All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 7, 2016 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
54:45
3171 Obama's Executive Action on Gun Control | True News
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi everybody, it's Devan Mullen from Freedom Main Radio.
Hope you're doing well.
Yes, it's Groundhog Day, which means it's time once more to rebut more nonsense about gun control.
Recently put out by the Kakenegel-enabled eye-tear-squirting Obama, who was weeping about victims of gun violence, and then talking about gun control.
We'll get into some details about this, but I just wanted to talk about gun control as a whole.
It's kind of like an intelligence test.
Because you see, of course, crimes committed by people with guns, and somehow, if your IQ is probably below about 90 to 95, you'll say, okay, well, we'll take away the guns, and then the crimes will magically disappear.
These are the same kinds of people who say, well, government spending creates jobs, and we can see the jobs that are being created, guys out there painting a wall or something, fixing a pothole.
So government spending creates jobs.
And idiots say that it's good for the economy.
Of course, the reality is that the government takes, borrows, or prints the money to create the jobs, which takes money out from elsewhere in the economy.
So it's not important to look at the 50 jobs that are created, but the 100 jobs that will never be created, even after these temporary jobs vanish.
So when it comes to gun control, it's just an intelligence test.
Because the question is not, do people with guns commit crimes?
Of course they do, and we'll get to that, the real perpetrator, in a moment.
But the question is, how many crimes are prevented by people with guns?
See, the people who are committing rare mass murder crimes with guns, well, they're very visible.
They're all over the paper, just like the government jobs that are created and so on.
And the people who...
Don't get robbed because the robbers are afraid that they might have a gun.
They may not even know that they were ever targeted.
They may not know.
Like, if all guns were banned in America, then, as would happen in England, home invasions and burglaries and so on would go way up.
Because the thieves would know that the people at home wouldn't have guns to protect themselves with.
And so the fact that there are guns in America prevent crimes even that nobody would know about unless all guns were banned.
So it never shows up and it's never reported to anyone.
And of course there are more explicit crimes that are prevented by people who have guns.
Some guys come up to rob them, you know, they show a gun and the guy runs away.
Are you going to file a police report?
I guess occasionally you might.
But for the most part, you just have to know that these things exist and we'll get into those numbers as well.
So when it comes to gun control, it's just an intelligence test and people who fail this test are not likely to understand much of anything because they're too busy trying to figure out which hole the rabbit goes in while they're trying to tie their shoes together.
So, before we get into the meat and gristle, let's just take a zoom out, big picture of the entire arena of weapons control.
You see, President Barack Hussein Obama is very, very concerned that weapons might get into the hands Of not-so-good people.
That's why he's weeping.
That's why he's waving his hands and gnashing his teeth and speaking in his slow, castile, trust-in-me hypnotic cadence.
I speak lively because I want you to stay awake and alert, but President Obama is extremely concerned about weapons getting into the hands of very bad or even potentially bad people, mentally ill people, people who seem a little incompetent, people who might be on the no-fly list, just people you might have some suspicions about that maybe at some point in the future they might do something wrong.
Very concerned about that.
Okay, so if President Obama And say the US government is very concerned about weapons getting into the hands of bad people.
Little tough to understand this basic fact.
President Obama has been in charge of a massive increase in weapons sales around the world since taking office.
Now the majority of weapons sales under President Barack Hussein Obama have gone to the Middle East and the Persian Gulf.
Top of the list, receiving massive amounts of U.S. military sales, Saudi Arabia.
$46 billion in new agreements.
And an expert will put the sources below.
The quote is,"...the volume of major deals concluded by the Obama administration in its first five years exceeds the amount approved by the Bush administration in its full eight years in office by nearly $30 billion." That also means that the Obama administration has approved more arms sales than any U.S. administration since World War II. Riddle me this.
Batman, on the one hand, Barack Obama is weeping at the possibility, even the vague possibility, that somebody who might potentially do something wrong at some point in the future might get their hands on a Saturday night special.
However, the Saudis, under Barack Obama, have been the largest recipient of, I guess, things you could argue are slightly more dangerous than a pistol.
For instance, US fighter planes, Apache attack helicopters, bombs, guns, almost an entire arsenal and military-grade mass-destruction planet-orama that they purchased just in the last few years.
Gosh, what would it be like If bad people could get hold of weaponry, well, for instance, Saudi Arabia is using US weapons to bomb Yemen.
Civilians have been killed.
Now, Egypt is not exactly the most democratic regime, as we know, although they did try to Islamically socialize Laura Logan.
Now, they've opened sails to Egypt again.
They've supported dictators for many years, even prior to Obama.
And there are counterattacks in places like Egypt.
The Saudis are using U.S. weapons to go and crush the democracy movement in Bahrain.
Along with the government there, the Saudis, what, just executed 46-odd people.
The Saudis have lashings, stonings, medieval barbarity, crushing rights for women, and a child brutal.
And the majority, of course, of the hijackers on 9-11 seem to have come from Saudi Arabia.
Hey, President Obama, do you think we could maybe get a background check for Saudi goddamn Arabia?
That might be.
You really can cry.
Bad people might get weapons.
Oh, okay, you medieval barbarians.
Do you want Apache attack helicopters to launch against anti-authority protesters in Bahrain and Yemen?
Go for it, because you've got cash.
I mean, it's ridiculous.
You have to laugh.
You have to laugh.
I don't know what else you can do.
