Archive

Archive for the ‘Gun Control’ Category

Oklahoma Churches Combine God & Guns, Delivering Weapon Training Alongside Bible Verses

A handgun on a bible (pictured above).

One of the most important rights we have as American citizens is the right to bear arms. Without it, many of us would live in constant fear. A gun provides many with comfort as well as protection. It gives people the ability to fall asleep knowing their loved ones are safe. However, simply owning a gun doesn’t make someone an expert in how to use it. To become proficient, they must attend weapons training courses. As the demand for guns increases, so does the necessity for proper instruction. To help meet this need, some are getting creative.

In response to the growing demand for gun training, churches across the state of Oklahoma are offering gun safety lessons alongside their bible study. This helps promote the word of God as well as responsible gun use and ownership. This may even break the stereotypes of reckless gun owners.

Armed Christians listening to a church service.

According to reports, churchgoing Christians in Oklahoma are being taught how to defend themselves with a gun. The program, led by firearms instructor Roy Jones, has taught roughly 5,000 students over the last decade how to properly handle a firearm. However, instead of working at a usual training facility, Jones takes his courses to churches across the state, calling it, “not your typical gun class.” Since he teaches at a church, he also educates his students more about Christianity.

Despite what some may think, Jones argues that self-defense and spirituality are not mutually exclusive. “Blessed be the Lord, my rock, who trains my hands for war, and my fingers for battle,” he quoted during an interview with Fox News. He reasons that although the scripture teaches love and compassion, if someone’s life is in danger, then it’s perfectly acceptable to do whatever is necessary to protect them. The same goes for self-defense. “We will turn the other cheek…I’m the least likely guy to pull out a gun in a fight,” he claimed, adding, “but we will not turn the other cheek if you’re going to assault my family or cut off my head in the process.”

His eight-hour course teaches people how to handle weapons, makes them take a 15-question exam, lets them practice at a private range, and informs people about relevant state laws gun owners should be aware of. He also teaches people how to avoid being arrested if they shoot someone in self-defense. He tells his students, ““you show the officer respect, but you never consent. You have to articulate that you were the victim, but you say, ‘With all due respect, you will have my full cooperation after I seek my legal counsel.”

Churchgoers learning how to properly handle a firearm.

Some argue that he’s just using religion to make extra money. However, he claims that this assumption is inaccurate. Instead, he wants people to know what to do in a dangerous situation. Unless properly trained, an armed person in a life-threatening situation could panic and either miss the aggressor or accidentally hit an innocent bystander. In response to people who claim he’s just “getting rich by using God’s name,’” he stated, “I’m just one little guy. Do I make a little money? Yes. But I’m not doing this to get rich.”

Instead, he insists that his courses are designed to teach people self-defense. He believes that people should be prepared if they find themselves in a dangerous situation. There are countless stories that reinforce the importance of gun ownership. One news story that Jones mentioned to journalists had to do with a woman recently killed by two pit bulls. Another story involved a fatal stabbing at a food distribution center. He asked reporters, “can you imagine what went through her mind the last few minutes of her life?” He argues that both of these deaths could have been averted “if they’d had a legal gun and been trained to use it.”

Many who attend Jones’ class understand firsthand why owning a gun is important. Wendy Johnson, one of his students, claims that she started taking the class after her friend was mugged. “One day, my co-worker did not show up for work,” she stated, explaining “someone had attacked her in a parking lot and had literally beaten her face. I don’t want to see anyone else in the ER with a swollen face because someone hit them in the head for their purse.”

Legal firearms don’t just protect people out in public, they also protect people at home. Earlier this year, three armed intruders broke into a house in Oklahoma. Thankfully, the homeowner’s son heard them breaking in and raced downstairs with an AR-15. Upon seeing them, he opened fire, striking and killing all three. And just recently, an armed intruder kicked down the door of a random house in Las Vegas, Nevada and attempted to rob the person inside. However, the resident had a weapon, and once he stepped inside, the burglar was shot dead.

Guns also protect people at work. Last month, an armed burglar attempted to rob a store at gunpoint. Fortunately, one of the other associates in the back heard the commotion and had a gun. He snuck up behind him and got him to surrender. Video of the altercation can be seen below (Warning: Graphic video):

States like Oklahoma and Nevada have legislation, known as “Stand Your Ground” laws, which offer a broad range of protections for gun owners defending their life or property. Their legislation makes it legal for someone to use “reasonable force, including deadly force” if someone is unlawfully entering “the dwelling, place of business or employment, or occupied vehicle,” of another person.

Unfortunately, not all states are friendly towards gun owners. Republican lawmakers in Oregon recently betrayed their party by introducing legislation that allows for the confiscation of personal guns. The bill, sponsored by State Senator Brian Boquist (R-Dallas), makes it possible for an immediate family member to strip someone of their Second Amendment right. It also makes it more difficult to buy a gun. Those who make it more difficult for people to have a gun put the lives of others at risk. They must be voted out of office and replaced with pro-gun conservatives.

The importance of gun ownership is undeniable. Programs like the one offered by Jones help people not just own a gun but understand how to use it. This gives people the opportunity to protect the ones they love so God can focus on other things. Conservatives nationwide must do everything possible to ensure the Second Amendment is not infringed upon. Those who wish to disarm the country must not succeed. If they do, innocent people will die.

 

Gun Groups Files Appeal Against California’s Exemptions for Retired Law Enforcement Officers

April 10, 2017 Leave a comment

Groups say special exceptions to strict gun laws violate the Fourteenth Amendment

In federal circuit court on Wednesday, a coalition of gun-rights groups filed its opening brief in a suit against exemptions for retired law enforcement officers under California’s strict gun laws.

The Calguns Foundation, Firearms Policy Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, Madison Society Foundation, and 11 individuals signed on to the suit, which District Judge Beverly Reid O’Connell, an Obama appointee, ruled against in August. They’re now taking their case to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, claiming the exemptions are a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause. The group says the exemptions for retired law enforcement personnel are unfair and unconstitutional.

The groups cite the recent passage of SB707, which banned those with gun-carry permits from bringing a gun on any school property but left in place exemptions for retired law enforcement, as an example of special protections they believe are wrong.

“The case is about a politically powerful group of civilians receiving special rights that other, similarly situated civilians do not receive,” Craig DeLuz, a spokesperson for Firearms Policy Coalition and one of the plaintiffs in the case, told the Washington Free Beacon. “Politically powerful police unions opposed SB707 until their retired members were exempted from the measure. Then, they not only removed their opposition, they supported it. Even the author of the measure admitted that the only reason she exempted retired law enforcement is because she could not get the law passed with their opposition.

“That is a clear violation of the Equal Protection Act, as retired law enforcement officers have not more police powers than everyday citizens.”

The exemption included in that law applied to any retired law enforcement officer regardless of whether or not their former jobs required the use of a firearm.

“For instance, retired Internal Revenue Service agents and other federal agents are exempt simply by virtue of retiring in California or working for the agency in California for more than a year,” Bradley Benbrook, the group’s attorney, wrote in the court brief.

DeLuz, who opposes SB707’s expansion of gun-free zones, said he does not believe the exemption granted to retired law enforcement is based on the group’s level of training.

“The exemption makes even less sense when one considers that there are higher standards for civilians to qualify for a CCW than for most retired law enforcement,” he said. “Look at the training standards for peace officer training, I believe you will find that there are not training requirements upon their graduation from the academy. And, in fact, the retired law enforcement exemption includes anyone who has worked for a law enforcement agency, whether they carried a firearm as a part of their duties prior to retirement.”

A hearing date for the case has not yet been announced.

Virginia Governor McAuliffe Vetoes Bill Allowing Those With Protective Orders to Carry Guns

March 29, 2017 Leave a comment

‘The governor’s veto will likely cost innocent lives’, says advocacy group president

Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D.) vetoed a bill on Friday that aimed to allow victims of domestic violence to carry concealed firearms without obtaining a permit.

House Bill 1852 would allow anyone in Virginia who has a protective order and is over 21 to carry a concealed firearm without a permit for up to 45 days after the order is issued. It would then give anyone with an active order an additional 45 days to carry concealed should they apply for a permanent concealed-handgun permit, which can take up to 45 days to process. The person with the protective order would be required to show police the order or permit application and photo ID if stopped.

Governor McAuliffe noted in a statement that the bill bypasses the training and background check requirements associated with obtaining a Virginia concealed handgun permit and said it would make domestic violence situations worse, not better. “The bill perpetuates the dangerous fiction that the victims of domestic violence will be safer by arming themselves,” he said. “It would inject firearms into a volatile domestic violence situation, making that situation less safe, not more.

“In 2014, there were 112 family and intimate-partner related homicides in Virginia. Sixty-six of those deaths were with a firearm. I will not allow this bill to become law when too many Virginia women have already fallen victim to firearms violence at the hands of their intimate partner.”

McAuliffe’s office did not respond to questions about whether the governor believed victims of domestic violence should ever arm themselves or what victims, especially those located far from police stations, should do if they find themselves in life-threatening situations.

Gun-rights advocates who championed the bill decried the governor’s veto and said it would likely cost innocent lives.

“Governor McAuliffe claims we don’t need to introduce a gun into a ‘volatile situation,’ where there is a protective order in place,” Philip Van Cleave, the Virginia Citizens Defense League’s president, told the Washington Free Beacon. “He’s completely wrong. That situation is exactly where we DO want to introduce a firearm. Knowledge that the victim is armed is a great incentive for the aggressor to stay away.”

Van Cleave said the first 48 hours after a protective order is issued are the most crucial time for a potential victim to be armed.

“Protective orders really enrage the aggressor and the vetoed bill would have allowed the victim to be fully armed, yet in a discreet manner, even during those initial 48 hours,” he said. “Sadly, the governor’s veto will likely cost innocent lives.”

The bill passed by a vote of 63-31 in the house of delegates and 26-14 in the senate. A veto override would require a two-thirds majority in both houses.

The National Rifle Association said McAuliffe’s veto was driven by his association with gun control groups.

“Victims of domestic abuse should be free to protect themselves with more than a piece of paper,” Catherine Mortensen, a spokesperson for the NRA’s lobbying arm, told the Beacon. “This bill would allow a victim of abuse who already has a protective order to immediately protect herself with a concealed firearm. Governor McAuliffe is siding with the gun control lobby that funds his campaign over victims of abuse who want more than a piece of paper to protect themselves.”

U.S. appeals court upholds Maryland’s ban on assault rifles

February 23, 2017 Leave a comment

Assault-style rifles hang on display inside a Dallas, Texas gun shop, September 13, 2004. REUTERS/Jeff Mitchell  JM

REUTERS/Jeff Mitchell JM

A federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld Maryland’s ban on assault rifles, ruling gun owners are not protected under the U.S. Constitution to possess “weapons of war,” court documents showed.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit decided 10-4 that the Firearm Safety Act of 2013, a law in response to the massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, by a gunman with an assault rifle, does not violate the right to bear arms within the Second Amendment.

“Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protection to the weapons of war,” Judge Robert King wrote, referring to the “military-style rifles” that were also used during mass shootings in Aurora, Colorado, San Bernardino, California, and Orlando, Florida.

These are “places whose names have become synonymous with the slaughters that occurred there,” he wrote, noting that the Supreme Court’s decision in the 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller case excluded coverage of assault weapons.

The United States has among the most permissive gun rights in the world. Because the U.S. Congress has long been a graveyard for gun control legislation, some states and localities have enacted their own measures.

In total, seven states and the District of Columbia have laws that ban semiautomatic rifles, several of which that have faced various court challenges as there is a longstanding legal debate over the scope of Second Amendment rights.

Four appeal courts have rejected Second Amendment challenges to bans on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines, King wrote.

In 2015, U.S. District Judge Catherine Blake upheld Maryland’s law that bans the AR-15 and other military-style rifles and shotguns and limits magazine capacity to 10 rounds, but a smaller panel of circuit court judges reversed her ruling in 2016. The case could be eventually be heard by the Supreme Court.

The majority “has gone to greater lengths than any other court to eviscerate the constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms,” Judge William Traxler wrote in the dissent of the ruling released on Tuesday.

 

Report: Obama Issued A Massive Ammunition Ban Just One Day Before He Left Office

January 25, 2017 Leave a comment

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dan Ashe, an Obama appointee, ordered a new ammunition ban for certain federal lands on Thursday–his last full day in office

Report: Obama Issued A Massive Ammunition Ban Just One Day Before He Left Office

In early December SHTFplan contributor Jeremiah Johnson warned the inauguration was still a long way off and that we should never underestimate a Marxist with an army of oligarchs to lean on. It turns out that Johnson’s warnings were right on target, as we have learned over the last couple of weeks that President Obama and officials in his administration moved feverishly to implement new rules and regulations with last minute initiatives.

One such regulation, which seemingly disappeared within the hustle and bustle of inauguration day, was a new order issued by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dan Ashe just 12 hours before our new President was sworn into office.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dan Ashe, an Obama appointee, ordered a new ammunition ban for certain federal lands on Thursday–his last full day in office.

The ban, which took effect immediately, eliminates the use of lead-based ammunition on federal lands like national parks and wildlife refuges, as well as any other land administered by the Fish and Wildlife Service.The ban is expected to have a major impact on much of the hunting that takes place on federal lands across the United States as lead-based ammunition is widely legal and used throughout the country.

Ashe said the order was necessary to protect wildlife from exposure to lead.

Source: The Free Beacon Via Survival Blog

That may seem like a big win for the anti-gun left, but The National Shooting Sports Foundation has already leapt into action:

“This directive is irresponsible and driven not out of sound science but unchecked politics,” said Lawrence Keane, the group’s senior vice president. “The timing alone is suspect. This directive was published without dialogue with industry, sportsmen, and conservationists. The next director should immediately rescind this and, instead, create policy based upon scientific evidence of population impacts with regard to the use of traditional ammunition.”

As we noted earlier, President Trump has a lot of work to do to reverse the damage caused by the Obama administration.

Reversing this asinine ammunition ban is a good start.

REPORT: Final Stats Show The REAL Numbers Behind Obama’s “Genius” Gun Control Policies

January 12, 2017 Leave a comment

use-me

Facts have been presented showing that there is an amazing amount of truth in what the pro-Second Amendment movement has been saying in regards to gun-free zones in the Land of the Free. Everyone smarter than a post, or at least than Joe Biden, knew that gun-free zones were havens for those who wish to inflict the maximum amount of misery with no one shooting back at them. And guess what? We were all correct.

Ninety-eight percent–that is how much more often a mass shooting happens in a gun-free zone than in areas where people are allowed to protect themselves as they see fit. This study did not include gang violence, which not only is not motivated by the same outcome as mass shootings or acts of terror, but are usually targeted. Gangs often use illegal guns too, so for those two reasons, gangs do not equate into the number.

image_720

This information should be shown to everyone who has been trying so hard to make (what is now proven to be) targets out of everyone by removing guns from the public at every opportunity. This is why we are seeing states such as Florida move to allow guns in government buildings and airports.

After the truth was seen that taking guns away from travelers in Florida lead to a mass killing of them as they died defenseless at the airport, this may prove to be one of the most prudent moves that we have seen in terms of public safety and defense in years.

Kentucky, home of Senator Rand Paul, is looking at changing the rules to allow guns in schools there, which will go a long way in limiting the amount of damage that a shooter will do, if God forbid that should ever arise. There are very good reasons why the Second Amendment exists, and much of it has nothing to do with hunting or taking over the government, which is always heard.

The Second Amendment means that a small, frail person can walk down the street and not have to be unprotected nor open for attack. This is the basis of protecting one’s God-given right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Flash mobs exist that see homes and stores overrun with tens, sometimes hundreds of looters, so people may feel the need to have more than ten bullets in a gun in order to be safe. That is the person’s right to do so, just as it is the right of a woman who gets off from work at three in the morning to greet any possible attacker with something more than pepper spray and a rape whistle.

By the way, someone let the left know that rape whistles don’t work so well in the age of central air, closed doors, and surround sound systems. They will never figure it out if we don’t tell them.

Let us imagine that a handful of responsible gun owners had a gun on hand during the most recent shooting at the Florida airport. Without a doubt, someone was likely going to lose their lives that day no matter what because, unlike what the media says about most gun owners,  just because someone has a gun on them does not mean that they are planning to use it.

Any gun owner would have been just as busy checking bags, dodging cell phone walkers, and paying for overpriced coffee as anyone who did not have a gun. Therefore, when the madman opened fire, the shock factor was still going to kill at least someone, if not many “someones”.

image

However, from there on out, that is where the story would have most likely changed to a very large degree. Once the first victims had fallen and the running began, a responsible conceal and carry gun owner would have been on alert. If he or she had a clear shot, which is unlikely but possible, they would have taken it. Contrary to popular belief, gun classes do not teach to ever fire if the shot is not clear, such as would have been the case with the initial panicked running. Still, once people started hitting the ground in an effort to not be a target, things would have changed.

The gunman was reported to have stood over those who cowered on the ground as a defense and simply fired his weapon into the sea of bodies while looming over them. This means that there was quite likely a clear shot once this happened. If so, at least some of those that died on the floor could have been saved. Second of all, if one or two of the people on the ground had a gun (assuming that they had ducked or were playing dead), they could have really had a fighting chance.

ngnbn

If this sounds like a bit too much of a “wild west scenario” for many to be comfortable with, are we more comfortable with a “horror movie scenario”? Gunmen who want to kill people have a terrible track record when it comes to obeying gun laws, so this approach is clearly not working. If it did work, then we would not see a 98% higher number of these crimes in places where no one except the law breaker can kill someone. There is no reason why we can not trust the vast majority of our fellow citizens to have a gun when we already know that the vast minority of us (killers) will certainly not be worthy of the trust to pull back.

It was Robert Heilein who said most astutely that an armed society is a polite society, and there are jewels of logic to be mined within those words. If guns are taken away from the people, then in areas where criminals plan, life becomes the survival of the fittest. When guns were taken by China, Russia, and Germany, it lead directly to the worst genocides of the 20th century.

It is time to understand that instead of banning guns, we need to be teaching the value and respect FOR guns. Our very lives may depend upon it someday.

 

Dems Calling For Complete Gun Control Zone After Florida Airport Killing, Don’t Realize It Already Was

January 11, 2017 Leave a comment

liberals-demanding-gun-control

Unfortunately, we had a tragedy during the opening days of the New Year. On January 6, 2017, the nation saw a mass shooting in the Ft. Lauderdale-Hollywood International airport. A gunman went through baggage claim and opened fire, shooting 13 people and killing five of them.

The nation was quick to mourn, as the top political leaders sent their thoughts and prayers to the people that were affected. President-Elect Donald Trump tweeted out his sympathies, as did Senator Marco Rubio and House Speaker Paul Ryan and a number of other Senators.

Normally this would have been enough and the people of the nation would gladly accept this. However, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence decided to open their mouth and tweet at the President-Elect, as well as the other elected officials that they didn’t need their thoughts and prayers.

Again, they decided to say that they we need to have more gun control in the United States so that these tragedies could be avoided. Oh, and they really played it up this time. The Brady Campaign sent out tweets saying that thoughts and prayers are not the solution, and they were actually “tired of [his] thoughts and prayers” when referencing House Speaker Ryan.

Trump tweeted out, “Monitoring the terrible situation in Florida. Just spoke to Governor Scott. Thoughts and prayers for all. Stay safe!” There was nothing wrong with that, as it was just a tweet to remind the people of Florida that the future president is going to make sure they are okay.

trump-fun-tweet

That was too much for the Brady Campaign, as they sent back, “.@realDonaldTrump We don’t need #thoughtsandprayers – we need commitment to take action & pass life-saving gun laws,” as well as a link to Trump’s original tweet. They also did the same thing to the other Republicans that decided to speak out against the terrible tragedy.

brady-campaign-response

The founder of Micheal Bloomberg-funded Moms Demand Action, Shannon Watts, carried out their message as well. She tweeted out, “If thoughts and prayers solved gun violence, America wouldn’t have the highest rate of gun violence of all developed nations.”

However, let’s focus on that last claim. The claim that America has “the highest rate of gun violence of all developed nations” is actually just part of a distraction. Think about this for a second: Ft. Lauderdale-Hollywood airport is a gun-free zone. In other words, they have 100 percent gun control.

moms-demand-action-idiot

So they’re calling for more gun control in an area that already had 100% gun control? That literally doesn’t make any sense at all! If anything, they should be pushing for the opposite, as in less gun control. That would be the only thing that makes sense!

Consider what happened at the end of November on the campus of Ohio State University. It was there that a terrorist actually drove his car onto the sidewalk, hit a bunch of students, got OUT of the car, and attempted to stab the survivors. Do you know the reason why only 11 people were hurt and nobody except the terrorist died?

That was because a police officer, WITH A GUN, was present and shot the guy right away. However can you imagine what would have happened if he wasn’t there right away? There could have been countless deaths. That was why Ohio, much to the chagrin of the Brady Campaign, passed a conceal carry act that makes sure this situation will never happen again.

Or if that doesn’t work, consider this. The other locations that have had total gun control have been the areas that were locations for other mass shootings. Gee that total gun control really helped out didn’t it? For example, Sandy Hook Elementary, Umpqua Community College, Fort, Hood, the Lafayette and Aurora movie theaters, and the Orlando Pulse night club were all areas that had 100 percent gun control.

Add the airport to this list and you have a pretty good case for wanting to have gun control abolished. Seriously anyone that was armed could have stopped these people. The people that committed these heinous acts are CRIMINALS. They are not going to abide by the law and the people that are going to suffer the most are the law-abiding citizens.

It didn’t matter what occurred, such as that Ohio State attack. Liberals are going to ask for total gun control no matter what happens. Again, the only gun that was involved in the Ohio State attack was the one that killed the terrorist. So what were liberals yelling for? The total removal of guns. They really have no logic whatsoever.

liberal-idiot-press-conference

Not to mention that cities that have the strictest gun laws often experience the most amount of crimes. That is because criminals don’t care about obeying the law. As a result, Chicago, which does have one of the strictest gun laws in the United States, saw a record wave of shootings over Christmas. Again, gun control really works doesn’t it?

Share this article to show that liberals are now asking for total gun control in areas that already have it. They don’t realize that gun control DOESN’T WORK. Name me a time when criminals obeyed the law. I’ll wait.

%d bloggers like this: