What Trump said no where near reaches the level of a criminal threat

"Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish the Second Amendment. If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people—maybe there is, I don’t know." Donald Trump

The Democrats and Hillary Clinton are obviously scared. Expect more firestorms based on throw away lines by Trump. Trump was talking about Clinton picking judges that will infringe on the 2nd Amendment (something prohibited). Then he says the 2nd Amendment people (which is really the citizenry of the US) may be able to do something about it.

"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." So who exactly are the 2nd Amendment people? I would say they are those that believe the right of the people to bear arms are necessary for a free state.

What Trump said no where near reaches the level of a criminal threat; as a matter of fact, unless you believe that a call for 2nd Amendment advocates to vote against Hillary Clinton is a threat, what Trump said was not a threat at all) Below is the Corpus of CA 422 PC criminal threats.

"Any person who willfully threatens to commit a crime which
will result in death or great bodily injury to another person, with
the specific intent that the statement, made verbally, in writing, or
by means of an electronic communication device, is to be taken as a
threat, even if there is no intent of actually carrying it out,
which, on its face and under the circumstances in which it is made 
is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to
convey to the person threatened, a gravity of purpose and an
immediate prospect of execution of the threat, and thereby causes
that person reasonably to be in sustained fear for his or her own
safety".

BTW the Secret Service has pretty much ignored Trumps remarks, assuming it is just political rhetoric (contrary to CNN's reporting Trump has not been contacted by the Secret Service). As this former Secret Service explains to Hillary supporter Don Lemon of CNN. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

So here you have CNN trumping up an off the cuff remark by lying this issue is so important the Secret Service has contacted Trump, then Lemon of CNN completely losing his mind when someone with experience in such matters, calls the idea that Trump had made a threat of violence against Hillary, laughable (which it is).

The Misdirection of Gun Restrictions

A liberal blogger asked the question, "How many people have died from gun violence because Republicans put the NRA profits above public safety?" If one looks are crime statistics and historical evidence, the answer would be none, because the people die when the crime rates are high, and there is no evidence that the massive increase of gun ownership has resulted in an increase in gun crime, as a matter of fact the opposite is true. Like the issue of background checks, there is no evidence that the gun restrictions would protect anyone or increase public safety. While the left has done a good job of associating guns to crime, the reality is gun violence follows crime rates, not the other way around.

Throughout the country, whether a state had strict restrictions or not, gun violence and homicides fell about the same rate of 50% over the last 20 years, while gun ownership nearly doubled. It is easy to pass laws and demonize guns, but much harder to actually to have real affect on violent violence. The anti-gun zealots say universal back grounds checks are logical and make sense, which on the surface does seem so, the problem is background checks have ever been shown to lower crime rates. Further the system is so flawed that some 80% of those flagged when trying  to buy a gun, are flagged in error. Is this the kind of system that should be expanded?

The same with assault weapons ban. One might buy into the argument that assault weapons and large capacity magazines have the ability to shoot more bullets and kill more people, yet their use in crimes (along with use of any rifles), continue to be very rare; less than shotguns, while their number in the US has climbed to 4-5 million. As a matter of fact, if all the assault weapons disappeared from the country, there is no evidence that it would have any impact on gun violence and/or gun homicides at all; it's simply a scam. Again it is the left simply creating an emergency and divisive issue and pretending they are on the side of public safety, while nothing they are proposing has ever prevented or lowered the amount of gun crimes and/or gun homicides; the problem is not guns, it's crime; and crime is way down so gun crimes are way down. It's that simple.

Meet Mike “The Gun Guy” Weisser; Self Hating Arms Dealer and Gun Owner Hating Zealot

The following article was published in the NYT by what may be  is one of the most condescending anti-gun zealots in a long time; he also appears to be a self hating arms dealer, "Despite what the N.R.A. says about people, not guns killing other people, there is no consumer product as lethal as a gun. But walk up to a guy (and it’s still almost always a guy) who is lovingly caressing the gun he just bought and tell him that what he’s holding is a lethal weapon and he’ll stare at you in disbelief. Ask him why he just plunked down $600 and he’ll stare at you again. He bought that gun because he likes buying guns — it’s as simple as that. He may mumble something about the 2nd Amendment because that’s what he’s been told, but if you think picking up a gun is any less impulsive than buying any other nonessential consumer item, think again." A Gun Dealer talks About Guns


Mike “The Gun Guy” Weisser  statements seem designed to show gun buyers/ owners as brainless trend following idiots (based on his description of his gun buyers, it really sounds like the only people that buy guns from him are know nothing liberals that have no idea why they are buying a firearm, it’s just seemed a cool thing to do). I for one have never heard a gun owner mumble when asked why he owns a gun(s), be it for self defense, hunting or target (milk jugs included) shooting. I can surely agree that if you “walk up to a (conservative) guy (and it’s still almost always a guy) who is lovingly caressing the gun he just bought and tell him that what he’s holding is a lethal weapon and he’ll stare at you in disbelief,” as the conservative will think the woman asking the question (and it’s still almost always a woman) must be a liberal tune; the fact that a firearm is a lethal weapon is the very reason it was bought for gods sake!! Further one wonders what liberal socioeconomic circles the author runs in where one would have the money to impulse buy a $600 gun, they way most of us pickup a key chain flashlight while waiting at a checkout line. In the final analysis, when you hear a liberal say they believe in the 2nd Amendment (like it’s alien spacecrafts) and they only believe in common sense gun safety (like banning assault weapons when it is pretty much agreed the use of any rifle in a crime is so rare as to be an anomaly). The truth behind all this appears to be liberals continually trying to drum up a gun emergency where none exists; fortunately it has become common knowledge that gun crimes/homicides have been steadily falling for over 20 years, which is why the majority of Americans put gun control near the bottom of their list. But liberals still want to make it a decisive issue so they can try to use guns to discredit conservatives in elections.

