Tag Archives: concealed carry

Joe Biden is Absolutely Certain That He Speaks for Every Law Abiding Citizen In the United States on Constitutional Gun Rights!

Biden admits that gun control won't save lives

Joe Biden is absolutely sure that he speaks for you when he says “No law abiding citizen in the United States is afraid that their Constitutional rights will be infringed in any way! None… Zero!”. Either his statement is completely ignorant or I must not be a law abiding citizen. I know a lot of people who are afraid of our Constitutional rights being infringed.

[Furthermore how does this brilliant man have the the ability to know the thoughts of all law abiding Americans? We don’t know. Perhaps it’s ESP? Perhaps they really are bugging Joe Biden Gun Quoteall of our phones and listening to all of our conversations? No, he probably couldn’t have gotten that information from bugging all law abiding citizens phones, because way too many Americans are having conversations about how they fear the government is infringing on their rights… Furthermore, if you can’t get all law abiding citizens in America to agree on simple facts, like the grass being green or the sky being blue, it is CERTAIN that you can’t get 100% to agree on such a controversial and emotional topic. Once again, Biden proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that he has a hollow, whistling sound between his ears.]

The fact that that he also advised women living in some areas to commit crime, doesn’t seem to concern him. In many areas, it is illegal to fire warning shots.

“Tom Shellenberger, a lawyer who serves as a spokesman for the Delaware State Sportsmen’s Association, told U.S. News that Biden’s security tip was ‘the worst type of advice,'” reports U.S. News.

“I am a member of the Delaware Bar, as is Vice President Biden,” noted Shellenberger. “There are a number of statutory restrictions that could be violated by shooting a shotgun ‘off the porch.'”

In addition to felony charges, Shellenberger cited the “Discharge of a firearm within 15 yards of a road (7 Del.C. § 719), a misdemeanor,” and “Violation of the residential dwelling safety zone as set forth in 7 Del.C. § 723, also a misdemeanor.”

He probably didn’t intend to recommend that women commit crime. It’s was probably just an honest mistake due to his own ignorance.

According to USNews, Mrs. Biden could be charged in Delaware with aggravated menacing – a felony – and reckless endangering in the first degree. ”You cannot use deadly force to protect property” a Delaware defense attorney told the website.

In a recent case remarkably similar to Biden’s scenario for his wife, a Tacoma, Washington man was charged with assault after he shot his gun into the air to try to frighten off two boys he says he thought were prowlers.

In another recent episode, a man in Mesquite, Texas was handcuffed, escorted to jail and charged with “discharging his weapon in a metropolitan area” after firing a warning shot into the ground on his own property to ward off men who had been trying to break into his home.

And in February, a New Hampshire man was charged with a felony after he fired a warning shot into the ground as a burglar attempted to break into a neighbor’s home. The charges were later dropped.

Shotguns can have a lot of recoil, depending on the type. This can make it difficult to control them for some people – especially those who are not used to firing them. See the following clip for the difference between shooting a shotgun and an AR-15:

Well the fact of the matter is that many people are concerned about their rights and liberties being infringed. Especially in view of the Department of Justice Memo stating that gun confiscation coupled with restriction on manufacture, sale and distribution is a better option than any other option available for reducing violent gun crime. You can see the DOJ memo at the link below:

http://static.infowars.com/2013/02/i/general/nij-gun-policy-memo.pdf

Unfortunately this issue is not a new one. In fact, it is so old and tired that it has been bubbling in the background since 1961 when a UN Treaty spelled out the plan for disarmament in a document called, “The United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World”

 

 

Facebooktwitterrss

Columbine Survivor Writes Obama Thoughts On Gun Control Legislation, Second Amendment and Rights

columbine survivor gun control

Columbine survivor Evan Todd released an open letter to President Barack Obama on Wednesday in which he offers a point-by-point analysis of proposed firearms control initiatives, dismissing them as ineffective and dangerous to Americans’ rights.
Read Todd’s open letter to Obama, below.

Mr. President,

As a student who was shot and wounded during the Columbine massacre, I have a few thoughts on the current gun debate. In regards to your gun control initiatives:

Universal Background Checks

First, a universal background check will have many devastating effects. It will arguably have the opposite impact of what you propose. If adopted, criminals will know that they can not pass a background check legally, so they will resort to other avenues. With the conditions being set by this initiative, it will create a large black market for weapons and will support more criminal activity and funnel additional money into the hands of thugs, criminals, and people who will do harm to American citizens.

Second, universal background checks will create a huge bureaucracy that will cost an enormous amount of tax payers dollars and will straddle us with more debt. We cannot afford it now, let alone create another function of government that will have a huge monthly bill attached to it.

Third, is a universal background check system possible without universal gun registration? If so, please define it for us. Universal registration can easily be used for universal confiscation. I am not at all implying that you, sir, would try such a measure, but we do need to think about our actions through the lens of time.

It is not impossible to think that a tyrant, to the likes of Mao, Castro, Che, Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, and others, could possibly rise to power in America. It could be five, ten, twenty, or one hundred years from now — but future generations have the natural right to protect themselves from tyrannical government just as much as we currently do. It is safe to assume that this liberty that our forefathers secured has been a thorn in the side of would-be tyrants ever since the Second Amendment was adopted.

Ban on Military-Style Assault Weapons

The evidence is very clear pertaining to the inadequacies of the assault weapons ban. It had little to no effect when it was in place from 1994 until 2004. It was during this time that I personally witnessed two fellow students murder twelve of my classmates and one teacher. The assault weapons ban did not deter these two murderers, nor did the other thirty-something laws that they broke.

columbine survivor gun controlGun ownership is at an all time high. And although tragedies like Columbine and Newtown are exploited by ideologues and special-interest lobbying groups, crime is at an all time low. The people have spoken. Gun store shelves have been emptied. Gun shows are breaking attendance records. Gun manufacturers are sold out and back ordered. Shortages on ammo and firearms are countrywide. The American people have spoken and are telling you that our Second Amendment shall not be infringed.

10-Round Limit for Magazines<

Virginia Tech was the site of the deadliest school shooting in U.S. history. Seung-Hui Cho used two of the smallest caliber hand guns manufactured and a handful of ten round magazines. There are no substantial facts that prove that limited magazines would make any difference at all.

Second, this is just another law that endangers law-abiding citizens. I’ve heard you ask, “why does someone need 30 bullets to kill a deer?”

Let me ask you this: Why would you prefer criminals to have the ability to out-gun law-abiding citizens? Under this policy, criminals will still have their 30-round magazines, but the average American will not. Whose side are you on?
Lastly, when did the government get into the business of regulating “needs?” This is yet another example of government overreaching and straying from its intended purpose.

Selling to Criminals

Mr. President, these are your words: “And finally, Congress needs to help, rather than hinder, law enforcement as it does its job. We should get tougher on people who buy guns with the express purpose of turning around and selling them to criminals. And we should severely punish anybody who helps them do this.”

Why don’t we start with Eric Holder and thoroughly investigate the Fast and Furious program?

Furthermore, the vast majority of these mass murderers bought their weapons legally and jumped through all the hoops —  because they were determined to murder. Adding more hoops and red tape will not stop these types of people. It doesn’t now — so what makes you think it will in the future? Criminals who cannot buy guns legally just resort to the black market.

Criminals and murderers will always find a way.

Critical Examination
Mr. President, in theory, your initiatives and proposals sound warm and fuzzy — but in reality they are far from what we need. Your initiatives seem to punish law-abiding American citizens and enable the murderers, thugs, and other lowlifes who wish to do harm to others.

Let me be clear: These ideas are the worst possible initiatives if you seriously care about saving lives and also upholding your oath of office. There is no dictate, law, or regulation that will stop bad things from happening — and you know that. Yet you continue to push the rhetoric. Why?

You said, “If we can save just one person it is worth it.” Well here are a few ideas that will save more that one individual:

First, forget all of your current initiatives and 23 purposed executive orders. They will do nothing more than impede law-abiding citizens and breach the intent of the Constitution. Each initiative steals freedom, grants more power to an already-overreaching government, and empowers and enables criminals to run amok.

Second, press Congress to repeal the “Gun Free Zone Act.” Don’t allow America’s teachers and students to be endangered one-day more. These parents and teachers have the natural right to defend themselves and not be looked at as criminals. There is no reason teachers must disarm themselves to perform their jobs. There is also no reason a parent or volunteer should be disarmed when they cross the school line.

This is your chance to correct history and restore liberty. This simple act of restoring freedom will deter would-be murderers and for those who try, they will be met with resistance.

Mr. President, do the right thing, restore freedom, and save lives. Show the American people that you stand with them and not with thugs and criminals.

Respectfully,

Severely Concerned Citizen,

Evan M. Todd

Facebooktwitterrss

The Incestuous Relationship Between Government and Business and Their Love Triangle With The Media

My apologies for the length and breadth of this article. It takes a lot of talking to pull together a larger point. Perhaps I can streamline it in the future.

Rhetoric and Social Division

Most people I talk to these days would agree that the medial today does very little to enlighten thought. All major news outlets these days seem to first decide the objective they are trying to achieve, then dig their heels in and only report the news that proves their own particular viewpoint. What ever happened to objective journalism? What ever happened to reporting facts and putting more emphasis on truth than personality? If we ever had them at all, those days are long gone and we are left to our own devices if we want to know anything more than someone else’s opinion.

Naturally, because I am in favor of maintaining a constitutional standard, my opinions and viewpoints will vary from many other citizens. However, I have done a lot of research and mined a lot of statistics and believe my thoughts are as valid – and probably more factual – than about 90% of those regurgitated on either side of the pulpit of the popular press today.

Objectivity is Necessary to Create any Real and Lasting Solutions

The media and their viewers have, for the most part, divided themselves into two basic camps. Many of the people who embrace either side’s viewpoints do so because the sound bites sound relatable and they are a fan of those news personalities who espouse the viewpoint. Sadly, many people believe what they believe without really giving much thought to why or what it will mean in the long run for them, their loved ones or their country.

Any issue that is being debated in the press or by the public today can be looked at from two different mindsets. These two mindsets refer to themselves as “the left” and “the right” or “conservative” and “liberal” or “democrat” and “republican” but these terms, like any word in a language that is not dead, change meaning over time depending on who is embracing them and what they believe.

The Example of Gun Owners Rights, Gun Control and The Second Amendment

One issue that springs ready to mind is the case of gun control. The two opposing camps that the citizenry and press seem to be divided into seem to me to be as follows:

  1. Those who think that if guns were not present or available, there would be fewer deaths and that the government in this country has the right and possibly the duty to regulate gun ownership, manufacture and sales to at least some extent. The extent varies drastically from person to person, but the concept remains the same. The government can and should make society safer by limiting gun ownership or sales or manufacture etc as they see fit. They generally seem to believe that the Constitution is not as relevant as it was during the formative years of the country and that the Second Amendment is outdated.
  2. Those who believe that the government should be extremely limited in power and should only make laws or regulate society in a way have the greatest obvious good for citizens without restricting the fundamental rights and freedoms that they believe citizens of the United States are entitled to have. Because the Second Amendment was adopted into the Constitution so early on and because of the reasons that it was adopted into the Constitution they generally believe either that 1) the government has no right to control gun ownership of the citizens or 2) that the government should err on the side of caution and use the most minimal forms of regulation possible.

I am from the later viewpoint. I believe that from the time that the United States began to come together as the republic that we know today, the United States government was designed – more than any other country- to be controlled by the will people for the greatest possible benefit of the people. Many of those who founded the country and wrote the Constitution felt that the countries they had come from had tyrannical governments who perpetrated abuse on the citizens. Therefore they wanted to create a nation were individual citizens would have freedoms and rights (and therefore responsibilities) that were denied to most citizens (especially those without wealth or status) of most other countries.

So in my attempt to stay objective and think about the topic of gun control as critically as possible, I began evaluating the viewpoints that the media – on either side of the issue – currently espouse. I found that neither side could seem to articulate a well thought out viewpoint and most simply have an opinion and tell others how to think. Some are much smoother than others, but I couldn’t see much in the way of substance in the media.

Here are the statistics about causes of death in the United States and how common or uncommon they are in comparison to gun related deaths:

According to FBI murder statistics sorted by weapon used, 12,664 murders occurred in 2011. Of those, 8,583 were firearms related and 4,081 were murdered without the use of firearms. Other weapons include such things as hands, feet, knives, poison, fire, drowning, strangulation etc . While it is undoubtedly true that if there were no firearms available in the United States, then none of the people murdered with firearms in 2011 would have been murdered by the use of firearms. I do not believe that it could possibly be accurate to say that none of them would have been murdered. I speculate that some of them would have been murdered with another weapon, but I was unable to find research related to this topic.

To put this in a larger context, the population of the United States in 2011 was 313,914,000. Because this is such a small percent, i am going to reword it in various ways so that, hopefully, we can get a picture in our head of this number. That means that .000000318% of the population was murdered with the use of a firearm in 2011. That’s three ten millionths of one percent of the population. In fraction form that looks like this: 3/10,000,000. That’s three out of every ten million people were murdered by use of a firearm in 2011.

Again, to put this in context, according to medical errors cause as many as 187,000 deaths in hospitals each year of medical errors according to the April 2011 issue of  Health Affairs. So, one out of 59,000 people died due to medical error in 2011. So statistically that means that the percentage of people who died from medical error was 18,534 times greater than the number of people who were murdered by use of a firearm in 2011.

In the United States we tend not to give attention to issues in proportion to how many people they affect or how much damage they do in society. Rather the media constantly hammers away at whatever will bring them the most viewers and, therefore, the highest ratings and the biggest payday from either more sponsors or more money per sponsor.

Every death is tragic. There are no lives that are more valuable and precious than other lives, at least, not in my worldview. So, should we not tackle social issues in the order of how many people they affect and how severe that effect is? But I digress.

More statistics that show how disproportionately the media reports firearms incidents include the following:

In 2010, 1.22 per 100,000 were caused by drowning accidents. That’s .00122% or a little over one one thousandth of a percent.

When compared to all types of accidental deaths, guns came in well below many other categories including motor vehicle accidents, falls, fires, poisonings, and other types of mishaps.  As a percentage of all accidental deaths, guns accounted for 0.5%.

My point is not that gun related deaths are unimportant or that they should be ignored. My point is that in the United States often issues become politicized and, therefore, those who watch the news become less than objective. No one is up in arms demanding the removal of swimming pools from society even though many more people are killed by drowning in a swimming pool each year than by guns. The same is true for vehicle accidents.

How Do  These Gun Related Statistics Compare to A Society With Restrictive Gun Laws?

As I have cited in other posts, we have many examples of crime, violent crime and, even, gun crime increasing after gun regulations are put in place or guns are removed from society. Here are some statistics that i found relevant to the topic of gun control.

  • During the years in which the D.C. handgun ban and trigger lock law was in effect, the Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law, while the U.S. murder rate averaged 11% lower.
  • The homicide rate in England and Wales has averaged 52% higher since the outset of the 1968 gun control law and 15% higher since the outset of the 1997 handgun ban.
  • Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the Chicago murder rate has averaged 17% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 25% lower.
  • Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the percentage of Chicago murders committed with handguns has averaged about 40% higher than it was before the law took effect.

So How Does Gun Control Affect the Public?

  • Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative CriminologyU.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.
  • *A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.
  • A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone “almost certainly would have been killed” if they “had not used a gun for protection.” Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 162,000 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all “military service, police work, or work as a security guard.”

A Survey Of Male Felons in State Prisons Found The Following About How Private Gun Ownership Effects Criminal Behavior:

  • 34% had been “scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim”
  • 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they “knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun”
  • 69% personally knew other criminals who had been “scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim”

 

When Considering the Above Statistics, Does it Not Seem Possible, if not Plausible, that Restrictive Banning of Firearms would Produce More Overall Crime and Deaths that It Would Spare?

The Probable Economic Consequences of A Gun Ban. With the Economy in Bad Shape, Why are We Shutting Down Manufacture and Sales of Goods and Why Is No one Talking About It?

The United States was originally designed to be a Capitalistic society. This means that all citizens had the right to set up a business and sell goods with as little government interference as possible. In a Capitalistic society, you should see the buying and selling of goods driving the economy. When a business-friendly environment is created by keeping low taxes and minimal restrictions on businesses, the number of businesses increases and the number of employees needed rises. This creates a very favorable environment for employees and potential employees. Businesses have to complete with higher wages and better benefits for employees. Compare that to a society that has fewer businesses needing fewer employees. Wages go down and and unemployment goes up.

Keep in mind that each manufacturer has to buy materials to make his products, and he pays a tax when purchasing these materials. Keep in mind that when businesses hire employees, each employee pays tax out of every paycheck. This is how the government is funded in a capitalistic society.

The United States Is no Longer A Capitalistic Society

I’m sad to report that our society is no longer what can objectively be called a true Capitalistic society. The incestuous relationship between government and business has altered the way business functions in our country. Government money flows into private businesses, effectively making them behave differently than they otherwise would. Government officials reward businesses and business owners with money in the form of “bail outs” and business owners pay government officials in the form of “donations”. Often people are bribed with high-level, lucrative jobs in exchange for some favor.

I said all of that to say this: Gun manufacturers would not be manufacturing guns if no one wanted to buy guns. People want to purchase goods, and manufacturers respond by producing more goods for them to buy. The more we inhibit the manufacture and sale of goods, the more we inhibit the economy. Manufacturers are not paying taxes on the goods they buy and there are fewer employees to pay taxes from their paychecks. When this situation becomes widespread, we call it economic depression.

The Critics of Capitalism Don’t Know What True Capitalism is Because It Has Been Manipulated By Government Money

One criticism of capitalism is that it gives businesses too many rights and that their employees and society suffer because of the businesses lack of regard for anything other than profit. But in a truly capitalistic society, society has all of the rights to shut down a business by not purchasing their good or services. Social education can expose bad behavior and damage the bottom line and, therefore, keep the behavior of that business in check. This process is negatively affected by this shifting of money between government and private business. This is what is referred to as crony capitalism  If government money is used to prop up a business, is it not more difficult for society to influence the bottom line of that business by no longer purchasing their goods and services?

For instance, Bank Of America was sued for foreclosing on wrong homes and selling customers private information illegally. Why should Bank Of America have received any government bailout money? If consumers had the power, once they became aware of their corruption, they would have taken their business elsewhere and the bank would have naturally collapsed as any business should when it abuses its customers. This process was interrupted by the so-called “benevolence” of our government. Since the government bailout, Bank of America has had several incidents of freezing accounts belonging to gun manufacturers even though the manufacturers are compliant with all regulations and laws.

In Conclusion

There are so many other points that I want to tie into this article, but I will save them for a second part. My primary point is that social issues should never be decided by who has the most emotion and how much political influence they have. We should all take care to carefully consider issues and do our own research into each issue facing out society. If we simply follow a doctrine that someone else preaches from the pulpit, we are all as limited in perspective as the person preaching. However, if we can objectively consider each idea and use careful consideration and sound logic to reach our own conclusions, we can have much power in society. As American citizens, we should demand the separation of government and business affairs. The incestuous and detrimental effects of rewarding bad behavior with money and power go far to deteriorate the quality of society.

 

Facebooktwitterrss
Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!