Tag: Gun Confiscation

Gun Confiscation Reference March 2018

[Reverse chronological order]
Index List
March 30, 2018
Paste Magazine: Repeal the Second Amendment, Idiots
https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2018/03/repeal-the-second-amendment-idiots.html

Mar 28, 2018
USA Today: Repealing the Second Amendment isn’t easy but it’s what March for Our Lives students need
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/03/28/repealing-second-amendment-march-our-lives-students/463644002/

March 27, 2018
New York Times – John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment

March 21, 2018
The Charlotte News: Ban military-style assault weapons for the sake of our children
http://www.charlottenewsvt.org/2018/03/21/ban-military-style-assault-weapons-sake-children/

Mar 14, 2018
Vox: What no politician wants to admit about gun control
https://www.vox.com/2015/10/5/9454161/gun-violence-solution
“taking a huge number of guns away from a huge number of gun owners”

March 6, 2018
NAACP President OPINION: Gun Safety Is about Freedom
http://www.naacp.org/latest/opinion-gun-safety-freedom/
[Australian style gun confiscation – making gun owners an offer they can’t refuse ]

Repeal the Second Amendment, Idiots
By Roger Sollenberger | March 30, 2018

This week, former Justice of the Supreme Court John Paul Stevens, a conservative, wrote in an op-ed that Americans should “demand the repeal of the Second Amendment.” He continued, “a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Second Amendment would be simple and would do more to weaken the NRA’s ability to stymie legislative debate and block constructive gun control legislation than any other available option.”

In 1991, Former Chief Justice Warren Burger, famously conservative, said that the Second Amendment “has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.” Burger added that if he were to rewrite the Bill of Rights, “There wouldn’t be any such thing as the Second Amendment.”

But note Burger’s careful language: the Second Amendment “has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud.”

That’s not the same as saying the Second Amendment itself is a fraud. What Burger meant was that the amendment has been abused by the gun lobby and conservatives for political gain. It’s now a weapon of fear, and was forged in the ironworks of good old fashioned American racism. The truth is that the Second Amendment is hopelessly out of date, or in the words of Justice Stevens, a constitutional provision that might once have had relevance but is now “a relic of the 18th century.”

The Second Amendment should be repealed, and at the very least rewritten. It’s about updating the Constitution to enable gun control in the interest of lowering death rates, suicide rates, and stopping massacres. The Constitution was made to be legally broken. It’s high time we stopped listening to the one-fifth of gun owners who belong to the NRA and argue in bad faith that this is a sacred and inviolable right. It’s not.

I’m not going to trot out a bunch of statistics about gun deaths, massacres, and suicides. We all know those arguments, and you can feel free to debate them elsewhere. I’m not interested in that anymore. Hunt, fine. Keep a revolver locked up in your home for protection, fine. I wouldn’t do it, and it’s dangerous as hell, but I understand. Semi-automatics, though? Ban them all, confiscate them, and burn them. Here’s my defense of that opinion.

This article is now about the Second Amendment.

America First and Only

The United States is the only country in the world that gives its constituents a blanket right to own weapons. This isn’t a reason in itself to enact any sort of policy, but it’s worth noting because the parallel consequences are undeniable: The U.S. is the only country with this kind of law, and the U.S. is the only country with these kinds of single-shooter massacres of targeted innocents.
https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2018/03/repeal-the-second-amendment-idiots.html

Repealing the Second Amendment isn’t easy but it’s what March for Our Lives students need
Jonathan Turley, Opinion columnist Published 3:15 a.m. ET March 28, 2018
A full repeal of the Second Amendment is hard work, but it is the only way March for Our Lives won’t be hijacked by political figures wanting to harness energy and votes more than save lives.
Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has caused a stir by calling for the repeal of the Second Amendment. It was a call that young protesters should heed if they want to work for real change — and not simply be hijacked by political figures wanting to harness their energy and votes. Putting the merits of a repeal aside, Stevens, 97, was doing something that has been missing in the aftermath of the massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla. He was being honest. These kids have been sold a bill of goods by politicians exaggerating not just the impact of proposed legislative changes but their actual ability to significantly curtail this individual right.
…
If it is real reform that these students want, they must convince their fellow citizens, as Justice Joseph Story once said, that part of the Constitution “has become wholly unsuited to the circumstances of the nation.”

It is not impossible but it is not easy. Circumstances and politics change. However, what does not change is the process for achieving real change. Even if the Second Amendment is, as Stevens describes, a “relic of the 18th Century,” it will take more than rhetoric to remove such a relic in the 21st Century.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/03/28/repealing-second-amendment-march-our-lives-students/463644002/

John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment
By John Paul Stevens March 27, 2018
Rarely in my lifetime have I seen the type of civic engagement schoolchildren and their supporters demonstrated in Washington and other major cities throughout the country this past Saturday. These demonstrations demand our respect. They reveal the broad public support for legislation to minimize the risk of mass killings of schoolchildren and others in our society.

That support is a clear sign to lawmakers to enact legislation prohibiting civilian ownership of semiautomatic weapons, increasing the minimum age to buy a gun from 18 to 21 years old, and establishing more comprehensive background checks on all purchasers of firearms. But the demonstrators should seek more effective and more lasting reform. They should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment.

Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of that amendment, which provides that “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.” Today that concern is a relic of the 18th century.
…

In 2008, the Supreme Court overturned Chief Justice Burger’s and others’ long-settled understanding of the Second Amendment’s limited reach by ruling, in District of Columbia v. Heller, that there was an individual right to bear arms. I was among the four dissenters.
…

That simple but dramatic action would move Saturday’s marchers closer to their objective than any other possible reform. It would eliminate the only legal rule that protects sellers of firearms in the United States — unlike every other market in the world. It would make our schoolchildren safer than they have been since 2008 and honor the memories of the many, indeed far too many, victims of recent gun violence.
Correction:
An earlier version of a picture caption with this article misidentified the 18th-century firearm depicted. It is a musket, not a rifle.

John Paul Stevens is a retired associate justice of the United States Supreme Court.

A version of this article appears in print on , on Page A23 of the New York edition with the headline: Repeal the Second Amendment.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/opinion/john-paul-stevens-repeal-second-amendment.html

Ban military-style assault weapons for the sake of our children
by Susan OhanianMarch 21, 2018
…
Because I do not think Vermonters can stand in silence while students ask for safe schools, I introduced the following advisory motion as the last item at Town Meeting on March 6, 2018:
…
<i>I move that the Town of Charlotte request that the Vermont State Legislature modify our gun laws in imitation of the federal assault weapons ban that was in effect from 1994 to 2004, which act imposed a ban on the manufacture, importation, and sale of assault weapons, and restricted their possession and disposal, and which laid down specific conditions in such a way as to maintain consistency with the Constitution and the Second Amendment.

I move that the chair of the Charlotte Select Board send this motion to the President Pro Tem of the Senate, the Speaker of the House, and our Representative, Mike Yantachka.</i>

The motion passed with acclaim.
…

http://www.charlottenewsvt.org/2018/03/21/ban-military-style-assault-weapons-sake-children/

 

Vox: What no politician wants to admit about gun control
By Dylan Matthews@dylanmattdylan@vox.com Updated Mar 14, 2018

Realistically, a gun control plan that has any hope of getting us down to European levels of violence is going to mean taking a huge number of guns away from a huge number of gun owners.

Other countries have done exactly that. Australia, for example, enacted a mandatory gun buyback that achieved that goal, and saw firearm suicides fall as a result. But the reforms those countries enacted are far more dramatic than anything US politicians are calling for — and even they wouldn’t get us to where many other developed countries are.
…

Unless something dramatic changes, gun violence will remain a distinctly American problem for the rest of our lives — background checks or no.
https://www.vox.com/2015/10/5/9454161/gun-violence-solution

OPINION: Gun Safety Is about Freedom
March 6, 2018 / By Derrick Johnson
In the wake of the Parkland massacre, NAACP President and CEO Derrick Johnson says that comprehensive, sustainable gun control is achievable. Johnson uses Australia’s gun control policies as an example.

Unfortunately, years of ridiculously easy access to guns and ammunition has yielded an epidemic with deadly consequences for all Americans, but has been particularly fatal for communities of color who are disproportionately impacted. Gun violence is the number one killer of African Americans ages 15 to 34. Though African Americans make up only 13 percent of the U.S. population, we represent nearly 50 percent of all gun homicide victims. Over 80 percent of gun deaths of African Americans are homicides. Roughly speaking, 1 out of every 3 African American males who die between the ages of 15 and 19 is killed by gun violence. African American children and teens were less than 15 percent of the total child population in 2008 and 2009, but accounted for 45 percent of all child- and teen-related gun deaths. These numbers are tragic and intolerable, but most of all they are preventable.

Critics might call such policy interventions naively ambitious in our current political climate. However, comprehensive, sustainable gun control is achievable. We know this because someone has done it.

Just look to Australia.

In the past 20 years, Australia has proven that sensible reform can prevail over partisan divides and high rates of gun ownership. In the spring of 1996, Australia faced the deadliest mass shooting in its history when a 28-year-old man opened fire at a tourist resort in Tasmania, killing 35 and wounding 23 with a semi-automatic rifle. Following the massacre, the party in power—the center-right Liberal coalition—surprised the country and world by joining with groups across the political spectrum to implement a radical intervention on gun violence. Over the course of mere months, the Australian government bought and destroyed over half a million firearms, banned automatic and semiautomatic weapons, created a national firearms registry, and enforced a 28-day waiting period for gun purchases.

The results were both clear and staggering—there has not been a single mass shooting in Australia since 1996. Additionally, data shows that in the ten years following the Tasmanian massacre, gun-related homicides and suicides dropped by 59 percent and 65 percent, respectively. While there is still room for improvement, the immediate and directly correlative impact of Australia’s gun control reform demonstrates the potential of policy to promote peace.

Australia’s gun control intervention was not achieved without encountering significant opposition. Like America, Australia holds a near fetish-like obsession for rugged individualism, which caused many to resent the government’s action and to perceive it as an insult to gun owners and a breach of power. To be fair, a 28-day waiting period on gun purchases hardly fits the image of the reckless, rough-and-tumble Outback presented by media and movies. But, as President Obama praised in 2015, the Australian people ultimately united in favor of national safety and progress.
http://www.naacp.org/latest/opinion-gun-safety-freedom/

We need to call it Liberty Control instead of Gun Control.

The current debate is over Liberty and Freedom, the national
Socialist Left wants it to be about scary objects they don’t understand.

“She who defines the terms, wins the debate”

For all of their inherent faults, one must have a begrudging respect
for our comrades on the national Socialist-Left in how they exploit
language to very good effect. They enforce an iron discipline when it
comes to the words they use to frame the discussion to their cynical
advantage. An article in The Atlantic exemplified this with: Don’t Call It ‘Gun Control’.  Or more recently in New York magazine: ‘Gun Control’ Has Outlived Its Usefulness

While we will never adopt it’s immoral base ideology of collectivism, it is time we maintained the same discipline in the words we use. This occurs in various instances, with the incorrect use of the term Liberal being the most prominent, but that is for another column.

The debate is rightfully over the cause of Liberty, so why not act like it?

At present the important point is that we use the term ‘Liberty’ in place of the word ‘gun’ in the discussion over the common sense human right of self-defence. It is the underlying issue of the debate over the 2nd amendment. A Pew research poll from last June showed that For most gun owners, owning a firearm is tied to their personal freedom.  The best way to convince non-gun owners of this critical issue [ aside from taking them to the range having fun shooting an EBR ] would be to instantly frame the debate as being over Liberty instead of guns.

It is absurd to ascribe rights or controls to inanimate objects, but
that is the implication when using those terms instead of the underlying
issue. Consider some other essential topics of freedom such as the
right to vote or the right to privacy, would we really talk about a ‘War on ballots’ or ‘assault search warrants’ instead?

Framing the debate over Liberty instead of scary objects the Left doesn’t understand.

The national Socialist-Left would love to keep this debate framed as one over scary looking pieces of aluminium instead of freedom. Even though polling has shown there are about 120 Million gun owners
in the country, many have no direct experience with firearms. Still
further many gun owners don’t have personal experience with every aspect
of the issue. Sad to say, but many people don’t care about subjects
that do not impact their lives directly. Never the less, they do care
about the subject of Liberty, they can see as something immediately
important to them.

Just compare the emotional influence of a polling question with just one word difference Liberty in place of Gun:

Do you favour more gun control?

Do you favour more Liberty control?

That changes the thinking from that of objects to one that personally impacts their lives. This Liberty instead of Gun phraseology also goes directly to the heart of the Left’s deceptive use of the term ‘Liberal’.
Even if they don’t know it implicitly, both words have the same
underlying meaning – they both come from the same root word after all.

The Takeaway.

It should be obvious why the national Socialist Left does things in a
certain way with an iron grip on words being at the forefront.
Revealing the underlying issues will cause them to lose the argument. So
now, en mass they are playing games with language the use to avoid the
word ‘Control’ but still framing the debate as one over inanimate objects. They’ve begun to use the alternative phrase ‘gun reform’ but this is still an issue over everyone’s freedom. Thus a phrase such as ‘Liberty reform’ will nail them to the wall as to their true intent.

