Leatherneck Blogger

Archive for February 2017

Every Doctor Should Discuss An Unborn Baby’s Health Problems Like Ours Did

leave a comment »

By J. D. Rucker
The Federalist
February 24, 2017

When my wife gives birth to our fourth child this year, he will need open heart surgeries as soon as he’s physically able. His heart isn’t like everyone else’s. The aorta and pulmonary artery are connected to the wrong ventricles. On top of that, there’s a hole in the wall separating the ventricles. He cannot survive with the current setup.

My wife and I have always been pro-life. She dealt with abortion advice as a teenager, when doctors told her she was too young to have our first son. That was easy advice to dismiss, even for a pair of teens who knew nothing. But this time was different. The question wasn’t whether we were ready to be parents. This time, the question was whether we wanted our next child to suffer—even if he survives at all.

Our Doctor Gave Us Exactly the Information We Needed

We live in Orange County, California. Despite our state’s reputation as hard-left, we live in one of California’s few bastions of conservatism. There are still liberal elements here, as there are everywhere. As the doctor described our baby’s condition and started running down the risks and challenges that lay ahead for us and our son, I braced myself. I knew our doctor would pressure us to have an abortion.

Except, she didn’t. She didn’t tell us not to have one, either.

She laid out the situation kindly and factually, even drawing pictures of our son’s rare condition so we could better understand what he’s facing. Her physician’s smile told of hope for life, while not hinting at any opposition if we chose a different path. In fact, her only mention of abortion came when she told us the deadline to decide based upon California’s 24-week law.

I could sense no bias one way or another, and I was watching very closely. I don’t believe she could read our thoughts on the matter; I didn’t even have to glance at my wife to know there wasn’t a decision to be made. As far as I could tell, it was the most caring yet utterly neutral presentation of gut-wrenching news I’d ever seen delivered.

Then, she said something that astounded me. “Whatever decision you make will be the right one because it comes from love.”

Medical Neutrality Is Pro-Life

I’ve written countless articles about the pro-life movement and against the idea of “reproductive rights.” I wouldn’t go so far as to say I’m an activist. There are plenty of people who work much harder than I do who deserve that title. But I write what I can. This is the first time I’ve written from personal experience, and it’s the most important perspective I’ve ever held.

If all doctors presented the facts the way our doctor did, fewer preborn children would be killed. Of this, I’m certain.

As a bystander, I’ve tried to think of ways to convince more doctors to be pro-life. It seemed the easiest way to prevent birth defect-motivated abortions was to have more doctors promote the concept of life to their patients. We know that Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion medical organizations push their agenda. Why shouldn’t we get more doctors to push ours?

Doctors Shouldn’t Push An Agenda—They Should Present the Truth

I was wrong. After experiencing it firsthand, I now realize that the way our doctor laid out the facts is the best way to save lives.

It’s very likely that another couple in our situation, hearing the exact same description, may choose to abort. In America, they have that right.

However, I no longer believe that someone willing to abort their preborn child because of this type of birth defect would be swayed by a pro-life message from their doctor. For it to happen would require the doctor to give false hope, or to sugarcoat the future potential hardships.

If pro-life medical professionals start using lies the way that pro-choice medical professionals often do, we will not save more lives. In fact, we could end up causing more abortions because of the lost trust associated with the lies.

This Battle Must Be Won in the Culture, Not the Doctor’s Office

What would happen if pro-life doctors convinced their patients to have children with birth defects by lying or even stretching the truth? Journalists would write about “religious fanatical doctors” spreading falsehoods to help the “anti-abortion movement.” Our attempts to save lives could result in more people discarding the advice of their doctors, because of fear that their doctors are lying.

This isn’t a medical issue. It’s not a political issue, either. Situations like ours are purely cultural. We believe that every life is sacred. If we can make more people believe this, the number of abortions due to birth defects will go down. Pro-life doctors can’t sell their agenda to those predisposed to a pro-choice ideology, any more than a pro-choice doctor could have convinced us to have an abortion. As for the political battle, that can only effectively prevent frivolous abortions-on-demand. Our situation is far from frivolous.

We need doctors who present the facts as the facts. Politicizing birth defect abortions in either direction only antagonizes those of the opposite perspective. This is a battle that will be won on the cultural battleground. These are decisions that must come from love.

JD Rucker is managing editor at The New Americana and co-founder of the Federalist Party. He is a Christian, conservative, and business owner raising a family of five in southern California. You can reach him on Twitter @jdrucker.

Written by Leatherneck Blogger

February 28, 2017 at 06:00

So the Fourth Circuit court just basically gutted Heller

with one comment

By Jazz Shaw
Hot Air
February 23, 2017

It looks like Neil Gorsuch is going to have his plate full when he finally takes his seat on the Supreme Court. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has been busy uprooting the Second Amendment this week, delivering a stunning opinion which essentially overturns the Heller decision without so much as a by your leave to SCOTUS. It involves a case out of Maryland where the state’s Democrats decided to ban “assault rifles” and high-capacity magazines. Apparently the idea of precedent is not something they care to have any truck with, as Charles C.W. Cook explains at National Review.

Freed up by the Supreme Court’s ongoing reluctance to engage in depth with the Second Amendment, the Fourth Circuit has taken it upon itself to rewrite Heller en banc. In a 10–4 decision, issued yesterday afternoon, the court upheld Maryland’s ban on both “assault weapons” and “high capacity magazines.” By so doing, it deprived the people of Maryland, the Carolinas, and the Virginias of the core protections to which the Constitution entitles them.

As Judge Traxler’s dissent pointedly establishes, the majority achieved this transformation by contriving “a heretofore unknown ‘test,’ which is whether the firearm in question is ‘most useful in military service.’” In effect, this “test” is designed to permit judges to determine that any weapon they might dislike is unprotected by the Second Amendment and can therefore be prohibited with impunity. Forget that Heller contains its own explicit tests. Forget the “common use” standard. Forget “dangerous and unusual.” There’s a new kid in town, and he’s coming for your rifles.

Pardon my language, but where the hell did the phrase “most useful in military service” come from? As Charles aptly points out, this is completely new ground which was summoned up out of whole cloth by the majority in this decision. And what does that even mean?

There are two competing narratives which could be applied to these questions. First, let’s look at the ostensible target of the original legislation. They were going after the AR-15 and its related cousins in the firearms market. This begs the question of how many AR-15 style rifles are currently in use. On the civilian side, the NRA estimates that more than 5 million households have one. In a single seven day span last year following the Orlando shooting, more than 30,000 were sold. But how about the military? As it turns out, the rifles under discussion are civilian models which only fire one shot each time the trigger is pulled. The military doesn’t use them. So technically, calling this particular firearm “most useful in military service” is a complete red herring since the military has no interest in them.

But that’s not to say that the weapon couldn’t be used in a military scenario for the purpose of killing the enemy. (Even though the AR-15 is a somewhat under-powered platform.) The same could be said, as Charles points out, for most standard hunting rifles. If you really have to kill the enemy a good 30:06 will get the job done. The same can be said for virtually any semiautomatic handgun of sufficient caliber and they are frequently carried in combat scenarios. Going by the “logic” of the Fourth Circuit court there is almost no weapon of any sort which would fail to meet this test.

Will the Supreme Court actually entertain nonsense like this as some new standard in defiance of all precedent? I can certainly think of four members who might. This is yet another case which demonstrates how important it is to get Neil Gorsuch on the job as quickly and efficiently as possible. This sort of claptrap coming from the lower courts must be kept in check.

Iowa’s Lawmakers Step Up to Protect Their 2A Base

with one comment

By Jenn Jacques
Bearing Arms
February 24, 2017

Following the November elections, Iowa legislators are looking to pass a gaggle of gun-friendly legislation in the Hawkeye State.

“As a whole, this puts us light-years beyond where we’re at currently,” said Rep. Matt Windschitl, a Republican from Missouri Valley who spearheaded drafting the bill. “If we can get this down to the governor’s desk, I believe that Iowans will see this as a wholesale change that they approve of and agree with.”

A three-member subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee signed off on the bill Thursday.

The Iowa Firearms Coalition focused its lobbying power on flipping control of the Senate ahead of the November 2016 elections. Now that Senate Democrats no longer hold the power to block legislation they dislike, coalition president Barry Snell said he and his members are excited to see changes moving forward.

