Fun With Numbers

 

Putting "Gun Control" to the Test

By Rob Morse. October 10th, 2019
Article Source

We all want to protect our family and friends. 'Gun-control' is the theory that disarming honest people will stop criminals. That is a fantastic theory, but does 'gun-control' work in practice? Now that we have new FBI data at hand, we don’t have to guess if 'gun-control' reduces violent crime. The answers might surprise you as we look from coast to coast. Does gun control save lives or cost them?

The 'gun-control' laws in Los Angeles are extreme. You won’t get a permit to carry a handgun in public unless you are a judge or a politician. You have to be over 21 years old to buy a rifle. You also need to show a state firearms safety card and to pass a background check each time you buy ammunition. Those regulations prevent many honest citizens from having a firearm for self-defense. How well did those 'gun-control' laws work at stopping violent crime in Los Angeles? The rate of violent crime in LA is more than twice the national average. (748/369 per 100 thousand)

Seattle 'gun-control' laws are quite strict. Firearms purchases are taxed. You must to go through a background check to buy a firearm and you can’t loan a gun to a friend even if your friend already owns other firearms. People under 21 years of age may not buy many types of rifles. The police can seize your guns if you’re alleged to be a danger to yourself or to others. In addition, firearms have to be locked away when they are not in use. How well did those 'gun-control' laws work at stopping violent crime? The rate of violent crime in Seattle is 84 percent above the national average. (680/369 per 100 thousand)

The 'gun-control' laws in Chicago are intimidating. The regulatory hurdles to buy a gun, and to get a concealed carry permit, are among the most expensive and lengthy in the nation. Chicago outlaws the ownership of certain types of rifles and has effectively banned gun ranges in the city. Chicago has mandatory waiting periods, so residents who obey the law have to wait an extraordinarily long time between when they ask permission to buy a gun and when they may finally take possession of that firearm. The purchase of ammunition is also strictly regulated. How well did those 'gun-control' laws work at stopping violent crime? The rate of violent crime in Chicago is almost three times higher than the national average. (1006/369 per 100 thousand)

In addition to state laws, New York City has its own burdensome gun laws. The licencing application to buy a long gun or handgun runs over a dozen pages and required a criminal background check. Owning a handgun requires a purchase permit as well as a state and city license. The application process takes from three to six months and requires a personal interview. You need a different permit if you want to have your firearm stored at your home or at your business. You need a separate permit if you want to store your firearm at a residence outside the city. Those permits do not allow you to have your legally owned firearm available for use as you travel to and from work or between your homes. New York also restricts the type of rifles you may own. They restrict the amount of ammunition your firearms may hold. New York also has so called “red flag” 'gun-control' laws, so school officials, members of law enforcement, or members of your family can ask the court to block you from buying or owning firearms without you being present or represented at the hearing. These regulations don’t stop criminals since the rate of violent crime in New York City is 66 percent higher than the national average. (614/369 per 100 thousand)

Baltimore’s 'gun-control' laws are extremely strict. They require mandatory background checks when firearms are transferred. A safety course and purchase permit is required to buy a handgun. Mental health professionals, law enforcement officers, or a family member can ask for a protective order to disarm a gun owner without the gun owner being present at the legal proceedings. Many firearms are in a restricted category so that law abiding gun owners may only purchase one gun a month. The state also has a registry of all handgun owners. Baltimore denies concealed carry permits to ordinary citizens so you are effectively disarmed in public. The state also restricts the type of rifles you may own, and the amount of ammunition that firearms may hold. These laws fail to reduce crime since the crime rate for Baltimore is almost five times the national average. (1833/369 per 100 thousand) With over 300 murders in 2018, Baltimore politicians called for more of the same.

The 'gun-control' laws in Trenton prevent many honest people from owning guns. You need a state permit to buy any firearm, and this permit takes months or years to obtain. New Jersey routinely denies ordinary citizens the right to carry a firearm in public. The state also keeps a record of all registered handgun owners. The type of long guns you may own is restricted as is the ammunition capacity of all firearms. A judge may issue a restraining order to confiscate your firearms without you being present or represented. How well do those 'gun-control' laws work at stopping violent crime in Trenton, New Jersey? The rate of violent crime in Trenton is more than three times higher than the national average. (1161/369 per 100 thousand)

The 'gun-control' laws in Boston deeply restrict the rights of law abiding people to own and use firearms for self-defense. The city requires a permit to purchase either a long gun or a handgun. It also requires a license to own the firearm. Law enforcement officers have denied these permits saying that the citizen did not have a justified reason to own a firearm. Boston police may also refuse to issue concealed carry permits to citizens with a clean criminal record. The type of long guns you may own is restricted as is the ammunition capacity of all firearms. A judge may issue an order to confiscate your firearms without you being present or represented. How well do those 'gun-control' laws work at stopping violent crime in Boston? The rate of violent crime is about 70 percent higher than the national average. (622/369 per 100 thousand)

We’ve looked at city after city and the evidence is clear. 'Gun-control' laws do not make us safer. In fact, these laws probably put honest citizens in greater danger from violent crime. I found this data with a few hours of study so any honest journalist could have tested the theory of 'gun-control'..if they wanted to know the truth.

