53percenter's Blog

The anti-Second Amendment crowd has made no secret about their intentions to whittle away at and ultimately do away with legal gun ownership through the implementation of increasingly strict gun control laws.

Many of the gun control proposals offered up by the left make it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to purchase and possess various firearms, often by mandating “universal background checks,” imposing strict limits on the purchase of guns and ammunition and by closing the alleged “gun show loophole.”

Sen. Feinstein talks about assault weapons ban as she points an assault weapon at crowd with her finger on the trigger. pic.twitter.com/U9xS4uhn

— Kyle (@Kyle_TheBeard) January 25, 2013

None of those proposals or other gun control restrictions would do much, if anything, to stop or even reduce violent gun crime — the majority of which is committed by criminals who have no regard for the laws and don’t obtain their firearms through the same normal means as law-abiding citizens.

TRENDING: Nathan Phillips’ Story Changing in ‘Sudden and Unwanted’ Fame After Narrative Quickly Crumbles

Fox News reported on a recent study released by the Department of Justice that dug into data compiled from an extensive survey of prison inmates. That study found that roughly 20 percent of all inmates, or about 287,400 prisoners total, were incarcerated for crimes in which they used a firearm.

The study, titled “Source and Use of Firearms Involved in Crimes,” was derived from the data obtained in a 2016 survey of inmates.

What that survey found is that the anti-gun crowd is looking in the least efficient place to stop gun crime with their gun control laws — licensed retail sales and gun shows. Only a tiny percentage of gun-toting criminals obtained their illicit firearms through those legal means.

Instead, about 43 percent of firearms used in crimes were purchased on the street or black market, with about 6 percent of those firearms being obtained through some sort of theft. Another 17 percent were found at a separate crime scene or as the result of a straw purchase, where somebody else purchased it legally on their behalf.

Similarly, about 25 percent of guns used by criminals were borrowed, gifted or traded to them by a friend or family member.

In the end, only about 10 percent of firearms used by criminals were obtained from a legal retail source — about 7.5 percent from licensed gun dealers, 1.6 percent from pawn shops, 0.4 percent from flea markets and 0.8 percent from gun shows.

In reality, fewer than that 10 percent of legally purchased crime guns would be impacted by the anti-gun crowd’s gun control schemes that seek to close the imaginary “gun show loophole” or add more flaming hoops to jump through in the legal purchasing process, as the vast majority of guns obtained by criminals are garnered through other, often already illegal means.

In other words, about 90 percent of the firearms used by criminals would still be available to them through those other means, meaning most criminals will still be easily able to get a gun. Meanwhile, law-abiding citizens will be faced with increasingly strict rules and regulations that make it even tougher for them to legally purchase firearms.

Separately, the DOJ study also severely undercut the anti-gun crowd’s obsession with banning so-called “assault weapons” like semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, as the survey revealed that such firearms are rarely used to commit crimes.

RELATED: Sick: Lib Says Woman Should Have Just ‘Let Him’ Rob Her When Armed Mugger Approached

Of the roughly 20 percent of all crimes committed with a firearm, more than 18 percent of those crimes were committed with a handgun. Only about 1.5 percent of all crimes committed involved the use of a rifle, and only about 1.6 percent of all crimes committed involved the use of a shotgun, whether of the “assault weapon” semi-automatic versions or the pump-action version.

Thus, we see from this survey just how pointless and unproductive gun control laws targeting licensed dealers and gun shows are at preventing criminals from getting their hands on a firearm.

Furthermore, we also see just how worthless proposed “assault weapons bans” are at reducing gun crime, given how little crime is committed using such weapons already.

Gun control laws don’t work. They don’t reduce crime. The real purpose of discouraging and limiting legal gun ownership is to undermine the Second Amendment of the Constitution and therefore must be resisted.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

On Tuesday, the Department of Justice announced that three naturalized U.S. citizens in Lansing, Michigan were arrested and charged with planning to aid Islamic State. The DOJ press release reads:

Members of the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) arrested Muse Abdikadir Muse (Muse Muse) at the Gerald R. Ford Airport in Grand Rapids, Michigan, after checking in for a flight to the first of a series of destinations on his way to Mogadishu, Somalia. Shortly thereafter, law enforcement arrested alleged coconspirators Mohamud Abdikadir Muse (Mohamud Muse), and Mohamed Salat Haji (Haji). All three defendants are naturalized U.S. citizens who were born in Kenya.

According to the complaint affidavit, Muse Muse purchased airline tickets earlier this month to travel from Grand Rapids to Mogadishu, departing on Monday, January 21, 2019. Among other support, the complaint alleged Haji and Mohamud Muse aided in the purchase of the ticket and drove Muse Muse to the Grand Rapids airport, each knowing the true purpose of the travel was for Muse Muse to join and fight for ISIS.

