The problem with Constitutionalists have in the dialog relating to the Bill of Rights is the nature of the debate. Bill of Rights proponents rely on the rule of law and logic to establish their point. Bill of Rights opponents rely on emotions, fear, and propaganda to justify their statist agenda. Using logic, the argument evolves around five positions:
Criminals can be deterred from committing crimes.
Pro-Bill of Rights proponents provide overwhelming evidence that states, cities, and countries with citizen firearm rights have lower mass shootings, homicides, and crime rates.
Criminals cannot be deterred from committing crimes.
“The myth of the good guy with the gun” is a ploy put forward by Politico, the Huffington Post, Slate, and the New York Daily News with similar titles meant to cast doubt on defensive gun use. There is no evidence to support this emotional plea, in fact, just the opposite.
KU officials believe there is a relationship between CCW and gun owners and suicide. MU officials believe CCW students will shoot students that disagree with their classroom discussions.
Victims should be deterred from protecting themselves.
Bill of Rights opponents argue people should not protect themselves with firearms because of a potential for collateral victims. In gun free zones, other protective devices are also prohibited.
Victims should not be deterred from protecting themselves.
Anti-Second Amendment advocates don’t believe that potential mass shooters have second thoughts when faced with the prospect of armed citizens who can fight back. They argue everyday Americans can’t help stop attacks. Political agendas create criminals and victims.
It is increasingly hard to ignore mass public shooters choosing to attack locations, “No Gun Zones,” where victims can’t defend themselves. It’s little wonder that gun-control advocates resort to desperate tactics
Since at least 1950, all but two public mass shootings in America have taken place where general citizens are banned from carrying guns.
In Europe, every mass public shooting has occurred in a gun-free zone. In addition, they have had three of the six worst K–12 school shootings, and Europe experienced by far the worst mass public shooting perpetrated by a single individual. In 2011, 67 people were killed and 110 wounded in Norway.
Reactions to mass shootings in the United States have evolved into a routine response. Gun control groups diagnose an epidemic, the president declares a crisis calling for innocent citizens to be disarmed, and Second Amendment advocates prescribe less restrictions on Constitutional rights. Of course, anti-Bill of Rights advocates do not describe it that way.
The NRA is typically silent after mass shootings, and social-media accounts, normally fall silent. Board member Charles Cotton responded to the question of citizen rights to self-protection.
“How carefree do you have to be with all of the mass shootings that are going on throughout America to not have something as simple and convenient as a small knife when you go to class, let alone a gun with which to protect yourself? Just because you haven’t done anything offensive or wrong to someone else doesn’t mean that they won’t try to do the same to you. #MoreGunsForOurStudents,” Cotton’s post.
The question arises, in this era of out of control litigation, why have no law suits progressed from gun free zone shootings? Individuals are denied access to self-protection in public areas where gunmen with personal, religious, and political agendas are allowed access without counter.
What can you do to protect yourself?
First, stay away from gun free zones hosting concerts, sporting events, and malls (especially on weekends and busy shopping days). These are favorite targets. Look to Europe’s bombings in the sixties and seventies.
The economic impact of denying dollars to organizations and events that are hostile to the Bill of Rights will be felt in the first weekend.
Do not support companies that undermine and support anti-Bill of Rights positions, celebrities, and candidates. The Center for American Progress’s (CAP) is one of those organizations. In case you do not know about CAP, they get funding from Apple, Citi Group, Google, Mars, Microsoft, Walmart, Bank of America, Daimler, Goldman Sachs, PepsiCo, Time Warner, Visa, American Express, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Coca-Cola, CVS, Facebook, Morgan Stanley, Pearson, PG&E, Samsung, Starbucks, and Wells Fargo. In case you are curious, CAP funnels money to Hillary Clinton’s campaign financial groups. CAP supports and contributes articles to Al Jazeera.
If you have to go to a potential target for an event, stay away from main entrances and near minor exits. Use situational threat analysis techniques to identify threats.
If you carry CCW, make sure it is really concealed and you are proficient.
the nra has been targeted as a scape goat.
What have they done?
Fought against politicians who have agendas that include dismantling the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.
The NRA has been effective in funding pro-Bill of Rights candidates in the fight against statists that look to remove the limitations set by the Bill of Rights.
Your membership sets the bar in protecting the Constitution.
According to the President of the United States, YOU are responsible for the San Bernardino shooting. The administration and democrats want to enforce gun control on lawful citizens and disarm America.
“Fundamental change in America” is allowing terrorists and criminals to rule the streets and invade our homes, neighborhoods, malls, and work places. And the government blames the citizen and the Bill of Rights. No rational thought is given to the ineffective strict gun regulations in California, Colorado, Oregon, or Paris.
The administration ignores the waves of Muslim wars against Christians beginning in 634 AD which have not subsided. The administration ignores the waves of human rights violations, cruelty, and violence of Islam today, or throughout history in a feeble, but effective campaign to take guns from American citizens. Even the liberalizing Supreme Court stepped in to uphold bans on semiautomatic rifles this week.
Anti-assault weapon laws don’t target guns used for murder. They targeted guns that look too military-like.
As the United States Defense Department defines “assault rifles” as “short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges. Assault rifles are battlefield rifles which can fire automatically.
