Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
The Democrats want to take your guns away. While they are careful not to use the words, "total confiscation," that is the end they are seeking. It starts with a call for national gun control. They desire putting a national registry in place like the one Hitler enacted right before the Third Reich confiscated all guns leaving the Jews in his country unable to defend themselves against a tyrannical government. They want to ban all guns they feel to be scary looking, even if the only difference between those "assault weapons" and an old hunting rifle is a cosmetic addition of a pistol grip that simply enables better control of the firearm.
The gun-hating democrats in the federal government, and in various States. . . like California, tinker with our natural right to keep and bear arms in the hopes of moving America eventually towards full gun confiscation. And, now that we've had this mass shooting in Las Vegas, the democrats are going gun-control crazy.
When you get into conversations with people who support gun control measures that we are seeing gaining steam around the country, the real horror of it all is how ignorant these people are about fire arms. They are being reactionary. They are ready to blame an inanimate object for shootings that were caused by people who made the choice to be killers. Taking away the ability for one to defend oneself against these killers is not the answer, and in reality, the gun control laws are going to make America a much more dangerous place to live.
I've been arguing with a guy on Facebook who keeps posting over and over as a response to every question, "We need to nationally ban semi-automatic guns." Since the word "automatic" is in the name, they must be horrible, is likely his line of thinking. Does he even know what a "semi-automatic" is? And why would he wish to take away a person's ability to defend themselves?
The Democrats want to take your guns away. While they are careful not to use the words, "total confiscation," that is the end they are seeking. It starts with a call for national gun control. They desire putting a national registry in place like the one Hitler enacted right before the Third Reich confiscated all guns leaving the Jews in his country unable to defend themselves against a tyrannical government. They want to ban all guns they feel to be scary looking, even if the only difference between those "assault weapons" and an old hunting rifle is a cosmetic addition of a pistol grip that simply enables better control of the firearm.
The gun-hating democrats in the federal government, and in various States. . . like California, tinker with our natural right to keep and bear arms in the hopes of moving America eventually towards full gun confiscation. And, now that we've had this mass shooting in Las Vegas, the democrats are going gun-control crazy.
When you get into conversations with people who support gun control measures that we are seeing gaining steam around the country, the real horror of it all is how ignorant these people are about fire arms. They are being reactionary. They are ready to blame an inanimate object for shootings that were caused by people who made the choice to be killers. Taking away the ability for one to defend oneself against these killers is not the answer, and in reality, the gun control laws are going to make America a much more dangerous place to live.
I've been arguing with a guy on Facebook who keeps posting over and over as a response to every question, "We need to nationally ban semi-automatic guns." Since the word "automatic" is in the name, they must be horrible, is likely his line of thinking. Does he even know what a "semi-automatic" is? And why would he wish to take away a person's ability to defend themselves?
Another person said that guns aren't used for defense, only for offense. I am alive today because of my gun being used in defense.
What about what happened in Britain and Australia after the gun bans went into effect? Violence worsened, and the instances of burglaries and violent crimes skyrocketed. When bad guys think their victim might be armed, they hesitate, and think twice. When they know by law that all of their potential victims are disarmed, there is no hesitancy, and not worry.
Politicians believe they are somehow a ruling elite that knows better than the rest of us on how to keep ourselves safe, and see nothing wrong with the government infringing on our God-given right to keep and bear arms. These laws are also unconstitutional not only because they are infringing on our right to have guns, but because they are "ex post facto," or retroactive. They can't criminalize us after the fact. Article I, Section 9 forbids the federal government from passing ex post facto laws, and Article I, Section 10 prohibits the States from doing such. The reasoning by the Founding Fathers was based on the practice by Great Britain to pass ex post facto laws against the colonies. Retroactive laws serve tyrannies, and the decision to prohibit ex post facto laws in the United States Constitution was because of the British use of the concept in an attempt to control, and disarm, the colonists. Therefore, if I obtained my firearms in a manner that was legal at the time, they cannot suddenly make them illegal retroactively.
I had another person freak out when I told them I use hollow point bullets for home defense. Many politicians have voiced their desire to make the possession of hollow point bullets a felony, even if those bullets were legally purchased. Are they stupid or something?
"Do you really need such a violent bullet for your gun, instead of regular bullets?" I have heard liberals call the bullets "assault bullets," and "terrorist ammo." However, for protection, the hollow point bullet is actually an important part of one's arsenal. It saves lives because it won't travel through a body and strike someone else, as well; and hollow points save lives because of their stopping power.
In Loganville, Georgia, a woman and her two children were confronted with a home intruder. She saw the man casing her house with a crowbar, and herded her children into a crawl space in the attic. The intruder found her, and she fired her .38 revolver six times, emptying the cylinder. She hit her target five times. He left the premises, got in his car, and then finally collapsed behind the wheel and crashed the car. Had those bullets been hollow point, the intruder would have been dropped to the ground after the second hit, and he would not have gotten up. If the intruder had wanted to kill the woman and her kids, the five hits with non-hollow point bullets would have cost her her life. Hollow point bullets would have saved her.
If, instead of a revolver, the woman had a pistol with a magazine, limited in the number of bullets it holds, and one that could only be removed with a tool as California is proposing, after the five hits and the criminal advancing, the time it would take to remove and replace the magazine would have also resulted in her death, giving the intruder extra time to find her and advance upon her. A large-capacity magazine would have allowed her to continue firing until the intruder went down. Not requiring a tool to remove the magazine would have allowed her to reload quickly, and continue firing upon the intruder.
One last note. Do these people who hate the NRA understand that the National Rifle Association is the oldest civil rights organization in the country? The NRA was created to defend the right of blacks to have guns in the south, as the politicians were pushing for gun control, so that the newly emancipated slaves could have firearms to defend themselves against the KKK and Democrats who were violently threatening harm.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Minnesota Democrats pushing gun confiscation bill similar to Missouri's - Examiner
Gun Control 2013: Dianne Feinstein to propose new ban on some assault weapons - ABC15
The nation's toughest gun-control law made Massachusetts less safe - Boston Globe
Woman hiding with kids shoots intruder - WSBTV
They Can't Criminalize Us After The Fact - Ex Post Facto Legislation Prohibited - GraniteGrok
I had another person freak out when I told them I use hollow point bullets for home defense. Many politicians have voiced their desire to make the possession of hollow point bullets a felony, even if those bullets were legally purchased. Are they stupid or something?
"Do you really need such a violent bullet for your gun, instead of regular bullets?" I have heard liberals call the bullets "assault bullets," and "terrorist ammo." However, for protection, the hollow point bullet is actually an important part of one's arsenal. It saves lives because it won't travel through a body and strike someone else, as well; and hollow points save lives because of their stopping power.
In Loganville, Georgia, a woman and her two children were confronted with a home intruder. She saw the man casing her house with a crowbar, and herded her children into a crawl space in the attic. The intruder found her, and she fired her .38 revolver six times, emptying the cylinder. She hit her target five times. He left the premises, got in his car, and then finally collapsed behind the wheel and crashed the car. Had those bullets been hollow point, the intruder would have been dropped to the ground after the second hit, and he would not have gotten up. If the intruder had wanted to kill the woman and her kids, the five hits with non-hollow point bullets would have cost her her life. Hollow point bullets would have saved her.
If, instead of a revolver, the woman had a pistol with a magazine, limited in the number of bullets it holds, and one that could only be removed with a tool as California is proposing, after the five hits and the criminal advancing, the time it would take to remove and replace the magazine would have also resulted in her death, giving the intruder extra time to find her and advance upon her. A large-capacity magazine would have allowed her to continue firing until the intruder went down. Not requiring a tool to remove the magazine would have allowed her to reload quickly, and continue firing upon the intruder.
One last note. Do these people who hate the NRA understand that the National Rifle Association is the oldest civil rights organization in the country? The NRA was created to defend the right of blacks to have guns in the south, as the politicians were pushing for gun control, so that the newly emancipated slaves could have firearms to defend themselves against the KKK and Democrats who were violently threatening harm.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Minnesota Democrats pushing gun confiscation bill similar to Missouri's - Examiner
Gun Control 2013: Dianne Feinstein to propose new ban on some assault weapons - ABC15
The nation's toughest gun-control law made Massachusetts less safe - Boston Globe
Woman hiding with kids shoots intruder - WSBTV
They Can't Criminalize Us After The Fact - Ex Post Facto Legislation Prohibited - GraniteGrok
No comments:
Post a Comment