ABC News reports that Muse Muse and Mohamud Muse are brothers, and that Haji is their brother-in-law. The threesome initially came on the FBI’s radar due to Mohamud Muse’s pro-Islamic State social media postings. The government’s complaint against the trio, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, states that Mohamud Muse’s postings “revealed frequent posts of photos, videos, and statements and commentary that were pro-ISIS in nature and what can be described as violent, extremist propaganda.” All three had openly pledged their allegiance to the Islamic State. Numerous undercover FBI agents ultimately helped foil the threesome’s plot.

The criminal complaint charges all three men with a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2339(b). The formal description of the charge reads: “Conspiring to provide material support or resources to a designated foreign terrorist organization; to wit: ISIS.” All three men face up to 20 years in federal prison.

The Washington Times reports that, at the time the FBI arrested Muse Muse, he was at Gerald R. Ford Airport in Grand Rapids, Michigan in order to board a flight to Somalia.

DOJ has been no stranger to charging naturalized American citizens with conpiring to support Islamic State. In October, a naturalized citizen of Iraqi descent was arrested in Chicago for allegedly violating the exact same statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2339(b).

Naturalized — and even natural-born — citizens have invariably caused headaches for U.S. counterterrorism interests for some time now. In September 2011, President Obama assassinated Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen via drone strike. Al-Awlaki, a New Mexico native whose frequent online jihadist propaganda videos had dubbed him the nickname of “bin Laden of the Internet,” was a natural-born U.S. citizen. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) has subsequently been at the forefront of advancing legislation to revoke the citizenship any U.S. citizen who so much as tries to join the Islamic State or related jihadist groups. In 2017, the Washington Examiner reported:

Hundreds of Americans have tried to join the Islamic State in recent years, according to Cruz. He said another 124 U.S. citizens or green card holders have traveled overseas to join other jihadist groups in the years since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. “This should be an idea that even Senate Democrats can support given that Hillary Clinton, when she was in the Senate, supported very similar legislation,” he said.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s first actions at the start of the new session of Congress was to invite President Donald Trump to deliver the State of the Union address before a joint session of Congress on Jan. 29.

However, in what can only be described as a petty display of partisanship, she sent Trump a letter on Jan. 16 which sought to cancel and postpone that scheduled address until the partial government shutdown had concluded.

Pelosi cited “security” concerns which were immediately debunked by the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Secret Service, in conjunction with the Capitol Police.

The president never offered up any direct response to that “power play” by Pelosi, until today. He sent a letter to Pelosi accepting her initial invitation and letting her know that he intends to deliver his State of the Union address as previously scheduled on Jan. 29 in the House chamber.

That letter from Trump addressed to “Madame Speaker” — shared to Twitter by White House press secretary Sarah Sanders — was absolutely classic Trump,  dripping with saccharine sweetness while directly countering the supposed security concerns cited by Pelosi.

TRENDING: Nathan Phillips’ Story Changing in ‘Sudden and Unwanted’ Fame After Narrative Quickly Crumbles

President Trump’s letter to Speaker Pelosi on the State of the Union pic.twitter.com/B4QN9hDJnv

— Sarah Sanders (@PressSec) January 23, 2019

“Thank you for your letter of January 3, 2019, sent to me long after the Shutdown began, inviting me to address the Nation on January 29th as to the State of the Union,” Trump wrote. “As you know, I had already accepted your kind invitation, however, I then received another letter from you dated January 16, 2019, wherein you expressed concerns regarding security during the State of the Union Address due to the Shutdown.”

“Even prior to asking, I was contacted by the Department of Homeland Security and the United States Secret Service to explain that there would be absolutely no problem regarding security with respect to the event. They have since confirmed this publicly,” he continued, undercutting Pelosi’s reasoning for a cancellation or delay to the annual address.

“Accordingly, there are no security concerns regarding the State of the Union Address,” he went on. “Therefore, I will be honoring your invitation, and fulfilling my Constitutional duty, to deliver important information to the people and Congress of the United States of America regarding the State of our Union.”

“I look forward to seeing you on the evening on January 29th in the Chamber of the House of Representatives,” he wrote in conclusion. “It would be so very sad for our Country if the State of the Union were not delivered on time, on schedule, and very importantly, on location!”

Trump seized the upper hand in the power struggle with Pelosi by a sort of “kill them with kindness” approach that was no doubt quite unexpected by the Speaker and her Democratic supporters, who have been impatiently waiting for some sort of “temper tantrum” from the White House in response to her petty actions.

Instead, he used a kind tone to gently debunk her proffered excuse for why the State of the Union address should be rescheduled and confirmed that he intended to follow through on the originally agreed upon date of Jan. 29.

