NRA-ILA Archives - W88top

Category Archives: NRA-ILA

Surprise: Physician Group Rehashes Same Tired Gun Control Policies

Category : Gun Rights News , NRA-ILA

Opinion Surprise: Physician Group Rehashes Same Tired Gun Control PoliciesFairfax, VA – -(Ammoland.com)- Everyone has hobbies. Some doctors’ collective hobby is opining on firearms policy. Half of the articles in the “Latest from Annals” email from the Annals of Internal Medicine journal are related to firearms.The most prominent of these articles is a position paper written by the American College of Physicians (ACP) that expands upon their 2014 paper and reflects every anti-gunner’s public policy wish list, save for the outsized role given to doctors. The ACP’s policy recommendations include a ban on semiautomatic firearms and “high” (read: standard) capacity magazines, licensing and permitting requirements, improved reporting to NICS, restrictions on concealed carry, and so on. None of the ACP’s policy recommendations focus on law enforcement or the importance of identifying, prosecuting, and incarcerating criminals. As Philip J. Cook notes in his commentary, “It is unfortunate that the public health community has not recognized the importance of policing gun violence as a key aspect of prevention.”Language matters, and the ACP “favors enactment of legislation to ban the manufacture, sale, transfer, and subsequent ownership for civilian use of semiautomatic firearms…” They refer to the targeted firearms as “assault weapons” only in parentheses, and the word “rifle” only appears once in the entire document: in the appendix, specifically in a section about 3-d printing a rifle receiver. Does the ACP support a handgun ban? We know that the American public opposes a ban on semiautomatic rifles and a ban on handguns. The ACP proposal for a ban on semiautomatic firearms certainly looks like it would apply to handguns, and they acknowledge that increasing the minimum age to purchase semiautomatic firearms to 21 is “an interim step toward a complete ban…”The ACP claims that their policy recommendations are “based on an analysis of approaches that the evidence suggests will be effective in reducing deaths and injuries from firearm-related violence.” They want physicians to “advocate for national, state, and local efforts to enact legislation to implement evidence-based policies, including those recommended in this paper…”The problem is that the ACP cites “studies” that wouldn’t qualify as “evidence” in any other debate. One cited study was focused on a single rural county in Iowa. Another was of 106 outpatients at a single clinic. The authors acknowledge evidence is limited but cite their own belief there is “enough evidence” or simply argue the policy should be enacted anyway. Inconclusive evidence is not “enough evidence.” Applying narrow findings to a larger population is not “enough evidence.”The ACP’s misuse of evidence isn’t limited to a ban on commonly owned firearms.They claim the RAND Corporation found “evidence suggesting that increasing the minimum purchasing age for firearms could decrease the suicide rate.” RAND actually found that the only discernible effects of minimum age requirements for purchasing a firearm on suicide were relegated to children and the evidence was limited. The effects of minimum age requirements on total suicides is uncertain because the evidence is inconclusive.The ACP claims that a “growing but limited body of evidence…suggests the concealed-carry laws may create a greater risk of firearms injuries and deaths than any protective value they may provide.” Most of the research on this topic is poorly done and clearly designed to produce a predetermined result. As with other policy areas in this position paper, the authors should have consulted the RAND literature review. RAND found that shall-issue concealed carry laws have uncertain effects on total homicides, firearms homicides, robberies, assaults, and rapes. The evidence is inconclusive, but the American College of Physicians has no qualms about accepting works that violate many of RAND’s most important criteria.The ACP wants to require gun purchasers to undergo an “educational program” before they can obtain a firearm and they support universal background checks, which would necessitate a licensing and permitting system as well as a registry of firearms and owners. This ignores the RAND Corporation’s finding that evidence on the impact of licensing and permitting regimes on firearm homicides and total homicides as well as total suicides and firearms suicides is inconclusive. The ACP is apparently only interested in pseudo-science “evidence” that supports their preferred anti-gun policies.This position paper leaves one wondering if the authors reviewed the evidence, or just found works that suited their needs. For all of the bluster about their own important role in the anti-gun movement and all of the misuse of research findings, the ACP makes one thing clear: they respect their own rights and opinions far more than they do those of law-abiding gun owners.The ACP’s first recommendation acknowledges their support for building coalitions of different perspectives on the firearm issue but makes no mention of firearms experts or lawyers. Health professionals and “injury prevention experts” are listed first and second. Their second recommendation holds that “state and federal authorities should avoid enactments of mandates that interfere with physician free speech.”If only the ACP had the same sort of respect for the 2nd Amendment. The authors claim that the individual right to keep and bear arms was established by the Supreme Court.The Supreme Court affirmed that right. That’s the sort of mistake one can expect when anti-gun doctors talk to themselves instead of lawyers or gun policy experts.About: Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.orgThe post Surprise: Physician Group Rehashes Same Tired Gun Control Policies appeared first on AmmoLand.com.


Democrat Sen. Claire McCaskill Caught Lying to Missouri Voters on Guns ~ VIDEO

OpinionFairfax, VA – -(Ammoland.com)-  It appears Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) forgot she represents the Show-Me State. Missouri’s nickname derives from its residents’ healthy skepticism – especially for politicians and their “frothy eloquence.” Rather than take someone’s word for something, Missourians would like to be shown.Missouri voters across the political spectrum don’t like what they were shown this week. Hidden camera video from journalist James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas showing that McCaskill and her staff have misled Missourians on her support for severe gun controls and impeaching President Donald Trump.In a candid interaction with McCaskill, a Project Veritas reporter posing as a campaign staffer asked the second-term senator about her position on guns, resulting in the following exchange.McCaskill: Well if we elect enough Democrats we’ll get some gun safety stuff done. They won’t let us vote on it, we’ve got 60 votes for a number of measures that would help with gun safety, but McConnell won’t let ’em come to the floor.Project Veritas: Like [banning] bump stocks, ARs and high capacity mags?McCaskill: Universal background, all of that.Project Veritas: So you would be on board with the bump stocks and high capacity mags.McCaskill: Of Course! Of Course!The senator’s strident support for gun control when speaking with campaign staff stands in stark contrast to her public messaging. For example, McCaskill’s scant treatment of the gun issue on her website is intentionally vague and plays up her purported support for the Second Amendment. It states,As a child, Claire grew up around guns – her father loved to hunt – and she has said repeatedly that she supports the Second Amendment while also supporting common sense gun safety measures to keep our children safe.Common sense? An analysis by Barack Obama’s Department of Justice determined that so-called “universal” background checks are ineffective absent more severe restrictions. Multiple federally-funded studies could not find that the 1994 ban on commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms reduced gun violence, partly because these firearms “were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban.” Moreover, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, author of the landmark Second Amendment decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, made clear that the Second Amendment protects commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms like the AR-15.When asked about the senator’s deceptive approach, McCaskill campaign staffers explained that such subterfuge is necessary for their candidate to get elected.The undercover reporter asked McCaskill Campaign Deputy Regional Field Director Rob Mills why the candidate wasn’t more forthright about her anti-gun positions. Mills responded that it was because “she has a bunch of Republican voters.” Regarding McCaskill’s relationship with Michael Bloomberg’s anti-gun front group Everytown for Gun Safety, Mills said,But she doesn’t openly go out and support groups like ‘Mom’s Demand Action’ or just like other groups that are related to that. Because that could hurt, her ability to get elected. Because people like see that and they’re like well I don’t want to support her even though they stand for the same policies.So. She’s worked out stuff with Mom’s Demand Action to make sure that she can support their goals without supporting the organization openly. And you know, Mom’s Demand Action does the exact same thing. Like a lot of our volunteers are actually from there [Mom’s Demand Action]. She’s really good about strategy and making sure she has a goal and can get there.At other points in the video McCaskill staffers contend that their candidate would be supportive of a handgun ban and using impeachment to remove President Trump from office. Democrat Sen. Claire McCaskill Caught Lying to Missouri Voters on Guns ~ VIDEOIt’s no surprise that the second-term senator would want to hide her views from voters, as they are wildly out of step with Missouri.As a U.S. a senator (since 2007), McCaskill has repeatedly sought to limit the Right-to-Carry, voting against Right-to-Carry reciprocity legislation and a law that allows carry permit holders to exercise their right to self-defense in National Parks. With recognition that the Second Amendment protects an individual righto keep and bear arms in the balance, McCaskill voted to confirm Supreme Court Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan and voted against Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. In 2013, the Missouri senator sided with Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) on her legislation to ban commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms and with Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) on his legislation to ban magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds.As McCaskill was busy advancing gun restrictions, the Missouri legislature was working to better respect gun rights. In 2003, Missouri became the 36th state to enact Right-to-Carry legislation when the legislature overrode Governor Bob Holden’s veto. During a failed gubernatorial campaign in 2004, McCaskill made clear that she would have vetoed the legislation as well. In 2007, the state repealed its onerous and redundant law that required a permit to purchase a handgun. In 2014, Missouri protected the rights of young adults by lowering the minimum age for acquiring a Right-to-Carry permit from 21 to 19. That same year, Missouri voters adopted an amendment to the state constitution that strengthened the document’s right to keep and bear arms provision. In 2016, the Missouri legislature enacted legislation recognizing the Right-to-Carry without a permit.As for presidential politics, President Trump won Missouri’s electoral votes in a landslide in 2016 – besting McCaskill-endorsed Hillary Clinton with 56.4 percent of the vote to 37.9.McCaskill’s effort to hide her anti-gun positions fits into a broader gun control misinformation campaign, whereby candidates and activists are encouraged to repeat moderate-sounding talking points while harboring plans for severe gun control.In June, Democratic candidate for New York’s 21st congressional district Tedra Cobb was caught on camera telling supporters that she had been coached by an Everytown representative to hide the fact that she is in favor of a ban on commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms. More recently, March for Our Lives Activist Emma Gonzalez told Vanity Fair, “We try our very darndest to get out the fact that we don’t want to take away guns and that we are pro second amendment.” Months earlier a more candid Gonzalez admitted her support for gun confiscation, calling for “[r]emoving the assault and semi-automatic weapons from our Civilian society…”(4/4) Removing the assault and semi-automatic weapons from our Civilian society, instituting thorough background checks and mandatory waiting periods (and raising the buying age and banning the production of high-capacity magazines) are the ways to stop shootings in America.— Emma González (@Emma4Change) April 22, 2018All U.S. voters would be well-served by adopting Missouri’s “Show-Me” ethos when it comes to politicians’ purported support for the Second Amendment. As seen with McCaskill, anti-gun politicians will use any underhanded tactic to meet their ends.About: Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.orgThe post Democrat Sen. Claire McCaskill Caught Lying to Missouri Voters on Guns ~ VIDEO appeared first on AmmoLand.com.


For Levi’s, Freedom isn’t Fashionable

Opinion For Levi’s, Freedom isn’t FashionableFairfax, VA – -(Ammoland.com)- Americans eager to take political direction from a multinational pants manufacturer were in luck this week. On Tuesday, PRWeek, a public relations trade publication, published an interview with Levi Strauss & Co. Chief Communications Officer Kelly McGinnis and Everytown for Gun Safety Public Affairs Director Stacey Radnor. The interview shed further light on the apparel giant’s partnership with billionaire gun control financier Michael Bloomberg’s front group and their well-choreographed efforts to attack Americans’ right to keep and bear arms.Last month, the NRA-ILA Grassroots Alert drew attention to Levi’s (which also owns Dockers) decision to abandon its rugged all-American image by donating more that $1 million to gun control groups Everytown and Giffords (formerly Americans for Responsible Solutions and the Legal Community Against Violence). In addition to its financial contribution, the company joined the Everytown Business Leaders for Gun Safety, whose stated goal is to use member companies’ “market footprint… employee networks, [and] public communications platforms” to advance Bloomberg’s gun control agenda.In the PRWeek interview, McGinnis framed the San Francisco-based company’s participation in the gun debate in moralistic terms. According to America’s new self-appointed moral arbiter, Everytown’s efforts to restrict the rights of law-abiding Americans “squared with [Levi’s] core values of empathy, courage, integrity, and originality.”McGinnis also linked the company’s attack on a cherished American freedom to the firm’s increasing emphasis on the global, rather than American, marketplace. The Levi’s flack told PRWeek, “our consumers are getting younger and more than half our business is outside the U.S., and this issue is not controversial with those groups.”The piece also detailed the highly-choreographed nature of Levi’s latest foray into gun control. When asked by PRWeek, “What did you learn from advocacy groups?,” McGinnis explained that the gun control organizations worked with Levi’s on how best to manipulate their target audience. McGinnis stated,Messaging, and that the sensitivity of every word matters, understanding how people read between the lines and take every word literally. Understanding how language has been used on the issue for decades and the signals related to word choices…. We had to be inclusive, understanding, and deliberate about how we channeled our support.In praising Levi’s support for gun control, Radnor told PRWeek, “Levi’s sent a clear message that it’s not acceptable to stand idly by, there’s significant momentum on the issue of gun safety, and we can all be part of the solution.”Despite Radnor’s enthusiasm for the purported “momentum” around gun control, Levi’s should know that the politics of gun control is a bit like their own industry. Support for gun control and the various policy prescriptions offered by civilian disarmament advocates, much like fashion trends, go in and out of style.For instance, shortly after the high-profile shooting in Parkland, Fla., interest in gun control spiked. A Gallup poll from March found that 13 percent of Americans considered guns and gun control to be the most important problem facing America. Proving that gun control is so last season, by September the fad was over and interest had dropped to 2 percent.Gun control advocates’ current obsession is with enacting a ban on the commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms they mislabel “assault weapons.” Berg expressed his support for a semi-auto ban in a September op-ed. According to Gallup polling, support for a ban spiked to 48 percent in 2017 following a high-profile shooting. Polling from October shows that current support for a ban is back down to 40 percent, near its all-time low. Moreover, the unmistakable trend since 1996 shows that Americans are increasingly finding such bans passé.A total ban on civilian ownership of handguns was quite stylish last century, with support measured at a high of 60 percent in 1959. Today, publicly supporting a handgun ban is a faux pas, with support for the measure at 28 percent.Levi’s own relative indifference to gun control from the early 2000s to 2016 coincided with a period in which the Democratic Party found the entire issue unfashionable.Interest in gun control and its different policy interventions comes and goes, as does the ever-changing assortment of anti-gun groups supporting them. In contrast, NRA and our grassroots coalition of gun rights supporters work year in and year out towards a broad but simple goal: protecting Americans’ Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. These potential customers will remember Levi’s actions long after the current orgy of corporate virtue-signaling fades. Freedom is timeless, it’s always in style.About: Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.orgThe post For Levi’s, Freedom isn’t Fashionable appeared first on AmmoLand.com.


Gái xinh W88top

Pages