In Iraq, of course, the security forces armed by the U.S. abandoned large amounts of the weaponry to ISIS. U.S. armed rebels in Syria, armed by the CIA, trained by the CIA, went over to join ISIS. You know, in Yemen, $500 million of missing American weapons.
Some people think it's gone to the Houthis.
Some think it's gone to Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.
So pretty much they've armed the government and they've armed the rebels.
So it's quite possible, for instance, that every single side of the war in Yemen may have some U.S. weaponry.
So it's really quite mad.
When U.S. arms end up in the hands of people fighting against U.S. allies or the U.S. in particular, I think things might have gone a little bit haywire.
And you know...
There's really no Second Amendment for Saudi Arabia or any of the other Middle Eastern countries.
You know, when you have a whole bunch of people fighting like crazy, selling the massive amounts of weapons might not go with your sentimental Crimea River.
I don't want weapons to get into the hands of bad people.
Shtick!
And so the Obama administration has dramatically accelerated U.S. weapons sale abroad, and there are supposed to be some licensing of weapons and weapons-related exports, and of course the defense industry, I have to call it that even though it's pretty much the opposite, And they've wanted a relaxation of these licensing and restrictions for years.
Obama administration has finally delivered that.
So what happened was the State Department used to vet human rights and so forth, and it did a fairly decent job, at least relative to other government departments.
So they took thousands of these items, these weapons and contracts, and put them in the Commerce Department, which has been involved in promoting arms sales, not on vetting the recipients.
So good job, Obama, taking the last shred of restraint away from the government, murder factory, weapons sale, death camps.
So it's going to be easier for some countries to get arms without a license.
And of course, once they get them, they'll become hubs of smuggling.
And yeah, it's bad for the security interests of the United States as a whole.
But the arms death camp industry has wanted it for quite a while.
And Obama has delivered.
All right.
That's the big picture view.
So the next time Obama or any US president says that they really want to keep weapons out of the hands of bad people, how about taking a map of the world and pointing at it?
They're not really doing their job.
Now, of course, fundamentally, there's no evidence that shows that gun control decreases crime.
You know, if you don't want to start with the ideology, and we'll get to that at the back, the philosophical arguments, at least how about we start with the basic facts.
There is no evidence that shows gun control decreases crime.
Again, sources for all of this below.
The evidence, actual evidence, actually suggests the exact opposite, that more gun control can lead to more crime.
Now, we talked about this in The Truth About Gun Control, which we'll link below.
Firearm deaths, as people talk about gun deaths, 62% are suicides, 35% are homicides.
And I know it doesn't add up to 100.
You can look up the details if you like.
So when people talk about gun deaths, then they're talking about suicides, A lot.
Almost two-thirds of the time.
And if they don't break that down, then they're automatically sarfists.
Now, where do criminals get their guns?
Well, 11.3% say other, which is unspecified.
11.3% get them from legal sources.
0.8% of them come from gun shows.
37.4% get it from family or friends.
40% street or illegal sources.
And so that's important.
Now, if you do want to look at correlations between certain social situations and criminality, well, there's a 0.96 correlation between the divorce rate and property crime.
I would imagine that's because divorce under the current family court system in the US is basically a property crime.
There's a 0.85% correlation between the divorce rate and violent crime.
So I'm not sure that you want to ban guns so much as statistically you want to ban divorce.
And of course, the government, by making no-fault divorce, which is initiated almost two-thirds by women, and the number one complaint they have is, I'm dissatisfied.
Well, that produces a lot of criminals, so how about restricting that?
Well, that's not going to happen because, you know, so many reasons.
Now...
The important thing to understand about America, which as he points out has some violent crime rates that are somewhat high, is that it is not equal across all ethnicities.
The Asians in general commit the fewest crimes, whites commit more crimes, Hispanics commit even more crimes, and blacks Well, it's kind of off the charts.
And we've got the truth about crime in our channel here, which you can check out below as well.
So we'll get into some more details about that.
So January 6th, of course, the day after President Obama announced these executive gun controls to prevent mass violence in America, the Associated Press reported.
That his proposed actions would not have stopped even one mass shooting in recent history.
See, here's how it works.
Obama cries crocodile tears about mass shootings and then proposes measures which would have nothing to do with stopping mass shootings.
I don't think he's unaware of this.
Again, it's just kind of like an intelligence test.
Do you get hypnotized by big teeth and jug ears?
And do you lose your capacity to reason?
If so, good Democrat.
The AP specifically points to the attacks on the Aurora Theatre, the DC Navy Yard, Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church, the Chattanooga Military Recruitment Officers, Umpqua Community College in San Bernardino, because the gunman in all of these instances passed background checks and To acquire their firearms.
So more background checks?
Not going to solve the problem.
In San Bernardino, of course, Saeed Farouk passed background checks for his handguns and acquired the rifles through someone else who passed checks for them as well.
Either way, the checks were passed and the impotency of those checks has been fully revealed to the planet as a whole.
So it's not about anything to do with that.
He's using that for some other reason.
Now, the Associated Press points to the one mass attack that Obama and the Democrats repeatedly bring up, which is Sandy Hook Elementary School.
These executive gun controls would not even have hindered, much less prevented, the Sandy Hook attack from occurring.
Because gunman Adam Lanza did not buy his guns, instead he sidestepped every conceivable method of gun control by simply stealing his weapons, which of course is not prevented by any of that.
Now, people are talking about the U.S. as having an exceptionally high murder rate and it's just crazy and it's off the charts and blah blah blah.
Well, historically that's not particularly true.
That in Russia, the murder rate increased enormously.
By the early 1990s, the Russian murder rate was three times higher than that of the United States.
Russia has some gun controls, let's say.
Between 1998 and 2004, the latest figures I could get for Russia, Russian murder rates were nearly four times higher.
Let's go to lovely Luxembourg where handguns are totally banned and ownership of any kind of gun is completely minimal.
Luxembourg, which has very strict gun control rates, had a murder rate nine times higher than Germany, which has less gun controls than Luxembourg in 2002.
So, crime has been dropping enormously.
Well, asterisk, recent Ferguson effect, where cops are afraid to police minority neighborhoods out of fear of having their lives destroyed by getting into an altercation with a minority that the leftist media is going to massively sympathize with.
But crime as a whole has been dropping, and it's, I would argue, no particular accident, if you understand the mechanics of state power and oligarchical control in society, that when crime starts dropping, see, the government sells protection from crime.
It's one of the reasons why people accept the government, is they say, well, keep us safe from crime.
So when crime starts dropping, a lot of people say, huh, maybe we can shrink the size and power of the state.
Because crime is dropping.
Like I don't buy a lot of polio insurance because polio is not really very prevalent anymore.
And so what happens is when crime starts dropping and the state sells protection for crime, what does the state want to do?
Wants to import a whole bunch of criminals.
And that's why you have a lot of third world people coming into America, at least partly.
Not only do they vote Democrat, but also they scare the population with fears of criminality that has them running to the government for protection.
And thus the government gets to continue its protection racket.
And this is another reason why governments sell arms around the world, is they can say, well, look, there's all these conflicts around the world.
We need a very strong foreign policy.
We need to tax you and control you in order to manage all these conflicts.
We're selling arms to the combatants under the table.
That's all just the way.
This is how power works.
If you don't know that, then just rewind this and play it again.
It'll be clear.
So one of the reasons why crime has been dropping, well, while England and the Commonwealth were making lawful gun ownership kind of difficult, more than 25 states in the U.S. have passed laws allowing responsible or vetted citizens to carry concealed handguns.
So there are more than 40 states in America where these citizens can get a handgun permit.
And so the number of Americans who are allowed to carry concealed handguns on the street, in shopping malls and so on, and in their cars, has grown to three and a half million men and women.
Now, economists John Lott and David Mustard, a fine condiment of rational thinking, have suggested that these new laws contributed to the drop in homicide and violent crime rates.
So what they did was they ground through 25 years of correlated statistics from all of the more than 3,000 American counties, and they concluded that adoption of these statutes has deterred criminals from confrontation crime and caused murder and violent crime to fall faster in states that adopted this policy than in states and they concluded that adoption of these statutes has deterred criminals from confrontation So guns not only do not cause crime, they prevent crime.
It's like saying, I got an owie from the injection of some vaccine.
So, for those outside the US, what is the Second Amendment?
It goes, quote, a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state and the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
So, let's run through Obama's speech.
So he was starting about how, you know, five years ago this week, a sitting member of Congress and 18 others were shot at a supermarket in Tucson, Arizona.
It wasn't the first time I had to talk to the nation in response to a mass shooting, nor would it be the last.
Fort Hood, Binghamton, Aurora, Oak Creek, Newton, the Navy Yard, Santa Barbara, Charleston, San Bernardino.
Too many squirt, squirt, squirt.
And so what he's doing here is he's saying, look, there's this terrible danger.
People are getting killed.
And he brings up, of course, Gabby Giffords, a sitting congresswoman who was shot.
Don't you care about these poor victims?
Wouldn't you move heaven and earth to prevent these bullets flying into the tender bodies of these poor helpless victims and so on?
So he's setting up the usual hypnotic danger thing.
And then he goes on later to say, Many have had to learn to live with a disability or learn to live without the love of their life.
You know, you could say pretty much the same goddamn thing about the war on drugs, that millions of Americans have had their lives tragically cut short with incarceration and the generally organized rape rooms of American prisons.
And they've lost people for years, and children have had to grow up without a father, and let's not even start talking about drone strikes and all the wars that he's got himself involved in.
Without congressional approval, by the way.
Constitutional scholar.
Good to know he missed that one.
Maybe he was sick that day.
Maybe he was toking up.
So, of course, he's talking about the visible cost of weaponry, which is that sometimes crazy people will go and shoot a bunch of people.
So, and this is from the 90s.
The sources again are below.
University study has confirmed that private firearms stop crime how many times each year?
Yes, 2.5 million times each year.
2.5 million times each year.
And let's just take a couple of examples.
Because people say, oh yeah, you show me a...
Mass shooting that's been stomped by people with guns.
Of course, they almost generally seem to occur on no-gun zones, gun-free zones, right?
In fact, the guy who shot up the Colorado movie theater drove out of his way to get to a theater which did not allow anybody inside who had guns.
So, if he can figure it out and he's crazy, have at some sane people put two and two and make four rather than a violation of the second.
So, October 1st, 1997, Luke Woodham fatally stabbed and bludgeoned his mother and went on to kill two students and injure seven others at his high school.
Woodham was stopped by assistant principal Joel Myrick, who detained Woodham by using a .45 caliber semi-automatic pistol he kept in his truck until authorities could show up.
He stopped the shooter from going across the street to the middle school.
I don't think he was about to deliver candy unless Led highly speedily delivered his candy.
April 24th, 1998, Andrew Wurst, good name for a shooter, showed up to his middle school dance with his .25 caliber pistol.
He fired it, killing a teacher, wounding a second one and injuring two students.
The 14-year-old shootout lasted about 20 minutes.
It was ended when James Strand, the owner of the banquet hall the dance was happening in, confronted Wurst with his own personal shotgun.
Oh, those two little dark holes have my attention.
He ordered Wurst to drop his weapon and held the teenager in place for 11 minutes before finally getting him to drop the weapon and lie on the ground.
And then he searched him for other weapons.
So we probably would have heard a little bit more about that if he'd not have a weapon.
January 16, 2002, a 43-year-old Nigerian former student named Peter Havala arrived on campus with a handgun.
I'm not even going to try.
There are different variations of the story, but according to eyewitness accounts, law students Tracy Bridges, a county sheriff's deputy, and Michael Gross, a police officer, ran to their cars after hearing gunshots and grabbed personally owned firearms.
They approached.
Halalala, ordering him to drop his firearm.
He did, and was then subdued by unarmed students.
Three people were killed and three others were wounded.
That number kept, of course, low because people had personal firearms that they could use to protect people with.
December 9, 2007.
Jean Assam was at church when a 24-year-old gunman named Matthew Murray began firing at parishioners in the parking lot.
The shooter claimed two victims before Assam opened fire on him with her personally owned concealed weapon after receiving multiple hits from her.
He then shot himself.
All right.
That show up in the news?
No!
Doesn't fit the narrative of Guns Bad.
February 12th, 2007.
Suljaman...
Sorry, Suljaman...
Talovic.
Killed five people and wounded four others.
He began firing in a public square in Salt Lake City.
Utah.
He carried a shotgun and a backpack of ammunition.
So a boy was packing for the long term.
He was eventually stopped in a shootout involving the police department that took place in a pottery barn.
He was cornered, however, by an off-duty police officer, Kenneth Hammond, who held him in position before the authorities could arrive.
He ran on scene after hearing gunshots while having an early Valentine's Day dinner with his pregnant wife at a local restaurant.
He had a weapon and saved the day, or at least part of the day.
So, May 27th, 2010, off-duty police officer Donald J. Moore stopped Abraham Dickin, a 79-year-old man who decided to shoot up an AT&T store in New York Mills, New York.
Moore was in the store when this old guy entered brandishing a.357 Magnum and a hit list of employees he planned to kill in his pocket.
Man, I hate it when the data goes over.
Moore heard Dickens' gun go off, drew his own personal weapon, and killed Dickens on the scene.
One AT&T employee was injured.
Ah, let's do one or two more.
December 11th, 2012, two people were killed, and a third was seriously wounded, in Clackamas County, Oregon, when Jacob Roberts opened fire in a local shopping mall.
Nick Mellie, a shopper in the mall, drew his personally owned firearm on Roberts, who then retreated.
Mellie did not fire his weapon for fear of striking bystanders, but the man did retreat.
December 16th, 2012, in December of...
That year, gunfire broke out and the San Antonio movie theater moviegoers rushed to exits and ducked for covers of lone gunman.
Jesus, or Jesus Manuel Garcia, began shooting in a China garden that spilled over into an attached movie complex.
The San Antonio police department were fired at by the gunman and had to evacuate and seal off the complex, I guess leaving him with a highly personal set of killing fields.
The gunman was eventually shot and struck by Lisa Castellano, who was working at the theatre that night.
And, of course, I had her own personal weapon with her.
You could go on and on, but you don't hear a lot about this.
Yay!
Let's get these heroic owners of personal weapons out standing there behind the president, and let's put up pictures of all the people whose lives they saved.
Cry, cry, cry.
No, doesn't fit the narrative, doesn't control and minimize the rights of the people, doesn't exist.
Obama said, and this is a common trouble among the left, the United States of America is not the only country on earth with violent or dangerous people looking in the mirror.
We are not inherently more prone to violence, but we are the only advanced country on earth that sees this kind of mass violence erupt with this kind of frequency.
It doesn't happen in other advanced countries.
It's not even close, and as I've said before, somehow we've become numb to it.
And we start thinking that this is normal.
What?
Read the newspaper.
Nobody thinks this is normal.
Nobody's become numb to it.
So a bunch of researchers looked at data from 14 wealthy countries, including the United States.
They found that the United States did not have the highest mass shooting fatality rate because the smaller countries have larger attacks, like some giant scale incidents.
An 11 attack in Norway, 67 people were murdered, and that, of course, gets the numbers a lot higher than the United States.
So in Norway that year, there was 1.3 mass shooting deaths per 100,000 people, compared to 0.15 in the United States, a little over one-tenth.
So there are more mass shootings...
In the United States, but there are fewer fatalities per capita in the United States.
So that's an important distinction because the dead people are dead people.
Now, according to a study conducted by the Crime Prevention Research Center, what they did was they compared annual death rates per million people from mass public shootings between the United States and European countries from 2009 to mid-2015.
By that metric, right, annual death rates per million people from mass public shootings, the United States, out of 13 countries, ranks ninth.
That's right, ranks ninth.
So that's not very high, and that's kind of important.
That's also data that came out pre-Paris.
And, of course, the Paris shootings would have changed things enormously.
So, comparing the United States to Europe, the United States is ninth.
Now, the other thing that's true about America, which is kind of all blended in when it comes to homicides in particular, let's just say it's not evenly distributed over the entire color spectrum.
Murder rates in the United States are, I wouldn't say almost entirely, but highly significantly, a black problem.
See, blacks murder at over nine times the rate of whites.
And whites in the U.S. murder at about the same rate as whites all over the world.
In other words, if only white people lived in America, the murder rate in America would be about the same as the murder rate in Belgium.
So that's kind of important.
When people are talking about American gun violence, what they're generally talking about is...
Black violence.
Let's just look at crime rates in the United States per 100,000 people by race.
Asians, 90.
Whites, 219.
Hispanics, 518.
Blacks, 1,057.
So, ban guns?
Might want to zero in on that a little bit more.
Now, he goes on to say, and instead of thinking about how to solve the problem...
This has become one of our most polarized partisan debates, despite the fact that there's a general consensus in America about what needs to be done.
That's part of the reason why, on Thursday, I'm going to hold a town hall meeting in Virginia on gun violence, because my goal here is to bring good people on both sides of this issue together for an open discussion.
In general, executive orders backed up by the guns of the state, not really a discussion.
Rape, not the same as a date.
It's an executive order.
Now, Obama went on to say, well, you know, I'm not on the ballot again.
I'm not looking to score some points.
I think we can disagree without impugning other people's motives or without being disagreeable.
Really?
So you start off by saying basically anyone who is against gun control wants school children to be shot.
But let's make sure...
That we don't impugn other people's motives and manipulate the facts and ignore certain facts and completely obscured the fact that guns are used to prevent crime millions of times a year in America.
You could argue at least as often, if not more often, than they're used to commit crimes, at least directly.
So he says, that's why we're here today, not to debate the last mass shooting, but to do something to try and prevent the next one.
Really?
Okay, well then, why don't you take some of the facts that have been presented to you, or that would have been presented to you beforehand.
He's got the entire resources of the U.S. government at his disposal.
I'm sure they can do a Google search and find out that all of his proposed actions would have done nothing to prevent the recent spate of mass shootings in America.
So...
I don't know what to say about that.
I mean, he is a glorious example of squid-brained amoral sophistry.
Amoral is probably putting it a little bit kindly.
And he's like, we've got to protect our children.
And then he says, you know, I really, really want to make sure that we're not going to be doing anything to hinder the Second Amendment.
He says, I believe in the Second Amendment.
It's there written on the paper.
Guarantees a right to bear arms, no matter how many times people try to twist my words around.
I taught constitutional law.
I know a little about this.
I get it.
But I also believe that we can find ways to reduce gun violence consistent with the Second Amendment.
So, you can't have your right to bear arms infringed, but we can find ways to infringe it without infringing it.
Only on the left can you see this kind of logic.
Ah...
So he says, we believe in the First Amendment, the guarantee of free speech, but we accept that you can't yell fire in a theater.
Yeah.
Got it.
That's taken care of by the fact that if you commit a crime with a gun, you go to jail.
So, that's not...
You know, I can have a knife if I want to cut a piece of quiche.
I can't have a knife if I want to stab a dog.
So, yes, that's already...
You don't need more laws.
It's already taken care of.
So, um...
He says, we cherish our right to privacy, but we accept that you have to go through metal detectors before being allowed to board a plane.
Really?
Everyone accepts that.
And of course, planes are gun-free zones.
You know, there was not a lot of, before the 70s, I think it was, you could carry guns on a plane.
There was not a lot of hijacking.
Then they banned guns on planes, and oh look, there's a lot of hijacking.
So, I think he might not have heard any counter-arguments.
But it just shows you the kind of bubble that he's living in.
He simply has no contact with any of the conservative base in America whatsoever because the conservative base would have told him that they dislike the TSA. They dislike the fact that there's no racial profiling and that little old white ladies from Idaho get the same kind of scrutiny as, say, one of the women coming over from the Middle East as part of a jihadi bride ending up in San Bernardino and so on.
So, this kind of misinformation, this kind of baffle-gabbing, this kind of emotional manipulation is important to understand.
I mean, you're really ruled not by force, but by lies.
And that is really, really important.
So, he says, well, today background checks are required at gun stores.
If a father wants to teach his daughter how to hunt, he can walk into a gun store, get a background check, purchase his weapon safely and responsibly.
That's not seen as an infringement on the Second Amendment.
Now, hunting, of course, is an important part of certain aspects of American culture, but the people who are interested in the Second Amendment are interested in the Second Amendment, I would argue, primarily, and I think they would argue as well.
Primarily because it provides a check on the expansion of state power because you have an armed population.
So it's not just because you want to shoot Bambi.
And the fact that people don't see it as an infringement on the Second Amendment, I think there are lots of people who view this kind of stuff as infringement upon the Second Amendment.
But again, he's not really in contact of any of these people.
And so he says, no, we're not going to move toward mass confiscation and all of that.
The fact that it's a slippery slope argument, well, there do seem to be continued expansions.
On restrictions on gun use.
And we'll get to the mental health one in a moment.
And so he says, a violent felon can buy the exact same weapon over the internet with no background check, no questions asked, right?
So you go to a gun shop and so on.
So his issue is with the internet.
Now, of course, when people misinterpret Donald Trump, say, well, Donald Trump wants to shut down parts of the internet, and Obama's looking about that kind of thing as well.
Well...
So he says a recent study found that about one in thirty people looking to buy guns on one website had criminal records.
One out of thirty had a criminal record.
All right.
Now, again, always go to the source, with me, with everyone else, if you have questions about this, and, you know, the opposite of barbarity is skepticism, so be skeptical and go to the source.
So, what's interesting with this statement in Obama is he starts off by talking about people who have a criminal record.
Okay, a criminal record is a pretty wide swath of things.
It could be non-violent, it could be any number of things, right?
And then he says, we're talking about individuals convicted of serious crimes, aggravated assault, domestic violence, robbery, illegal gun possession, people with lengthy criminal histories, buying deadly weapons all too easily, and this was just one website within the span of a few months.
So, what was the actual reality?
The researchers looked at a sample of prospective buyers on a place called armslist.com.
They bill themselves as the Craigslist for guns.
So the site had 83,000 active ads as of August 2013.
The researchers analyzed a grand total of 607 customers seeking to buy guns who had enough personal information available that public documents were able to reveal whether they had a criminal record.
And to my knowledge, they didn't divide them into violent versus non-violent and so on.
But, of course, Obama makes that leap.
Now, of course, in order to legally purchase a firearm via the Internet from a dealer, you have to have the gun shipped to a federal firearms license holder.
The licensee conducts a background check, and only if the individual is cleared do they complete the transaction and send on the gun.
It's already a felony for a private seller to sell a firearm to someone who, quote, likely couldn't pass a background check because of a criminal history or history of mental illness.
So is he saying that this plan and program is completely not working?
So, when he's talking about, oh, you can just crazy random evil people can buy guns over the internet, no problem.
Well, there are already laws in place for that.
Is he saying these laws don't work, in which case how are more laws going to work?
Or is he saying these laws don't exist, in which case he needs to study his own laws before making massive policy decisions?
But it's all kind of nonsense.
Now, non-dealers can sell or trade weapons without a background check, but...
That's not limited to the internet.
You can do that in a parking lot.
You can do that in a garage sale.
Hell, you can buy a 3D printer on the internet without a background check.
You can download gun printing instructions via Torrent and have yourself a little, little pop-pop, bang-bang cowboy party.
Obama says, so we've created a system in which dangerous people are allowed to play by a different set of rules than a responsible gun owner who buys his or her gun the right way and subjects themselves to a background check.
You know, like the Saudi princes do before we sent them 40 billion plus dollars worth of death-dealing machinery.
He said, that doesn't make sense.
Everybody should have to abide by the same rules.
Most Americans and gun owners agree.
And that's what we tried to change three years ago after 26 Americans, including 20 children, were murdered at Sandy Hook Elementary by someone who passed a background check.
Oh my God.
Or by someone who got weapons from someone who passed a background check.
Sandy Hook, according to the final report of the state's attorney for the Judicial District of Danbury, quote, all of the firearms were legally purchased by the shooter's mom.
Again, it's got nothing to do with protecting you.
Nothing to do with protecting you at all.
If he was really interested in protecting you, wouldn't he be limiting illegal immigration from crime-prone countries?
Would there not be any sanctuary cities and so on?
That's not the case at all.
So, when it comes to this kind of nonsense and misinformation and so on, this knife comparison almost always comes up.
And, you know, to his credit, he tries to proactively deal with this, but gets it wrong.
He says, some of you may recall at the same time that Sandy Hook happened, a disturbed person in China took a knife and tried to kill, with a knife, a bunch of children in China.
But most of them survived because he didn't have access to a powerful weapon.
Well, maybe we can't save everybody, but we could save some, just as we don't prevent all traffic accidents, but we take steps to try to reduce traffic accidents.
Tried to kill.
Okay, so in September 2015, prior to the speech, I believe, knife-wielding jihadists killed at least 50 people at a coal mine in China's Yang province.
So tons of knives, tons of examples of knives being used to kill lots of people, normally people who are unarmed.
Killed 50 people, knife-wielding jihadists.
The religion of peace, so playful.
And so he said, in fact, we know that background checks make a difference.
After Connecticut passed a law requiring background checks and gun safety causes, gun deaths decreased by 40%.
40%!
Boy, that sounds pretty compelling.
Pretty convincing.
Boy, you just...
Background checks and gun safety costs, gun deaths decreased by 40%.
Now, of course, the Sandy Hook Elementary shootings in Connecticut happened 17 years after the passage of that law.
Now, the study he's quoting is called...
Association between Connecticut's permit to purchase handgun law and homicides.
So what happened was the researchers, quote, estimated that the law appeared to reduce gun homicides by 40% between 1996 and 2005.
No actual data, in fact, that proved it.
They just estimated it.
But what's fascinating, you know, always look at the data before the data they quote.
You know, look at the trends beforehand, right?
The firearms homicide rate was falling even faster, immediately prior to the licensing law.
Oh, leftists.
Every single time, it's the same whack-a-mole of nonsense.
From 1993 to 1995, the Connecticut firearm homicide rate fell more than 30% in just two years.
So...
If it's falling...
Anyway, they estimated that...
296 lives were saved in 10 years during a period where crime was decreasing sharply in most other states.
States that did not have such tougher background laws instituted.
The study's own major chart shows all other control states largely moving in lockstep with Connecticut on murder rates.
And murder rates declining all over the place.
So how did they come up with this claim?
Well, the researchers created a synthetic Connecticut, which was actually mostly Rhode Island from a data standpoint.
So isolate it and play with the numbers.
And if you want a full debunking of the study, we'll include it in the links below.
Meanwhile, he said, since Missouri repealed a law requiring comprehensive background checks and purchase permits, gun deaths have increased to almost 50 percent higher than the national average.
One study found, unsurprisingly, that criminals in Missouri now have easier access to guns.
Now, the majority of these gun-related murders are confined to very specific neighborhoods.
You see, if it's a statewide phenomenon, it should be going up everywhere across the state, except it's not.
It's going up very concentratedly in specific neighborhoods.
According to the data provided by the circuit attorney, 90% of the St.
Louis murder victims from January 2014 through August 2015 were black.
85% were male, and a significant plurality, 48%, were age 25 and under.
So, if it's only happening to black males, the majority of whom are age 25 and a significant number of whom are 25 and under, then it can't be the laws affecting the state as a whole.
It must be something more specific.
As a group, homicide defendants very closely mirror the victim pool.
95% of defendants in 2014 were black, 91% were male, and 55% were 25% I wonder if that has anything to do with the Ferguson effect and the never-ending race-baiting of the Obama-slash-Holter administrations.
Because what happens, of course, is that significant amounts of crime are occurring in black neighborhoods, but cops are now afraid to police black neighborhoods because of fear of ending up like Darren Wilson and others.
Also, heroin was blowing up in St. Louis in the city in 2012.
Crime was relatively low and pension costs were soaring, so they shrunk the police force through attrition.
And also, so there were fewer police around, lots more heroin, lots more drug deals and so on.
So that's kind of a problem when it comes to these numbers.
But of course, he simplifies and manipulates it and misattributes it and misascribes it, as is usual with the case with this kind of stuff.
Also, important to note that Obama said gun deaths again.
In other words, he's working in suicides as well.
So, he also said, and the evidence tells us that in states that require background checks, law-abiding Americans don't find it any harder to purchase guns whatsoever.
Their guns have not been confiscated.
Their rights have not been infringed.
So, that's, of course, his contention, and there are some significant arguments against that.
He wants to be the Steve Jobs of gun control, gun safety, and put in fingerprint gun activation and that kind of stuff as well.
So, There's another aspect of this that I think is really, really important to understand.
So, he really is talking about the need to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people.
And, of course, it was the government who was supposed to keep jihadi brides out of America.
The San Bernardino, of course, was a total failure of the government vetting of a jihadi bride who'd gone to a radical mosque and had posted radical statements on her social media that apparently the FBI was not allowed to look at or discouraged from looking at, even though it's public information.
So...
This is just one more government program.
And he's like, well, we don't want to do anything against the Constitution.
And I'm no expert, but I can't remember that part of the Constitution, which allows the government to force people to buy health insurance.
And of course, the fact that he brings up Obamacare Hey, you can keep your doctor.
Hey, it's going to save you $3,500 a year.
Well, no, you can't, and it's going to cost you thousands of dollars a year.
So that is just the kind of nonsense that goes on with these kinds of speeches.
A big issue, of course, is this idea that they're going to get the records of people who have...
Mental health issues and use it to deny those people access to guns.
First of all, antidepressants, certain classes of antidepressants actually have black box labels, the strongest labels, from the Food and Drug Administration because they can produce homicidal or suicidal feelings.
So, of course, a lot of these shooters have been on these kinds of antidepressants and since they are associated with homicidal and suicidal thoughts, maybe you could Work on that aspect of things.
But the problem with mental health is that there's no objective definition of it.
There's no blood test.
They say, oh, it's an imbalance of chemicals in the brain.
That's nonsense.
There's no blood test that can ever show any such thing.
So the problem is you have a very fluid political definition of mental health.
And you can see this from the DSM... I mean, it's gone from a hundred or two hundred to thousands of categories of mental ailments and so on.
It's all made up metaphorical stuff, which there's no objective test.
And so when he says, well, people with mental illness shouldn't be able to get guns.
What the hell is mental illness?
How is it defined?
Is it objective?
Is it subjective?
No.
how can you disprove that you have a mental health issue if somebody says that you have?
And of course, most mental health practitioners in the West already have a duty to report, which means that if you say to your mental health provider that you are having violent thoughts towards yourself or others, then they're already obliged to report you.
So, you know, do we really want somebody who is feeling depressed because their wife died and who goes to see a psychologist to then be denied the capacity to own a gun?
It's possible down the road.
Who knows how this is actually going to play out.
But that is a very, very slippery slope, to have a politically defined non-illness suddenly subject to the stripping of Second Amendment rights.
I mean, do these people lose the right to vote as well?
I mean, if you have a mental health issue, surely you can't vote, right?
But it only seems to be these other issues that are problematic.
Also, you know, man, I've got to tell you, if...
If being on antidepressants or being treated for any kind of mental health issue means that you can't have any guns, massive proportions of the U.S. military are going to be unable to hold any weaponry because these guys out in their repeated-duty PTSD fests in the Middle East and other places, I mean, these guys are handed fistfuls of these antidepressants just to get by.
And so if you're going to ban weapon ownership from people who are being treated for mental illness, bye-bye, U.S. military!
And...
Maybe that's the most slippery slope that he is talking down, but it's not a good thing.
It's not a good thing at all.
The other thing, too, is that...
If we say that going to mental health practitioners is good for your mental health, and I think it's arguable positively that going to talk therapists is good for your mental health, I'm not a big fan of psychotropics or SSRIs, but let's say that going to a mental health practitioner is good, well, of course, people who are afraid that the government's going to get a hold of their health records and use it against them, they're going to be far less likely to go to mental health practitioners for the help that Obama claims that they need.
So that's not the way to do it.
If you feel that mental health issues make people dangerous, the last thing you want to do is use people's mental vulnerabilities or susceptibilities or pursuit of mental health treatment against them to strip away their rights.
It just means they won't go to mental health professionals, which according to the Obama argument, would make them even worse.
So confidentiality in these areas is absolutely essential, and that is a huge, huge issue, which, you know, very few people are going to talk about.
It's like the no-fly list.
You can get on the no-fly list, just that there's no due process or anything like that.
It's not exactly an objective process, and there's very little appeal.
So he said, it's also why we're going to ensure that federal mental health records are submitted to the background check system and remove barriers that prevent states from reporting relevant information.
If we can continue to destigmatize mental health issues, get folks proper care, and fill gaps in the background check system, then we can spare more families the pain of losing a loved one to suicide.
I don't think that you get to destigmatize mental health issues by saying that mental health people, people pursuing treatment for mental health issues...
Can't have guns.
I don't think that destigmatizes...
Can't have a gun because you're crazy and dangerous!
I don't think that's really going to destigmatize anyone.
And I guess the government's really keen on exposing mental health records to hackers.
Hey, welcome blackmail!
Coming soon to you, even if you never signed up for Ashley Madison.
And just as I wanted to mention at the beginning, it'd be nice if Saudi Arabia got a background check as well.
He also says that he wants to make sure that people...
Who are suffering from abuse get the protection that they need.
Of course, people suffering from abuse are often known antidepressants.
Maybe they can't get guns to prevent themselves or that sort of stuff.
Now, current law prohibits individuals from buying a gun if because of some mental health issue they're either a danger to themselves or unable to manage their own affairs or a danger to others.
And so that is, again, more laws won't solve this problem.
But of course, the more law fantasy, you know, we're just one more box full of regulations away from a perfect socialist paradise.
That, of course, is the great fantasy of this kind of stuff and which occurs.
All the time.
And it's hard to really imagine what can happen from here.
And it's not about what he's talking about.
I mean, there are lots of theories as to what it could really be about.
But it's certainly not about what he says it's about.
And he says, oh, you know, it's really bad.
It happens in Chicago.
Every time I think about what's happening on the streets of Chicago, I get really mad.
Of course, Chicago has some of the strictest gun control laws.
In America.
So according to the liberal logic, if gun control prevented crime, there should be no violent crime in particular in Chicago.
So the fact that he's bringing up Chicago and saying how angry it makes him, what can you even say?
I mean, when he's not even looking at his own data, I don't know.
So as for what it's all about, well...
It's hard to say.
I mean, in general, the government on the left wants to move against guns.
A more disarmed population is easier to control and easier to rule.
I think that the government's running out of money.
I mean, there's no question.
I mean, we've got a presentation I did a couple of years ago called There Will Be No Economic Recovery.
Prepare yourself accordingly, which is playing out pretty much exactly as predicted.
Of course, China is taking a lot of hits.
They've had to ban The selling of their shares twice in the stock market over the last couple of days.
We did a presentation on the Chinese economic recovery, which we'll link below.
So, running out of money.
Running out of money.
Now, when the government runs out of money, there's going to be some social dislocation, to put it mildly.
And one possibility is that migrants are being allowed into Europe so that migrants are on welfare.
And people say, well, we can only...
Have the migrants self-deport if we get rid of the welfare state, and it's a way of getting rid of the welfare state when the government's running out of money by creating a group of unpopular people who are inhabiting that welfare state.
Could be any number of things going on.
I'm not saying this is all unconscious, instinctual management of human beings, but governments are approaching a crisis, and when governments approach a crisis, they like to have excuses to initiate force against their own population to keep the population quelled when governments hit a crisis.
It's not that possible since...
The proliferation of nuclear weapons around the world to simply start a war to distract people from the endless economic screw-ups of the government and the fact that the governments have destroyed currency, community, family, marriage, education, you name it.
So you can't just go start a war and burn off the disposable males in the fires of endless conflict.
And so, yeah, you've got to disarm your population and you have to import people who are going to vote for the left And create problems.
And so people are starting to fuss about this stuff, rather than looking at the source of the problem, which is the end of state mismanagement of the economy and society, which is, you know, civilization is horizontal.
Tyranny is horizontal.
It's vertical.
And that is really, really important to understand that the government isn't really not supposed to be part of society as a whole.
It's supposed to be an emergency system, a breaking case of emergency, but it's not supposed to be out there telling you how your kids should be educated, how you should be married or not married, what kind of benefits you should get.
Whether you should own this or that property, where you should raise your cattle.
It's not supposed to be doing any of that stuff, but that's kind of how it's grown into.
Because not enough people are speaking from principle about these things.
So I'm going to close with a quote of mine that I've said for many years, which I just want to bring home because this is really the essential issue.
Here it goes.
Are you ready?
If you are for gun control, then you are not against guns.
Because guns will be needed to disarm people.
So it's not that you are anti-gun.
You'll need the police's guns to take away other people's guns.
So you are very pro-gun.
You just believe that only the government, which is of course so reliable, honest, moral and virtuous, should be allowed to have guns.
There is no such thing as gun control.
There is only centralizing gun ownership in the hands of a small political elite and their minions.
▲
Export Selection