"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Thursday, January 31, 2013
Chicago's Tough Gun Laws Can't Stem Fatal Shootings
Not a single gun shop can be found in this city because they are outlawed.
Handguns were banned in Chicago for decades, too, until 2010, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that was going too far, leading city leaders to settle for restrictions some describe as the closest they could get legally to a ban without a ban.
Despite a continuing legal fight, Illinois remains the only state in the nation with no provision to let ordinary people carry guns in public.
And yet Chicago, a city with no civilian gun ranges and bans on both assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, finds itself laboring to stem a flood of gun violence that contributed to more than 500 homicides last year and at least 40 killings already in 2013, including a fatal shooting of a 15-year-old girl on Tuesday.
Click Here to read the whole article.
Sheriff's Back 2nd Amendment
Area sheriffs are aligning themselves behind the Second Amendment, not the president, when it comes to gun control.
Dozens of sheriffs across the country are questioning the constitutionality of President Barack Obama’s gun-control initiatives. Some, including 28 of 29 Utah county sheriffs, have sent Obama letters saying they won’t enforce gun laws they believe would violate the Second Amendment.
“I’m in total support of the Second Amendment,” Richland County Sheriff Steve Sheldon said. “I think what the federal government is trying to do is wrong and how they’re doing it is wrong.”
Click Here to read the whole article.
NRA: Why We Fight For Gun Rights
(CNN) -- After President Lyndon Johnson signed the Gun Control Act of 1968, many anti-gun politicians looked forward to the day when they could completely ban the sale and ownership of firearms and perhaps even confiscate those already in private hands.
After the draconian legislation imposed restrictions on "dealing" firearms that resulted in the prosecution of countless innocent gun collectors, and record keeping on ammunition sales so useless that federal law enforcement agencies supported their repeal, Sen. Ted Kennedy wrote to the NRA to demand our support for a national gun licensing and registration system. A few years later, a Nixon administration advisory commission proposed that all side arms be outlawed and confiscated in about a decade.
Click Here to read the whole article.
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Lawsuit targets New York's Post-Sandy Hook Gun Law
(Reuters) - Two gun owners have filed a lawsuit seeking to overturn New York state's sweeping new gun-control law, enacted after the mass shooting at the Sandy Hook elementary school in Connecticut.
The suit, filed on Tuesday in state Supreme Court in Erie County, is apparently the first to challenge the crackdown on firearms championed by Governor Andrew Cuomo.
Attorney James Tresmond, who is representing the gun owners, asked state Supreme Court Justice Diane Devlin to enjoin the law pending the state's response.
The law was passed on January 15, making New York the first state to enact tougher gun regulations after a gunman shot dead 20 students and six staff members last month at the Sandy Hook school in Newtown, Connecticut.
The law bans assault weapons and magazines that hold more than seven rounds of ammunition, requires gun owners to register most guns with the state and requires universal background checks, among other provisions.
The law also authorizes law enforcement to confiscate guns owned by a mentally ill person, if a mental health professional believes the person poses a threat to himself or others.
Click Here to read the whole story.
Where is America?
Written by: Samantha Blount
Each and every day most of us walk through life not thinking about the threats that are among us. At least not until that threat hits close to home. But, what happens when someone we love gets hurt? Do we stand by or do we prepare ourselves for the next attack? These are the questions we must ask ourselves.
The arguments in front of Congress right now, are futile to say the least. When America started, very smart men came up with a Constitution to keep the ‘Leaders’ from overstating their boundaries while also keeping the constituents in line. Everyone agreed because it was best for all parties and thus the ‘United’ States went into action. We were built working together.
Today, we must start to wonder where the ‘United’ has gone. Today, Wednesday Jan. 30th, the NRA went to support our rights against Congress. The arguments today are only around because of the tragic events surrounding our children. While these were travesties that can never be undone, weapons were not the reason behind it. ONE person committed this act, a gun cannot shoot itself.
Some will still disagree with this, saying that the massacre would have been less if he didn’t have a certain weapon or ammo. Truth be told, we can’t say this. Think about it this way, have we not outlawed drugs? What happened with those? Oh, that’s right, they are still on our street and corrupting our children. How can we throw guns out to Cartel members, but take away the lawful right to own them legally?
The moral of this, if we can’t stop it illegally then how can our legal protection be taken away?
This reaches further than the 2nd Amendment, this could be the beginning of the end.
Each and every day most of us walk through life not thinking about the threats that are among us. At least not until that threat hits close to home. But, what happens when someone we love gets hurt? Do we stand by or do we prepare ourselves for the next attack? These are the questions we must ask ourselves.
The arguments in front of Congress right now, are futile to say the least. When America started, very smart men came up with a Constitution to keep the ‘Leaders’ from overstating their boundaries while also keeping the constituents in line. Everyone agreed because it was best for all parties and thus the ‘United’ States went into action. We were built working together.
Today, we must start to wonder where the ‘United’ has gone. Today, Wednesday Jan. 30th, the NRA went to support our rights against Congress. The arguments today are only around because of the tragic events surrounding our children. While these were travesties that can never be undone, weapons were not the reason behind it. ONE person committed this act, a gun cannot shoot itself.
Some will still disagree with this, saying that the massacre would have been less if he didn’t have a certain weapon or ammo. Truth be told, we can’t say this. Think about it this way, have we not outlawed drugs? What happened with those? Oh, that’s right, they are still on our street and corrupting our children. How can we throw guns out to Cartel members, but take away the lawful right to own them legally?
The moral of this, if we can’t stop it illegally then how can our legal protection be taken away?
This reaches further than the 2nd Amendment, this could be the beginning of the end.
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
What is a 'Well Regulated Militia'
One of the most debated issues as they relate to the Second Amendment is what the founders intended by a "Well Regulated Militia." Before I attempt to answer that question I want to clarify one thing that is backed by history. The inalienable right to keep and bear arms as a check on a tyrannical governement has been in existence since long before our Constitution or Bill of Rights was ever written. Sir William Blackstone made this very clear in his 1768 "Commentaries on the Laws of England." Therefore when the founders were drafting our Constitution and the Bill of rights, they were working with a long historical tradition of English common law.
With that cleared up, the term "well regulated" had a much different meaning two centuries ago. Today's definitions of "controlled," "limited," and "restricted" did not apply. Instead it was defined as "having proper kit and provisions" or as it related to objects or machinery "properly maintained and kept in good repair." The Constitutional definition in need of the most explanation is that of "militia." This issue was debated considerably at the Constitutional convention in 1787-89 in Philadelphia. Unfortunately, it has been ignored by both sides today.
Founder George Mason wanted it to be explicitly spelled out that the militia was "of the whole people," therefore, a "general militia" affirmed in the Second Amendment and the 1792 Militia Act. Mason as well as his supporters feared the development of "special militias" such as the German Nazi SA and its successor, the SS. These "special militias" being nothing more than state-sanctioned paramilitary groups.
The only difference between these "special militias" and standing armies is that they were created solely to circumvent any laws forbidding the use of the military against the people, or in cases where their were no such laws, to avoid any unwillingness by the military to do so.
In the United States today we have many "special militias" - the Secret Service, FBI, DEA, IRS, the National Guard to name a few. All of which are unconstitutional if the plain meaning of the Second Amendment and the 1792 Militia Act is correct. George Mason's fears were not unwarranted either. These "special militias" have been responsible for numerous cruel and meaningless tragedies as well as spending countless sums of taxpayer dollars. They have spyed on, harrassed, and ruined the lives of anyone labeled an "enemy of the state," brutally broken up strikes, violently disrupted demonstrations, and killed innocent people from Kent State to Ruby Ridge and Waco.
The courts have finally started to revive the long overlooked but extremely important, "general vs special" militia difference. The 1990 Supreme Court case Perpich v. Department of Defense is a perfect example. The then Minnesota Governor Rudy Perpich argued that the DoD had violated the Constitution when it ordered the Minnesota National Guard, which he claimed was the state militia, to duty outside the state without his consent or that of the state legislature.
The court ruled against Gov. Perpich, stating in its decision that the National Guard was an integral part of the US Army Reserve. It went on to support its ruling by specifying the difference between the "special militia," in this case the Minnesota National Guard, and the "general militia," or citizens with privately procured and owned arms, as expressed in the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Additionally in 1990 the court, during another case affirmed the definition of "the people" as expressed in the Bill of Rights as not meaning a group but rather individual persons.
Keeping all of this in mind, a reasonable person can conclude that the definition of a "well regulated militia" set forth in the Second Amendment as was intended by our founders, is far from the definition gun control advocates like to use in their debates. The left does not want to acknowledge this fact because they have no interest in the right of individuals to protect their lives and liberty against a tyranical government. Rather they are more interested in giving the federal government a free pass to induldge in state-sponsored terror under the guise of "crime prevention," "anti-terrorism," and "national security."
The choice is yours. Militia as it was intended in our Constitution, or the statist militia that has started wars, destroyed countries, and taken countless lives. If you choose the statist militia, ask yourself, how many other inalienable rights are you willing to hand over to the federal government?
With that cleared up, the term "well regulated" had a much different meaning two centuries ago. Today's definitions of "controlled," "limited," and "restricted" did not apply. Instead it was defined as "having proper kit and provisions" or as it related to objects or machinery "properly maintained and kept in good repair." The Constitutional definition in need of the most explanation is that of "militia." This issue was debated considerably at the Constitutional convention in 1787-89 in Philadelphia. Unfortunately, it has been ignored by both sides today.
Founder George Mason wanted it to be explicitly spelled out that the militia was "of the whole people," therefore, a "general militia" affirmed in the Second Amendment and the 1792 Militia Act. Mason as well as his supporters feared the development of "special militias" such as the German Nazi SA and its successor, the SS. These "special militias" being nothing more than state-sanctioned paramilitary groups.
The only difference between these "special militias" and standing armies is that they were created solely to circumvent any laws forbidding the use of the military against the people, or in cases where their were no such laws, to avoid any unwillingness by the military to do so.
In the United States today we have many "special militias" - the Secret Service, FBI, DEA, IRS, the National Guard to name a few. All of which are unconstitutional if the plain meaning of the Second Amendment and the 1792 Militia Act is correct. George Mason's fears were not unwarranted either. These "special militias" have been responsible for numerous cruel and meaningless tragedies as well as spending countless sums of taxpayer dollars. They have spyed on, harrassed, and ruined the lives of anyone labeled an "enemy of the state," brutally broken up strikes, violently disrupted demonstrations, and killed innocent people from Kent State to Ruby Ridge and Waco.
The courts have finally started to revive the long overlooked but extremely important, "general vs special" militia difference. The 1990 Supreme Court case Perpich v. Department of Defense is a perfect example. The then Minnesota Governor Rudy Perpich argued that the DoD had violated the Constitution when it ordered the Minnesota National Guard, which he claimed was the state militia, to duty outside the state without his consent or that of the state legislature.
The court ruled against Gov. Perpich, stating in its decision that the National Guard was an integral part of the US Army Reserve. It went on to support its ruling by specifying the difference between the "special militia," in this case the Minnesota National Guard, and the "general militia," or citizens with privately procured and owned arms, as expressed in the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Additionally in 1990 the court, during another case affirmed the definition of "the people" as expressed in the Bill of Rights as not meaning a group but rather individual persons.
Keeping all of this in mind, a reasonable person can conclude that the definition of a "well regulated militia" set forth in the Second Amendment as was intended by our founders, is far from the definition gun control advocates like to use in their debates. The left does not want to acknowledge this fact because they have no interest in the right of individuals to protect their lives and liberty against a tyranical government. Rather they are more interested in giving the federal government a free pass to induldge in state-sponsored terror under the guise of "crime prevention," "anti-terrorism," and "national security."
The choice is yours. Militia as it was intended in our Constitution, or the statist militia that has started wars, destroyed countries, and taken countless lives. If you choose the statist militia, ask yourself, how many other inalienable rights are you willing to hand over to the federal government?
Monday, January 28, 2013
Gun Homicides and Injuries Down in Virgina, Despite Growing Firearms Sales
Gun-related homicides and serious injuries from gun assaults in Virginia have been trending downward for at least six years, and a new survey suggests the state's booming gun sales have not triggered an increase in the proportion of people slain by a gun or who use a firearm to commit suicide.
Figures from Virginia's Office of the Chief Medical Examiner show firearm-related homicides declined in four of the seven years from 2005 through 2011 - the latest reporting year available - from 357 killings to 242, for an overall decrease of 32 percent.
When state population increases are factored in, gun-related homicides fell 37 percent, from 4.72 deaths per 100,000 in 2005 to 2.99 in 2011.
Click Here to read the whole article.
Figures from Virginia's Office of the Chief Medical Examiner show firearm-related homicides declined in four of the seven years from 2005 through 2011 - the latest reporting year available - from 357 killings to 242, for an overall decrease of 32 percent.
When state population increases are factored in, gun-related homicides fell 37 percent, from 4.72 deaths per 100,000 in 2005 to 2.99 in 2011.
Click Here to read the whole article.
Milwaukee Sherrif's Radio Ad Say 911 Not the Best Option
Milwaukee County Sheriff David A. Clarke Jr. set off alarm bells Friday with a radio spot some view as a call for citizens to arm themselves.
In the radio ad, Clarke tells residents personal safety isn't a spectator sport anymore, and that "I need you in the game."
"With officers laid off and furloughed, simply calling 911 and waiting is no longer your best option," Clarke intones.
"You could beg for mercy from a violent criminal, hide under the bed, or you can fight back."
Clarke urges listeners to take a firearm safety course and handle a firearm "so you can defend yourself until we get there."
"You have a duty to protect yourself and your family. We're partners now. Can I count on you?"
Click Here to read the whole article.
.jpg)
In the radio ad, Clarke tells residents personal safety isn't a spectator sport anymore, and that "I need you in the game."
"With officers laid off and furloughed, simply calling 911 and waiting is no longer your best option," Clarke intones.
"You could beg for mercy from a violent criminal, hide under the bed, or you can fight back."
Clarke urges listeners to take a firearm safety course and handle a firearm "so you can defend yourself until we get there."
"You have a duty to protect yourself and your family. We're partners now. Can I count on you?"
Click Here to read the whole article.
.jpg)
Newton Victim's Father Wants Better Gun Enforcement
The father of a 6-year old victim who died in the elementary school shooting in Newton, CT last month said the state's existing gun laws need stricter enforcement and the nation needs to return to civility.
Mark Mattioli appeared before a legislative subcommittee reviewing gun laws in the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting that left 27 people dead, 20 of them young children.
Mattioli said he believes in "simple, few gun laws" and that there are "more than enough on the books." However it is his opinion that existing laws are not being enforced properly.
The grieving father received a standing ovation from those in attendance.
Hundreds have showed up to testify before the subcommittee. The line stretched outside as the public waited to go through metal detectors to gain access to the building.
Mark Mattioli appeared before a legislative subcommittee reviewing gun laws in the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting that left 27 people dead, 20 of them young children.
Mattioli said he believes in "simple, few gun laws" and that there are "more than enough on the books." However it is his opinion that existing laws are not being enforced properly.
The grieving father received a standing ovation from those in attendance.
Hundreds have showed up to testify before the subcommittee. The line stretched outside as the public waited to go through metal detectors to gain access to the building.
Sunday, January 27, 2013
Misconceptions In the Media
I think there is a serious misconception among the media reports about pro-gun supporters as well as the NRA. Strongly left outlets like to portray us as gun hugging crazies who want everyone to have a gun. Unfortunately that is so far from the truth. Gun supporters like myself understand the need for reasonable regulation. We know that a person with serious mental health issues that is a threat to themselves and others should not have access to a gun. We also know that felons with a violent history should not own or possess a firearm either. The government has laws already on the books that are supposed to prevent said individuals from purchasing these firearms. A perfect example is Adam Lanza, the Sandy Hook shooter. Prior to committing his terrible crime he attempted to purchase a rifle. However due to the safeguards in place, his application was denied. We know he then went on to murder his mother in order to gain access to her firearms, illegally.
The NRA has openly said that they support closing the so called "gun show loophole." This would require all firearms sales whether private or through a dealer be accompanied by a background check. I personally am on the fence regarding this matter because the background check is an ideal cover for the federal government to track and register all firearms. As many have said before, registration is the first step to confiscation. If the people could be assured that firearm data was not being transmitted through the background checks, then I would support this measure 100%.
With the "gun show loophole" closed and effective enforcement of existing laws there is no need for an assault weapons ban or a magazine capacity limit. The system would make it far more difficult for felons and the mentally ill to gain access to firearms. From there it is the responsibility of law enforcement to get illegally owned firearms off the streets but still leaves the public capable of defending themselves when someone with an illegally owned firearm or ill intent threatens their life.
Firearm discrimination is not the answer. I've seen endless flawed data and heard outright lies from congress all the way to the White House. Even writing this blog I have received hate mail egging me on, trying to make me snap. It won't work. This is a very serious issue that requires adults not childish games. I take my rights seriously and I will fight to protect them. I hope you will do the same.
The NRA has openly said that they support closing the so called "gun show loophole." This would require all firearms sales whether private or through a dealer be accompanied by a background check. I personally am on the fence regarding this matter because the background check is an ideal cover for the federal government to track and register all firearms. As many have said before, registration is the first step to confiscation. If the people could be assured that firearm data was not being transmitted through the background checks, then I would support this measure 100%.
With the "gun show loophole" closed and effective enforcement of existing laws there is no need for an assault weapons ban or a magazine capacity limit. The system would make it far more difficult for felons and the mentally ill to gain access to firearms. From there it is the responsibility of law enforcement to get illegally owned firearms off the streets but still leaves the public capable of defending themselves when someone with an illegally owned firearm or ill intent threatens their life.
Firearm discrimination is not the answer. I've seen endless flawed data and heard outright lies from congress all the way to the White House. Even writing this blog I have received hate mail egging me on, trying to make me snap. It won't work. This is a very serious issue that requires adults not childish games. I take my rights seriously and I will fight to protect them. I hope you will do the same.
Saturday, January 26, 2013
Gun Control March Held In Washington
Thousands of people gathered on the National Mall in Washington DC Saturday for a march supporting gun control. Residents of Newton, CT, the scene of the school massacre that took the lives of 20 children and 7 adults, also attended the demonstration.
Similar demonstrations were planned in over a dozen other places across the United States as well, according to organizers.
In addition to the 100 expected demonstrators from Newton, CT it was expected that participants from Philadelphia, New York and New Jersey would also attend.
The march led by Mayor Vincent Gray followed Constitution Ave towards the Washington monument. The crowd stretched for about two blocks. Speakers for the event called for a ban on assault weapons and high capacity ammunition magazines.
According to the AP, demonstrators were holding signs bearing phrases like "Ban Assault Weapons Now," "Stop NRA" and "Gun Control Now." Other signs had the names of victims of gun violence on them.
The silent march was organized by the artistic director of Wahington's Arena Stage, Molly Smith and her partner. The event was co-sponsored by One Million Moms for Gun Control.
Similar demonstrations were planned in over a dozen other places across the United States as well, according to organizers.
In addition to the 100 expected demonstrators from Newton, CT it was expected that participants from Philadelphia, New York and New Jersey would also attend.
The march led by Mayor Vincent Gray followed Constitution Ave towards the Washington monument. The crowd stretched for about two blocks. Speakers for the event called for a ban on assault weapons and high capacity ammunition magazines.
According to the AP, demonstrators were holding signs bearing phrases like "Ban Assault Weapons Now," "Stop NRA" and "Gun Control Now." Other signs had the names of victims of gun violence on them.
The silent march was organized by the artistic director of Wahington's Arena Stage, Molly Smith and her partner. The event was co-sponsored by One Million Moms for Gun Control.
Friday, January 25, 2013
Concealed Handguns on College Campuses? Texas Is Considering It.
The gunfire that erupted at a Houston-Area college this week has prompted new calls for allowing concealed handgun license holders to bring their weapons into Texas college buildings and in the classroom, for self-defense.
A new bill is being considered by Texas lawmakers that would allow concealed handguns in college classrooms. A similar bill was shot down in 2011, however the recent campus shooting as well as the Sandy Hook tragedy has reignited debate over safety in schools.
The Campus Personal Protection Act was introduced last week by Senator Brian Birdwell, R-Granbury. The prospect of the bill's passage is still unclear, however 14 Republicans from the 31-seat Senate have already signed on in support of it.
Senator Birdwell called the Lone Star College shooting a prime example why there is a need for the passage of his bill.
College administrators have typically not been in support of similar bills, stating they worry it would spark more campus violence and suicide. However supporters call the bill a critical self-defense measure and gun rights issue.
Senator Donna Campbell, R-New Braunfels believes that the bill levels the playing field, stating "We have to allow people the option for self-protection."
A new bill is being considered by Texas lawmakers that would allow concealed handguns in college classrooms. A similar bill was shot down in 2011, however the recent campus shooting as well as the Sandy Hook tragedy has reignited debate over safety in schools.
The Campus Personal Protection Act was introduced last week by Senator Brian Birdwell, R-Granbury. The prospect of the bill's passage is still unclear, however 14 Republicans from the 31-seat Senate have already signed on in support of it.
Senator Birdwell called the Lone Star College shooting a prime example why there is a need for the passage of his bill.
College administrators have typically not been in support of similar bills, stating they worry it would spark more campus violence and suicide. However supporters call the bill a critical self-defense measure and gun rights issue.
Senator Donna Campbell, R-New Braunfels believes that the bill levels the playing field, stating "We have to allow people the option for self-protection."
Senator Feinstein Announces Bill to Ban Assault Rifles
So it begins! On Thursday, Senator Dianne Feinstein called a dramatic press conference to announce her newest bid to push a ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines. All while surrounded by a group of cops, shooting victims, and a wall full of guns she is targeting. This is an attempt to pass the most severe gun control bill in nearly 20-years.
During the conference Senator Feinstein admitted that there is a lot of opposition to her proposed legislation stating, "This really is an unhill road."
She went on to state that public pressure can overcome resistence, "We can win this, but it depends on America, and it depends on the courage of Americans."
Her bill is even stronger than the one she helped pass in 1994, seeking to ban the import and sale of over 150 types of firearms. Of them, she included the Bushmaster AR-15 which was allegedly used in the Sandy Hook shooting but has since been reported as being left in the shooter's car by MSNBC. The bill also bans ammunition clips that hold more than 10 rounds.
The new bill differs from the 1994 ban which expired because it will not have an expiration date. It would be permanent.
Senator Feinstein said during the conference that it is nobodies intention to confiscate anyone's guns, but rather to dry up the supply of firearms.
The NRA has accused the Senator of trying to ban guns from law abiding citizens as well as curtailing the Constitution.
Democrats on Thursday argued that an assault weapons ban would have prevented the deaths of those individuals in the Sandy Hook tragedy, stating that had one been in place on December 14th, there would be little boys and girls still alive today.
The proposed legislation faces many more hurdles at making it through Congress than any of the proposed changes made by President Obama. The bill has no Republican supporters in the Senate and faces further quiet opposition by Democrats from rural states.
During the conference Senator Feinstein admitted that there is a lot of opposition to her proposed legislation stating, "This really is an unhill road."
She went on to state that public pressure can overcome resistence, "We can win this, but it depends on America, and it depends on the courage of Americans."
Her bill is even stronger than the one she helped pass in 1994, seeking to ban the import and sale of over 150 types of firearms. Of them, she included the Bushmaster AR-15 which was allegedly used in the Sandy Hook shooting but has since been reported as being left in the shooter's car by MSNBC. The bill also bans ammunition clips that hold more than 10 rounds.
The new bill differs from the 1994 ban which expired because it will not have an expiration date. It would be permanent.
Senator Feinstein said during the conference that it is nobodies intention to confiscate anyone's guns, but rather to dry up the supply of firearms.
The NRA has accused the Senator of trying to ban guns from law abiding citizens as well as curtailing the Constitution.
Democrats on Thursday argued that an assault weapons ban would have prevented the deaths of those individuals in the Sandy Hook tragedy, stating that had one been in place on December 14th, there would be little boys and girls still alive today.
The proposed legislation faces many more hurdles at making it through Congress than any of the proposed changes made by President Obama. The bill has no Republican supporters in the Senate and faces further quiet opposition by Democrats from rural states.
 |
| Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP |
Thursday, January 24, 2013
What is Joe Biden's Problem With AR-15s?
It has become clear that Vice President Joe Biden is no fan of guns. It is especially clear where he stands on civilians owning AR-15s. In the 2007 South Carolina democratic primary debate Biden stated "We should not have let the assault weapons ban lapse." Now he is getting the opportunity to try and right that wrong in his eyes.
If I could stand face to face with Biden and ask him just one question I'd ask "Mr. Vice President, why do you loath AR-15s so much?" I'm certain he would ramble on about how dangerous they are and then throw in something about deer hunting, completely avoiding the question all together.
With that in mind we are left to speculate on his thought process. Is it possibly because the number of murders committed with these types of rifles is disproportionately high compared to other weapons? No that can't be. After all more people were murdered in 2011 by blunt objects such as hammers or clubs, then ANY type of rifle. In fact, more than triple the amount of people were murded by knives or cutting instruments, yet their is no legislation being proposed by Biden looking to ban steak knives.
Actual 2011 Numbers from the FBI Uniform Crime Reports:
Finally, I have to guess his sole reasoning for recommending another assault weapons ban now is because the shooter at Sandy Hook used an AR-15 and he has simply had enough. Wait, didn't we already clear that up in an earlier post after MSNBC verified that they had their facts incorrect and the shooter in fact used multiple handguns, leaving the AR-15 in his car?
So what is it? Why do both our Vice-President and our President support a ban, that did little to curb gun violence in the first place? Why despite homicides involving guns in general declining since the expiration of the gun ban are we even debating about gun control? I guess there are simply too many questions, and no rational explanation for the thought process of this administration.
If I could stand face to face with Biden and ask him just one question I'd ask "Mr. Vice President, why do you loath AR-15s so much?" I'm certain he would ramble on about how dangerous they are and then throw in something about deer hunting, completely avoiding the question all together.
With that in mind we are left to speculate on his thought process. Is it possibly because the number of murders committed with these types of rifles is disproportionately high compared to other weapons? No that can't be. After all more people were murdered in 2011 by blunt objects such as hammers or clubs, then ANY type of rifle. In fact, more than triple the amount of people were murded by knives or cutting instruments, yet their is no legislation being proposed by Biden looking to ban steak knives.
Actual 2011 Numbers from the FBI Uniform Crime Reports:
- Homicides Using a Rifle (ANY): 323
- Blunt Objects (Clubs, Hammers, etc.): 496
- Knives or Cutting Instruments: 1,694
Finally, I have to guess his sole reasoning for recommending another assault weapons ban now is because the shooter at Sandy Hook used an AR-15 and he has simply had enough. Wait, didn't we already clear that up in an earlier post after MSNBC verified that they had their facts incorrect and the shooter in fact used multiple handguns, leaving the AR-15 in his car?
So what is it? Why do both our Vice-President and our President support a ban, that did little to curb gun violence in the first place? Why despite homicides involving guns in general declining since the expiration of the gun ban are we even debating about gun control? I guess there are simply too many questions, and no rational explanation for the thought process of this administration.
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
The Vetting: Obama Has Demagogued Guns, from 2000 to Today
An older piece, yet still very much relevant to the current state of affairs going on in Washington. Worth a read, even if it is simply a refresher about the man we are dealing with.
The Vetting: Obama Has Demagogued Guns, from 2000 to Today
The Vetting: Obama Has Demagogued Guns, from 2000 to Today
Illinois Ban on Concealed Carry Ruled Unconstitutional
In December a federal appeals court ruled Illinois' ban on concealed carry unconstitutional. State lawmakers have been mandated to write a new law that legalizes concealed carry within 180 days. If the decision is appealed to the US Supreme court the case could have national repercussions especially as President Obama is trying to pass even tougher gun control laws.
Judge Richard Posner wrote in the court's majority ruling that the United States Supreme Court "has decided that the (Second) Amendment confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which as important outside the home as inside."
One of the cases the 7th Circuit decision addressed was that of Mary Shepard, an Illinois resident with no criminal record who is licensed to carry a concealed weapon in two other states, however was prohibited by Illinois law from carrying a firearm when she and an 83-year-old coworker were viciously attacked by a 6 foot 3 inch, 245 pound man with an extensive violent past and criminal record.
Mary Shepard was lucky to survive, however she required surgery and physical therapy as a result of her injuries.
Judge Posner wrote in the majority decision "One doesn't have to be a historian to realize that a right to keep and bear arms for personal self-defense in the eighteenth century could not rationally have been limited to the home...a Chicagoan is a good deal more likely to be attacked on a sidewalk then in his apartment on the 35th floor."
The NRA claims that firearms are used for personal protection more than 2 million times a year and that "the presence of a firearm, without a shot being fired, prevents crime in many instances."
It's nice to read a story in which a branch of our government, in this case the Judicial branch, still recognizes the validity of the US Constitution. It gives me hope that if efforts to stop any new gun legislation that violate our rights make it into law, they will be challenged and struck down. Of course the frustration of it all is that cases before federal courts can take years to play through. Americans don't have years to wait when it comes to the safety and security of themselves, their families and friends. I'm certain Illinois lawmakers will write a law that makes obtaining a concealed carry permit tedious and frustrating yet still possible. The fact remains however that when it's all said and done, Illinois will be a safer place to live because of this decision.
Judge Richard Posner wrote in the court's majority ruling that the United States Supreme Court "has decided that the (Second) Amendment confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which as important outside the home as inside."
One of the cases the 7th Circuit decision addressed was that of Mary Shepard, an Illinois resident with no criminal record who is licensed to carry a concealed weapon in two other states, however was prohibited by Illinois law from carrying a firearm when she and an 83-year-old coworker were viciously attacked by a 6 foot 3 inch, 245 pound man with an extensive violent past and criminal record.
Mary Shepard was lucky to survive, however she required surgery and physical therapy as a result of her injuries.
Judge Posner wrote in the majority decision "One doesn't have to be a historian to realize that a right to keep and bear arms for personal self-defense in the eighteenth century could not rationally have been limited to the home...a Chicagoan is a good deal more likely to be attacked on a sidewalk then in his apartment on the 35th floor."
The NRA claims that firearms are used for personal protection more than 2 million times a year and that "the presence of a firearm, without a shot being fired, prevents crime in many instances."
It's nice to read a story in which a branch of our government, in this case the Judicial branch, still recognizes the validity of the US Constitution. It gives me hope that if efforts to stop any new gun legislation that violate our rights make it into law, they will be challenged and struck down. Of course the frustration of it all is that cases before federal courts can take years to play through. Americans don't have years to wait when it comes to the safety and security of themselves, their families and friends. I'm certain Illinois lawmakers will write a law that makes obtaining a concealed carry permit tedious and frustrating yet still possible. The fact remains however that when it's all said and done, Illinois will be a safer place to live because of this decision.
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Cop Snaps: Kills Wife and Son Before Committing Suicide
I just read a heartbreaking news story about a 20-year veteran of the Las Vegas police force who shot and killed his wife and son before setting his house on fire and taking his own life. It got me thinking about all the new proposed gun legislation that is drowning our political system at the moment. One very obvious question came to mind. How would any of the proposed laws have protected this man's wife and child from their untimely fate?
Obama has proposed closing the so called "gun show" loophole and requiring that all firearm purchases, whether through an FFL or a private citizen. That proposal wouldn't have stopped this from happening. He has even proposed changes to improve access to the mental health system and in identifying individuals who shouldn't be allowed to have a firearm. Yet aren't police departments supposed to be able to pick up on officers struggling with mental health issues? I mean it is something that would play a huge part in their ability to perform their job properly. Chances are that wouldn't have made a difference either.
Let's look at a proposal other people are throwing out there. I've heard from many anti-gun advocates that police officers and soldiers are the only people who should have access to firearms. They claim this would make us safer. Now how would that have saved this woman and child? That's right, it wouldn't. The murderer was a police officer, someone who under this theory of thinking would still have access to a gun.
People who think that all murders can be stopped if we just implement enough law are imbeciles. The bottom line is our world can be a sick and twisted place. There are monsters everywhere that when in the right frame of mind will stop at nothing to achieve their goal. If murder is it, it will be done. Innocent law abiding American's deserve the right to protect themselves, because as this story shows, who protects innocent lives, when the police are the bad guy?
Obama has proposed closing the so called "gun show" loophole and requiring that all firearm purchases, whether through an FFL or a private citizen. That proposal wouldn't have stopped this from happening. He has even proposed changes to improve access to the mental health system and in identifying individuals who shouldn't be allowed to have a firearm. Yet aren't police departments supposed to be able to pick up on officers struggling with mental health issues? I mean it is something that would play a huge part in their ability to perform their job properly. Chances are that wouldn't have made a difference either.
Let's look at a proposal other people are throwing out there. I've heard from many anti-gun advocates that police officers and soldiers are the only people who should have access to firearms. They claim this would make us safer. Now how would that have saved this woman and child? That's right, it wouldn't. The murderer was a police officer, someone who under this theory of thinking would still have access to a gun.
People who think that all murders can be stopped if we just implement enough law are imbeciles. The bottom line is our world can be a sick and twisted place. There are monsters everywhere that when in the right frame of mind will stop at nothing to achieve their goal. If murder is it, it will be done. Innocent law abiding American's deserve the right to protect themselves, because as this story shows, who protects innocent lives, when the police are the bad guy?
Monday, January 21, 2013
Enough Is Enough: States Protecting Their Own
Our country remains divided on the issue of gun control, but some states are putting their foot down and telling the federal government enough is enough. While states like New York and Massachusetts are passing even more restrictive anti-gun measures, Alaska, where guns and hunting are a massive part of their culture, is proposing that they refuse to enforce any new federal gun laws. Additionally the state is even considering charging any federal employee trying to enforce new laws with a misdemeanor.
It is critical that the states unify to show Congress and the White House that we will not tolerate any form of violation to the Constitution of the United States. Whether it be the Second Amendment or any other Amendment our rights are our rights. Tip toeing around law to get agendas passed is an unacceptable abuse of power. The founding fathers did not draft that document to be destoryed by extremist liberals with a false view on how to bring safety to our people.
If Obama truly wants a safer America he would focus his attention on the poor mental health system and advocate for firearms training programs. Instead of making our citizens scared of guns he would show them how responsible gun owners help make our country safe. He would stop spreading lies and start waking our people up to the real facts.
Unfortunately Hell would have to freeze over for any of this to take place. It is clear Obama does not support the Second Amendment. In fact it is starting to look like he has never even read the Bill of Rights. I can only hope more states will follow Alaska's lead and stand toe to toe in defense of unconstitutional laws.
It is critical that the states unify to show Congress and the White House that we will not tolerate any form of violation to the Constitution of the United States. Whether it be the Second Amendment or any other Amendment our rights are our rights. Tip toeing around law to get agendas passed is an unacceptable abuse of power. The founding fathers did not draft that document to be destoryed by extremist liberals with a false view on how to bring safety to our people.
If Obama truly wants a safer America he would focus his attention on the poor mental health system and advocate for firearms training programs. Instead of making our citizens scared of guns he would show them how responsible gun owners help make our country safe. He would stop spreading lies and start waking our people up to the real facts.
Unfortunately Hell would have to freeze over for any of this to take place. It is clear Obama does not support the Second Amendment. In fact it is starting to look like he has never even read the Bill of Rights. I can only hope more states will follow Alaska's lead and stand toe to toe in defense of unconstitutional laws.
Saturday, January 19, 2013
Finger Pointing in the Media to Villify Pro-Gunners
My cousin recently posted on Facebook denouncing the conspiracy theories buzzing on the internet and expressing his frustration for the people choosing to believe in any of the insanity. It got me thinking, and then later I saw articles posted by the media that basically pointed fingers at pro-gunners strictly because the main commonality surrounding all the conspiracy theories seemed to be gun control. As a person who believes in our second amendment right and who openly expresses their feelings about said right, I find the accusations frustratingly grotesque.
I will be the first to admit that there are pro-gunners out there who take their beliefs to extremes and will stop at nothing to protect that right. Some of them may very well be responsible for some of the conspiracy theories. However your average run of the mill American citizens who believe in what our forefathers wrote in ink when they drafted the Constitution of the United States of America are like anybody else. We simply believe that our right to bear arms should not be infringed. Just like the bill of rights states. We don't twist media reports to produce false conspiracies to serve our agendas. We stand up, we urge our politicians to protect the American way. We speak up when people challenge our beliefs. We aren't violent and we are law abiding.
Just as is the case with leftist anti-gunners it isn't fair to group everyone in the same category. There are anti-gunners who voice their distain for the second amendment and have no problem violating the constition to take away all rights. There are even some that will resort to violence when a pro-gunner expresses their views openly. Not all pro-gunners are created equally, and not all of us are gun hugging nuts, hiding in the shadows waiting to go to war with the government.
There are millions of gun owners and second amendment supporters that are sickened by the way Washington has politicized the Sandy Hook tragedy. Using kids to achieve an agenda of the Administration is not acceptable. The media reporting stories with wild misrepresentations of the truth is also making us furious. When push comes to shove however, the majority of us will battle Washington the right way. With our voices, not our ability to fabricate truths like the mainstream media.
So as you read the media reports and accusations being distributed over the net. Stop to think about the agenda the reporter or agency is trying to serve. Understand that not everything you see in the news is absolute. There are very few news outlets left that actually report the facts alone.
I will be the first to admit that there are pro-gunners out there who take their beliefs to extremes and will stop at nothing to protect that right. Some of them may very well be responsible for some of the conspiracy theories. However your average run of the mill American citizens who believe in what our forefathers wrote in ink when they drafted the Constitution of the United States of America are like anybody else. We simply believe that our right to bear arms should not be infringed. Just like the bill of rights states. We don't twist media reports to produce false conspiracies to serve our agendas. We stand up, we urge our politicians to protect the American way. We speak up when people challenge our beliefs. We aren't violent and we are law abiding.
Just as is the case with leftist anti-gunners it isn't fair to group everyone in the same category. There are anti-gunners who voice their distain for the second amendment and have no problem violating the constition to take away all rights. There are even some that will resort to violence when a pro-gunner expresses their views openly. Not all pro-gunners are created equally, and not all of us are gun hugging nuts, hiding in the shadows waiting to go to war with the government.
There are millions of gun owners and second amendment supporters that are sickened by the way Washington has politicized the Sandy Hook tragedy. Using kids to achieve an agenda of the Administration is not acceptable. The media reporting stories with wild misrepresentations of the truth is also making us furious. When push comes to shove however, the majority of us will battle Washington the right way. With our voices, not our ability to fabricate truths like the mainstream media.
So as you read the media reports and accusations being distributed over the net. Stop to think about the agenda the reporter or agency is trying to serve. Understand that not everything you see in the news is absolute. There are very few news outlets left that actually report the facts alone.
Man Open Carrying in Utah JC Penney to Show Guns Can be Safe Causes Stir
Cindy Yorgason snapped a picture of a man carrying an unloaded AR-15 on his back, a Glock pistol in a hip holster, and empty magazines inside a JC Penney store. The picture taken about four hours after President Barack Obama announced his plans to curb gun violence, was posted to her facebook wall and went viral.
Other customers in the store were apparently making all sorts of faces at the man as well as pointing at him. "It was just something you don't see everyday and I wanted to catch it and be able to share it with other people," Yorgason said.
It is perfectly legal to open carry a gun in Utah but it must be unloaded and require two actions to fire.
Yorgason posted two pictures on facebook that generated about 100 comments. Most of the respondents dislike the man's displaying of a large gun on his back in public.
The man later identified himself as 22-year old Joseph Kelley. He stated the AR-15 was unloaded, and the Glock was a loaded 19C which he has a concealed weapons permit for. He also notified the police of what he would be doing before leaving the house with the rifle. He told reporters that he is a strong believer in the second amendment and carried the weapons into public to show people that guns can be safe in the hands of law abiding citizens.
Cindy Yorgason stated that Kelley was in the wrong place and shouldn't have been carrying at that location. Unfortunately for her, it's the law, and he was well within his rights.
This story clearly goes to show the stigma that are put on firearms by the mainstream media. Vilified by horror stories of mass murders and criminals, American people are left misinformed and scared. The reality however is that millions of law abiding citizens excercise their second amendment rights daily, carrying guns in public, concealed or open. They are individuals that will in the heat of the moment, risk their lives to save a complete stranger if the situation arises. Despite public opinion which is clearly flawed they don't just take them out looking for a confrontation. In fact if the public opinion were correct we would hear stories every day about how concealed permit holders started gun fights in public, but we don't. It's time America gets informed and starts to understand that an armed society, is a safer society.
Thursday, January 17, 2013
An Unwarranted Attack on AR-15s
So the truth is out there. The mass shooting that shocked the American people and paved the way for the Obama Administration's anti-gun agenda was NOT carried out with the AR-15 that so many news reports claimed. It was in fact carried out with several (not just one) handguns. That's right. We all heard speculation and mixed reports but NBC has gone on the record admitting that Adam Lanza did not use what the government calls a "military style assault rifle."
So that leaves me with the question, what gives? Surely the Obama Administration knew the facts long before the American people. With that knowledge in hand, what basis do they have for renewing an assault weapons ban? Going even further, knowing that Lanza used multiple handguns, what good would a magazine capacity limit do? If they are using past shootings as the basis for their argument, then why so much focus on Sandy Hook?
Everything about this horrific tragedy was turned to politics in a matter of hours. Yet as the dust settles and the reality of the event becomes clear I can see, and I hope the American people can see that this was Obama's second term agenda all along. When he was reelected he knew he would never have to face the voters again. His mission here is not to make the American people safer, or to even make the American people feel satisfied with his steps. His mission is to violate the second amendment and the Constitution of the United States of America no matter the cost.
Read the Full Story Here.
So that leaves me with the question, what gives? Surely the Obama Administration knew the facts long before the American people. With that knowledge in hand, what basis do they have for renewing an assault weapons ban? Going even further, knowing that Lanza used multiple handguns, what good would a magazine capacity limit do? If they are using past shootings as the basis for their argument, then why so much focus on Sandy Hook?
Everything about this horrific tragedy was turned to politics in a matter of hours. Yet as the dust settles and the reality of the event becomes clear I can see, and I hope the American people can see that this was Obama's second term agenda all along. When he was reelected he knew he would never have to face the voters again. His mission here is not to make the American people safer, or to even make the American people feel satisfied with his steps. His mission is to violate the second amendment and the Constitution of the United States of America no matter the cost.
Read the Full Story Here.
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Sick-n-Tired: Thoughts On Gun Control
Written by Mac Conant
After watching the President's press conference, I had some ambition to write this up. Please, if your not familiar with weapons, or are on the fence about these issues, give a read.
Mental illness is indeed a problem and sometimes that problem arises with a bad outcome, which involves a weapon. Surely improving mental illness research is important right? Can't fault it.
However, banning a rifle by how it 'looks' or is 'styled' is foolish. That rifle is no more deadly than any other gun in the hands of a madman. Furthermore, the very fact of the matter is, a gun owned by a legal citizen does not commit a crime. You might as well make guns illegal for criminals to possess. Oh wait, that already exists? They don't FOLLOW LAWS.
Quick History Lesson: AR in AR-15 stands for ArmaLite Model 15. ArmaLite created the first rifle you could recognize as a 'assault rifle' and was later adopted by the US military. So AR DOES NOT stand for assault rifle. Colt later bought the rights to the AR-10 and lighter version, AR 15 and still used the name to market it to civilian and law enforcement persons. An assault rifle defined is a rifle that can shoot in Semiautomatic and fully automatic. So, a semi automatic rifle is not an assault rifle. But if you read the "English Learners" Definition by Merriam-Websters Dictionary, this must be what congress's reading level is at:
Assault Rifle : a gun that can shoot many bullets quickly and that is designed for use by the military.
Another thing, people have been talking about 'high cap' alot recently. I feel I need to let in some light on that situation. A 'high capacity MAGAZINE(ITS NOT A CLIP)' is a magazine designed to work with a rifle or pistol, and holds MORE rounds than it was designed to carry. So, my pistol for example, came from the factory with a 13 round mag. Now, in the state of California, that magazine is illegal. However, that magazine is a factory magazine. And sits flush with the bottom of the grip on the pistol. If the magazine extended past the end of the magazine well, it would THEN be high capacity. Rifles, same thing. For example, a Sig&Sauer M400 comes, from factory, with a Magpul brand, 30 round magazine. That is NOT high capacity. How ever, stick in a 100 round drum mag, and that IS high capacity.
Some states have passed laws that anything over 10 rounds is 'high capacity'. In my opinion, a responsible gun owner shouldn't be told how many rounds he can use to defend himself. Who said the fights over after 10 rounds?
Finally, the problem with mass shootings in gun free zones: That's just the problem. Gun free zones. If you put a madman in a target rich environment, its going to be deadly. Look at it from the criminal's point of view, for example the one who shot up the movie theater.
"I could shoot up that one, but there isn't a 'No Guns Allowed' sign on the door. Someone might have a gun and stop me. OH! That one will do! It says No Guns Allowed."
Simple isn't it? You put a coward into the position to be confronted with resistance, and 9 times out of 10 he will probably shoot himself or give up. EVERY single mass shooting, besides one I believe, has been done in a GUN FREE ZONE. If you make a criminal realize "Hey, if I start shooting, some guy/gal might shoot back" you might have diverted some horrible situation.
Lastly, the FBI is already over-run with requests for gun purchases. What would this proposal do to the FBI? Will that create more jobs? I hope so, because if you ban the
manufacturing of these rifles, your taking away jobs. Sure, they could just make other guns. But if you take away the Number 1 Selling rifle in America, what happens to the people who build them?
A big problem people have ignored in this country is jobs. SO! As a gun owner, I have an idea. Lets put armed guards in every school in America, put in place a Free Background check system with the FBI (or at least, cheap) and leave the firearms companies alone so they can continue to be a supporting factor to this country and its economy.
You make jobs through the FBI, guards in the schools. Then again America, for peace of mind, its going to cost money. And trust me, nothing short of a Armed guards in place at a school is going to stop a mad man.
The 2nd amendment is not about deer hunting, or shooting a Turkey. It's about defense of the Constitution and the American people from Tyranny. You can't trust that these 'little' gun measures will do nothing to constrict gun rights, because over time it will. And once you have time go, "Duh, they planned it all along!" its already too late.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is good guys with guns.
(These opinions are that of the poster of this status, and do not reflect upon any other gun owner, or ani-gun persons. Nor does he represent any group. Just his observations.)
After watching the President's press conference, I had some ambition to write this up. Please, if your not familiar with weapons, or are on the fence about these issues, give a read.
Mental illness is indeed a problem and sometimes that problem arises with a bad outcome, which involves a weapon. Surely improving mental illness research is important right? Can't fault it.
However, banning a rifle by how it 'looks' or is 'styled' is foolish. That rifle is no more deadly than any other gun in the hands of a madman. Furthermore, the very fact of the matter is, a gun owned by a legal citizen does not commit a crime. You might as well make guns illegal for criminals to possess. Oh wait, that already exists? They don't FOLLOW LAWS.
Quick History Lesson: AR in AR-15 stands for ArmaLite Model 15. ArmaLite created the first rifle you could recognize as a 'assault rifle' and was later adopted by the US military. So AR DOES NOT stand for assault rifle. Colt later bought the rights to the AR-10 and lighter version, AR 15 and still used the name to market it to civilian and law enforcement persons. An assault rifle defined is a rifle that can shoot in Semiautomatic and fully automatic. So, a semi automatic rifle is not an assault rifle. But if you read the "English Learners" Definition by Merriam-Websters Dictionary, this must be what congress's reading level is at:
Assault Rifle : a gun that can shoot many bullets quickly and that is designed for use by the military.
Another thing, people have been talking about 'high cap' alot recently. I feel I need to let in some light on that situation. A 'high capacity MAGAZINE(ITS NOT A CLIP)' is a magazine designed to work with a rifle or pistol, and holds MORE rounds than it was designed to carry. So, my pistol for example, came from the factory with a 13 round mag. Now, in the state of California, that magazine is illegal. However, that magazine is a factory magazine. And sits flush with the bottom of the grip on the pistol. If the magazine extended past the end of the magazine well, it would THEN be high capacity. Rifles, same thing. For example, a Sig&Sauer M400 comes, from factory, with a Magpul brand, 30 round magazine. That is NOT high capacity. How ever, stick in a 100 round drum mag, and that IS high capacity.
Some states have passed laws that anything over 10 rounds is 'high capacity'. In my opinion, a responsible gun owner shouldn't be told how many rounds he can use to defend himself. Who said the fights over after 10 rounds?
Finally, the problem with mass shootings in gun free zones: That's just the problem. Gun free zones. If you put a madman in a target rich environment, its going to be deadly. Look at it from the criminal's point of view, for example the one who shot up the movie theater.
"I could shoot up that one, but there isn't a 'No Guns Allowed' sign on the door. Someone might have a gun and stop me. OH! That one will do! It says No Guns Allowed."
Simple isn't it? You put a coward into the position to be confronted with resistance, and 9 times out of 10 he will probably shoot himself or give up. EVERY single mass shooting, besides one I believe, has been done in a GUN FREE ZONE. If you make a criminal realize "Hey, if I start shooting, some guy/gal might shoot back" you might have diverted some horrible situation.
Lastly, the FBI is already over-run with requests for gun purchases. What would this proposal do to the FBI? Will that create more jobs? I hope so, because if you ban the
manufacturing of these rifles, your taking away jobs. Sure, they could just make other guns. But if you take away the Number 1 Selling rifle in America, what happens to the people who build them?
A big problem people have ignored in this country is jobs. SO! As a gun owner, I have an idea. Lets put armed guards in every school in America, put in place a Free Background check system with the FBI (or at least, cheap) and leave the firearms companies alone so they can continue to be a supporting factor to this country and its economy.
You make jobs through the FBI, guards in the schools. Then again America, for peace of mind, its going to cost money. And trust me, nothing short of a Armed guards in place at a school is going to stop a mad man.
The 2nd amendment is not about deer hunting, or shooting a Turkey. It's about defense of the Constitution and the American people from Tyranny. You can't trust that these 'little' gun measures will do nothing to constrict gun rights, because over time it will. And once you have time go, "Duh, they planned it all along!" its already too late.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is good guys with guns.
(These opinions are that of the poster of this status, and do not reflect upon any other gun owner, or ani-gun persons. Nor does he represent any group. Just his observations.)
Today The Battle Begins: Obama Set to Unveil Gun Violence Measures
As Obama prepares to disclose his agenda for curbing gun violence in our nation, both sides of the table are gearing up for what will undoubtedly be the most hard fought battle over second amendment rights in our nations history. The media reports that Obama will announce proposed bans on military-style assault weapons and high capacity ammunition magazines as well as more than a dozen executive orders aimed at circumventing congressional opposition to stricter gun control.
The positives of the President's proposals are said to include efforts to stop bullying and increase access to mental health services.
Unfortunately for the President and his anti-gun supporters, efforts to ban assault weapons and high capacity ammunition magazines will have to go through congress where many are speculating, the bills will be struck down or drastically reduced. Still there are many politicians vowing to continue their push for an outright ban despite the odds.
On Tuesday in a video first released by The Blaze, the NRA accused President Obama of hypocrisy for having secret service agents protecting his own daughters while stating he was "skeptical" of the NRA's call for armed guards in all schools. The video opens with a narrator saying "Are the President's kids more important than yours? Then why is he skeptical about putting armed security in our schools when his kids are protected by armed guards at their school?"
It is clear the White House is not backing down on their efforts to pass stricter gun control than ever before. Some victims of gun violence who support the President's measures are acting out of emotions. The facts continue to remain the same as they were years ago. The stricter the gun control the higher the gun violence. Disarming law abiding citizens stops nothing and makes citizens less safe. The previous assault weapons ban did little to prevent gun violence and is the reason it was voted down after expiring in 2004. I urge you to contact your senators and tell them you do not support any new laws that will interfere with your second amendment rights. Some may say that the second amendment is not absolute. I say they are wrong. The US Constitution and our Bill of Rights is as absolute as they come. Any action to violate these should be considered as nothing less than treason.
The positives of the President's proposals are said to include efforts to stop bullying and increase access to mental health services.
Unfortunately for the President and his anti-gun supporters, efforts to ban assault weapons and high capacity ammunition magazines will have to go through congress where many are speculating, the bills will be struck down or drastically reduced. Still there are many politicians vowing to continue their push for an outright ban despite the odds.
On Tuesday in a video first released by The Blaze, the NRA accused President Obama of hypocrisy for having secret service agents protecting his own daughters while stating he was "skeptical" of the NRA's call for armed guards in all schools. The video opens with a narrator saying "Are the President's kids more important than yours? Then why is he skeptical about putting armed security in our schools when his kids are protected by armed guards at their school?"
It is clear the White House is not backing down on their efforts to pass stricter gun control than ever before. Some victims of gun violence who support the President's measures are acting out of emotions. The facts continue to remain the same as they were years ago. The stricter the gun control the higher the gun violence. Disarming law abiding citizens stops nothing and makes citizens less safe. The previous assault weapons ban did little to prevent gun violence and is the reason it was voted down after expiring in 2004. I urge you to contact your senators and tell them you do not support any new laws that will interfere with your second amendment rights. Some may say that the second amendment is not absolute. I say they are wrong. The US Constitution and our Bill of Rights is as absolute as they come. Any action to violate these should be considered as nothing less than treason.
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
My Heart Sinks for New York State
I found out this morning that the State of New York agreed to pass the toughest gun control laws in the country. This news comes six days after Governor Andrew Cuomo announced his agenda during his state of the state address. It is expected to pass today.
The law calls for restrictions on ammunition and gun sales. The current state law defines an assault weapon as have two "military rifle" style features. The new law changed that to just one. Private sales of assault weapons to someone other than a family member will require a background check through a dealer and internet sales of assault weapons are prohibited. In addition magazine capacity will be limited to just 7 rounds from the current ten. Existing owners of "higher-capacity" magazines will have one year to sell them out of state and an owner found at home with more than 8 rounds in a magazine could face a misdemeanor charge.
The law additionally includes provisions regarding mental health. If a therapist feels an individual made a credible threat to use a gun illegally they would be required to report it and that individuals guns could be taken away. It also increases sentences for gun crimes.
In my opinion some of the provisions in the law are common sense. We need better monitoring of mentally ill individuals and a way to keep firearms out of their hands. Also gun crime needs to be punished harshly to set the bar for others who may be thinking of committing the same crimes. However this law also punishes legal gun owners by restricting their magazine capacity. As I have said countless times before bad guys don't care about laws. So if a criminal breaks into a persons home in New York with ill intentions, you can almost guarantee they will have a high capacity magazine while the occupants who need protection wait, outgunned.
This law also challenges gun manufacturers who make guns that generally come stock with at least a ten round magazine. By passing this law they are essentially "banning" those guns unless the manufacturers start making New York legal magazines.
New York state and their politicians have tiptoed around violating the second amendment. They have turned their citizens into future victims. Today goes down in history as the day that New York became one of the least safest states in the union. What they claim this law will do for their state is a blatant travesty.
The law calls for restrictions on ammunition and gun sales. The current state law defines an assault weapon as have two "military rifle" style features. The new law changed that to just one. Private sales of assault weapons to someone other than a family member will require a background check through a dealer and internet sales of assault weapons are prohibited. In addition magazine capacity will be limited to just 7 rounds from the current ten. Existing owners of "higher-capacity" magazines will have one year to sell them out of state and an owner found at home with more than 8 rounds in a magazine could face a misdemeanor charge.
The law additionally includes provisions regarding mental health. If a therapist feels an individual made a credible threat to use a gun illegally they would be required to report it and that individuals guns could be taken away. It also increases sentences for gun crimes.
In my opinion some of the provisions in the law are common sense. We need better monitoring of mentally ill individuals and a way to keep firearms out of their hands. Also gun crime needs to be punished harshly to set the bar for others who may be thinking of committing the same crimes. However this law also punishes legal gun owners by restricting their magazine capacity. As I have said countless times before bad guys don't care about laws. So if a criminal breaks into a persons home in New York with ill intentions, you can almost guarantee they will have a high capacity magazine while the occupants who need protection wait, outgunned.
This law also challenges gun manufacturers who make guns that generally come stock with at least a ten round magazine. By passing this law they are essentially "banning" those guns unless the manufacturers start making New York legal magazines.
New York state and their politicians have tiptoed around violating the second amendment. They have turned their citizens into future victims. Today goes down in history as the day that New York became one of the least safest states in the union. What they claim this law will do for their state is a blatant travesty.
Friday, January 11, 2013
Lying Their Way to Gun Control
I came across a blog today by the Coalition To Stop Gun Violence. As I read an article posted by them I found many errors in their statements and grew frustrated with their baseless claims. I dug a little deeper and read more on the blog. I found their blog description rather disturbing as they discussed how victims and survivors of gun violence are often targets of harassment, intimidation, and violent threats by pro-gun activists. Now I don't know about you, but that really bothers me. Sure there are plenty of real wack jobs out there that take things to the extreme but they are not a good example of the millions of responsible gun owners and other Americans who support the second amendment. I will say it is frustrating, to constantly turn on the TV or get on the internet and find hundreds of crazy leftists hell bent on taking away our guns, twisting the truth, and outright lying to serve their midguided agenda.
Let's look at the one article in particular that I found on this blog during my Google search. The title of the article "Pro-gun Activist: "If it'll keep me free, I'll kill 30k Just Myself" sounds extreme right? It is. This guy he is talking about made a heartless statement that I don't agree with. However as I read the article the question asked of him from the writer was loaded and intended to anger. The writer asks "So 30,000+ Americans have to die each year so you don't become a 'slave'? Is that about right Anthony?"
To which he responded "30k? If it'll keep me free I'll kill 30k just myself."
Now as I stated before I do not agree nor justify what this person said. But looking at just the facts I went to the FBI website and looked at the hard data. In 2011 there were 12,664 murders, of those 8,583 were the result of a firearm down from 10,129 in 2007. A far cry from the 30,000+ killings the authors claims to exist.
This just goes to show the lengths at which anti-gunners will go to instill anger in the opposition. When frustration leads to outbursts they use that as ammo to spread their lies and agendas. To the average low information individual who pays little attention to the facts, it can cause misinformation and poor support decisions. I wonder of all the people that support disarmament in the United States, how many of those individuals are misinformed and have never seen the real data. How many know that violent crime is decreasing in this country despite what the media portrays. How in countries where gun control is strict, violent crime is higher than ever before. It's a real shame how far lies can take a cause, but we are witnessing it first hand.
FBI Expanded Homicide Table 8: 2007-2008
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8
Let's look at the one article in particular that I found on this blog during my Google search. The title of the article "Pro-gun Activist: "If it'll keep me free, I'll kill 30k Just Myself" sounds extreme right? It is. This guy he is talking about made a heartless statement that I don't agree with. However as I read the article the question asked of him from the writer was loaded and intended to anger. The writer asks "So 30,000+ Americans have to die each year so you don't become a 'slave'? Is that about right Anthony?"
To which he responded "30k? If it'll keep me free I'll kill 30k just myself."
Now as I stated before I do not agree nor justify what this person said. But looking at just the facts I went to the FBI website and looked at the hard data. In 2011 there were 12,664 murders, of those 8,583 were the result of a firearm down from 10,129 in 2007. A far cry from the 30,000+ killings the authors claims to exist.
This just goes to show the lengths at which anti-gunners will go to instill anger in the opposition. When frustration leads to outbursts they use that as ammo to spread their lies and agendas. To the average low information individual who pays little attention to the facts, it can cause misinformation and poor support decisions. I wonder of all the people that support disarmament in the United States, how many of those individuals are misinformed and have never seen the real data. How many know that violent crime is decreasing in this country despite what the media portrays. How in countries where gun control is strict, violent crime is higher than ever before. It's a real shame how far lies can take a cause, but we are witnessing it first hand.
FBI Expanded Homicide Table 8: 2007-2008
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8
Thursday, January 10, 2013
Senator Dianne Feinstein: At It Again
With the gun-control debate at full swing it shouldn't come as a surprise that Senator Dianne Feinstein, the author of the 1994-2000 "assault weapon" and "large" ammunition magazine ban has made it known that she will be soon introducing a bill more restrictive than the original. Leaders in the U.S. senate have stated that January 22 will be the first day on which new Senate legislation can be proposed, so that will be the most likely date for the new, sweeping legislation to be introduced.
The NRA-ILA obtained a draft of Feinstein's bill from her website. The new bill adopts new definitions of "assault weapons" that would affect a much larger variety of firearms, requires current owners of such firearms to register them with the federal government under the National Firearms Act, and requires ferfeiture of the firearms upon the deaths of their current owners to the government.
This is exactly the kind of legislation that we as a people do not want in our country. Over the last few weeks I have heard so many anti-gunners talk about their respect for hunters and how they have no desire to take their guns away. I am a hunter. I love the sport, and I support everyone who participates. However a simple reading of the second amendment of this country will show anybody with a basic reading level that it was not intended for hunters. The second amendment was created to protect the people from a tyrannical government. I don't know about you, but if the government becomes out of control and starts beating down citizens doors demanding they confiscate their firearms, what good is a 5 shot hunting rifle or shotgun going to do against a true fully automatic assault rifle?
This insane senator is the reason why citizens who want to protect their second amendment rights and their families need to support the NRA. They have the resources to fight against these attempts at stealing our freedom. Politicians with gun control agendas claim their actions will make America safer, but they are only making us a weaker and more vulnerable to criminals as well as the government. I urge you, if you have not yet joined the ranks of millions of gun owners nationwide, sign up for the NRA today. Stand up and fight the insanity.
Click HERE to Join the NRA - Save $10
The NRA-ILA obtained a draft of Feinstein's bill from her website. The new bill adopts new definitions of "assault weapons" that would affect a much larger variety of firearms, requires current owners of such firearms to register them with the federal government under the National Firearms Act, and requires ferfeiture of the firearms upon the deaths of their current owners to the government.
This is exactly the kind of legislation that we as a people do not want in our country. Over the last few weeks I have heard so many anti-gunners talk about their respect for hunters and how they have no desire to take their guns away. I am a hunter. I love the sport, and I support everyone who participates. However a simple reading of the second amendment of this country will show anybody with a basic reading level that it was not intended for hunters. The second amendment was created to protect the people from a tyrannical government. I don't know about you, but if the government becomes out of control and starts beating down citizens doors demanding they confiscate their firearms, what good is a 5 shot hunting rifle or shotgun going to do against a true fully automatic assault rifle?
This insane senator is the reason why citizens who want to protect their second amendment rights and their families need to support the NRA. They have the resources to fight against these attempts at stealing our freedom. Politicians with gun control agendas claim their actions will make America safer, but they are only making us a weaker and more vulnerable to criminals as well as the government. I urge you, if you have not yet joined the ranks of millions of gun owners nationwide, sign up for the NRA today. Stand up and fight the insanity.
Mom Who Shot Intruder Inspires Gun Control Foes
Loganville, GA (AP) - A Georgia mother who shot an intruder at her home has become a small part of the roaring gun control debate, with some firearms enthusiasts touting her as a textbook example of responsible gun ownership.
Melinda Herman grabbed a handgun and hid in a crawl space with her two children when a man broke in last week and approached the family at their home northeast of Atlanta, police said. Herman called her husband on the phone, and with him reminding her of the lessons she recently leard at a shooting range, Herman opened fire, seriously wounding the burglary suspect.
Read More Here
Melinda Herman grabbed a handgun and hid in a crawl space with her two children when a man broke in last week and approached the family at their home northeast of Atlanta, police said. Herman called her husband on the phone, and with him reminding her of the lessons she recently leard at a shooting range, Herman opened fire, seriously wounding the burglary suspect.
Read More Here
Wednesday, January 9, 2013
Choose Your Own Crime Stats **Video**
I came across this video recently and felt it important to share. Go ahead and give it a view. It discusses REAL crime stats and what the media and anti-gun politicians don't want you to see. The worst part is all these stats are available for people who want to know the truth. Enjoy!
Alex Jones Loses it on Piers Morgan
Piers Morgan got a taste of his own medicine Monday night when conservative talk radio host, Alex Jones appeared on his show. Some are calling his appearance a "meltdown" wheras I view it as a passionate individual who simply got fed up with Piers Morgan's tactics as it relates to gun control. Just a few weeks ago Morgan had GOA's Larry Pratt on his show. During that interview Morgan repeatedly cut off his guest and even called him a "stupid man."
The debate over gun control has created some very strong emotions on both sides of the table. Jones may seem a bit out there but at the base of it all his points are true and correct.
Read More and Watch the Video Here
The debate over gun control has created some very strong emotions on both sides of the table. Jones may seem a bit out there but at the base of it all his points are true and correct.
Read More and Watch the Video Here
Sign the Petition: Protect Your Rights to Bear Arms
During my browsing of the internet for new material, I came across a petition started by a guy named Tanner Larsson. Like me, he too believes that our right to keep and bear arms is in jeopardy of being attacked by Washington's anti-gun politicians. As of this morning he sent out an email saying he had a total of 17,000 signatures. It is his goal to get that number up to 100,000 before sending it to congress.
This petition is something that I strongly beleive in. The NRA is our biggest voice in our capital and the strongest defender of our second amendment rights. However when an opportunity like this arrives in which we can stand up and shout even louder, it is our responsibility to speak up.
Take a moment to stop by his website and sign the petition. Help Tanner and the other 17,000 current signers tell President Obama that this is not his decision! Our forefathers gave us the right to keep and bear arms and that shall never be infringed.
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Now Is the Time to Stand Up and Join the NRA
It is becoming clearer by the day that Washington is on a mission to disarm American citizens or at the very least make it a tiresome task to obtain a firearm. In the wake of one of our nations most gruesome massacres politicians have geared up for a fight and they are showing no signs of backing down. The only way we can truly defend our right to keep and bear arms in this country is to put our support behind a group with a proven track record of fighting for what is right.
In the wake of the Newton shooting the NRA reported membership was on the rise at a rate of about 8,000 new members per day. Records were being broken and for good reason. America can see how dangerously close we are to losing our second amendment rights. The NRA is over 4,000,000 American's strong. Mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, grandparents, all with one common belief. That our right to keep and bear arms shall never be infringed.
The NRA lobbys in Washington to battle against proposed bills that threaten our rights. They work tirelessly to help elect politicians who will protect the constitution. By joining the NRA today you are helping to support the mission of the NRA. You are standing up against the anti-gunners in Washington, and you are helping to defend the second amendment.
Join today and save $10 off your annual membership. If you have been telling yourself someday you would join but never got around to it, now is the time. The need has never been greater and the threat to our freedom has never been stronger.
In the wake of the Newton shooting the NRA reported membership was on the rise at a rate of about 8,000 new members per day. Records were being broken and for good reason. America can see how dangerously close we are to losing our second amendment rights. The NRA is over 4,000,000 American's strong. Mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, grandparents, all with one common belief. That our right to keep and bear arms shall never be infringed.
The NRA lobbys in Washington to battle against proposed bills that threaten our rights. They work tirelessly to help elect politicians who will protect the constitution. By joining the NRA today you are helping to support the mission of the NRA. You are standing up against the anti-gunners in Washington, and you are helping to defend the second amendment.
Join today and save $10 off your annual membership. If you have been telling yourself someday you would join but never got around to it, now is the time. The need has never been greater and the threat to our freedom has never been stronger.
Total Media Blackout on Shooting Where Private Citizen Stopped Mass Murder by Using Gun
Just two days after the horrible massacre of 20 kindergarten children and six adults by an armed psychotic, another mass murder did not take place at a movie theater in San Antonio.
For those of you that don't live in that south Texas city, did you read about this non-massacre in your local paper? Did you see it online? Hear about it on the radio or television?
If not, trust us when we say it's not your fault. It's the fault of the mainstream media, for they have once again failed in their mission to be impartial conveyors of news and information because of an anti-gun agenda.
Read More Here.
For those of you that don't live in that south Texas city, did you read about this non-massacre in your local paper? Did you see it online? Hear about it on the radio or television?
If not, trust us when we say it's not your fault. It's the fault of the mainstream media, for they have once again failed in their mission to be impartial conveyors of news and information because of an anti-gun agenda.
Read More Here.
Gabrielle Gifford and Husband Launch Anti-Gun Violence Site
When someone like former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords is involved in a horrific tragedy involving gun violence it is difficult to find the words to argue against their views on guns without sounding insensitive to their opinions. However it was announced today that Gabby and her husband Mark Kelley have started a website aimed at curbing gun violence through further gun control measures. Their agenda is simple. Establish a lobby to go up against the likes of the NRA and other pro gun groups and work diligently at promoting further gun control measures that in my eyes violate our second amendment rights.
Giffords wrote on the website about the tragedy that injured her two years ago. She pointed out that since then eleven more mass shootings have taken place and congress has failed to act to prevent further gun violence. In an article written by her and her husband they wrote "Americans for Responsible Solutions, which we are launching today, will invite people from around the country to join a national conversation about gun violence prevention, will raise the funds necessary to balance the influence of the gun lobby."
This move comes after Giffords and Kelly visited mouring families in Newton, Connecticut last week, where another shooting took the lives of 27 people mostly children, in December.
In both Gifford's shooting and the one in Newton, the assailant was a mentally unstable individual who should have never been allowed to obtain a firearm. In the Newton case the shooter stole the weapons from his mother. The problem surrounding these shootings has been argued by both sides, but the root is clearly mental health system failure.
It is a miracle that despite 6 of her constituents dying, 12 others being wounded, and being shot in the head, that Gabrielle Giffords is alive today. Despite all odds she proved her will to survive and she has shown the world what a strong woman she is. I have the utmost respect for her and what she has gone through and it is my hope that nobody has to go through something like this again. However the reality of the world is simple. Bad guys don't obey the law. They will get guns despite new legislation. In the words of Wayne LaPierre of the NRA, "The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun!" Don't tread on my rights.
Giffords wrote on the website about the tragedy that injured her two years ago. She pointed out that since then eleven more mass shootings have taken place and congress has failed to act to prevent further gun violence. In an article written by her and her husband they wrote "Americans for Responsible Solutions, which we are launching today, will invite people from around the country to join a national conversation about gun violence prevention, will raise the funds necessary to balance the influence of the gun lobby."
This move comes after Giffords and Kelly visited mouring families in Newton, Connecticut last week, where another shooting took the lives of 27 people mostly children, in December.
In both Gifford's shooting and the one in Newton, the assailant was a mentally unstable individual who should have never been allowed to obtain a firearm. In the Newton case the shooter stole the weapons from his mother. The problem surrounding these shootings has been argued by both sides, but the root is clearly mental health system failure.
It is a miracle that despite 6 of her constituents dying, 12 others being wounded, and being shot in the head, that Gabrielle Giffords is alive today. Despite all odds she proved her will to survive and she has shown the world what a strong woman she is. I have the utmost respect for her and what she has gone through and it is my hope that nobody has to go through something like this again. However the reality of the world is simple. Bad guys don't obey the law. They will get guns despite new legislation. In the words of Wayne LaPierre of the NRA, "The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun!" Don't tread on my rights.
Monday, January 7, 2013
Gun Manufacturers Given $19 Million in Subsidies: So What?
In an article published in my local newspaper recently, the authors discussed how manufacturers of assault rifles like the one used in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting have received over $19 million in tax breaks mostly within the last 5 years. Barbara Richardson a Newton resident, where Sandy Hook was located went on record as saying "I feel horrified at the power of the gun industry over our political system, that it could exert such influence." Richardson went on to discuss her respect for hunters who are ethical and good neighbors, but she in no way supports taxpayer subsidies for makers of assault rifles, calling them "Weapons of mass destruction."
I can understand her frustration being so close to the tragedy that struck her small community. However subsidies are given to all types of businesses to bring jobs to communities all across the country. Jobs that put money into local economies and provide a living for millions of Americans. Over the last decade for example, Wal-Mart has received over $1 billion in taxpayer subsidies. Subsidies that have not only helped employ millions of Americans but transform Wal-Mart from a regional discounter to the worlds leading retail giant.
I shouldn't have to say it, but attacking gun manufacturers for gruesome attacks carried out by individuals simply because they chose to use a firearm instead of a knife, or bomb, or automobile is senseless. Wal-Mart is sued thousands of times a year for varying reasons and even sells the very guns that this article is attacking. Based on the argument being laid out, should Wal-Mart then have to give up its subsidies for contributing to the violence. They sell bullets too. Does that make them guilty as well? Had the attacks at Sandy Hook been committed with a machete or axe purchased at Wal-Mart would their be an equal demand for action then against Wal-Mart or the manufacturer of the weapon used? No there wouldn't. This is misdirected anger and solves nothing. The truth of the matter is simple. Existing laws need to be enforced better and our mental health system needs an overhaul. Don't try taking food off the tables of honest hard working American's because they build guns.
I can understand her frustration being so close to the tragedy that struck her small community. However subsidies are given to all types of businesses to bring jobs to communities all across the country. Jobs that put money into local economies and provide a living for millions of Americans. Over the last decade for example, Wal-Mart has received over $1 billion in taxpayer subsidies. Subsidies that have not only helped employ millions of Americans but transform Wal-Mart from a regional discounter to the worlds leading retail giant.
I shouldn't have to say it, but attacking gun manufacturers for gruesome attacks carried out by individuals simply because they chose to use a firearm instead of a knife, or bomb, or automobile is senseless. Wal-Mart is sued thousands of times a year for varying reasons and even sells the very guns that this article is attacking. Based on the argument being laid out, should Wal-Mart then have to give up its subsidies for contributing to the violence. They sell bullets too. Does that make them guilty as well? Had the attacks at Sandy Hook been committed with a machete or axe purchased at Wal-Mart would their be an equal demand for action then against Wal-Mart or the manufacturer of the weapon used? No there wouldn't. This is misdirected anger and solves nothing. The truth of the matter is simple. Existing laws need to be enforced better and our mental health system needs an overhaul. Don't try taking food off the tables of honest hard working American's because they build guns.
White House Considering Broader Gun Control
As we all have heard for years, the first step to gun prohibition (AKA confiscation) is gun registration. As Vice President Joe Biden and his "panel" of gun control advocates work diligently to "curb" further gun violence, it appears they are ready to take things a step further than just an assault weapons ban by establishing a national gun registration database that will monitor the sale and movement of firearms. It is becoming very clear where this administration stands on gun rights. They just don't care. They will tell the American people that these new laws will help protect us, but one has to wonder, will they really?
The panel is looking to establish a universal background check system for all firearms sales. This I can understand. We need to be enforcing the existing gun laws we have and by requiring a background check on all sales, including private, is a good step in doing just that. It would also allow us to track mental health backgrounds more efficiently so that we can keep weapons out of the hands of dangerous individuals like the Sandy Hook shooter. In all fairness however, the Sandy Hook shooter stole the firearms from his mother. Something a background check never would have been able to prevent.
Our government needs to step aside from the tunnel vision they are suffering from. Guns are not to blame for the increase in violence. We need to be looking at further measures than just tracking mental health backgrounds. We need to be working tirelessly to create a stronger mental health system that allows sick individuals to get the help they need.
Reuters reports that the White House has been in contact with advisors to New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a well known gun control advocate. It is speculated that he could emerge as a surrogate to the administrations agenda. Why the White House is seeking advice from a mayor whose city is riddled with gun violence despite some of the toughest gun control policies in the nation is beyond me. The incompetence of our elected officials to accept blame for the failures of existing policies is unacceptable. They established a system, allowed it to fail, and now want to pile more restrictions on top of the already broken methods.
It's time we stop punishing the law abiding citizens for the actions of criminals. These new laws will not prevent bad guys from committing atrocities. A criminal will still find a way to get weapons and they will not register it with the government. There will be no background check and when they do kill somebody with it there won't wont be an address for the cops to go to to pick up the suspect.
In closing with over 300 million firearms already in private homes across the country, what makes this administration think they can register them all when they can't even enforce existing gun control measures already in force?
The panel is looking to establish a universal background check system for all firearms sales. This I can understand. We need to be enforcing the existing gun laws we have and by requiring a background check on all sales, including private, is a good step in doing just that. It would also allow us to track mental health backgrounds more efficiently so that we can keep weapons out of the hands of dangerous individuals like the Sandy Hook shooter. In all fairness however, the Sandy Hook shooter stole the firearms from his mother. Something a background check never would have been able to prevent.
Our government needs to step aside from the tunnel vision they are suffering from. Guns are not to blame for the increase in violence. We need to be looking at further measures than just tracking mental health backgrounds. We need to be working tirelessly to create a stronger mental health system that allows sick individuals to get the help they need.
Reuters reports that the White House has been in contact with advisors to New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a well known gun control advocate. It is speculated that he could emerge as a surrogate to the administrations agenda. Why the White House is seeking advice from a mayor whose city is riddled with gun violence despite some of the toughest gun control policies in the nation is beyond me. The incompetence of our elected officials to accept blame for the failures of existing policies is unacceptable. They established a system, allowed it to fail, and now want to pile more restrictions on top of the already broken methods.
It's time we stop punishing the law abiding citizens for the actions of criminals. These new laws will not prevent bad guys from committing atrocities. A criminal will still find a way to get weapons and they will not register it with the government. There will be no background check and when they do kill somebody with it there won't wont be an address for the cops to go to to pick up the suspect.
In closing with over 300 million firearms already in private homes across the country, what makes this administration think they can register them all when they can't even enforce existing gun control measures already in force?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)