Donate :: Search

Facebook :: Twitter ::

 

FOAC's Weekly Message For Sunday September 16th 2018 :: 09/16/2018

FOAC has always tried to be as fair and impartial as possible with candidates from all political parties. Yet, as the Democrats shift to the left on a number of issues, it is clear that the vast majority of them have gone all in on one of the most contentious issues around -- gun control.

A study by The Wall Street Journal found that of the 63 candidates on the House Democrats’ campaign arm’s list of seats to flip in November, 62 support expansive gun control in many cases. Many of these candidates are outright socialist in their views.

While Dems have long pushed for gun control, there was a time when some candidates ignored the issue, included gun rights as part of their platform or even allied with the National Rifle Association. But support for gun control among candidates has hardened in recent years.

That shift is being reflected in activity on the campaign trail, with more Democrats being more vocal on gun control and their advocacy of proposals such as background checks.

Pennsylvania Congressman Conor Lamb, who won the special election in Pennsylvania's 18th District in March, made clear in his first television advertisement that while he is no longer in the Marine Corps, he "still likes to shoot."

Lamb's stance on guns was a stunt and a deception with his true beliefs manifesting themselves shortly thereafter. His previous statements in the Special Election, “"I believe we have a pretty good law on the books and it says on paper that there are a lot of people who should never get guns in their hands," he said. "And we know that the background check system is not achieving that result. What I think it's going to take is people in Congress who are willing to do more than just talk, who are willing to actually work together and stay late, if it requires that, and do some things that would really produce change" when Lamb subsequently participated in numerous marches with anti-gun groups and refuses to engage even his own constituents on 2^nd Amendment issues. On October 8^th Lamb participated in a carefully orchestrated anti-gun event with the Gifford’s anti-gun group and Lamb told the crowd at the gun-violence round table, according to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, that the current Congress won’t act on “even the most common sense things, things most anyone would consider uncontroversial”. As is typical of Conor Lamb he refused to identify what ‘common sense’ actually means!

There has been a spike in spending on ads by Democrats that focus on gun control across gubernatorial, Senate and House races, according to USA Today. In 2014, there were 558 pro-gun control spots, mostly from Democrats. In 2018, that number had rocketed to 18,416, in comparison to 8,897 pro-gun spots by mostly Republicans. We should ALL be asking where this money for these ads is coming from!!

In the House races, anti-gun ads represented about 67 percent of those with explicit messages on guns, compared to just six percent in 2014.

That has in turn led to some significant about-faces on the issue from long-time lawmakers. The Journal points to Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick, D-Ariz. In a 2010 ad, she bragged about her “A” rating from the NRA, but last month she said she would ban “assault weapons” and was given an “F’ by the pro-gun rights group. She said her position changed after the shooting of former Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in 2011.

But while the move may rally the Democratic Party base, it may also give the Republican base a boost -- which has repeatedly shown itself more motivated on Second Amendment issues.

This was the latest example of the Democrat Party catering to its left-wing base, promoted by ‘billionaire money’ like Bloomberg and Soros, rather than everyday Americans.

Gun control is risky politically for Democrats, who are wary of the political lesson learned from the 90s, but this lesson MUST be reinforced this fall again if we are to maintain our precious Freedoms.

In September 1994 the Democratic-controlled Congress passed an assault weapons ban, which was subsequently signed into law by President Bill Clinton.

Less than two months later the Republicans led by Rep. Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., took control of both the House and the Senate in what was dubbed the “Revolution of 94.”

In Florida, anti-gun groups said they accepted the more restrictive gun laws passed after Parkland as the most they could get. They quickly followed that up with a statement that they would return in 2019, after a new governor and Legislature is elected and seek much more restrictive limitations on the Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Considering the forces at work in this upcoming mid-term election and in our national debate it needs to be remembered that laws relating to the exercise of rights will be created by the will and guidance of the voters, therefore forming solid majorities in favor of rights is the best course. That being said, there is good reasons to believe that the Democrats are a day late and a dollar short in their current focus on gun control.

The federal judiciary is moving towards Constitutional Freedoms. Assuming that Brett Kavanaugh will be confirmed, his appointment is but the latest of many Trump nominees who have been placed on the bench from district courts on up. With Heller and McDonald already being treated as precedent and Kavanaugh’s position on gun control, the trend is in favor of the 2^nd Amendment and Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

The problem for advocates of control is that as the courts turn increasingly against them, they’ll have to learn how to use persuasion, not force. That may be impossible for them. How the 2018 election will go is still an open question. Those of us who value gun rights still have to remind our representatives that our support for them is contingent on their support for the basic principle of liberty that is at the heart of our national identity as a Republic.