'Gun-control' is getting us killed. The sad news is that politicians will continue to call for 'gun-control' as long as it gets them elected. Fortunately, we can put a stop to that.

Sources- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_crime_rate
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/topic-pages/violent-crime
(national rate of 369 per 100 thousand)
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/topic-pages/tables/table-6
https://lawcenter.giffords.org/scorecard/
https://www.cityrating.com/crime-statistics/new-york/new-york.html
http://nycitylens.com/wp-content/guns/new-york-city-and-its-gun-laws-how-strict-are-they/index.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_New_York#Summary_table
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Maryland
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_New_Jersey#Summary_table

Copyright © JPFO 1999 - 2019. All Rights Reserved.
12500 NE 10th Pl | Bellevue | WA 98005 | Phone: (800) 869-1884 | Fax: 425-451-3959
jpfo@jpfo.org

The Red Flag Council

By L. Neil Smith. September 14th, 2019. (lneil@netzero.com)
PATREON:https://www.patreon.com/lneilsmith
Attributed to L.Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise

In America, the highest law of the land consists of the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution, commonly known as Bill of Rights.

Unlike the remainder of the Constitution (which merely serves as an "operating system" for the government), The Bill of Rights is the exclusive property of the American people, their guarantee of liberty, and the essential condition, historically, on which the rest of the Constitution was ratified.

The Bill of Rights is not simply a laundry list of things that government generously allows its humble subjects to do. (Go to Canada, if that's the kind of society you prefer, go to disarmed and prostrate Australia) It is a list of things that government is absolutely forbidden to do by the people, who were meant own and control it. A far better name for it would have been the "Bill of Limits".

As such, the Bill of Rights was never intended by its authors to be readable and understandable, only by so-called or self-appointed elite "experts" but by everyday citizens. Its mandates are not to be trivialized or interpreted away by judges, courts, lawyers, or collectivist legal "scholars", whose real interest lies in controlling individual lives by naked, brute force, if necessary.

Ordinary Americans are entitled to express any opinion they wish, a right guaranteed to them under the First Amendment. Politicians, political appointees (bureaucrats), and police officers gave up that right when they took an Oath of Office -- required by law -- to uphold and defend the Constitution.

Accordingly, any politico, bureaucrat, or cop who attempts to nullify or suspend any part of the Bill of Rights in any way is a criminal, having (A) committed perjury when he took his Oath of Office, (B) for disregarding the civil rights provisions of Title 18 of the U,S. Code, Sections 241 and 242, and (C) having engaged in what amounts to an act of "Rebellion against the Constitution", forbidden under the Fourteenth Amendment.

An additional crime, (D) is to be found in the Bill of Rights, itself, specifically, in the Second Amendment, which asserts (written and duly-ratified laws are allowed to do that) "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" (which, in 18th century terminology simply means, "the right of the individual to own and carry weapons") is '"necessary for the security of a free state") That means clearly that any politician, bureaucrat, or cop who tries to take weapons away from Americans is endangering the security of a free state and is therefore guilty of treason.

Which famously calls -- strictly under due process of law, mind you -- for an especially severe punishment, involving a length of rope and a drop through a trapdoor. Talk about being "de-platformed".

It brings a whole new meaning to the expression "swingers".

And to "hanging judge, as well.

Now you may well wonder (I actually pretend I can hear you asking) why these laws have not been energetically enforced and these penalties have not been properly meted out. It's simply because the criminals themselves have been in charge of the law, and for a long, long time. If they hadn't, just to point out a single example, Wyatt Earp, and his pack of brothers, far from any kind of heroes, would have been among the first trapdoor dropees, for having forcibly created the first "gun-free zone" in Dodge City, Kansas. The man himself was beyond corrupt: a crook, a whore-monger. a thug, an apologist for Lincoln Administration brutalities, and was continuing a vendetta against impoverished former Confederates out west.

