2ndAmendment – Page 6

No Need To Have A High-Capacity Magazine?

Fresh off the razor thin victory (50.45% to 49.55%) of Question 1 – universal background checks for firearms in Nevada, the anti-gun forces are ready to start the new year with their next gun control push, banning so-called ‘high-capacity’ magazines.

It’s worth noting Question 1 was sponsored by the national anti-gun / anti-rights groups at the cost of over $20 million. It was passed by one county and one county only, Clark County; the home of Las Vegas. Like so many areas around the country, a densely populated urban area has claimed the moral high ground for senseless laws.

What exactly is a ‘high-capacity’ or ‘large capacity’ magazine? According to the anti-gun elite, it’s any magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds. Why 10? There really doesn’t seem to be any logical rational behind it. They point to the revolvers that typically held six rounds and say semi-automatic firearms are just a new deadly phenomenon.

Of the states that currently have bans on ‘high-capacity’ magazines, most have the limit set at 10, a couple at 15. New York, in a late night knee-jerk reactionary legislative session, set theirs to seven. You can still purchase and possess a 10 round magazine in New York, but you can only put seven rounds in it – unless you are at a shooting range.

What the fringe call ‘high-capacity’ magazines, the rest of the world knows as standard capacity. Standard magazine capacity has increased over the years as technology has improved. An original standard capacity Colt 1911 magazine holds seven .45 ACP rounds. Today a standard capacity Glock 17 magazine holds 17 9 mm rounds. Standard capacity for rifles and shotguns ranges from as little as three to 30, or more. Standard capacity depends on the size of the ammunition and the firearm it is made for. Just as technology has advanced cars, telephones, printing and every other aspect of our lives, firearm technology has advanced too. Capacity increased a whopping six times from the single shot muzzleloader to a six shot revolver. Today, semi automatic, magazine fed firearms are by far the most popular firearm for sport and self-defense.

Back in Nevada, the anti-gun elitists, emboldened by their victory in November are queuing up their next Second Amendment rights infringement. Clark County, Nevada’s Sheriff Joe Lombardo is now leading the fight to ban ‘high-capacity’ magazines in the state. Commenting: “I’m a very avid hunter, I was in the military myself, and there’s no need to have a high-capacity magazine for any practical reason,” He also came up with a new gun control fallacy: “It’s also not uncommon for guns to jam during magazine change-outs.”

It is very unfortunate that a veteran law enforcement officer and former US Army Lieutenant would take a stand like this. Instead of working to protect the rights and security of the residents of his state, he is working to make life safer for criminals. But as we are seeing more often these days, many chief law enforcement officials are politicians first, law enforcement officers last.

The photo that accompanies this article is from a Fremont CA home invasion burglary on August 28, 2016. It shows five armed men coming into the house, one carrying a handgun with a magazine extending below the pistol grip. Fortunately, the residents were not home at the time. Even if the resident was armed with a California 10 round magazine, he would most certainly have been killed in this encounter. In this burglary the homeowner was able to call the police while watching the burglary on the home cameras. Unfortunately they left before the police arrived and were not caught.

Burglaries and robberies with multiple armed attackers are far more common than ever. Yet the anti-gunners say you have no need to have a ‘high-capacity’ magazine. Apparently you have no need to stay alive either.

So exactly how will a ban on law-abiding firearms owners having standard capacity magazines make everyone safer? It won’t. Shockingly, criminals get the tools of their trade by criminal means. If it’s not available here, it’s available from somewhere else in the world. Everything from drugs, watches, handbags, cars and people are smuggled into this country every single day. Yes, guns are smuggled into this country too.

Limiting the ability of law-abiding citizens to effectively defend themselves under the guise of making everyone safer implies everyone who buys a firearm with a standard capacity magazine is the next mass shooter in waiting. The vast, Vast VAST majority of the 350 plus million personally owned firearms in this country are owned and utilized lawfully. They prevent crime and defend their owners an estimated one to two million times per year in the United States, with defensive uses of firearms outweighing felonious uses by 30-80 to one.

Nevada has only to look at what has happened in California to see their future. A ban on ‘high-capacity’ magazines with a grandfathered clause for currently owned ones will only be the first step. Then, a little time in the future, a new law will outlaw those grandfathered magazines as well. It will be just one in a long series of ‘common sense’ gun control measures which will do nothing to stop or prevent any crime, just systematically eliminate firearms from the law-abiding community.

Despite the ongoing optimism of the few remaining patriots in the state, California may be a lost cause. But Nevada doesn’t have to be. It’s still early in the game and if the Second Amendment supporters there get their act together now, they may be able to save their rights from being flushed down the toilet.

Bob

#oddstuffing, #SecondAmendment, #2A, #gunrights, #standardcapacitymagazines, #highcapacitymagazines, #Nevadagunrights, #mewe, #oddstuffing.com

A New Hope

At the risk of serious reprisal from the Empire (Disney) as the new Star Wars movie is about to be released, today I present – A New Hope.

Firearm owners around the country have been living in dark times. Self-proclaimed ‘gun safety’ elitists have been attacking the very foundations of our freedom, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They have been slowly but surely whittling away our Second Amendment rights in the name of “common sense gun safety measures”.

Nowhere has this been more evident than here in California. Every year, new draconian legislation is pushed out upon the citizenry with the promise to make them safer. Every year the rights of law-abiding firearms owners are restricted a little bit more. Every year Second Amendment rights are eroded a little further. Yet every year the rights of criminals are expanded, more criminals are released early from prison, crime gets worse and we are less safe in our homes and communities.

But now there is a new hope. While the 2016 general elections were a mixed bag of results for many, firearm owners are feeling a little safer knowing an outright repeal of the Second Amendment, or having it effectively gutted by executive order, legislative action or judicial activism is NOT the priority of the incoming administration.

One of the most critical elements of hope will be the appointment of a new Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, replacing Justice Antonin Scalia. Justice Scalia, who advocated originalism in constitutional interpretation, wrote the majority opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller. This ruling found an individual right to own a firearm under the Second Amendment. This ruling, which simply confirmed the right Americans have understood and exercised since the founding of our country, is based on the original meaning of the words at the time the Bill of Rights was written. As such, Justice Scalia’s replacement with a strong supporter of the Bill of Rights is a critical appointment in the struggle to retain our rights.

But with hope comes caution. The Heller decision was only 5-4 in favor and still left many questions unanswered. The Supreme Court has also been reluctant to take on new Second Amendment cases since District of Columbia v. Heller and the related McDonald v. City of Chicago. Even with the strongest case there is no guarantee the Court will either accept it or rule in a way firearm rights advocates hope for. Each case is heard and decided on its own merit and could pass or fail at any time regardless of the makeup of the Supreme Court.

We must also realize the United States Supreme Court is the final stop, the last court of appeal. Appeals here mean cases have already been through all other courts and this is the absolute last chance for them to be overturned. What we should be doing is stopping the laws before they are implemented in the first place. Repealing a law, ordinance or regulation is ALWAYS going to be more difficult, more costly, more time consuming and more risky than stopping it in the first place. Once our rights have been stripped away, it is much harder to get them back.

During this last election, a group of elitists took advantage of a contentious national election to put their money into vulnerable states where they could spend millions creating a false narrative to further their agenda. With this they gained important ground to base their next level of infringements upon. Each gain they make costs law-abiding citizens their rights.

So while we have hope with the incoming national administration, legislative branches and with the highest court, our rights in some state and localities are being systematically eroded. Each one of these infringements need to be fought, and fought vigorously. At the same time we need to stop the flood of new and diabolical ways that are being devised to strip away rights and make us all more unsafe.

Every elected seat, at every level, in every jurisdiction counts. Every race is local and every vote counts. If you don’t think the people who have been taking away your rights aren’t already working on the next elections, you are wrong. They most certainly are and we should be too.

Bob

#oddstuffing, #anewhope, #constitution, #billofrights, #secondamendment, #2a, #pleasedontdeathstarmyhousedisney, #mewe, #oddstuffing.com

Odd Stuffing Star Wars Parody

California’s New Assault Weapons

With the stroke of a pen, California’s Governor turned all bullet button firearms in the state into so-called “assault weapons”. I say so-called since the “assault weapon” definition was manufactured by the gun grabbing elite and it is subject to change based only on the whim of whatever administration owns it. What was just a normal rifle is now too dangerous and deadly to own – at least not without an additional license and registration fee paid to the State.

For those of us in California, we know an “assault weapon” is just a semi-automatic, centerfire rifle with a detachable magazine and one or more “evil features” like a pistol grip or adjustable stock. Of course, the exact definition changes depending on your geography. In the now defunct federal “assault weapons” ban, you needed two or more evil features, and bayonet lugs were considered evil as well. (I’m guessing the media just never reported on the ravages of gang drive-by bayonetting.) New York, Connecticut, New Jersey and Massachusetts all have their own versions; with Massachusetts recently updating their definition to include firearms with parts that are interchangeable with previously defined “assault weapons”.

California firearm owners now face a dilemma for 2017. Register their bullet button firearms as California “assault weapons” or go featureless. Some are eager to register with the understanding this will allow them to finally remove the bullet button and run their firearm like it was intended. The problem is, that may not be the case. Nothing from the State so far has positively confirmed what will be permissible or even which of the newly invented add-ons will be allowed. What we do know for sure is registration comes with far more draconian restrictions on storage, transportation, use and the inability to sell or hand your firearm down to a descendant. As of now, there is a path to de-register it, make it featureless and as such, transferable – but we’ll come back to that later.

Going featureless means swapping out those dreaded “evil features” and making your modern sporting rifle look a little less scary and more like any other rifle. After all, its just cosmetics and does nothing to impact the actual operation of the firearm. While this avoids the dreaded “assault weapon” registration, it gets really expensive, really quick. Featureless parts or modifications can easily add $100 to $500, or more to each firearm you own. But then, you will be able to take off that foolish bullet button.

Assembly Bill 1663

One of the bills that didn’t make it into law in 2016 was AB1663. This bill removed the “evil features” criteria for centerfire, detachable magazine fed firearms. This would have redefined rifles such as the vintage M1 carbine and Mini-14 Ranch Rifle as “assault weapons”. Good news for now, but you can be absolutely certain this will be back in 2017 or 2018 or 2019 or until it is passed. Note: These firearms are already defined as “assault weapons” in some other states.

Remember that part about de-registering your “assault weapon” to make it featureless and transferable? Once all featureless rifles are considered “assault weapons”, there will be no more de-registering and no more transferring of featureless rifles.

Rimfire

One of the few safe havens of California firearms has always been the rimfire, the most common being the lowly little .22 LR. To date, California’s “assault weapons” laws have always specified only centerfire. Rimfire firearms have been exempt and can have all the “evil features” their older cousins cannot. The question you need to ask is how long will this be true? Consider that the word “centerfire” has already been removed from other states’ “assault weapons” descriptions. Also consider the firearm reportedly used to kill five people in the September 23, 2016 shooting at the Cascade Mall in Washington was a simple wood stock Ruger 10/22. The fact that the shooter used a 25 round magazine will be irrelevant to the gun banners here in California.

There have been calls to outlaw all registered “assault weapons” in California on more than one occasion. That call will come around again, but most likely not until every possible firearm is already included in that classification. At that point, one more signature makes them all go way and turns their previously legal owners into felons.

So where does it end? The answer is it never will. There is one and only one end goal of the gun grabbers; the elimination of private firearm ownership. The elitists in California like to believe they have the higher moral obligation to lead the nation on creating pointless laws that only restrict law-abiding citizens from owning firearms and ammunition.

Each of us must choose how we respond to the new “assault weapon” laws by registering, going featureless, taking our firearms out of the state or turning them in. None of the options are ideal and all just put off the eventual total ban that is unquestionably in our State’s future.

We can only hope that the upcoming United States Supreme Court will help strike down some of these anti law-abiding citizen laws.

Bob

#oddstuffing, #2ndAmendment, #2A, #CAAssaultWeapons, #featureless, #registration, #mewe, #oddstuffing.com

Gun Control Discrimination Part II – May Issue

A while back I wrote about how those who believe in Gun Control also believe in discrimination. Now I want to take that one step further and discuss an even more flagrant discriminatory practice, May Issue.

I am referring to the issuance of concealed carry permits, also known as CCW, CCL, CPL, CHL or other TLA’s. They are government permission to carry a concealed firearm in public and are issued by either a state, county or local entity. This is the opposite of Constitutional Carry, which refers to the view that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution permits no restrictions or other regulations on gun ownership or possession. It is also referred to as permitless carry or “Vermont carry”

Having grown up and lived a considerable portion of my life in a constitutional carry state, I’ve always viewed the need to obtain a permit to carry a firearm with a certain level of disdain. The Second Amendment has always seemed pretty clear.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

However governments always have and always will insert themselves into places where they don’t exactly belong, and licensing the carrying of firearms is a good example. After all, it’s my life and my family’s life – and if you’re not going to be there to effectively protect it 24/7, why shouldn’t I be able to?

Shall Issue vs. May Issue

Shall Issue jurisdictions require a permit or license to carry, however the applicant generally only has to meet certain objective criteria, such as submitting fingerprints for a background check, to be free of disqualifying criminal or mental health issues and passing a firearms training class or qualification. Note that there are fees for all of these steps.

May Issue jurisdictions on the other hand impose additional, non-objective criteria, which include justifying the ‘need’ to carry a firearm beyond that of simple self-defense. Applicants must show this ‘good cause’ is above and beyond the level of protection currently offered by law enforcement in the area. In addition to training classes and qualifications, May Issue jurisdictions also typically impose additional psychological testing requirements. These add to the cost and time commitment required to obtain the permit and serves as yet another barrier to those who cannot afford it.

May Issue criteria tends to be more arbitrary than not. Since the determining authority has the full, ultimate and non-appealable discretion of who gets a permit and who does not, the deciding factors are purposefully nebulous. What is ruled a valid reason for one person, may not be considered for another. Many May Issue jurisdictions liberally issue to some but not to others. Even the most restrictive jurisdictions, the ones where the normal citizen is flat out told no before they even apply – or who won’t even accept an application – do in fact issue to a select few. Typical among these are the wealthy, famous and close family and friends of the issuing authority.

So what is the difference between a simple self-defense need and a ‘good cause’ self-defense need? That is usually the million-dollar question. The ONLY reason why anyone, including law enforcement and everyone other than criminals, carries a firearm is for self-defense. The average citizen can be a victim of violent crime at any time, in any place and their expected response under May Issue is to call local law enforcement that may be minutes away, at the absolute best, and only if someone else is able to call them.

Then there is the argument that having more people carrying firearms will make all citizens less safe and put law enforcement in more danger. Having been a citizen and law enforcement officer in a Constitutional Carry state I can tell you flat out that this is not true. The only impact is the criminals don’t know who is and who isn’t able to defend themselves. In other words, it’s a deterrent to crime.

It boils down to who is entitled or is privileged enough to be able to defend their lives. The wealthy, famous or connected justify it by saying they are more of a target for crime than others. While they may attract more attention to themselves, they are also in a position to have more personal protection barriers than the average citizen and are actually less of a potential target.

The most likely target of crime is always going to be the most disadvantaged in the community. Without the financial or political clout to obtain a permit, they are denied the most effective means to defend their lives and their family’s lives.

Denying that a basic right to self-defense exists in the name of ‘keeping everyone safer’ separates the haves and have-nots. You don’t have a higher level of ‘need’ simply because of who you are, what you do or whom you know. Personal safety and security is everyone’s right and May Issue is simply another discriminatory system to keep the privilege in the hands of a select few.

Bob

#oddstuffing, #self-defense, #2ndamendment, #constitution, #Vermont-carry, #discrimination, #mayissue, #mewe, #oddstuffing.com

Firearms Training – Caveat Emptor

Every so often during conversations on firearms training, there is a focus on who is qualified to teach it. Some contend the only ones who can adequately prepare you – a legally armed civilian, possibly with a concealed carry permit out in public or protecting your family in your own home – for a self-defense encounter are former Delta, SEALs or Spetsnaz operators. Really?

These true, professional operators are highly trained and experienced in unconventional military missions such as counter-terrorism and covert operations. It takes years to learn their trade and they relentlessly train to hone that skill. They are the best of the best of the best and they’ve earned it the hard way. That being said, it is highly unlikely you will learn how to effectively infiltrate, stalk and kill your enemy in an eight-hour Saturday class – nor would you really want to.

So where is this coming from? From what I can see this originates in a couple of places. One is the now all to frequent revelation of someone in the industry who hasn’t been exactly truthful about his or her background. Some exaggerate their military experience ‘just a bit’ to be more credible while others fall right into the stolen valor category. Beware the instructor who can’t publish his photo or last name because of ‘security concerns’.

The other is from so-called experts who are trying to make a name in a competitive market. By spouting off some tactical jargon, referencing unverifiable affiliations and criticizing instructors they’ve never met or training programs they’ve never been to, they hope to build a following based on their critique of others.

It’s true a lot of absolutely exceptional instructors have military or law enforcement backgrounds. But keep in mind this is merely a foundation, not the final word of being a competent instructor. Just because someone served in the armed forces doesn’t mean they are either qualified OR a good instructor for the military, LEO or civilian market. US military training is excellent for what it is intended for, military operations. But not all military tactics are suited for, or legally justified, in the civilian world. Applying them to your self-defense situation may get you convicted, sued or worse.

Here’s another secret, you don’t have to be former military to be a great firearms instructor. I’ve been to a lot of training over the years and was surprised to learn some of the top-notch trainers out there have never been in the military, yet they still teach front line military, law enforcement as well as civilians. Hard to believe? It shouldn’t be. These are individuals who have made a commitment to their profession and are always learning, training and updating themselves and their programs. They are at the forefront of the industry which is why they are sought out by the people who need these skills the most.

I’ve said this before and I’ll repeat it here. Finding a good, qualified instructor and training environment is critical. Specifically when it comes to self-defense training, you need an instructor who will provide a realistic, challenging and safe program.

Here are a few things you should look for:

• Do the instructors have applicable and current certifications?
• Do the instructors have a relevant background and experience to teach this type of training?
• Do the instructors continue to participate in student and instructor level training themselves?
• Can the instructors provide student references?
• Do the instructors carry the proper insurance?
• Are the instructors willing to discuss their background, program and your needs with you?