Lessons we Refuse to Learn- Predictions About the Next Mass Murder

Muslim terrorists took over a school and killed 300 people. That attack in Beslan, Russia occurred 14 years ago. Many of us would like to make sure it won’t happen here. In contrast, some American politicians are eager for the next mass murder. This is what we’ve learned and what we’ve refused to learn in the last 14 years.

• Muslims conduct terrorist attacks all over the world. There have been more than 33 thousand attacks since the attacks on the World Trade Center on 9/11/2001.
• We have muslim terrorists here in the US. We imported some of them. Some grew up here.
• Political correctness now prevents us from calling a terrorists a terrorist. Being a terrorist isn’t illegal..until after they kill.
• We pretend that opening our borders to terrorists and drug gangs shows our compassion. We pretend that being weak and non-confrontational means we won’t be chosen as a target. Unfortunately, that is the emotional maturity of a young teenager.
• Our body politic and the press would rather feel good than do good. That attitude might have worked in grade school, but it doesn’t work well for adults trying to protect their children from terrorists.
• Protecting our children admits that the world is a dangerous place. That contradicts the rainbows and unicorns view of the world so popular with some voters and politicians. They would rather spend money on their favorite special interest group than protect our children. Denial is more than a river in Egypt.
• After a mass murder, big-government politicians use our predictable reaction in order to advance the cause of more government controls. For the record, those controls failed to stop terrorism, but that doesn’t stop the security theater that the media wraps around big government. When the public asks government to “do something, do anything”, the politicians and bureaucrats do what is best for their careers rather than what is best for us.
• Big government can’t protect us. The FBI failed to stop many mass murders. That is because the management of the FBI hopes the agency will grow after the next terrorist attack. Their personal motivation is obvious. A larger government offers government executives more opportunities to move up the bureaucratic hierarchy. Too bad for us that our dead kids are the stepping stones along their career.
• The terrorist event that best advances big-government is neither too big nor too small. A mass murder that is too large would illuminate the basic incompetence and corruption of our government; a poor reputation they richly deserve. A terrorist attack that is too small won’t advance the legislation necessary to form new government regulations and departments. Fortunately for all of us, large scale terrorists operations are easier to detect, infiltrate, and intercept that small isolated cells.
• School, church and hospital administrators will blame someone else after the next attack uncovers their poor or non-existent security.

Government won’t protect us NOR make us secure and they have NO LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY to protect citizens. I'm sorry, but that is up to us. No one said that Freedom in a Republic was easy: they only said that it is better than the alternatives. The only solution I see is to pointedly ask our politicians what they are doing to let us protect ourselves.

Having asked that question before, here are a few words of warning.

TOO many Politicians will tell you want they want to do, but are rather shy to say what they have actually accomplished.

The basic questions are obvious. Are we currently monitoring radical imams? Why haven’t we closed muslim terror cells? Why haven’t we adopted national guidelines for armed school staff, armed church staff, and armed hospital staff?

Please get their answer in black and white. That way we can hang their platitudes and rhetoric for all to see in the public square after the next attack

Why Is There Such A Fight Over Kavanaugh? It's Really About Our Constitution and Those Who Fear Adherence to It!

One of the best statements of how the Framers saw the role of the federal government is found in Federalist Paper 45, written by James Madison, who is known as the "Father of the Constitution": "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. ... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people." Today's reality is the polar opposite of that vision. The powers of the federal government are numerous and indefinite, and those of state governments are few and defined.

If confirmed, Brett Kavanaugh will bring to the U.S. Supreme Court a vision closer to that of the Framers than the vision of those who believe that the Constitution is a "living document." Those Americans rallying against Kavanaugh's confirmation are really against the U.S. Constitution rather than the man -- Judge Kavanaugh -- whom I believe would take seriously his oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution.

Was Madison misinformed or just plain ignorant about the powers delegated to Congress? Before we answer, let's examine statements of other possibly "misinformed" Americans. In 1854, President Franklin Pierce vetoed a bill intended to help the mentally ill, writing to the Senate, "I can not find any authority in the Constitution for making the Federal Government the great almoner of public charity." He added that to approve such spending would "be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive of the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded." President Grover Cleveland out-vetoed his predecessors by vetoing 584 acts of Congress, including many congressional spending bills, during his two terms as president in the late 1800s. His often-given veto message was, "I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution." By the way, President Cleveland was a Democrat.

