Tom Knighton

Recent Posts From Tom Knighton

Gun Control Backfires on Obama

Barack Obama

President Obama loves to point to a poll that said 90 percent of all Americans wanted tougher background checks.  After the measure failed in the Senate, Obama wanted that 90 percent to let Congress know how they felt.

Talk about your backfires:

But a new Washington Post/Pew Research Center poll suggests that post-vote attitudes stray from the wide support for the background check measure before the debate, which hovered around 85% in multiple polls.

A plurality of Americans–47%–say they are either “angry” or “disappointed” with the Senate’s action on gun legislation, far different from the amount of people who strongly approved the proposal before the vote. Meanwhile, 39% say they are “relieved” or “happy” about the vote.

I always thought those earlier numbers were soft, and they were.

You see, one of the issues has always been that many polls don’t really capture how committed to something a respondent really is.  Someone may support the idea of tougher background checks, but how important is really is to them.

Barack Obama: Liar-in-Chief

Barack Obama

President Barack Obama missed his golden moment on guns.  Despite what the talking heads on CNN may believe, the president wanted this moment.  He was desperate for it.  Early in his first campaign, he commented that he wouldn’t go after guns because he knew he didn’t have the votes for it.

It’s amazing what a few years can change when it comes to an attitude.  He went after the guns, starting with background checks and assault weapons.  After coming up with a goose egg on background checks, he proceeded to call the gun lobby liars.  He’s one to talk.

Here’s part of my piece over at TheBlaze:

President Barack Obama stood outside the White House last week and lamented the defeat of the expanded background check bill in the Senate. He stood there, repeating over and over how 90 percent of all Americans wanted such a law and how it wouldn’t have infringed on the rights of a single American.  He called the pro-gun lobby lairs for calling it registration.

Mr. President, you are the liar!

Obama can say that the bill outlawed a registry, but to what effect? Congress passes and overrides laws all the time. He knows this. Anyone with a single course in civics knows this as well. To tout this as proof that there will never be a registry is disingenuous at best…and with this president, I don’t see the best.

Head on over to read the rest.

Could Regulators Target Pressure Cookers?

Boston Marathon

In the wake of the Boston bombings, many people throughout the country are bracing.  Yes, they got the alleged perpetrators, with one in custody and the other in the morgue, but now they brace for the inevitable legislative push that will result in nothing but a loss of liberty for people who had nothing to do with the bombings.

Sounds a lot like gun control, doesn’t it?

Memes are flying fast and furious in the wake of the apprehension of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, many joking about what Congress and the White House will try to ban.  They’re generally meant humorously, but I’m not so sure.

Over this week, we’ve heard about pressure cookers being suggested as bomb housing by such diverse sources as The Anarchist Cookbook and an al-Qaeda guide on making IEDs.  As such, could they be the likely target of Washington’s ire?

Even now, statist forces are trying to decide how to keep us safe my taking away our freedoms.  Just as they have done with meth, it’s entirely possible that those forces will look at regulation of how many pressure cookers one can buy in a given time frame as a way to curb would be terrorists.

In reality, almost no one buys several pressure cookers over a short period of time…unless they’re building bombs.  The fact that multiple publications call for such to be used as housing is really a good reason in some people’s eyes to restrict them in some way.

Of course, there are a few things that will make this more difficult.  For one, Sudafed doesn’t exact have a resale value, while used pressure cookers do.  Of course, that’s not exactly a deterent for many in Washington, now is it?

26.2 Miles of Defiance Against Cowardly Acts of Terrorism

Boston Marathon

I’m not a runner.  I used to be one, but those days are far behind me.  Now, however, a bomb blast at 2:50 p.m. yesterday afternoon changed all of that for me.

Over at TheBlaze, I share my reasons for why I changed my mind.

What I do know is that terrorism cannot be allowed to win. Ever.  Part of that effort is to live our lives. It is to not permit the terrorists to dictate the terms of how we, as Americans, engage in recreation.

I used to run a lot, but that was a long time ago. During those days, I thought about running a marathon, but never really put anything towards it. On Monday afternoon, just a little before 3 p.m., the terrorists gave me all the reason I needed to run 26.2 miles.

I refuse to let a terrorist, regardless of ideology, dictate what I do. While that hadn’t included a Boston Marathon, even in my running days, I’m enough of a contrarian to decide that now things are different.

Read the whole thing over at The Blaze.

MSNBC, You Don’t Own My Kid

MSNBC has caught a fair amount of fire recently over a promo that essentially declares children as “community property”.  As a father, I took a little issue with that.

Once upon a time,  people were treated like people.  Businesses didn’t have “Human Resources” departments, they had “Personnel” departments.  People aren’t a resource, they’re human beings.  A tree is a resource.  Coal is a resource.  Oil is a resource.  People are individuals who have a right to be treated like people.

Apparently, MSNBC doesn’t believe that.  They believe that my two children, an 11 year old son and a one year old daughter, are somehow the property of the community.

Read more over at The Blaze.

Shame on You, Johnny Isakson

Johnny Isakson

It hasn’t been a good few weeks for me if I wanted to be proud of my senators.  First, we had Saxby Chambliss use a ridiculous argument against same-sex marriage, and now we have Johnny Isakson’s opposition to a filibuster on gun control legislation.

Isakson’s office is reportedly saying he opposes the legislation, and that may be true, but he sees no problem with it passing.

You see, the United States Senate is in the hands of the Democrats.  They want this to become law.  That means it’s likely to pass the Senate.  Isakson isn’t a complete moron.  He knows this.  He knows that in a vote, the bill passes.

He should also know that he swore and oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States”, and on that he’s falling down on the job.

The problem stems from the misguided idea that universal background checks would do anything to curb violence in this country.

Folks, gang bangers, drug cartels, and other violent groups aren’t exactly deterred by laws. They’re criminals. By definiton, they skirt the law.  A universal background check will put more of a burden on the law abiding citizen who would like to purchase a gun from a buddy.

Isakson should know this.  I suspect he does know this.  However, instead of supporting an effort that is both legal and ethical as a way to block this, he’s arguing that members of his own party should sit down, shut up, and do nothing as they watch this nation go further down the tubes.

Dems Want to Force You to Buy Insurance…on Your Gun

Second Amendment

Democrats probably feel pretty full of themselves after the Supreme Court argued that the government could force you to buy health insurance under their taxation powers.  Well, it looks like they’ve really embraced that and are now looking to make you buy additional insurance…if you own one of those evil gun things!

From The Daily Caller:

When New York Rep. Carolyn Maloney introduced the legislation last month with eight other Democrats, she boasted that it is “the first bill to require liability insurance of gun buyers nationwide.”

Maloney’s “Firearm Risk Protection Act” requires gun buyers to have “a qualified liability insurance policy” before they are able to legally purchase a firearm.

It also calls for the federal government to impose a fine as much as $10,000 if a gun owner doesn’t have insurance on a firearm purchased after the bill goes into effect.

“It shall be unlawful for a person who owns a firearm purchased on or after the effective date of this subsection not to be covered by a qualified liability insurance policy,” the bill text reads.

[…]

“For too long, gun victims and society at large have borne the brunt of the costs of gun violence,” Maloney said as she introduced the legislation. “My bill would change that by shifting some of that cost back onto those who own the weapons.”

Let me be the first to point out that Maloney is apparently a babbling idiot (because I know the commentors will point it out otherwise).

The Facts of Life on Media Bias

Is there a media bias?  Absolutely.  My day job is an online newspaper publisher, and I’ve watched the industry from that perspective.  So what do I think about it?

