Exploring what can happen when people think for themselves.
Come on… we all know that the coming administration is that of President Harris. Why pretend otherwise? In any event, this is what happens when you have a constitutional right to gun ownership – where only the government decides who can exercise that right:
Are Mexico’s stringent gun control laws aiding a rise in cartel violence?
People institute governments among themselves to preserve specific freedoms. The two most commonly sought freedoms are the freedom to live one’s life unfettered by others (the right to live), and the freedom to enjoy the fruit of one’s labor (the right to personal property). But without the right and the means to defend one’s life and property, freedom is just a word.
Hence my support for the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution.
…because, as we all know, it’s the guns and not the criminals that are responsible for gun crimes:
Biden pushes gun control less than 24 hours after attempted assassination on deputies
From the article:
“We need to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.”
The surveillance footage indicates that an assault weapon was not used, and there is no evidence yet of a high capacity magazine. Still, Biden’s willing to ban them anyway.
Do you really think, Joe, that a murderer is going to change the gun he uses because you’ve outlawed it? Which is the greater crime of concern: murder, or an illegal weapons charge? If the murder charge won’t dissuade the criminal, what makes you think the lesser weapons charge will?
Nothing like punishing law-abiding citizens and restricting their means of self defense for the actions of criminals for whom your laws mean nothing.
Nice job, Joe.
An interesting piece on media misreporting from National Review:
Record numbers of Americans try to buy guns
The bad news is that the operative word in the above headline is “try”. The background check call centers have not been staffed for the onslaught of applications, and some stores have a 2 week wait just for the “instant” background screening. And that’s assuming they have a gun to sell you; a local merchant told me that Glock had more than 400,000 firearms on backorder.
…this is how they treat your moeny:
I love this quote, regarding how missing lotto tickets (referred to as an “extra gift box”) were used:
“We subsequently learned that an extra gift box was supplied to a popular influencer which provided additional media exposure, endorsement and promotional value for Holiday Scratchers games at no extra cost to Lottery.”
Subsequently? So someone was issued a ticket pack without permission, and instead of arresting them you make excuses as to why it is OK?
Welcome to Kalifornia.
The 2nd amendment grants us the means to exercise our right to self-defense. Without such means we are at the whim of anyone larger, stronger, or more numerous than ourselves. Here is one example:
Fatal New York City $1 mugging caught on video leads to arrest: reports
Here is another:
California Starbucks customer dies chasing laptop thief, police say; 2 arrested
Note that this last example contains a quote I consider abhorrent:
“It’s not worth it to chase after the laptop.”
It’s not the cost of the laptop that is critical here; it’s our liberty to own and use the laptop that is the value we are protecting. We must not renounce our liberties by failing to protect them, with our lives – or the lives of the criminals – if need be. However, to protect these liberties presupposes that we have the means. Such is one purpose of the 2nd amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
…but you can certainly protect yourself when it arrives:
Texas church shooting: Gunman kills 2, ‘heroic’ parishioners take down shooter
In this case, the attacker used a firearm. Suitably-armed parishioners responded with their own firearms, stopping the attack and saving countless lives. Some will argue that law-abiding citizens with firearms thwarted a deadly attack; others will argue that without legal firearms the attack could not have occurred (at least not with a firearm). However, the latter position is narrowly tailored to cases where the attacker used a firearm; what if they do not? And what would be the impact on crime if law-abiding citizens were disarmed?
We must recognize that a firearm enhances our self-defense capabilities; it prevents us from being at the whim of any attacker who is stronger or more numerous than ourselves. What would stop a large, strong criminal from simply robbing the elderly at will were it not for the fear that their victims could use arms in self-defense? What would stop criminal gangs from taking what they want from law-abiding citizens who happen to cross their path? Do you really think home invasions, strong arm robberies and rapes would decrease if common self-defense firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens were outlawed? Think again.
We must also recognize that criminals will be incentivized to use firearms when a society is disarmed. In a society where law-abiding citizens are allowed to use firearms for the defense of themselves and others, a firearm might give an advantage to the criminal. However, it might not – it might actually get them shot. But in a disarmed society the criminal with a firearm wins every time; the disarmed public has no suitable defense against an armed criminal. Thus, the value of a firearm to the criminal increases in a disarmed society.
Without the right to exist, by virtue of the right to self defense, all other rights are meaningless. However, without a suitable means of self defense the matter is moot. Firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens offer the appropriate means of self defense.
NPR conveniently edited a quote so as to downplay the heroic actions of two armed parishioners who stopped a potential mass shooter at a Texas church on Sunday. Apparently, armed law-abiding citizens defending themselves just doesn’t play well with the anti-gun left.
The quote as reported by NPR:
“Unfortunately, this country has seen so many of these that we’ve actually gotten used to it to this point.” Williams said. “And it’s tragic and it’s just a terrible situation, especially during the holiday season.”
The quote as reported by Fox News:
“Unfortunately, this country has seen so many of these that we’ve actually gotten used to it at this point. And it’s tragic and it’s a terrible situation, especially during the holiday season,” Jeoff Williams, a regional director with the Texas Department of Public Safety, said at the news conference. “I would like to point out that we have a couple of heroic parishioners who stopped short of just anything that you can even imagine, saved countless lives, and our hearts are going out to them and their families as well.” [emphasis mine]
Sad story:
Officer fatally shot after responding to domestic disturbance
But here’s the real issue (from the same article):
“Arturo Solis, 25, is believed to be the shooter, Acevedo said. Solis has a lengthy criminal history including a charge of assault causing bodily injury.”
Gun control advocates like Michael Bloomberg will surely insist that this means we need more laws impacting the gun rights of law-abiding citizens. But this shooting wasn’t by a law abiding citizen; this was allegedly the act of a criminal. How about advocating for gun laws that disproportionately impact criminals while leaving the rights of law-abiding citizens unscathed? Wouldn’t that have a much greater impact on crime than taking away Uncle Bob’s military-style target/hunting rifle?
Let’s make it a law that every crime gun must be traced to its source, and that this data must be published with annual crime data. This way we can focus our laws where they will actually do some good, and prevent criminals from obtaining firearms.
How about fighting for that law, Mr. Bloomberg?