Were the Founding Fathers, previous congressmen and previous presidents who could not find constitutional authority for today's massive federal government intervention just plain stupid, ignorant, callous and uncaring? Article 1 of the Constitution defines the role of Congress. Its Section 8 lists powers delegated to Congress.

But there is a genuinely abused constitutional loophole that many congressmen use as a blank check for expanding government power, as well as justification to control most aspects of our lives -- namely, the general welfare clause. The Constitution's preamble contains the phrase "promote the general Welfare," and Article 1, Section 8 contains the phrase "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States." What did the Framers mean by "general Welfare"? In 1817, Thomas Jefferson wrote, "Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated." Madison wrote: "With respect to the words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."

Case closed: It's our Constitution that's the problem for leftist politicians and gun banners in our government -- not Brett Kavanaugh.

Is Diversity Tearing America Apart?

On September 10th Fox News’ Tucker Carlson, after playing clips of Democratic politicians reciting that truth of modern liberalism, Tucker Carlson asked, “How, precisely, is diversity our strength? Since you've made this our new national motto, please be specific.”

 

http://video.foxnews.com/v/5833240529001/?playlist_id=5198073478001#sp=show-clips

Well, proponents of diversity had a quite predictable reaction to Carlson's question, with some declaring him a racist for having raised it, suggests that what we are dealing with here is not a demonstrable truth but a movement that is not subject to question or debate.

Yet the question remains valid: Where is the scientific, historic or empirical evidence that the greater the racial, ethnic, cultural and religious diversity of a nation, the stronger it becomes?

From recent decades, it seems more true to say the reverse: The more diverse a nation, the greater the danger of its disintegration.

Ethnic diversity, after all, tore apart Russia, splintering the Soviet Union into 15 nations, three of which — Moldova, Ukraine, Georgia — have since split further along ethnic lines.

And even as we bask in the glow of diversity, loudly proclaiming it to be our greatest strength, nations everywhere are recoiling from it.

The rise of populism and nationalism across Europe is a reaction to the new diversity represented by the Arab, Asian and African millions who have lately come, and the tens of millions desperate to enter.

Japan's population has ceased to grow, and each year brings fewer toddlers into its schools. Yet Japan continues to resist the racial and ethnic diversity greater immigration would bring. Why, if diversity is a strength?

America has always been more than an idea or an ideology as a nation. It is a country that belongs to a separate and identifiable people with its own history, heroes, holidays, symbols, songs, myths, mores — its own culture.

Again, where is the evidence that the more Americans who can trace their roots to the Third World, and not to Europe, the stronger we will be?

And who are loudest in preaching that our diversity is our strength?

Are they not the same people who told us that democracy, ignoring the concept of a Republic, was the destiny of all mankind and that, as the world's “exceptional nation,” we must seize the opportunity of our global preeminence to impose its blessings on the less enlightened peoples of the Middle East?

If the establishment is proven wrong about greater diversity bringing greater strength to America, there will be no do-over for the USA.

GAO Report Finds Few Who Fail Background Checks Are Charged

Gun grabbers look at violent crime rates and swear up and down that we need more gun laws. After all, criminals still get their hands on firearms, which means the laws aren’t working.

The reality, however, is much different. The reality is that our current gun laws stop a large number of people from buying guns when they’re not legally permitted to do so and an even LARGER number of citizens who should not have been stopped from buying guns.

The problem is that despite knowingly breaking the law, as shown in this GAO report, few are prosecuted for it.

Few gun buyers are ever prosecuted for lying on forms they are required to complete as part of a background check when purchasing a weapon, a new federal study concludes.

In the 29 states where federal officials handle the background checks, there were only 12 prosecutions in fiscal 2017 of people who were found to have provided false information, such as failing to disclose a felony conviction, according to the Government Accountability Office.

It is a federal crime, for people trying to obtain guns, to make a false statement or furnish false or misrepresented identification that is intended to deceive people on the legality of the sale of the firearm. Violators face up to 10 years in prison and fines of up to $250,000.

Of a total of 8.6 million transactions processed by federal officials that year, 112,710 were rejected but only about 12,700 were referred for further investigation by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Now, sometimes, it’s difficult even to know where to look for someone, so I get that.

But when you do find someone or know their identity, few are prosecuted. Then, they try another way to get a gun and get one, only to commit a violent crime that’s then blamed on law-abiding gun owners who already swallowed countless gun laws to curb violence before and watched as it did nothing.

If they’d been prosecuted and convicted, they’d have been in jail, not on the street trying to get a gun from some thug with stolen firearms in the trunk of his car. Sorry, but that’s the sad fact.

Maybe it’s just me, but if you’re not going to prosecute people for this stuff, why does the law even exist in the first place? There are a lot of things out there that should probably be law, but any law on the books should either be taken seriously or repealed. This is a prime example, in my opinion.

Instead, though, we have a law-breaker not being prosecuted at the same time we who follow the law are fighting to protect our Second Amendment rights because of the actions of those who aren’t being prosecuted until someone is either bleeding or dead. Maybe it’s just me, but nothing about this sounds like justice for all.

For those who base a policy decision on logic, it makes no sense, but for those who base it on ideas like “fairness,” then please explain to me how this is remotely fair.

I’m waiting.

David Hogg, Parkland Survivor/Gun Control Advocate, Shows His Ignorance on the Very Guns He Wants to Ban

David Hogg has become one of the faces of the "March for Our Lives" movement, the gun control group that is predominantly made up of Stoneman Douglas survivors.

Since Hogg has become a household name, he assumes that he knows anything and everything about guns. Hint: He doesn't.

Earlier this week he tweeted out one of the dumbest things he's ever said (and there have been a lot!).

Here’s what he said: @davidhogg111

The effective range of an AR-15 is 1600 feet for comparison your typical handgun is 75 feet if you’re shooting somebody from 1600 feet away you’re not defending yourself...

...you’re hunting.
Make the 2004 Massachusetts assault weapons ban federal law. #BanAssaultWeapons

According to Hogg, an AR-15 is an "assault weapon" (WRONG!) and is designed to hunt-‘people’.

Let me guess, does AR also stand for "assault rifle" in your ‘twisted’ book of gun knowledge?

At least gun rights activists were quick to educate Hogg and his followers.

The Washington Free Beacon's Stephen Gutowski brought up a handful of very important factors to take into account, like how an AR-15 is set up and how they compare to hunting rifles.

You mean...people defend themselves...with something other than a...MUSKET?!

Remember: ARs are definitely one of the most customizable guns on the market, if not the most. There are probably more "Frankenstein" guns out there than one that is 100 percent factor new. That's why gunnies like ARs and that's why they're gaining more popularity. 

Translation: just because an AR-15 is big and scary looking and doesn't look like a "traditional" hunting rifle doesn't mean that it's any more lethal or deadly.

People also use shotguns for home defense, something Hogg would say is for the "hunting" of people. Does that make those firearms more deadly? Nope.

At least someone called Hogg out for spreading misinformation and claiming it to be facts:

It's hard to take someone seriously when they've never seen a gun like the AR-15 in person, let alone shot it. 

Hey Dave, before you continue to spread your lies and misinformation to steal American Freedoms, it would do you some good to study up on basic firearms knowledge. You know, what you ‘supposedly’ went to school for so you could transition into being an adult!!

Well, Hogg was just as ill-informed, as he is on guns, in Toronto, Canada, where he seemed to forget that he was…in Canada. He told the audience to turn their “shame” into action by voting…in American elections. Oh, and he didn’t know that Canadians couldn’t donate to American political campaigns. That’s illegal, something that even Moore pointed out before taking the microphone away from Hogg. Moore’s film premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival this month (via Real Clear Politics):

"I have a question for you guys: Who's ready to save America? Who's ready to make America the country we say it is on paper and make it the actual country that it wants to be?," Hogg asked the Canadian crowd. "I think the most important thing to realize, however, is the problems we face as a country, whether it be water in Flint, Michigan or the amount of mass incarceration of people of color that can't vote."

. . . . . . . .

"Turn that shame into your vote!" Hogg said, waiting a moment before adding: "If you're not Canadian."

"I think Canadians can donate to political campaigns in the U.S.? They can't? Well, uhh, vote here. Learn from us, don't let this happen here. We'll need to come to you guys if we stay on this track."