Weapons capable of fully automatic fire, including assault rifles, have been regulated heavily in the United States since the National Firearms Act of 1934. Taking possession of such weapons requires paying a $200 federal transfer tax and submitting to an FBI background check, including fingerprints.
Civilian AR-15s are not automatic weapons. The AR and M-16 may look alike, but they are different rifles. The term semiautomatic really means auto loader. Whether a auto loading firearm is used or a revolver, every time the trigger is pulled a shot is fired. In an automatic weapon, the rifle continues to fire until the three shot limiter is reached, or until the magazine is empty.
The military replaced semiautomatic rifles during Vietnam with the M-16. The M-16 is a machine gun. For most of its history, it has been a fully-automatic weapon. When the trigger is squeezed on an automatic weapon, bullets keep firing until you stop squeezing. The U.S. military has shied away from automatic firing, and the newest M-16s have other settings. The three-shot burst preserves ammo and increases discipline among soldiers in combat.
AR-15s do not have the three-shot burst that the military’s current M-16s have. They do not have the automatic-fire option that most people associate with the M-16. Even the modern M-16s used by the U.S. military do not have the automatic option.
Semi-automatic firearms were introduced more than a century ago. The first semi-automatic rifle was introduced in 1885, the first semi-automatic pistol in 1892, and the first semi-automatic shotgun in 1902.
Semi-automatics account for about 20 percent of the 300 million privately-owned firearms in the United States and the percentage is quickly rising, because semi-automatics now account for about 50 percent of all new firearms bought annually. Americans bought about five million new semi-automatics in 2012.
Semi-automatics fire only one shot when the trigger is pulled—like revolvers, bolt-actions, lever-actions, pump-actions, double-barrels and all other types of firearms except fully-automatics (machine guns).
Semi-automatics are not “high-powered” compared to other firearms. Semi-automatic rifles and shotguns use the same ammunition as many other rifles and shotguns. Semi-automatic handguns use ammunition that is shaped differently at the cartridge case base. Semi-automatics are used for the same purposes as other firearms, including self-defense, hunting, and recreational and competitive target shooting.
Semi-automatics that gun control supporters call “assault weapons” cannot:
they aren’t designed to be fired “from the hip,”
they aren’t “easy to convert” into machine guns, and
they’re not used by the military or by terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Contrary to the absurd claims of Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), they’re not “weapons of mass destruction,” there are no devices that allow them to be converted into machine guns legally, and they aren’t equipped with “grenade launchers” and “rocket launchers.”
Gun control activists began campaigning against “assault weapons” in the late 1980s, after they realized that their previous campaign to get handguns banned had failed. In 1988, handgun ban activist Josh Sugarmann recommended to other gun control groups:
[A]ssault weapons . . . will . . . strengthen the handgun restriction lobby . . . . [H]andgun restriction consistently remains a non-issue with the vast majority of legislators, the press, and public. . . . Assault weapons . . . are a new topic. The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. . . . Efforts to restrict assault weapons are more likely to succeed than those to restrict handguns.
The current debate is not about the gun. It is about political power and assault on government restrictions on protected individual rights.
The semiautomatics seen on television following the San Bernardino shootings present an interesting dilemma. On the surface, the simple message is, “assault weapons” were legally purchased and used.
The facts are different. The weapons were obtained in an illegal “straw purchase.” A friend purchased the weapons recovered at the massacre. One of the suspects used the semiautomatic rifle at a gun range. The clerk stated the smoke from the gun indicated the gun was new and the shooter was not familiar with its operation.
The straw purchase is a criminal offense. That the friend went to a mental health facility immediate promotes the “crazy person” narrative the media has been engaged. It also enhances criminal defense. The friend, at least, is an accessory before the fact if the purchases reported by the federal government are true. Look to the federal government response to police shootings as a reference point.
The semiautomatic is a horrible assault weapon in these shootings. It is big and unwieldy. The recoil is excessive in small areas. When attached to hostage recovery and police special operations, a large rifle was the least effective weapon in close quarters. Its presence was a great deterrence.
Who would gain from the outlawing of assault weapons? Why did ISIS terrorists use weapons that incite the media? Why would they use weapons they were not familiar with?
Though the AR-15 is not effective in assaulting, it is excellent at defending an area. The police has not released the information, but it makes sense handguns were used in the actual shooting and the AR-15 was used in the car chase. This has been the case in other shootings over the years.
The misuse of stereotypes is not restricted to guns. “They were radicalized” is a term to shift reality to an allusion that fits the agenda. The president goes on television and says he has to stop all citizens from owning guns because he does not know who the bad guys and girls are. The narrative even stated they could not be ISIS because of the woman. None of the media and government collective agenda holds up to facts.
The president tells the people that because the administration cannot identify any of the bad guys and girls, even if they are Muslim, we should not judge all Muslims. In the same breath, the government proposes these are normal Muslims that were radicalized.
Perhaps Gun Free Zones should be held accountable. Muslims need to be held accountable. Christians, agnostic and atheists should be held accountable. If any group wants to avoid stereotypes and repercussions, the leaders and followers need to set down agendas and fix the problems from within. We need to preach and practice what is non-violent and supports Constitutional law and the right for people to protect themselves and their property.