the laws we have, and stop making these law-breakers "instant celebrities," by televising their names and heinous crimes nationwide. If need be, we can make the penalty, for breaking the law, so horrific that people will think twice before they even start to fantasize about picking up the gun and taking a life, then enforce the laws we already have on the books, and then make examples of the people who break the law by televising their names and faces nation wide. 

Let's start producing Gun-Safe PSAs on safe-storage tips and what to look for in radicalized teens or teens that are about to snap, so we will be more aware of our surroundings. What about  coupons for gun safes, so we can keep these guns out of the hands of kids that steal the guns from their parents and criminals that break into our homes and do the same.  The answer isn't rocket science or brain surgery.

"You won't get gun control by disarming law-abiding citizens. There's only one way to get real gun control: disarm the thugs and the criminals, lock them up and if you don't actually

throw-away-the-key, at least lose it for a long time...  It's a nasty truth, but those who seek to inflict harm are not fazed by gun controllers. "  Ronald Reagan

Jim Moran, moron and U. S. Congressman (D-VA), compares gun violence in America to 9-11

By Rob Janicki

ALEXANDRIA, Va. — Rep. Jim Moran (D., Va.) compared gun violence in America to “domestic terrorism” and 9/11 at a gun control rally Saturday.

Speaking at a rally set up by Organizing for Action and several other gun control groups, Moran said gun violence was terrorizing America...

Apparently Moran thinks it's the 2nd Amendment that is terrorizing America and somehow that makes supporters of the 2nd Amendment domestic terrorists.

“I think what we’re dealing with here is in many ways a form of domestic terrorism,” Moran told the audience of roughly 120. “Really. I mean directly and indirectly, this is what is really terrorizing our country.”...

One can only imagine how Moran will tie in the Boston massacre with gun control, but rest assured that somehow, some way, Moran will, in fact, make the effort to tie the two issues together to scare people into supporting even more worthless gun controls over law abiding Americans, while doing nothing to prosecute criminals using guns in the commission of criminal acts.

Senate slow walks gun control legislation as support wanes, especially among Democrats in Red States,

By Rob Janicki

Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL) told host Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday that supporters of new gun control legislation do not yet have the votes to pass it, despite defeating a Republican-led filibuster attempt last week...

If Durbin said the votes weren't there, you can be assured that Harry Reid won't bring any such gun control legislation up for a floor vote in the Senate.

The specific bill facing the Senate is the Manchin-Toomey compromise on background checks, which would expand such requirements to gun shows, among other provisions. Currently, private sales between individuals at gun shows do not require background checks--just as private sales anywhere do not require them...

Now, why do you suppose that most gun owners are opposed to universal background checks?  It sounds good to many folks.  There are several problems with changing the existing background check laws.  Obama scoffs at the idea that background checks would ever result in any gun confiscations.  Here's the problem as I and many others see it.  It would take but a few computer key strokes to permanently save all background check information for every gun purchased in America. 

It's not that gun owners don't trust the government, but, well, we just don't trust any government agency to protect our 2nd Amendment rights, let alone a government currently run by liberal progressives.

How about all those criminals that got caught up in those current background checks?  They surely must have been criminally charged with perjury in the filling out of the federal background check forms.

Less than 1% of those background checks that were denied, resulted in criminal prosecutions.  Read that again.  Less than 1% of denied background checks result in criminal prosecutions for perjury.  What about the other 99% of background checks that resulted in denial to buy firearms?  No prosecutions!  What's the point in enacting a law, if the law is not enforced?  The answer has to be because if creates a record of who does own a gun for some future action by government.

The current background check system is like a sieve and Democrats want to load more on a failing system.  Further laws seeking even more control on guns only manage to prevent the legitimate gun buyer from buying and owning guns.  They do very little to nothing to prevent criminals and the mentally disorder individuals from obtaining guns illegally.

Just about every mass murder by firearms has been committed by mentally disordered individuals that either stole guns or managed to obtain guns after passing a federal background check.  How is expanding the federal background check system going to catch these mentally disordered individuals when the law already in place is supposed to do that very thing?

Read more on the current state of gun control legislation in the Senate here.

As I have mentioned in previous gun control posts, there are more than a few Democrats from Red Sates that support the 2nd Amendment, that could be in serious jeopardy in the 2014 congressional elections.  Pat Toomey a Republican from Pennsylvania is walking a thin line in his state.  The bottom line for senators up for tough re-election races is this.  They all would like to see gun control legislation go away, because in close races in pro 2nd Amendment states, it wouldn't pay to be on the record as supporting more gun controls.  Conversely, those Republican senators in liberal states want to go on record as supporting more gun controls, all the while hoping that such legislation never makes it out of the Senate.

Latest data on gun sales points to Obama being greatest gun salesman in American history

By Rob Janicki

I've said if before and Gregory Gwyn-Williams, Jr., illustrates the point with numbers.  Barack Obama is the greatest salesman for the gun industry in American history.  Obama's almost single minded  obsession with gun control over all other issues of government, such as the budget, the deficit, defense and foreign policy, has driven people to believe that Obama is seriously seeking to ban private gun ownership, despite his words to the contrary.

Here's Gwyn-Williams simple math analysis to substantiate the above proposition that Obama should be awarded the gun salesman trophy for most gun sales occurring during a president's time in office.  And Obama still has over three and a half years remaining in his second term of office.  There is no telling how many more tens of millions of guns will be sold in America, thanks to Obama pushing so hard on a wide variety of gun controls.  Americans have always been leery of politicians seeking to infringe upon their 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms and Obama has only increased that concern among Americans.

During Barack Obama's presidency there have been 32 background checks for gun purchases every minute.

Since February of 2009, the first full month of Obama's presidency, there have been 70,291,049 background checks for gun purchases, according to data released by the FBI.

Using February 1, 2009 as our starting date, and March 31, 2013 as our end date, (the latest data from the FBI) Obama has been president for 1,520 days.

That equates to 36,480 hours, or 2,188,800 minutes.

Divide the 70,291,049 background checks by 2,188,800 minutes and you get approximately 32 checks for gun purchases every minute!...  CNS News

A meaningless consensus of two senators: One purely political and the other simply irrelevant

By Rob Janicki

Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) has teamed up with Senator Pat Toomey (R-PA) to form a bi-partisan and absolutely meaningless consensus of two senators on enhanced universal background checks for gun purchases.

At the end of the day, any day, this is nothing but a 'feel good' action.  None of the recent multiple gun related slayings would have been caught, let alone stopped, by any of the proposals for enhanced universal background checks and that is a fact.

The federals government, by comparison, can't even get universal application and enforcement on E-Verify to mitigate and prevent illegal immigrants from obtaining jobs in America, while denying American citizens from holding these same jobs.  If the federal government can't even enforce this simple law to mitigate illegal immigration, how can any rational person believe that enhanced universal background checks for gun purchases would be any better?

If illegal immigrants can obtain fraudulent identification means to gain illegal employment, what makes the geniuses in congress think that any such enhanced universal background checks will be any more successful than E-Verify?

What congress needs to do is strengthen enforcement of the gun control laws that are already on the books.  All one has to do is look to how many background checks denied purchasers the opportunity to buy a gun on legal grounds and then how many of these people, who committed fraud in filling out the background information, were ever arrested, tried and convicted of fraud.  The answer is less than one per cent of those applicants that fraudulently filled out a background check, were ever prosecuted.

A law that is not universally applied and enforced, only leads individuals to believe that they can get around such laws through illegal means, with little to no prospect of ever running afoul of the law and any consequences it may proscribe.

Want to know more about Joe Manchin, who is all image, with little substance as a U.S. Senator?  Read this editorial at NRO. 

Here's a little taste of what some people think of Joe Manchin and his purely politicized position on gun control.  This pretty much describes the kind of politician Joe Manchin is.  All image and no substance.

Republicans suspect that Manchin’s public entrance into the debate was purely political, done at the behest of Democratic leaders eager to put forward a “credible” spokesman on gun control. “By rolling him out to talk about gun control, they can act like they care about the Second Amendment,” says a GOP aide. But Manchin’s talk was never considered a serious overture. Senate insiders argue that the move would be in perfect keeping with Manchin’s habit of doing the bidding of Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) on major issues, even as he touts his reputation as a centrist consensus builder.

“He is a garden-variety politician — check in with the leader, walk the party line as much as you can without burning yourself back home,” the aide says. “He’s never hesitated to cozy up to the power centers of the Democratic party.”

Conrad Lucas, chairman of the Republican party of West Virginia, who describes Manchin as a “pretty irrelevant United States senator,” suggests two possible explanations. “Either he is showing his true colors” by speaking out on gun control, or else he is “simply trying to suck up and gain favor with the powers that be in the Democratic party,” Lucas says. “And when you’re sucking up to Harry Reid and Barack Obama, you are spitting in the face of West Virginians.”...

Jake Tapper of CNN righteously calls out President Obama for misspeaking on Sandy Hook massacre

By Rob Janicki

Jake Tapper, former reporter for ABC News and now of CNN caught President Obama misspeaking on an important gun fact when addressing an audience to push for stricter gun control laws.

Tapper (to his credit) reported that President Obama mistakenly referred to the gun used in the Sandy Hook elementary shooting as an “automatic weapon” during a fundraiser last week in California.

“It is possible for us to create common sense gun safety measures that respect the traditions of gun ownership in this country and hunters and sportsmen, but also make sure we don’t have another 20 children in a classroom gunned down by a semiautomatic weapon — by a fully automatic weapon in that case, sadly,” Obama said during his remarks...

Tapper immediately jumped on that mistake.

“That is not correct,” Tapper explained. “It was a semiautomatic weapon not a fully automatic weapon. Most fully automatic weapons, machine guns, are essentially banned to the public.” 

“This is not the first time a leading advocate for gun control has stumbled on the facts,” Tapper concluded...

Bravo Mr. Tapper!  You are perhaps the singular voice for reason and accuracy in reporting in the liberal media.  It must be a very lonely experience.

Read cited article in its entirety at the Washington Examiner

NRA-ILA Grassroots News Minute

Maryland about to figuratively shoot itself in the fiscal foot over it's anti-gun legislation

By Rob Janicki

Maryland's legislature has passed anti-gun legislation that Governor O'Malley is expected to sign into law some time on Monday.  As in physics, all political actions also have consequences and Maryland may experience some unexpected consequences as it pursues its mindless obsession to infringe upon the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution.

West Virginia and Virginia are among the states that have offered to take in Beretta, a gun manufacturer and one of the largest employers in the Maryland, with open arms should the company decide to leave due to Maryland’s strict gun laws.

Should Beretta decide to leave Maryland, the state will lose 400 jobs and millions of dollars in revenue. The company, which has been based in Maryland since 1997, has paid or is projected to pay $31 million in state taxes already, and has invested or planned to invest as much as $73 million as well...

Those states that are anti-gun may find themselves to be confronted with revenue declines as a result.  What is interesting is that those states that are anti-gun, are also quite often bastions of liberalism.  They are also those states with the most fiscal problems.  The question becomes one of whether these states can afford to lose revenue considering how close they are to the fiscal precipice and serious financial issues.

You can read the complete article at Red Alert Politics  

Why do you need a gun when Barack has your back?

By Rob Janicki and Will Profit

“I need a gun to protect myself from the govt” – Obama mocks gun owner concerns as ‘ginned-up fears’  Story and vid at the Right Scoop

And in related news...

picture via Ninety Miles From Tyranny
----------------------------------------------

Rob Janicki here. Do you think Americans may be just a little concerned with President Obama's hidden agenda to roll over the 2nd Amendment?

There have been 70,291,049 background checks for gun purchases since President Obama took office, according to data released by the FBI.

Over the same time period, the number of background checks completed under President George W. Bush was 36,090,415, or about half the number conducted under Obama...  CNS News

As the high flying trend of gun purchases continues to roll on, I'll be at the Crossroads of the West gun show this weekend at the Ontario, CA, Convention Center and I'll report my observations next week here at CP.

In closing...

Liar in Chief says  If Michelle Lived in Rural IA, She'd Want a Gun, Too