“It’s been a long time coming,” Snell said. “I think we’re all pretty positive and excited that the things that we’ve striven for these past years are finally coming to fruition and that they are a real possibility now instead of just fantasy.”

“We want to work with Republican lawmakers,” said Amber Gustafson, leader of the Iowa chapter for Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America. “Because the truth is that no Republican lawmaker puts forth a piece of legislation with the desire to increase gun violence in Iowa. Nobody wants that. So we’re united in that. But sometimes there are many ways of looking at an issue.”

Some of the major changes in the legislation include ‘stand your ground’ provisions, of which Snell said, “We’ve seen in other states in the past, for example, where somebody is the victim of a home invasion, and they unfortunately have to shoot the person, and then the family (of the convicted criminal) turns around and sues them. Even if they win — and they almost always do win, it’s not a question of that — it’s that now they have a $200,000 legal bill.”

Another major change would be to lift the restriction against minors. Current state law prevents anyone under the age of 14 to touch, handle or shoot a handgun, even under the instruction of parents or firearms instructors. The bill would allow youth under the age of 21 to possess a pistol or revolver while under direct supervision of a parent or guardian who is at least 21 years old.

Other changes proposed in legislation include:

  • The legalization of short-barreled rifles and shotguns as well as machine guns
  • New penalties on “straw purchases” of firearms
  • Allowing any member of the public who is lawfully carrying a pistol or revolver to do so within the Capitol
  • Elimination of Iowa’s “permit to acquire” necessary to purchase a handgun
  • Making concealed carry permits ‘lifetime permits’
  • Permit-holder confidentiality
  • Blocking cities, counties and the Iowa Board of Regents from enacting restrictions on the use of firearms

“If we have the opportunity to write some protections into our laws now before a situation like this would occur, why wouldn’t we do that?” Windschitl asked. “I’d rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it.”

“Our intent is to protect Iowans at all cost,” he said. “This will allow Iowans more freedoms and the ability to exercise those freedoms in a responsible fashion.”

Want to Fight For Second Amendment Rights? There’s an App For That!

leave a comment »

By jenn jacques
Bearing Arms
February 17, 2017

Leave it to the National Rifle Association to bring Defending the Second Amendment right to your fingertips!

The NRA-ILA’s new app makes it easy to:

  • Stay up to date on all the latest NRA-ILA and NRA news
  • Meet and communicate with fellow NRA supporters
  • Lobby your elected officials and urge them to support your right to bear arms, due process, etc.
  • Find local Second Amendment Activist Centers and check-in to claim it
  • RSVP, get directions and check-in at NRA-ILA events
  • Earn points, unlock badges, and compete for prizes!
  • Learn how to sign up to vote, sign up to become an NRA member, and join the NRA Frontlines
  • Download and distribute educational materials, know your gun laws, armed citizen stories, etc.
  • Invite your friends to join you on the app

Available on both Android and iTunes, the only question now is, what are you waiting for?



Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards’ Salary Has Gone Up a Whopping 265% to Almost $1 Million

with one comment

By Ryan Bomberger
February 17, 2017

It must be nice to be untouchable by mainstream media. You can lie through those shiny white teeth and mainstream media will treat every rehearsed and distorted word like truth.

In an age when liberal news media shows its disdain for corporate America (unless those corporations are touting their hypocritical, pro-LGBT, public potty policies), leftie journalists can’t show enough love for abortion mogul Cecile Richards.

She has “privilege”. Liberals call it “white privilege”. It’s their racist way of blaming white people for nearly every social injustice under the sun. I’m black (biracial), and I find the whole white guilt/white privilegerhetoric racist and unproductive. But the hypocrisy of liberalism never ceases to amaze me. They denounce “privilege” at every turn, except when that turn leads to the nation’s leading abortion mogul. Just watch our latest video showing pro-abortion liberals’ multiple personality disorder at Richards’ recent lecture at the University of Chicago.

I mean, what corporation loses 670,540 clients in less than 10 years, slashes its major services (except one) up to 59%, increases its president’s salary by a whopping 265% (from $360,902 in 2006 to $957,952) and gets praised by the news media? Planned Parenthood.

Since Cecile Richards took over the helm of Planned Parenthood in 2006, she has transformed the abortion chain into a massive PR machine for Democrats. “Planned Parenthood, we’re non-partisan,” absurdly claimed Cecile Richards in a recent interview with MSNBC’s Morning Joe co-host, Mika Brzezinski. For the first time in years, FactCheck.org decided to actually fact-check one of the most public, polarizing and dishonest figures in America. (Factcheck.org hasn’t fact-checked Richards since 2015, and has only ever fact-checked her 3 times).

That whole “we’re non-partisan” line was shredded by the left-leaning organization as it revealed what all of us have known for a long time: Planned Parenthood is an extension of the Democratic Party. Ninety-eight percent to be exact. Just on the Congressional level, Planned Parenthood spent $681,679 on Democrats and a measly $12,500 on Republicans (1.8% to be exact).

Of course, an MSNBC host wouldn’t challenge such a blatant lie; the network has become the PR arm of Planned Parenthood. (‘Morning Joe’ has banned conservative Kellyanne Conway but wouldn’t dare ban Cecile Richards, despite her proven and blatant lying.) This highlights, too, the “privilege” of Cecile Richards on network news shows—she is never challenged by a guest with an opposing view. It’s easier to spew all those lies unchecked by someone who knows the truth.

Yes, she makes nearly a million dollars a year from scamming the American public, but what she represents (faux feminism) is more important to pro-abortion liberals than the facts…than women’s lives…than healthcare. In order to bolster Planned Parenthood’s (plummeting) healthcare “credentials”, Richards will repeatedly talk about how the abortion chain provides cancer screenings. Brzezinski, nor her producers, didn’t bother to ask any clarifying questions like: “Why have cancer screenings plummeted at Planned Parenthood?” Since Richards has taken over, the abortion business has conducted 519,158 fewer breast cancer screenings. In the last five years alone, these screenings have been in a free fall from 747,607 in 2010 to 363,803 in 2014—a drop of 51.3%!

Mainstream media and Cecile Richards don’t trust women—the public—with the truth.

And just a reminder for liberal evangelicals who theologically contort themselves to support Planned Parenthood, remember that love does not delight in evil but rejoices in the truth (1 Corinthians 13:6).

 From Richards’ total fabrication that “1 in 5 women use Planned Parenthood” to “Planned Parenthood is opposed to racism and prejudice of any kind”…honesty is not her policy. Planned Parenthood, birthed in eugenic racism and elitism, celebrates its eugenicist founder—Margaret Sanger—every year awarding journalists, celebrities and other activists with the Margaret Sanger Award.

Planned Parenthood ludicrously tweeted this quote from Cecile Richards: “Everyone must own the responsibility we have as a nation to stand against the violence being done to Black people in America. There are no words adequate to express the outrage and grief—stop killing black people.” Uhhh, this is a joke, right? So #BlackLivesMatter all of the sudden? The billion-dollar federation of abortion facilities (mostly located in predominantly minority neighborhoods) is, literally, the leading killer of unarmed black lives (an estimated 266 per day)! I would say that’s a sure sign of racism. Oh, and ripping apart any defenseless human being because of age and stage qualifies as the most violent form of prejudice.

Richards gets away with it all because she has “privilege”. You know, that conjured up evil that liberals normally wield to silence or demonize those they claim have it. I’m more interested in rights than privilege. And our most basic right—the Right to Life—is an unalienable right that should never be aborted. The late Dr. Mildred Jefferson, the first black woman to graduate from Harvard Medical School and become the first female surgeon at Boston Medical, was also the co-founder of the National Right to Life. And I love her words which guide the work of The Radiance Foundation and our desire to affirm that every human life has purpose: “I am not willing to stand aside and allow the concept of expendable human lives to turn this great land of ours into just another exclusive reservation where only the perfect, the privileged, and the planned have the right to live.”

Terror Snap Shot: ISIS Recruitment, Ability to Carry Out Western Attacks Undiminished

with 2 comments

By Katie Pavlich
February 6, 2017

Despite being pummeled by coalition forces in Iraq and Syria for months, ISIS has suffered few losses when it comes to recruitment and terror attacks outside of its territory according to the “Monthly Terror Snap Shot” released by the House Homeland Security Committee majority.

“Although ISIS faces continued counterterrorism pressure in its key safe havens, the group’s external operations plotting appears undiminished. The New Year opened with a deadly ISIS-linked attack on a nightclub in Istanbul, Turkey, leaving 39 dead and demonstrating the terror group’s continued ability to inspire and organize major attacks,” the report states. “European nations are moving forward with counterterrorism reforms designed to cope with the surging terror threat. Yet despite improvements, the continent still suffers from major security weaknesses that make European countries more vulnerable to attack and put U.S. interests overseas at risk.”

The report warns 2017 looks “alarming” in terms of homegrown terrorism and interestingly ties Esteban  Santiago, the man who killed five people at Ft. Lauderdale airport last month, to the terror army as a potential influence for his actions.

According to a CBS News report, Santiago had visited an FBI office in Alaska prior to the shooting, stating her was being forced to watch ISIS videos online.

The FBI confirmed that in Nov. 2016, Santiago-Ruiz walked into an FBI office in Anchorage and claimed his mind was being controlled by a U.S. intelligence agency and that he was being forced to watch videos for ISIS. He was sent to a psychiatric hospital after police were called, sources said.

Meanwhile, President Trump ordered his first raid against al Qaeda operatives in Yemen last week. While a number of high value targets were taken out and crucial intelligence was collected, Navy SEAL Ryan Owens was killed during the operation.

“I am very encouraged that the Trump Administration is preparing to put greater pressure on jihadists in their safe havens throughout the world. But as they do, we can expect to see militants returning to the West to build new networks and to plot more deadly operations,” Chairman Michael McCaul said about the report. “I look forward to working with the new Administration on shutting down terror pathways in America. We must also remain vigilant here at home, because Americans are being radicalized at an alarming rate.”

Federal Court Rules Florida Doctors Can Ask Patients About Guns

leave a comment »

By BearingArms.com Staff
February 17, 2017

MIAMI (AP) — A federal appeals court ruled on Thursday that Florida doctors can talk to patients about gun safety, declaring a law aimed at restricting such discussions a violation of the First Amendment’s right to free speech.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that the law does not trespass on patients’ Second Amendment rights to own guns and noted a patient who doesn’t want to be questioned about that can easily find another doctor.

“The Second Amendment right to own and possess firearms does not preclude questions about, commentary on, or criticism for the exercise of that right,” wrote Circuit Judge Adalberto Jordan in one of two majority opinions covering 90 pages. “There is no actual conflict between the First Amendment rights of doctors and medical professionals and the Second Amendment rights of patients.”

Circuit Judge William Pryor, who was a finalist in President Donald Trump’s search for a Supreme Court nominee, said in a separate concurring opinion that the First Amendment must protect all points of view.

“The promise of free speech is that even when one holds an unpopular point of view, the state cannot stifle it,” he wrote. “The price Americans pay for this freedom is that the rule remains unchanged regardless of who is in the majority.”

The law was passed in 2011 and signed by Republican Gov. Rick Scott with strong support from the National Rifle Association. It was the only one of its kind in the nation, although similar laws have been considered in other states.

Supporters in the Republican-controlled Florida Legislature insisted it was necessary because doctors were overstepping their bounds and pushing an anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment agenda.

The law was challenged almost immediately by thousands of physicians, medical organizations and other groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union as a violation of free speech in what became known as the “Docs v. Glocks” case. A legal battle has raged in the courts since then, with several conflicting opinions issued.

“We are thrilled that the court has finally put to bed the nonsensical and dangerous idea that a doctor speaking with a patient about gun safety somehow threatens the right to own a gun,” said Howard Simon, executive director of the ACLU of Florida.

The 11th Circuit noted that Florida lawmakers appeared to base the law on “six anecdotes” about physicians’ discussions of guns in their examination rooms and little other concrete evidence that there is an actual problem. And doctors who violated the law could face professional discipline, a fine or possibly loss of their medical licenses.

“There was no evidence whatsoever before the Florida Legislature that any doctors or medical professionals have taken away patients’ firearms or otherwise infringed on patients’ Second Amendment rights,” Jordan wrote for the court.

The NRA and Florida attorneys had argued that under the law doctors could ask about firearms if the questions were relevant to a patient’s health or safety, or someone else’s safety, and that the law was aimed at eliminating harassment of gun owners. But the 11th Circuit said there was no evidence of harassment or improper disclosure of gun ownership in health records, as law supporters also claimed.

“There is nothing in the record suggesting that patients who are bothered or offended by such questions are psychologically unable to choose another medical provider, just as they are permitted to do if their doctor asks too many questions about private matters like sexual activity, alcohol consumption, or drug use,” the court ruled.

The ruling did determine that some parts of the law could remain on the books, such as provisions allowing patients to decline to answer questions about guns and prohibiting health insurance companies from denying coverage or increasing premiums for people who lawfully own guns.

The case will return to U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke in Miami for a ruling that follows the 11th Circuit’s direction. The case could, however, also be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Planned Parenthood Clinic Named for Margaret Sanger Hurts 2 Women in 3 Weeks in Botched Abortions

with one comment

By Cheryl Sullenger
February 10, 2017

For the second time in three weeks, an ambulance has transported a patient from the Margaret Sanger Center Planned Parenthood abortion facility in New York City.

According to a pro-life activist who snapped photos of the incident, an ambulance arrived around noon on February 4, 2017, and emergency responders entered the Planned Parenthood center. Paramedics soon returned to the ambulance for a gurney. At approximately 12:25 p.m., they emerged with a patient on the gurney with her head covered with a black cloth.

“We have studied hundreds of medical emergencies at abortion facilities, and it seems like 25 minutes is an unusually long time for paramedics to be on the scene,” said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman. “We don’t really know what happened, but one reasonable possibility is that it took the paramedics time to stabilize the patient before transporting her.”

Other medical emergencies documented by Operation Rescue at this same Planned Parenthood abortion facility include the following:

January 18, 2017: A woman was removed from the abortion facility on a gurney and wheeled to the ambulance, passing under a large pink banner that ironically read “Healthcare happens.”
November 4, 2016: African-American woman who was carted out of Planned Parenthood in a wheelchair, put onto a stretcher, and loaded into an awaiting ambulance.
March 1, 2016: African-American woman was brought out of the abortion facility in a wheelchair and helped into ambulance.
May 4, 2013: Ambulance transport woman from Margaret Sanger Center Planned Parenthood.

Cecile Richards, the CEO of Planned Parenthood Federation of America has stated, “The healthcare and the safety of our patients is our most important priority.”

However, the frequency of recent medical emergencies at their flag-ship New York abortion facility says otherwise.

“Planned Parenthood’s rhetoric is often very different from reality,” said Newman. “Two hospitalized patients within three weeks is appalling, and an indication that there are serious patient care issues at the Margaret Sanger Center Planned Parenthood.”

LifeNews.com Note: Cheryl Sullenger is a leader of Operation Rescue.

Written by Leatherneck Blogger

February 21, 2017 at 07:00

72 Muslims from countries covered by Trump ban convicted of terrorism

with one comment

By Robert Spencer
Jihad Watch
February 11, 2017

How many is too many? What number of Americans killed by jihadis is enough for the Left? Is there any limit that will make them say, “All right, now we have to call a halt to this” and restrict immigration? Or is open borders the unalterable goal no matter how many Americans die in jihad massacres?

“Report: 72 convicted of terrorism from ‘Trump 7’ mostly Muslim countries,” by Paul Bedard, Washington Examiner, February 11, 2017:

Since 9/11, 72 individuals from the seven mostly Muslim countries covered by President Trump’s “extreme vetting” executive order have been convicted of terrorism, a finding that clashes sharply with claims from an appeals court that there is “no evidence” those countries have produced a terrorist.

According to a report out Saturday, at least 17 claimed to be refugees from those nations, three came in as “students,” and 25 eventually became U.S. citizens.

The Center for Immigration Studies calculated the numbers of convicted terrorists from the Trump Seven:

— Somalia: 20

— Yemen: 19

— Iraq: 19

— Syria: 7

— Iran: 4

— Libya: 2

— Sudan: 1

The Center’s director of policy studies, Jessica M. Vaughan, based her blockbuster report on a 2016 report from the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest, then chaired by new Attorney General Jeff Sessions, that report found that 380 out of 580 people convicted in terror cases since 9/11 were foreign-born.

She received further information on many in the report to conclude that 72 of those convicted of terrorism come from the seven nations target by Trump….

NBC News Spreads Fear, Lies With “Ghost Gun” Fake News

with one comment

By Bob Owens
Bearing Arms
February 10, 2017

Once again, “investigative reporter” Jeff Rossen is fear-mongering about the firearms industry, this time with an incredibly dishonest article about so-called “ghost guns,” a hysterical term used to describe firearms made from gun parts kits sold both in retail stores and online.

A legal loophole means that anyone, including criminals, can order a so-called “ghost gun” off the web without a background check – a gun with no serial number that can’t be traced.

The guns are built from kits and arrive in pieces, so under existing law, when they’re shipped, they aren’t guns. When assembled by their buyers, they’re lethal – and legal.

Federal officials like Graham Barlowe, the resident agent in charge of the ATF’s Sacramento office, say the loophole is dangerous.

“People that could not pass a background check,” said Barlowe, “are purchasing these unfinished receiver kits and making firearms because they know that if they went to a gun store, they wouldn’t be able to pass a background check.”

Police say criminals are well aware of the availability of “ghost guns,” and they’ve been used in shootings across the country, from Maryland to California.

Jeff Rossen, NBC News national investigative correspondent, went online to see how easy it would be to order these gun kits. He quickly found dozens of websites offering the product, and ordered a rifle kit, which he had shipped to former ATF agent Rick Vasquez in Virginia.

All the parts needed to assemble a gun were in the box when it arrived. It took Vasquez a couple of hours to assemble the weapon.

“This is now a completed semi-automatic firearm,” said Vasquez, showing it to Rossen. Rossen noted that there was no serial number on the finished product, making it untraceable.

Said Vasquez, “That is correct … You cannot trace this firearm.” He and Rossen then took the weapon to a range and fired it, where in Vasquez’s expert opinion, it “work[ed] great.”

Here’s the thing: former ATF agent Rick Vasquez and Jeff Rossen are boldly and directly lying to the viewers/readers of NBC News. I know this from firsthand experience, as I’ve built semi-automatic firearms from the ground up, including AR-15s and an AKM.

You cannot buy “all the parts” for any firearm online and simply slap the pieces together to build a functioning firearm as they mislead viewers, and this is a very easy claim to debunk.

Every firearm made or imported into the United States has a part of the frame or receiver that the ATF recognizes as the actual firearm that carries the serial number. All the other pieces are just parts. It is these other pieces—barrels, stocks, handguards, sights, triggers, etc—that can be bought online or in retail stores as individual parts or in parts kits, but the receiver must either be purchased as a serialized firearm like a whole gun, or it must be manufactured from an incomplete piece of material into a functional firearm.

This is where Vasquez and NBC News are misleading you.


The metal part shown about is an unfinished lower receiver for an AR-15 manufactured by 80% Arms. Let me be very clear when I tell you that you cannot simply assemble this into a firearm by slapping other parts onto it.

Someone purchasing an unfinished lower receiver like this must first use machine tools or a CNC machine like the Ghost Gunner II to drill and mill out the fire control group cavity and selector switch holes. If you do not, you simply have a hunk of metal in the outline of a lower receiver that cannot accept a trigger or a hammer or a selector switch, and cannot possibly be fired. This takes time, specialized tools, and knowledge to complete. I know. I’ve put in the time to mill three of them, one of which had to be scrapped because I did it wrong.


Building an AK-style rifle is even more complex than building an AR-15, starting with a piece of sheet metal that must be bent into a shape using specialized tools, and then assembled in a process more akin to blacksmithing than gunsmithing.

The author's completed 1986 Polish AKM. Photo by the author.

I know, because I spent two days in a machine shop with AK master builder Jim Fuller to build the rifle you see above, and that was starting with a finished (and serialized) receiver.

At no point in their “fake news” article does NBC news or the serially dishonest Rossen describe the effort that you must manufacturer the receiver from incomplete pieces of metal to have the core of a firearm. Instead, they all but gloss over that reality, and dishonestly assert that you can buy all the completed parts online and simply assemble a firearm with hardly any effort at all.

If you wonder why the American people no longer trust the mainstream media, you don’t need to look any further than this example. NBC News and Jeff Rossen have once again been dishonest in order to sell fear and sensationalism, creating an imaginary “loophole” in the law that simply doesn’t exist.

%d bloggers like this: