For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -H.L. Mencken
With amazing rapidity, student survivors from the Stoneman Douglas high school shooting, such as David Hogg, Emma Gonzalez and Cameron Kasky, gave impassioned speeches heard on nationwide media, like National Public Radio, ABC News, CNN, many other cable TV channels, and at the March 24 “March for Our Lives.”
Kasky spoke of a “revolution” that is “powerful because it is, of, by and for the young people of this country.” He warned:
Politicians, either represent the people or get out. The people demand the ban of assault weapons. The people demand we prohibit the sale of high capacity magazines. Stand with us or beware. The voters are coming.
David Hogg accused gun store owners and legislators who support the 2nd Amendment of being:
…sick f*ckers [who] want to continue to sell more guns, murder more children, and honestly just get reelected. What kind of shitty person does that? They could have blood from children splattered all over their faces and they wouldn’t take action, because all they still see are these dollar signs.
Another student accuses “national policymakers (who) value the blood money of the NRA over the lives of children.”
The possibility that the “people” have a wide range of views on gun legislation and that legislators might have a principled reason for supporting the 2nd Amendment does not seem to occur to these teenagers. In their eyes, advocates for the 2nd Amendment are not just wrong, they are evil. These teenagers’ claim to speak on behalf of “the people” is frankly reminiscent of the language of the 18th century French revolutionaries before mass executions of “enemies of the people.”
Remembering my own opinionated youth, I am willing to give these young people a pass, but what about the adults behind them? Leftist politicians like N.Y. Senator Chuck Schumer are surely breaking out the champagne bottles as they see a generation of young voters persuaded to believe that all Republicans are evil politicians in the pocket of gun-loving advocacy groups. At the March 24th rally, Schumer said:
Every time, the viselike grip of the NRA on the necks of some of these politicians has succeeded, but this time it won’t. You know why it won't? Because we have YOU!
Schumer proudly pointed out that he authored the Brady Law and the assault weapons ban- but did gun registration and the “assault weapons ban” succeed in saving any lives? When we examine the research in this chapter, you will see that the answer is “No.”
What about other students from Stoneman Douglas who were not allowed to speak at the CNN townhall, or at the “March for Our Lives,” or on National Public Radio, because they disagreed with the pro-gun control narrative?
Take for example, Kyle Kashuv, who is also a survivor of the Parkland, Florida high school massacre. On CBS’ “Face the Nation” he said,
And what I saw at the march yesterday which really frustrated me is that I have a different point of view, but what really concerned me was that how come I wasn’t invited to speak at the march because as Americans we all have different point of views. And it’s important to represent them all equally.
Kashuv argues that a ban on “assault weapons” and high capacity magazines will not solve the issue. Instead, he blamed the mass killing on law enforcement’s failures to enforce existing laws and practices. He concluded:
And I find it ironic that after all this and we’ve seen so many different government failures, we want to trust the government even more.
All of these students are full of passion, but when it comes to making real public policy and laws that will govern our lives, don’t adults have the responsibility to do what is both constitutional and effective to reduce incidents of violence? Isn’t it important for schools, which endorse events like the “Student Walkout” on March 24 to have a wide variety of views expressed instead of one-sided rallies that could be interpreted as weaponizing youth passions for political purposes?
At the top of the “more gun control” agenda is bringing back a ban on “assault weapons.” As David Hogg’s words above indicate, gun owners and elected officials who question this are called “sick f*ckers [who] want to continue to sell more guns, murder more children, and honestly just get reelected.”
Legislators who support the 2nd Amendment are accused of succumbing to the “viselike grip of the NRA on [their] necks,” rather than representing the views of many of their constituents who use guns responsibly.
California Congressman Eric Swalwell called for banning possession of semiautomatic “assault” weapons, buying back such weapons from all who choose to abide by that new law, and criminally prosecuting “any who choose to defy it by keeping their weapons.”
Georgia Congresswoman Erica Thomas also supports banning “assault rifles” and then denies that these would be seized from lawful gun owners, even though a bill she supported as a Georgia legislator states, “The Georgia Bureau of Investigation shall seize and take possession of any assault weapon, large capacity magazine, armor piercing bullet or incendiary fifty caliber bullet.” Her doublespeak is typical and also shows ignorance about research conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice.
California Senator Feinstein and other gun control advocates urgently advocate the renewal of the federal “Assault Weapon Ban” law that was passed in 1994 and expired in 2004. The law prohibited the manufacture and sale of semiautomatic rifles with “military-style features” such as pistol grips as well as magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition. However, a 2004 Department of Justice-funded study found no evidence that it had reduced overall gun crime or made shootings less lethal. This should not be surprising, since only about 3% of homicides are committed with rifles (including semiautomatic ones like AR-15s), while two thirds of all gun-related crimes are committed with handguns. In 8 out of 10 gun crime cases, the perpetrator was not a lawful gun owner. The “law” obviously makes little difference to criminals.
These are some of the “inconvenient truths” that gun control advocates are careful not to mention.
As pointed out by the Crime Prevention Research Center, during the past six decades, 98.4% of mass public shootings have taken place in “Gun-Free Zones,” where the legal use of firearms is not permitted. Looking at the nearly two decades from 1998 to 2015, 96% of mass public shootings have taken place in such “weapon-free” areas.
It is very apparent that this widespread approach to “reduce the number of guns” in such locations as schools, commercial areas, public open spaces, government properties, houses of worship, and health care facilities, by establishing “gun-free zones” has not worked. On the contrary, it works very well for criminals looking for a place where law-abiding citizens are forbidden to carry firearms. Having an armed security guard provides some protection, but knowing the exact location of such a person often makes him an easy target.
For example, the diary of the Batman movie theater killer, James Holmes, who murdered 12 people and injured 70 others in 2012 in Aurora, Colorado, reveals that he was debating between attacking an airport and a movie theater. He turned down the airport option because of its “substantial security.” Holmes chose instead to attack the only movie theater (out of the seven near his apartment) that had posted signs banning permitted concealed handguns.
Another sad example is the mass public shooting at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida in 2016. At least 50 people were killed and 53 others injured. As commented in the UK Daily Mail: “To make things worse, it took three hours from the time of the attack until the police entered the building.” This is further evidence that law enforcement officers are unlikely to arrive in time to save lives.
As noted in a Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) report:
Attackers will generally shoot first at any uniformed guards or officers who are present (the Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris last year illustrates that point). Alternatively, they will move on to another place without uniformed officers. The first person shot at the Orlando attack, an off-duty officer who was guarding the nightclub, was shot at before Omar Mateen entered the nightclub. In this particular case, the police only arrived on the scene after the attack occurred. That illustrates another point: it is simply impossible for the police to protect all possible targets.
It is hard to ignore how these mass public shooters consciously pick targets where they know victims won’t be able to defend themselves. And they do so for good reason given the number of mass public shootings that have been stopped by concealed handgun permit holders.
Other points to consider:
Hardly ever discussed by proponents of more gun control is the defensive use of firearms. Two comprehensive studies found that there were between 1.5 and 2.5 million defensive uses of guns in the United States each year. This means that firearms are used 80 times more often to protect the lives of citizens than to take them. The study authors explained:
Research has consistently indicated that victims who resist with a gun or other weapon are less likely than other victims to lose their property in robberies and in burglaries.
Victims who resist with guns are still substantially less likely to be injured than those who resist in other ways, and even slightly less likely to be hurt than those who do not resist at all.
In the case of rape, “victims who resisted with some kind of weapon were less likely to have the rape attempt completed against them.” In fact, every year 200,000 women successfully use a gun to defend themselves against sexual abuse.
Commenting on gun control measures, the research authors warned that laws limiting the lawful use of guns, or discouraging their use could lead to less “saved lives, prevented injuries, thwarted rape attempts, [and] driven off burglars.”
You may be asking, if there are so many defensive uses of guns by average citizens, why have we never heard about them? Good question! To make up this knowledge deficit, let me share just a few examples:
The finding of 2.5 million defensive uses of firearms per year in the U.S. suggests that there are more than 6,800 such events every day.
Opponents of civilian gun use commonly fear that widespread “concealed carry” by average citizens will result in needless fatalities, envisioning what might go wrong with inexperienced users. But the truth is the vast majority of criminology studies have found that “shall-issue” concealed carry laws with minimal restrictions reduce crime. These studies show that violent crime falls after right-to-carry laws are adopted, with bigger drops the longer the right-to-carry laws have been in effect.
The Crime Prevention Research Center reports that, while concealed carry permits tripled during the first seven years of Obama’s presidency, the murder rate dropped 16% during that same period.
Other facts to consider:
Higher criminal home invasion rates are found in gun-control countries such as Great Britain and Canada than in the U.S. London’s murder rate in February and March of 2018 surpassed New York City’s as the British capital endured a dramatic surge in knife attacks.
Predictably this has led to calls for “knife control” in the island nation. London Mayor Sadiq Khan announced a crackdown on knives in response to the rising levels of violence, saying “No excuses: there is never a reason to carry a knife.” (Seriously?) “Anyone who does will be caught and they will feel the full force of the law.”
Given the “success” of gun control laws in the UK, I wouldn’t hold my breath about the prospects for “knife control.”
But lunacy is not confined to any one nation. Here in the U.S., California Governor Jerry Brown signed a law abolishing mandatory minimum sentences for criminals who use guns to commit crimes. In other words, we need stricter laws for law-abiding citizens, but more leniency for criminals who deliberately use weapons for violent crimes? It makes no sense, of course, unless you’re a leftist, pro-gun control politician.
Rod of Iron Kingdom Chapter 8
Please see that book for more about Pastor Sean.
BUY HERE : https://www.rodofironministries.com/shop#!/Rod-Of-Iron-Kingdom-Print-Version/p/107067126/category=40947853
This phrase could possibly be the most dangerous words to our republic. You may not be paying attention to politics, but politics are paying attention to you. Conservatives have a healthy respect for our constitution and live their lives without forcing their opinions and ideas on others; a ‘live and let live’ mentality that has allowed a sinister ideology to not only exist, but now thrive.
Years of political apathy from the conservative side are taking a toll. Our school systems, from elementary to college are intentionally being used to influence, or indoctrinate, our future generations to embrace socialism and reject capitalism and even America herself! Many of our major cities are completely in the control of liberal administrations that are allowing lawlessness and politically sanctioned violence to rage at the same time they are persecuting those that stand up against it.
We have all heard; “Bernie’s just crazy.” “America will never embrace socialism.” “That will never happen.”
You are NOT the only one asking yourself “How do we right the ship?” Here’s some suggestions:
Honestly, with some of the folks we have in office, the bar has been set pretty low!
Take the 2nd Amendment, for example. It takes work to learn how to effectively communicate why you believe what you believe. If you have a heart to influence your circle, you must know facts like:
For a free download that covers short, effective 2A communications, visit https://www.dcproject.info.
is a two-time national 3-gun champion. She is a 22-year veteran of the Tulsa Police Department serving assignments in Narcotics, Gangs, Street Crimes, and Patrol. She is a CLEET law enforcement firearms instructor, a member of the NRA Law Enforcement committee, and a subcommittee member of the Department of Interior Hunting and Shooting Sports Conservation Council. Dianna is the Founder of The DC Project. She is a host of the Shooting Gallery on the Outdoor Channel.
Lobbying for a Maracopa-style audit in Pennsylvania has been frustrating, as it seems that the stumbling-block is the Senate President Pro Tempore Jake Corman and, thus, it is mandatory that this urgent need be satisfied … for the benefit of America and the world.
Candidly, I’ve been among those who have been obsessed with overturning the national fraud that has been perpetrated upon the voters; as a result, a two-pronged approach was adopted shortly after the multifaceted revelations of deceit started to emerge.
Initially, I co-wrote (with an attorney) a half-dozen essays published on an Israeli website, Arutz Sheva, that culminated in detailing a legal pathway that could be followed if only three state legislatures in battleground states voted to rescind their Electors.
Subsequently, I reviewed ten transcripts of public hearings conducted by the PA House “State Government” Committee, documenting confessions by the perpetrators of how thoroughly corrupt the November 3rd election had been.
Under oath, aberrations were confirmed to have occurred in each of the categories that comprise Peter Navarro’s distillation, dubbed his “decalogue” (with apologies to Moses).
10,000 Absentee ballots cast that arrived after Election Day
14,328 Absentee ballots cast from addresses other than where voters legally reside
58,221 Absentee ballots cast that were returned on or before the postmark date
9,005 Absentee ballots cast without a postmark (violating state law)
8,021 Dead voters
742 Double voters: in-state
7,426 Out-of-state voters who voted in-state
202,377 Over-votes (per State Representative Frank Ryan, et al.)
680,774 Poll watcher & poll observer abuse (defying SCOTUS orders)*
1,573 Voters age 100+ (suspect, per state records and obituaries)
Unfortunately, efforts to disseminate these data throughout the Commonwealth have been fruitless, despite having accrued a memo distribution list that targets 250 people (including legislators, journalists, and individuals who have expressed awe at what has been excerpted during brief chats) and attendance at election-related rallies.
These observations were discussed with Douglas G. Frank, Ph.D., whose statistic analysis is damning; he also is aghast at how there was no GOP oversight of the tabulations that were completed at the PA Convention Center.
Two Philadelphia Commissioners testified that standard procedures were unilaterally trashed “for health and safety.”
Thus, he seemed to concur that merely scrutinizing Philadelphia County would suffice when both exposing manifestations of ballot-stuffing and flipping the results.
All of this information has been well-known for months, as a letter requesting input from three counties was predictably ignored during the month of July; it had been remitted by State Senator Doug Mastriano, Chair of the “Intergovernmental Operations” Committee.
For weeks, I have advocated for involvement of the “State Government” Committees of both legislative chambers; invoking the Senate entity would undermine the charge that Mastriano was engaged in a “one man show” to enhance his gubernatorial campaign, and invoking the House entity would help distribute the workload and commitment.
And, invoking Trump’s “Art of the Deal,” I feel all counties should be probed, noting reports of rampant fraud in Montgomery and Allegheny.
To be continued ….
is a physician-activist who practices oncology/hematology in Northeast Philly. All generic assertions in this essay have been repeatedly documented in “Memos I-XLVI” [https://tinyurl.com/4zyd8urw], and all specific assertions in this essay have been documented in “Memo IV” [https://www.scribd.com/document/508103846/Election-Review-IV] following completion of grunt-work based upon review of (9 of 10) hearing transcripts/attachments by the House “State Government” Committee. The detailed legal pathway to the restoration of President Donald Trump was elucidated
