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.
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”.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Lots of factors drive gun sales. A perceived increase in violence or terrorist attacks certainly play a large part in convincing people to buy firearms. But perhaps more than that is the threat to guns posed by political forces.
Hillary’s Clinton was the presumptive president. Most people assumed she and her gun control agenda would win the White House.
I don’t think that she would have actually “repealed the 2nd Amendment.” There’s little doubt that she’d be in favor of that however, while reserving the right for herself and her colleagues. She did speak very highly of Australia’s and England’s gun control measures.
But enforcing such swift, drastic measures is not typically how American politicians operate. They operate and have operated for many decades through gradualism. They’d rather use the media and education system to lie to the American people constantly until Americans by and large accept these lies as self-evident truth. Once most Americans have fallen for these lies, then politicians will have the consent of a majority of voters, and will push whatever legislation Americans are calling for.
The need for more gun control is one of the many lies that the media and political establishment have barraged Americans with. Americans become fearful from the false perception that mass shooting are on the rise, and that the only way to curb them is to enforce tougher and tougher gun control measures, making it more and more difficult for everyday Americans to buy weapons.
Any time a Democrat with a gun control agenda is rising to power, people always respond by stocking up on weaponry and ammunition. Last year set a record with the possibility of Hillary Clinton winning the White House. When that didn’t happen, gun sales dropped, and December actually saw fewer gun sales compared to the previous December. The Washington Examiner reported:
The numbers do not include many guns sold to or given to friends and family.
Sales hit record levels for some 19 months in a row as the number of terrorist attacks around the world and here at home increased, driving purchases by those seeking protection. The increase paralleled increases in those seeking a license to carry a concealed weapon.
Since the election, however, sales have slipped as fears about gun bans and ammo taxes and registration died with Clinton’s busted bid. December, for example, was the first month where sales did not match the previous December’s, when background checks reached 3.3 million.
The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by EagleRising.com
(Breitbart) On January 3–the first day of the 115th Congress–Representative Richard Hudson (R-NC-8) introduced national concealed carry reciprocity legislation.
Hudson’s office published this summary of the legislation:
Rep. Hudson’s bill, which is supported by major pro-Second Amendment groups, would allow people with a state-issued concealed carry license or permit to conceal a handgun in any other state that allows concealed carry, as long as the permit holder follows the laws of that state. It also allows residents of Constitutional carry states the ability to carry in other states that recognize their own resident’s right to concealed carry.
Note: Hudson’s legislation not only establishes national reciprocity for concealed permit holders but also national reciprocity for residents who live in states that require no permit for concealed carry. In the former situation the concealed carry permit of any state would be valid in every state and the “identification document” in possession of a resident of a constitutional carry state would serve as a permit to carry without a license in other states…
Source: Matthew Bernstein
It’s been a little over a month since the country has decided that Donald Trump will be the next president of the United States. In that time, Trump has been hard at work choosing the members of his cabinet carefully and working diligently to correct the problems we have seen these past eight years.
But it isn’t only the President-Elect that is hard at work. On Election Day it was confirmed that the Republicans would have control of the House and the Senate as well as the White House. In sports terms, it was a clean sweep by the GOP over the Democrats.
And since then there have been Congress members that have been at work trying to think of some new bills that are going to be voted on during the upcoming months. And one of the Republican members of Congress has announced his plans for the newest bill he wants to introduce.
North Carolina Republican Representative Richard Hudson has said that he is going to introduce legislation that would affect concealed carry members all over the country. And it isn’t the first time that he has tried to introduce something like this. Hudson tried to introduce a similar bill back in February of 2015.
But this new legislation is going to be known as the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017. As you can probably imagine, it is going to directly affect those people that have a permit for a concealed carry permit. But since this is coming from a Republican, it isn’t going to take away your rights.
Essentially what the bill is going to do is allow a person with a concealed carry license from one state to actually carry a concealed handgun in any other state that allows their residents to concealed carry.
There are some basic restrictions, including not allowing someone to carry a gun if they are banned from possessing or even transporting a firearm under federal law. The bill also excludes carrying “a machine gun or destructive device,” and the person must follow “the restrictions of that state.”
Again those aren’t bad restrictions to have. They are pretty basic and necessary to ensure that nobody gets hurt. And they respect the rights of the Second Amendment, which is finally receiving the respect that it deserves, considering that it has been chewed up and spit out under eight years of Obama.
Hudson also talked about the legislation. “Our Second Amendment right doesn’t disappear when we cross state lines, and I plan to introduce legislation in the first days of the 115th Congress to guarantee that. The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 is a common sense bill to provide law-abiding citizens the right to conceal carry and travel freely between states without worrying about conflicting state codes or onerous civil suits.”