In a column currently up at The Blaze, I say this:

Asking about media bias is usually a good way to sniff out where someone falls on the political spectrum. If they run progressive, they probably don’t think it exists. If they’re a conservative or libertarian, they most likely believe it’s a very real thing. Well, as a journalist, I’m here to tell you that it is.

Folks, media bias is real. There’s no way to get around it, despite what your local newspaper reporter may say. It is real, and there are real reasons why it exists.

First, journalism isn’t a high paying position. While some journalists make good money, those are the ones at the top of the game. The very highest echelon of any industry tends to be rewarded greatly for that status, and journalism is no different. An industry with a lack of high paying jobs attracts a certain sort of person, and that’s where the problem begins.

Go on over and read the rest.

Did Dianne Feinstein Lie About Guns?

Dianne Feinstein

You get it, right? Dianne Feinstein doesn’t like guns.  I’m sure I speak for everyone when I say, “Yes Dianne, we get it.”  Feinstein has a history with guns.  You see, she became mayor of San Francisco when Harvey Milk and Mayor George Moscone were murdered by city supervisor Dan White.  This is a point that Feinstein uses to leverage her position on guns into being somehow more moral than that of gun rights advocates.

Yesterday, Sen. Ted Cruz asked her if she would be as quick to circumvent the First and Fourth Amendments as she is to gut the Second.  Her response [emphasis added]:

“I’m not a sixth grader,” said responded. “Senator, I’ve been on this committee for 20 years. I was a mayor for nine years. I walked in, I saw people shot. I’ve looked at bodies that have been shot with these weapons. I’ve seen the bullets that implode. In Sandy Hook, youngsters were dismembered. Look, there are other weapons.”

“I’ve been up — I’m not a lawyer, but after 20 years I’ve been up close and personal to the Constitution. I have great respect for it. This doesn’t mean that weapons of war and the Heller decision clearly points out three exceptions, two of which are pertinent here.”

Feinstein is saying that she saw Milk and Moscone’s bodies, and that is at least half true.  She is the one who discovered Milk’s body, and she might have seen Moscone’s.  However, she goes on to imply that they were killed with “these weapons”, which is complete bull. Dan White, who murdered Milk and Moscone, used a revolver, the one weapon type that Feinstein is doing nothing about.

Win for Gun Rights in Washington State

Washington State Capitol

Gun control advocates have been pushing hard for new background check regulations.  Not only are they doing it at the national level, but also at the state level.  Unfortunately for them, they just got their butt handed to him in Washington state.

A contentious proposal to expand background checks on Washington state gun sales failed Tuesday in the state House, where supporters said they were just a handful of votes short.

In a final effort to pick up a few extra votes, Rep. Jamie Pedersen, D-Seattle, had proposed a referendum clause that would have allowed the public to vote on the measure. He initially believed that would draw enough support to corral the 50 votes needed to pass the bill but conceded Tuesday night that others had dropped their backing because of that shift.

“It was too big of a stretch for this year,” Pedersen said.

Pedersen said he was disappointed by the result, and several Democrats departing for the night were emotional about the collapse of a bill they’d spent two days intensely working to finalize. The week had included lobbying from former U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, the Arizona Democrat who was wounded in a January 2011 mass shooting, and Gov. Jay Inslee.

The bill in question would have required background checks on the private sales of weapons, a provision which is often termed the “gun show loophole”, but doesn’t have any bearing on gun shows.

Gun rights advocates such as myself are concerned that doing this would lead to gun registrations…in part because it would actually be a kind of registration (there is a paper trail for where each and every gun ends up).

Recent Comments from Tom Knighton

Tom Knighton

tknighton's picture
Assistant Editor

Tom Knighton has been a blogger here at United Liberty since 2010. In 2011, he made history when he became the first blogger anywhere known to have purchased a newspaper when he purchased The Alba... Click here to read full bio


The views and opinions expressed by individual authors are not necessarily those of other authors, advertisers, developers or editors at United Liberty.