Maybe David Hogg should focus more on his education rather than demonstrate his repeated lack of it through his continuing episodes of ‘Hoof and Mouth’ disease!!

Anti-Gun US Senator Dick Durbin Tells Republicans to 'Act' and Fix Chicago's Gun Violence

Chicago has been riddled by shootings for far too long. By the end of this past July, Chicago had recorded more than 300 murders – more than any other U.S. city. Much of the violence is tied to gangs.

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), who shared a news report about a teenager who was shot and killed in Chicago last week, said the blame lies with Republicans, and they need to "act" to fix it. Presumably, he was talking about gun control.

Just as soon as Durbin blamed the GOP for the slaughter, some social media users pointed out a fact that the senator overlooked.

Nicholas @nmanocs6

• Chicago has been ruled by Democrats for well over 50 years. Cook county has some of the most strict gun laws in all of the land. What the hell are you talking about?

Some question the narrative that Chicago's gun laws explain the violence, noting that the Windy City does not have the strictest gun laws in the country. Yet these very same deniers refuse to come to grips with the lax attitude in the Illinois courts on violent crimes with firearms.

Still, the liberal Democrat leadership in Chicago has done little to curb the carnage. Last month, protesters marched and demanded Mayor Rahm Emanuel's resignation because of his inaction on both the violence and the poverty that is destroying too many neighborhoods. The activists got a partial win last week, when the mayor announced he's not seeking re-election.

Wrong Lessons Learned in Cincinnati, Ohio Fifth Third Bank Murders

“How could the man accused of fatally shooting three in downtown Cincinnati on Thursday, a person who had a history of petty crime – and possible mental health issues – purchase a gun legally in Ohio?” USA Today asked breathlessly in a Friday hit piece on the Right To Keep And Bear Arms masked as straight news. “Omar Santa Perez, 29, fatally shot three people and injured two others before he was shot and killed by police officers Thursday morning at Fifth Third Bank's corporate headquarters on Fountain Square.”

The answer to the question — and contrary to the old adage, that there is no such thing as a stupid one — is that “petty crimes” don’t warrant stripping a citizen of fundamental rights. And “possible mental health issues” do not a proven danger to self and others make.

Not that USA Today and parent corporation Gannett Publications wouldn’t like to see such tyranny imposed on all gun owners. They’re the ones that violated their own ethics policies and endangered gun owners by publishing permit holders’ names and addresses (followed up by hiring their own armed house guards).

They also approved of one of their “columnist’s” demands to:

• Repeal the Second Amendment … Owning a gun should be a privilege, not a right.
• Declare the NRA a terrorist organization and make membership illegal.
• Then I would tie Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, our esteemed Republican leaders, to the back of a Chevy pickup truck and drag them around a parking lot until they saw the light on gun control.

Talk about “affect[ing] change for the good in the communities we serve, to make life better for the people who trust us to know them and do right by them”!

“No evidence has surfaced yet that would suggest Santa should have been barred from owning a gun under federal or state laws,” the paper ‘grudgingly’ admits on the Fifth Third murders. Then, after stumping for a mental health blanket dragnet to deny due process by imposing prior restraints on people who have not been convicted of anything, it makes another admission:

There's also no evidence so far that a “red flag” law would have helped in Cincinnati.

That law would “bar” felons from “obtaining a gun”? Really? Somebody ought to share that revelation with Chicago.

“This has to stop – we have to find a way to stop the gun violence in this country,” Fifth Third CEO Greg Carmichael asserted. “I don't have the answers, but we have to find a path forward.”

Here’s what he and USA Today are not telling us about this Gun Free Zone (Bank). It’s codified in Fifth Third Bancorp’s “Code of Business Conduct & Ethics”:

You may not possess any type of weapon in Fifth Third’s facilities, at work-related functions or while performing Bancorp business of any kind. This does not apply to law enforcement officials and designated security personnel, or where preempted by applicable law.

It’s not limited to employees.

A look at Fifth Third history shows Carmichael really doesn’t have any answers. Neither do USA Today or all the other gun banning zealots. That’s because the only real solution is an America that encourages the right of the people to keep and bear arms and denies the evil amongst us the one thing they can rely on to enable their “success”. A meek and defenseless flock!

Yours in Freedom!

Kim Stolfer, President

• mission statement
• privacy policy
• contact us

Copyright © 2024 Firearms Owners Against Crime, P.O. Box 213, Presto, PA 15142

Website design and application development by davidcdalton.com