ABC News: Man Illegally Fires Shotgun, Blames Biden Advice

A Washington state man who illegally fired a shotgun blamed his action on a piece of advice doled out by Vice President Joe Biden earlier this year.

“I did what Joe Biden told me to do,” Jeffrey Barton told Washington affiliate KOIN. “I went outside and fired my shotgun in the air.”

Barton pleaded not guilty to one count of illegal aiming or discharging a firearm Wednesday after firing a shotgun in the air as he chased away people he thought were trying to break into his car.

In an online town-hall discussion in February, Biden, who was one of the administration’s lead speakers on the issue of gun control, offered advice in a hypothetical situation about how to fend off home intruders.

“I said, ‘Jill, if there’s ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony here, walk out and put that double-barrel shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house,’” Biden said.

“You don’t need an AR-15,” he said. “It’s harder to aim, it’s harder to use, and in fact you don’t need 30 rounds to protect yourself.”

“Buy a shotgun,” he concluded.


The Liberty Report Take: Regardless on one’s stance on the Second Amendment, gun control, or gun rights, perhaps it isn’t best to listen to the VP of the United States for personal safety tips…….

Click the link for the article below.

The Blaze: MSNBC Forced to Apologize After Egregiously Taking Quotes Out of Context for Gun Control Segment

MSNBC host Thomas Roberts on Friday aired a portion of Vice President Joe Biden’s speech given at a plaque dedication remembering the Americans lost in the Benghazi terror attack and falsely claimed he was mourning “children as the victims of gun violence.” Roberts was discussing Biden’s reported plans to make a second push for gun control after losing in the first round.

In the selectively edited clip of Biden’s remarks, the vice president was talking about the serious risks that State Department employees and their families face as part of their service. “No child should predecease their parents. And I wish I could tell you we aren’t going to add anymore names with this wall…but the truth of the matter is, there will be more.” Biden said.

After playing the video, Roberts falsely claimed that the vice president was talking about the children of gun violence before announcing his renewed push for background checks.

Watch the video via MSNBC below:

Now compare that with the unedited video of Biden’s comments provided by National Review Online:

Later on Friday, “The Cycle” co-host Touré issued an apology on behalf of MSNBC, calling the out-of-context video a “producer error.” He also said that the network regrets the mistake, according to NRO.
Click below for the story and more:

CBS Seattle: Teachers Shocked, Frightened After School Holds Unplanned Shooting Drill

Teachers were shocked and caught off guard when an Oregon school held a school shooting drill.

The Oregonian reports Pine Eagle Charter School in Halfway held the drill last Friday as children were home for an in-service day. Two masked “gunmen” burst into a meeting room holding 15 teachers firing blanks. Teachers only realized it wasn’t a real shooting when none of them were bleeding.

“There was some commotion,” school principal Cammie DeCastro told The Oregonian.

Teachers were frightened about what happened.

“I’ll tell you, the whole situation was horrible,” Morgan Gover told the paper. “I got a couple in the front and a couple in the back.”

The school held the unplanned drill in hopes to better educate teachers on how to deal with a school shooting. Of the 15 teachers in the room, only two would have survived.

“I’m in charge of a pile of kids,” Gover told The Oregonian. “It made me analyze as a teacher what my role is for these babies.”

The drill has been criticized but the school has dismissed the criticism.

“For us not to know how we were going to respond is leaving us open,” DeCastro told The Oregonian.

DeCastro added that arming teachers or having armed volunteers at the school are possible outcomes for the future.


Click below for the full article.

The Week: Is the government stockpiling ammo to thwart gun owners?

A huge purchase of bullets by the Department of Homeland Security is giving conspiracy theorists fresh ammunition.
In February, the Associated Press reported that DHS wanted to buy some 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition over the next few years. While the department contends the purchase and other similar buys are standard procedure, the timing of that report, coming amid a then-raging gun debate in Washington, led some to fret that the government was stockpiling ammo for possibly nefarious purposes.

Conspiracy theorists questioned why the government would ever need so much ammo. Were the feds simply wasting taxpayer funds? Or, perhaps, amassing a secret army? Alex Jones’ InfoWars led the charge on this front, running articles with headlines like the not-so-subtle “Homeland Security Buys Enough Ammo for a 7-Year War Against the American People.”

“This ammunition is purchased for the sole purpose of being used in active fighting. At the same time, it is a violation of the Geneva Convention to use hollow point ammunition on the battle field,” that post read. “This is crucial to understand. It means the occupying federal government is acquiring this ammunition to be used against the American people.”

Yet what began as a fringe conspiracy theory has gained momentum over the past two months, finally making it all the way to Congress.

The conspiracies popped up on more mainstream Republican-leaning outlets like Fox News and the Daily Caller, albeit typically in a less alarmist vein. Then last week, two Republican lawmakers, Reps. Jim Jordan (Ohio) and Jason Chaffetz (Utah), lent the conspiracies more credibility, holding a joint hearing to demand answers. And though he stopped short of fully embracing the “secret army” theory, Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.) said in a separate hearing that the rampant theorizing had reached a point where “the numbers cease to become Internet rumors and they start having some credibility.”

Other lawmakers posited a slightly different theory: The government, uncertain whether new gun laws would prevail in Congress, had authorized the purchases to remove ammo from shelves. If the government couldn’t take away guns, it would just take away ammo instead, the theory went.

In response, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) and Rep. Frank Lucas (R-Okla.) introduced legislation in both chambers of Congress last week that would place limits on DHS’ ammo-buying capacity.

“President Obama has been adamant about curbing law-abiding Americans’ access and opportunities to exercise their Second Amendment rights,” said Inhofe. “One way the Obama administration is able to do this is by limiting what’s available in the market with federal agencies purchasing unnecessary stockpiles of ammunition.”

Called the Ammunition Management for More Obtainability Act of 2013 (AMMO), the legislation would require the government to report on its ammo reserves, and prevent it from making additional purchases past a certain threshold.

On Monday, Inhofe reiterated his concern in a radio interview with Laura Ingraham.

“We just denied everything that this president and the vice president are trying to do,” he said. “So what are they going to do if they want to, if they want to violate our Second Amendment rights? Do it with ammo.”

Homeland Security has more or less laughed off the suggestions. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano said the department “found it so inherently unbelievable that those statements would be made it was hard to ascribe credibility to them.”

Click below for the full article.

The Week: Senate Democrats are still clueless on gun control

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) is still pushing for expanded background checks. That's not enough for some Democrats.

Apparently, a group of senators is “quietly seeking a new path on gun control.” Or at least, they were quietly doing so until The New York Times wrote about the once-covert effort. Now, of course, the efforts are less quiet.

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) is reportedly back talking to Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) about how they might attract more support for a bill expanding the current background check system. The two senators, it seems, are focused on background checks and background checks alone, a move I think wise given the widespread view that such a measure is entirely appropriate.

Unfortunately, the Times also detailed a push being lead by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) to revise or expand penalties for firearms trafficking offenses. Now, federal prosecutors really do not need more tools to prosecute individuals they catch trafficking in illegal weapons, but of course, no United States senator has ever gone hungry by being “tough on crime.” And yet… the mere fact that Gillibrand is pushing for more gun regulations at the same time Toomey and Manchin are trying to revive background checks shows that Senate Democrats learned little from their last gun-control fiasco. Furthermore, Gillibrand’s stated reason for pursuing the new law might well be the poster child for the sort of reasoning that keeps gun rights enthusiasts paranoid and the NRA fully funded.

Gillibrand’s quote in the Times is simple, and its logic is straightforward. Asked why she we need stricter trafficking laws, the junior senator from New York explained that “I think trafficking can be the base of the bill, the rock on which everything else stands. I also think it’s complementary to background checks because, let’s be honest, criminals aren’t going to buy a gun and go through a background check. So if you really want to go after criminals, you have to have to do both.”

The most ardent gun rights advocates literally stay up at night worrying that each gun regulation they allow to pass could be the one that sets off the avalanche that turns this nation into some sort of gun-outlawing regulatory hell. This group of people is naturally suspicious of arguments for “commonsense” gun control, not so much because they really think that their gun rights would be in any sense compromised by the recently defeated revisions to the existing background check regime, but rather because they do not think that the advocates for the aforementioned regime will be content to stop once background checks are in place.

Many of these pro-gun individuals would be fine with background checks. But they fear, with some reason, that if they concede on background checks today, then the next time some madman gets a firearm and kills 30 people, the same proponents of background checks will be harnessing public outrage by turning the families of the victims into lobbyists for what they will undoubtedly label “commonsense” reform that decent American couldn’t possibly oppose. For that reason, the position of many gun rights advocates is that they prefer to defend their right to “keep and bear arms” from the Rhine so they will never be forced to do so from the Rubicon.

Even crazy-sounding theories occasionally appear to have at least a tiny basis in reality. Indeed, from time to time, gun regulation proponents appear to push for stricter gun laws irrespective of whether or not particular proposals actually make anyone safer. The fact that President Obama allowed Sen. Dianne Feinstein to push him into calling for a renewal of the assault weapons ban — despite the fact that virtually every non-partisan group that has studied the AWB found that it had virtually no impact on violent crime rates — suggests that at least a few powerful people are more interested in restricting gun rights than they are in actually curbing violent crime. Indeed, the president dramatically weakened the chances of getting background checks approved by attaching it to a push for the AWB, thereby allowing groups like the NRA to, I think unfairly, imply that the president’s motive for pushing reform was more anti-gun than anti-violence.

Which brings us back to Gillibrand and the renewed push for reform. Consider the New Yorker’s stated logic for pursuing tighter gun trafficking laws: Criminals will not buy guns through a complete background check regime, so if we manage to pass that, we also need to pass a another criminal statute relating to the possession, movement, and distribution of firearms. Here’s what every gun person wonders when they read Gillibrand’s statement: “Wait, I thought the whole point of background checks is to keep guns away from criminals… Is she saying that if it works, then we need another law?”

I want background checks to pass, but I hold out little hope that they will. And if they have any chance at all, it will be as a standalone measure not packaged with any other proposals. Senate Democrats need to wake up and stop making the perfect the enemy of the good.


Click below to read the article on The Week website.

CBS News: Newtown, Conn. residents reject budget with extra school security

A child gazes from a school bus as it passes by the St. Rose of Lima Catholic church while mourners gathered for a funeral service for shooting victim Jessica Rekos, 6, on December 18, 2012 in Newtown, Connecticut.
Residents have rejected a budget that included money for extra school security in the wake of the December school shootings, with town leaders suggesting the spending and required tax increases were a hard sell.Voters on Tuesday turned down the $72 million school budget by 482 votes and rejected the $39 million town government budget by 62 votes. Nearly 4,500 residents voted on the plans, which would have represented an increase of more than 5 percent next fiscal year.

First Selectwoman Patricia Llodra said the killings of 20 children and six educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School had an impact on the vote, the first since the massacre.

“We’re very fragile as a community,” she said. “We’ve lost some of our confidence.”

Officials had put an extra $770,000 in the school and town budgets to hire extra police officers and unarmed security guards in each of Newtown’s public and private schools. The plan was spurred by the Dec. 14 shootings.

Jeff Capeci, chairman of the Legislative Council, said the higher school budget also would have expanded half-day kindergarten to full-day and allowed for the hiring of a new high school administrator and for capital spending and technology.

“I thought it was an incredibly high increase for this economy,” Capeci said. “At the end of the day, Newtown voters thought it was too much of an increase.”

Llodra called the spending increases substantial.

“It’s just beyond the ability of our community to grapple with,” she said.

In contrast, the current budget is up by a fraction of 1 percent over the previous year.

Some may find it interesting that people would be willing to throw away the most sublime constitution ever written by man in the history of the world and sacrifice their liberty for the sake of security……yet they don’t want a local tax hike to pay for school security.  Click below for the full article.

ABC News: GOP Presidential Candidate Chris Christie Wants Gun Control: Chris Christie’s Gun Gamble

The Newtown, Conn., shooting has prompted a handful of states to enact tougher gun laws, and blue-state governors have led the way.

With Congress yet to agree on any federal changes, Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley and New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo — both thought to be Democratic presidential contenders in 2016 — have shepherded tighter restrictions in their states. In Connecticut, Democratic Gov. Dan Malloy signed a new gun law earlier this month.

Add Chris Christie to that list.

On Friday, the New Jersey Republican governor and possible GOP White House hopeful unveiled a new plan for tighter gun laws in the Garden State.

Previously on the record as supporting some gun restrictions on the books in New Jersey — some of the toughest in the nation — the governor took an active turn on the gun issue. Christie proposed requiring mental-health adjudication records be added to background checks, banning the Barrett .50 caliber rifle, new and stiffer penalties for straw-purchasers and gun trafficking, parental consent for violent video game sales, and making it easier for doctors to mandate commitment or outpatient treatment for mental-health patients deemed dangerous. He added a mental-health working group to a state gun-violence task force, charged with making recommendations.

“The existing system that we have placed in New Jersey is much stronger already than the proposed Toomey-Manchin legislation that failed in the Senate earlier this week,” Christie said at a news conference on Friday. “The [state] assembly has put some bills forward, the [state] senate’s gonna put some bills forward, I’ve now put bills forward, and now we have to let the process work to reach consensus of what works for the people of the state.”

PHOTO: In this March 12, 2013 file photo, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie addresses a packed house at St. Luke's Baptist Church in Paterson, N.J., during his 102nd town hall meeting.

Highlighting a political conundrum for Christie, the gun push will likely play well in his home state, which already restricts guns more aggressively than most — but it might raise concerns among Republicans elsewhere, posing a hurdle for Christie if he seeks the presidency in 2016.

“It’s only gonna hurt him,” said Keith Appell, a former adviser to Steve Forbes’ 2000 presidential campaign, the Swift Vets and POWs for Truth campaign, and Florida Gov. Rick Scott’s 2010 campaign.

“He may come right at it and try to stare people down by sheer force of his personality and attempt to convince people that he’s one of them in spite of these steps,” Appell said. “He will find, as many have before him, that it won’t play. It’ll slam him right back in the face.”

In his new push, Christie has bucked conservative orthodoxy for the second time this year. In February, he joined seven other Republican governors in accepting an expansion of state Medicaid programs under President Obama’s health-reform law, the Affordable Care Act.

“It is clear over the past two or three months that he really worked to prioritize his New Jersey constituency over his national conservative constituency, and this is kind of groundbreaking, because up until about two or three months ago, we saw a series of actions that really defied public opinions in the state,” said Prof. Brigid Harrison, who teaches political science and law at Montclair State University in Montclair, N.J.

Harrison referenced Christie’s cuts to family-planning funding in the state budget.

Christie already has some problems with conservative activists. After supporting a federal Hurricane Sandy relief bill, he was not invited to the Conservative Political Action Conference, an annual confab that hosts top conservative politicians for speeches to a large crowd of activists in the Washington, D.C., area.

Click below for the full article.


The Daily Caller: Eighth-grader arrested over NRA shirt returns to school in same shirt

The West Virginia eighth-grader who was suspended and, astonishingly,  arrested last week after he refused to remove a t-shirt supporting the National  Rifle Association returned to school on Monday.

In a move The Daily Caller can only characterize as courageous, 14-year-old  Jared Marcum returned to Logan Middle School in Logan County, West Va., wearing  exactly the same shirt, which depicts a hunting rifle with the statement “protect your right.”

According to Fox News, other students across the rural county showed their  support for Marcum by wearing similar shirts to school.

“There’s a lot of people wearing this same exact shirt, showing great, great  support and I really appreciate it,” Marcum said in the morning outside the  schoolhouse door, according to local NCB affiliate WBOY-TV.

Marcum’s attorney, Ben White, said that school officials are sticking by the  eighth-grader’s one-day suspension because, they say, he caused a  disruption.

“Their version is that the suspension was for disrupting the educational  process, not the shirt,” White told Fox News.

White has called the school’s position into question. He asserts that his  client was exercising his free speech rights. As ABC News reports, Marcum’s version of events is that  he had worn the shirt for several hours without incident.

At lunchtime, Marcum maintains, a teacher confronted him about the shirt.  When Marcum said he would not take off the shirt or turn it inside out, the  teacher began yelling, which caused a cafeteria scene.

“I believe the teacher was acting beyond the scope of his employment,” White  told ABC. “What the video shows is that students did step up on the benches to  the tables in the lunchroom when they were escorting Jared out of building. Kids  jumped up, clapping.”

The police chief in Logan City (pop. 1,779) said that Marcum was arrested for  the disruption he caused at school.

“His conduct in school almost incited a riot,” Chief E.K. Harper told  ABC.

White added that Marcum wore the shirt to express his support for the Second  Amendment. He said the school’s dress code does not forbid such shirts. A  straightforward reading of the dress code would seem to bear that interpretation  out. The dress code, which is posted online, forbids certain kinds of clothing — for example, messages that support violence, discrimination and alcohol use — but nowhere are constitutional rights mentioned.

Click below for the rest of the story of true courage and standing up for your constitutional rights.


The Week: Does the gun bill’s failure prove the Senate is broken?

Background checks have overwhelming support from the American public: A Washington Post-ABC News poll last week found that 86 percent of people support a law “requiring background checks on people buying guns at gun shows or online.”

The Senate, ostensibly, represents those same people. Yet the Toomey-Manchin bill regulating that exact issue failed in the Senate on Wednesday by a vote of 54-46. (It needed 60 votes to pass.) What’s wrong with this picture?

The main problem is that small states are vastly overrepresented in the Senate. If you judge the vote by population, the Toomey-Manchin bill actually got a majority of the votes. Alec MacGillis of The New Republic breaks down the numbers and finds that “senators voting for the bill represented about 194 million people, while the senators voting against the bill represented about 118 million people,” which is “getting close to a two-thirds majority in favor of the measure.”

While the Constitution has always protected the interests of small states, the disparity has never been this big. Ezra Klein of The Washington Post points out just how much things have changed:

During the first Congress, Virginia, the largest state, was roughly 12 times the size of Delaware, which was, at the time, the smallest state. Today, California is 66 times the size of Wyoming. That makes the Senate five times less proportionate today than it was at the founding. [Washington Post]

Of course, the effects of the Great Compromise wouldn’t be so, well, great, if it weren’t so easy to filibuster bills. “Everything needs 60 votes today. This is supposed to be a majority body,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein complained after the bill failed, according to The Huffington Post.


Click below for the full article.

The Blaze: MSNBC Publicly Shames Senators Who ‘Voted Against Common Sense,’ Warns Of Retribution In 2014

The air in the small town of West, Texas was still filled with the smell of smoke and ammonia as medical crews worked to help the hundreds who were injured while rescue workers struggled to locate and identify the dozens killed in yesterday’s fertilizer plant explosion, MSNBC was looking for revenge. Revenge for the death of the gun control bill in the U.S. Senate.

Following the Senate’s rejection of the gun control bill, MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” launched a campaign of public shaming of those who voted “no.” (And in some cases, they chose a few unflattering photos to display.)

MSNBC Publicly Shames Senators Who Voted No On Gun Bill

On Thursday morning, the majority of the first hour of “Morning Joe” was dedicated to the not-so-surprising results from yesterday’s defeat of the Senate’s gun bill. Co-host Mika Brzezinski talked about the “stinging loss for the president…and might I add to the script, the country.” Brzezinski went on to talk about those who voted against the bill, announcing that the show was going to put their names and pictures on the screen so all could see the 54 “Faces of Cowardice.”

Democrats who voted against the bill were featured individually as well as given their own special page at the end of the segment.

MSNBC Publicly Shames Senators Who Voted No On Gun Bill

Joe Scarborough also piled on, warning of consequences coming to anyone who voted against the “90 percent.” (Scarborough declared himself and anyone who supported the background checks in the now-dead bill, “We are the 90 percent!”)


Click below for the full article and some other related articles.

MSNBC Publicly Shames Senators Who ‘Voted Against Common Sense,’ Warns Of Retribution In 2014

Is the liberal anti-gun push backfiring?

MSNBC Host Blames NRA for ‘Slow’ Boston Investigation: ‘In the Business of Helping Bombers Get Away With Their Crimes’