There are some people who believe the #NeverAgain movement is getting too much mainstream attention compared to BLM.
After all, African Americans make up 47% of crime victims in a country where they are ~15% of the population. 91% of those victims were killed by another African American.
Yet, because 17 people were tragically killed in a school shooting the media and left-wing is again pushing for weapons bans against law-abiding citizens, when in Chicago there were 286 shootings and 78 slayings through the first two months of 2018.
Because the entire media has thrown away facts, we can understand that this is part of an agenda to disarm law-abiding citizens, not stop gun murder.
Don’t follow these links unless you want a dose of mental carcinogens…
It’s time to bring back the assault weapons ban, gun violence experts say – Washington Post
Florida Republican congressman calls for ban on assault weapon sales, other measures – CNN
GUN RIGHTS: FORMER U.S. SERVICEMAN CALLS FOR BAN ON SEMI-AUTOMATIC WEAPONS – NewsWeek
House Democrats introduce bill prohibiting sale of semi-automatic weapons – Washington Examiner
Pa. senator calls for ban on 150 semi-automatic gun models – ABC 27
Dems introduce bill banning assault weapons – The Hill
It’s not a ban, and it’s not the answer to mass shootings
“This is the worst kind of gun control. Any measure that preserves the ability of criminals to access guns while restricting the access of law-abiding Americans is a measure that fundamentally impairs the very purpose of the Second Amendment. For the law-abiding, the existing stock of tens (hundreds?) of millions of weapons and magazines would instantly become more expensive. Yet with the slightest premeditation, a criminal could easily circumvent the ban. It’s a simple matter, in fact, to make your own high-capacity magazine.
Moreover, it’s sheer speculation that a ban on so-called assault weapons would reduce mass shootings, reduce gun suicides, or reduce overall gun violence. Rifles are rarely used in “normal” gun crimes (blunt objects and fists kill more people), and you don’t need an AR-15 to kill yourself (rifle suicides are rare). And as ample, grim experience shows, you don’t need an AR-15 to commit a horrific mass killing. America’s worst school shooting — the Virginia Tech massacre — was committed with handguns, and the list of deadly handgun shootings is long and sad.
Mass shooters are among the most committed criminals in the entire United States. They often fantasize about their attacks for years and plan them for months. They can find an AR-15. Yet an AR-15 isn’t an indispensable weapon for a spree killer. They have options.”
How Gun Ownership Protects Citizens From An Abusive Government
those who are unconvinced that civilian gun ownership protects against authoritarianism would do well to give the argument some more thought.
If well-armed citizens could not defend themselves against the U.S. Army, terrorist groups such as ISIS should have shriveled and died long ago. Instead, the U.S. government has been operating in the Middle East since 1990 trying to stamp out whichever comparatively low-budget terrorist group or rogue state was causing chaos. Still, the United States has not succeeded.
If the U.S. government did try to force its citizens into an authoritarian governing system, it would not be wise to use its vast arsenal to bomb cities and destroy infrastructure like it has in places like Raqqa, Syria. The government would be spending money to blow its own assets to pieces.
Who would be carrying out the government’s attacks? Many members of the armed forces would be appalled at the idea of unleashing U.S. military force upon their own country–especially an armed country. Although some members of the military would undoubtedly be loyal to an authoritarian government, many would side with the civilians.
History provides many examples of an armed populace keeping its government in check. Peter Leeson, a professor of economics and law at George Mason University, contends that the ownership of longbows among non-nobles likely led to the Magna Carta’s final reissue. Once documents establishing universal rights bound the aristocrats and royals, politics became more stable and monarchs abused power less frequently. Society respected the rights of the lower classes much more broadly.
Stripping people of self-defense is not only a violation of rights, it spits in the face of America’s own beginnings. The American Revolution itself could not have happened without an armed populace. The U.S. Army was outgunned and often outmaneuvered, but Americans aren’t singing “God Save the Queen” before sporting events because individuals had the agency to protect themselves from an overbearing government.
Many more examples of armed civilian resistance to unwanted government authority exist: America’s failure in Vietnam, the 1989 overthrow of Romanian Communist Nicolae Ceausescu, and the ongoing Syrian Civil War, to name a few.
The Bielski partisans, a small group of Jewish guerilla World War II fighters, were able to protect more than 1,200 Jews from dying at the hands of the Nazis. The group’s main focus was to protect women, children, and the elderly. The Weimar Republic had disarmed its citizens in 1931, and Adolf Hitler’s party seized power in 1933.
It would be foolish to claim an armed German populace would have somehow stunted Hitler’s rise to power, but from their forest headquarters the Bielski partisans were able to run “one of the most successful rescue efforts during the Holocaust,” accordingto the U.S. Memorial Holocaust Museum’s website. That’s obviously a positive benefit to an armed populace.
Armed civilians have the power to resist a bad government, and the collective force of millions of armed Americans absolutely acts as a deterrent to increased authoritarianism from its own leaders.
There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, and this number is not disputed. U.S. population 324,059,091 as of Wednesday, June 22, 2016. Do the math: 0.000000925% of the population dies from gun related actions each year. Statistically speaking, this is insignificant! What is never told, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths, to put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death:
• 65% of those deaths are by suicide which would never be prevented by gun laws
• 15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified
• 17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons – gun violence
• 3% are accidental discharge deaths
So technically, “gun violence” is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100. Still too many? Well, first, how are those deaths spanned across the nation?
• 480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago
• 344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore
• 333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit
• 119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C. (a 54% increase over prior years)
So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of those cities have strict gun laws, so it is not the lack of law that is the root cause.
This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation, or about 75 deaths per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others. For example, California had 1,169 and Alabama had 1.
Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California, of course, but understand, so it is not guns causing this. It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So if all cities and states are not created equally, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths.
Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? How about in comparison to other deaths? All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission of a crime but that is the nature of crime. Robbery, death, rape, assault all is done by criminals and thinking that criminals will obey laws is ludicrous. That’s why they are criminals.
But what about other deaths each year?
• 40,000+ die from a drug overdose–THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THAT!
• 36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the criminal gun deaths
• 34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities(exceeding gun deaths even if you include suicide)
• In 2015, 10,265 people died in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (29%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States. Of the 1,132 traffic deaths among children ages 0 to 14 years in 2015, 209 (16%) involved an alcohol-impaired driver.
The National Safety Council reports that cell phone use while driving leads to 1.6 million crashes each year. Nearly 330,000 injuries occur each year from accidents caused by texting while driving. 1 out of every 4 car accidents in the United States is caused by texting and driving.
Now it gets good:
• 200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical errors. You are safer in Chicago than when you are in a hospital!
• 710,000 people die per year from heart disease. It’s time to stop the double cheeseburgers! So what is the point? If Obama and the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart disease, even a 10% decrease in cardiac deaths would save twice the number of lives annually of all gun-related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.). A 10% reduction in medical errors would be 66% of the total gun deaths or 4 times the number of criminal homicides……Simple, easily preventable 10% reductions!
So you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the focus on guns? It’s pretty simple.
Taking away guns gives control to governments.
Remember, when it comes to “gun control,” the important word in “gun control” is “control”
Gun Control Fails: What Happened in England, Ireland, and Canada
If gun-control advocates want to claim credit for recent declines in homicide rates, they’ll need to explain why they remain blameless for increases in the murder rates that came on the heels of increasing gun controls through much of the 20th century. Of course, in these countries, one could also claim that the lack of sufficiently restrictive gun control was what really caused the increases in homicides mid-century, and that it was the build-up in restrictive laws that finally took effect ten or twenty years ago, thus pushing down homicide rates.
However, this could not be applied to the US where gun ownership has expanded in recent years while homicide rates have fallen.
United States: Homicide Rate Has Collapsed Since the 1970s
Naturally, we should take a look at the US to get a sense of what is happening there during this time period. According to the WHO data, murder rates increased significantly in the United States during the 1960, hitting a peak of 10.5 homicides per 100,000 in 1974. After a series of ups and downs during the 1980s and early 90s, homicides began a significant decline:
Source: World Health Organization
According to the data published by the World Bank, up through 2012, the homicide rate in the US has continued to decline over the past decade, and is now back at 1950s or early 1960s levels:
Source: World Bank
Of course, during this period in the United States, gun ownership rates have exploded, with enormous increases in total gun ownership. I examine gun totals here.
Moreover, the number of conceal carry permits has increased significantly over the past twenty years, and as the Washington Times recently noted:
Since 2007, the number of concealed handgun permits has soared from 4.6 million to over 12.8 million, and murder rates have fallen from 5.6 killings per 100,000 people to just 4.2, about a 25 percent drop…
Meanwhile, the federal “assault” weapons ban expired in 2004 and numerous states greatly expanded their provisions for conceal carry.
The homicide rate has steadily declined over this period. Not surprisingly, a 2003 CDC report on gun violence concludes:
The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes.
And that was before the continued declines in homicides that occurred during the decade following 2003.
One of the biggest problems facing this nation is the amount of money that has been “sequestered,” to term it, for “Non-Profit Organizations,” or “NPO’s.” Why? They present a problem when they can be used by an unscrupulous individual or groups of unscrupulous individuals (for examples, a George Soros, or the Democratic Party respectively). What is an NPO? Let’s look at what they are and see if the definition is characterized by actual NPO actions.
Here is an excerpt from a book that describes NPO’s (what they should be):
“The main financial difference between a for-profit and a not-for-profit enterprise is what happens to the profit. In a for-profit company like Ford or Microsoft or Disney or your favorite fast-food establishment, profits are paid to the owners, including shareholders. But a nonprofit can’t do that. Any profit remaining after the bills are paid has to be plowed back into the organization’s service program. So profit can’t be distributed to individuals, such as the organization’s board of directors, who are volunteers in every sense of the word.”
“Nonprofit Kit for Dummies,” ISBN: 0-7645-5347-X, pg. 8
Austere and stoic, these NPO’s, all! Ahh, but what is conveniently left out is the salary portion…for the directors. Those salaries are written off as an operating expense by the “Non-Profit,” but they’re hardly the funds gleaned by a “simple volunteer for the beneficent NPO.” Another paragraph from the book shows this:
…for the most part, we’re talking about an organization that the Internal Revenue Service has classified as a 501(c)(3). They receive exemption from federal income taxes and sometimes relief from property taxes at the local level. Nonprofit organizations classified as 501(c)(3) receive extra privileges under the law. They are, with minor exceptions, the only group of tax-exempt organizations that can receive tax-deductible contributions from individuals and organizations.
Being a nonprofit organization does not mean that an entity is exempt from paying all taxes. Nonprofit organizations pay employment taxes just like for-profit businesses do. In some states, but not all, nonprofits are exempt from paying sales tax…”
President Truman created the CIA.
He explained that it was solely an attempt to consolidate intelligence from many different intelligence agencies (page 285):
I needed … the President needed at that time a central organization that would bring all the various intelligence reports we were getting in those days, and there must have been a dozen of them, maybe more, bring them all into one organization so that the President would get one report on what was going on in various parts of the world. Now that made sense, and that’s why I went ahead and set up what they called the Central Intelligence Agency.
But in the 1970s, he told his biographer, Merle Miller (page 285):
I think [creation of the CIA] was a mistake. And if I’d know what was going to happen, I never would have done it.
Why, they’ve got an organization over there in Virginia now that is practically the equal of the Pentagon in many ways. And I think I’ve told you, one Pentagon is one too many.
Now, as nearly as I can make out, those fellows in the CIA don’t just report on wars and the like, they go out and make their own, and there’s nobody to keep track of what they’re up to. They spend billions of dollars on stirring up trouble so they’ll have something to report on. They’ve become … it’s become a government all of its own and all secret. They don’t have to account to anybody.
That’s a very dangerous thing in a democratic society, and it’s got to be put a stop to. The people have got a right to know what those birds are up to. And if I was back in the White House, people would know. You see, the way a free government works, there’s got to be a housecleaning every now and again, and I don’t care what branch of the government is involved. Somebody has to keep an eye on things.
And when you can’t do any housecleaning because everything that goes on is a damn secret, why, then we’re on our way to something the Founding Fathers didn’t have in mind. Secrecy and a free, democratic government don’t mix. And if what happened at the Bay of Pigs doesn’t prove that, I don’t know what does. You have got to keep an eye on the military at all times, and it doesn’t matter whether it’s the birds in the Pentagon or the birds in the CIA.
Similarly, President Kennedy said he wanted “to splinter the CIA in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds”. But he was assassinated a month later.
Hat tip to Jeff Deist.
They will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless.
“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered…. I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies…. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.”
(Author of the Declaration of Independence, Founding Father, President of the United States of America)