Well, maybe argue is too strong a word, since you never get a cogent argument out of any gun-grabber anyway. What you see here is what happens when you force a leftist to look at rational facts about gun control.
Posts Tagged With: CPL
Sometimes you find something that says it all and says it right, and with Mr. Carl Stevenson’s comment on the GodfatherPolitics.com article, Stop Trying to Reason with Anti-gun Advocates, that is just what we have. Thanks Carl!
With all of the hysteria, hype, and misinformation regarding gun control that’s emanating from the “progressive” left and flooding the media in the aftermath of the recent tragic shootings in Oregon and Connecticut, there are many important things that need to be raised into the public consciousness and which are deserving of serious consideration by the public.
I’m going to start with the origins of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (“the GCA68”), since it’s in many ways the seed from which the misnamed “Assault Weapons Ban” of 1994-2004 (the “AWB94”) sprung.
Since reinstating and expanding the AWB94 is the immediate goal of Senator Diane Feinstein and her fellow tyrant wannabes, knowledge of the roots from which the ban sprung is important.
Most people don’t know that the Gun Control Act of 1968 was “written” by Senator Thomas Dodd (ironically, D-CT), the father of Senator Chris Dodd (also, D-CT), a major proponent of the AWB94.
I put the word “written” in quotes above, because Dodd actually had the Library of Congress translate Hitler’s gun laws from the original German and used them almost word for word in “crafting” the law.
This is WELL documented … poke around at http://www.jpfo.org and you’ll find the proof of that little-known fact, and much more of interest. (In particular, see http://jpfo.org/alerts/alert20…, but do poke around more on the JPFO website – there’s a wealth of useful information there.)
OK, now that we’ve established the heritage of the AWB94, let’s explore the facts about both the myths that are circulating about the weapons they seek to ban and the general outcome which has, historically, always followed the disarmament of a population.
The Bushmaster AR-15 and similar civilian weapons that Feinstein et al are demonizing and want to ban are NOT assault rifles at all. Don’t give the gun banners any leeway on these lies and distortions. Their intent is to confuse and misinform those who don’t know any better. In other words, they’re lying.
Tell people the truth … tell them that the AR-15 is not really functionally different than other rifles except that it outwardly RESEMBLES the M-16/M4 machine gun that our troops use. (For reasons of economy in manufacturing, the inherent reliability and maintainability of the underlying design, and other factors, there are a lot of common parts, but the important ones that determine function are designed to preclude illegal conversion to fully-automatic operation like the military weapons with which the gun-banners want you to confuse them.)
The guns they want to ban are NOT machine guns, as the gun grabbers and media try to convince you. They do NOT “spray bullets” as military weapons do. However their outward appearance, combined with deliberate untruths and the use of incorrect terminology, makes it easier for the deceivers to demonize these guns as they try to build support for banning them. (Which is, of course, just a step towards further bans in the future.)
Also impress up on people that the AR-15 and functionally similar guns are NOT “only suitable for a war zone” as the ban’s proponents and media personalities keep saying, but that they are, in fact, NOT really suitable for combat use at all because of their limitations. (Our troops would be SERIOUSLY out-gunned if they went into battle with AR-15s.)
Further, they are not “heavy weapons” as some of the media people keep saying. Inform people of the factual reality that these weapons are actually considerably LESS powerful than most of their grandpa’s deer rifles – to the point that in many states it’s illegal to hunt game larger than groundhogs and coyotes with the .223/5.56mm round that the AR-15 fires.
The public has to be informed so that they understand that they are deliberately being misled and misinformed by the media to advance the citizen disarmament agenda of leftist tyrant wannabes in our government. (These same people through DHS and other alphabet agencies have recently purchased over 1.5 BILLION rounds of ammo – enough to shoot every man, woman, and child in the country 3-4 times – ammo that’s illegal for military use under international law). Considering that the you and I and all of the other US taxpayers are paying for all of this ammo, it’s frighteningly reminiscent of the story of political prisoners’ families being forced to pay for the bullets used to execute them … isn’t it?
If we allow these leftist control freaks to ignore and ultimately gut the 2nd Amendment, history will inevitably repeat itself. These “gun control” proposals have NOTHING to do with preventing crime, but EVERYTHING to do with CONTROL.
Hitler disarmed the Jews and others, then murdered about 15 million.
Stalin disarmed the Russians, them murdered about 40 million.
Mao disarmed the Chinese peasants, then murdered nearly 100 million.
The Turks disarmed the Armenians, then murdered 1.5-2 million.
Pol Pot disarmed the Cambodians and murdered millions.
Rwanda disarmed its ethnic groups, then murdered millions.
The list goes on … over 170 million people murdered BY THEIR OWN GOVERNMENTS in the 20th century – AFTER they allowed those governments disarmed them.
They ALL thought “It can’t happen here” – until they were disarmed and it started, then it was too late. Don’t make the same mistake. Don’t EVER let your government disarm you.
The Founders knew that government, if not constrained at every step, will continue to accumulate power and control until it becomes tyranny. That’s why they feared standing armies and insisted that the “right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
“Never forget, even for an instant, that the one and only reason anybody has for taking your gun away is to make you weaker than he is, so he can do something to you that you wouldn’t let him do if you were equipped to prevent it. This goes for burglars, muggers, and rapists, and even more so for policemen, bureaucrats, and politicians.” – Aaron Zelman and L. Neil Smith, Hope (2001)’
It takes only a minute to see that no amount of gun control would have prevented the school massacre in Connecticut. After all, the shooter, Lanza, had already broken a number of other laws, and most of Connecticut’s already stringent gun control laws, before he ever pulled the trigger.
In an article appearing on www.wnd.com, Drew Zahn observed that “if you count theft, murder and breaking and entering – since CBS New York now reports it likely Lanza broke into the school through a window to circumvent a locked-door and intercom security system – [Lanza] would have violated a half-dozen laws in his crime, including the following gun-control statutes: First, Connecticut law requires a person be over 21 to possess a handgun. Lanza was 20. Second, Connecticut requires a permit to carry a pistol on one’s person, a permit Lanza did not have. Third, it is unlawful in Connecticut to possess a firearm on public or private elementary or secondary school property, a statute Lanza clearly ignored. Fourth, with details on the Bushmaster rifle still sketchy, it’s possible Lanza may have violated a Connecticut law banning possession of “assault weapons.” Lanza’s known personality disorder would have also likely stopped him from legally owning and carrying a firearm, adding a fifth violation of the state’s gun control laws.
What does this tell us? To me it represents a terrible failure in the ideology that contends that you can stop crime by regulating the instruments of crime, in this case guns. Great Britain saw what happens when you try that. In the 1990s, they banned nearly all guns. What happened? Home invasions, armed robberies, rape, murder, assaults, and other crimes of violence shot up. “How could this happen?” I hear you cry. “They banned all the guns.” They only reached the lawful gun owners with their ban. The criminals, deeming it better for their career prospects, hung onto their guns. American criminals will do the same. So, if the gun grabbers get their way, the the bumper sticker slogan will come true, and only outlaws will have guns. Moreover, the people, once free citizens, will turn into subjects of the government, and the socialist revolution of the U.S. will be complete. The State will be in charge, and the people will just have to keep their mouths shut (1st Amendment rights will be next, they are already under attack from the Leftists and the Muslims) and obey.
It is time for the People to recognize the threat to their freedom posed by gun control zealots, and for government to finally accept an idea that the rest of us figured out a long time ago: that gun control is a failure and that an armed society of free citizens is a safer, more civil, society than one under the jack boot of the almighty State.
According to Fox News, Connecticut kindergarten shooter, 20-year old Adam Lanza, “was believed to suffer from a personality disorder and lived with his mother, said a law enforcement official who was briefed on the investigation but was not authorized to discuss it. A law enforcement official speaking on condition of anonymity said investigators believe Lanza attended the school several years ago but appeared to have no recent connection to it.” Lanza, described as “brilliant but remote” shot and killed his mother, Nancy Lanza, who was a teacher at the school, and then drove her car to the school itself to carry out his attack. The guns, according to Fox, were legally owned and registered to his mother.
So, what do we take away from all that? The Leftist gun-grabbers and their lackeys in Hollywood call it proof that we need to disarm Americans, but for those who: A) Don’t follow Obama’s Leftist totalitarian agenda; and/or B) Are not craven “peace at any cost” cowards, the lessons are very different. They are:
- Gun control does not protect anyone. Those intent on committing crimes of violence do not adhere to gun laws.
- Gun free zones are really mass murder zones. All school shootings have one thing in common: the victims could not fight back. Had a teacher or two been armed, then maybe Lanza would have been killed before he shot so many kids.
- No one can stop the unthinkable from happening. Those intent on mayhem and destruction will always find a way. Consider the knife-wielding Chinese man who attacked a school and seriously injured over 20 children. If a maniac has no gun, he will make do with a knife or some other weapon.
We cannot, must not, surrender our liberty because of a tragedy, even though the leftists in power–through their propagandists in the media and useful idiots in Hollywood–are demanding we do exactly that. We must educate the people around us, and demand proper and useful self-defense in all places and at all times.
The best way to stop a mass murderer like Adam Lanza in his tracks is to shoot back.
The unthinkable has happened. In Illinois, a state dominated by Chicago’s leftist anti-gun culture, there is going to be legal concealed carry. In fact, it is going to happen within the next 180 days. That was the deadline given to the Illinois Legislature by Judge Posner, who wrote the opinion for the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago.
By stating that Illinois failed to meet its constitutional burden in the case, Posner handed Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan her worst personal courtroom defeat. In his Stevens Opinion, Posner wrote:
A blanket prohibition on carrying gun in public prevents a person from defending himself anywhere except inside his home; and so substantial a curtailment of the right of armed self-defense requires a greater showing of justification than merely that the public might benefit on balance from such a curtailment, though there is no proof it would. In contrast, when a state bans guns merely in particular places, such as public schools , a person can preserve an undiminished right of self-defense by not entering those places; since that’s a lesser burden, the state doesn’t need to prove so strong a need. Similarly, the state can prevail with less evidence when, as in Skoien, guns are forbidden to a class of persons who present a higher than average risk of misusing a gun. See also Ezell v. City of Chicago, supra, 651 F.3d at 708. And empirical evidence of a public safety concern can be dispensed with altogether when the ban is limited to obviously dangerous persons such as felons and the mentally ill. Heller v. District of Columbia, supra, 554 U.S. at 626. Illinois has lots of options for protecting its people from being shot without having to eliminate all possibility of armed self-defense in public.
In short, Illinois had to show that a substantial benefit to the people associated with disarming them in public. Madigan could not do that, there is no such substantial benefit, so she lost. Honest citizens, on the other hand, were the winners. “The debate is over,” said Todd Vandermyde, a lobbyist for the National Rifle Association. “We won. And there will be a statewide carry law in 2013.”
That is the good news…
Here is the bad news. The Illinois Legislature can still keep Illinois residents from carrying and yet fulfill Judge Posner’s order to the letter.
There are two types of concealed carry laws: May Issue and Must Issue. A May Issue state gives the local sheriff or other governing body the power to refuse to give a qualified applicant a concealed carry license, generally for any reason they like. The State of Maryland is currently defending its May Issue law in federal court, since they refuse almost everyone. Must Issue states require the licensing body to give the license if the applicant meets the legal requirements. The law gives the licensing body no discretion in the matter. Michigan is a Must Issue state.
My prediction is that Illinois, under the heavy boots of Chicago democrats, will adopt a May Issue law under which Cook County, where Chicago is located, will still be able to keep law abiding people from carrying pistols for self-defense. So will other anti-gun counties, while people living in downstate counties will enjoy their new freedom.
