3 – 2 – 1 – Boom. The Islamic Influence


I have been really busy lately, and have been letting Tom do the writing for a while. But sometimes there are things that I have to say……though lately, most of what I have had to say has been reserved for my NWCR’s AudioSide Chats that I do every morning on Mixlr.com. But things are good.

I was looking at facebook the other day and I saw something that really caught my attention. It was a clown, with the caption, “At my college today, we had to write an essay on Islam. Apparently 3 – 2 – 1 Boom isn’t an appropriate Title, and is enough to get you expelled.”

Now this would be funny as hell, if it wasn’t so close to the truth here in America today.

Not only are the Muslims and their Islamic faith invading this country with a ferocity of Hitler running through Europe in the early 1940’s but they are being allowed to take over. I have mentioned on my show, and my morning updates many times of how Dearborn, Michigan might as well not be here in America anymore because the Islamist’s have taken over.

We have training camps, the latest count that I have found is twenty nine of them in different parts of the United States, where US law enforcement is not allowed and US officials are not allowed. Try to get any other group to accomplish this in this nation and it never would happen.

The only other group that was ever allowed anything like this were the Indians on their reservations. There Indian law was enforced, but U.S. law enforcement and U.S. Officials were allowed to come in. That plus the Indians were here first before any of us, and they have more of a right to what Islamic Muslims have gotten.

I keep saying that we are at war, and no one seems to take to heart that this is an actual war. Their holy book tells them so. Their holy book tells them that they can lie and cheat a people just to get what they want. And that is total control over the infidel. Which means murder, beheadings, 3, 2, 1 Boom…..yes my friends…..that would be funny if it wasn’t so close to the actual truth of the matter.

We are at war. War has been declared on us the United States for having the audacity to be a Christian nation, and then being stupid enough to elect a Muslim/Islamic sympathizer to the White House, giving them free reign in our country.

We now have Syrian refugees who really are nothing more than more Islamists who will live by their own laws and murder innocent Americans all in the name of Islam, being brought here to America because according to the left, ‘it is the right thing to do.’ But folks it is NOT the right thing to do, unless you want to tear down our society and begin a new one that is based on violence and condoned murder of the citizens.

Hitler’s Germany was taken down because that is what they believed. Are we really so ignorant of what the past teaches us that we cannot do what it has taught?
America has really been at war with Islam since the very beginning. Thomas Jefferson fought the Barbary Pirates in his day, and they were Islamic. The barbary pirates of today are also. From Freedom Outpost dot com came this one:

How Thomas Jefferson lead America’s First “War on Terror”

First, keep in mind that Islam and terrorism have gone hand in hand since its inception at the beginning of the 7th century. In fact, it’s founder Muhammad was a terrorist and used “religion” to band his merry men together to conquer, rape and pillage.

For nearly fifteen centuries the world has faced the disease of Islam, but our nation faced it head on when Thomas Jefferson, serving as the ambassador to France, and John Adams, servicing as the ambassador to Britain, went to London to meet with Ambassador Abdrahaman, the Dey of Tripoli’s ambassador to Britain. Of course they met with Abdrahaman to negotiate a peace treaty, but keep in mind that in Islam, the only peace is submission to Islam.

Islam requires jizya under Sharia law, you know that alleged “harmless law” they want to impose here in the West. Jizya is a per capita tax levied on a section of an Islamic state’s non-Muslim citizens, who meet certain criteria. The tax is and was to be levied on able-bodied adult males of military age and affording power. So as Adams and Jefferson met, they found out the price of peace was quite expensive.

Gary DeMar writes,

If America wanted “temporary peace,” a one-year guarantee, it would cost $66,000 plus a 10% commission. “Everlasting peace” was a bargain at $160,000 plus the obligatory commission. This only applied to Tripoli. Other Muslim nations would also have to be paid. The amount came to $1.3 million. But there was no assurance that the treaties would be honored. In vain, Jefferson and Adams tried to argue that America was not at war with Tripoli. In what way had the U.S provoked the Muslims, they asked? Ambassador Abdrahaman went on to explain “the finer points of Islamic jihad” to the Koranically challenged Jefferson and Adams.