But as usual, I have digressed.

Now the security of our free state is threatened with "red flag" laws, a simple-minded, evil scheme to circumvent the Second Amendment entirely, and cut it out of the Constitution, and use corrupt judges and the police to forcibly strip everyone of their means of personal and national defense. It cannot stand.

Clearly Congress, the various state legislatures, and the egregiously mislabeled "justice system" are not up to doing the right thing in this regard. If they were, every capitol building in the nation would be filled with empty seats, rather than empty suits. That's why I'm proposing -- and with extreme reluctance, believe me -- an organization to "provide new guards for [our] future security.

The "Red Flag Council" will be a national group, a step beyond the National Rifle Association or the Second Amendment Foundation, or even Gun Owners of America or my _Alma Mater_, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, that publicly lists politicians, bureaucrats, and police by name (not the same as "doxing" them), all those who have taken an Oath of Office, to "uphold and defend" the Constitution -- and betrayed it. The Red Flag Council will relentlessly work toward their prosecution. With an eye toward the future, it would be wise to track candidates, and their views on Constitutional rights, as well.

The "Red Flag Council". American colonists won their Revolution thanks largely to the clunky, short-range "Brown Bess", a bit of a blunderbuss, with which the Crown was accustomed to enforcing its Imperial will. By comparison, significant elements among the rebels were equipped with "assault rifles" their own, personal, deadly flintlock rifles, which were ray-guns, phasers, by comparison. We were better-armed than the bad-guys were, which is exactly how the Founding Fathers wanted it to remain, forever. The high-capacity semiautomatic weapons we enjoy today, are simply our flintlocks.

The "Red Flag Council". English lawyers and judges wear white wigs for the same reason that rattlesnakes have rattles. If there had been any red flag laws back then, I'd be writing this now, with a British accent. As it is, the fight began with an attempt by 1200 redcoats (which ended for them in a humiliating rout) to confiscate private weaponry at Lexington and Concord. They should have known better -- I'll bet a lot of them did.

The "Red Flag Council". The whole idea, since then, has been that civilians ought to be at least as well-armed as the military. Maybe even better. Setting Wyatt Earp aside, the first large-scale infringement of the individual right to own and carry weapons was in the 1930s. It was disguised as anti-gangster legislation because it was an unconstitutional power-grab, enacted because Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his communist pals were wetting their panties, afraid of a coup, which very nearly happened. (Look it up.)

The "Red Flag Council". Since then the government and the insatiably greedy left have ridden roughshod over rights that were supposed to have been guaranteed to us, and the right wing has started to join them. It is no coincidence that the resident parasites in politics who want to steal as much of what we've earned from us as they can, also demand that we be forced (somehow) to give up what my friend the late Aaron Zelman used to call our "liberty teeth".

The "Red Flag Council". If you want to help us in some way, let us know. We could use your assistance to help keep this a free country. Having striven against the Dark Side since 1968, I'm absolutely determined that, now it's going to cost them something, at long last. There are at least a hundred million gun owners in America. I can't think of a single Democrat who deserves to occupy anything but a jail cell. And if we gun owners stay home next November, because our "own" side took us for granted (the way Democrats do black people) and failed to adequately defend our rights, no Republican will ever hold office again.

************************

Award-winning novelist and essayist L. Neil Smith is a retired gunsmith, Publisher and Senior Columnist of L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise and the author of over thirty books. Look him up on Google, Wikipedia, and Amazon.com. He is available, at professional rates, to write columns, articles, and speeches for your organization, event, or publication, fiercely defending your rights, as he has done since the mid-1960s. His writings (and e-mail address) may also be found at L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise, at JPFO.org or at https://www.patreon.com/lneilsmith, to which you can contribute, directly. His many books and those of other pro-gun libertarians may be found (and ordered) at L. Neil Smith's THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE "Free Radical Book Store" The preceeding essay was originally prepared for and appeared in L. Neil Smith's THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE. If you like what you've seen and want to see more, he says, "Don't applaud, throw money."

Red Flag Laws Cause Permanent Harm

When neighbors can red flag each other
no one wins, everybody loses.

Abandoning constitutional guarantees destroys
American freedom for a false hope of safety

A red flag law allows you to officially snitch on your neighbors, relatives or friends, and have them detained without bringing real charges. You can do it out of fear, or just suspicion that people you know may be "up to something" without proof. The cops can break in, confiscate property (arms), and the person you rat out ends up with giant legal bills, court dates, a permanent blot that can't be removed -- and they didn't actually do anything -- you just used your expanded legal "right" to red flag the person. If that sounds terribly wrong it"s because it is. Mass media didn't tell you that, did they.

