Among the 23 “executive actions” President Obama announced
yesterday amidst great fanfare (and shameless exploitation of children)
is this:
“Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease
Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.”
Obama may want to put a hold on that one, until he comes to grips with what happened the
last time a U.S. president tried it.
During the late ’70s, President Jimmy Carter and his inner circle
determined to push through comprehensive new federal gun-control
legislation. They decided the best way to grease the congressional skids
would be to have a massive scientific study conducted which, in the
end, would proclaim that gun-control laws were effective in reducing
crime.
So the Carter folks handed out a major gun-control research grant to
University of Massachusetts sociology professor James D. Wright and his
colleagues Peter Rossi and Kathleen Daly. They spent four years and lots
of tax dollars to produce what would be the most comprehensive,
critical study of gun control ever undertaken. In 1981, they published
the results of their research – an exhaustive, three-volume work titled
“Under the Gun.”
There was only one problem.
Their findings, summarized starkly by co-author Wright, were that
“Gun control laws do not reduce crime.”
“When Wright, Rossi and Daly produced their report for the National
Institute of Justice, they delivered a document quite different from the
one they had expected to write,” explained David Kopel, research
director of the Independence Institute and co-author of the law school
textbook, “Firearms Law and the Second Amendment.” “Carefully reviewing
all existing research to date, the three scholars found no persuasive
scholarly evidence that America’s 20,000 gun-control laws had reduced
criminal violence.”
Among their many findings:
- The landmark federal Gun Control Act of 1968, banning most
interstate gun sales, had no discernible impact on the criminal
acquisition of guns from other states.
- Detroit’s law providing mandatory sentences for felonies committed with a gun was found to have no effect on gun-crime patterns.
- Washington, D.C.’s 1977 ban on the ownership of handguns (except
those already registered in the District) was not linked to any
reduction in gun crime in the nation’s capital.
- Polls claiming to show that a large majority of the population
favored “more gun control” were debunked as being the product of biased
questions, and of the fact that most people have no idea how strict gun
laws already are.
“As the scholars frankly admitted, they had started out their
research as gun-control advocates,” said Kopel, “and had been forced to
change their minds by a careful review of the evidence.”
Fast-forward to the late ’80s, when the women of Orlando, Fla., were
terrified of being sexually attacked, since 33 women had already been
raped in just one nine-month period. After people began flocking to gun
stores to protect themselves, the Orlando Sun-Sentinel newspaper got
together with the police to offer a firearms safety course.
It was all very well publicized. Everybody knew that in Orlando there
were 6,000 women who had handguns and knew how to use them. The result
was that in the following nine-month period, there were only three
rapes. In addition, crime in general declined. The fact is, Orlando,
Fla., was the only U.S. city with a population of over 100,000 that had a
reduction in crime that year.
In fact, it is not only Orlando that experienced a dramatic decrease
in crime. After the 1987 Florida right-to-carry legislation, homicide,
firearm homicide and handgun homicide rates all
decreased.
Eight of Florida’s 10 largest cities experienced drastic decreases in
homicide rates from 1987 through 1995: Jacksonville, down 46 percent;
Miami, down 13 percent; Tampa Bay, down 24 percent; Orlando, down 41
percent; Fort Lauderdale, down 53 percent; Hollywood, down 30 percent;
Clearwater, down 21 percent; and Miami Beach down an incredible
93 percent.
Opponents of Florida’s right-to-carry legislation claimed their state
would become known as the “Gunshine State.” But the last quarter
century’s
actual experience (as of mid-2011, Florida has issued
a total of 2,031,106 concealed-carry permits under the 1987 law) proves
Florida’s trailblazing program to fight crime has been a tremendous
success. As U.S. Sen. Orin Hatch, R- Utah, put it: “The effect of that
legislation on state crime rates has been astonishing. The predictions
of the gun-control advocates were wrong, flat wrong.”
But no matter. Politicians and others intent on restricting or
eliminating firearms ownership ignore mountains of evidence, virtually
all of which points to the same conclusion – that guns in the hands of
responsible, law-abiding citizens always, in all places and times,
result in a safer, more secure and more civilized society.
Therefore, if the Centers for Disease Control, at Obama’s direction,
actually conducts honest research – and that’s a magnum-caliber “if” –
it will arrive at the same conclusion as Jimmy Carter’s research team:
Their basic premise is wrong.
As John Lott, former chief economist at the U.S. Sentencing
Commission, crime-statistic researcher and author of the widely cited
book, “More Guns, Less Crime,”
reiterated today:“Gun control just does not work. Indeed, it makes things worse.
As a request to all patriots, please help the article below to go viral. It is important that Americans see and understand the sellout of our beloved republic by the anti-American Obama Administration.
Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Like a young burglar I once saw featured in a documentary who enrolled in technical college so that he could learn how to thwart any alarm system, Barack Obama studied Constitutional Law. Whether he holds any degrees as a result of having done so is unclear, since his academic records remain sealed; what’s clear is that he has masterfully circumvented countless constitutional provisions to date.
We know that there have been varying degrees of unconstitutionality on Obama’s part across such activities as the Fast and Furious gunrunning operation, Obamacare, the war in Libya, campaigning from the White House and recess appointments. President Obama has now demanded – yes, demanded – that he be allowed to raise the debt ceiling unilaterally, eschewing negotiations with Congress (money appropriations being the purview of the House), which is blatantly unconstitutional.
Last week, using Vice President Joe Biden as proxy, he floated the trial balloon of his unilateral action toward neutralizing the Second Amendment. Bear in mind that this is a man who asserted years ago that he didn’t think people should own guns at all.
Far more dangerous and terrifying than Obama’s utter disregard for the Constitution is the abject treason of this president; this also remains largely unknown due to the mass media. While Americans have been encouraged to perceive Obama as just another president muddling through during a challenging period (apart from his historic First Black President status), it doesn’t take much digging to determine the direction in which he is taking us.
Throw in the testimony of proven, reliable sources some highly suspicious phenomena, and the situation becomes truly petrifying.
It has already been reported in WND and in Jihad Watch that jihadis are training on U.S. soil. If this is the case, why have they not been eradicated with extreme prejudice? Leaving aside the fact that Obama’s allegiance to the United States ought to supersede his soft spot for Muslims, perhaps the administration’s laxity here stems from something other than that affinity.
Let me share that which was related to me via one international business interest with strong ties to the nations highlighted in the following scenario:
According to this source, President Obama had a mid-level U.S. official meet with a Chinese officer in 2011 to find out if the Chinese were open to a land and resource swap for debt forgiveness. The upshot of this is that the Chinese are now engaging in experimental “farming” and “scientific” studies in several locations in the U.S. (in various states). The personnel involved are all Chinese military, and the plan is to use these as the base for the expansion of “land settlements” in payment of the U.S. debt to China.
Also in 2011, the Bank of China reportedly sent a team to the U.S. to do land analysis and valuations based on resources that have been identified on federally held lands. The group was tasked to visit various preselected sites, including some on the Gulf of Mexico, and arrive at resource-based values between $2 trillion and $5 trillion (enough to satisfy America’s debt to China). According to this scenario, the issuing of new drilling licenses in the U.S. have been stopped on federally held land until the Chinese can be in position to take over new oil production.
As reported on Jan. 14, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke urged U.S. lawmakers to lift the country’s borrowing limit, citing scant weeks until a potentially disastrous debt default. According to my source, the United Nations and the World Bank have been given signals that they will be called upon to broker the deal with America defaulting on debt that it cannot satisfy. This is not to be a fire sale, but is to appear as the great economic rescue plan for the U.S. Thus, it will be eagerly accepted by media-addled Americans and Obama supporters.
So Obama has sold America out – literally – which will come as little surprise to many readers, this plan apparently being the brainchild of Obama’s senior adviser, Valerie Jarrett, and members of China’s Politburo Standing Committee. Thus, the under-reported but long-standing goals of Jarrett, Obama, David Axelrod and a host of communist Obama cronies to bring America under communist sway will finally come to fruition.
Such activities have been rumored over the last couple of years, but had not been substantiated. However, this data has been verified by sources I know to be reliable; in fact, I have reported on their information previously, much to the consternation of the Chinese government.
It is the Chinese who are pushing for the disarming of the American populace. They do not want to bear the brunt of the backlash from the American public when their work and aspirations are exposed. Three weeks ago, I was told that “this will happen in weeks, not months,” and it is now occurring.
So much for our curiosity as to why in the midst of our economic woes, Obama is so vigorously capitalizing on the Sandy Hook massacre to advance what will certainly be draconian and unconstitutional measures relative to firearms. Obama’s gun-control plan includes at least 23 different executive actions – bypassing Congress and prompting at least one GOP lawmaker to suggest impeachment proceedings if Obama acts in this manner.
At this juncture, I think that impeachment is incredibly unlikely despite his treason, given what he has succeeded in getting away with under the noses of the Republican leadership. As I have been informed, there are key Republican leaders who are aware of what is transpiring between China and the Obama administration. These have been sold the notion that America is bankrupt, but that they can work with our debtors to see that an equitable settlement is reached.
The question to which this gives rise, of course, is: Equitable for whom?
Is this the precursor to the Second American Revolution, or have gun sales gone through the roof for no apparent reason and toward no apparent objective (such as “to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution”)? Are heretofore sane, sober citizens of this republic taking leave of their senses en masse, or are they quietly and methodically preparing to stop our Union, to which thousands have given their lives, from being torn asunder?