A new Reason-Rupe poll found that more than half of the respondents (52 percent) believe politicians are exploiting the Sandy Hook tragedy, and that more than half also believe eligible citizens should be allowed to own so-called “assault rifles.” The Reason-Rupe national telephone poll of 1,000 Americans was conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates.

This and other recent similar polls also found that the majority of teens and young adults surveyed also believe that Americans should be allowed to own “assault rifles.”

The Reason-Rupe poll found 52 percent of Americans believe elected officials are exploiting the tragedy for political gain, while only 41 percent feel elected officials are acting responsibly. Seventy-one percent of Republicans and 60 percent of independents think the tragedy is being politicized, while just 32 percent of Democrats believe so.

Fifty-one percent of Americans believe people “should be allowed to own assault weapons,” while 44 percent said citizens “should be prohibited from owning assault weapons.” Of the poll’s respondents, 68 percent of Republicans and 57 percent of independents said assault weapons should be allowed, while only 33 percent of Democrats agreed. Seventy percent of 18-to-24 year-olds, and 58 percent of 25-to-34 year-olds said “assault weapons should be allowed.”

“Young Americans ages 18-24 are more supportive of private ownership of assault weapons with 70 percent saying Americans should be allowed to own assault weapons; 27 percent think they should be prohibited,” the Reason-Rupe poll said. “In fact, majorities support allowing Americans to own assault weapons among those under 54.”

The latter findings tend to be in line with another recent survey of 2,100 high-school students and 2,100 college students conducted by American University.  Thirty-two percent of high-schoolers and 43 percent of college students said they plan on having a gun in their own home as an adult. Twenty-eight percent of high-schoolers and 17 percent of college students said they’d “maybe” have a gun in their homes as adults.

“I was surprised that more college students said they plan on owning a gun than had one in their households,” study researcher Richard Fox, a political scientist at Loyola Marymount University, told LiveScience.

“In contrast,” the Reason-Rupe poll said, “older Americans believe assault weapons should be prohibited by a 3-point margin: 58 percent to 36 percent.”

“Americans more familiar with firearms,” however, the poll found, “are … more likely to oppose prohibiting private ownership of assault weapons. For instance, 56 percent of Americans who say they personally have a firearm support private ownership. Support increases to 79 percent among Americans who both they and another member of their household own a firearm. In contrast, among households who do not own firearms, 55 percent believe assault weapons should be prohibited.

In the Reason-Rupe poll, 27 percent of Americans said a federal assault weapons ban would have helped prevent the Sandy Hook tragedy. A whopping 67 percent, though, said the ban would not have helped prevent the shootings.

Similarly, an unscientific poll by Homeland Security Today of its online readers found 50 percent of respondents do not believe that a ban on specific types of semi-automatic long guns, handguns and high capacity magazines will substantively prevent gun-related violence. Forty-nine percent said they believe such a ban will prevent mass shootings.

Meanwhile, 88 percent responding to the separate poll that asked whether there has been enough preparedness, training and education to deal with “active shooters.” Only 11 percent said they believed there’s been enough preparedness, training and education.

Asked “how likely is it that there will be sweeping legislation passed restricting the sale of .223 caliber long guns, certain handguns and high capacity magazines,” 45 percent said “not likely at all. Twenty-five percent and 22 percent respectively said they believe such a ban is “likely” or “possible.”

http://reason.com/poll

New figures released by the FBI show that Americans, during December and January, have been buying guns in record numbers. Analysts say that behind the surge in gun purchases are two events: the Newtown, Connecticut mass shooting and the moves by the Obama administration to introduce – and, in the case of assault weapons, reintroduce – gun control measures. The FBI figures show that in January, the agency performed 2,495,440 gun background checks, initiated by gun sellers before they sold a gun to a customer.

New figures released by the FBI show that Americans, during December and January, have been buying guns in record numbers. Analysts say that behind the surge in gun purchases are two events: the Newtown, Connecticut mass shooting and the moves by the Obama administration to introduce – and, in the case of assault weapons, reintroduce – gun control measures.

The FBI figures show that in January, the agency performed 2,495,440 gun background checks, initiated by gun sellers before they sold a gun to a customer.

This is the second highest number since the agency began to keep records in 1998.

In December 2012, 2,783,765 background checks were performed.

Since 1998, customers purchasing guns from licensed dealers – mostly gun shops —  must undergo a federal background check to make sure that they are not criminals, mentally ill, or otherwise disqualified from owning a firearm.

The FBI conducts these checks by checking the buyer’s name against the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, maintained by the agency.

About 60 percent of Americans buy firearms from licensed dealers, and thus undergo a background check. About 40 percent buy firearms at gun shows, from private collectors, of from a friend. The latter group of gun buyers are not subject to background checks.

The Guardian reports that the FBI’s latest figures about the top 10 highest days since 1998 in terms of the number of gun background checks initiated offer an interesting story. The record was 177,170 requests for NICS checks on Friday, 21 December — exactly a week after the Newtown massacre.

Of the top 10 days since 1998, all but two have been recorded on or since the day of the Newtown shooting.

Observers say that of the three main elements of the administration’s gun control  initiative – assault weapons ban, limiting the size of ammunition magazines, and universal background checks – the latter two are the most likely to pass in both the House and the Senate.

It is less clear whether the assault weapons ban would pass.

Monthly and Yearly Background Check Totals

I affirm that (with the sole exception of duties on imports and exports) they [the states]

would, under the plan of the convention, retain that authority in the most absolute and

unqualified sense; and that an attempt on the part of the national government to abridge

them in the exercise of it would be a violent assumption of power, unwarranted by any

article or clause of its Constitution.

An entire consolidation of the States into one complete national sovereignty would

imply an entire subordination of the parts; and whatever powers might remain in them

would be altogether dependent on the general will. But as the plan of the convention aims

only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all the

rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, exclusively

delegated to the United States.

This exclusive delegation, or rather this alienation, of State sovereignty would only exist in

three cases: where the Constitution in express terms granted an exclusive authority to the

Union; where it granted in one instance an authority to the Union, and in another

prohibited the States from exercising the like authority; and where it granted an authority

to the Union to which a similar authority in the States would be absolutely and totally

contradictory and repugnant.

I use these terms to distinguish this last case from another which might appear to resemble

it, but which would, in fact, be essentially different; I mean where the exercise of a

concurrent jurisdiction might be productive of occasional interferences in the policy of any

branch of administration, but would not imply any direct contradiction or repugnancy in

point of constitutional authority.

The necessity of a concurrent jurisdiction in certain cases results from the division of the

sovereign power; and the rule that all authorities, of which the States are not explicitly

divested in favor of the Union, remain with them in full vigor is not only a theoretical

consequence of that division, but is clearly admitted by the whole tenor of the instrument

which contains the articles of the proposed Constitution. We there find that,

notwithstanding the affirmative grants of general authorities, there has been the most

pointed care in those cases where it was deemed improper that the like authorities should

reside in the States to insert negative clauses prohibiting the exercise of them by the States.

The tenth section of the first article consists altogether of such provisions. This

circumstance is a clear indication of the sense of the convention, and furnishes a rule of

interpretation out of the body of the act, which justifies the position I have advanced and

refutes every hypothesis to the contrary.

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist # 32

Mark Alexander’s “Letter to an Eagle Scout” received broad support from Patriots across the nation last week. Mr. Alexander offered this postscript to that letter over the weekend:

By way of followup to my Letter to and Eagle Scout, if you are one of those who is “mixed” when it comes to opinions on the homosexual agenda, the strongest words against this BSA proposal would be Obama’s endorsement of it: “I think that, uh, you know, my attitude is, is that gays and lesbians should have, uh, access, and, and, opportunity, uh, the same way everybody else does, uh, in every institution and walk of life, and, um, you know, the, the scouts are a great institution, uh, that, are [sic], uh, promoting, uh, young people and exposing them to, uh, you know, opportunities, and, and, leadership, uh, that, you know, will serve people, uh, for the rest of their lives.” (For the record, the most distinct “poker tell” that betrays Obama’s efforts to deceive is his prolific use of “uh” when he is telling a lie that isn’t scripted from a teleprompter. Additionally, he was turning his head back and forth as to say “no” when answering “yes” to on this issue.)

After the national protest from BSA rank and file leaders and members, I would like to believe the BSA board will defeat the proposal to remove its proscription against avowed homosexuals. But then, as is often the case with national government, religious and civic “leadership,” most are insulated from the those they, ostensibly, serve. Consequently, too often their actions are wholly inconsistent with the positions of their constituents — on the arrogant assumption that they are much wiser than grassroots Americans. Thus, if the BSA board passes this measure, and straps the responsibility for enforcing this restriction on Councils nationwide, then every Council, chartering organization, Troop, sponsor, donor, and even Scout, will become subject to being labeled “bigots” by homosexual advocates in their Council area. Even if just one homosexual protests against a Council, that will be trumpeted in the local media, and the result will be a challenge to every organizational and support level of that Council.

For the record, over the past four years, Barack Obama has been signing Eagle certificates, even though for the first three of those four years he opposed homosexual marriage and open homosexual military service. Last year, Obama reversed his position on both counts. That leaves one to question from whom the BSA national board takes its orders. Some have suggested if the BSA board passes this measure to shift the burden to local Councils, Scouting as we know it will be gone in a decade. I must respectfully disagree — it will be gone in a year, not 10.

 “[A] good moral character is the first essential in a man.” –George Washington

Chris Kyle, Rest In Peace

Former Navy SEAL Chris Kyle, a Patriot from Texas and author of the outstanding book, “American Sniper,” was killed Saturday while assisting fellow veterans suffering from PTSD. Chris served with the SEAL Team 3 Sniper Element Charlie platoon, and was the most lethal sniper in U.S. history, with 160 confirmed kills and another 95 probables. He was known to his enemies as Al-Shaitan Ramad (The Devil of Ramadi).

In 2008, near Sadr City, Chris neutralized an RPG-carrying insurgent at more than 2,000 meters with his Lapua Magnum .338 PGM. During his four combat tours, Chris was shot twice and survived six IED explosions. He left military service three years ago after earning two Silver Stars, five Bronze Stars with Valor, two Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medals, and one Navy and Marine Corps Commendation. He has devoted much of the last three years to working with fellow vets suffering from PTSD.

Chris leaves behind his wife Taya, two children, and a long list of family and friends. He was a tireless defender of Liberty and the Second Amendment, and he will be sorely missed.

Iran’s elite Quds Force and Hezbollah militants are learning from a series of botched terror attacks over the past two years and pose a growing threat to the U.S. and other Western targets as well as Israel, a prominent counterterrorism expert says. Operating both independently and together, the militant groups are escalating their activities around the world, fueling worries in the U.S. that they increasingly have the ability and the willingness to attack the U.S., according to a report by Matthew Levitt of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. His report points to two attacks last year – one successful and one foiled by U.S. authorities – as indications that the militants are adapting and are determined to take revenge on the West for efforts to disrupt Tehran’s nuclear program and other perceived offenses.

The report’s conclusions expand on comments late last year from U.S. terrorism officials who told Congress that the Quds Force and Hezbollah, which often coordinate efforts, have become “a significant source of concern” for the U.S. The Quds Force is an elite wing of Iran’s powerful Revolutionary Guard, the defenders of Iran’s ruling clerics and their hold on power. The report comes amid ongoing tensions between Iran and the West, including a persistent stalemate over scheduling six-party talks on Tehran’s nuclear program and anger over reports that the U.S. and Israel were behind the Stuxnet computer attack that forced the temporary shutdown of thousands of centrifuges at an Iranian nuclear facility in 2010. 

http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/01/30/3207732/report-iran-hezbollah-terror-threat.html

In an advance toward closing a major gap in defenses against terrorist attacks and other mass casualty events, scientists are reporting discovery of a promising substance that could be the basis for development of a better antidote for cyanide poisoning.

In an advance toward closing a major gap in defenses against terrorist attacks and other mass casualty events, scientists are reporting discovery of a promising substance that could be the basis for development of a better antidote for cyanide poisoning. An ACS release reports that their report, which describes a potential antidote that could be self-administered, much like the medication delivered by allergy injection pens, appears in the American Chemical Society’s (ACS) Journal of Medicinal Chemistry.

Steven E. Patterson, Ph.D., and colleagues at the University of Minnesota Center for Drug Design explain that the only existing antidotes for cyanide — recognized as a high-risk substance for potential use by terrorists — must be administered by intravenous infusion. That procedure requires highly trained paramedical personnel and takes time. Cyanide, however, is a fast-acting poison. In a situation involving mass casualties, only a limited number of victims could be saved. Patterson’s team thus sought an antidote that could be administered by intra-muscular (IM) injection, a simpler procedure that could be administered rapidly to a large number of victims or even be self-administered.

Their report describes discovery of a substance, sulfanegen TEA, “which should be amenable for development as an IM injectable antidote suitable for treatment of cyanide victims in a mass casualty setting. Further development, including efficacy in lethal cyanide animal models, will be reported at a later date.”

— Read more in Steven E. Patterson in “Cyanide Antidotes for Mass Casualties: Water-Soluble Salts of the Dithiane (Sulfanegen) from 3- Mercaptopyruvate for Intramuscular Administration,” Journal in Medical Chemistry (just accepted manuscript) (DOI: 10.1021/jm301633x)

In the first overt outside military intervention in the Syrian civil war, twelve Israel Air Force planes early this morning attacked and destroyed a large Syrian military convoy carrying sophisticated anti-tank and anti-air craft Russian missiles to Hezbollah. The convoy was destroyed inside Syria, before it crossed the border into Lebanon. Israel has warned Syria in no uncertain terms that the transfer of certain classes of sophisticated weapons from the beleaguered Assad regime to Hezbollah would be, for Israel, a red line necessitating military action. Israel has been concerned with what it describes as “balance changing” weapon systems such as anti-air craft, anti-tank, and anti-ship missiles, mid-range surface-to-surface missiles – and chemical weapons.

Twelve Israeli planes early this morning attacked and destroyed a large Syrian military convoy carrying sophisticated anti-tank and anti-air craft Russian missiles to Hezbollah.

The convoy was destroyed inside Syria, before it crossed the border into Lebanon.

Israel, Syria, Hezbollah, and the Lebanese government have remained silent, saying nothing about the attack.

Israel, since 2008 – and with greater emphasis since the anti-Assad rebellion erupted two years ago — has warned Syria in no uncertain terms that the transfer of certain classes of sophisticated weapons from the beleaguered Assad regime to Hezbollah would be, for Israel, a red line necessitating military action.

Israel has been concerned with what it describes as “balance changing” weapon systems such as anti-air craft, anti-tank, and anti-ship missiles, and mid-range surface-to-surface missiles.

In the last year, with the steady weakening of the Assad regime – the regime now controls no more than about 20 percent of Syrian territory — Israel has become even concerned about the transfer of chemical weapons from Syria to Hezbollah.

During the forty years, under the Assad family control of Syria, the country has built the world’s largest chemical weapons arsenal, and has accumulated vast quantities of sophisticated arms, supplied mostly by Russia.

With the end of the Assad regime in sight, Iran, a staunch ally of Syria, has been pressuring the regime to transfer some of its more sophisticated weapon systems to Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shi’a organization.

When the Assad regime leaves the scene, Hezbollah will remain the sole dedicated Iranian agent in the region, and Iran has every interest to continue to strengthen this agent.

Hamas, which used to be a loyal regional agent of Iran, has begun to distance itself from Iran under the pressure of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood and Qatar, the two major Sunni backers of the Palestinian organization.

The destruction of the Syrian military convoy is part of an emerging Israeli strategy of bolstering what Israel calls its “outer envelope” capabilities.