What is gun control?

Stumbled across this little piece of perfection from Keep And Bear Arms.

It’s amazing what one has to believe
to believe in gun control

by Michael Z. Williamson

KeepAndBearArms.com — It’s amazing what one has to believe to believe in gun control:

That guns are the real cause of crime, but we will blame and jail the owner of said gun for the crime, even if the owner wasn’t the person involved.

That a mugger will kill you in the half-second it takes to draw from the holster, but won’t harm you while you dial 911 on your cell phone, talk to the dispatcher and wait half an hour for the cops to arrive.

That gun control works, which is why there are no illegal weapons in Northern Ireland or Beirut.

That the Second Amendment only applies to flintlocks, just as the First Amendment only applies to quills and lead type.

That the proper response to an attack is to call the police, but only unarmed police, because “Violence never settles anything.”

That it’s wrong to make snide, sexist comments about women, unless the comments are about women who own guns.

That a gun with an 11 round magazine is dangerous, but a gun with fifteen 10 round magazines is much safer.

That a hijacker could easily take a gun away from a pilot, but the hundreds of passengers aboard would then be unable to take the gun away from the hijacker.

That if there’d been a gun aboard American Airlines Flight 11, someone could have been hurt.

That rapists prefer to attack armed women so they can take the guns and use them against the victims.

That 1 firearm owner in 10,000 will commit an act of violence in his or her lifetime, and this is far more frightening than the 25% of drivers who will cause a serious or fatal accident.

That you should rely on police in lieu of your gun, just as you should rely on a dentist in lieu of your toothbrush.

That car keys, umbrellas and hairspray are good tools for self-defense, despite the fact that police continue to carry guns.

That Washington DC’s low murder rate of 80.6 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, but Arlington, Virginia’s high murder rate of 1.6 per 100,000 is attributable to the lack of gun control.

That the depressed and emotionally disturbed should not be allowed to own guns that shoot bullets with 250 ft-lbs of energy, but should be allowed to own 4000 lb cars with 1,136,000 ft-lbs of energy (at 65 mph).

That “assault weapons” are “very powerful” but big game hunters oddly prefer .30-06s and .375 H&Hs.

That we should outlaw bullet proof vests so criminals can’t use them, and private citizens should be then proud to be killed in the crossfire, knowing they are doing their part for society.

That among the hundreds of documented cases against anti-gun freaks we note that: the press secretary of Handgun Control was arrested in DC for discharging an illegal handgun, a ranking regional officer of the Million Moron March was convicted of felony assault, and other Million Morons in Colorado have been arrested for attacking firearm dealers and activists, but “gun nuts” are “obsessed with violence.”

That the laws against specifically named weapons have been found unconstitutional, that the laws against “types” of weapons have been considered vague, that the laws against cosmetic features are easy to comply with and still produce the identical mechanism, and that laws against particular mechanisms are unconstitutional is an indication of the “obsessiveness” of firearms enthusiasts to do what they enjoy doing, against the wishes of the narrow minded prudes who wish to stop them, and not an indication of the obsessiveness of the ignorant paranoids who fear them.

That NASA, the military, physiologists, anatomists and trainers all agree and Olympic scores confirm that men on average have tremendously more upper body strength than women, but women should try to defend themselves with martial arts and not a gun.

That it’s terrible when police officers plant weapons on a suspect to enable them to make an arrest, but we should have tougher laws against weapons and trust the police not to abuse them in this way.

That police arriving at 80mph are a better way to stop criminals than bullets arriving at 800mph.

That people buy guns as “substitute penises,” because they know that only people with small penises ever get attacked by criminals.

That Hitler and Stalin didn’t disarm citizens, only Jews, Gypsies, gays, unionists and other “undesirables.” (Yes, a liberal member of the MMM actually said this in the Washington Post.)

That to properly understand Nazi gun control, one must consider the “legitimate fears” they had of the Jewish population. (This was another self-proclaimed liberal. I’m beginning to wonder.)

That families with children should not be allowed to own guns for safety reasons, just as they aren’t allowed to own dogs, power tools, or toxic chemicals.

That it’s wrong to destroy someone’s life over an administrative crime by jailing them and impoverishing their family, unless that crime is to own a gun.

That a law that allows someone to keep doing “X” that has been legal for years, in the face of another, badly written law that says they can’t do “Y”, is a “loophole.”

That it’s wrong to politicize that the World Trade Center attackers didn’t need guns to hijack a plane, but okay to politicize that the Columbine killers bought guns…illegally.

That when someone dies because they couldn’t get a drug the government won’t approve, it’s tragic, but when someone dies because they couldn’t defend themselves with a gun the government won’t approve, that’s just life.

That a criminal is somehow more of a threat to a cop than to a regular person, so police need guns and regular citizens don’t.

That the “Reasonable” uses for guns are hunting and target shooting, but not self-defense. In other words, it’s acceptable to use them as toys but not as lifesaving devices.

That .50 caliber rifles are both “very rare” and “selling like hotcakes.”

That the fact that .50 caliber rifles are very rare justifies banning them, just as the rarity of Lamborghinis and other high-performance cars justifies banning them.

That one has the moral obligation to make a citizen’s arrest when one sees a felony in progress, and that it should be accomplished by yelling at the perpetrator, “Stop! Or I’ll yell ‘stop’ again!” rather than by drawing a weapon.

That intelligent people should support gun control because they realize they are too stupid to be trusted with guns.

That a gun is merely an inadequate substitute for a penis, so when attacked by a mugger one should pull out a…

That a gun is a symbolic penis…what this has to do with defending one’s life I have no idea. It simply serves to prove that anti-defense psychiatrists clearly have Freudian issues that THEY need to address.

That reasonable licensing fees will stop casual ownership of guns, but anyone who would jump through hoops to own a gun is obsessive.

That outlawing the carrying of guns will stop people from doing so, just as lowering the speed limit stops reckless driving.

That we should deal with the problem of criminals using illegal weapons by taking lawful weapons away from honest people.

That we should ban guns-if it saves even one life, it’s worth it, just as we should ban assemblies where people might be trampled to death-if it saves just one life, it’s worth it, and we should ban speech by groups who offend public order-if it saves just one life, it’s worth it, and we should ban unhealthy foods-if it saves just one life, it’s worth it, and…

That a punk wakes up one morning, and thinks, “Gee, instead of robbing, raping, sodomizing and killing a young woman, why don’t I turn my $400 gun in for $20 and a pizza and go work at McDonald’s?”

That the more helpless you are, the safer you are from criminals.

That you should give a mugger your wallet, because he doesn’t really want to shoot you and he’ll let you go, but that you should give him your wallet, because he’ll shoot you if you don’t.

That despite all the outrage about Corporate America’s cavalier treatment of employees, Domino’s Pizza’s demand that employees be unarmed is an altruistic effort to stop them from hurting themselves, and not a calculated financial bid to avoid having a lawsuit filed by a dead robber’s family.

That one can sue a store for having a slick floor, falling ceilings, and sharp corners, but if they refuse to let you bring a gun in and you get shot by a criminal, they aren’t liable for enforcing that rule with others.

That there is no right of self defense, and the police are not legally obligated to respond to my cries for help when disarmed, but you can sue them if they take too long to get to a traffic accident.

That assault rifles are far too powerful to hunt deer and elk, and too dangerous for private citizens to own, but are too impotent for modern warfare, too weak to reliably kill soldiers, and have no place in the concept of a citizen reserve.

That there’s no incongruity in claiming the preferred weapon of a drug dealer is a $25 .22 caliber pocket pistol, and claiming the preferred weapon of a drug dealer is a $2000 machinegun in the same piece of propaganda.

That any cheap weapon is a “Saturday night special,” and any expensive weapon is an “assault weapon.”

That “Cops” and other shows are edited to show the boring encounters with traffic stops and the occasional drunken fool with a revolver in his pocket, and never show the millions of cases where the cops are gunned down in droves by machinegun toting drug dealers.

That “NYPD Blue” and “Miami Vice” are documentaries.

That an intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .44 Magnum will get angry over your retaliation and kill you.

That firearms in the hands of private citizens are the gravest threat to world peace, and China, Pakistan and Korea can be trusted with nuclear weapons.

That Charlton Heston as president of the NRA is a shill who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.

That ordinary people, in the presence of guns, turn into slaughtering butchers, and revert to normal when the weapon is removed.

That someone who fails to clear his weapon, fails to point it in a safe direction, pulls the trigger without checking the chamber, and blows his foot off is an example of how even a “trained professional” can be a “victim” of a diabolical gun, but people in the military who clean weapons millions of times a year without getting hurt are “dumb grunts.”

That the New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns, just as Guns and Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.

That one should consult an automotive engineer for safer seatbelts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a neurosurgeon for spinal paralysis, a computer programmer for Y2K problems, and Sarah Brady for firearms expertise.

That the best thing our kids can do to bullies and drug dealers is “just say no,” and fight back, and the best thing we can do to bullies and drug dealers is to give them $50 and wait for them to go away.

That it’s outrageous that the Milwaukee police took 45 minutes to respond to reports of Jeffrey Dahmer’s last victim running around naked in the cold, then returned him to his attacker without checking ID, but the best thing a citizen can do in an emergency is dial 911.

That the “right of the people peaceably to assemble,” the “right of the people to be secure in their homes,” “the enumeration herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people,” “The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people,” refer to individuals, but “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” refers to the states.

That the 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1791, allows the states to have a National Guard, created by act of Congress in 1916.

That the National Guard, paid by the federal government, occupying property leased to the federal government, using weapons owned by the federal government, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a state agency.

That private citizens can’t have handguns, because they serve no militia purpose, even though the military has hundreds of thousands of them, and private citizens can’t have assault rifles, because they are military weapons.

That it is reasonable for California to have a minimum 2 year sentence for possessing but not using an assault rifle, and reasonable for California to have a 6 month minimum sentence for raping a female police officer.

That it is reasonable to jail people for carrying but not using guns, but outrageous to jail people for possessing marijuana.

That minimum sentences violate civil rights, unless it’s for possessing a gun.

That door-to-door searches for drugs are a gross violation of civil rights and a sign of Fascism, but door-to-door searches for guns are a reasonable solution to the “gun problem.”

That the first amendment absolutely allows child pornography and threats to kill cops, but doesn’t apply to manuals on gun repair.

That a woman in a microskirt, perfume and a Wonderbra, without underwear, is a helpless victim, but someone getting paid $6 an hour to deliver the cash from a fast food place to the bank at the same time every night is, “asking for it.” And you won’t allow either of them to carry a gun.

That Illinois’ law that allows almost any government official from Governor to dogcatcher to carry a gun is reasonable, and the law that prohibits any private citizen, even one with 50 death threats on file and a million dollar jewelry business from carrying a gun is reasonable. And it isn’t a sign of police stateism.

That the 80 religious kooks in Waco were a threat to American security, but snipers killing them as they left the building, machinegunning children, hiding the video evidence, possibly torching the building on purpose, and having no case to present in federal court is good law enforcement. And it isn’t a sign of police stateism.

That free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self defense only justifies bare hands.

That with the above, a 90 LB woman attacked by a 300 LB rapist and his 300 LB buddy, has the “right” to kill them in self defense, provided she uses her bare hands.

That there’s nothing in the Constitution that specifically prohibits banning certain guns, but there is something in the Constitution that specifically prohibits banning certain sex acts.

That gun safety courses in school only encourage kids to commit violence, but sex education in school doesn’t encourage kids to have sex.

That a criminal will take a gun away from you and use it against you, so conversely, the best thing to do when threatened is to take the criminal’s gun away from him and us it against him.

That the ready availability of guns today, with only a few government forms, waiting periods, checks, infringements, ID, and fingerprinting, is responsible for all the school shootings, compared to the lack of school shootings in the 1950’s and 1960’s, which was caused by the awkward availability of guns at any hardware store, gas station, and by mail order.

That we must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time, but anyone who owns a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.

That there is too much explicit violence featuring guns on TV, but that cities can sue gun manufacturers because people aren’t aware of the dangers involved with guns.

That the gun lobby’s attempt to run a “don’t touch” campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, and the anti-gun lobby’s attempt to run a “don’t touch” campaign is responsible social activity.

That the crime rate in America is decreasing because of gun control, but the increase in crime requires more gun control.

That 100 years after its founding, the NRA got into the politics of guns from purely selfish motives, and 100 years after the Emancipation Proclamation, the black civil rights movement was founded from purely noble motives.

That statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control, and statistics that show increasing murder rates after gun control is legislated are “just statistics.”

That we don’t need guns against an oppressive government, because the Constitution has internal safeguards, so we should ban and seize all guns, therefore violating the 2nd, 4th, 5th and 9th Amendments of that Constitution, and won’t thereby become an oppressive government.

That guns are an ineffective means of self defense for rational adults, but in the hands of an ignorant criminal become a threat to the fabric of society.

That guns are so complex to use that special training is necessary to use them properly, but so simple to use that they make murder easy.

That guns contribute to high death rates and should be banned, but tobacco and alcohol are okay.

That guns cause crime, which is why there has never been a mass slaying at a gun show.

That guns cause crime, just like matches cause arson.

That guns cause crime, just like women cause prostitution.

That guns cause crime, just like men cause rape.

That guns aren’t necessary to national defense, which is why the US Army only has 3 million of them.

That banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, and Chicago cops need guns against armed criminals.

That women are just as intelligent and capable as men, but a woman with a gun is “an accident waiting to happen.”

That women are just as intelligent and capable as men, but gunmaker’s advertisements aimed at women are “preying on their fears.”

That a handgun, with up to 4 switches and controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile which only has 20.

That handguns are useful only for murder, which is why the police and military define them as defensive weapons.

That neighbors who carry guns against the occasional lunatic are paranoid, because of the perfectly justifiable fear that every single one of them is waiting to turn into a lunatic.

That a majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population used to support owning slaves.

That one should ignore as idiots politicians who confuse Wicca with Satanism and exaggerate the gay community as a threat to society, but listen sagely to politicians who can refer to a self-loading small arm as a “weapon of mass destruction” and an “assault weapon.”

That there is no absolute right to a weapon, documented historically because the British government used to prohibit Catholics from owning guns. And that wasn’t a sign of religious bigotry. (Note: the British Constitution actually RESTORED to Protestants the right to own arms, which Catholic James II denied them)

That rifles with pistol grips are assault weapons, just like vehicles with racing stripes are sports cars.

That you don’t need a gun against invaders, because the government will know in plenty of time to issue you whatever weapons you need.

That Massachusetts is safer with bans on guns, which is why Teddy Kennedy has machinegun-toting guards.

That most people can’t be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by, because they can be trusted.

That a woman raped and strangled with her panties is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.

That the “Right to keep and bear arms” refers to armorial badges and coats of arms, not to weapons. (Potomac-inc.org)

That guns should be banned because of the danger involved, and live reporting from the battlefield, which can keep the enemy informed of troop deployments, getting thousands of troops killed and perhaps losing a war, is a protected act that CANNOT be compromised on.

That the right of explicit teenage pornographic websites to exist cannot be questioned because it is a constitutionally protected extension of the Bill of Rights, but the claim that handguns are for self-defense is merely an excuse, and not really protected by the Bill of Rights.

That the ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution, but the NRA is bad because it defends other parts of the Constitution.

That a house with a gun is three times as likely to have a murder, just like a house with insulin is three times as likely to have a diabetic.

That police operate in groups with backup, which is why they need larger capacity magazines than civilians, who must face criminals alone, and therefore need less ammunition.

That people who own guns out of a fear of crime are paranoid, but people who don’t want other people to own guns in case it causes them to commit crimes are rational.

That guns cause the high suicide rate in the US, even though Japan’s rate is almost three times higher.

That we should ban gun stores near schools, because of all the 10 year olds who are buying guns without parents’ permission.

That there is a statue called “Armed Freedom” in the Capitol, but that that is irrelevant to the intent of our ancestors.

That we should ban “Saturday Night Specials” and other inexpensive guns because it’s not fair that poor people have access to guns too.

That guns have no legitimate use, but alcohol does, which is why we issue cops guns instead of beer.

That police and soldiers are the dregs of society who were unfit to get any real job, which perfectly qualifies them with the high moral standards and keen intellects to handle these complicated tools and be our guardians.

That it’s acceptable to arm a courier at $6 an hour to shoot criminals for stealing bank deposits, but unacceptable for a college-educated business owner to do it himself.

That a registration plan will reduce crime, because criminals will register their guns despite the Supreme Court decision Haynes v. U.S. (309 U.S. 85, 1968) that registration violates self-incrimination.

That it’s reasonable to require proof of a criminal act before an order of protection can be issued, but reasonable to assume anyone with a gun will commit a criminal act, so they should be subject to prior restraint.

That teaching abstinence exclusively rather than use of condoms is doomed to fail, but encouraging absolute bans on guns rather than education in safe use is the only acceptable method of reducing crime.

That it is outrageous that civilians have rifles that were designed for the military for their own self defense, but perfectly okay to have polluting, potentially unstable, heavy vehicles that were designed for the military simply as status symbols.

That guns are the gravest threat to society because 83,000,000 gun owners didn’t commit a crime yesterday.

That it is essential to incorporate locks and sensors into guns to make them safer and that only a criminal would not support this, but cops and federal agents would be exempt for safety reasons because locks are unreliable and hinder access.

That a bank guard can protect money with a gun, but you cannot protect your children with one.

That all gun dealers sell illegal weapons, just like all black people sell drugs.

That crime is higher in urban areas with less guns, and we must continue to disarm the minorities in these areas because of the risk of crime, and that isn’t bigotry.

That an underpaid, overworked bodyguard should be glad to throw himself in front of a bullet for you.

That your safety is someone else’s responsibility, but they have no right to tell you how to live your life.

That guns are useless against tyranny, because an armed populace of 160 million cannot defeat an army of 2 million mixed in among it.

That if the above is true, we should not be terrified of the concept of that government holding control of our lives and freedom at its whim.

That the piecemeal destruction of the right to keep and bear arms makes the right useless, and therefore justifies destroying it further.

That one should be more afraid of one’s spouse blowing a gasket and shooting the children, than of those children being run over by a hormone-driven teenager in a car.

“It can’t happen here.”

That people are too stupid to handle guns, but are intelligent enough to vote.

That guns are not an effective means of self-defense, which is why police carry them.

That one can “study” the “gun issue,” but not know the difference between an assault rifle and a battle rifle.

That the NRA, with over 4 million members, is “out of touch” with America, and HCI, with 50 thousand members, is a “mandate from the people.”

That a baseball bat is good protection against a burglar, provided his gun fires baseballs.

That to judge a group by secondhand news and hearsay is bigotry, unless that group is the NRA.

That the National Defense Act of 1916 doesn’t exist.

That pricing products out of the reach of poor people through excessive regulation is discriminatory practice, unless that product is a gun.

That manufacturers are not responsible for damages caused by their products, unless that product is a gun.

That trigger locks and other devices make guns safer, which is why the police and military refuse to use them.

That registration of guns will help law enforcement, because that way they won’t need probable cause and a warrant to conduct a search.

That registration of guns, which makes their existence a matter of public knowledge under the FOIA, isn’t dangerous to owners.

That registration of guns, in violation of the McClure-Volkmer Act, and as declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, is somehow still legal.

That private citizens making private sales of private property is a “loophole.”

That the existence of weapons not banned by previous laws is a “loophole.”

That making it harder to get a license to sell firearms legally will reduce the number of people selling illegally.

That it’s safer to do nothing than resist with a gun, which is why the military wins so many wars by not fighting.

That we must close shooting ranges because of the noise, but ban silencers because they are quiet.

That owning a gun for self-defense indicates an intent to kill, just like owning a first aid kit indicates an intent to impersonate a physician.

That guns are an “epidemic” even though we can’t treat them with penicillin.

That there’s no right to own military weapons, which is why the Civilian Marksmanship Program at http://www.odcmp.com exists to sell military weapons to civilians under Congressional authority.

That suggesting teachers be armed is an outrageous suggestion for a “civilized” society, which is why the Swiss and Israelis do it.

That making it harder and harder for even cops to have guns on school property will somehow make it harder for lunatics to kill the utterly helpless students.

That accidents with a product justify banning the product, even though MADD has never called for a ban on alcohol, people actively push to legalize drugs, and no one wants to ban swimming pools, so basically it’s only practical items like guns we should ban and not the luxury items that are essential to human survival.

That the 14th Amendment requires states to accept each other’s drivers licenses, even with age or vision requirement differences, marriage licenses even with age or relationship differences or if it’s a gay marriage, but somehow doesn’t apply to licenses to carry weapons.

That the same people who build illegal high-tech drug labs for less than $30,000 won’t build illegal low-tech gun shops for less than $10,000.

That people with large gun collections are dangerous, especially if they have more than two hands to shoot with.

That autoloaders are “easily converted” to fully automatic fire, yet the person telling you this has no idea how it’s accomplished.

That banning rifles with bayonet lugs will cut down on all the drive-by bayonetings.

That shooting at an intruder who smashes your door and enters with knife in hand will somehow “escalate the violence.”

That it’s safer with less guns, which is why lunatics shoot up schools instead of gun shows or police stations.

That guns cause crime, which is why there was no rape or murder in the Dark Ages.

That stopping the people who don’t commit murder from having guns will lessen the number of those who do commit murder.

That since banning a few guns hasn’t helped, we should ban more.

That just like the anti-nuclear weapons movement used to believe, if the potential victims disarm, the oppressors will take pity on them and give up their weapons in remorse.

That oppressing gun owners until they violate the law justifies oppressing them further.

That “crime guns” and old police guns should be destroyed at government expense, because the cost of exorcising the evil spirits from them before selling them to lawful owners is exorbitant.

That raising the legal age to possess firearms from 18 to 21 will REALLY show those 16 year olds.

That inner-city blacks in public housing should be disarmed to prevent crimes, but not rich white suburbanites. And it isn’t a sign of racism.

That creating firearms crime by having a Byzantine code of firearm laws proves there’s a problem, and justifies more laws to create more crime.

That liberal parents who give guns to problem children to “teach them responsibility” are not responsible for the deaths they cause, but everyone else’s guns are.

That gun owners are a threat by existing that must be destroyed by any means possible and their rights are unimportant, but the thugs who attack us on the street whom the gun owners wish to be armed against are simply a problem we have to put up with.

That one should judge all gun owners by the acts of a few criminals, just like one should judge all blacks by the acts of a few inner-city crack dealers.

That making it harder to get firearms legally will reduce their illegal use, just like making it harder to get a prescription will cut down on the illicit drug trade.

That it’s tragic when a child dies in a firearms accident, and we must pass restrictive laws to prevent it, but children poisoned by household chemicals are simply unavoidable accidents.

That you don’t need a gun, therefore no one needs one, and you have the right to impose that belief and will on others.

That stupidity can be cured by legislation.

That societies with less guns have less killings by guns, just like societies with less cars have less vehicular homicide. This is deemed to be relevant.

That criminals who rob to support their drug habit can afford $65 a minute in ammunition for their automatic “Weapon of choice.”

That with nationwide gun control, the entire nation can be as safe as NYC, LA and Chicago.

That since a gun isn’t 100% effective for self defense, you should get rid of it, along with your first aid kit and fire extinguisher, since they aren’t 100% effective, either.

That if Chicago were to legalize firearms, it would have shootouts in the streets, which never happens now.

That it’s wrong to use tax dollars to finance private political agendas, unless that agenda is to ban guns.

That a “safe gun” will help stop criminal misuse of firearms just like “safe sex” works so well to stop rape.

That a cop with felonies on his record is safe with fully automatic weapons but a churchgoing mother with a parking ticket as her worst crime is unfit to use a pistol to protect her child.

That a suicide who used a gun would still be alive if he or she had used a knife or hanged himself or herself.

That someone else’s suicide is a problem for the rest of us that would be prevented if we gave up our guns.

That alcohol is acceptable in private, as long as the user doesn’t use it while driving, but mere possession of a gun is a threat to others.

That gun owners are unwilling to compromise, which is why there are only 20,000 gun laws in the US.

That criminals are better shots than civilians because of all the time they spend on the practice range.

That since criminals are better shots by the logic above, one is safer by not shooting back, but just waiting for them to run out of ammo.

That it’s reasonable to assume an accident would have been lethal if the victim wasn’t wearing a seatbelt, and reasonable to assume that an armed defender would have been safe even if they didn’t have a gun.

That one accidental death is too many, but thousands of people dying because the means of self-defense were not available is unavoidable and not worthy of worry.

That we should ban guns because people have a “right to feel safe,” but the right to feel safe by owning firearms for defense is not valid.

That it’s outrageous to count 18 and 19 year-old parents as “children” for statistical purposes, but perfectly acceptable to count them as children for purposes of exaggerating gun deaths among “children.”

That a zero-tolerance policy is bad regarding drugs, but a zero-tolerance policy is good regarding guns.

That martial arts are a better form of self-defense, and can defeat an armed opponent, but we still need to ban guns because of the danger they present to those few people who don’t know karate.

That government officials can be trusted with automatic weapons, but private citizens cannot, because of the number of people private citizens kill while kicking in doors without search warrants.

That an 18 year old can handle a machinegun and die defending another nation’s oil reserves, thereby being a hero, but an 18 year old who tries to defend his or her child with a gun belongs in jail.

That the few people who can’t use martial arts or other non-lethal means of self-defense–the young, the old, the infirm, the disabled, the weak, the small, and the pregnant–are simply the necessary sacrifice we must make to criminals to avoid the risks of letting people be armed.

That the dangers of guns outweigh their recreational uses, unlike alcohol and motorcycles.

That getting rid of guns reduces violence, so the military should be armed with bouquets of flowers.

That we should hang out at funeral homes to tell the families of the deceased how lucky they are their loved one was killed by a drunk and not a man with a gun.

That a conservative with a dozen guns is an “extremist,” and a liberal with a dozen guns is a “museum.”

That a team of cops shooting an unarmed citizen 19 times and not getting charged with murder is “law enforcement” but an old lady shooting a knife-wielding attacker is “vigilanteism,” and we should leave defense to the professionals.

That we should require trigger locks and safe storage facilities for all guns in order to prevent accidents, just like we require all household chemicals to be kept in a locked cabinet.

That a woman shooting a rapist is a felon.

That NORML is good for supporting legalization of a politically unpopular product, but the NRA is bad for supporting legalization of a politically unpopular product.

That poor people who live in high crime areas and can’t afford alarms shouldn’t be allowed to have guns either.

That telling a murderer he’ll go to jail for carrying a gun will make him think twice.

That the only way to end gun violence is to ban guns, just like the only way to end medical malpractice is to ban doctors.

That killing a triple murderer so you don’t become the fourth victim is “escalating the violence.”

That we should get rid of “junk guns” so that criminals are forced to use reliable high-quality guns.

That repealing laws that discriminate against gun-owners “endorses” guns, just like repealing laws that discriminate against gays “endorses” homosexuality.

That guns are designed only to kill, just like women are designed only to give birth.

That only people over 21 are allowed to defend themselves.

That we should ban guns because their primary purpose is to kill people, but we shouldn’t ban alcohol, which has its primary purpose getting intoxicated and losing control of the higher faculties, thereby increasing violence and accidental death.

That the lack of mention of firearms in Colonial literature proves their scarcity, much like the lack of mention of outhouses proves their scarcity.

That somehow the above is more relevant to the 2nd Amendment than the lack of letters to public officials and newspapers is relevant to the 1st Amendment.

That a person who would commit violence with a gun would never do so with a knife.

That most people are seething cauldrons of potential violence who cannot be trusted with a gun, but most people are so decent that there is no need to carry a weapon for defense.

That a person foolish enough to leave a gun loaded and lying in reach of a child will somehow be responsible enough to attach a trigger lock.

That 83 million gun owners are “extremists,” and the 50,000 members of the Million Moron March are “the majority.”

That allowing concealed carry does not reduce crime through deterrence since some people do so even though it’s illegal, but allowing concealed carry increases crime, because more people carry guns and use them irresponsibly.

That a woman buying a gun to defend herself against a violent ex needs five days to “cool off.”

That a woman being raped should refuse help from an armed stranger, and instead wait for the police.

That if an a group of anti-gun protesters feels threatened, they should ask police with guns to protect them while they tell everyone how worthless guns are for protection.

That a trauma surgeon’s experience in treating gunshot wounds makes him an expert on gun control legislation, just like an automobile body repair technician’s experience repairing cars makes him an expert on traffic laws.

That the typical town only needs one law enforcement officer per 1000 population, because most people are law abiding, but that it’s dangerous to let citizens carry weapons because most people are criminal.

That the risk of arrest for carrying a weapon on school grounds will stop a person bent on suicide from starting a shootout.

That felons should be denied the right to ever own a weapon, just like rapists should be castrated before being released from jail.

That the 1939 US vs Miller case, is “established law” that endorses gun control and the matter is closed, just like Plessy vs Ferguson endorsed “separate but equal” schools and the matter is closed.

That game wardens have the most dangerous job in the world, because everyone they deal with is armed.

That there’s no risk of the US becoming a police state, Japanese-Americans were not interned in the 40’s, blacks were not oppressed and jailed in the 50’s, and no students were killed at Kent State.

That when the government promises that they won’t confiscate our weapons after we register them, we can believe them, just like the Commanche, the Sioux, the Apache, the Kaw, the Cree, the Blackfoot, the Italians in NYC, the Jews in Germany, the Zulu in South Africa…and the Americans at Lexington and Concord.

That the government can control guns as well as it controls drugs.

That the high crime rate in cities with oppressive gun control proves the need for gun control in cities without gun control and with low crime.

That Charlton Heston, as president of the NRA, must be a racist, despite his marches with Dr. King in the 1960s. After all, all gun owners are racist, and that theory isn’t bigoted.

That we don’t need guns because America is safe, and only criminals or people wishing to start trouble would be out late at night in bad neighborhoods.

That there is no left-wing conspiracy to send police and troops to imprison American gun owners, but there is a vast, right-wing conspiracy of gun owners who must be disarmed for attempting to stop it.

That .50 caliber weapons must be banned in case Americans use them to shoot holes in the armored cars that the government doesn’t own and isn’t going to send against them.

That ships using Australian waters mustn’t carry handguns against the mythical threat of piracy or mutiny, because some aspiring captain might sell them for a few bucks.

That gang punks shot by other gang punks are innocent victims, and babies shot by government agents deserve to die because of the unpopular beliefs of their parents.

That allowing the poor and minorities to defend themselves is Fascist.

That small arms can’t win wars, as all the Viet Cong bombing, air superiority, and naval missions prove.

That John Wayne, rejected by the Marines for bad knees, who portrayed firearms as used by soldiers and law enforcement is a draft-dodging agent of evil, but antigun draft dodger Sylvester Stallone, making movies about Vietnam veterans and using weapons gratuitously, is an American hero to be slobbered over.

That violence is bad, but any defensive use of a firearm that doesn’t involve the death of the perpetrator is invalid.

That the NRA is bad for running political activities, but the Million Moron March, stealing money from AIDS research, illegally maintaining tax-exempt status as a 501c(3) organization and fraudulently using a hospital rent-free as its headquarters is good for running political activities.

That Charlton Heston is evil for working for the NRA for free, but Sarah Brady charging $10,000 a speech is a paragon of altruism.

That a ranch rifle made after 1994 is somehow a military rifle.

That all firearms retailers are illegal gun dealers, just like all pharmacists are illegal drug dealers.

That hate is not a family value, but all gun owners are tobacco-chawin’, beer-swillin’, racist, redneck bubbas.

That a gun which sits silently in a drawer and costs pennies per round to shoot is a bad idea for self defense, but a dog that requires walks, veterinary care, and licenses, may not be allowed in certain neighborhoods and may annoy the neighbors at all hours is a good idea for self defense.

That the worst thing one can do if there’s an intruder in the house is get a gun and apprehend them, and the best thing on can do is pretend to be asleep and wait for them to go away, especially if they are raping your children.

That gun control will “keep guns out of the wrong hands,” meaning law-abiding Americans’ hands.

That trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes, which is why it makes sense that police officers are exempt from using them on their duty weapons.

That the government attempting to stop the Microsoft “monopoly” is good, and the Federal government pressuring cities to buy guns only from Smith & Wesson is also good, and not monopolistic.

That “assault weapons” have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people, which is why the police need them.

That “assault weapons” are only designed for killing offensively, and the police need them but you do not.

That citizens don’t need to carry a gun for personal protection but desk-bound police administrators who work in a building filled with cops do, as do tax auditors, vegetable inspectors, mail inspectors, and meat inspectors.

That beer-gutted police have special mental, emotional and physical capabilities that enable them to deal with the incredible complexity of a firearm, and private citizens can never hope to achieve such competence.

That the Brady Act and the “Assault Weapons” Ban which both went into effect in 1994 are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates since 1991.

That 25% of the dealers at gun shows are unlicensed, and we must license these purveyors of books, tools, knives, clothing, artwork, candy and historical artifacts.

That because of New York’s “tough laws” against guns, there exist black market dealers who spend thousands of dollars in gas and other expenses to drive to Arizona, which has “weak laws” in order to buy Ruger pistols at $500 each retail and drive back to New York and sell them to criminals at an “average” of $50 each, thereby making a profit.

That there’s no contradiction in the same liberals who said in the 60s that 18 year olds who could fight should be able to vote, now saying that 18 year olds can vote but shouldn’t own guns.

Copyright 1999, 2001 by Michael Z. Williamson. Permission is granted to copy in whole or part for non-profit purposes, provided due credit is given. Please inform the author directly at daggers@iquest.net or through http://www.KeepAndBearArms.com when you do.

Advertisements

Thousands of Gun Registration Forms Burned in Protest

Nearly one thousand gun owners in the state of New York stood together in protest of the NY Safe Act, an act passed in January of 2013 in response to the Sandy Hook Shooting. 

The NY Safe Act bans the possession of high-capacity magazines (magazines with over 5 rounds) regardless of when they were made or where they were sold. Other limitations/provisions associated with this act include background checks and sales documentation for purchase of ammo, requirement to create a registry with any assault weapon in the state,  ban on internet sales, and allows law enforcement to seize one’s firearm without a warrant or court order.