Originally published on the NOQ Report

 

It’s ‘official’ now, the Left has become the party of Gun Confiscation.

The nation’s Socialist Left wants to deprive the people of the
most basic of Liberties, so much for their claims of being Liberal.We already knew the often repeated line: “We’re not talking about confiscating guns” was a blatant lie
of the first order. Almost every day brings another Leftist entity
coming out from the authoritarian closet demanding a variation on the
theme of Gun Confiscation. Many of the signs from the March against Liberty movement spoke on this theme, with this easily confirmed from the many videos on the subject.

Now this has been confirmed by a recent Quinnipiac poll that had Democrats with 33% Support for the question: “Would you support or oppose repealing the Second Amendment, also known as the right to bear arms?”

Interestingly enough, the support totals are greater at 21% for the 35-49 yr. age group while it’s only 12% in the 18-34 age group. So much for this being a ‘youth movement’.

Still further, while support for stricter gun laws in the United States peaked at 66% on Feb 20, 2018 it has already dropped down to somewhat normal levels (56%) as of Apr 11, 2018. No wonder the Liberty Grabbers work fast in ‘Rahming’ [As in “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste,” Rahm Emanuel.] through whatever they can get in the emotion of the moment.

Now that the Shroud of Gun Control has Fallen we need to be aware of the threat and what to do about it.

 Originally published on the NOQ Report

 

The Top 5 Reasons to Reject Intergalactic Background Checks.

Call them what you will – enhanced, Intergalactic or whatever,
they will be Universally ignored by the guilty and only serve to punish
the innocent.

Once again, we are seeing our rights being eroded before our very
eyes. With the latest mass murder outrage caused by the Left’s cultural
Marxism, it is being demanded that we compromise on that which shall not
be infringed. In their unending quest to disarm the people and empower
themselves, the push is being made for Intergalactic Background Checks (enhanced, Universal, etc.)

As surely as night follows day, the Liberty grabbers are in high
dungeon over the people actually having the ability to defend
themselves. Thus they want the next stepping stone to their final aim of
Gun Confiscation. The most infuriating aspect of this is that
there are those on the Pro-Liberty, Conservative-Right side of the aisle
who are willing to concede this important point to the Liberty
grabbers.

Let us be clear on the real meaning of the seemingly innocuous phases
bandied about by the enemies of liberty on the Left. When they talk
about the ‘Intergalactic’ version of Background Checks they are really asserting the authority over everyone’s private property,
a governmental overreach that would be enraged the truly Liberal
founding fathers. Property rights are the cornerstone of Liberty, so do
we really want the government to control It with these controls?

The following are the Top 5 reasons to reject this gross intrusion
into our private property, not to mention being a violation of a number
of the amendments in the Bill of Rights

1). Intergalactic Background Checks would punish the innocent for the sins of the guilty based on a polling impossibility.

The Liberty Grabbers have a perennial favourite tactic when it comes
to this issue, trotting polling data that implies 90% agreement with
‘Background Checks’. Everyone should be immediately suspect of any
polling data that shows upwards of over ¾ of the populace agreeing on
anything. In the diverse electorate environment of the states, this kind
of agreement is almost impossible. But to the Liberty Grabbers of the
national Socialist Left, this is akin to mom and apple pie territory.

This polling is like that of comparing a known political candidate with an unspecified place holder. Often times people will fill in the blank with their ideal, in the case of ‘background checks’ those on the Pro-Liberty side merely agree to that which already exists.

While the Leftist enemies of Liberty fill in the blank with all
manner of draconian schemes they can think of to punish the innocent for
daring to want to protect themselves. After all, these are people who
evidently don’t understand firearms or the unimaginable overburden of
laws on a basic human right. So to them, imposing a hardship any milder
than outright confiscation is being overly generous.

2). They don’t work while burdening the innocent in exercising their Common Sense human rights.

A massive study on the efficacy of ‘Gun’ Control from the RAND Corporation was recently published  that stated in part:

We reviewed thousands of studies to identify all
available evidence for the effects of 13 gun policies on eight outcomes.
After excluding studies that did not meet our criteria for establishing
a law’s effects, we found little persuasive evidence for the effects of
most policies on most outcomes.

On the specific issue of ‘Universal’ [‘Intergalactic’ or ‘enhanced’] Background Checks on mass shootings

Summary: Evidence for the effect of background checks on mass shootings is inconclusive.

Key Findings:

Background checks have uncertain effects on mass shootings.

Evidence for this relationship is inconclusive.

Translating the academician speak into the King’s English – when they use phrases such as ‘uncertain effects’ or ‘inconclusive’ it really means ‘We don’t know’ and there is no hard data that these policies work.
Parenthetically speaking, It’s hard to believe that they wouldn’t have
trumpeted concrete, real world results for these policies from the
virtual rooftops, if they could have found the data to support them.

Compare their ‘uncertain effects’  against the societal cost
in disarming the innocent with people no longer having the ability to
defend themselves. In an article published on townhall.com entitled: How Many Lives Are Saved by Guns — and Why Don’t Gun Controllers Care?

The author details the number of non-suicide firearm deaths as roughly 11,000. While estimates of lives Saved by guns as ranging from “500,000 to more than 3 million per year”. That would be the societal cost of Intergalactic Background Checks for virtually no benefit.

3). Intergalactic Background Checks lack Constitutional Justification.

Can anyone imagine the founding fathers acquiescing to governmental control over private property?

They knew that private property was the cornerstone of Liberty, so
governmental control of it wouldn’t of made any sense to them. Set aside
the enormous infringement on a common sense human right as prohibited
by the 2nd Amendment while considering this possible ‘addition’ to the
4th amendment:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall not be violated” – but they will be under complete control of the government.

It could also argued that since the government asserting control over property, there would no longer be an ‘private’ property, thus part of the 5th amendment would no longer exist: “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

So, in a trifecta of tyranny, Intergalactic Background Checks would
violate at least 3 Amendments of the Bill of Rights. We could have
extended this with the those also violating the 9th and 10th amendments,
but the point has been made.

Parenthetically speaking, it’s always fun to ask our comrades of the
national Socialist Left what is the legal or Constitutional
justification for Intergalactic Background Checks. No answer will be
forthcoming because there is no justification for this absurd amount of governmental overreach.

As to the justification for regular background checks, it could be
argued that they are based on the often abused commerce clause with the
firearm dealers being federally licensed.

4). IBC’s would set the Very Dangerous precedent of Collective Property Control.

Those imbued with the precepts of individual Liberty would find such a precedent abhorrent. Those of the collectivist ‘Common good before individual good’
mindset would be perfectly satisfied with that level of government
overreach. It would also give them the opportunity to extend that kind
of social engineering to untold areas of mischief.

Considering that such a perversion of property rights would turn the
governmental limitations of the 2nd Amendment on it’s head, the
implications of Intergalactic Background Checks are enormous. Instead of
being a restraint on the government, a new-found constraint on the people will have been created out of whole cloth.

For if the government has purview over firearms, why not over items
that emit greenhouse gasses? What other human rights could the
collectivists eviscerate with that level of control? History has proven
that governments cannot be trusted with too much power, hence the
rationale of the founding fathers to limit it’s potential to grow out of
control.

Who knows how the precedent of government control of private property could be abused?

Perhaps ever-increasing fees over obtaining permission to transfer a firearm?

Why not property taxes on firearms, enough to price most people out of possession?

[Note: There is a very good chance that the Liberty grabbers have
already considered these ideas, so we cannot be blamed for presenting
them]

5). Intergalactic Background Checks are the next step towards Gun Confiscation.

It should be painfully obvious that the only reason the Liberty grabbers obsess over this issue is that it is the next step for them toward their ultimate objective of gun confiscation. Intergalactic Background Checks would naturally lead into Gun registration followed by Gun confiscation.
In point of fact, as soon as the government has control over everyone’s
firearms, it is just a matter of picking them up at the most opportune
time: Gun Registration is Gun Confiscation

The enemies of Liberty on the Left have overwhelmingly expressed a desire for gun confiscation
so it’s primarily a matter of determining who has the firearms.
Intergalactic Background Checks will go a long way in attaining this
goal, for once they have control over the legal transfer of every gun,
they can assemble registration lists and demand that their owners
surrender their ‘property’ at any time.

This is why this type of tyranny needs to be stopped, dead in it’s tracks.

Reference:

On the specific issue of ‘Universal’ [‘Intergalactic’ or ‘enhanced’] Background Checks on mass shootings

We identified one study that examined the effects of background
checks on mass shootings and met our inclusion criteria. Using a two-way
fixed-effects linear probability model, Luca, Deepak, and Poliquin
(2016) estimated the effects of background check laws on a binary
indicator for whether a mass shooting occurred in a given state-year.
The authors included two measures of background check laws: an indicator
for whether laws required a background check for all handgun
transactions (including private sales) and an indicator for whether laws
required a background check for all firearm transactions (including
private sales). The authors’ regression ­analysis covered 1989–2014 and
included controls for time-invariant state characteristics; national
trends; a host of other state-level gun policies; and time-varying
state-level demographic, socioeconomic, and political characteristics.
Their findings showed an uncertain relationship between background check
laws and the probability of at least one mass shooting event occurring.

Originally published on the NOQ Report

Liberty Control becomes a farce with the absurd idea of knife Control.

The Liberty grabbers have just parodied themselves into non-existence with the absurd notion of restricting edged weapons.

Let’s begin with this brutal reality: Bladed weapons can be easily made of any material that can hold an edge. They have been around for millions of years, they literally defined the stone age.

Anything that can hold an edge can be made into an easily concealed weapon.

They only need a material that can hold an edge and a way to make it sharp. These materials range from the stone to hard candy.
with almost every solid material in between. It’s well known that these
weapons are easily produced within the confines of maximum security
prisons.

Nevertheless, the Liberty grabbers have gone to the absurd length of trying to control these weapons with calls for their removal from kitchens or detection by ‘Knife wands’.
Not only are these weapons easily produced under the strictest of
conditions but they can also be made of non-metallic materials,
undetectable by non-invasive search methods. In addition, edged weapons can also be easily concealed, making them easily hidden from even the most invasive search methods.

Therefore, it should be obvious that society cannot control these weapons.
Any attempts at the level of control necessary to carry out this task
will inevitably fail. This type of control of Liberty will be to the
detriment of the innocent since they will be rendered helpless in the
face of criminal or terroristic threats.

The Liberty grabbers never give up trying to control people.

However, that hasn’t given pause to the Left in trying to push the
authoritarian envelop into untold reaches of insanity. Never mind that
Liberty control doesn’t work as advertised or that each failure means
they will try to punish the innocent even further. Each failure of the
Left’s Socialist national agenda only means they double down even more.
Even the perennial “Cut down on the carnage” excuse fails since on balance because more people will be adversely affected by these controls on their freedom. Meanwhile, the government becomes more empowered while innocent people are killed.

The UK is showing everyone the future if the Liberty grabbers get their way.

The UK has reached a point where the sheer insanity of Liberty control has imploded in on itself. The imposition of private property controls (Intergalactic Background Checks)
will be followed by gun registration. All of this setting for their
final solution of Gun Confiscation, where the very same situation will
happen, with the same tragic results.

It’s time to end the insanity of Liberty Control.

 Originally published on the NOQ Report

 

Repeatedly doubling down on the insane notion of trying to control
the guilty by punishing the innocent has to stop at some point. We need
to learn from their mistakes to halt this absurd process before it goes
any further. As Benjamin Franklin once mused: “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” The people wanting to defend themselves will have to declare enough is enough with these absurd measures knowing that both Liberty and safety are at stake.

Leftists Demanding Gun Confiscation – The short List updated to March 2018

An abbreviated list* of the times the national Socialist left talked about taking everyone’s firearms.

In order to execute the necessary steps to confiscate guns, the Left must first take control of private property with Intergalactic Background Checks [Universal, Enhanced, etc.] But they need to Lie about their ultimate goal so that the people will accept this drastic intrusion into their personal lives.

The Left needs this control over private property to get the data for their final solution to the gun problem. This is the critical step for them and the reason they obsess over ‘Background Checks’.
The difficulty for the Left is that they need this stepping stone to
gun confiscation while denying it’s a stepping stone to gun
confiscation.

This is an abbreviated list shows they are openly lying when they
deny their intentions, it also shows they have developed some clever
euphemisms for the taking everyone’s firearms.