Of course, Pelosi was quick to respond to Trump’s letter with one of her own, though her attempt to match his sincerity and sweetness fell short.

RELATED: Angry Dems Take Attacks on Pelosi to New Level: ‘Get in the Damn Room’ with Trump, ‘Give Him the Money!’

In Pelosi’s letter to Trump, she wrote of how she expected the shutdown to have already ended when she initially invited him to deliver his speech on Jan. 29, and clung to her insistence that the address needed to be rescheduled for an as-yet-undetermined date in the future … after the government had been re-opened.

Then she went further than she had gone before and officially informed Trump that the scheduled State of the Union address was canceled.

“I am writing to inform you that the House of Representatives will not consider a concurrent resolution authorizing the President’s State of the Union address in the House Chamber until government has opened,” she wrote.

“Again, I look forward to welcoming you to the House on a mutually agreeable date for this address when government has been opened.”

It remains to be seen what Trump will do now that Pelosi has officially rescinded her prior invitation to him, but regardless of what he ultimately decides to do, Pelosi looks like the bad guy in all of this for having offered and then pettily withdrawn a customary invitation for the constitutionally-mandated address to Congress and the nation.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

The smirk heard around the world might just have the last laugh.

That smile, of course, was on the face of a high school student named Nick Sandmann who was confronted by a Native American protester in Washington, D.C.

“It’s weird to see your face on television…I’ve also been getting a lot of messages from people – both support and a lot of hateful things.” -Nick Sandmann pic.twitter.com/HbnIVx1YHd

— TODAY (@TODAYshow) January 23, 2019

As a chaotic scene played out with other groups hurling racial and homophobic slurs, Sandmann tried to keep his cool while protester Nathan Phillips uncomfortably pushed into his personal space.

TRENDING: Nathan Phillips’ Story Changing in ‘Sudden and Unwanted’ Fame After Narrative Quickly Crumbles

But that’s not how the establishment media reported it. In what is becoming one of the most infamous journalistic blunders of the last few years, countless outlets smeared Sandmann and the rest of his group from Covington Catholic High School in Kentucky as bigots and racists, despite having no evidence to back this up.

That, in turn, led to countless online attacks and even death threats made against the Catholic boys from verified personalities on Twitter, which became so bad that the entire school had to shut down due to security concerns.

Now, a powerful attorney says he’s representing some Covington families, and he’s putting not just complicit journalists but even a Democratic member of Congress on notice.

Robert Barnes, a trial lawyer based in Los Angeles, said Wednesday on Fox News’ “Fox & Friends” that he has spoken to Covington families and is working on their behalf.

“I represent families in three different groups,” he said. “I represent families of kids who were at the Lincoln Memorial who have been libeled. I represent families of kids who have been in some of the photos where people like the New York Daily News have libeled them and made false statements about what the nature of those photos were from the school. And I represent alumni who feel that their entire school and everything associated with them has been libeled, and they too want to seek legal remedy for these people who refuse to correct, retract or make any apology for their false statements.”

On Sunday, Barnes issued a warning to The New York Times’ Maggie Haberman about her report on the Covington students.

I will represent the kids for free if they want to sue @maggieNYT for obvious libel. https://t.co/VmqVqIVNoe

— Robert Barnes (@Barnes_Law) January 20, 2019

The specific tweet Haberman referenced was one of many that jumped to staggering conclusions and called on kids to be expelled from their school based on scant — or nonexistent — evidence.

RELATED: Here’s CNN’s Jake Tapper Backpeddling as Fast as He Can from Fake Hate Story His Network Stoked

Barnes also has called out numerous other verified Twitter accounts, ranging from Kathy Griffin to USA Today, for spreading demonstrably false claims about the incident.

Here’s one example:

“The crowd of students, some of whom wore MAGA caps, mocked Native Americans while chanting ‘Build the Wall’ and using derogatory language,” USA Today tweeted.

This is libel, @USATODAY https://t.co/f2DMPfBtip

— Robert Barnes (@Barnes_Law) January 20, 2019

There’s absolutely no evidence that this is true. In fact, numerous videos show that the “wall” chant never occurred, and the hateful language was being directed at the Catholic students, not coming from them.

But Barnes didn’t stop there. He also singled out U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., who recently made headlines as one of two new Muslim lawmakers, for spreading lies about the boys.

“The boys were protesting a woman’s right to choose & yelled ‘it’s not rape if you enjoy it.’ They were taunting 5 Black men before they surrounded Phillips and led racist chants,” Omar said in a tweet that she later deleted without an explanation or apology.

Almost everything in her post was false.

“This is libel. Retract, or get sued,” Barnes warned.

The unraveling of the Convington story is also the unraveling of the establishment media. As the fallout from the media’s eagerness to ruin lives over politics continues, pay close attention to who apologizes and who doubles-down on dishonesty. It matters, now more than ever.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

When Nick Sandmann, the 16-year-old Covington Catholic High School student, spoke to NBC’s Savannah Guthrie, she asked: “Do you feel from this experience that you owe anybody an apology?” and “Do you see your own fault in any way?”

This question came days after video footage showed Sandmann and his fellow students were not acting in the harassing manner they were first accused of over the weekend, and they had not gone up to a Native American protester and harassed him, as he originally claimed.

No one in the left-wing media has asked Nathan Phillips, the Native American protester, if he owes anybody an apology or sees his own fault in any way, even after he initially lied about the encounter and called the teenagers “beasts” and a “lynch mob.”

So, I did.

I had received a press release from the Lakota People’s Law Project for an article earlier today, and decided to ask their press director, Jesse Phelps, if Phillips believed he owed anyone an apology “for his behavior and statements throughout this entire episode.”

Phelps responded, saying he loves “easy questions.”

“Um…the answer is no. He’s an elder who was attempting to diffuse what he perceived as a dangerous situation — an objectively brave move given history both recent and past. He has nothing to apologize for. The kids who performed the tomahawk chop and greeted him with war whoops, on the other hand, most certainly do.”

I followed up by asking if Phelps was sure, considering what Phillips had called the students in print over the past few days. Again, Phelps said “no”:

“From his perspective, they apparently resembled a lynch mob, etc. That is his valid perspective — Native people are confronted with blatant racism, mostly from the right, every day. Given the sad history of this nation—built as it on colonialism, racism, slavery and the ongoing repression of people of color—the behavior of the students, and the gear they chose to wear, it’s not hard to understand—is it? Nevertheless, he went in to make peace.”

Phelps added that Phillips never defended the Black Israelite’s offensive statements and that “no mistake, the things they said to those kids were terrible. Awful.”

Phillips may very well believe — now, after his initial claim that he was just trying to get out of what looked a bad situation — that he was trying to “diffuse” the tension between the Covington Catholic teenagers who were singing school spirit songs and the Black Hebrew Israelites who were hurling racial and other slurs. Sandmann seems to believe he was trying to diffuse an awkward situation by remaining “motionless and calm.”

Both may be correct in their perceptions, and both appear to be wrong about their perceptions of the incident, at least in regard to each other.

Nathan Phillips now wants to meet the students. Nick Sandmann had already said he would be willing to meet. If Sandmann is asked if he should apologize, it’s only fair that Phillips is asked as well.

A small business owner in Syracuse, New York, is making his voice heard in standing up for the voiceless. Bookstore owner Jon Speed closed down his shop, The Book Scout, on Wednesday as an official “day of mourning” following the passing of New York’s euphemistically-named Reproductive Health Act, a law making abortion on-demand up to the moment of birth legal.

“The book store is closed today. It is a day of mourning in New York. In honor of the thousands of babies that will die in the years to come, we shall not be collecting sales tax for this tyrannical government today. We will on other days, under duress, but not today,” posted Speed to his business’ Facebook page.

An outspoken Christian and advocate for the unborn, Speed put a poignant sign on his store’s door to uniform any customers or passersby of his position: “CLOSED TODAY,” the sign reads. “Today is a day of mourning in New York State. We will not collect sales tax today for a tyrannical government that murders babies. We will resume regular business tomorrow, collecting sales tax under duress. End Abortion Now.”

Speaking to Live Action News, Speed said he decided to post the messages to “make an impact with our customer base.”

“It is a statement of my disgust with NY’s new law. My prayer for them all is their repentance and faith in Christ. Their hearts must change if their minds will change,” added the business owner.

The extreme law was passed and signed by Governor Andrew Cuomo (D-NY) on Tuesday, the 46th anniversary of the landmark Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision on abortion, and horrifyingly met with literal cheering from Democrats and pro-abortion advocates. Cuomo ordered the One World Trade Center to be lit pink in celebration of the law, which, again, allows for the murder of the unborn up to the point of birth.

Lila Rose, president and founder of national pro-life organization Live Action, called the law “no different than infanticide.”

“Convicted criminals aren’t subjected to the death penalty in New York state, but now children up until the ninth month of pregnancy can be given lethal injections and poisoned to death. This is no different than infanticide,” Rose said in a statement to The Daily Wire.

“New York pro-lifers fought successfully for more than a decade to defeat this radical pro-abortion bill. But the November election put pro-abortion Democrats in control of both state houses, and Democrat politicians have made abortion on demand a priority. While the pro-abortion zealots in New York have won this battle, they will ultimately lose the war on abortion,” the statement continued.

Speed also shared a link to a pro-life documentary called “Babies Are Murdered Here,” which he co-produced. WATCH, below: