The right to bear arms isn’t just a constitutional issue — it’s a women’s rights issue. Author and commentator Katie Pavlich explains why guns are the great equalizer between men and women.
We don’t want to deal with the facts when it comes to gun control. All of the emphasis on “assault rifles” is misplaced.
Of course, Orlando wasn’t about gun control at all. It was about Islamist Jihad terrorism.
According to the FBI there were a total of 625 murders committed with rifles and shotguns in 2012. That breaks down to 322 murders that were rifle related and 303 that were shotgun related.
The total number of deaths committed with fists, hammers, and other blunt objects was 1,196. That breaks down to 518 murders related to hammers and blunt objects and 678 related to fists.
Taken together, the rate of murder by fists and hammers was nearly 100 percent higher than the rate of murder by rifles or shotguns.
Your name gets put on a list. There has been no hearing. There has been no trial. No evidence has been presented to prove that the reason you are on the list is valid.
You’ve just been place on the list. And being on that list will prevent you from owning a gun.
“The Obama administration is taking a new run at imposing unilateral gun control measures. It is likely that the president will take some action related to his proposal, issued in November, that anyone on the terror watch list be barred from purchasing a gun. In doing so, he may inadvertently reveal a sharp divide in his own coalition, and may even create an opportunity for conservatives.
“The president’s plan has many flaws and, as Gabriel Malor pointed out when the idea first emerged, Democrats have not even been completely honest about what they are proposing. But the biggest problem is that the president proposes to deprive people of constitutional rights by the simple expedient of placing their names on a list. No hearing, no trial, and no explanation necessary: just the simple typing of a person’s name renders him a second-class citizen.”
No amount of gun laws or do-goodery is going to keep guns out of the hands of evil people. But those laws can keep guns out of the hands of careful, safe, law-abiding citizens who just want to protect themselves and their families.
And that should be a crime.
Regardless, we have a constitutional right. We must protect it regardless.
There’s sadly no excuse to be ignorant about firearms. They’ve been around for hundreds of years. They’re owned and operated safely by tens of millions of Americans each year. Our Constitution guarantees our individual right to possess guns so that we might be able to defend ourselves from those who would violently take away our freedom. Many gun controllers, however — some of whom have bylines for major media organizations — don’t actually know the first thing about firearms.
I have a lot of respect for Judge Napolitano. He has a great understanding of the Constitution and is consistent in his approach to it’s interpretation.
President Obama has very little room to issue executive orders on guns because the congressional legislation is so extensive, detailed, and clear. The principal thrust of the president’s orders addresses the requirement for background checks in occasional sales and the requirement that occasional sellers become federal licensees and the imposition of reporting upon physicians.
Congress has expressly removed occasional sales (sales not made by full-time dealers) from the obligation of obtaining federal licenses and from conducting background checks.
The president is without authority to negate the congressional will on this, and any attempt to do so will be invalidated by the courts. Mr. Obama will now require that anyone who sells a gun, that is even an “occasional” seller will be required to perform a background check. By defining what an “occasional seller” is, the president is essentially interpreting the law, a job reserved for the courts.
The Second Amendment to our Constitution is clear. It says that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
President Obama is clear.
Change, as always, is going to take all of us. The gun lobby is loud and well organized in its defense of effortlessly available guns for anyone. The rest of us are going to have to be just as passionate and well organized in our defense of our kids. That’s the work of citizenship — to stand up and fight for the change that we seek. We know that we can’t stop every act of violence. But what if we tried to stop even one? What if Congress did something — anything — to protect our kids from gun violence?
Some are calling for elimination of the “gun show loophole”. Does it exist?
There is zero protection enshrined in law for transactions that happen to occur at a gun show or over the Internet. Zip. Zilch. Nada. The so-called “gun show loophole” simply does not exist. Nor does any sort of Internet gun sale loophole. Federal gun laws are directed at the entities engaging in the manufacture or distribution of firearms, not the mere venues where those activities happen to take place. If you are an FFL (Federal Firearms License) who sells guns at a gun show, you are required by law to either process a background check prior to the sale of a gun, or you must confirm, usually by examining a concealed carry permit or a purchase permit (both of which require background checks), that a buyer is not legally prohibited from purchasing or possessing a gun.
The President of the United States has a job. When he is sworn into office he takes an oath. It is “”I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
The second amendment says that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Should that be up for debate? Is there any logical or illogical reason to change it?
When debating the wisdom of the Constitution’s Second Amendment, the media tends to start from the presumption that the question is purely scientific, and that the answers can — and should — be derived from statistical analyses and relentless experimentation. This approach is mistaken. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is not the product of the latest research fads or exquisitely tortured “data journalism,” but a natural extension of the Lockean principles on which this country was founded. It must be protected as such.
Facts can be pesky creatures. Sound bites sound good but many times divert us from the real issues. So, here are some facts based on mass shooting fatalities per million people.
Of course, this doesn’t take into consideration of bombings and stabbings which are very common in other locations. For example, in Russia since 2009, the nation has seen 1.31 deaths per million from bombings that caused four or more fatalities.
Barack Obama stunned Americans and French alike with his false claims about gun violence in America. “I say this every time we’ve got one of these mass shootings. This just doesn’t happen in other countries,” the president claimed, as he has repeatedly over the years. Talk about being self-absorbed.
The French have witnessed three mass public shootings this year. January saw two attacks, one on the Charlie Hebdo magazine and another on a Paris supermarket. In the November attacks, 129 people were killed and 352 were injured. In 2015, France suffered more casualties than the U.S. has suffered during Obama’s entire presidency (508 to 394).
It is interesting that we are constantly hearing we need more gun control. Of course, life is precious and we pray that there was zero deaths. The facts are, however, we have had a massive decline in gun violence in the U. S.
Premeditated mass shootings in public places are happening more often,some researchers say, plunging towns and cities into grief and riveting the attention of a horrified nation. In general, though, fewer Americans are dying as a result of gun violence — a shift that began about two decades ago.
In 1993, there were seven homicides by firearm for every 100,000 Americans, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. By 2013, that figure had fallen by nearly half, to 3.6 — a total of 11,208 firearm homicides. The rate of shootings that didn’t result in death declined even more precipitously, from 725 in 1993 per 100,000 people to 175 in 2013.
“Brace yourself like a man,” the Lord said. “I will question you. And you will answer me.”
Following a mass shooting in San Bernardino, California, yesterday, many progressives immediately took to the Internet–not to offer any compassion to the victims of the shooting, any information to the authorities, or any insights on how to prevent future terrorist attacks–but to mock people for having the audacity to pray for the victims and their families.
The New York Daily News, a tabloid, took that rhetoric one step further and decided to use its cover to mock God for failing to “fix” the problem of sinful mankind doing sinful things.
It is a fact that Hitler disarmed Jews in Germany.
Ben Carson was asked about that in an interview about his book. Rather than deal with the substance of his point, he was personally attacked. There is no need to attack someone’s character for saying something that is true. I’ll save you the horrible comments being made on Twitter. Not for the faint.
“They should not get off that easy, though. If they’re going to attack Carson for accurately describing the intent behind Nazi disarmament of Jews, then they need to answer a few questions about that disarmament regime. Question one: was Hitler wrong to disarm the Jews? Why or what not? (Or if you’re a Godwin’s law adherent: was the South wrong to forcibly disarm blacks?) And question two, should they deign to answer the first one: why did Hitler disarm the Jews?
“Those two questions pose some serious problems for anyone wishing to argue that gun confiscation in principle is perfectly acceptable. There are only a few answers to the first question of whether Hitler was wrong to disarm the Jews: 1) no, because the Jews deserved it, 2) yes, because gun confiscation is wrong in principle, or 3) yes, but only because everyone’s guns should’ve been confiscated. No decent person on earth could possible offer the first answer. No gun controller could possibly offer the second answer, because they believe that gun confiscation is a worthy policy. Which leaves the third answer. And that third answer boils down to, “Yes, Hitler’s gun confiscation regime was wrong, but only because Hitler didn’t go far enough to disarm everybody.” That answer is untenable for obvious reasons.”
Our system of government, set up by our founders, is intended to invite dialogue and a level of compromise, absent an overwhelming majority in all the branches of government. We see this on both sides of the aisle actually. We all need to cultivate advisors who will tell us the truth.
Michael Gerson, gun control supporter, argues that Obama’s recent tantrum did measurable damage to the cause of gun control and to America’s system of political decision-making itself:
With his last election behind him, Obama is free to be Obama. And it appears that he is, deep down, a liberal commentator of the MSNBC variety — perhaps providing a preview of his post-presidency. The only apparent purpose of his gun speech was to incite the faithful by expressing a seething arrogance.
But it matters when the president of the United States decides that democratic persuasion is a fool’s game. It encourages the kind of will-to-power politics we see on the left and right. In this view, opponents are evil — entirely beyond the normal instruments of reason and good faith. So the only option is the collection and exercise of power.
When the main players in our politics give up on deliberative democracy, it feels like some Rubicon is being crossed. Our system is designed for leaders who make arguments for their views, seek compromise and try different policy angles to break logjams. And when they lose, their proper recourse is … to make more arguments, seek other compromises and try different policy angles.
12 Good leaders abhor wrongdoing of all kinds;
sound leadership has a moral foundation.
13 Good leaders cultivate honest speech;
they love advisors who tell them the truth.
14 An intemperate leader wreaks havoc in lives;
you’re smart to stay clear of someone like that.
We know that the second amendment says that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
After the tragic UCC shooting that left at least 10 Americans dead, President Obama said the following:
“We know that other countries, in response to one mass shooting, have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings—friends of ours, allies of ours—Great Britain, Australia, countries like ours. So, we know there are ways to prevent it. What’s also routine, of course, is that somebody, somewhere will comment and say, Obama politicized this issue. Well, this is something we should politicize.” ~President Obama
So, what are the facts? The top 5 countries for mass shootings per capita all have “restrictive” gun policies.
“The bottom line: The United States falls from number one due to its frequency of 38 mass shootings from January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2013 (which would be number one without correcting for population) to number seven.”
Security Magazine commented on the data findings:
“Between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2013,there were 413 fatalities from mass shootings in the 34 member states of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). From the five-year period of 2008-2012, there were 373 total spree shooting fatalities.According to the OECD’s latest version of the Rampage Shooting Index, a pair of deadly shootings in Switzerland in early 2013 pushed the U.S. out of the top five OECD nations for the most per capita fatalities, but the U.S. continues to have the most rampage shooting deaths (one reason could be its size – The U.S. population accounts for 25 percent of the OECD total). However, the U.S. saw a drop in mass shooting deaths from 93 in 2012 to 68 in 2013.”
Black conservative leaders discuss the reason the NRA was founded and how gun control is an effort to control people.
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Criminals violate the law and so more laws won’t help. That is absolutely the issue and really shouldn’t be ignored. Evil people don’t care about laws either.
Perhaps we should focus on the culture of death (vs. life) in this country. Is what happened a “more laws” issue or lack of courage to love and value life?
“What we know is that the number of people who die from gun-related incidents around this country dwarfs any deaths that happen through terrorism,” said President Obama yesterday. It is true. Utterly irrelevant, but true. We are blessed not to have rampant terrorism in this nation, but in places where terrorists do roam, innocent people without guns submissively kneel to be beheaded. So I suppose the president, inadvertently, makes a pretty good argument in favor of the Second Amendment.