March 2018

Paste Magazine: Repeal the Second Amendment, Idiots

New York Times – John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment

Vox: What no politician wants to admit about gun control “taking a huge number of guns away from a huge number of gun owners”
NAACP President OPINION: Gun Safety Is about Freedom [Australian style gun confiscation – making gun owners an offer they can’t refuse ]

Feb 2018

Democrat and Chronicle: Let’s repeal the Second Amendment
New York Times -To Repeat: Repeal the Second Amendment

November 2017

Splinter news: BAN GUNS
Redhawks Online: Guns must go

October 2017

Dan Pfeiffer: What to Bring to the Gun Fight [national gun registry, Tracking and limiting purchases of ammunition and a national gun buyback program]

Washington Post Editorial Board : “President Trump, end this ‘American carnage.’”[Australian-Style Gun Ban]

June 2016

December 2015

November 2015

October 2015

 Originally published on the NOQ Report

June 2015

January 2015

Tallahassee Democrat: Stop the insanity: Ban guns

June 2014

May 2014

December 2012

Washington Post, Eugene Robinson: First, Get Rid of the Guns

April 2007

      Salon: Repeal the Second Amendment
*Abbreviated because a full listing would be far too long and
it’s extremely difficult to track down all of these demands by the many
varied euphemisms for Gun Confiscation.

 

Gun Confiscation Image Reference February 2018

February 2018

[Reverse chronological order]

February 27 2018

February 27, 2018
Mercury News – Eugene Robinson | The Washington Post:
Robinson: Arming teachers is absurd — ban military-style assault rifles
https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/02/27/robinson-dont-let-the-absurd-ploy-to-arm-teachers-distract-you/

February 26, 2018
PSMag: Repeal the Second Amendment Already
https://psmag.com/social-justice/repeal-the-second-amendment-already

February. 23, 2018
The Star: Want to end gun violence Mr. President? Get rid of guns
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2018/02/22/want-to-end-gun-violence-mr-president-get-rid-of-guns.html

February 19, 2018
La Times: No one becomes a mass shooter without a mass-shooting gun
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-skelton-florida-shooting-gun-control-20180219-story.html

February 18, 2018
It’s Too Late. You’ve Lost Your Guns.
https://www.designmom.com/a-gun-ban-is-inevitable/

February. 16, 2018
Democrat and Chronicle: Let’s repeal the Second Amendment
https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/opinion/guest-column/2018/02/16/lets-repeal-second-amendment/345365002/

February. 16, 2018
New York Times -To Repeat: Repeal the Second Amendment
https://www.nytimes.Com/2018/02/16/opinion/repeat-repeal-second-amendment.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

February 18, 2018 It’s Too Late. You’ve Lost Your Guns.
https://www.designmom.com/a-gun-ban-is-inevitable/

 

February. 16, 2018 New York Times -To Repeat: Repeal the Second Amendment https://www.nytimes.Com/2018/02/16/opinion/repeat-repeal-second-amendment.html

Gun Confiscation Reference February 2018

February 2018

[Reverse chronological order]

February 27 2018
Maine Voices: It’s time for a gun abolition movement
We need to stand up to the NRA and push for what is so desperately needed: a complete ban on firearms.
https://www.pressherald.com/2018/02/25/maine-voices-yes-we-want-to-take-away-your-guns-the-case-for-civilian-disarmament/

February 27, 2018
Mercury News – Eugene Robinson | The Washington Post:
Robinson: Arming teachers is absurd — ban military-style assault rifles
https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/02/27/robinson-dont-let-the-absurd-ploy-to-arm-teachers-distract-you/

February 26, 2018
PSMag: Repeal the Second Amendment Already
https://psmag.com/social-justice/repeal-the-second-amendment-already

February. 23, 2018
The Star: Want to end gun violence Mr. President? Get rid of guns
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2018/02/22/want-to-end-gun-violence-mr-president-get-rid-of-guns.html

February 19, 2018
La Times: No one becomes a mass shooter without a mass-shooting gun
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-skelton-florida-shooting-gun-control-20180219-story.html

February 18, 2018
It’s Too Late. You’ve Lost Your Guns.
https://www.designmom.com/a-gun-ban-is-inevitable/

February. 16, 2018
Democrat and Chronicle: Let’s repeal the Second Amendment
https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/opinion/guest-column/2018/02/16/lets-repeal-second-amendment/345365002/

February. 16, 2018
New York Times -To Repeat: Repeal the Second Amendment
https://www.nytimes.Com/2018/02/16/opinion/repeat-repeal-second-amendment.html

Maine Voices: It’s time for a gun abolition movement
We need to stand up to the NRA and push for what is so desperately needed: a complete ban on firearms.
February 27 2018 Greg Bates
MONROE — As students under fire in Florida speak out to end mass shootings, many hope this time it’s different. Indeed, their demand is compelling: Our representatives in Washington must act less like politicians and more like parents. Most of them have children; they should act like it.

But a fuzzy demand for “gun control” will likely squander this opportunity to save lives. To end gun deaths, we need to ban all civilian guns.
…
We must have laws that keep Americans safe from gun technology that the Constitution’s framers never foresaw, from manufacturing techniques to laser gun sights to automatic weapons. Even a simple revolver was beyond their conceptual horizons. On the cultural front, the Australian experience suggests that pro-gun attitudes shift in favor of reducing weapons – once the restrictive legislation saves lives.

Abolishing guns will profoundly alter the American way of life for the better, just like women’s suffrage did. Is gun abolition too extreme? Not if human life comes first.

Many great political victories aim for what initially seems like an impossible objective. Opponents of slavery didn’t advocate “slave control.” They were abolitionists. Gandhi did not campaign to control the British – he sought Indian independence from a starting point that looked hopeless. Nevertheless, in both cases, proponents succeeded while stating their objectives in uncompromising terms.

GOING FOR A SOLUTION
…
If we want to end the carnage, we must advocate for the solution that is required, not one designed to be politically palatable. Instead of shying away from the NRA’s accusation that gun control advocates want to take away their guns, we should embrace it as a mantra.

Let’s clear the air and call for total civilian disarmament. Period.
https://www.pressherald.com/2018/02/25/maine-voices-yes-we-want-to-take-away-your-guns-the-case-for-civilian-disarmament/

Mercury News – Eugene Robinson | The Washington Post:
Robinson: Arming teachers is absurd — ban military-style assault rifles

WASHINGTON — The deliberately outrageous idea of arming classroom teachers is nothing more than a distraction, a ploy by the gun lobby to buy time for passions to cool. Don’t get sidetracked. Keep the focus where it belongs — on keeping military-style assault rifles out of civilian hands.
…

The fact that the GOP and the gun lobby are pushing this nonstarter is proof of how worried they are that the Parkland massacre has the potential to provoke real change. It’s not so much that Republicans would enact sensible gun control, but that voters might replace them with Democrats who will.

That is why NRA chief executive Wayne LaPierre spent much of a foaming-at-the-mouth speech Thursday making the insane claim that Democrats, if elected, will impose some kind of socialist tyranny. “You should be anxious and you should be frightened,” he warned at the annual meeting of the Conservative Political Action Conference. Please, oh please, he wants you to be frightened.

“If they seize power, if these so-called European socialists take over the House and the Senate and, God forbid, they get the White House again, our American freedoms could be lost and our country will be changed forever,” LaPierre implored. “The first to go will be the Second Amendment.” LaPierre charged that Democrats “want more restrictions on the law-abiding,” which is an odd way to describe school shooters.
…

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/02/27/robinson-dont-let-the-absurd-ploy-to-arm-teachers-distract-you/

Repeal the Second Amendment Already
We do not need a well-regulated militia (or any militia) to have a free society. We need fewer guns.
David M. Perry Feb 26, 2018
Before we get to the lines about guns and infringement, the Second Amendment opens with, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State….” Turns out, that’s a false premise. A well-regulated militia isn’t necessary at all. Given that people keep being murdered in ever-increasing numbers thanks to the proliferation of ever-more-powerful guns, let’s just go ahead and repeal it. We can start tomorrow.

Every time there’s a gun massacre that somehow exceeds all the other recent gun massacres in horror and scope, here’s what happens: The survivors cry out for justice. The many politicians who still cater to the National Rifle Association, to their lobbying money, and to the gun manufacturers who provide that money, will pause in promoting gun sales to offer their dutiful thoughts and prayers. Next, sober-sounding politicians on both sides offer incremental consensus approaches to gun regulation. Such incremental solutions spark brief hope that somehow this time we might do something, anything. And then the second media attention fades even a little, the NRA and its lackeys find a reason to abandon even the most modest change. Inertia wins. The next massacre arrives.

The time for incrementalism is long past over.
…
Finally, supporting the Second Amendment weakens other amendments. For example, students around the country seeking to protest the gun violence in Parkland were threatened by their schools with especially strict suspensions, a violation (I would argue) of their First Amendment rights. When right-wing protesters show up to events bearing rifles, they are using the threat of violence enabled by the Second Amendment to chill the free speech of others. The calls to lock up people with mental illness, absent appropriate due process, violates Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure. Taking extreme positions on one set of rights often results in trading away others.

We do not need a well-regulated militia (or any militia) to have a free society. What we need is fewer guns. Sure, in this specific political context, constitutional change is not a practical solution. Practical solutions, however, have failed again and again, thanks to the NRA and the Republican Party. Let’s abandon practicality. We cannot arm our way to a safer society, so we’re going to have find a way to change the political context.
https://psmag.com/social-justice/repeal-the-second-amendment-already

Want to end gun violence Mr. President? Get rid of guns
By Heather MallickStar Columnist
Fri., Feb. 23, 2018

The students told him gently — they were not an angry group because that terrific type of student wasn’t invited — about lives lost to guns and why gun control was necessary. But when it came to solutions, the teenage drive for gun control was muted. The 29-year-old brother of a Parkland victim and one Parkland father suggested arming teachers.

So what does Trump get from the meeting? The suggestion that sounded easiest, cheapest and popular with the NRA: more guns.
…

I have always been sardonic about gun licences. You fill the forms out yourself. The police say they’ll check, but will they? In Canada, the famously inefficient RCMP ask you this: During the past five (5) years, have you threatened or attempted suicide, or have you suffered from or been diagnosed or treated by a medical practitioner for: depression; alcohol, drug or substance abuse; behavioural problems; or emotional problems?

Say you’re Nikolas Cruz. You just write NO. You are a mentally unfit person who doesn’t think they’re mentally unfit, which of course is sometimes a symptom of mental unfitness. Frankly, you’d be the last to know. So NO.

I struggle with ticket machines in parking garages. I often teach in classrooms. Do not give me a gun. My talent does not lie in hitting meat targets.
…
I have begun to think that a large segment of Americans have a kind of mass psychosis, a faith in weaponry that can only be called a cult. Guns are what President Trump likes best. Is there anything more damning?

hmallick@thestar.ca
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2018/02/22/want-to-end-gun-violence-mr-president-get-rid-of-guns.html

 

No one becomes a mass shooter without a mass-shooting gun
By George Skelton Feb 19, 2018
Look, it’s really simple: Mass shootings will continue in this country until we finally ban mass-shooting weapons.

The more bullets a gun can fire rapidly, the more people will die.

Pretty basic stuff. We don’t need to twist elementary logic into a contortion.

Anyone who doesn’t understand this is probably a firearms addict in denial.

Let’s be clear: I’m not anti-gun. I grew up shooting, have owned firearms all my life and enjoyed them. I’m pro-common sense.
There’s absolutely no reason to possess a semiautomatic, military-style rifle with large-capacity ammunition magazines except to kill lots of people within a few minutes.

It’s not a good hunting weapon. And for personal protection, you’re better off with a 12-gauge shotgun or a handgun. Of course, with those weapons at home, you also might shoot a family member or yourself.

Sorry, but all these gun killings and the national politicians’ inaction afterward are getting old and repetitious. It’s like the movie “Groundhog Day.”

Regarding movies, yes, too many flicks extol gratuitous violence and sow evil seeds in vulnerable kids’ minds. Video games are worse. But again, no one in real life becomes a mass shooter without a mass-shooting gun.

Immediately after last week’s South Florida school shooting that left 17 dead and 14 wounded, there was the usual strained finger-pointing at the lack of mental health treatment. Baloney!

Sure, anyone who murders is a wacko. But that doesn’t mean they’re clinically mentally ill. No more than 5% of all violence is committed by the mentally ill, according to Garen Wintemute, director of the UC Firearm Violence Research Center.

Certainly there should be better mental health care. The suspect was a troubled 19-year-old ripe for therapy.

Nikolas Cruz had been kicked out of school and his mother had just died. Even before that, he reportedly had tormented neighbors — bit a kid’s ear, threw eggs at a car, shot chickens with a BB gun. He’d posed with guns on Instagram and declared on YouTube: “I’m going to be a professional school shooter.”

He probably couldn’t have shot 31 victims with a six-shooter or pistol holding nine rounds. He would have needed to pause to reload, giving his former schoolmates a few seconds to flee or jump the guy.

Instead, Cruz went to the high school armed with a weapon of choice for mass killers: a semiautomatic AR-15 rifle — the civilian knockoff of the military M-4 — and several magazines. He had bought the weapon legally in Florida, which has weak gun laws.

More of the country should be following California. We banned the sale of such assault weapons many years ago.

In 2016, we took another big step. The Legislature passed a bill and the voters overwhelmingly approved a separate ballot initiative outlawing the possession of magazines holding more than 10 rounds.

But attorneys for the National Rifle Assn. persuaded U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez of San Diego to issue a preliminary injunction blocking the large magazine ban. The California Rifle and Pistol Assn. argued that the ban violated 2nd Amendment rights to bear arms and also protections against government seizure of property without due process or compensation.

Nonsense on the first count. The late conservative U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in a 2008 opinion affirming the right of individuals to own firearms: “The right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. … The right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

The gun lobby’s second count was on target: The state government shouldn’t be forcing citizens to surrender their ammo magazines without compensation. If the state wants the magazines, it should buy them.

California and every other state should do a better job of detecting potential killers and seizing their guns. Cruz was waving red flags. The FBI didn’t see them.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-skelton-florida-shooting-gun-control-20180219-story.html

 

It’s Too Late. You’ve Lost Your Guns.
February 18, 2018

Last week, a reader named Amy left a comment on the Protecting Your Family post that said:

“I used to think the same way as you with regard to this thought: “I definitely want you to be able to keep your guns, but….”

But you know what, now I do want to take your guns away. Why do you need them? I want to take them all away. I live each day with a pit in my stomach as I send my young children to school. Why do we have to live like this? Maybe we should start having an honest conversation about wanting to take ALL THE GUNS AWAY!!!!!!!”

And I replied with this comment:

“Maybe it’s just in the air right now, but I’ve been hearing a lot of that. One thought that occurred to me yesterday is this: A majority of American citizens have been asking, demanding, begging for improvements to our gun safety laws for a long time. The asks have been reasonable and accommodating. The asks have been small changes and simple fixes — like closing the gun show loopholes, or universal background checks. That same majority of Americans who want better gun regulations have listened to opposing views and acknowledged how unique and important our constitutional amendments are. But still, despite the patience, and small asks, and focus on common sense, and wide bi-partisan support for change, no action has been taken.

Have people reached the point where the majority of Americans are no longer willing to be accommodating about this? Are people feeling like: Hey, we tried to do this in small ways that wouldn’t freak you out, but you wouldn’t compromise even an inch. And now we’re done talking about small ways. We want all guns gone. Our patience is officially exhausted. You had your chance, but you weren’t willing to work with us, and now you’re going to lose your gun privileges.

I don’t know if that’s really how people are feeling right now, but if it is, I get it. And like I said, I’ve been seeing lots of comments similar to yours in the last few days.”

Turns out “seeing lots of comments like that” was understating it.

My social feeds were absolutely overflowing with calls for an outright gun ban. And the biggest shock is that the calls were coming from lifelong gun-rights supporters.

I was honestly a bit stunned at the bold demands and am so curious to know if you were seeing the same thing. I’m becoming convinced some sort of tipping point has been reached on the gun situation in our country. This is a quote I read from a friend in Michigan. He’s a middle-aged white man; a lawyer who I’ve always known to be pro-gun rights, and who lives in a county where there are a lot of hunters, so he’s surrounded by gun-owning friends, co-workers and family members:

“Until now, we were never coming for your guns. Those of us who have no real interest in guns simply wanted commonsense regulations. But now, we are coming for your guns. And we’re going to use our vote to take them.”

And I read a ton of conversations over the weekend from friends who have had a similar change in stance. I confess, I didn’t really participate in the conversations. I just read. As I said, I was surprised by all the bold calls for the gun ban I was seeing, and wanted to read what gun owners said in response. There was a lot of good stuff. I collected bits and pieces from several of these conversations, and edited them together to create one conversation, and I’m presenting it here so we can discuss.
…

The time for half measures has passed. A full ban is inevitable. There are other ways to interpret the second amendment. It can be argued that activist courts tortured the plain ‘militia’ language of the amendment into some basic human right. That interpretation could be trumped by a constitutional amendment banning guns.

You keep talking about simple regulations. Like what? What are you talking about? What laws would prevent gun violence?

No solution will be perfect, and one idea does not necessarily preclude another. We can try many different things. Here are 12 smart regulations I’ve seen suggested. None have been taken seriously or advocated for by gun owners. (There are dozens and dozens more on this thread.)

– A true national background check for all gun sales with a fully funded complete database.
– Taking a harder look at who has the ‘right’ to own a gun.
– Defining what responsible gun ownership looks like. Are there mandates there?
– Making gun owners responsible for whatever happens with their gun.
– Making high-capacity weapons illegal.
– Requiring a mandatory 2-month waiting period.
– Requiring fire arm insurance.
– Requiring firearm registration.
– Requiring annual mental health checkups for gun owners.
– Banning bump stocks.
– A lifetime ban from any gun ownership for domestic violence convictions (which funding to enforce). If you are being investigated for any domestic violence crime you lose all guns until it has been settled.
– Allow the CDC to study firearms as a matter of public health.
https://www.designmom.com/a-gun-ban-is-inevitable/

 

Let’s repeal the Second Amendment
Michael Leroy Oberg, Guest Essayist Published 11:56 a.m. ET Feb. 16, 2018
Thirty thousand Americans die every year from gunshot wounds, whether from homicide, suicide, or accident. We have had several school shootings in the past several months, roughly one every sixty hours thus far in 2018. And our feckless leaders in the Senate and the House remain beholden to the National Rifle Association, a trade organization that has opposed any attempt to remedy the problem. While children die, they remind Americans that the Founding Fathers asserted in the Second Amendment that “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.”

No matter what arguments the advocates of gun control deploy — that the phrase “well regulated” implies some ability on the part of government to limit gun rights; that the verb construction to “bear arms” has been used almost always to describe a military use for weapons; that the Constitution is a “living” document that ought to be interpreted in the light of changing circumstances; and that the Founding Fathers could never have considered that the sort of violence acted out in Las Vegas or Orlando or Newtown a justifiable example of bearing arms — the advocates of “gun rights” will always have their tendentious reading of the Second Amendment to defend their position.

So let’s repeal the Second Amendment. It is dated, lethal, and morally abhorrent. The Constitution is not a sacred text. It is a framework for government, the product of dozens of compromises. The men who framed the document envisioned that it would be changed. They made the process difficult and time-consuming, but it has happened.
Michael Leroy Oberg is Distinguished Professor of History at SUNY-Geneseo
https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/opinion/guest-column/2018/02/16/lets-repeal-second-amendment/345365002/

 

To Repeat: Repeal the Second Amendment
By Bret Stephens Feb. 16, 2018
Had Wednesday’s massacre of 17 people at a Florida high school been different in one respect — that is, had alleged perpetrator Nikolas Cruz shouted “Allahu akbar” during the course of his rampage — conservatives would be demanding another round of get-tough measures.

Tougher immigration laws. Tougher domestic surveillance. A rollback of Miranda rights for the accused. Possibly even a Muslim registry. Constitutional protections and American ideals, goes the argument, must sometimes yield to urgent public safety concerns.

But Cruz, like Las Vegas’s Stephen Paddock or Newtown’s Adam Lanza and so many other mass murderers before them, is just another killer without a cause. Collectively, their carnages account for some 1,800 deaths and close to 7,000 injuries in the United States since the beginning of 2013, according to The Guardian — though that’s only a small fraction of overall gun-related deaths. And conservatives have next to nothing of use to say about it.
…
There’s a good case to be made for owning a handgun for self-defense, or a rifle for hunting. There is no remotely sane case for being allowed to purchase, as Paddock did, 33 firearms in the space of a year. But that change can’t happen without a constitutional fix. Anything less does little more than treat the symptoms of the disease.

I know what the objections to this argument will be. What about John Locke and Cesare Beccaria? What about the preservation of American liberties and the encroachments of bureaucratic liberal despotism?

Right. What about another 17 murdered souls, and their classmates and families, and the inability of today’s conservatives to offer anything except false bromides and empty prayers?
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/16/opinion/repeat-repeal-second-amendment.html

Enough is Enough what? Freedom? Liberty?

The #EnoughisEnough hashtag belies a Leftist control fixation against the cause of Liberty.

There is a certain dictatorial twang with that little ditty of a
hashtag. It’s use belies an underlying false idea of unearned authority
over others. That kind of talk is usually heard from parents or teachers in disciplining a child for bad behaviour. In this case that ‘bad behaviour’
was that we have asserted the right of self-preservation by the means
we choose. Perhaps they should realise before it’s too late that we are
not the subjects of their false moral authority.

 

It takes a stunning measure of arrogance to arbitrarily decree the
limits of a fellow citizen’s common sense human Rights, but the nation’s
socialist-Left was out marching last weekend to do just that. Unlike
the enumerated rights in the founding documents that protect the
citizens from government tyranny. The Left’s new idea of freedom entails
freshly minted “Rights” that allow certain groups to autocratically restrain the Liberty of their fellow citizens. These are “Rights” based more on feelings and intent and not anything of substance.

It would seem that mere laws aren’t ‘good enough’ any more. Apparently there is a new “Right”
in town that decrees that just the act of possessing an inanimate
object that could be a danger to others is now verboten. Not to mention
that being free from being scared is also a new “Right” never
contemplated in the annals of civilization.

Well, sorry to be the bearer of bad news to those who think that feelings are “Rights”
or that Liberty is subservient to potential danger. But that isn’t how a
representative republic works. For starters, they should look at how
the Oxford English Dictionary defines the word inalienable.

Not subject to being taken away from or given away by the possessor.

One may have the certain inalienable Rights of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness endowed by their Creator, but that doesn’t mean that others don’t have them as well.
The sword of equality cuts both ways. Merely possessing an object
capable of causing death or destruction cannot be a standard by which
Liberty is parcelled out. Neither is the false standard of fear to be
the mode by which freedom is measured.
Originally published on the NOQ Report

 

Sheepdogs, Guardians and Liberty control

The issue of security is a serious matter, we should be following
the realistic examples of what works to keep our children safe.

So what is the best way to protect people from evil? Taking a page
from ranchers or other rural folk who need to protect their flocks from
predation may be the best way of figuring this out. We know what doesn’t work, and that would be depriving the people of their liberty of self-preservation.
But this doesn’t stop the left from obsessing over inanimate object
control. This is a futile pursuit since even in an environments where
the Liberty of self-defense is heavily controlled, shootings still take place.

It would be far better if we did not need these measures, but the
Socialist-Left has insisted upon tearing down the country’s moral
underpinnings to replace them with it’s vile collectivist ideals. So we
have to decide the best way to protect from that which the enemies of
Liberty on the Left have imposed on the nation. The fact of the matter
is that these commonly held arms have been around for over 100 years while these attacks are of a more recent phenomenon. It also needs to be pointed out that Despite Heightened Fear Of School Shootings, It’s Not A Growing Epidemic as reported on Left-Leaning NPR.

Examine how is security provided in other fields to decide what Will Work.

As has been always the case, Liberty control will not work because
evil will always find a way to kill. Witness recent events in Austin,
Texas where bombs
replaced guns in bringing on terror. Even if guns could be wiped from
existence criminals, terrorist or governments would find a way to
deliberately slaughter people. Therefore the choice is that of restoring
our moral underpinnings or providing new guards for our security. While
the national socialist Left still holds sway over the culture, media
and government indoctrination centres that necessary restoration will
have to wait. So the only realistic option is one of armed, on-scene responders to protect our most precious resource.

Similar circumstances teach the best forms of security: The example of livestock control and protection.

Law enforcement personal are often referred to ‘sheepdogs’.
They maintain control over crowds of people in varying situations while
also protecting them. We can extend this analogy further as a way of
illustrating the way to keep people safe from predation. Ranchers have
two main types of animals to assist them, for control they use the
venerable herding breeds of dogs ranging from the Border Collie, Australian Shepherd, Corgi, Sheltie, etc.
To protect them they also have animals commonly referred to as
Livestock guardians. These range from special breeds of livestock
guardian dogs to Llamas or Donkeys. They normally live with the flock to
provide around the clock protection. They also blend in with it to a
certain extent so that the predators cannot single them out.

Guardian protect the flock while sheepdogs maintain control.

In both situations it’s the guardians who blend in and are always on the scene in case of attack. With the ‘flocks’ of humans, the guardians are the people carrying concealed weapons.
Those bent on evil don’t know who this may be, their numbers or
location. The element of uncertainty keeps the human predators at bay.
By contrast the sheepdogs usually stand out in a crowd. While they also
offer a deterrent effect, this can be negated by their visibility. They
can also be targeted first in an attack to defeat that layer of
security.

In the world of the rancher attempting to both protect his (or her)
flock, they have the sheepdogs to move and control the flock while the
guardians protect it. The sheepdogs do offer a layer of protection, but
they cannot be present all the time. It’s the livestock guardians who
bond with the flock who protect it around the clock.

The Takeaway.

Recent events illustrated that it’s impossible to keep people safe by banning guns or any other Liberty control
measures. The only way to keep them safe in the immoral environment
brought on by the Left, is to have both uniformed law enforcement and
those carrying concealed on site as dual layers of defence. Merely
decreeing a ‘Gun-Free’ zone or banning firearms are dangerous
notions that do not work. These fanciful Leftist constructs only serve
to deprive the innocent of the Liberty of self-defence and do nothing
but raise the body count.

Originally published on the NOQ Report