Tag Archives: 2nd amendment

The Gun Battle is Over

Posted by Tim on

Feinstein came out with her assault weapons ban this week. There isn’t a whole lot to go over (since I’ve already written about the meat of it) but I do find it somewhat interesting that people are already doubting whether the bill will even be able to pass the Senate. Even after Obama’s bland speech regarding “gun violence”, during which he urged Congress to ban assault weapons and high capacity magazines, there are still democrat senators that are feeling uneasy about the whole thing.

What’s the reason? Simply put – we are. Politicians know that across the country, people are very upset about potential bans on their weapons. Somewhere around 4 million AR-15s are in the hands of legal owners, hurting no one. For a government official to suddenly ban these – that’ll lose at least 4 million votes. The issue hits home with a lot of responsible law abiding gun owners who feel that they are being attacked for doing nothing wrong. (Click HERE to see a list of specific guns to be banned.)

feinsteinBecause these Americans have something at stake (their guns) they tend to be more informed about the issue, and they tend to be more involved with the issue. The NRA, America’s largest gun-rights organization, has gained hundreds of thousands of members in the last couple of months. These members are both young and old, rich and poor, black and white; but they all have one thing in common – the value they place in the 2nd amendment. Just last weekend, pro-gun rallies were held at every state capital in the US. If this doesn’t send a signal to politicians, nothing will.

But surprisingly, these rallies even sent a signal to democrats, who, at least in recent history, have a habit of not listening to their constituents. Because of this, at least 6 democrat Senators seem unwilling to vote for Feinstein’s AWB. 6 down doesn’t leave enough room for a majority vote, let alone a super-majority which could over-ride a filibuster from someone like Kentucky Senator Rand Paul. If the bill doesn’t get through the Senate, the bill won’t get to the House, and won’t be signed into law by el Presidente. Even if the bill were to pass the Senate, it would be “dead on arrival” in the House.

The fact that it is unlikely to pass the Senate is a big sign that the America people just aren’t against “assault weapons”. People are informed, and they know that assault weapons are no more dangerous than other firearms. They know that the problem is not with guns, but with criminals. They understand why our founders gave us the 2nd amendment; to fight a tyrannical government. And they see through the cheesy propaganda put forth by Feinstein and her goon-squad. Feinstein’s AWB isn’t popular, and that is the reason it won’t pass.

The life of politicians can be long, and many of those currently in office remember the 1994 elections. Earlier that year, President Clinton signed the ’94 assault weapons ban (put forth by – you guessed it – Dianne Feinstein). The result was a massive surge in NRA memberships, a surge in gun sales, and a landslide election for Republicans in November. Politicians are not about to risk their careers over the bill. They saw what happened last time.

I was at a gun store earlier this week, and I must say, that I was happy to see so few people in there. This is probably in part because the store had sold out of almost everything on the ban list, but it is also because people are settling down. For a couple months things were crazy. Packed parking lots, long lines, and shortages of guns and ammo. If the stores are seeing sales drop off, that means that people aren’t worried about the ban. The media has started to talk about other things, the story has moved on. The war isn’t over (Feinstein will be back eventually), but it seems this battle is.

This has been a true testament to the power of the American people. The free press has allowed us to hear the news, free speech has allowed us to say what we think, and the right to assemble has allowed us to take our message to the doorsteps of politicians. Pat yourselves on the back. Good job.

But the real reasoning behind the AWB wasn’t ever about guns. It was about distracting the American people from the debt ceiling debate. Republicans have already vowed NOT to make the ceiling an issue (at least Boehner has), which means that America’s debt will continue to rise. Last time we did this our credit rating was downgraded. It wasn’t downgraded because we fought over the ceiling, but rather because we showed no interest in finding solutions as to how to pay all this money back. So far, Washington has done the same thing again, and as we tee-up another debt ceiling increase, a credit rating downgrade may be right around the corner.

Feinstein’s Assault Weapons Ban

Posted by Tim on

Still waiting for the official bill to be published for the public’s eyes, but Dianne Feinstein has recently published a “Summary of 2013 Legislation” on her website. She’s patterning her new proposal after the 1994 “Clinton Ban”, that banned high capacity magazines, collapsable stocks, pistol grips, etc. The new proposal will ban these specific features, but there is one big difference. In the past (1994-2004), guns were banned that had 2 or more of these features. Now, guns with just one of these features will be banned.

Is there anything dangerous about a collapsable stock? No, not at all. The stocks allow people to adjust them based on each individual’s arm length. They “collapse” only to accomodate some people who have shorter arms. The legislation will also ban bayonet mounts, because obviously, people are slaughtering innocent school children with bayonets. The real key here isn’t the features themselves; it is that these features are offered on a variety of mean looking guns – things that scare Dianne Feinstein. (Feinstein could just look in the mirror, scare herself, and then ban herself from appearing in public without a wearing a mask. How about that?)

diannefeinsteinHer site also makes the proclamation that the 1994 ban lowered crime. While is it true that crime went down between 1994-2004 (the year the ban expired), she fails to recognize that crime was going down before 1994, and continued going down after 2004. This is a classic example of politicians not telling the whole story in order to sway voters towards particular legislation. Either Feinstein knows that she is intentionally misleading the American people, or she’s just that dumb herself. To be honest, I’m not quite sure which one it is.

Politicians love to take credit for good things occurring  and refuse to take credit for anything bad happening. Barney Frank loved taking credit for the housing boom of the early 2000s, but denied that his own policies had anything to do with the housing bust in 2006-2007. Dianne Feinstein loves touting her assault weapons ban as a life-saving endeavor, but never accepts responsibility for the underground black market she created while banning such weapons – a market that funds other criminal activity; drugs, prostitution, extortion, illegal gambling. It is as if politicians can do no harm and laws don’t have side-effects.

(Here’s a picture of Feinstein holding an AK-47. Notice her finger is ON THE TRIGGER and the gun is POINTING AT PEOPLE. This is basic gun safety; the stuff you learn on the first day of a Hunter’s Safety course, in the first five minutes of a Concealed Carry class. And she’s going to lecture me about what guns I can and cannot own? What a joke!)

Also included in her summary is this -

  • Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:
    • Background check of owner and any transferee;
    • Type and serial number of the firearm;
    • Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
    • Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and
    • Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration.

I may, or may not, be the owner of one the weapons on the ban list. Luckily, because I purchased it legally (or so they assume), it will be “grandfathered”. I can keep it – oh good. BUT, I need to go through a second background check, give the Feds the serial number from the gun, give them my photograph and finger print, get the gun certified by state and local authorities, and then pay the ATF for all of this. I’ve never committed a crime – why should the feds have my finger print on file? Just to own a scary looking gun?

Isn’t the ATF the agency responsible for selling guns to Mexican drug cartels? The guns that have been proven to kill literally hundreds of Mexicans and even a US border patrol agent? And now I have to pay them to keep track of my information? Nah… not likely. Whatever happened to property rights? I bought something – therefore it is mine. I don’t need to do anything else, I already own it, and no one has the right to take it away. We do still have the 2nd amendment and the 4th amendment, right? (Well…. not really.)

My hope is that the bill will be shot down once it enters the House of Representatives where Republicans still hold a majority. Even if it doesn’t, it will likely be modified, and although these guns will be banned, the government won’t force current owners to register their guns with the federal government. There is no reason to assume that Feinstein just wrote this bill within the last two weeks. She’s most likely had it sitting in a desk drawer in her cozy Senator’s office since 2004, just waiting for the right moment to throw it on the American people. What better time than after a horrific school shooting, right?

In any case, I’m not going to register anything I have with the Feds, and I doubt most gun owners will. It is a long-time goal of the left to establish a national registry of guns and their owners. Once they know where the guns are, it makes it that much easier to seize them. Do gun bans lead to tyrannical governments? You tell me – Turkey, Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, Uganda, Guatemala…

Celebrities and Gun Control

Posted by Tim on

Thomas Sowell explained in an interview on the Hoover Institution’s Uncommon Knowledge that knowledge is dispersed very widely. We are all experts within a small field, but one step outside of that field and we are completely lost. Although Sowell was referring more specifically to those he calls “intellectuals” (masters of linguistics who assume they know anything about economics, for instance), the same can be said for Hollywood elites. Celebrities tend to really overplay their influence on the American people. I can’t say for sure, but it seems that celebrities really believe that their opinions actually matter.

The new “Demand a Plan” crusade is out and about. The first YouTube video put forth is a series of celebrities, ranging from Conan O’Brien to Courtney Cox, saying that there has been too much killing, and enough is enough. It is time to do something, and demand a plan from the government to curb mass shootings. Virginia Tech, the Oak Creek Sikh temple, Aurora movie theater, and of course, the Sandy Hook elementary school – we need to “do” something.

The commercial itself doesn’t give any real plan for action, but the website does. “We can prevent future tragedies by passing common sense legislation that will: 1. Require a criminal background check for every gun sold in America, 2. Ban assault weapons and high capacity magazines and, 3. Make gun trafficking a federal crime including real penalties for “straw purchasers”.” The website doesn’t include information on how any of this legislation would actually reduce crime, but hey – humor me.

1. “Require a criminal background check for every gun sold in America.” This is pretty much already the case. Anytime I’ve bought a gun, whether its from a straight up gun shop or a hunting store, I’ve filled out a form, shown my ID, and had someone run a background check on me. If I was a felon, then they’d stop the transaction right there. I cannot buy a weapon without a background check as it is. Sounds like #1 is already taken care of, right?

Not exactly. There are people who may give a gun as a gift to their children, or to a friend. If I’m in need of cash, I might call someone and say, “Hey, want to buy my gun?” Unfortunately, there is virtually no legislation that would effectively regulate these transactions. It would be like trying to regulate the sale of used college textbooks. Good luck with that.

guns2. Ban assault weapons and high capacity magazines. Yes! Because “assault weapons” aren’t mechanically the same as any hunting rifle? Banning assault weapons is a cry made by people who don’t know the difference between what they call an “assault weapon” and what our military uses. Automatic weapons (like those that our military uses) have been banned since the 1930s. No mass shooting has used an automatic weapon since 1982.

The assault weapons they are talking about are not a problem, they just look mean. When there was an assault weapons ban from 1994-2004 the authors of the bill, Diane Feinstein and others, literally went through a gun magazine and pointed at things that they didn’t like. If it didn’t look like a hunting rifle or ordinary handgun, it went on their “list”. Banning a weapon based on looks is foolishness.

3. Make gun trafficking a federal crime including real penalties for “straw purchasers”. In case you aren’t familiar, a straw purchaser is someone who buys a gun but knows beforehand that he’s just going to give it to someone else. The forms that people fill out already have a check box saying “Are you the actual purchaser of this firearm”. When people check “yes” they are saying that they are not buying it for someone else. Penalties for being a straw purchaser are already up to a $25,000 fine and up to 10 years in prison. Sounds pretty tough to me.

Unfortunately, there isn’t a real way to prove that someone is buying a gun for someone else. Once it is out of the store, who knows what they do with it? They bought it legally, registered it, haven’t committed a crime – are police supposed to begin checking everyone’s home and asking “I need to make sure you still have the guns that are registered to you.” Police have enough on their plates, I seriously doubt they want to be wandering around the streets asking people to show them their guns.

The problem with these types of laws is that they will have largely no effect on the criminals who are the main cause of violent crime. Celebrities can talk all they want about mass shootings, but the biggest victims of gun crime are young minorities in urban settings. These are the guns that need to be taken off the streets, and they are in the hands of people who need to be taken off the streets. Gangsters and drug dealers are the main culprit  when it comes to gun related homicides.

If “gun trafficking” is something we could cut down on by passing new laws, then drug trafficking would be down as well. If these liberal celebrities really want to punish gun traffickers, then look no further than Barack Obama himself – selling thousands of guns to Mexican drug cartels, many of which have been used to kill innocent Mexicans and even a US border patrol officer. With such a crummy example being set by the man in the oval office, why should criminals behave any differently?

Pat yourselves on the back, Hollywood. You’ve done nothing, but at least you feel good about yourself. A horrific killing happened, and for a moment, they were in the news, not you. So, to put yourselves back in the spotlight, you make a video demanding new gun control laws. Be an actor, be a comedian, be a musician, be a talk show host – but don’t pretend to know anything about the gun control issue.

Defending the 2nd Amendment

Posted by Tim on

Well, its time to defend the 2nd amendment again. Every time some whack-job goes and shoots up a school, mall, or theater, gun rights advocates like myself have to step up our game and work to spread the word about what the real problems are, and what the problems aren’t. The argument hasn’t changed. It seems that the left exploits any example of violence to try to pass new legislation restricting gun ownership. The most radical left-wing nuts cry for outright bans on all firearms. Nothing new, but now is the time to brush up on the facts about guns and crime.

shootingThe argument is something along the lines of “if guns were illegal, people wouldn’t be able to murder.” This argument fails to recognize that murder is illegal. If the crime itself was committed, why would some other laws hinder a criminal? Criminals are by definition people who don’t obey laws. Politicians can pass all the laws they want, but criminals will still find guns. You then end up with a situation where law abiding citizens are defenseless and the criminals have all the guns.

But of course, “if it could save only one life, it would be worth it”, right? But the facts fly in the face of this assumption. Not only do guns laws not work to relieve crime, but in many cases, as more gun laws are passed, crime increases. Therefore, its not a matter of “if it only saves one life”; these laws will cost lives, not save them. During riots in Los Angelos during the 90s, waiting times in California prevented innocent people from being able to defend their homes and businesses. Contrast this with the crime and looting in Florida following hurricane Andrew – people were able to quickly buy guns to defend themselves, and the criminal threat was neutralized. Continue reading →

Aurora Sparks the Gun Law Debates

Posted by Tim on

To make myself feel morally superior to the talking heads on TV, I decided to put off politicizing the Colorado shootings. Well, at least I tried. Giving respect to the families who have been affected by this event, and NOT making it into a political argument is really what we should do. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have both insisted that now is not the time to talk about gun control laws. Let broken families heal before we turn their tragedy into our campaign slogan.

Almost immediately following the shooting, politicians and the media were spewing talking points on how America needs stronger gun laws. If only Americans weren’t allow to own guns, then things like this wouldn’t happen. Its easy to come to such conclusions after a massacre that killed 12 people and put over 50 more in a hospital, but laws should never be made to deal with emotions. The natural way for people think is this: Something is wrong >>> We need a law to fix it. These laws however never really solve the problem.

In this case the problem is psychopaths killing people. These shootings have happened at schools, churches, and now theaters. The way to deal with them, however, is not to ban all people from owning weapons, but to let our criminal justice system work. Every day violent criminals are let out of prison early only to steal, rape, and murder again. Keeping people locked up for their full sentence (even if it means they die in prison) is a proven way to lower crime rates. Crime increases when criminals know they can get off the hook easy.

Banning weapons has been proven not to work time and time again. For instance – Washington DC and Chicago both have had outright bans on firearms and both cities have disturbing crime rates. Germany has tough gun laws as well, but they have been subject to some of the worst shootings in recent history. Even our neighbor to the north, Canada, has tougher gun laws than we do, their most gun-controlled city (Toronto) has the highest gun crime in their country. Gun control does not work. Period.

But not everyone is calling for outright bans to weapons. As I’m writing this, MSNBC is calling for simple bans on assault weapons – rifles that can hold 30 or more rounds, each fired with a single pull of the trigger. While it was one of these weapons that was used in the shooting in Aurora, statistics show that assault weapons account for about 1% of weapons used in crimes. Banning assault weapons simply would do next to nothing to solve the problem.

It is important to realize that many of these mass shootings take place where concealed carry is banned – schools, for example. The shooters know that no one will be firing back at them, and they feel more confident about carrying out their plans. The theater in Aurora is such a business where concealed carry is not allowed. Obviously, that didn’t stop James Holmes. But what if the theater allowed people to carry concealed weapons. Perhaps one person would have been there who could have killed James Holmes before he took the lives of 12 innocent people.

These knee jerk reactions to tragedies are to be expected, but that makes it vitally important for gun rights advocates (like myself) to set the record straight. This was an awful incident that took place, we can all agree, but now is not the time to start making wild calls for gun bans. Certain things in life cannot be avoided, no matter how much we prepare for them. No matter what laws we have in place, violent psychopaths will find a way to kill people. What we can do is allow people to defend themselves, minimizing the loss of life.

Recommended Reading (7/9/12)

Posted by Tim on

The whole Fast and Furious scandal is a bit of foreshadowing on what is to come should America re-elect Barry Obama. Despite what some may say about Obama neglecting to pursue any major gun control measures, his record is perfectly available to anyone who wishes to learn more. Obama and the 2nd Amendment just do not go together. It is because of this that its important to re-educate ourselves on the gun control issue.

Perhaps it is in our favor then to read a book that was written in the height of Bill Clinton’s anti-gun era in the 90s. Guns, Crime, and Freedom is the book to read. Written by Wayne LaPierre (Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association), this book provides the reader with the know how to argue for freedom and against gun control.

When this book was written America had just passed the “Brady Bill”, which banned certain weapons – especially so-called “assault weapons”. LaPierre lays out the facts in clear English. Assault weapons account for about 2% of crimes. The ban on assault weapons wasn’t designed to lower crime, but to get the proverbial “foot in the door”. Brady Bill II showed exactly what was coming, (an virtual ban of most firearms, thereby eliminating the 2nd Amendment) and luckily it never passed.

LaPierre exposes just about every gun control fallacy, from waiting periods to licensing, concealed carry to children and guns. He then takes on the root of our crime problem in America – our lax justice system. Account after account is brought forth where criminals are placed back into society before they have serve their time, only to murder and rape again. Prisons DO work, and its time we thought about society more than of the criminal’s “feelings”.

Going back and looking at where we came from in the 90s can help us see the signs of another Brady Bill coming in the next four years should Obama be re-elected. The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen. Don’t think that the 2nd Amendment isn’t on their hit list. It is the 2nd Amendment that insures the rest of the Constitution, and you better believe they’re planning on attacking it.

Learning From the Swiss

Posted by Tim on

If you’ve been reading this blog for even a short time you’ve probably figured out that I’m a proud American and a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment – the right to keep and bear arms. In fact, in the last few years I’ve read more and more on the subject and am able to defeat even the most stubborn gun-ban enthusiast in a debate. Having this kind of knowledge comes in handy when trying to spread a little knowledge around. Knowing talking points is one thing, but being able to explain the history behind our Constitution and why certain things are the way they are is of utmost importance.

I find that it makes a gun nut like myself a lot less abrasive. Instead of being a whack-job, I’m an educated man with an interesting hobby – worthy of brain picking. I was at a gig one time and a friend who I hadn’t seen in a while showed up. He’s a fair minded conservative. He works hard, saves his money, and lives a responsible life. I mentioned that “gig money is gun money” (one of my favorite sayings) and he said that he had been wanting to purchase a handgun, but didn’t know anything about them. Well – here I am! I jumped at the opportunity to help him out.

This might sound extreme, and I’m not sure if I really believe it fully, but there is something to not only having the right to bear arms, but also exercising that right. All Americans ought to own at least 1 gun. (All conservatives ought to own no less than 10.) It would be an interesting world if every American home was armed. What criminal would break into a house if he knew that the owner was packing some heat? No one would! But since many Americans don’t, he’ll take the chance. Imagine if every American had a carry concealed license. Who would hold anyone up if they knew that every citizen was carrying a firearm? No one would!

Even from a national security point of view this would be a good idea. Switzerland is well known to be the “neutral” country in Europe. They don’t send troops anywhere. They don’t get involved in wars, revolutions, and uprisings. They just mind their own business. But how have they done it for so long without some other country coming in and trying to conquer them? Its simple. Military service is mandatory for all Swiss men, and they remain active until their 40s. Therefore, nearly every home in Switzerland has at least one gun in it, along with someone who is trained to use that gun. Trying to invade Switzerland would be like trying to invade a barracks of 8 million people.

Gun crime is low over there. Target and trap shooting are regular pastimes. The Swiss take great pride in their marksmanship. Crazy. Now, I’m not saying that America ought to be Switzerland. Its easy for a country the size of Connecticut to operate like that. 8 million versus 300 million. Writing laws and regulations for 8 million is a lot easier. But there are certain characteristics of the Swiss that are really unique and interesting. Perhaps we could learn a thing or two from them about gun rights and the 2nd Amendment.

Gun Virgins

Posted by Tim on

“Have you ever tried it?” This is a poor argument for a lot of things. I’ve never tried cocaine, but that doesn’t mean that its good, or that I shouldn’t put it down. I’ve never tried sex with a man – but I’m pretty damn sure I wouldn’t enjoy it! Then again – if the argument is something that is safe and not a personal moral issue – why not try new things? Sushi? I’ve had it. Didn’t really care for it – but at least I tried it and gave it a fair chance. Coffee? Of course – and I don’t much like the taste or smell. But I gave it a fair shot. This is a simple enough concept to grasp, yes?

Then why do people who have never fired a gun have such a hard time with guns? I have yet to find someone who has fired a gun who doesn’t like them. Instead, people who say things like, “I don’t like guns” or  worse, “I don’t believe in guns” (trust me, they’re real) are people who don’t own them and have never fired them. Its like people who have never been on a plane saying that they don’t like flying. How can you be a judge of something that you have no knowledge of?

Now, I don’t expect everyone to go to the range one time and then start buying a new firearm every year, ending with a full on arsenal of weaponry ready to arm a militia, but I honestly believe that every American should go to the gun range at least once in their life, just for the experience. Preferably, this event would happen at a young age – so you have time to enjoy the hobby as long as possible. Not everyone is going to end up being an NRA member, or avid hunter, or even a light hobbiest. In fact, most gun owners aren’t those types of people.

Gun owners have been given a bad wrap by the media. News reports of guns shows depict gun owners as criminals; people drooling over automatic weapons, just waiting to get their hands on the newest gun so they can rob a bank. The other popular theme painted by the press is one of the modern day militiaman – a weirdo who lives in the woods and stocks up on guns and ammo, quietly waiting for the zombie apocalypse. While these types of people do exist, they aren’t the norm, and they’re actually shunned by most normal gun owners.

The reality is that most gun owners are average people. They’re your typical 9-5 worker who may stop at the range once a month with a target pistol to have some fun. Or they’re the construction worker who takes an extra couple days off from work to spend quality time with his son on a hunting trip. They’re your neighbors, your coworkers – average people who may just feel more comfortable having a gun inside their waistband when on the “wrong side of the tracks”.

But the stigma still exists, and its up to us gun owners to do our part. I firmly believe, as I stated earlier, that most people would be fine with guns if they had some experience with them. So, as part of our responsibility as gun owners, and defenders of the 2nd amendment, we should seek out the gun virgins in our lives. We all know at least one person who isn’t comfortable with guns – find them and insist that they go with you on your next venture. Break the ice by taking them to Cabela’s or an outdoors store, then take them to the range. Once they fire a gun, they’ll have a smile on their face, and the battle is won.

Concealed Carry

Posted by Tim on

Facebook is a trap! Every time I log in and start scrolling through the most recent updates I’m flabbergasted by the amount of stupidity just in my own circle. The pictures, the statuses, and the worst – the political arguments. But I’ve fallen for that trap before, and I won’t again. It’s nearly impossible to win an argument on the internet, especially when you’re dealing with people who don’t watch the news, don’t know crapola about economics, and couldn’t tell their ass from their elbow. I’m ranting, aren’t I?

The most recent argument that I saw was regarding concealed carry, and the dangerous effect it has on communities. In case you aren’t from Wisconsin – our awesome Governor, Scott Walker, has really moved the state in the right direction (pun intended). Not only do we now have voter ID, the ability to fire bad teachers, and a balanced budget, but we also have concealed carry. Once a Wisconsin resident passes a course and signs a few papers, they can get a permit to carry a concealed gun in public.

This isn’t a new thing. In fact, now that Wisconsin is on board, only Illinois is left without a conceal carry option. Now, if 48 other states are already doing what Wisconsin is, what is the big hubbub about? Well, it’s simple. Some people (mostly whiney liberals) are literally afraid of guns, and think that people shouldn’t be allowed to walk around with them. People might start “taking the law into their own hands” or being “vigilantes”. Right… Unfortunately, in all other states where concealed carry is allowed this isn’t the case.

The evidence is very clear about the effects of concealed carry. While some people may believe that more guns mean more crime, statistics show that without a doubt – more guns mean less crime. Why? Because an armed community scares off criminals looking for victims. In communities where concealed carry is prevalent, crime rates plummet – murder goes down, rape goes down, armed robbery goes down. It’s amazing. Criminals don’t want to be shot, so they stay away from people with guns.

But, wouldn’t it be easier to just not allow anyone to carry guns? Instead of allowing people to walk around with permits, how about we just ban people from carrying weapons all together? Well, that’d be great – but a lot of people would be left defenseless. Criminals are by definition people who don’t obey laws. Therefore, you can pass all the laws you want and they will carry all they want. You then end up in a situation where law biding citizens are left defenseless and the criminals have all the guns. Concealed carry allows regular people to defend themselves.

The misconception is huge, but the evidence is very clear. More guns – less crime. The problem with the argument for less guns isn’t just politics. Its more serious. As the evidence shows, crime rises when people aren’t allowed to protect themselves. If someone really wants to “ban guns” they are not only banning guns, but putting innocent people’s lives on the line. The decision to ban guns is a moral one. How is it right to risk someone else’s life, just so someone else can feel safe?

In the end, the law will stay as it is. We’re not going back to the days of being one of two states that doesn’t allow its residents to defend themselves. The effects of this law are already becoming apparent. Recently a man with a conceal carry permit stopped a robbery at an Aldi Milwaukee. Bet that’ll be the last time anyone tries to rob that store! More of these kinds of incidents are great. They tell criminals that we’re not afraid. Law biding Wisconsinites will not be pushed around by thugs.

As for people “taking the law into their own hands”, let me just say that when there isn’t anyone else around to enforce the law, a citizen has the duty to enforce it himself. Police aren’t everywhere, and that means that responsible citizens should step up and defend themselves. There is nothing wrong with protecting yourself, your family, and your property. Its admirable, and should be encouraged. In the end, we’ll wind up with a less violent community, where we aren’t afraid of criminals – criminals are afraid of us!

Suggested reading – “More Guns, Less Crime” and “The Bias Against Guns” by John Lott, and “The Seven Myths of Gun Control” by Richard Poe.

Assault Weapons and the 2nd Amendment

Posted by Tim on

I have a confession to make. I just purchased another gun. Now, that’s no surprise to people who know me. I’m pretty sure that I’m a certified “gun nut”; one of those guys who drives a crappy car, lives in a crappy house, and wears crappy clothes BUT has thousands of dollars invested in firearms. I take most of that back – I have a decent house, a decent Toyota Tundra, and I wear… well… less than fashionable, but not poor quality, clothing. But I do have thousands of dollars invested in firearms. It’s my vice.

Although I’ll openly admit to being a pro-gun NRA member, I’m not about to talk about what I have. I’ll talk about that with personal friends, but honestly, I’m too much of a paranoid weirdo to start blabbing about it on the internet. Bear with me as I use vague descriptions of guns during this post and in the future.

My most recent purchase was paid for with my tax return. I picked it up at store here in Wisconsin that has a pretty large selection of assault weapons. (For those of you who don’t know – “assault” weapons are any gun that makes the liberals pee their pants. Usually these are rifles with big banana clips hanging off them. The term “assault” was originally penned by leftists looking to ban the weapons that they didn’t like. Calling them “assault weapons” helped advance their cause.) I went there because, well, I was looking to buy an assault rifle.

As I was driving around on my normal work route, I stopped at a satellite store and was looking to talk with a friend of mine. He was in the Army in the 90s and we always like to talk about guns. Since I had just purchased this new gun, I was eager to talk to him. Unfortunately, he was at lunch when I was there, but I still pulled up a website on his computer and left the page open so he’d see it when he got back.

Another worker walked past the computer and laughed, “Is that what you bought?” Yes, yes it is. He shook his head and explained that he’s not a “gun guy”. That’s fine. Not everyone is going to share the same hobbies.
“Well, as long as you don’t dislike guns, it’s okay with me” I responded.
“I understand people having handguns, and rifles, and whatnot. But not stuff like THAT.”

So, I went on to explain that the gun isn’t as bad as it looks. It’s an assault rifle. People assume that because it has a 30 round magazine that it’s somehow more dangerous that any other rifle. In reality, there are many hunting rifles that are much more powerful than the standard M16 that our armed forces use. But hunting rifles don’t look mean; assault rifles do.

After I explained this to him he was fine with it. He now felt safe. This whole misconception is a big problem in America though, and maybe I should explain it. The 2nd amendment of the US constitution is not there so that we can hunt animals. It’s also not there so we can protect ourselves from robbers entering our homes. It’s there so that citizens can create a militia. Now, some people will say that we don’t need militias, because we already have an army. Once again, people aren’t getting the idea. The militia isn’t to defend us from outside enemies; it’s to defend us from our own government.

The founders were very concerned about the abuse of power by government. That is why they gave us the second amendment – so that we could fight our government if we had to. Now, we haven’t had to yet, but as history has shown – tyranny can be swift and unexpected. Our citizens need to be armed if they are ever to confront their own government. Furthermore, this is exactly why assault weapons should be legal to ordinary citizens. We’re not going to fight off a tyrannical government with handguns – we’ll need these “mean looking” guns.

It’s important to know this stuff. Hunting and sporting, home protection – that’s all a bonus, but the real reasoning behind the 2nd amendment was to arm people against their own government.