Mike Weisser ends his article saying the best course is to trick gun owners into believing that anti-gun laws by liberals are only to protect the 2nd Amendment and make it easy to continue to by guns.

"Rather than considering them as participants in a modern morality play, they need to be engaged as consumers who, above all, don’t want to lose their ability to quickly and easily purchase guns. The trick is to convince gun owners that by helping to find ways to protect us from gun violence they won’t lose what they love. But that’s a conversation of a very different kind.

Liberals call these "ways to protect us from gun violence," common sense gun laws; what is not discussed openly is that liberals believe that it is only common sense to disarm the public and ban firearms. So that is their real end game.  

Beware the 'Gun-free Zone"

One of the most dangerous places, where your chance of getting murdered by a cowardly stranger is the highest, is a "gun free zone." The anti-gun zealots paradigm continues to be framed by false hysterics and not in reality. The facts are the FBI continues to tell us gun crimes are at a 50 year low (while gun ownership has increased 1/3) with one caveat; black on black crime in many urban areas has been on the rise over the last 4-5 years (During the time Obama has been President and paling around with Al Sharpton). There is a little hope however, while Chicago is rated dead last in allowing gun ownership and using federal laws and to arrest and imprison criminals that commit gun crimes, Detroit with it's new Republican mayor has instituted a plan that arms more citizens while working with the Federal DOJ in prosecuting and giving stiff sentences to gun toting criminals; the first year, car jackings were reduced by almost 32%. Detroit to Crackdown on Gun Crimes

This is the same tactic pioneered by the state of Virginia's Republican legislature; there over the last 7years, gun sales increased 100% while gun crimes dropped almost 30%. So the choice is elect leaders that institute symbolic feel good, "common-sense measures" that punish law abiding citizens or those that institute measures that punish criminals and decrease gun crimes. Virgina Gun Crime Drops Again as Firearm Sales Soar

We have the laws to arrest and prosecute criminal gun violations, we simply need to use them. Further it is not the the number of guns in law abiding citizens hands that is the problem as it has become well known that restricting gun ownership and high capacity magazines and/or registering gun owners have never led to a reduction in criminal activity. But the left refuses to admit this is the case, as usual they rely on their emotional attachment to their world view to dictate their reality; but the reality is states with the most restrictive gun laws have the most gun crimes..What is apparent is the anti-gun zealots have no real interest in public safety, they simply have an anti-gun agenda, and really don't care whether it has a positive affect on the citizenry safety or not.

Recently the Chief of Police of Washington DC blamed large capacity magazine for the high murder rate, however she had to facts to back that up because her police Department doesn't keep any records of such information, but did the media call her on it? No.

Mexican Government Importing Most US Guns Used by Cartels

This should not come as any surprise, but the US has been exporting tens of thousands of military grade M4s to the military and police in Mexico. Mexican authorities are purchasing the firearms through a program called "direct commercial sales", where they order the firearms directly from the US manufacturer and only need the request signed off by the US State Department (aka ex Sec of State Hillary Clinton 2009-2013), unfortunately about a quarter or more of these guns are ending up in the hands of the cartels. One of driving forces behind this transfer of weapons to the cartels is since 2007, over 150,000 Mexican soldiers have defected to the cartels "and I think it's safe to assume that when they defect they take their firearms with them." In 2006 Mexico bought about 2500 rifles, however since the end of the Fast and Furious program, Mexico has upped the purchase by almost a factor of 10; 18,700 in 2009 (the State Department estimates 26% of these rifles ended up in the hands of the cartels or other "unfavorable" results). "The Mexican military recently reported nearly 9,000 police weapons "missing."" Since 2010 "the State Department has since stopped disclosing numbers of guns it approves", but if we use 20,000 as an average, Mexico has imported about 100,000 M4's in the last 5 years. Legal US Gun Sales to Mexico Arming Cartels
 
This also seems to undermine the entire Straw Purchase complaint and investigation that was the impetus for the failed debacle that was Fast and Furious. Sure, there have been those that buy guns in the US and smuggle them into Mexico, but due to the relative small numbers, most of those where offered for purchase to civilians, not the cartel. Further Fast and Furious threw a monkey wrench into investigating the the Mexican Straw Purchase smuggling, when the DOJ encouraged FFL dealers to sell guns to suspected smugglers. This greatly increased the amount of firearms that were being smuggled into Mexico (as most the dealers would not normally sell to the suspected Straw Purchase, smugglers but did so at the behest of Eric Holder and the DOJ) so some of them ended up in the hands of the cartels. But again the mother load of US firearms in Mexico were legally imported by the Mexican Army and Police and it is these firearms that have been arming the cartels.

So, the next time you hear complaints about US guns in the hands of the cartels (as from the Mexican or US President) it's worth remembering that vast majority (in 2009, Mexico had become one of the world's largest purchasers of U.S. guns through direct commercial sales) were imported by the Mexican Government themselves, who are so inept and corrupt, that they can't keep the guns out of the hands of the cartels..
 

California Blocks All New Gun Sales with Microstamping Mandate

As of Jan 1, 2015 no Handgun Manufacturer will be allowed to sell any new model handgun in California; the reason being the new Microstamping mandate and the fact that no handgun manufacturer in the US uses the technology. While I'm sure that those that against the lawful ownership of handguns are cheering with delight, the end result is new and safer guns will not be available in California Microstamping is a process where identifying characters are engraved on the head  of the firing pin of a handgun, with the hope that it will leave an impression on the primer of a casing, so law enforcement can identify a handgun that was used in a crime. While the California Police Chiefs Association (CPCA) originally showed interest in the technology,  they now express concern over the "hasty implementation" as  "peer-reviewed studies conducted by independent research organizations conclude that the technology does not function reliably and that criminals can remove the markings easily in mere seconds". California Police Chiefs Association Calls for Firearms Microstamping Study

To date, Glock, Ruger, Smith and Wesson have already said they will not sell new handguns guns in California rather than invest in what is was deemed a faulty technology in 2007 that can be defeated by criminal in seconds (It should be noted that Law enforcement is exempted from the mandate as they are constantly upgrading their officers firearms, which these days are about 80% Glock; apparently civilians don't rank high enough to be able to purchase newer and safer firearms) and there has also been limited research and/or development of the technology. The only reason Microstamping has become mandatory is the patent has run out, while gun manufactures and law enforcement have serious reservations, the California Legislators apparently do not. Further even though that patent has run out, the proprietary machinery owned by the developer, NanoMark of Seattle, Washington, makes it still the only company from which the Microstamping technology can be purchased. "Two trade groups, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) and the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers Institute (SAAMI), filed a lawsuit in 2014 seeking both declaratory and injunctive relief against what the groups perceive as an attempt to ban semi-automatic handguns in the state." The court issued a decision on May 21, 2014 that denied NSSF and SAAMI’s preliminary injunction request to stop the state from enforcing the new law. The court found that they failed to establish a reasonable probability that they will success on the merits of their case." However this was before the largest firearm manufactures declared they are not going to build a faulty system into their pistols and have been resigned to the fact that they will not be able to serve the California market with their new and often safer handguns; this may result in another attempt to force an injunction. Now this does not mean that Californians will not be able to purchase handguns, there are hundreds of models on California's Department of Justice (DOJ) gun list, it's just new models that have been made illegal by this law.

Finally it is worth noting that California has dozens of gun safety laws that the legislature simply refuses to fund. Included is a law that allows the California DOJ to track down gun owners that made legal purchases of handguns or assault rifles, but have since become ineligible from owning them due to mental illness or a criminal conviction. Unfortunately of the 20,000 illegal gun owners on the list, with some 40,000  illegally possessed firearms in California, only about 2000 have had their firearms confiscated; and around 3,000 are added to the list every year. California Unable to Disarm 19,700 felons and Mentally Ill People 

The folley that a gun has but one purpose

"A gun has but one purpose...to kill" is highly simplistic and in many cases wrong. First in most cases guns that are aimed at people are designed to stop a threat, not to kill; the Hague Convention of 1899 prohibits the use of bullets that expand when fired into a body, hence only full metal Jacket bullets are used in warfare. A full metal jacket bullet makes it less likely a person will be killed; it's also well known that a wounded soldier takes more resources that a killed soldier. There is also the fact that guns are used as a deterrent much more than they are used to shoot people; hence the saying that carrying a concealed weapon gives the carrier more options than those that don't. There are also many firearms specifically used for target shooting that are so job specific (the majority of competition/target shooters do not hunt), they don't translate well to handling/aiming hunting firearms and certainly would be impractical to use hunting or in a deadly force scenario. Yes, the purpose of a gun used to hunt is to kill, but if a police officer wounds a bad guy and that wounding stops the threat, it would be a homicide for the police officer resume shooting to make sure the bad guy was dead. Certainly if a person uses deadly force, for clarity sake there needs to always be the justification to take a life. But one can't ignore that the rate of fatal firearms injures in the US is 10 per 100,000 but the number of non-fatal wounded is 25 per 100,000. So if "a gun has one purpose; to kill" it would seem the gun is not accomplishing it's purpose very well.

The Santa Cruz Sentential Owes the Dead Soldiers Families an Aplology

A recent letter published by the Santa Cruz Sentential shows the left will go to any lengths to disarm the American public, as it's war on reality continues; here is the letter;

Good guys with guns didn't prevent bad guy
The NRA is constantly telling us that the only way to stop the bad guys is to have good guys with guns. In last year's shooting at the DC Navy Yard and Wednesday's shooting at Fort Hood there were plenty of good guys facing a lone bad guy. Lot of good those good guys with guns had in stopping a bad guy.
— Gini M. Bianchi, Santa Cruz

This is my response

The Sentential printing the letter by Gini M. Bianchi thinking there were plenty of guns to ward off the attacks at the DC Navy Yard and Fort Hood, to stop the armed murdering rampages (showing good guys with guns can't defend themselves), could have only been allowed under one or more of the following three mindsets, 1) the Sentinel editorial board is as ignorant as the letter writer, not knowing that firearms are forbidden on military bases 2) the Sentinel editorial board knows firearms are not allowed on military bases and wanted to make a fool out of the letter writer 3) the Sentinel editorial board knows full well that firearms are forbidden on military bases but printed the letter anyway, hoping to use the murder of our courageous soldiers to further a political anti-second Amendment agenda. Either way the Sentinel owes these dead soldiers families and friends and it's readership an apology..

It remains to be seen if the Santa Cruz Sentinel editorial board has any character.

Resurrecting the Anti-gun Militia Argument

Back in January 2013, I wrote an article attacking the notion that are founding fathers never intended for the 2nd Amendment to include anything other than the weapons that were known in there time The Second Amendment for Muskets? Today I'll be looking at what I call the "Militia Clause" argument, which was settled in the Supreme Court decision of Washington DC vs Heller, but like other anti-gun rhetoric it is and will continue to be resurrected from the dead hoping someone will listen. The following letter was written to the Santa Cruz Sentential Dec 18, 2013. It is a great letter as it not only contains, "Militia Clause" argument, but it also shows the real intention of the left is to disarm the entire citizenry.  

Tom Snell; Why is it that no one mentions the opening words of the second amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State ..." Bearing arms was specifically so our nation could have a well-regulated militia, not so we could pretend that by owning lots and lots of guns, we can somehow defend ourselves from each other. Be careful gun owners -- the super wealthy gun industry wants you to be very scared so you will buy and they will profit. But I contend that more guns are more dangerous, not less so. To keep our communities safe, I challenge us all to have the courage to give up our guns with the possible exception of a hunting rifle. And for those people, they and their guns should be licensed and trained the way we license automobiles and require a periodic driver's test.

My response; Tom, why do people like you think you can logically define the contextual meaning of a word or phrase, in a vacuum of legal findings and historical context. This from the Case Brief  of the Holding of the Supreme Court case Heller vs Washington DC http://www.lawnix.com/cases/dc..."The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.  Further,  Scalia wrote for the majority,  "The prefatory clause'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State' merely announces a purpose. It does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms".

You can challenge Americans all you want, but you live in a cloistered bubble if you think gun ownership and the NRA are all about the super wealthy gun industry; the more the left wants to keep guns out of the hands of law abiding Americans, the more guns they buy. Further most Americans believe that there are a lot more important issues than additional gun restrictions (gun restrictions always rate very low when the citizenry is polled about what they want from government http://www.outsidethebeltway.c.... Crime rates continue to plummet as do gun crimes, except in areas like Chicago and Washington DC where the local government have disarmed the citizenry yet ignore federal gun restrictions; in other words new gun restrictions are a solution looking for a problem. In California there are laws that allow the police to track down criminals and mental patients and take away their guns ; but these laws continued to be unenforced (they are backed logged to the tune of 20,000 illegal gun owners) as the legislature continues to come up with laws that further restricts firearms to law abiding citizens. http://articles.latimes.com/20...

More gun control is simply a liberal issue that does nor resound with most Americans; but they certainly don't like being lied to about their healthcare. If you want to argue an issue important to you, you should at least do a little research before you base an argument on the way you interpret some wording you really don't understand.

California Current Gun Laws Continue Unfunded

In a recent blog I was asked,  Like most of what is touted as needing "reform"; immigration, gun ownership by criminals, database of criminals with mental health issues, and I'm sure you all can think of more, we need simply to enforce and apply the laws we already have. 

In other words what are the current gun laws that are not being enforced? This was the subject of an LA Times Article,  California unable to disarm 19,700 felons and mentally ill people . The article starts out saying California authorities are empowered to seize weapons owned by convicted felons and people with mental illness, but staff shortages and funding cuts have left a backlog of more than 19,700 people to disarm, a law enforcement official said Tuesday.

The article goes on to say, that in California alone, there is a 3 year year back log on simply entering the names of felons and the mentally ill that should be ineligible to posses or acquire firearms and tracking down the 19,700 known felons and mentally ill that own or have acquired some 39,000 firearms and need to be disarmed but haven't been; this is blamed on a lack of funding and there are some 3,000 names being added to the list every year.

One is therefore forced to ask why is there little political pressure for more funding of these exsisting laws rather than the likes of Diane Fienstein pushing for another Federal Assault Weapons and large capacity magazine ban? California already has such a ban, but according to FBI and DOJ studies, their use in crimes is statistically insignificant as the vast majority of guns crimes are committed with handguns. So rather than really make the citizenry safe by taking guns away from felons and the mentally ill, all the political will is to ban weapons from law abiding citizens.  The idea that we need gun and magazine bans, rather than fully fund the laws we have now is ridiculous; in California even at gun shows all buyers must have a back ground check and guns must be transferred through a registered gun dealer, but the DOJ returns are so slow many guns are sold to those that are prohibited to buy because the dealers are not advised within the waiting period). California already has all the gun control being asked for by President Obama and more, but we aren't funding it. One has to wonder what the real end game is..

