John Kass of the Chicago Tribune is breaking the media’s wall of silence to tell the truth about so-called “gun violence” by admitting that despite the love for that made-up term by Democrat politicians, it doesn’t really exist.
Gang violence does, but Democrats don’t want to talk about that harsh reality.
Some call it “gun violence,” a definition greatly appreciated by Democratic politicians like those at City Hall. They can point to guns and take that voter anger over homicide numbers and channel it into a safe space.
But there are plenty of guns in the suburbs, and suburbanites aren’t slaughtering each other.
It’s the gang wars.
Politicians know that the gangs are reason for the deaths. Calling it “gun violence” is much safer, especially in wards where gangs often provide political muscle.
“Have you ever heard a Chicago alderman call out a street gang by name?” O’Connor asked. “No? Me neither.”
His piece is one well worth reading for those interested in actually getting to the root of the gang violence problem in Chicago. A smaller, over-worked police force using modern tactics of questionable effectiveness, under the stress of civil liberties watchdogs who seem to care more about the rights of violent criminals than the lives of the communities, are coming apart at the seams during one of the bloodiest years there since Bill Clinton was President.
This fictional war on “gun violence” has also become a key focus for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign (along with avoiding indictments for corruption and espionage, and disturbing questions about her health).
Hillary Clinton is the first presidential candidate in American history to run a campaign explicitly attacking a constitutional right, and is specifically targeting the Second Amendment for elimination.
While Clinton lacks the political support to repeal the human right to bear arms directly, she has repeatedly stated that her line of attack against the Second Amendment will be through repealing or replacing the Protection of Lawful Commerce In Arms Act (PLCAA).
The PLCAA exists for one reason, and one reason only: to prevent gun control supporters from filing waves of frivolous lawsuits against gun companies, driving the industry into bankruptcy and rendering the right to bear arms a moot point. If she is successful, you will have the technically legal right to bear arms, but no industry to buy from, no dealers, and no ammunition to shoot.
Hillary Clinton has claimed time and again that the PLCAA provides the gun industry immunity against all lawsuits, which is an abject and intentional lie, as the corrupt candidate knows quite well.
Gun companies, distributors, and dealers have been and are right now being sued both in criminal and civil courts when they break laws or engage in shady business practices.
There are at least two well-known lawsuits underway right now for defective products. Century Arms is being sued for AKM safeties that allegedly don’t work correctly. Remington Arms is in the middle of a class-action case over allegations that “Walker”-designed triggers for some bolt-action rifles can fire without the trigger being depressed.
Stag Arms was just fined heavily ($500,000) for paperwork violations by the ATF, and the company’s owner was banned from the industry for life.
The owners of Badger Guns have been sued successfully by two police officers injured by a suspect who straw-purchased a gun at their gun shop.
The only protection PLCAA offers is against frivolous lawsuits, where plaintiffs want to sue gun manufacturers for firearms they built and legally sold to distributors, who in turn sold them legally to gun dealers, who in turn sold them legally to law-abiding citizens who complete FBI NICS background checks, which each and every buyer has done for more than two decades.
The only exception to buyers obtaining a NICS background check is purchasers live in states where the much more intensive checks provided by concealed carry background checks can be substituted. There is no “internet loophole,” nor “gun show loophole.”
Gun dealers (FFLs) must perform background checks (or the approved and more intense substitutes) each and every time they sell a firearm, without exception.
Let’s give you an explicit example of the absurdity of what Hillary Clinton wants to allow by presenting you with a fictional but very realistic story.
This G17 9mm pistol was manufactured in 1998 by firearms manufacturer Glock.
Glock sold this pistol as part of a large block of similar handguns to a distributor. The distributor breaks the block of guns into smaller orders, which are then resold to individual gun shops (federal firearms licence holders, or FFLs) .
Per federal laws, every step in the process is heavily documented and records are never destroyed.
John Doe goes to his local gun shop in the summer of 1990, decides that he wants to purchase this Glock. He purchases the Glock G17 pistol, and takes it home.
Mr. Doe is a shooting enthusiast, and fires several thousands rounds through it over the period of years. By 1996, he decides that he wants to upgrade to the next-generation of G17, and so he trades this G17 in.
The local gun shop cleans up this 1990-manufactured G17 and puts it up for sale in their “used guns” case for a reasonable price.
Bill Smith sees this reasonably priced used G17 and decides that it fits his needs for a home defense gun, and so he fills out the paperwork (ATF Form 4473) and has his identifying information sent in for an FBI background check to the NICS Operations Center, which came into existence three years before. They run his information through multiple databases of prohibited persons (domestic violence abusers, felons, the dangerously mentally ill, etc). Mr. Smith is a law-abiding and stable citizen, and so his record is clean. Mr. Smith takes this G17 home, where it sits in a small safe in his nightstand unused for over two decades, gathering dust, against the threat of things that go bump in the night.
In January of 2016, Mr. Smith goes on a vacation with friends, but forgets to stop his newspaper (yes, some people still get those). A burglar down the street notices that Smith doesn’t appear to be home, breaks in and steals items of value, including the 26-year-old G17 pistol. He quickly defeats the stolen safe, and sells the pistol to gang member named Jason Edwards.
Mr. Edwards, a serial felon, has a beef with another gang in the area, and in specific, with a gang member named Steve Ellis, who he hears has it in for him. Mr. Edwards knows where Mr. Ellis and his friends hang out dealing drugs, and decides to get in his car and roll by, and see if he can shoot Mr. Ellis.
As luck would have it, Mr. Ellis is standing out front on a busy street as Mr. Edwards drives up.
Edwards steps out of the car with his stolen G17, and opens fire in the direction of his rival. He fires at Ellis eight times, then speeds off, only to get in a wreck two blocks. later. He is quickly arrested and the G17 is taken into custody.
While Mr. Ellis ducked and started to run at the sound of the first shot as any seasoned gang-banger would, he couldn’t outrun or dodge all the bullets fired in his direction. One of the bullet hits him in the lower back. He’ll never walk again.
As it currently stands, PLCAA protects the manufacturer, distributor, and gun dealer from being sued for the criminal use of this stolen gun, as it should.
Glock manufactured and sold the G17 to the distributor following every law.
The distributor sold the G17 to a reputable gun shop following every law and all good business practices.
The reputable gun shop sold the G17 to one law-abiding citizen, bought the same gun back on a trade-in years later, and then sold it to a second law-abiding citizen who passed a background check, and who never misused it, not even once.
The gun entered the black market after being stolen by a burglar, who sold it to a gang-banger, who then used it to attempt to murder a member of a rival gang.
So tell me, honestly: Do we have a “gun violence” problem with this 26-year-old firearm, or do we have a “gang violence” problem?
The answer is obviously one of criminal violence, but Hillary Clinton, who poses and campaigns with the mothers of violent criminals, has an ulterior motive.
Hillary Clinton hates the Second Amendment, and wants PLCAA repealed so that gun manufacturers, distributors, and dealers can be sued in frivolous lawsuits over guns (like this G17) that were sold legally, typically more than a decade ago. The “time to crime” between a gun being manufactured and it being used in a crime scene averages nearly eleven years.
The hope of Clinton and her deep-pocketed anti-gun allies is that if she can get into office and PLCAA can be destroyed, then a wave of frivolous lawsuits against manufacturers will drive them out of business due to the legal cost of defending themselves, regardless of whether they did anything wrong.
Hillary wants to bankrupt the gun industry and put tens of thousands of Americans out of work, while she studiously ignores the problem of gangs that are growing stronger as her fellow Democrats attack law enforcement agencies, empower gangs, and side with the families of these violent criminals against law-abiding citizens.
We have a simple choice ahead of us in November, my fellow Americans.
We can stay home and not vote at all.
We can make a third-party protest vote for candidates from the Libertarian Party or Green Party who seem to be a few cards short of a deck, and who don’t even espouse the views of the parties they claim to represent.
We can hold our noses and vote for an erratic candidate whom the majority of Americans don’t like, but whom the media and Congress will keep in check once he’s elected President because they think he’s a clown, and then we can do better in 2020.
Or we can vote for the unindicted criminal Hillary Clinton, who sides with criminals, who will see a core constitutional right destroyed by proxy by driving the gun and ammunition industries out of business, and who exacerbate conditions causing gang violence to continue to surge—as generations of Chicago Democrats have done—as she lies about the real problem in order to seize power from the citizenry.
I’m not asking for lifelong Democrats to become Republicans.
I’m not asking liberals, moderates, independents, libertarians, or conservatives to vote for a candidate they despise.
I am, however, convinced that Hillary Clinton is dangerously corrupt, and that her own repeated lies about the PLCAA, her targeting of the gun industry, and her calling America’s gun owners her “enemy” prove that she’s a threat to the future of the United States.
I am asking each and every one of you to vote against Hillary Clinton like your very freedom depends upon it, because it does.