He later added, “As a member of President-elect Trump’s Second Amendment Coalition, I look forward to working with the administration to advance policies that support and protect our right to keep and bear arms.” As stated before, the Democrats have been spitting on the Second Amendment for the past eight years, so this is a welcomed sight.
Hudson wasn’t the only member to try and introduce a bill like this before. Other members, like Texas Republican Senator John Cornyn, have introduced national concealed carry legislation in the past, but that was when Democrats held the majority in the upper chamber.
He also didn’t make any indication if there was any plan to re-introduce his legislation next year. But considering that the Republicans control the House, Senate, and the White House, it certainly has a great chance to be passed.
A source confirmed that Hudson’s office has been working on the bill for a while and “thinking about what we are going to do in the new year and we plan to introduce the bill from this Congress with the addition of constitutional carry in the first days of the 115th Congress.”
Trump was able to win the support of Second Amendment supporters, thanks in part to the National Rifle Association. He also promised during his campaign to push an expansion of gun rights under his administration. The NRA was naturally all for this.
Wayne LaPierre, the chief executive of the NRA, said in a video following the November 8 election, “This is our historic moment to go on offense and to defeat the forces that have aligned against our freedom once and for all. The individual right to carry a firearm in defense of our lives and our families does not and should not end at any state line.”
But the fight for gun control is going to be a long one. Democrats have already won victories that have tightened gun and ammunition restrictions in New York, Connecticut, Colorado, Nevada, California, and Washington state in recent years. And you can be sure that they are going to keep up the fight against guns.
But liberals have embarrassed themselves when it comes to gun control recently. A couple weeks ago, the Ohio State terrorist was out trying to kill people. And naturally the liberals tried to claim that he was using a gun to go and kill people. They were ADAMENT in their claims. There was a giant problem though. The terrorist used a car and a knife. He never touched a gun. It’s an embarrassment that is going to live on.
But they did have a serious threat against the Second Amendment before. Back before the election, Hillary Clinton made it a promise to sue all the firearm companies that had a gun involved in a crime. But the biggest problem with that is the fact that the gun manufacturers are not responsible for what their buyers do. It makes about as much sense as suing Ford for crashing your car.
Share this article with your friends and family to show that real legislation is coming to affect gun control laws in the country. Soon enough we will be able to have concealed carry in areas that we should have had it and not worry about breaking state laws. It’s common sense and it’s about time that it was enacted.
Trump election does not slow gun sales
More gun-related FBI background checks were done in 2016 than in any other year in history after November set yet another record for gun sales in the United States.
So far this year, the FBI has processed 24,767,514 checks through its National Instant Criminal Background Check System, known as NICS, which puts 2016 more than 160,000 checks above the yearly record set in 2015. The record comes after November 2016 set its own monthly record with 2,561,281 checks, nearly 320,000 more than the previous record set last November. This gun sales spike has lasted for over a year and resulted in monthly records for 19 straight months.
November’s record comes as the firearms industry is beginning its seasonal upswing with millions of Americans purchasing firearms in the lead up to the holiday season. That upswing is likely to add to 2016’s record because December has traditionally seen the highest number of NICS checks for the year.
“Reports of the industry’s demise were greatly exaggerated by the liberal anti-gun media,” Larry Keane, the National Shooting Sports Foundation’s senior vice president, said of the new record.
The number of checks processed through the FBI’s system is generally considered one of the strongest indicators of gun sales in the United States because nearly all sales made through federally licensed firearms dealers require a NICS check. However, the number of NICS checks made in a given period of time is not a perfect representation of the number of guns actually sold in that same period of time for a number of reasons. Many states don’t require NICS checks on sales between private sellers on the used market. Licensed dealers can also sell multiple guns on a single NICS check. Some states use NICS checks in the application process for gun carry permits.
“These statistics represent the number of firearm background checks initiated through the NICS,” the FBI said of its monthly NICS check report. “They do not represent the number of firearms sold. Based on varying state laws and purchase scenarios, a one-to-one correlation cannot be made between a firearm background check and a firearm sale.”
Gun rights activists have long attributed the string of record setting months to advocacy by leading Democrats, including Hillary Clinton and President Obama, for new gun control measures. In the wake of Hillary Clinton’s defeat at the polls by Donald Trump, who most view as pro-gun, many believed gun sales would begin to recede.
“I’m not surprised by this being a huge year for gun sales because of Obama’s disdain for gun rights and threats of more gun control over the years,” Philip Van Cleave, president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, said. “But, part of that sales record is also the threat of terrorism, actual acts of terrorism on American soil, rising racial violence, riots and violence because of political hatred, and even attacks on police.
One of the greatest rights that we have in this country is the ability to own a gun. People own guns for various reasons including protection, sport, or they want to protect themselves from our tyrannical government. Whatever the reason is, the Constitution allows them the right to own a gun.
When our Founding Fathers were coming up with the first set of rules for this country, they made a specific Amendment for owning a gun. The right was so important that it was chosen second, not tenth.
It has been that way since the Constitution was first passed! And yet we still have to deal with Democrats that want to restrict that particular Amendment so much that it’s almost unrecognizable. That is exactly what Hillary Clinton plans to do if she gets into the White House.
A report from the Washington Times has confirmed that Clinton would ban “some of the most popular” guns in the United States if she gets into the Oval Office! But that isn’t all she would do. The report also shows that she would continue to decimate the Second Amendment with new gun control laws and regulations.
Of course Clinton tries to play it cool. She “reassures law-abiding Americans their firearms won’t be targeted” if she wins. Except that is completely false! Her gun control laws would be broad measures “that would affect Americans with no criminal records.” Not only that, it would have LITTLE IMPACT on the criminals that have guns!
Here is a prime example. Clinton is calling “for a reinstatement of the national assault weapons ban and a prohibition on high-capacity magazines.” That “assault weapons” ban just took an entire category of guns away from law-abiding citizens! That was something that Clinton assured wouldn’t happen!
Not only that, but the “high capacity” magazine ban would FORCE law-abiding citizens to fork over their “high capacity” magazines to government officials. It’s either that or they would destroy them. She isn’t even elected and yet this is the type of action that would happen in a Clinton presidency!
So what about those criminals? Since criminals always listen to what the government says, we have nothing to worry about right? WRONG! Criminals would KEEP their guns and “high capacity” magazines. You know what that means? They would have an advantage over law-abiding citizens that listened to Clinton!
It’s bad enough that Clinton wants to take the guns away from people, but unfortunately it gets even worse. She would call for an expansion of background checks that the federal law would mirror the laws that exist in California, Colorado, and Washington State.
Looking at those states something comes up that shouldn’t shock anyone. They have such strict background check laws that people just don’t get weapons. And since criminals don’t obey the law they keep their weapons. As a result, those three states were the background to some of the nation’s most recent high profile shootings!
So putting two and two together increased background checks means that more innocent people are going to get hurt. They can’t defend themselves with their own gun, so they are at the complete mercy of the criminal! Do you want to put yourself at the mercy of a criminal, or do you want to be able to protect yourself AND your family?
There is still one last act that Clinton would do if she were President. She would have the Supreme Court revisit the District of Columbia v Heller (2008) ruling. A revisit would lead to the possibility of either tweaking or ELIMINATING the court’s reaffirmation of the individual right to keep and bear arms.
Those are just some of the horrors that would arise from a Clinton presidency. A Constitutional right that has been in the United States since the formation of the country would cease to exist. And yet she wants to claim that she wouldn’t have any laws that would affect the law-abiding citizens.
Donald Trump put it the best in the third presidential debate. “I believe if my opponent should win this race, which I really don’t think will happen, we will have a Second Amendment which will be a very, very small replica of what it is right now.”
But this has been the Democrats plan all along. They want to see this country completely devoid of all guns whatsoever. But they fail to realize that law-abiding citizens are NOT the people causing damage! It’s CRIMINALS!
Speaking of criminals, this isn’t the first time that Clinton has tried to change our gun laws. She actually believes that terrorism can be defeated, which it can, but her way wouldn’t do anything to stop it. She thinks that terrorism can only be defeated if you collect all the guns in the United States. Yes, that is what she thinks.
But she isn’t just going after the guns in the United States; she’s targeting the gun manufacturers as well! Clinton wants to sue firearm companies for crimes that are committed from their manufactured guns. It doesn’t matter if a CRIMINAL took the gun from the registered owner. Clinton just wants to see the gun manufacturers gone!
Share this article with your friends and family to show some of the actions that would happen if Clinton were to set foot in the Oval Office. The Constitutional right to own a gun would cease to exist, as we know it. If you value your right to own a gun for whatever reason, then you cannot let Clinton get elected.
We need to make sure that Donald Trump gets elected. Otherwise a Clinton presidency would completely destroy the Second Amendment. Something that our Founding Fathers worked tirelessly to put into the document that defines this nation would be completely erased.