Jefferson then wrote a letter to John Jay that read:

“The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman [Muslim] who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

This is loosely based upon the Qur’an’s teaching from Surah 47:4 which reads,

“Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been Allah’s Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah,- He will never let their deeds be lost.”

So what happened? Though the US, along with Great Britain and France had paid a “tribute” for protection against piracy, once Tripoli increased the tribute following Jefferson becoming President, he refused to pay them the increase, though he did continue to pay until the end of his presidency. Tripoli then declared war on the United States on May 10, 1801. This was the beginning of the First Barbary War.

Interestingly enough, before becoming President, Jefferson had opposed funds be used for a Navy except to provide coastal defense. Gerard W. Gawalt writes concerning Jefferson and the tribute payment:

After the United States won its independence in the treaty of 1783, it had to protect its own commerce against dangers such as the Barbary pirates. As early as 1784 Congress followed the tradition of the European shipping powers and appropriated $80,000 as tribute to the Barbary states, directing its ministers in Europe, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, to begin negotiations with them. Trouble began the next year, in July 1785, when Algerians captured two American ships and the dey of Algiers held their crews of twenty-one people for a ransom of nearly $60,000.

Thomas Jefferson, United States minister to France, opposed the payment of tribute, as he later testified in words that have a particular resonance today. In his autobiography Jefferson wrote that in 1785 and 1786 he unsuccessfully “endeavored to form an association of the powers subject to habitual depredation from them. I accordingly prepared, and proposed to their ministers at Paris, for consultation with their governments, articles of a special confederation.” Jefferson argued that “The object of the convention shall be to compel the piratical States to perpetual peace.” Jefferson prepared a detailed plan for the interested states. “Portugal, Naples, the two Sicilies, Venice, Malta, Denmark and Sweden were favorably disposed to such an association,” Jefferson remembered, but there were “apprehensions” that England and France would follow their own paths, “and so it fell through.”

Paying the ransom would only lead to further demands, Jefferson argued in letters to future presidents John Adams, then America’s minister to Great Britain, and James Monroe, then a member of Congress. As Jefferson wrote to Adams in a July 11, 1786, letter, “I acknolege [sic] I very early thought it would be best to effect a peace thro’ the medium of war.” Paying tribute will merely invite more demands, and even if a coalition proves workable, the only solution is a strong navy that can reach the pirates, Jefferson argued in an August 18, 1786, letter to James Monroe: “The states must see the rod; perhaps it must be felt by some one of them. . . . Every national citizen must wish to see an effective instrument of coercion, and should fear to see it on any other element than the water. A naval force can never endanger our liberties, nor occasion bloodshed; a land force would do both.” “From what I learn from the temper of my countrymen and their tenaciousness of their money,” Jefferson added in a December 26, 1786, letter to the president of Yale College, Ezra Stiles, “it will be more easy to raise ships and men to fight these pirates into reason, than money to bribe them.”

With US merchant ships being attacked and Americans being kidnapped he finally issued letters of marque and reprisal, which sent a groups of privately owned war ships, that were approved by the government, to make war against the Barbary Pirates. He utilized this constitutional measure, which we are not using today.
In doing this he sent for the “privateers,” as they were referred to. The privately owned frigates USS Philadelphia, USS President, and the USS Essex, along with the schooner USS Enterprise was America’s first navy to cross the Atlantic. Others would also join and see action as well.

Ultimately, in 1805 United States Marines crossed the desert from Egypt into Tripolitania, forced the surrender of Tripoli and free those Americans that had been kidnapped and were made slaves.

Thus, this is where the famous line from the United States Marine Corps (Oorah!) comes from: “From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli. Demar says it not only refers to the First Barbary War, but specifically to the Battle of Derna, which took place in 1805.

It is ironic the Rep. Keith Ellison, who became the United States’ first Muslim Congressman took his oath of office on Thomas Jefferson’s Qur’an at a time when we continue to be at war with Islam. While Ellison has called Jefferson a “visionary,” what I think we could all learn is that Jefferson was wise enough to read and learn about the enemy from their own book of jihad. Sadly, many today would rather listen to the lies of Islamists rather than understand what the Qur’an actually teaches. After all, it’s been said “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

So you see folks, this war on terror and the invasion of the Muslims to this country is not a new thing. The thing that is new however, is our tolerance to their invasion. And mark my words here my friends, this is an invasion and the ending will not be good for us, if we continue to allow them into our country without indoctrination deluxe to our way of life and an adherence to it.

We cannot allow more Muslims and Islamists into our country because “it is the right thing to do”. It isn’t. It is just a means to an end that will not be good for America. Mark my words.

3 – 2 – 1 BOOM. Want to take that chance?

God (not allah) Bless America
God (not allah) Bless our troops
God (not allah) Bless us every one.

-Robert-

Gun Control–Part 3


This is the third and last post of a series concerning the issue of gun control.


Before we get started, the following needs to be said:

  • Not all Conservatives are pro-gun
  • Not all Liberals are anti-gun
  • Not all Republicans are Conservatives
  • Not all Democrats are Liberal

With that being stated, we’ll proceed on to the rest of the post keeping the above in mind…

President Obama stated that the issue of gun control should be politicized to become an issue.  During this past week’s Democratic debates, it became just that – a political talking point.

During the debate, the candidates attacked the NRA and it’s members calling them “enemies.”  Considering that the NRA has almost 5,000,000 members and represents by proxy another 100,000,000, these candidates are stating that almost a third of the population are “enemies.”  Personally, that isn’t all that smart calling that many people an “enemy.”

Furthermore, the candidates have doubled-down on their statements, calling for increased gun-control laws, legislation, and regulation.  There is even a call for registration and eventual confiscation.  And folks, this all flies in the face of the Bill of Rights – something that we should all be concerned with.  If a political party in charge of the government is successful in removing or severely weakening just one Article of the Bill of Rights, what is to stop them from removing them all?

Dominoes2

The Democrat candidates also stated (predictably) that their respective “solution” will reduce gun violence.  There is also a statement calling for the NRA to be labeled a terrorist organization.   This is politics at its best – grandstanding and stating that they will reduce crime when their proposed measures will do the exact opposite in order to garner votes.

Let’s get a couple of more things straightened out:  The NRA is funded by people of the United States, and is the oldest civil rights organization in the United States.  They focus primarily on firearms education, safety training, and promoting laws that protect the basic human right to armed self-defense.  And does so without fanfare, without calling for violence, and to promote its goals through peaceable, non-violent, legal means.  If the NRA is labeled a “terrorist organization,” then Al Sharpton’s Rainbow Coalition and the Black Lives Matter crowd should also be declared terrorist organizations because they have caused far more damage and cost more innocent lives than the NRA.

Let’s also look at one of the main talking points that has been promoted before:  Universal background checks.  Universal background checks would mandate that anytime a gun changes hands, a background check must be performed.  While is sounds reasonable, it is unworkable and is a backdoor to gun registration.  Here’s how this will work:

There is already a background check performed when a licensed dealer sells a gun – any gun – to the public.  When the check and sale is complete, the dealer logs the transfer into his logbook (which must be produced upon demand by the ATF).  If that gun is sold by the individual, he too must perform a background check and log the transfer in his log book.  Should the ATF or other law enforcement agency demand to see his log book, or require the individual to produce any guns in his possession, and the records do not match, the person would be charged with a Federal crime for not having the paperwork in order.  Furthermore, there is now a paper-trail for each and every gun in the United States, making confiscation much easier.  For those who state that gun confiscation cannot happen, I will tell you that it has already happened in the State of California.

In the late 1990’s, California declared that a SKS rifle with a detachable magazine was now an illegal weapon and the owners were legally compelled to give up the weapon or be in violation of the law.  Several years before, California had instituted that all weapons were to be registered.  When further legislation deemed that a variation of this rifle was now illegal, the authorities knew exactly whom to go to confiscate the rifle if it wasn’t turned in.

This is also one of the reasons that the Connecticut and New York registration requirements of the AR-15 rifle was so anemic.  People remembered what happened in California, and weren’t going to risk it.

But this is the politicians at work – Stating that we need to give up some of our rights in order to become safer.  There is a rebuttal to that statement that is over 200 years old:

Franklin

Indeed, even if the Progressive Liberal anti-Bill-of Rights politicians get their way and confiscate all legally-registered guns, there will not be safety.  The illegal guns in the hands of violent criminals, violent criminals with knives & other implements, terrorists with pipe & fertilizer bombs, will all prey upon the now disarmed populace with impunity.  Look at the crime statistics of any major city, and especially the Oklahoma City & Boston bombings, and it isn’t the law-abiding citizen that is the problem here – it’s the criminals and terrorists.

The first thing that the Progressive Liberal politicians do not want to say is that no measure that they propose will completely stop crime and violence.  Presidential candidate Martin O’Malley laid out his comprehensive gun control plan in an article in CNN, but then stated:

My comprehensive plan will not stop every senseless gun death. But it will ensure that fewer families are needlessly torn apart by gun violence.

Reading through his plan, I see a gaping hole that I pointed out in the second post of this series – Criminals, especially career criminals, do not operate under the same social norms as the rest of society.  No criminal will submit to a background check, fingerprinted photo ID, and so on – he will steal or illegally buy a weapon from a criminal source.

gun control and criminals

And there is the second thing that the Progressive Liberal politicians do not want to say – People commit crimes, not objects.  The Progressive Liberal politicians have spent years focusing upon “triggers,” “causes,” “bad experiences,” “motives,” and the like so that when a person sees a gun, they lose all sense & reason and then become crazed killers.  They have now taken personal responsibility out of a person’s actions, and substituted blame upon other objects or people – in this case, a gun.

Worse, the Progressive Liberal politicians point to England and Australia as being models for their gun control & banning schemes, ignoring multiple statistics of increased crimes such as rape, theft, assault, and violent home invasions.  A study from Harvard stated the following comparing England and the United States (from American Thinker):

When Kates and Mauser compared England with the United States, they found “’a negative correlation,’ that is, ‘where firearms are most dense violent crime rates are lowest, and where guns are least dense, violent crime rates are highest.’ There is no consistent significant positive association between gun ownership levels and violence rates.”

In 2004, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences released an evaluation from its review of existing research. After reviewing 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications and its own original empirical research, it failed to identify any gun control that had reduced violent crime, suicide, or gun accidents, note Kates and Mauser.

Somehow, it goes unreported that “despite constant and substantially increasing gun ownership, the United States saw progressive and dramatic reductions in criminal violence,” write Kates and Mauser. “On the other hand, the same time period in the United Kingdom saw a constant and dramatic increase in violent crime to which England’s response was ever-more drastic gun control. Nevertheless, criminal violence rampantly increased so that by 2000 England surpassed the United States to become one of the developed world’s most violence-ridden nations.

And there’s this from Thomas Sowell:

There is a huge amount of statistical evidence, just within the United States, since gun control laws are different in 50 different states and these laws have been changed over time in many of these states. There are mountains of data on what happens under restrictive laws and what happens when restrictions are lifted.

Statistics on murder are among the most widely available statistics, and among the most accurate, since no one ignores a dead body. With so many facts available from so many places and times, why is gun control still a heated issue? The short answer is that most gun control zealots do not even discuss the issue in terms of hard facts.

The zealots act as if they just know — somehow — that bullets will be flying hither and yon if you allow ordinary people to have guns. Among the many facts this ignores is that gun sales were going up by the millions in late 20th century America, and the murder rate was going down at the same time.

Among the other facts that gun control zealots consistently ignore are data on how many lives are saved each year by a defensive use of guns. This seldom requires actually shooting. Just pointing a loaded gun at an assailant is usually enough to get him to back off, often in some haste.

There have been books and articles based on voluminous statistics, including statistics comparing gun laws and gun crime rates in different countries, such as “Guns and Violence” by Professor Joyce Lee Malcolm of George Mason University. Seldom do these factual studies back up what the gun control zealots are saying.

This shows up when gun control zealots are asked whether whatever new law they propose would have prevented the shooting rampage that they are using as a stage from which to propose a new clampdown on gun ownership. Almost always, the new law being proposed would not have made the slightest difference. That too is part of the farce. A deadly farce.

So is the automatic assertion that whoever engaged in a shooting rampage was a madman. Yet these supposedly crazy shooters are usually rational enough to choose some “gun-free zone” for their murderous attacks. They seem more rational than gun control zealots who keep creating more “gun-free zones.”

Gun control zealots are almost always people who are lenient toward criminals, while they are determined to crack down on law-abiding citizens who want to be able to defend themselves and their loved ones.

Here’s the bottom line:

The Democratic Party Candidates are anti-Bill-of-Rights, sensationalizing the actions of wackos that should never had access to weapons to begin with.  Instead of attacking the problem of mental health and crime head on, they would rather penalize the law-abiding citizens with increased laws and regulations.  They believe, as Liberal Progressives, that government and laws are the answers to all the ills of society instead of the People of this country.  In other words, my friends, they do not trust the People of this country.

The Founders of this Country knew that there would come a time that a Political Class would rise and would have the desire to rule in spite of the will of the People.  This is why they drafted and approved the Constitution and the Bill of Rights outlining the limits of government, the Rights of the People, and enabling the People to be the ultimate masters of government, not the other way around.  The question is when will the People of this country wake up and see, really see, what is happening.

Fairy Tales

first banned items

I’m hoping and praying that the People of this Country look, really look, at all of the candidates, and understand where each of these people would take this country if elected.  I already know whom I’m NOT going to vote for…

Gun Control–Part 2


This is the second post of a series concerning the issue of gun control.


The question from the previous post asked:

So where is the reduction in criminals acquiring guns that is directly associated with gun control legislation?

To answer this question we must first understand what criminal laws are.  In their simplest form, criminal laws define a penalty should a defined crime be committed. 

Crimes are anything as mundane as violating a speed limit (public safety) to as serious as committing murder (crime against society and the individual).  Likewise, penalties for committing crimes also are on a similar scale – from a fine to incarceration to execution, all depending on the crime committed and the penalties for that crime.

I believe that most of us are law-abiding people, productive members of society.  We don’t steal from our neighbor or the store, we pay our taxes (reluctantly), and generally treat each other with respect.  Criminals, especially career criminals, do not operate under the same social norms as the rest of society.  Criminals will commit a crime when they have performed a risk / reward calculation in their mind, have determined that they will benefit from the crime, and will not get caught or will pay an acceptable penalty if caught.

The theory behind gun control legislation is that these laws will prevent a crime from occurring.  The reality is that laws and legislation will not prevent any one crime from occurring.  Background checks, restrictions on round count in magazines, gun free zones, and the like do absolutely nothing to deter criminals from their activities – quite frankly, I think it encourages criminal activity in some cases.  The only thing that gun control legislation does is hinder the law-abiding citizen from exercising their right to own a weapon. 

The proof behind the above statements are cities with severe gun control laws such as Chicago, Washington DC, Detroit, and New Orleans.  If gun control laws worked as advertised, then these four cities would be the safest on the planet.  Instead, these cities have some of the highest crime and murder rates in the United States, and probably larger than some small countries.

The same proof can be said for gun free zones and of the mass-murders of the past 20-30 years.  The latest tragedy in Oregon only highlights the insanity of a gun-free zone protected by nothing but a sign and guard armed with pepper spray.

“Possession, use, or threatened use of firearms (including but not limited to BB guns, air guns, water pistols, and paint guns) ammunition, explosives, dangerous chemicals, or any other objects as weapons on college property, except as expressly authorized by law or college regulations, is prohibited.” – Umpqua Community College Security Policy

Here’s the reality:

gunfreezonetargetrichenvironment

In the aftermath of the Umpqua murders, President Obama stated that the issue of gun control needs to be “politicized” in order for something to be done about gun violence.  The problem is that the “issue” has always been political in nature, and that the repeated calls for “common sense” gun controls have not addressed the circumstances in which any of the mass-murders could have been prevented. 

Next in Part 3 of this series – Gun Control Politics.

Gun Control–Part 1


We at Wise Conservatism and Tom’s Place offer our condolences to the victims and their families of the Umpqua Community College massacre in Roseburg, Oregon.


This is the first of a series of posts concerning the issue of gun control.


The Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights states:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Who or what is the Militia?  In short, it is the People of the United States, who may be called upon to defend their country.  Note that this is NOT the (Federalized) National Guard, which was created by Congress in 1903.  Militias are composed of ordinary people, not professional soldiers.

State Militias (now called Stated Defense Forces) were important to the States as they saw the potential of the Federal government to become a supreme and onerous government.  As the States were considering ratifying the Constitution, the Bill of Rights were debated and voted into the Constitution.  The Preamble to the Bill of Rights says as much:

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

The State Militias were the “insurance policy” of the States against an overbearing and egregious Federal government.  And as such, the People’s right to “keep and bear Arms” as part of a militia was recognized.  Indeed, the Declaration of Independence states:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness…

From the historical aspect of self-defense, one does not need to look further than the Bible:

“Then He said to them, “But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one.”” – Luke 22:36

Note that a sword has but one purpose, and it isn’t to peel potatoes.  It is a weapon.

The Founders of this country were not ignorant of the Bible nor of English Law or of the historical record concerning weapons and their use for defense of oneself and others.  Having won their independence from a tyrannical government, they took upon themselves to provide a right for people to protect their lives from governments or from people who wished them harm.

[Now I realize that the above is a rather brief introduction into how and why the Second Amendment was included into the Bill of Rights.  However, I hope that this will suffice for the subject at hand.]

So what were the available “arms” that the average citizen had to choose from?  At that time, the same arms that were available to the standing Army and Navy – swords, knives, single-shot muzzle loaded muskets, and if desired, even cannons.  No restrictions were made or proposed on what a private citizen could have – it all depended on what the person wanted to have, could afford, or what purpose the weapon was used for – hunting, self-defense, sport, or as part of the militia or military (soldiers, especially officers, often purchased their own arms).  The bottom line is that the intent was to allow the citizens (the Militia) to be as well armed as the regular military.

This all changed with the National Firearms Act of 1934.  Machine guns, short-barreled shotguns & rifles, suppressors, and various other items such as grenades were banned or restricted.  Up until that time, it was perfectly legal (if impractical) to own a Thompson machine gun without registration and paying a tax.  It should be noted that handguns were included in the original legislation, but was removed.

The Federal Firearms Act of 1938 added more regulations by requiring licenses for gun dealers and manufacturers, and required records of sales.  It also prohibited convicted felons from owning firearms.

The Gun Control Act of 1968 rewrote or reinforced many of the provisions of the above two acts, added restrictions on the transfers of firearms across state lines, and established the Federal Firearms License system for firearm dealers.  More restrictions upon firearm sales and transfers were added, most notably against drug users and those who have been “been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution,” and illegal aliens.

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 created the background check needed to purchase firearms, and had a mandated five-day waiting period.  This waiting period was removed with the creation of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which is maintained by the FBI. 

Through the above Federal legislation and State regulations not mentioned, it is clear that there are laws against illegal ownership of firearms by felons, violent criminals, and those with mental problems.  But that does not mean that criminals and other people wishing to commit crimes will not acquire firearms by other than legal means.

An article in Forbes stated that: “According to surveys DOJ conducted of state prison inmates during 2004 (the most recent year of data available), only two percent who owned a gun at the time of their offense bought it at either a gun show or flea market. About 10 percent said they purchased their gun from a retail shop or pawnshop, 37 percent obtained it from family or friends, and another 40 percent obtained it from an illegal source.”

So where is the reduction in criminals acquiring guns that is directly associated with gun control legislation? 

More in Part 2…