The Purpose of Guns is Not to Kill People

An interesting truth that is often ignored even by those that are gun advocates, is that guns are designed to stop people from whatever they are doing, not kill them. Granted, in the process of stopping them you will likely kill them and the very act of firing a weapon is an act where the use of deadly force needs to be justified,  but killing the suspect is rarely the intended purpose. Now I'm not saying this because I think one should shoot to wound, I am saying this because if the average citizen or even police officer shoots and wounds a suspect, and the suspect is then no longer a threat, practically none will walk up on the wounded suspect and finish them off; is killing the suspect was the purpose they would! The police are taught to shoot at the center of mass at a human silhouette target. This is not because shooting a person center of mass has a greater probability of killing a human target, but because shooting center of mass increases the probability of hitting a human target, thus increasing the probability of stopping a suspect. The left has based all it's anti-gun rhetoric that all guns have one purpose; to kill. That even target shooters are only honing their skills for hunting and/or killing; never mind that of the 100 million gun owners in the US, only 37.7 million have participated in hunting of some kind. Therefore the idea that gun is actually a tool to stop someone from doing harm usually results in extreme responses. This Thursday I called KSCO and talked with Mark Silverman who had as a guest West Holts, from California Gun Talk. My call was in response of an incredibly stupid remark by Silverman. Silverman was discussing an incident where a female shot a male intruder 5 times with a handgun and the intruder survived. Silverman then said since the female didn't kill the suspect with 5 rounds there would be no reason for her to have a large capacity magazine, the impetus being since the only purpose of a gun is to kill people, the victim had somehow failed to protect herself because she didn't kill the intruder and would not need more ammunition if there were more intruders because she had already shown she wouldn't be able to kill them. When I said that she had accomplished her goal by stopping the intruder from doing her harm, which is the same reason a police officer uses deadly force, to stop someone from committing a violent act. At this Silverman cut me off, stated off the cuff that the police are not taught to shoot at knees and hung up on me; expect this result from the left because it is poison to their script..

When deadly force is justified, to sole purpose is to stop the perpetrator; whether it results in the perpetrator's death or not is really inconsequential.

Tenche Coxe, founding father, defines a militia.

 As far as the definition of a militia, it is the armed citizenry independent of hegemony by any state or federal control. A similar description by Tenche Coxe ,1789 (delegate for Pennsylvania to the Continental Congress in 1788-1789).

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

The left has been trying to redefine the meaning of the 2nd Amendment for decades, so it's no surprise that most of the letters seem astonished at most pro-gun arguments; let's see if we can cut through the bull and find out what our founding fathers were talking about. "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". Many are confused as to the meaning of a "militia". The meaning in context is quite clear. Our finding fathers were concerned that a strong leader would emerge and enslave the United States citizenry, using the nations own standing army . They decided however, the American citizenry would be deemed an armed militia, not controlled by the state or federal government, would be able to stand up to any army. Now read the second amendment and see if it makes more sense. This also addresses the "they meant muskets" and  "you don't need a 20 round clip to kill Bambi" arguments; so the arms in the 2nd Amendment were to arm the citizenry to defeat an Army, not to go hunting.

Here are some examples of those letters from those confused and ignorant of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

 Recent rhetoric from the NRA tries to make the case that we should be focusing our efforts on addressing the causes (i.e. crazy people) instead of treating the symptoms (i.e. banning automatic assault weapons designed with only one purpose -- to kill people). Living in a culture in which people with access to guns routinely commit massacres makes people crazy. And why are we allowing ourselves to be bullied by the NRA, anyway? They're not elected officials. Let's put this issue to a national vote and see what the rest of the country thinks. And by the way, the Second Amendment ensures a well-armed militia. We have one of those. It's called the National Guard.
Jayme Kelly Curtis, Felton

My response:  
Jayme Kelly Curtis, you sound like from the Huffington Post. #1 the NRA has a membership and 4.3 million and represent over 100 million gun owners. As a member I give them permission to bully you or anyone else that seeks to mitigate gun ownership. Further the idea that gun massacres are routine is absurd and just another attempt by the left re-define reality to fit their agenda. According to the FBI's own statistics, gun crimes in the last 10 years have gone down 49% while ownership has increased 25-30% in the same time period; how does that jive with your world view of cause and effect of gun violence?

As far as the definition of a militia, it is the armed citizenry independent of hegemony by any state or federal control. A similar description by Tenche Coxe ,1789 (delegate for Pennsylvania to the Continental Congress in 1788-1789).

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

Then there was a bogger name "Will Sharp" who was a walking talking point from the Huffington Post (or similar left wing information media).  True the nra is only interested in protecting gun profits period. They and their followers have nothing to do with freedom and many are unbalanced extremists who are out of touch with what the vast majority of real Americans want common sense laws that protect our society. At the end of the day we will get those laws eventually because the gun violence will contunue and the public will demand it. Gun nuts can spout off about the constitution that they barely understand all they want the solution is obvious less guns on the street period. Will Sharp



My response;
Will Sharp, here is a statement by another gun nut on the 2nd Amendment, Tenche Coxe, a delegate for Pennsylvania to the Continental Congress at the time of the ratification and implementation of the Constitution and Bill of Rights 1788-1789; "As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."

Things change with time as does the the constitution. In fact the second ammendment (sic) is just that an ammendment (sic) or change. I think the right to "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" trumps gun fanatics right to menace the vast majority of real Americans. And it's a matter of time before these same extremists abuse the second amendment and it's amended. Will Sharp

My response:
Will Sharp appears to be a typical liberal the continually accuses those he disagrees with his own shortcomings. While "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is not in the Constitution, it is implied; the original 10 amendments of the Bill of Rights was meant to innumerate those rights under specific circumstances (they were not meant to change the US Constitution in any way). A bill of rights was actually quite contentious at the time, as historically a bill of rights was a concession by a monarch and the belief was if a Monarch could grant rights he could also take them away. The Declaration of Independence defined individual rights as not given by man but endowed by their Creator, therefore all the rights enumerated in the original 10 amendments of Bill of Rights are also "unalienable Rights" that were "endowed by our creator". The right to bear arms is a necessary component of the right to, Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, the second amendment simply articulated that the right to bear arms would also be protected by law.

The Fallacy of "If Only One Life is Saved"

In the typical twisted logic of a progressive, President Obama recently said of increased gun control, "if there's one life we can save, we've got an obligation to try." This is simply a collectivist idiom designed to make giving up ones rights sound noble. Millions of Americans sacrificed their lives for the freedoms we now enjoy, but President Obama would have us believe that if a freedom might lead to the injury of some  innocent person, than that freedom should be mitigated or excised away; it's government saying, you are not smart enough to make the decisions that rule your life, so the government must step in and do it for you; it is the road to self enslavement. The collectivist will always take some tragedy and drive up the hysteria ("never let an emergency go to waste"), then explain that unfortunately some individual rights will need to be given up for the greater good and there is no tragedy that can not be politicized by the left; it is not out of the realm of possibilities that Gabrielle Giffords injured brain was unable to even understand her anti-gun speech given recently in a congressional hearing ). The reasoning of "If only one life is saved," is collectivist rhetoric that  will never accomplish it's stated purpose of saving lives, or like gun bans, the regulations will only be symbolic at the time, but will morph into into the call for more restrictive regulations in the future. Even worse, we give up our freedoms because we are told, every individual right taken away may have the consequence of saving a life). The collectivist politician(s) continue to promise not only what they can never deliver, but what the have no intention on delivering. The purpose behind such actions are described by Thomas Sowell ;

 "The whole point of the collectivist mindset is to concentrate power in the hands of the collectivists -- which is to say, to take away our freedom. Freedom is seldom destroyed all at once. More often it is eroded, bit by bit, until it is gone. This can happen so gradually that there is no sudden change that would alert people to the danger. By the time everybody realizes what has happened, it can be too late, because their freedom is gone". Obama's Rhetoric

In a society with individual rights, regulations and laws are a governmental request for voluntary compliance. But with a concentration of power and a loss of individual rights (history has shown that collectivist societies breed totalitarian and oppressive regimes) there is no need voluntary compliance. Collectivists like President Obama like to use the same terminology as our founding documents but give them a collectivist meaning. A perfect example is the "general welfare" clause in the US Constitution. Any person who has spent any time reading the Federalist Papers, know that far from being a social mandate, " promoting the general welfare"  was  the end result of the Constitution, and it's guarantee of individual rights and limited government. Finally lets look at the gun problem logically. There hundreds of millions of guns in the hands of law abiding citizens and only a handful of nut-jobs that may want to slaughter the our children in the schools. Do we ban future sales of certain weapons that are rarely used in this slaughter, or do we guard the children? I have a son starting High School next year and I know what I want..and it's not a symbolic gesture.

The Terrorist Attack At Sandy Hook School

Imagine that terrorist sleeper cells were attacking Americans in schools, movie theaters, churches and malls; all places that are traditionally gun free zones. Now Imagine that the President of the United States said the country will be responding to this terrorist attack with a gun ban; there would be a collective, "what?"  Well you don't have to imagine anything, because it's happening in the US right now. Psychotic killers are targeting Americans and leaving mass casualty massacres in their wake; the most recent took the lives of 20 children and 6 teachers at the Sandy Hook School in Newtown, Connecticut. Now the President has numerous options at his disposal, such as Homeland Security to protect Americans from terrorists, but instead he targets law abiding citizens who want to buy a firearms for protection. Obviously there is no way a gun ban will stop terrorists attacks, not now or in the foreseeable future. So why is the President and other Liberals pushing so hard for weapons ban? Are we surrendering?


I published this in a previous blog Weapons Bans And Other Symbolic Nonsense; but it's too important not to repeat; In 2004 The Nation Institute of Justice released it's report on the Federal Assault Weapons Ban An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003 In general the finding were there's no evidence that an assault weapons (AW) ban accomplished it's goal to reduce gun violence; this included the fact the pistols with large capacity magazines (LCM) were classified as assault pistols and pistols are used in far more crimes that AR(s). " ...the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. AWs were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban. LCMs are involved in a more substantial share of gun crimes, but it is not clear how often the outcomes of gun attacks depend on the ability of offenders to fire more than ten shots (the current magazine capacity limit) without reloading." So I say again Obviously there is no way a gun ban will stop terrorists attacks, not now or in the foreseeable future.

2nd Amendment for Muskets?

The following is a couple of responses to the Santa Cruz Sentinel blog on Gun Control. The first addressed the belief by some that our founding fathers would have drawn the line at muskets.  

When the Second Amendment was crafted, our Founding Fathers had no idea how guns would evolve over the next two centuries. They were under the belief that Americans should have the right to bear muskets! Not automatic weapons. The Obama administration should keep that in mind as they decide new guidelines on what guns Americans should legally be able to possess. William Wright, Santa Cruz

William Wright, yours is an opinion that usually comes from ignorance of the Constitution. Believe it or not the founding fathers believed that every American was in charge of his own life; and to paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, if it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg..it is of no concern. The only time Americans were expected to come together was as an armed militia when "the security of a free state" was in jeopardy. Therefore "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," by the state, as it may be the the state itself that is threatening the existence of the free state; our forefathers did not trust government. The type of weapon was to be a contemporary military grade weapon; as a matter of fact the idea that one militia member with an assault weapon could be more deadly than a platoon with muskets would have been welcome when we were fighting the British; they had already learned that couple regiments of rifleman could destroy three or four regiments of Tories with muskets; the rifle was pretty much the assault weapon of the day.. However firearm innovation did not stop with rifles.100 years later the Henry rifle, "gave a single man the firepower of a dozen marksmen armed with muzzle-loading muskets." There is little doubt that a 150 year old Henry rifle would give a modern semi-automatic assault weapon a run for it's money. So no William, our Founding Fathers did not write the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution under the belief that Americans should have the right to bear muskets. Our Founding Fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution under the belief that the Americans citizen should be able to repel an army to preserve the Constitution itself using whatever contemporary firearm that would be available at the time to accomplish that goal.

The second was a response from a very inarticulate liberal, with their typical emotional response, but he did hit on some points the "holier than thou" liberal tend to bring up..The writer, Jack Hoff (apparently his name and self description) was responding to a Mike Marketello who wrote, "I'll take it slow and in steps so you can follow along. Yes, we do have police, and we do have a great 911 system. It is your contention that nobody needs a gun, the correct response being not to protect yourself from violence, but to dial 911 and wait for the police to show up and protect you?  Well Jack, we have police, we have 911, give it your best shot and explain to the folks here why we still have crime? I mean we have the cops and 911, nobody need be a victim it's 2013, so why do you suppose people choose to be a victim of crime instead of just dialing 911.
The forum excitedly waits your reply, it should be a good laugh."

Heh Mike, that is why we have 911 and a police dept. Get a grip pal, this is 2013 not 1774!
Gun owners==kooks!

Mike Marketello: 99% of gun owners are so called "hunters". Can't wait to play "dress up" in camo clothing, get together with a bunch of their drinkin' "BUDDIES", and go out and destroy a living animal. Let's not forget the high power scope so the animal can be shot from 200 yards away! I'd rather spend the weekend with my girlfriend.....however, I'm a straight male.
All hunters are cowards! I learned karate and earned my black belt over 30 years ago.
A real man can defend himself without a gun. P***ies are gun owners!
Get off you lazy asses and take a self defense class.
Oh, and I love how hunters carry their "weapons" on the gun rack in their rear pick-em-up
window! Like I'm a real man because I have rifles in my truck window. Jack Hoff

 Jack Hoff, you sound like a typical liberal, if the facts don't fit your world view, just make them up as you go along; 99% of gun owners are hunters? really? The reality of course is your world view is shared by very few, but your right to share them came at the barrel of a gun. Perhaps you've haven't noticed but we live in dangerous times. I am a retired Police Officer and I can tell you that 99% of the time we arrive after the fact and help clean up. Having a firearm simply gives you one more option,"If you have a gun you can decide if it's necessary to use it; if you don't have a gun that is not a decision you will be able to make." Also there has never been any correlation between gun ownership and violent crime (Britain has more violent crime per capita than the US). Yes, the US has a much higher murder rate, but subtract the gang members killing each other and suicides, the number drops considerably (these are two areas where the killings and death would still occur with or without firearms). Oh, and carrying firearms in the back window of a pickup is to be lawful; when transporting a firearm it must be unloaded and either somewhere beyond reach (ie a trunk) or in full view and most gun owners don't want their firearms rattling about in the beds or their truck. BTW, I think you parents named you right.

Thank's to VP Joe Biden for Making Guns Cool Again

The one saving grace of an over reaching government is the constant misreading of the citizenry. It should be obvious to any thinking person that with over 300 million firearms already in circulation a gun ban of newly purchased firearms will have no effect on gun crimes at all. But what it does do is make  guns really cool again and the thing to have. Before Prohibition, many Americans seemed satisfied that if they could buy a drink, it didn't really matter if they had one or not; but with a pending gun ban led by VP Joe Biden and the anti-gun lobby,  we now see Americans scrambling to buy firearms and ammunition at a here before unheard of rate, much the way the citizenry during Prohibition pursued a speakeasy. And it's not because of Zombies; it's because Americans do not like being told what they can and can not have.  The state has thrown out the straw man arguments, such as assault weapons are not designed for hunting, as if there is something in the second amendment that says the right to bear arms is for hunting. When a person that actually understands the Constitution explains the reason for the right to bare arms is to protect the citizenry from an over reaching and tyrannical government, the main stream media treats this like an extremist belief, as if our forefathers vision of a government built on the foundation of individual rights was also the act of extremists. But somewhere in the sole of every American is the belief in freedom and Liberty; one of the most common replies by Americans is, "Hey, its a free country".

I heard a British journalists that is a member  of the US media, refer to the Constitution as a book; and said during a debate that he debated the second amendment many times and he knows what is says. The reason that this journalist is so ignorant is because, while he may had read the Constitution he has never lived it. He doesn't understand that while Britain has already given up it's individual freedoms and sovereignty, partly due to the Britain's lack of a Constitution with a guarantee of individual rights, however in America our Constitution is still alive and still guarantees that America is a free country. The reason we want our guns is not just for hunting; and not just for personal protection; and even not just to fight off a tyrannical government; it's because it's is our Constitutional right to own them. Something an non-American will never understand.So thank you VP Biden, for as long the citizenry believed guns were available, gun ownership really wasn't an issue. But now your just not hip (or a true patriot) unless you are armed. VP Biden says part of his gun control program is to confiscate all unregistered firearms. How's that working out for you Joe? Found any unregistered firearms yet?

Weapons Bans And Other Symbolic Nonsense

The the anti-gun liberals admit in private that an assault weapons ban would be symbolic at best, the intent is to demonize firearms rather than acknowledging their need to protect freedom. Our forefathers knew that with freedom comes those that will take advantage of it. Freedom requires an armed citizenry to keep the criminals in check; in every state where concealed carry laws have been liberalized, violent crime has plummeted; in every state where firearms are restricted to the criminals, the criminals own the streets. Diane Fienstein has posted her idea for an Assault weapons ban, and then uses some cherry picked stats to prove her allegation that the 1994-2004 federal ban accomplished something. The reality is the federal ban accomplished nothing (there has been a 49% reduction in gun violence over the last 15 years that has had no connection with banned firearms); least one forget the Columbine massacre occurred right in the middle of the ban in 1999. In 2004 The Nation Institute of Justice released it's report on the Federal Assault Weapons Ban An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003 In general the finding were there's no evidence that an assault weapons (AW) ban accomplished it's goal to reduce gun violence; this included the fact the pistols with large capacity magazines (LCM) were classified as assault pistols and pistols are used in far more crimes that AR(s). " ...the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. AWs were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban. LCMs are involved in a more substantial share of gun crimes, but it is not clear how often the outcomes of gun attacks depend on the ability of offenders to fire more than ten shots (the current magazine capacity limit) without reloading." In recent history the mass casualty shooters all have some level of mental illness, but instead of responding to these psychotic killers as terrorists, the powers that be want to ban gun from law abiding citizens. Further, the police have already admitted they can't protect individuals from criminals. There is an old saying, "If you have a gun you can decide if you are going to use it or not. If you don't have a gun you can't make that decision". Even Diane Fienstein admitted to carrying a concealed weapon in this 1995 speech caught on video, I carried a concealed weapon .

 In the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting that tragically took the lives of so many children and teachers the anti-gun lobby is ramping up it's efforts to demonize guns. These ideologues have never shown any interest in gun safety, i.e.actually trying to control gun violence, they simply want to regulate or ban them out of existence; the problem is this can never happen. With 300-400 million firearms in circulation in the USA, assault weapons make up only about 1%, but that is still some 3.5 million so called assault rifles. The only known action that has ever effectively reduced gun crimes is arming the citizenry with less restrictive concealed carry laws. In states were this has been done gun crimes plummeted, but were gun possession is strictly controlled, the criminals rule the streets.It's an interesting to note that if you subtract the gun violence that occurs in cities where gun possession is the most restrictive, such as Chicago and Washington DC, the national average that has been falling for decades, would plummet even more; it is in those where gun violence has increase while the national average has gone down!.  It is no accident that these massacres occur most frequently in gun-free zones. It's interesting that a shooting incident occurred 2 days after the Newtown killings and it received no media coverage at all. There an off duty female police officer saved a theater full of possible victims by wounding a deranged shooter that had just shot his girlfriend at the location, Two Wounded in Theater Shooting The moment these cowards are confronted by someone who is armed they stop. Too bad there wasn't an armed someone at Sandy Hook.

Even the term "assault rifle" was manufactured by the anti-gun lobby. The term was meant to describe an AR-15/AK47 (the AR in AR-15 does not stand for Assault Rifle, it's stands for ARmalite, the company that designed the AR-15), the civilian semi-automatic versions of the fully automatic military grade M16/AK47 rifle. But since an assault rifle is defined by how it looks, not how it operates, there are numerous guns the operate exactly the same as a so called assault rifle, are just as deadly, but would not be included in any ban. There are also many restrictions already on guns; automatic assault weapons are so highly regulated the may as well be banned, short barrel shotguns are banned and so are exploding rounds. One of the justifications for banning assault rifles is the fact that at the time of the Constitution's writing the long rifle of the day was a musket; but the Constitution does not describe a particular arm. Our founding fathers wanted the miltia (best defined as an armed citzenry)  to protect itself from enemies foreign and domestic, so it is reasonable they would have wanted the citizenry armed with whatever the weapons of the time was. It would be absurd to believe anything different. Further there is the argument that it takes more to buy and drive a car than to obtain a gun. Regardless of the validity of this statement, the 2nd Amendment describes a right, not a privilege (like driving a car. The right to own a firearm is no less restrictive than the right to vote; something always lost on the left. Have you ever noticed that when a liberal agrees with the constitution it's a right, but if they don't it's a privilege?

 Any politician that wants a weapons ban and refuses to afford our children and schools the same safeguards they enjoy with armed security agents simply has an agenda that is not centered on saving lives. The primary way to address illegal gun violence is to enforce existing laws and provide armed security for schools. The reason that pro-gun advocates get a little crazy about gun bans is they know they it will not stop the killings like the massacre of children at the Sandy Hook school. Pro gun advocates want to protect their children and don't want liberal ideologues in the name of "not letting an emergency go to waste" and ignoring the cause of mass shootings, to simply push forward their agenda. If the powers that be get their assault weapons ban, they'll walk away saying " look we did something to save the kids," when they have done nothing but demagogue. Then they'll wait for the next mass shooting and start the process all over again. We all deserve better than this.