Persons of differing opinion are entrenched in their
beliefs about gun control, and very few people seem to be willing to fully
attend to the other side’s point of view.
So, what’s the use? Why try to
discuss it at all? Persons for gun
control work to rally likeminded people to vote for their political
candidates. Those of us who oppose gun
control do the same.
Wins for either side are temporary, and they last only
until the other side has the political leverage to overturn them. Both sides fight it out in court. Consequently, the struggle goes on and on.
I do not expect to sway anyone who wants gun control to
my point of view. I hope, however, to
convince those who oppose gun control that it is vital for them to get out and
vote for candidates who have shown through past behavior that they will protect
our right to keep and bear arms. It
would be an added bonus if I could help undecided people to decide to support pro 2nd
Amendment candidates.
Let me say first that Democratic Party candidates cannot
be believed when, like Barack Obama, they say that they do not want to take
away our guns. Their ultimate goal is to
eliminate the private ownership of firearms in America, and to confiscate and
destroy our guns.
The Democrats, and others, will try to accomplish their
anti-gun agenda incrementally, by passing “reasonable” laws and rules that they
say will make us all safer. They tell us
that our constitutional rights are not unlimited, and that the government has a
right to regulate their exercise. I
believe that the courts have ruled that our constitutional rights may be
regulated when their exercise violates the rights of others. Just remember that when those rules and laws
fail, as indeed they will, the failure will be used as a rationale for even
more restrictive laws and rules. It will
continue until we are disarmed completely.
The following shows that what I am saying is true. During the general election in 2012, Colorado
Democrats won control of both houses of the state legislature. The governor was also Democrat. The very first thing they did after being
sworn in was to pass four new laws that restricted the right of Coloradoans to
keep and bear arms. Apparently, nothing had
a higher priority for them.
The 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
states: “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.” The
Supreme Court has ruled that the 2nd Amendment applies to everybody,
not just to members of the national guard.
We already have laws that regulate gun owners. Examples include background checks, the
minimum legal age for buying firearms, and how guns can be sold. Only those who have a federal firearms
license may own fully automatic firearms.
Most states and many municipalities restrict open and concealed
carry. The list is too lengthy to report
here. These laws and rules have done
little to deter violent crime. Even in
the case of mass shootings, many of the perpetrators obtained the guns they
used by legal means.
In a recent article, the National Rifle Association’s
Institute for Legislative Action (NRA/ILA) reported:
Biden
continues to boast about his role as lead sponsor on the Senate crime
bill that that contained the 1994 Clinton ban on commonly-owned
semiautomatic firearms and magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds.
The ban was allowed to expire in 2004 after a federally-funded study
determined that ‘the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best
and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.’ Despite this record of failure,
in 2007 Sen. Biden introduced S.2237. This legislation would have reinstated
the so-called ‘assault weapons’ ban. (1)
bill that that contained the 1994 Clinton ban on commonly-owned
semiautomatic firearms and magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds.
The ban was allowed to expire in 2004 after a federally-funded study
determined that ‘the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best
and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.’ Despite this record of failure,
in 2007 Sen. Biden introduced S.2237. This legislation would have reinstated
the so-called ‘assault weapons’ ban. (1)
Undeterred by the fact that the ban didn’t work, the
“lefties” still want to try it again, and this in spite of the fact that they
cannot describe what an assault weapon is well enough to craft a meaningful
law.
If elected in November, our former vice president will try
to do more than ban so-called assault weapons.
In fact he favors confiscating semiautomatic AR-15’s and
AK-47’s, which are widely used by American civilians for target shooting,
shooting competitions, home defense, and some types of hunting. As proof of the forgoing, take note of Mr.
Biden’s declaration that, if elected, he will put Robert F. “Beto” O’Rourke in
charge of gun control. As a presidential
candidate in the Democratic primaries, O’Rourke vowed to confiscate AR-15’s and
AK-47’s:
Moments after
former Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke —
who promised in a September debate to take away legally purchased
assault rifles if elected — endorsed Joe Biden’s White House run, the former
vice president promised to name the Texan as his point man on gun control.
who promised in a September debate to take away legally purchased
assault rifles if elected — endorsed Joe Biden’s White House run, the former
vice president promised to name the Texan as his point man on gun control.
‘I want to make
something clear; I’m going to guarantee you this is not the
last you’ve seen of him,’ Biden said Monday evening during a campaign rally
in Dallas. ‘You’re going to take care of the gun problem with me. You’re going to
be the one who leads this effort.’
‘I’m counting on you. I’m counting on you,’ Biden continued. ‘We need you
badly, the state needs you, the country needs you. You’re the best.’
He (O’Rourke) notably railed against (semi) automatic weapons during
a presidential debate in September and reiterated his backing of a mandatory
gun buyback program, saying such weapons were ‘designed to kill on
the battlefield.’
‘Hell, yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47,’ O’Rourke said.
‘We’re not going to allow it to be used against our fellow Americans
anymore.’ (2)
last you’ve seen of him,’ Biden said Monday evening during a campaign rally
in Dallas. ‘You’re going to take care of the gun problem with me. You’re going to
be the one who leads this effort.’
‘I’m counting on you. I’m counting on you,’ Biden continued. ‘We need you
badly, the state needs you, the country needs you. You’re the best.’
He (O’Rourke) notably railed against (semi) automatic weapons during
a presidential debate in September and reiterated his backing of a mandatory
gun buyback program, saying such weapons were ‘designed to kill on
the battlefield.’
‘Hell, yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47,’ O’Rourke said.
‘We’re not going to allow it to be used against our fellow Americans
anymore.’ (2)
The antigun activists will never stop. They lack the popular support needed to
repeal the 2nd Amendment, so they try other ways to limit our
ability to own guns and use them. They
use lawsuits against gun manufacturers to raise their cost of doing business,
which drives the price of firearms up.
They regulate gun retailers out of business through aggressive auditing
and unreasonable recordkeeping requirements.
The federal government’s purchasing practices create artificial
shortages of ammunition and reloading components, discouraging recreational
shooting and driving prices up. There
have been efforts to ban certain types of commonly used hunting ammunition
because they contain lead (toxic) or are solid copper alloy that can be
construed to be “armor piercing.” (This
temporarily threatened to leave California hunters without ammunition that they
could legally hunt with.) There are
plans to sell off federally administered public land, or to give it to the
various states. The result would be that
many hunters would not have a place to hunt or to target practice. There is much more to tell, but I need to
respect your time.
Drug dealers make fortunes selling illegal drugs in
nearly every community in the country, and violent crime goes hand-in-hand with
the illicit drug trade. Street gangs
engage in open warfare in some of our cities, and the numbers of dead and
wounded exceed those in Afghanistan. We
have new words in our vocabulary that were not there before, words like carjacking
and home invasion. One of the most
dangerous places our children can be is in a public school. Yet, the Democrats who control city and state
governments have recently allowed violent riots to go unchecked, and they have
prevented the police from protecting life and property. Is it any wonder that many Americans believe
they cannot rely on their government for protection? But … what happens when we defend ourselves?
St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner has charged
Attorneys Mark and Patricia McCloskey with Felony Unlawful Use of a Weapon for threatening
the use of firearms when a crowd of
protesters were encroaching on their property. (3) The McCloskeys say that the protesters were menacing
them and their property. In an interview
by Sean Hannity on Fox News (streamed 08/03/2020), Mr. McCloskey said that some
of the protesters were armed. It seems
like this leftist Circuit Attorney is making an example out of the McCloskeys,
to show us all that if we use firearms to defend ourselves … we will go to
jail. So, is it folly to arm ourselves
because we will be prosecuted if we use firearms to defend our lives and
property?
What the Democrats have blurted out on their own makes my
case for me. It looks like they have
nothing but contempt for the U.S. Constitution and see it as an inconvenience
that just gets in their way. You cannot
vote for them if you want to keep your constitutional rights. Remember, if they can take away one
constitutional right, they can take all of them … and eventually that is what
big government will do.
No comments:
Post a Comment