This order will not stop the legal and political fights over guns and self-defense in Illinois, but it is a great start.
I am often dismayed by the vapid, flaccid attitude of police agencies after a private citizen defends themselves. That is, after all, what the whole concealed carry movement is about–self-defense. All too often, some mealy-mouthed toadie gets up in front of the media and goes on about the dangers of using a gun to defend yourself rather than congratulating the would-be victim for their courage and resolve in the face of danger. It is sad to see the depth to which we, as a society, have sunk.
Consider, for a moment, the incident that took place last Monday at a San Jose, California, jewelry store. Two armed robbers enter the store. When they commanded the lady who owns the store to produce the loot, she produced a pistol instead, firing a shot in the direction of the bandits and sending them running. She defended herself in a terrifying, highly-stressed situation and came out of it all unscathed. Now, what do you think the San Jose Police Department had to say about it?
Albert Morales, the San Jose Police spokesman, said, “We don’t recommend (drawing a gun or firing). We would have preferred that they just go ahead and comply with the request or demands of the robbers. Again they were after material items that could be replaced and again our biggest fear is that somebody would have gotten hurt, injured and possibly even died.”
How’s that for letting criminals know where they stand in San Jose? I can hear the collective sigh of relief coming from thieves, robbers, pickpockets, burglars and others who have made larceny their profession in and around San Jose. The police prefer compliance to self-defense, submission to standing your ground. No charges were filed, since the shop owner did not actually commit a crime, but Morales made it clear that the police, and presumably the City of San Jose, feel about her exercise of her right to defend herself.
That is the real crime in all of this. Morales is not scolding the thieves, he is scolding the victim. By doing that, he is telling the criminals of San Jose that they should not have to fear the people they prey upon; that the police feel their pain and would like to keep anything so untoward from happening to them ever again. Morales is worried that someone might have died. He’s right, the lady shop owner could have died. She could have been raped first and then killed. The possibilities of what they might have done to her are staggering. None of that happened, of course. She ensured that by drawing her weapon and pulling the trigger, a clear message to the robbers that their own lives were in peril. That was a message they heeded, running headlong out of the store and into a waiting SUV.
Law enforcement has to be made to understand that the armed citizen is not a threat or a problem for them to solve. Instead, they should appreciate such citizens for doing something that police have never actually been able to do: lower the crime rate. The rise in the number of armed citizens has lead to lower rates of violent crime across the board. Why? Because more often than not, the armed citizen actually shoots at their assailant. For any San Jose (or Chicago, New York, Washington D.C., etc.) cops who might be reading this, that means the would-be victim makes it dangerous to be a criminal. As a result of the increased danger, there is less crime. It is no more complicated than that.
Here is the video: Police Want Victims to Comply with Robbers
Having your concealed pistol license (CPL) does not mean you have carte blanche to carry your gun just anywhere you like. In fact, if you do carry into one of these forbidden zones (also known as “free mass murder zones”), you face criminal sanctions. In Michigan, for example, those sanctions range from a state civil infraction that carries a $500.00 fine and a six month suspension of your CPL for a first offense, to a 4-year felony, $5000.00 fine, and license revocation for third and subsequent offenses. Check on the specific laws in your state, but in Michigan the following are pistol free zones:
- Schools or school property but may carry while in a vehicle on school property while dropping off or picking up if a parent or legal guardian
- Public or private day care center, public or private child caring agency, or public or private child placing agency.
- Sports arena or stadium
- A tavern where the primary source of income is the sale of alcoholic liquor by the glass consumed on the premises
- Any property or facility owned or operated by a church, synagogue, mosque, temple, or other place of worship, unless the presiding official allows concealed weapons
- An entertainment facility that the individual knows or should know has a seating capacity of 2,500 or more
- A hospital
- A dormitory or classroom of a community college, college, or university
“Premises” does not include the parking areas of the places listed above.