These red flag laws are being promoted by people on the political left who are motivated by fear of psychos, often drugged up, who have been encouraged by mass media, TV and the movies to shoot up schools, theaters, restaurants and their workplaces. Those horrific tragedies, shown endlessly on nightly "news" reports, are being used to get legislators and the public to adopt these red flag laws as a supposed solution. You, Mr. and Mrs. Normal, can notify ("red flag") authorities about these supposed sociopaths before they explode and we'll all be safe. It almost sounds good, except you've heard that authorities knew about the maniacs many times, did nothing, and then picked up the pieces when it was too late.

No, the red flag laws have a different, hidden and terrible purpose. They are a new clandestine method for taking guns away from innocent Americans -- a long-time and frustrated goal of the political left. With these new laws in place, authorities have a permanent excuse, and a way around due process (also known as the rule of law) to confiscate guns with little civil protection for the innocent. People in the know get it, but the public isn't getting even a hint of the truth, just the blaring loudspeakers of CNN and the networks, promoting a false promise of safety from some new law, where all other similar laws have failed miserably.

Red flag laws have zero effect on the reason children want to slaughter their classmates. They do nothing on top of the background checks we've had for decades that do nothing to disarm the inner cities where historically black neighborhoods endure 6,000 murders every year. Officials are lying to you, and so-called reporters merely perpetuate the lie.

You get truth from a group like us, JPFO, and others, but the mass media is a mass of deception. Red flag laws are wrong for America from every angle. We already have a half dozen of them on the books, did you know that? Does a wife sleep better with a paper restraining order against an abusive husband, even if they forcibly take the guns she knows he has, with a drawer full of kitchen knives? It doesn't even make sense.

People too dangerous to have their own firearms are too dangerous to be left out on the street by themselves. 

Join JPFO to learn more. We'll give you the real deal, not a false flag to wave. Get and read Dial 911 and Die from JPFO.

#####

        

Read all about JPFO's widely praised Don't Inspire Evil Initiative
and the national endorsements it has received. http://jpfo.org/d.i.e/die-homepage.htm

Donate to JPFO to support our important work and defend your right to keep and
bear arms, against the horrific onslaught of forces aligned against this great American right.

https://store.jpfo.org/11-donations

Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, http://www.jpfo.org is America’s most aggressive civil-rights organization, dedicated to destroying the notion of “gun control” as any kind of credible public-policy position. So-called “gun control” does not control guns and doesn’t control criminal behavior. What it does is disarm the innocent, leaving them helpless in the face of criminals, tyrannical governments and genocide. History repeatedly proves this fact. Founded in 1989 by Aaron Zelman as a response to the Holocaust, JPFO speaks with the moral authority and tenacious commitment of survivors of persecution, and knows that surrendering your personal and family safety to government protection courts disaster. “You don’t have to be Jewish to fight by our side, you just have to love liberty.”

How to Ban Guns in America

FEBRUARY 10, 2019 BY DAVID COLE

How to Ban Private Gun Ownership in America

It can be done. You just can’t do it in one fell swoop. You must do it in steps.

You take the first step in 1934 by making some kinds of guns bad, requiring them to be registered with the government and levying a special tax on them. This is to establish the idea that while some guns are OK, other guns are bad. This will be handy later on.

You take the next step in 1968. You pass laws adding more restrictions on gun ownership and sales, most notably establishing the requirement of a government-issued license for a business to sell guns. This will be handy later on.

Your next step is in 1993, when you pass a law creating certain classes of citizens who are prohibited from possessing guns, as well as adding a requirement that licensed dealers (created in 1968) run each prospective purchaser through an FBI background check before selling them a gun. This will be handy later on.

It is now “later on.” It is 2019, and none of this has had any impact on criminal gun ownership. Although that is not the true objective, you point this out and insist that we must take yet another step.

House Judiciary Committee advances HR 8 to markup.

So far you have managed to outlaw certain types of guns and certain types of gun owners, and to require that sales from licensed dealers obtain government permission before proceeding. The problem is that citizens are still allowed to transfer (some) guns to each other without the participation of a licensed dealer (1968) or a background check (1993).

This next step is to pass laws requiring “universal background checks.” (2019) This will now close the loop and ensure that no guns of any type (good or bad) are transferred to any citizen (good or bad) without government permission. And although some would say this is a “good first step,” they are now only two moves away from the end game.

From AWR Hawkins at Breitbart News.

The next step is to point out that “universal background checks” have been ineffective in reducing crime (though they were not intended to reduce crime) since you don’t know who in America owns all the guns. You can’t tell if people are complying with the background check law without gun registration. So you pass that law…to “close the loophole”…and now you have everything you need. All the pieces are in position to take the final step and eliminate private gun ownership in America…at least by law abiding citizens.

Let’s review:

We have established that some guns are bad, and the government decides what those are. (1934)

We have decided that some people are bad and prohibited from gun ownership, and the government decides who they are. (1993)

We require government permission to obtain a gun. (2019?)

The government has a list of guns and gun owners. (?)

Remember, every time they pass another law, it is referred to as a “good first step”…right before the next one.

"You don't have to be Jewish to fight by our side."
You just have to love freedom.

© 2019 JPFO All rights reserved.
jpfo@jpfo.org
1-800-869-1884
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership

America’s most aggressive civil rights organization
We make the NRA look like moderates

Join JPFO

Assault Speech and Hate Weapons - Media Spin

Assault Speech and Hate Weapons- the media spin that would make Orwell proud

FEBRUARY 2, 2019

tags: politics, news media, corruption

It is dangerous to let other people do our thinking for us. We seem certain we can define “hate speech”. We’re convinced that “assault weapons” are bad.  Both terms have been manipulated by politicians and the media to mean anything they want them to mean. We were sold such a twisted-logic of lies that it would be funny.. if it were not so dangerous.

Elites with armed bodyguards tell us to give up our tools of self-defense. We’re called toxic-hateful-deplorable-clingers if we object. “Assault weapon” is a debating term and so is “hate speech”. An assault weapon is any firearm a politician wants to confiscate. “Hate speech” are any statements that criticize the politician’s latest voting block. The elites lie to us. Look at their record of hypocrisy to see the truth of that statement.

Wayne LaPierre is the executive vice president of the National Rifle Association. La Pierre has armed guards at work and at home. Gun-confiscation spokesmen Shannon Watts and Alyssa Milano have armed guards too. I’ve seen them. The important distinction is that La Pierre says we should have the same protection that he has. Milano and Watts want the rest of us disarmed.. while they remain protected. My response is simple. If being disarmed is so great, then you go first and show us by example.

That is only the beginning of the hypocrisy. Hollywood media events are “gun-free” zones.. yet they have armed security teams all around the venue. In vivid contrast, I stood with about 20 thousand armed men and women as we shook hands with Donald Trump Junior. A blind man can see the difference. One side walks-the-walk and the other talks out of both sides of their mouth.

You have examples of gross hypocrisy closer to home. That gun in your safe is an “assault weapon intended only to kill”.. when you own it. The news media calls the same firearm “a patrol rifle used for defense” when it is in the hands of your local police. That gun is called a “personal defense weapon” when Homeland Security slings it across their chest in an airport. The media manipulates these terms to fit their agenda. Their hidden message is the same if it comes from the media or the advocates of gun-confiscation. The media must disguise the simple meaning of their message because we’d laugh in disbelief if they said it too plainly. Their message is this-

You’re dangerous and the elites are trustworthy.

Politicians and judges are hypocrites.. but you knew that. The so called ”high capacity magazine” in your gun is quickly reclassified as a “standard capacity magazine” when a police officer carries it. The only difference between you and a law enforcement officer is that the cop works for the state while you protect your family on your own. The judge rules that you don’t need that much ammunition to protect your family. At the same time, the judge says the bailiff in the courtroom should have more cartridges in his gun to protect the judge.

The judge applies the pejorative bias of hate speech to our rights.. but not to his.

Some people think they are more equal than others. The ugly reason they get away with it is politics. Hate speech used to mean calling someone a nigger, a kike, or a jap. It morphed to calling someone an illegal immigrant or a woman. The elites label something as hate speech when being offended serves their political purpose. They call something “hate speech” when they claim a group needs special political treatment. This fine-slicing of identity politics leads to a perverse race to ever-smaller minorities.

Their rarity is considered a virtue. A small group of people gets to claim their impotence, their victimization, and therefore their superior claim to government power over everyone else. I can see the signs now-

“Millennial agender redheaded Navajo-speaking Polynesians from Fargo unite.”

At least they won’t have a problem finding a room to fit all of them. A table for two should be enough.. with room left over.

That claim of being an oppressed minority eventually leads to individuality. You are the ultimate minority group.. even though that is an anathema to socialists with their dependence on marxist theory and group identity. We are unique but are exactly equal in our human rights. To say otherwise is to subjugate our humanity to political interests. That subjugation requires some very twisted language.. and some very dangerous government power.

You know the truth when you hear it. You also know when you’re told a lie. The answer is the same without regard to the social status of the person lying to you. Throw the lies back in their face.

Another Anti-Gun Celebrity Cashes In With Guns In Movies

Jennifer Garner

aka Hypocrite

Hollywood has had a tumultuous relationship with firearms for quite some time. On the one hand, celebrities often enjoy a financial status that allows them to take security measures the rest of us don’t have, which may cause some to forget that many of us face threats to our very lives as well. So, they make stands against guns and articulate it regularly.

On the other hand, Hollywood has always made a good bit of its money by slapping a gun in the hands of these actors and having them do every manner of crap with them, from defending themselves to engaging in criminal activities. In other words, Hollywood has a love affair with the gun, but it doesn’t want to admit it, even to itself.

The latest example of this is Jennifer Garner, who made her opinions on guns known but doesn’t seem to mind cashing in on a film where she’s carrying the very tool she’s worked to deny to the average American.

The film features the story of Riley North, a mother and wife who awakens from a coma after surviving an attack that resulted in the deaths of her beloved husband and daughter. Bereaved, Riley fights for justice through the court system. When it fails, she vows to avenge her loved ones on her own. As one might expect from the former “Alias” star, Garner becomes a one-woman force for justice through guns, explosives, knives, and more. So far, the movie hasn’t garnered many great reviews. A Forbes writer said it was “ugly, incoherent and problematic.” But it might do well with fans who like Garner’s action-flick style.

Regardless, the plot is both easy to empathize with (I guess) and confusing: Any loving mother could understand how Riley might have felt under the circumstances and how the need for vengeance would be so strong she might want to take care of the killers herself. (“Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned” and all.) But I’ll be hard-pressed to understand or empathize with actors who believe one thing in their personal lives, yet do another in their careers — especially as it relates to gun control. In 2012 Garner appeared in a video with other Hollywood stars advocating gun control, despite the fact that she and her estranged husband both appear in multiple shows and films using guns.

This is hardly unusual. Few Hollywood actors openly support the Second Amendment. Most who have vocalized an opinion on the topic tend to be anti-gun to some degree.

Time and again, Hollywood and the actors who make their living there continue to feed into the American fascination with armed heroes by creating these movies.

Don’t get me wrong, either. The trailer for Peppermint looks pretty awesome and the fact that someone called it “problematic” is probably enough to make me want to see it all on its own. I don’t want Hollywood to stop making action films where the heroes and heroines are armed to the teeth and shooting bad guys in the face.

What I’d like to see is for these stars to recognize they make money from firearms and to work to deny them to ordinary Americans while feeling no qualms about taking these roles is ridiculous. Garner isn’t unique in doing this, but she’s just the one with the new movie this week.

Author's Bio: Tom Knighton

Tom Knighton is a Navy veteran, a former newspaperman, a novelist, and a blogger and lifetime shooter. He lives with his family in Southwest Georgia. https://bearingarms.com/author/tomknighton/

Walter Williams: "Isn't It Strange?"

There is a letter titled “Isn’t It Strange?” making the rounds in email boxes. It asks questions to which our fellow Americans should know the answers, save for those caught up in modernity.

It starts off asking, “Isn’t it strange that after a bombing, everyone blames the bomber, his upbringing, his environment, his culture but ... after a shooting, the problem is the gun?” In other words, after a shooting, it is the gun, an inanimate object, that is the culprit, but after a bombing, it is not the bomb that receives the blame but the evil individual. In both cases it is the evil individual who is to blame.

Ronald Reagan had it right when he said, “We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.”

Speaking of guns, the letter has a 1950s photo of high school girls at an indoor shooting range. The photo caption states: “Back in the 1950s and even later, many high schools had shooting ranges. Students even brought their own rifles to school.” It asks, “What changed in society that we could trust such activities then, but not now?”

Youth involvement with guns has a long history. The 1911 second edition of the Boy Scout Handbook made qualification in NRA’s junior marksmanship program a prerequisite for obtaining a BSA merit badge in marksmanship. In 1918, the Winchester Repeating Arms Co. established its own Winchester Junior Rifle Corps. The program grew to 135,000 members by 1925. In New York City, high school gun clubs were started at Boys, Curtis, Commercial, Manual Training and Stuyvesant high schools. I would like to ask America’s anti-gun fanatics what accounts for today’s mayhem: Have guns become more evil or have people become more evil?

The letter contains several photos under the caption, “These men support your right to bear arms.” The photos are of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton. Below it is the caption, “These men oppose it,” with photos of Adolf Hitler, Fidel Castro, Josef Stalin, Idi Amin, Vladimir Lenin and Barack Obama. Then it asks, “Who do you trust?”

Later on in the letter, there is a statement asking us to rename government programs, saying, “Get it straight: Welfare, Food Stamps, WIC ... are not entitlements. They are taxpayer-funded handouts, and shouldn’t be called entitlements. Social Security and Veterans Benefits are ‘Entitlements’ because the people receiving them are entitled to them. They were earned and paid for by the recipients.”

Then there is a warning: “No society ever thrived because it had a large and growing class of parasites living off those who produced.” If one listens to the current debate and rhetoric of most politicians, both Democrats or Republicans, it is about expanding the class of Americans who live at the expense of other Americans, whether they are promising “free” education and medical care or forcing Americans to purchase products such as ethanol in order to enrich others.

John Wayne put it best, particularly for my colleagues in academia. “I’d like to know why
well-educated idiots keep apologizing for lazy and complaining people who think the world owes them a living.”

Toward the letter’s end there is a statement that rings so true and beyond debate: “I vote Democratic, because I’m pro-choice ... except on schools, guns, trade, health care, energy, smoking, union membership, light bulbs, plastic bags, Walmart, what kinds of food you can eat. ...”

Finally, there is a most important message from our 34th president, Dwight D. Eisenhower: “If all that Americans want is security, they can go to prison. They’ll have enough to eat, a bed and a roof over their heads. But if an American wants to preserve his dignity and his equality as a human being, he must not bow his neck to any dictatorial government.”

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.

Calls For Gun Confiscation Have Begun

From the GOA:

The Left Calls for Confiscating Your Guns in Wake of California Shooting

---

ACTION:  The anti-gun Left is pulling out the stops and is now calling for gun confiscation.  We have to meet “fire with fire.”  So forward this alert to ten people.  Encourage your pro-gun family and friends to sign up for GOA alerts.  
And, you can also give Gift Memberships to your family/friends this holiday season.  We need your support and activism more than ever!

---

The Anti-gun Left Declares War on Your Gun Rights
Dear Paul, 

President Obama took to the airwaves on Sunday night and told the nation we need more gun control.

Hillary Clinton -- the one who will most likely be the Democrat nominee for president in 2016 -- recently called for an all-out war on guns, as well.  

And then, for the first time since 1920, the New York Times published an editorial on the front page of their newspaper.  

This is important because the editorial page of the Times reflects the thinking of the anti-gun Democrat Left. 

And what is the theme of the Times' most important message in nearly a hundred years? 

In two words:  Gun Confiscation.


Left “drops the gloves,” calls for gun confiscation

The New York Times said this weekend that:

It is past time to stop talking about halting the spread of firearms, and instead to reduce their number drastically — eliminating some large categories of weapons and ammunition.It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment. No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.

The Times continues that there would be no grandfather clause for the 300,000,000-plus firearms we currently own:  

[I]t would require Americans who own these kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens. 

So there you have it.  You need to give up your guns -- for the good of the country.

Ironically, the editors at The Washington Post are furious with the Times for letting the “cat out of the bag.” They called the Times’ editorial “predictably polarizing.”

But as one insightful journalist noted, the Post editors are only upset because the Times’ piece confirms “every gun owner’s worst fear -- namely, that all the talk about gun safety and reducing gun violence is just a sham, and the real agenda of the gun control movement is total confiscation.”


Gun confiscation has always been the goal of the anti-gun Left

Everyone has known that a Hillary presidency would result in greater restrictions on our Second Amendment rights.

---

But now her mouthpiece at the Times has explicitly revealed what we knew already was the case -- the Left wants to CONFISCATE YOUR GUNS. 
 
Anti-gun radicals usually try not to say this publicly, because they know that talk of gun confiscation loses elections. But when caught on “candid camera,” they tell you they want to confiscate guns.  

Take Maryland’s Deputy Attorney General -- a liberal Democrat -- who was recently caught on hidden camera stating “we should ban guns altogether, period.”

Or remember when New York Governor Andrew Cuomo (D) said, in the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting, that among the different gun control proposals that were being bandied about, “[gun] confiscation could be an option.”

Or when several Democrat state senators were caught on an open microphone in New Jersey saying, “We needed a bill that was going to confiscate, confiscate, confiscate.”

This is their agenda.


Anti-gunners blame YOU for massacres like San Bernardino’s

In its editorial, the Times lambasted pro-gun, Republican politicians who “abet would-be killers by creating gun markets for them, and voters allow those politicians to keep their jobs.”

That’s what the Left thinks of you.  They think that your rights and freedoms … that your guns which have NEVER harmed anyone -- are the problem because you are aiding and abetting killers. 

These are the stakes we face in the 2016 elections.  

If Clinton wins, we can expect her to push the same Times’ agenda, which will include the elimination of “large categories of weapons and ammunition” -- probably by executive fiat.  

And we can expect the Obama-packed courts to roll over and ignore the “peculiar wording of the Second Amendment.”

You have eleven months before the November, 2016, elections.  And everything we believe in is at stake.

Please forward this alert and encourage your pro-gun family and friends to sign up for GOA alerts.  

Yes, it's that obvious. They think they can force Americans to surrender firearms. And when the armed rebellion begins - and it will - they think they can win. The only question is, how many will have to die to prove them wrong?

Congressional Gun Control Hypocrisy Shines On Capitol Hill

From Bullets First:

Posted by Tony Oliva on Oct 9, 2015 in Email Featured, Fallacy, Featured, Gun Control FAIL, Hypocrisy, Legislation

It’s jaw dropping when the perfect storm of Congressional tone deafness, meets the mindset of the oligarchy with the illogical fallacy of gun control.

To what am I referring?

On Thursday, Senate Democrats gathered on the steps of the Capitol to announce a new push for tougher gun-control laws.


While Democrats exploiting the death of children and unarmed victims for their own political gain is not a new phenomenon, the abject hypocrisy in how they do it is always mind boggling to me.

You see, these Democrats, including NY Sen Chuck Shumer and Oregonian Sen Ron Wyden, made the announcement while surrounded by a dozen armed guards who were in ADDITION to the regular detail of Capitol Police who protect Congressmen.

So in Washington DC, whose city council is doing EVERYTHING they can to subvert he rulings of the courts in order to deny the Second Amendment to its citizens, these Senators have the gall to prance around with their own, heavily armed, tax payer funded, private use army while the peons of the “servant class” have to fend for themselves unarmed, to announce MORE restrictions upon the right to keep and bear arms.

The hypocrisy of it all would be hilarious if it weren’t so tragic.

And the restrictions of course wouldn’t do anything to stop criminals from using guns to kill people because the last time I checked murder was still illegal and that doesn’t stop the criminals.  The gun control measures just make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to exercise their God given rights.

Gun Controllers love to throw scary sounding words around when they push for more Constitution shredding.  That’s why we have the bogus term “Assault Weapon” applied to sporting rifles.

The measures proposed by the Democrats include old favorites (yet in reality non existent things) like the “gun show loophole” mixed in with new ones like the “illegal gun pipeline.”

Unless Chuck Shumer is talking about the time the Obama Administration smuggled weapons to the Mexican Cartels in Operation Fast and Furious, I don’t have time for his nonsense.

And of course, the ubiquitous “improved background check.”  Simply put, be treated like a criminal and give the government MORE information before exercising your rights.

Yet somehow, if you support the idea of require ID’s in order to vote you are a vile racist who is trying to usurp democracy.  Gun Controlling Democrat hypocrisy knows no bounds.

The most egregious thing that was said while these Senators were armed behind their wall of guns was muttered by Sen Wyden of Oregon.

“The victims and their families deserve better than a Congress that shrugs its shoulders and waited for the next tragedy.  They deserve action.”

No Senator, they don’t need “action” they need the Government to get the hell out of the way and let law abiding citizens exercise their right to keep and bear arms in order to protect themselves.
Unlike you, We the people don’t go around with a small army on the taxpayers dime.

We are on our own. But We like it that way.  So you can take all your rights infringing garbage and your tragedy exploiting bull that you and your kind have facilitated in the first place and pound sand.
You want to do something to stop further mass shootings?  Outlaw gun free zones.  Oregon forces Christian bakers to bake wedding cake for gay couples.  At least the 2nd Amendment is an actual RIGHT.

But that is a discussion for another time.

Next time gun controllers want to push for gun control they should do so without the army of hired guns.  I mean, its DC and its all about gun control…it should be the safest city in America…

Why then does it have a crime index of 4…with 100 being the safest?

Food for thought.

Read more at http://bulletsfirst.net/2015/10/09/congressional-gun-control-hypocrisy-shines-on-capitol-hill/

The Argument is Invalid But the Answer is Obvious

Their REAL Agenda

h/t Sandi-with-an-i, from the Book of Face

And How'd That Work Out for Them?