When it comes to self-defense firearms training, you need to look past the armchair quarterback evaluations, vague references to experience or training and unverifiable war stories. It’s not only your time and money; it could very well be your life. Caveat Emptor – Let the buyer beware.

Bob

#oddstuffing, #2ndamendment, #firearmstraining, #caveatemptor, #operator

Vote Early, Vote Often

Ahh, the end of the election season. Never is there more information being pushed at us from all angles than by people demanding our vote. We get commercials, snail mail, email and banner ads in all our browsers and social media. We have billboards, banners and signs of all shapes and sizes along our drive home. We get knocks on our door, we get calls on our phones, we get everyone we know pushing an agenda that, if we had any ‘common sense’ at all, we would wholeheartedly agree with and vote the way they want us to. If the past two years hasn’t made you want to move to that little off-grid cabin in the woods, nothing will.

First, let’s set things straight about the news media. There is no such thing as impartiality any more. The days of being able to trust what you hear on the network news died with Uncle Walter. Everyone has an agenda or angle to push. Consider this when you see only glowing, positive stories about one side of an issue, and hateful, negative stories about the other side. Just look at the photos of candidates they publish. Supported candidates have nicely composed and dignified looking pictures. Opposition candidates look like they’re about to sacrifice a goat. That’s not journalism, that’s just supermarket tabloid trash. I’d like to think we are better than that.

Then there are the so-called ‘truth’ sites that claim to expose what’s really going on in whatever it is they oppose. More times than not, it’s an isolated fact or opinion that’s expanded upon with more and more conjecture until the end result is SPECTACULAR!! If this is true, then this must be true, which makes this true and this true and this true! I call this compounding idiocy and it seems to be the driving force behind too many stories.

Of course, there are the satire news outlets that take a snippet of real news and turn it into an entertaining parody. Taken as intended, they are pretty damn funny. Sadly, some of our elected officials and professional journalists have been duped into believing these stories are true and shared them as facts that prove their particular point of view. I suppose that in and of itself is even more amusing than the original spoof.

The good news is tomorrow is Election Day. Nationally we’ll be choosing a President and Vice President, as well as the direction of our Supreme Court for at least the next two generations. We’re choosing the majority rule of our Senate and House of Representatives. Closer to home we are deciding everything from Governors, state representatives, county and city council members, school, fire, water and everything else boards. We’ll be deciding on what we want to be taxed on, and how much and what will be legal and illegal in our states and home towns.

Arguments about the Electoral College aside; our vote is the single most important part of our representative democracy. This is how we hold our government responsible for what they do. If we don’t make an informed decision about what we are voting for, or worse – don’t even participate; we are giving up our say in our country and our lives. Every vote in every election really does count.

In the final 24 hours before voting begins, you can expect a litany of sensational stories and last minute pleas to sway your vote. A lot of it will be crap meant to inflame our emotions and distract us from what is really important. If you look close enough, and generally in the opposite direction, you’ll find what you really need to pay attention to.

For those of you who have already voted by absentee or mail in ballot, I thank you. I may not agree with what you voted for, but I respect you for actively participating. For those of you who will be headed to the polls tomorrow, know that stepping into that voting booth and making your selections is the cornerstone of the American democratic system. It is a privilege envied by many around the world who do not have this right.

Lastly, even though the Cubs have just won the World Series, this isn’t Chicago in early 1900’s. Vote early, but please vote only once.

Bob

#oddstuffing, #2016elections, #gunvote, #voteearlyvoteoften, #ivoted, #mewe, #oddstuffing.com

Gun Control Equals Discrimination

Here is my bold statement of the week. If you believe in gun control, you believe in discrimination.

The whole concept of gun control is to keep guns out of the hands of someone else. In order to do this, you have to have people WITH guns in the first place. These chosen people will be the only ones allowed to have guns. You, as someone who won’t have guns, will be safer because only THEY will have guns. At least that’s what you’re told.

So what’s wrong with this progressive utopian dream? Well, to start off with gun control only takes firearms from the lawful citizens. It never has and never will take firearms away from criminals. Remember, the definition of criminal is someone who doesn’t obey the law. Why in the world would you believe adding more laws about not owning firearms would take firearms away from people who don’t obey the law in the first place? Guns are their tools of the trade and, with lawful citizens not being able to own firearms, it makes their job all the easier.

If you think new gun control laws are going to make it harder for criminals to get them, think again. Smugglers move tons upon tons of drugs and goods into and out of this and every other country every day of the week. Firearms of every description are already part of program. Don’t believe it? Take a look at how many firearms the London UK police or law enforcement in Australia seize every day. These aren’t World War II relics someone dug out of grandpa’s old Army footlocker. These are state of the art, modern semi and full automatic firearms being brought in to feed the criminal demand. How is making this a little bit more illegal than it already is going to change this?

And let’s take a look at who is promoting this gun control agenda, a close-knit group of politicians and ultra-wealthy elitists. The political gun control extremists have police and federal agents to protect them 24/7. At home, traveling or making appearances in public, law enforcement officers we pay for guard them. The economic elite employ private security companies drawn from the ranks of the best police, federal agencies and the military. They are well trained and well armed to keep the elite safe. These are the people telling you you will be safer unarmed.

Who isn’t safer with more gun control? You and everyone else that can’t afford the privilege of having armed security protect them. Your publicly sponsored protection is the law enforcement agency of wherever-you-are-at-the-time. They will respond to your call for help after something bad has happened to you as quickly as possible, anywhere from a few minutes to an hour or more.

The more economically disadvantaged you are, the less likely you’ll be able to defend yourself and the more likely you are to be victimized. Firearms, or any force multiplier for that matter, are costly. Add in ammunition and training and you’ve got a very expensive entry point into self-defense. Now add in the additional government imposed transfer, license and permit fees, special “gun violence prevention” fees and “anti-gun violence” taxes on ammunition and you’ve essentially priced the right to effective self-defense out of the hands of people who need it the most.

Politicians often say they ‘stand with the people’ when in reality they stand with them just long enough to ask for their money and votes – and only at arms length with their armed security in between. Once the election is over the closest the ‘people’ get to them is seeing their motorcade speed by on the way to meet with the other elites.

You are responsible for your own safety at home, at work, traveling, shopping or out for a walk with your family. Allowing a group of political and economic elite to take away your right to self-defense, a privilege they enjoy and will never give up, is wrong. Being wealthy or politically connected shouldn’t be the deciding factor in whether or not you can defend yourself.

Your safety, your life, your family’s life may mean nothing to them but it means everything to you. If you aren’t fighting to defend your rights today, you may not be able to defend your life tomorrow.

Bob

#oddstuffing, #guncontrolequalsdiscrimination, #gunvote, #2ndamendment #mewe, #oddstuffing.com

If It Saves Just One Child’s Life…

It’s the ultimate tug-at-the-heart gun control argument. If it saves just one child’s life, isn’t it worth it? How could any intelligent, caring, common-sense person disagree with anything proposed under such an umbrella? After all, it’s for the children!!! Well, I guess I’m just a despicable human being since I disagree.

Let’s say for just a moment that we comply and implement every one of the gun control elitists’s draconian, anti-constitutional measures. This would include, but not be limited to, a complete ban on so-called “assault-weapons”, semi-automatic and pump operated firearms, “high capacity” magazines and handguns. Bolt-action hunting rifles and single-shot shotguns, all that are legitimately needed for hunting can be kept with a license, for now, since the government respects the Second Amendment. Australian-style buybacks (a.k.a. confiscations) are implemented and “Mr and Mrs America turn ’em all in” is the new law of the land. What then?

First, let’s look at what this will accomplish. Law-abiding citizens will turn in their previously legal firearms for mass destruction. Very few firearms will be in the hands of the civilian population and those that remain, along with restricted quantities of ammunition, will be under strict regulations for storage, transportation and use. The days of carrying or keeping a firearm for personal protection will be gone. We will save that one child’s life.

But what about the criminals, gang bangers, thugs, hoodlums and terrorists? The law now says no one can own firearms, certainly they will comply, right? Umm.. No. These are people who, by the very definition of them do not follow the law. They have never been able to legally own firearms or ammunition and their use in criminal activity breaks even more laws. They now enjoy a government imposed armed advantage over every single law-abiding citizen in this country. What in god’s green earth would make anyone believe they would willingly give up the tools of their trade when they know the incredible advantage they have gained against their intended victims?

Well, at least the supply chain of guns will be shut off now and they won’t be able to get any more, right? Umm.. No. Every day, tons and tons and tons of illegal merchandise is smuggled into this county. Everything from drugs to jeans to electronics to automobiles to people. How are firearms going to be a problem? It already happens today, packed in right along with everything else. And we aren’t alone here. Australia and the United Kingdom, whose gun control models our elitists seek to emulate, have HUGE illegal firearm smuggling problems. It just isn’t part of the narrative we are told to believe. Take a look at what the London police confiscate every single day to see how ineffective a ban would be for criminals.

Certainly violent crime will drop and we will all be safer, right? Umm.. No. Criminals, who have long since lost their fear of the law, law enforcement and the courts, have really had only one obstacle left, an armed citizenry. With this obstacle removed, very little stands in their way. Again, go to the most gun controlled countries around the world and see what their violent crime rate is.

But what of the police you say? They will protect us, right? Umm.. No. You’ve heard the phrase “when seconds count, the police are only minutes away”? Even with a vastly increased police presence, demanded by an ever increasingly victimized populace, the best police response is going to be minutes away at best at any given time.

Try this simulation if you would. Do burpees or run in place while holding your breath for two minutes to simulate fighting for your life. Assuming someone called for help the instant you were attacked AND the police can take the call, dispatch an officer and the officer arrives in that two minutes, you’ll be just fine, right? Umm.. No. All this assumes the most ideal circumstances which sadly, will never apply to you. It also assumes you were not shot, stabbed, strangled, poisoned, folded, spindled, mutilated, stapled or paper clipped in the process by someone who really doesn’t care about your life or anyone else’s.

So why do I disagree? Because if we decide to trash the Constitution and Bill of Rights with the promise to save that one child’s life, we will sacrifice scores more in cities and towns all across the country. No, I’m not saying it’s acceptable to lose a single child’s life or that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one. But how do you justify sacrificing so many for the hope, the dream, the fantasy, of saving just one?

How many children would grow up without parents because the parents couldn’t protect themselves? How many wives and husbands would lose their partners because they were not allowed a means of defense? How many parents would lose their children because they are not allowed to keep them safe?

Yes, let’s save that one child by not letting someone else decide who lives and who dies.

Bob

#oddstuffing, #2ndamendment, #constitution, #billofrights, #tosaveonechildslife, #notavictim, #mewe, #oddstuffing.com

A Fight Worth Losing

I read an article recently that really disturbed me. The gun control / ban elitists were predicting a clean sweep of new gun control initiatives in Maine, Washington and Nevada during this year’s general election. Much of the success they were attributing to the massive amount of money they had poured into these initiatives compared to that of the national gun rights groups. Funding here had all but dried up for fights that were not considered winnable.

I find this disturbing because without the support of larger state and national organizations, it is nearly impossible for local grassroots groups to successfully fight off the extremely well funded and well organized national gun control / ban elitists who are systematically chipping away at their rights. Propped up by billionaires who have no interest in the Bill of Rights for anyone other than themselves, they are pouring millions into these states to buy all the votes they can.

The people living in these states are fighting for their core constitutional rights, and eventually for their actual lives as they are faced with losing their ability to defend themselves and their families. Why are these fights not worth fighting?

I understand the realities of national politics and that appearance is everything. Appearing invincible can dissuade others from fighting you in the first place. However I also understand that an advantage not used is a disadvantage.

I am reminded of a story from my past; a K-9 officer with a new drug detection dog. When called to assist another department with a vehicle stop or search, he would not deploy his dog unless he first evaluated the circumstances and was completely convinced a hit by his dog would produce the desired contraband. He explained he was protecting his dog’s stats so they would be more solid for future court cases. With this approach, his dog had an impeccable search record. The unintended consequences however were that other officers would not call for K-9 search assistance when he was working. A powerful advantage that could have been used in a wide range of situations was not in order to protect a reputation.

We can’t always pick and choose the fights we fight. Sometimes they are thrust upon us and we have no choice but to fight the best we can. More than a few of us can recall a time in our lives where we walked into a situation and quickly realized – yup, I’m gonna get my ass kicked today. Bloodied and bruised, most of us survive these things and wind up a little stronger and wiser because of it.

But what about fights that involve others? Here we have more than just our own flesh or reputation to think about, we have to consider what the fight means for them. We fight to help those who cannot win alone. We combine our efforts and fight side-by-side. Tested by adversity, we forge alliances that might never have been possible and become stronger together.

Not fighting can have far more consequences beyond losing the single battle we avoid. It demoralizes those who are committed to the cause and can set up a series of future defeats when our adversary no longer sees us as a threat to their cause. This is what we are witnessing in Maine, Washington and Nevada. Small victories on prior campaigns exposed weakness that are now being exploited to take even more rights away from law abiding firearm owners.

No one goes into a fight intending to lose and let’s face it no one likes to lose. But sometimes, the fight is more important than the outcome. Sometimes fighting the good fight and losing is better in the long term than the victory would have been. Our history is full of tragic losses that inspired and invigorated populations to be better and stronger than they ever thought possible.

In 430 BC, King Leonidas lead a combined Greek city-state force of roughly 7,000 men, including his infamous 300 Spartans to stop Xerxes Persian army estimated in the hundreds of thousands. After holding the Persians for seven days, three of them in combat at Thermopylae, Leonidas learned he was being flanked and dismissed the vast majority of his troops, remaining to cover their retreat. While nearly all that remained were killed, Leonidas’s fight turned out to be critical to the eventual defeat of the Persian army the following year. His response to the Persian king’s demands for his weapons remains as inspirational for us today as it was then; Molon Labe – Come and take them.

With the lack of support from state and national organizations during the recent unsuccessful Veto Gunmageddon ballot measure signature drive in California, I’ve heard a lot of patriots denouncing these groups’ inaction and cancelling their memberships. This is a sad and not entirely unexpected result of feeling like someone you support is not supporting you in a time of urgent need. Even though we all have the same goals, the lack of cohesion and cooperation on these critical local and state issues only serves to further fracture the firearms community and set us all up for more losses at a time when we should be working together.

Wanting to win every fight is natural, but sometimes you have no choice but to fight the fight you are handed. Sometimes the fight itself is the prize and the unity it creates, the community it inspires, the passion it invokes in others is worth far more than the cost of not winning. Sometime, it really is a fight worth losing.

Bob

#oddstuffing, #2ndamendment, #constititution, #billofrights, #Thermopylae, #molonlabe, #wearesparta! #mewe, #oddstuffing.com

The Cost of National Gun Control

You probably didn’t see the story this summer of 11 family members who were slayed in their home by an alleged rapist seeking revenge against the victim whose complaint had incarcerated him. Among the victims were two girls eight and nine years old as well as a pregnant woman. The family members were each shot multiple times and slashed, and it appeared the suspects attempted to decapitate one of them.

Why didn’t you see this story? The cold-blooded murders occurred in hamlet of San Jose El Mirador, Coxcatlan, in the central state of Puebla, Mexico. It is located a little southeast of the capital, Mexico City.

Why do we care about what happens in another country? Other than the horrible loss of human life at the hands of despicable, sub-human individuals, it’s a precautionary tale for the rest of the world.

When the United States government and gun control activists compare “gun violence” rates, they pick and choose the countries they include so as to make the US look worse in comparison. They call this exclusive list the “advanced” or “industrialized” countries. Our neighbor to the south is not on this list. For reference, when looking at worldwide violent death rates, Mexico ranks 15^th and the United States ranks 85^th out of 172 nations.

Apparently Mexico, who continues to capture more and more of the United States’ manufacturing in automotive, both in components and assembled vehicles, machinery, medical and electronic equipment, plastics, iron and steel products, isn’t advanced or industrialized enough to be part of the comparison. In reality, it’s because Mexico’s gun control environment is a textbook case of failure.

Mexico does recognize the right to keep and bear arms as a constitutional right under Article 10 of the Mexican Constitution of 1857. However, numerous revisions throughout its history have restricted this right nearly out of existence. Openly carrying a firearm or carrying a concealed firearm is virtually forbidden to private citizens unless authorized by Secretariat of National Defense. Personal protection firearms, up to nine long guns and one handgun, are only permitted in the residence, only when registered by the federal government and only of the type and caliber permitted by law. Separate special permits must be obtained to have a firearm in a place of business and to transport it between locations.

Is this beginning to sound familiar?

There is one and ONLY ONE place to legally purchase firearms and ammunition in Mexico. It is the Directorate of Arms and Munitions Sales operated by the Mexican military on a secure base in Mexico City. As a result of the extraordinarily tight gun control laws for legal possession, very few Mexican citizens are able to obtain the permits or travel to this one legal store to purchase them.

Of course this has had no impact on the criminal possession of firearms. Smuggled into the country, the black market trade in firearms creates an abundant illicit supply. While the United States is often blamed for the proliferation of illegal firearms, including those allowed to come in from our own government, they come from every corner of the world and include such items as rocket propelled grenades (RPGs) and full automatic rifles and pistols. Despite the rhetoric, these are not items you can pick up at any local shop in Phoenix.

Following the United States narrative for ever restrictive gun control measures, in August 2016 at the Second Conference of States Parties to the Arms Trade Treaty of the United Nations, the Foreign Minister of Mexico called on the US to implement a new “assault weapons” ban. She blamed Mexico’s rampant gun crime on the lax US laws citing the absence of a ban on “assault weapons”. She even parroted the US government myth that in the US it is “as easy to get guns as it is to get a liter of milk or a box of cereal.”

Disarming the law-abiding citizen is never, ever going to disarm the criminals. Its only effect is to transform the people into a population of victims. No matter how big or how well armed the government is, it will never be able to prevent the violence or reduce the death toll caused by disarming the people.

While you think about the ongoing deterioration of your own Second Amendment rights, take a moment to think about the victims around the world who are not able to defend themselves and are not among those as being important enough to protect themselves.

Bob

#oddstuffing, #2ndamendment, #thecostofguncontrol, #mexico, #victimsofviolence, #mewe, #oddstuffing.com