One of the ongoing challenges to the 2nd Amendment is the resistance of progressive socialist judges that are selected by anti-gun activists to rule on a specific regulation of the right to bear arms. They talk of reducing gun violence and then attempt to pass laws, to further curtail the rights of law-abiding citizens. This has been done incrementally for the past thirty years.
They talk of improving public safety as a legitimate government intervention without taking into account any numbers that are anywhere near the valid or due process. A question that I have heard many times without any response from gun grabbers is why shouldn’t conservative judges use these same arguments in the realm of abortion. Is abortion the taking on innocent lives and an objective of public safety as well?
The 2nd Amendment applies to all firearms that are in everyday use, and yet judges through the country have ruled that "assault weapons" (whatever that means), are not protected by the Second Amendment. The Second Circuit and Fourth circuit has already made that distinction, dismissing the fact that firearms like the AR-15 is one of the most owned weapons in the country. We have Judges like John Kronstadt from California who has made statements that California open carry restrictions do not infringe upon the core Second Amendment of self-defense within the home. But this is not what the 2nd Amendment was meant to do. It is much more than just for self-defense.
These judges should have found the arguments made by the pro-gun advocates to be detached from what the American people already understand. The 2nd Amendment was written as a deterrent against government tyranny. Our country has 1.3 million full-time military personnel, police forces of about 1.1 million and federal government that has armed most of the federal bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. The progressive socialists are convinced that these factors would make an easy force to demand the confiscation of firearms. They fail to take into account that a majority of these forces are firm believers in the 2nd Amendment.
The question is, are the progressive socialists ready to fire upon the citizens of this country to take away the 2nd Amendment rights given to the citizens? Are they prepared to take on 300 million people with 320 million firearms? Is that what we have to look forward to? Are we ready to give all rights away to a centrally planning elite government that does not have the welfare of the American people at heart?
And what will background checks and red flag laws do for the shootings which occur mostly in gun-free zones. Anti-gun zealot Senator Murphy has spoken to many audiences and stated that shootings only happen in America. This statement of fact is nothing more than propaganda. All the progressive socialists speak of having to do something, but nothing that they bring forth would do a single thing to curtail the shootings. Even in the last week, in the mass shooting in El Paso, many of the talking heads proclaimed that these shootings could not even be stopped in Texas, a state with open carry. What they neglected to mention is that the Wal-Mart where the shooting took place is a designated “gun-free” zone. Anti-gun proponents are quick to proclaim that it is the government's job to keep our children safe.
If you are "anti-gun" but "pro-choice," which kills more children in a year than all mass shootings combined, don't be surprised that most American citizens do not take you seriously, close to 3,000 babies are dismembered and murdered every day in this country and yet Senator Murphy is not willing to discuss that.
We are told that we are not given the right to buy an AR-15. We are to believe that the taking of our rights by the government is not important, that law enforcement is there to protect us. When the typical emergency call takes 25 minutes for a response and the federal courts have ruled it is NOT law enforcement job to protect us, my rights are very important. The progressive socialist government does not have the right to take away the powers given to us by our Creator based on what you believe is a majority opinion.
People on both sides of the argument on gun control do not want to see mass shootings and will work to find what we can do to stop as many as possible. But it cannot be based on uninformed feelings as compared to what are the laws we have been given and the liberty we deserve. No amount of Don Lemon hand wringing and celebrities trying to shame the American people into giving up guns will ever make a difference. It is based on the false premise that fewer guns mean fewer shootings. Most of the anti-gunners do not have the expertise to speak on firearms intelligently. Most do not know an Automatic from Semi-Automatic weapon, and none have given what I would call an intelligent description of what an "assault weapon" actually is. Cosmetic changes do not make it an assault weapon as the talking head anti-gun activists would have you believe.
I have heard these same anti-gun proponents say an assault weapon is a "Weapon of War." I ask anyone to show me where any standing army has used an AR15. Others declare that it is an assault rifle because of the name. The AR in AR-15 stands for Armalite, the maker of the firearm. Indoctrinating our children with such falsehood will never be the answer. All we wind up with is the likes of little David Hogg, always upset and offended when he is corrected. He says he speaks for all the children. I know at least a few that see his seriously mad face and laugh at him. I had a thirteen-year-old boy ask me the other day, "Who does he think he is, he doesn’t speak for me?”
The American people are not going to allow our guns to be taken away and allow criminals to take our lives or everything we have worked our lives for when even the police say they won’t help us. Much has been said about the last Assault Weapons ban and how much it helped. The data shows that the last Assault Weapons ban did nothing to decrease homicide rates, and violent crime and murder rates actually went down after it was rescinded. A DOJ study after the assault weapons bad expired in 2004 found a decrease in gun crimes and a re-imposition of the ban would have a small impact of gun crimes probably too small for measurement. The crime rate went down due to the increase in concealed carry and open carry laws. The anti-gunners will never admit this, but various studies, including federal government studies, have proven this to be true.
You hear a great deal about universal background checks. There has not been a great deal of evidence that background checks affect mass shootings. It has been found that not all states report disqualifying factors to the proper authorities. Incomplete records have led to some mass shooters getting firearms they should not have been able to procure.
Just as invasive are "red flag laws" that allow family members, law enforcement, and others to request a removal order for an individual to own a gun because of a credible threat, the intent is to take the guns away from a would-be mass shooter before the offense by the use of warning signs that are not specified.
Some studies, such as John Lott and Carlisle E. Moody of the Social Science Network found that red flag laws had no significant effect of the number of murders, suicide, number of people killed in mass shootings or robbery. The sample size is small as only two states, Connecticut and Indiana have red flag laws that can be studied. Red flag laws have a very low evidentiary standard, and any reasonable suspicion may be a trigger for the red flag laws. Veterans and Social Security recipients have been targeted for getting assistance in paying their bills. The legal recourse is solely on those who have the firearms they legally own with no provision for legal costs or counsel. In essence, if you cannot afford a lawyer to fight for your constitutional rights, those rights will be taken from you, affecting those most vulnerable to crime.
Not everyone needs an AR-15, but it is not up to the government to determine what I or any other citizen may need. The question of "need" is irrelevant; the question should be, what right does the federal or state government on any level feel they have the right to take a Constitutional right from any citizen.
EMERGENCY FUNDRAISER:Despite generous donations, the still dwindling advertising revenue over the course of the last two years has forced us to completely deplete all our savings just to survive and continue to keep All News PipeLine online.
So due to continuous attacks upon us and ongoing censorship, ANP is extending our emergency fundraiser through September. PLEASE HELP KEEP ANP ALIVE BY DONATING USING ONE OF THE FOLLOWING METHODS.
One time donations or monthly, via Paypal or Credit Card: