The anti-gun people like Michael Bloomberg use fear mongering coupled with misinformation to con ordinary folks into believing stricter gun laws are required. This aricle will present the facts that the Bloombergs of the world do not want you to know. Understand - whenever bureaucrats or far-left people want to fulfill an unpopular agenda like gun control, or legalizing drugs, they always resort to disseminating misinformation, and in some cases they simply and blatantly lie, to get people to accept something they normally would not support.
I will not get into all the statistics from the FBI and DOJ that overturn many of the bogus "facts" that anti-gun people spout - you can and should check those out for yourself. For example, the FBI records indicate that 61% of all gun deaths are suicide. Anyone intent on suicide will find a means of doing so, gun or no gun.
1) "Assault weapons" like the AR-15 are NOT assault weapons at all. An assault weapon is fully automatic - pull the trigger, it keeps firing until you release the trigger or it runs out of ammo. Such weapons are not available to ordinary citizens except those who have been provided a special license by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tabacco & Firearms (BATF). AR-15's available to the public are nothing more than ordinary SEMI-automatic hunting rifles (one shot for each separate pull of the trigger) that is designed to LOOK like an assault weapon. Think of it like this - just because you dress up as Superman does not make you Superman
2) Stricter gun laws actually make us less safe. Whereas criminals do not adhere to laws, gun laws only affect law-abiding citizens. Note that cities like Chicago, which have the toughest gun laws, also have the most gun crime. The reason is simple - criminals do not follow the law, and Chicago has no control over its criminal element. So ask yourself - do drug laws make people less likely to obtain drugs? Neither would more gun laws.
3) We already have sufficient gun regulation. The problem lies with the fact that liberals like Michael Bloomberg, Obama and Hillary Clinton refuse to allow them to be enforced. In fact, it was AG Eric Holder who permitted "Fast & Furious" to transport illegal weapons into the hands of Mexican drug cartels.
4) While "Universal Background Checks" sounds like common sense, nothing could be further from the truth. For starters, it could never be universal because criminals would not comply, nor do they have to. They will continue to get their weapons as they always have - black market, thefts etc. And the DOJ, itself, states that universal background checks are unenforceable without complete gun registration. And in every case, gun registration in other nations has always preceded the confiscation of guns from law-abiding citizens
5) Many of the "Universal Background Check" laws proposed by Bloomberg and others have hidden fangs that will effectively destroy our right to defend ourselves. For example, it would make criminals out of most law-abiding citizens. Some of the proposed laws are written to include things like making it a felony to loan a gun to a relative or friend for hunting, or to even let someone hold your gun to look at it. And in many instances those laws would include sections making it a crime to have the gun and the ammo anywhere near each other - what good is that if an armed intruder breaks in to do you harm?
6) The anti-gun people often use the strawman that the Second Amendment only preserves our right to have guns for hunting, and the AR-15 is not a "hunting" rifle. First, it IS a hunting rifle - it is nothing more than the same semi-auto use for hunting that is dressed in a Superman costume. More important, the Second Amendment never mentions hunting. The right to bear arms was deliberately meant to allow citizens to own AND CARRY arms for purposes of defense - defense against either individual aggressors, or the government, itself.
7) The Second Amendment specifically and clearly states that "the right of the people to KEEP and BEAR arms shall not be INFRINGED. The Bloombergs of the world want us to overlook the definitions of BEAR and INFRINGE. To bear means to carry. Infringe means to undermine; to encroach on. Whereas the Amendment states the right shall NOT be infringed, that means no one has any right or authority to prevent any legal citizen from owning or carrying a gun.
8) While the Supreme Court has ruled that the government may regulate which weapons do not fall into "personal use" category (i.e. rocket-propelled grenades, for example), any handgun or rifle that is not fully automatic is deemed to be for personal use. After all, if you are confronted by a gang of 8, do you REALLY want to have a weapon that can only hold 7 rounds because some liberal bureaucrat orders it? Don't laugh - it happened in New Orleans during Katrina, as gangs looted businesses and homes. The short take - the person who survives a lethal confrontation will ordinarily be the one who is better armed, and better trained in the use of said arms.
9) Perhaps most important: killers kill. If you take away every gun on the planet, they will STILL kill, but with different - and often more terrible - means. Look at 9-11, where a few boxcutters helped terrorists gain control of massive airplane "bombs" that murdered 3000. Or the Boston Bombers who killed and maimed with pressure cookers. And let's not forget chemical weaponry, or biological agents. Killers will kill. Guns have nothing to do with that, but in the hands of law abiding citizens those guns can help save lives. To stop a bad guy with a gun takes a good guy with a gun. And the bad guys will always have guns, no matter how many laws are passed.
Before you fall for the so-called "common sense" measures of gun control, do your homework. You will find that in EVERY instance the liberal anti-gunners have included things designed to move their gun confiscation agenda further forward, in hidden, sneaky ways - like making you and your child criminals if you hand one of your guns over to your child to take him or her hunting. Or even to teach them gun safety.
If you are not familiar with the "Overton Window" principle that unscrupulous people use to "move the needle" in their direction, you may want to read "The Overton Window" by Glenn Beck. Not a hard core Beck fan, but this is one time he definitely nailed it. The short take - they push a proposal that is on the fringe of acceptability, yet still acceptable to the public. Once that becomes the norm, the needle has been moved forward, creating a new window, further advanced. They will then push a proposal that is on the new "fringe", and so it goes. For example, they may know they cannot push gun confiscation through - yet. So they try to push more acceptable proposals that bring the concept closer, such as universal background checks. Once they move that needle forward, it is easier to pass gun registration, moving the needle even further. Eventually it results in confiscation - just as it did in the UK and Australia.
Think of it this way - you cannot sit down and eat a cow. But if you take the cow to a butcher, and you eat one burger or steak each day, eventually you will eat that cow.
'Nuff said. "Let he who hath wisdom understand."
/
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment