Spot on as always.
Spot on as always.
As we’ve seen in the last week, with the Democrat’s 15-hour not-really-a-filibuster stump speech about how we need to ban the right to due process, there’s a press on for new gun laws and restrictions and regulations that aren’t infringements in much the same way that getting punched in the face isn’t the same as getting struck in the face with a fist because won’t someone think of the children.
Specifically, we’ve even heard the main proponent of these new infringements say they wouldn’t have worked to prevent the Orlando terrorist attack.
What would have worked, you ask?
Enforce existing laws.
Currently, if you want to buy/possess/own/purchase a firearm, there are some prohibitions. Namely, you can’t be a felon, a drug addict, an illegal alien, and due to the Lautenberg Amendment, you can’t have been convicted of a crime of domestic violence or have a restraining order placed on you by a domestic partner.
This is from the 4473, the background check form that you do every time you buy a gun from a dealer or store and any time you transfer a handgun between states:
The so-called “gun show loophole”, which is not exclusive to gun shows, nor a loophole, is that in most states, if you want to sell a gun to a private citizen from your own state, you can. You also have to be sure they’re not prohibited from owning a firearm, because otherwise you’re committing the crime of providing a prohibited person with a firearm.
The Orlando terrorist beat his ex-wife. Had he been charged, he would have been convicted (or plead out, which is the same as a conviction for gun ownership purposes), and he’d have been prohibited. It’s the same way US citizens every day are denied arms – because they’ve committed a crime in the past that bars them from firearms ownership (like the wife-beating alcoholic Chicago journalist denied a gun recently).
If for whatever reason the ex-wife didn’t go to the police, or no one enforced the law in that instance, there were other potential blocks already set up that no one bothered to utilize.
Namely, 8 USC 1481.
The FBI had investigated the Orlando terrorist numerous times for his suspected terrorism involvement. He was on and off the terror watch list. A friend of his went to the Middle East as an American suicide bomber. The FBI interviewed him numerous times, but couldn’t figure out how to make anything stick. Yet the Orlando terrorist went off and murdered 49 people and swore his allegiance to the Islamic State.
And that’s where 8 USC 1481 comes in:
8 U.S. Code § 1481 – Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions
(a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality—
(2) taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or
(3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if (A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States, or (B) such persons serve as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer; or
(7) committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of title 18, or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of title 18, or violating section 2384 of title 18 by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.
He joined a terrorist movement. He said so at the end. In all probability – especially as more of his past comes to light, he said the same thing beforehand, but no one would address it.
If 8 USC 1481 had been applied, he could’ve been stripped of his citizenship – with due process – as someone swearing allegiance to and/or conspiring to bear arms against the United States as a terrorist by committing terrorist acts.
Once his citizenship is stripped, he couldn’t legally buy a gun. Once stripped of his citizenship, he could’ve been deported and sent off to the nation he wanted to be a part of. The US would’ve gotten rid of a terrorist, he would’ve gotten to go join the nation he wants to join.
Problem solved. Enforce existing laws.
May as well start with the dumbest first. HuffPo is calling for complete disarmament of the US citizenry.
One may say that the Supreme Court, after 250 years in which the Second Amendment was read as allowing only a well-regulated militia to have guns, recently reinterpreted it to mean that there is an individualized right to own guns. This suggests that we may have to get to domestic disarmament through the back door.
Make the gun manufacturers liable for harm done with their products. Ban the sale of ammunition. And vote for a president that will add to the Supreme Court those who will read the Second Amendment as written.
Above all, domestic disarmament is a true, compelling vision which cannot be said about the small gun control measures that are currently promoted by some of the most enlightened people among us.
That’s a whole new level of smugness right there. Also, the Second Amendment as written would guarantee access to arms by American citizens, especially weapons used in a military capacity. It’s very clear what it says, as are the numerous state Constitutions that mirror it.
And the next stupidest, via HotAir, from Democrat Senator Chris Murphy:
Today’s gun vote wouldn’t stop recent mass shootings, admits leading proponent
Asked by guest host Jonathan Karl whether the so-called “gun show loophole” would have done anything to stop Orlando, Murphy stammered and finally responded as though he was Miss Teen Connecticut answering a pretty tough question about what his favorite color is.
MURPHY: So, it may have in the sense that if you partner together with the bill that stops terrorists from getting guns…
KARL: But wait a minute. He didn’t buy those guns at a gun show. And he would have passed the background—he did pass a background check.
MURPHY: He did pass a background check, but if the Feinstein bill was in effect, the FBI could have put him on the list of those who are prohibited from getting guns. And what if he went into the gun store and was denied? He could have just gone online or to a gun show and bought another one. *
KARL: OK. But what I’m trying to get at is that every time there’s one of these terrible tragedies, there’s these proposals. Your proposal would have done nothing in the case of Orlando. It would have done nothing to stop the killing in San Bernardino, and in fact, was unrelated to the killing in Newtown. So why are we focusing on things that have nothing to do with the massacres that we are responding?
MURPHY: First of all, we can’t get into that trap. I disagree. I think if this proposal had been into effect, it may have stopped this shooting. But we can’t get into the trap in which we are forced to defend the proposals simply because it didn’t stop the last tragedy. We should be making our gun laws less full of Swiss cheese holes so that future killings don’t happen.**
Couple important takeaways here.
1st, let your lefty, gun-grabbing brother-in-law see this so he can stop telling you that you are an accomplice in the murder of innocent people just because you exercise the right to self protection. And repeat it on your social media as many times as it takes: These laws will not stop bad people from doing bad things with guns. Full stop.
Yeah, that’s pretty much it.
We already know that the Orlando terrorist beat his ex-wife. He could’ve been denied based on that, but apparently his ex-wife never bothered to call the police. He wouldn’t have had a security job, nor been able to buy a gun legally. Wouldn’t have happened.
Speaking of wife-beaters not allowed to own guns, from ThisAin’tHell. Short version is a reporter went into a gun store to try to buy an evil toddler-killing black rifle and was denied. He claimed it was because he was a reporter. Really, it was because he slapped around his wife.
The folks at Maxon Shooter Supplies and Indoor Range, who claim to be TAH fans, send us a link to the story about them in the Chicago Sun Times, wherein the Times sent Neil Steinberg, one of their reporters, to write about his experience buying and firing an evil black, scary gun (known in journalistic circles as an assault rifle). Steinberg does the handwringing thing about guns and journalistic integrity thing during his drive to Des Plaines, Illinois to the Maxon “lemonade stand” as the owner described it to me.
Driving to Maxon Shooter’s Supplies in Des Plaines on Wednesday to purchase my first assault rifle, I admit, I was nervous. I’d never owned a gun before. And with the horror of Sunday’s Orlando massacre still echoing, even the pleasant summer day — the lush green trees, fluffy white clouds, blue sky — took on a grim aspect, the sweetness of fragile life flashing by as I headed into the Valley of Death.
Earlier, in my editor’s office, I had ticked off the reasons for me not to buy a gun: this was a journalistic stunt; done repeatedly; supporting an industry I despise. But as I tell people, I just work here, I don’t own the place. And my qualms melted as I dug into the issue.
At 5:13 Sarah from Maxon called. They were canceling my sale and refunding my money. No gun for you. I called back. Why? “I don’t have to tell you,” she said. …
A few hours later, Maxon sent the newspaper a lengthy statement, the key part being: “it was uncovered that Mr. Steinberg has an admitted history of alcohol abuse, and a charge for domestic battery involving his wife.”
Well, didn’t see that coming.
This would be on the 4473:
From the Maxon Facebook page;
Mr. Steinberg was very aggressive on the phone with Sarah, insisting he was going to write that we denied him because he is a journalist. “Journalist” is not a protected class, BTW. We contacted his editor and said that, while we don’t normally provide a reason for a denial, in this case to correct the record before you publish, here’s why; we pasted a couple links of press accounts of his past behavior and his admission of same. He’s free to believe or disbelieve that’s why he was denied, but that *is* why he was denied. There was no “We’ll see you in court!!!!” type of language from us – we simply want to set the record straight. That it undermined his thesis and rendered the column incoherent isn’t really our problem, is it? Thanks for your support.
Via Jawa Report:
She’s got a lot to say, and it’s not what’s commonly heard from the Middle East.
From the description (albeit a few months old):
Saudi-born singer Shams Bandar, also known as “Shams the Kuwaiti,” recently declared that she was renouncing her Saudi and Kuwaiti nationalities for the sake of European citizenship. In a September 22 interview with the Egyptian Dream TV channel, she defended her decision, saying: “What can these wretched [refugees] do with their Arab citizenship?” “All the Arab countries have closed their borders to them.” Shams further said: “Why do we pin all our problems on the West? For 1,400 years we have been slaughtering one another, just because one of us prays one way and another prays a different way.”
And Nadine Al-Budair gives a similar recounting of problems after the Brussels terrorist attack:
Perhaps the bigger question is why they can understand it and address it but it can’t be addressed here in the US, where instead of naming the problem and beginning to handle it, instead we’re looking for end runs around the 2nd and 5th Amendments in the form of secret lists, secret courts, and secret enforcers.
The problem we have—and really, the firewall we have right now, is due process. It’s all due process. So we can all say, ‘yeah, we want the same thing,’ but how do we get there. If a person is on a terrorist watch list like the gentleman—the shooter—in Orlando, he was, twice by the FBI, we were briefed yesterday about what happened. But that man was brought in twice. They did everything they could. The FBI did everything they were supposed to do. But there was no way for them to keep him on the nix list or keep him off the gun buy list. There was no way to do that. So can’t we say that if a person is under suspicion, there should be a five year period of time that we have to see if good behavior, if this person continues the same traits? Maybe we can come to that type of an agreement. But due process is what’s killing us right now.
Haven’t committed a crime but the government wants to restrict your rights because you’re on a secret list somewhere? No problem! Just do away with due process.
How to get rid of the 2nd Amendment? Easy – just get rid of the 5th Amendment first!
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
5 years of rights restriction based on being put on a watch list? A watch list that Ted Kennedy had to fight to get off of?
How about… no.
That’s about what the headline should read everywhere. And at least a few places, it does.
Still, spin is being applied. From NBC:
His father told NBC News his son was enraged after recently seeing a same-sex couple kissing in front of his family, an event that could have set him off.
In 2013, Mateen was interviewed twice by federal agents after coworkers reported that he made “inflammatory” comments to them about radical Islamic propaganda. The following year, the FBI looked at him again because of ties with an American who traveled to the Middle East to become a suicide bomber.
Law enforcement sources told NBC News he swore allegiance to the leader of ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, in a phone call to 911 moments before the rampage at Pulse.
There’s no indication that Mateen was in touch with terrorists overseas or that the attack was directed by someone else, a law enforcement officials told NBC News. Nor is there evidence that anyone helped or encouraged him, several officials said.
He had ties with a suicide bomber, but didn’t have ties overseas. Possibly technically true, but it’s also a way to try and distance him from who and what he is.
ISIS doesn’t have to issue a membership card.
With that information, investigators are looking into whether religious extremism motivated the attack and are piecing together what triggered Mateen, who lived roughly two hours south of Orlando in Fort Pierce and worked as a security guard.
Mateen didn’t appear to have any direct ties with ISIS, sources said, although he was a follower of ISIS propaganda and referenced the Tsarnaev brothers, who carried out the Boston Marathon bombings in 2013, at the scene of the shooting.
What motivated them again? Oh, yeah, they were “lone wolves” or something, motivated by… uh… stuff. Probably anti-marathon screeds put out by the rabid right-wing National Pressure Cooker Association.
But while law enforcement delves into what may have radicalized Mateen, who was born in New York and lived in Florida for at least the past decade, his family believes he was fueled by pure hate against the LGBT community.
He just hates them to hate. Most people have a motivation to hate someone or something. I wonder what that motivation was.
His father told NBC News that his son was affected by a recent incident involving two men showing each other affection.
“We were in Downtown Miami, Bayside, people were playing music. And he saw two men kissing each other in front of his wife and kid and he got very angry,” Mateen’s father, Seddique Mir Mateen, told NBC News on Sunday. “They were kissing each other and touching each other and he said, ‘Look at that. In front of my son they are doing that.’ And then we were in the men’s bathroom and men were kissing each other.”
“This had nothing to do with religion.”
Well that’s cleared up, then. Glad it has absolutely nothing to do with religion and that there’s nothing to see here, otherwise people might start wondering about the “Islamic” part of the Islamic State. Or they might start asking about his father’s support of the Taliban (scroll waaay down at the link).
Now how did he get those evil guns that he used to kill those gay people out of clearly-unrelated-to-Islam hate?
His job in security, meanwhile, gave him access to his weapons; police say he used a handgun and AR-15-type rifle in the shooting spree.
ATF officials tweeted Sunday that he legally purchased the firearms within the last week.
Yeah, about that last part…
An ex-wife of Mateen told The Washington Post that he was prone to violent behavior and beat her. They had met online eight years ago and she moved to Florida to be with him.
“He was not a stable person,” the unidentified ex-wife said. “He beat me. He would just come home and start beating me up because the laundry wasn’t finished or something like that.”
Well if that were true and she did anything about it, the Lautenberg Amendment would’ve kept him from buying guns legally. For those who’ve never seen a form 4473 (the background check paperwork you fill out to buy a gun), this is the important part for this case:
So she didn’t bother to tell the police, and they didn’t bother to investigate, and no one bothered to arrest him for spousal abuse, and thus someone who was prohibited from legally buying a gun was able to buy a gun.
He also wouldn’t have had the job he did, because to be armed security requires being able to pass the equivalent of a 4473.
Also from NBC, because it’s never too early for the left to beat those gun control drums, especially if it can be leveraged with special victim identity groups:
Mass shootings often reignite the policy debate over access to guns, and hate crimes present another fault line in that debate.
In most states, people convicted of misdemeanor hate crimes may still legally purchase guns.
The majority of states “have not enacted laws to prevent convicted misdemeanant hate criminals from having easy access to guns,” according to a 2016 report, “Hate and Guns,” by the Center for American Progress.
As for Mateen, he was able to legally purchase firearms within the past week, according to the ATF. Federal authorities had twice investigated him for potential links to terrorism, the FBI said, but no ties were confirmed.
Under federal law, it takes far more than a terror review to bar someone from legally purchasing guns.
He beat his wife. If anyone had bothered to prosecute, he’d have been convicted and couldn’t have bought guns legally or had access to them legally. Making a thought police law that applies to one group over another not only makes an unequal justice system (which is the social justice point), but in this case it clearly would have made zero difference.
I wonder how long until the American media starts lecturing the gay community on how it should avoid being Islamophobic.
~What’s the next phase? Well, Brussels is currently about 25 per cent Muslim and they’re mostly young. Conversely (as I pointed out in America Alone), the Flemings and Walloons are getting a bit long in the tooth. In any society, who provides the policemen and soldiers and security guards? The fit and healthy – ie, the young, the ones who can pass the physical. So increasingly the chaps responsible for keeping an eye out for Muslim terrorists will themselves be Muslim.
After 9/11, it was the fashion among the western left to demand that we ask ourselves: “Why do they hate us?” As I wrote in America Alone all those years ago:
‘Why do they hate us?’ was never the right question. ‘Why do they despise us?’ is a better one.
Just in case our enemies needed another reason to despise us, today the inactivist group Somnolent Tilty-Headed Wankers for Peace launched an exciting new graphic: the same old clapped-out hippie peace symbol but incorporating the Eiffel Tower (right)! Isn’t that a cool, stylish way of showing how saddy-saddy-sadcakes you are about all those corpses in the streets of Paris? It’s already gone viral! And that’s all that matters, isn’t it?
Our enemies use social media to distribute snuff videos as a means of recruitment. We use it to confirm to them how passive and enervated we are: What was it the last time blood ran in the streets of Paris? Oh, yeah, a pencil – for all those dead cartoonists. But, given that blood in the streets of Paris looks like becoming a regular event, it helps to have something of general application. What about, ooh, a tricolor with a blue tear at the end? No, better yet: a peace symbol with a croissant in the middle. No, wait…
What’s that? All you are saying is give peace a chance? But what, in fact, are the chances of peace for Paris and France? What are the odds?
Oh, sorry. All they were saying is give peace a chance. And, having said it, they’ve gone back to sleep until the next atrocity requires another stupid hashtag or useless avatar.
Really, SSDD. Just stateside this time.
Want an avatar but you’re unsure about the tricolor of whichever European country’s been bombed today? Need a quickie illustration of Tintin, Manekin Pis, Asterix, Topo Gigio, the Little Mermaid, the blonde from Abba, etc, with their heads at an angle and a tear running down? Maybe a Belgian chocolate melting from a broken heart, or a frite in mayonnaise tinged with regret? How about the all-in-one hashtag that instantly updates to each new slaughter? #JeSuisParis, #JeSuisBruxelles, #JeSuisYourTownHere! Call Sad-Mart, the one-stop shop for all your useless solidarity gestures! #NousSommesEverywhere!
And a quote that he brings back quite often, because it encapsulates, broadly speaking, the loss of the West to fight for its own principles:
Mr van den Boogaard is a Dutch gay “humanist”, which is pretty much the trifecta of Eurocool. He was reflecting on the accelerating Islamization of the Continent and concluded that the jig was up for the Europe he loved. “I am not a warrior, but who is?” he shrugged. “I have never learned to fight for my freedom. I was only good at enjoying it.”
We’re going to go through the hashtags and the buttons and the flagwaving and there will be nothing done about it. The enemy won’t be identified except as “hate”, which will make for an interesting time when we declare a “War on Hate” if one hasn’t been called already. People who don’t know how to deal with enemies, who won’t even name them for fear of offending their own moral socjus rectitude, will point fingers at people who didn’t do anything, from the NRA to video games to Republicans to any of the usual cultural suspects.
From that same post a three months ago from Steyn:
You can’t say our enemies don’t have our measure. A new ISIS poll:
What colour will the Eiffel Tower be next?
Whatever terrorists bet the long shot on “rainbow flag” probably won that.