Assault Weapons Rg Pic

The Safe Act mandates that all assault weapons be registered by April 15, 2014. NY gun owners are openly stating their refusal to comply by burning their registration forms. At this time, it is estimated that only 3,000 out of 1.2 million assault weapons have been registered since the NY Safe Act was first introduced in January 2013. As we are reaching the April deadline, more and more gun owners are refusing to comply because they believe that registration leads to confiscation. Who can blame them? If you haven’t noticed, they aren’t alone. Look at Connecticut where only 50,000 guns were registered out of nearly half a million.

Don’t think registration leads to confiscation? The NYPD is now sending out notices to registered gun owners demanding that they give up their firearms.

Gun confiscation

RIFLE AND SHOTGUN

Still not enough for you? Fine. Let’s look into past events.

*  In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.  This doesn’t include the 30 million ‘Uncle Joe’ starved to death in the Ukraine.
 
 
*  In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
 
*  Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, leaving a populace unable to defend itself against the Gestapo and SS.  Hundreds of thousands died as a result.  
 
 
* China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. 
 
*  Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. 
 
* Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. The total dead are said to be 2-3 million
 
 
* Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, 1-2 million ‘educated’ people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. 
 
*  Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million at a bare minimum. 
 
* Gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results: 
 
Australia-wide, homicides went up 3.2 percent 
 
Australia-wide, assaults went up 8.6 percent 
 
Australia-wide, armed robberies went up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)

Historically, American gun control legislation has been imitating Hitler’s Nazi Germany gun control legislation for quite some time. Consider the key provisions of the Nazi Weapons Act of 1938 and compare it with the United States Gun Control Act of 1968. The parallels of both the provisions and the legal language are eerily similar.

The Nazi Weapons Act
of 1938

United States Gun Control Act
of 1968

1 Classified guns for sporting purposes 1 Introduced term “sporting purpose”
2 All Germans desiring to purchase firearms had to register with the Nazi officials and submit to a background check 2 Exempted government agencies from the controls which applied to law-abiding citizens
3 The law assumed that non-Nazi German citizens were hostile and thereby exempted Nazi’s from the gun control law 3 The Law assumes that mentally ill people will turn their guns on innocents and the government is given the power to limit the purchase by people DEEMED to be a threat by labeling them as mentally ill.
4 The Nazi’s assumed unrestricted power to decide what kinds of firearms could, or could not, be owned by private persons 4 Authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to decide what firearms could or could not be owned by private persons
5 The types of ammunition that were legal were subject to control by governmental bureaucrats 5 The types of ammunition that were legal were subject to control by governmental bureaucrats
6 Citizens under 18 years of age could not buy firearms and ammunition 6 Age restriction of 18 years and 21 years were applied to anyone who wished to purchase firearms and ammunition

What History Teaches Us About Gun Confiscation

Want more recent? Ok.

Let’s look at Canada first. In June of 2013, citizens were evacuated from their homes in the High River area of Alberta due to flooding. Due to the massive flooding, most were not able to return to their homes and later found that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police seized large quantities of fire arms from their evacuated homes and would not return them unless they were registered under the proper class. If their firearm was under the “restricted” or “prohibited” class, they were destroyed. Canadian government confiscated firearms ILLEGALLY from law abiding citizens. First they created a law requiring citizens to register guns. Why? To track the sales of firearms of course. Next the passed laws to ban firearms. Finally, they notified gun owners that they were to surrender their REGISTERED firearms to the local police.

Don’t you get it? It has to start somewhere. They can’t just ban guns and confiscate them out of the blue. People would get too upset too quickly and the laws would backfire so they are choosing to go in slowly. Sound familiar? It should because it’s happening here.

Now let’s go a little closer to home. How about California? In April of 2013, the California State Legislature passed a bill approving $24 million to help confiscate more than 40,000 handguns from felons or those deemed mentally/emotionally unfit to own firearms. Hmm sounds likes that would be fine at first? Well think again. Once again, look at Connecticut and all of the gun owners who chose not to register their firearms. Now they are consider felons because they did not comply with state laws. What makes you think that you won’t be consider a felon, giving them “reason” to enter into your home and confiscate your firearms? Heck, what makes you think it won’t happen if you DO comply with the laws?

Wake up people and start fighting for your rights. Our country was founded on these rights for a reason. One last question to all you anti-gun wackos- What happens when your precious government turns on you and you have no protection?

“Guns Everywhere” Bill Passed In Georgia

Guns Everywhere (let that sink in for just a minute).

That pretty much sums up what the recent bill that passed in Georgia where state citizens are permitted to carry their firearms anywhere at anytime. Your school, the local bar up the street, the DMV, the airport, your church, you name it. Teachers and administrators will now allowed to be armed on campus.

Ok, well before you get TOO excited, it isn’t all that simple. It should more or less be called the “Guns ALMOST Everywhere”  bill.

Carrying in a government facility is only allowed if there are not security guards already present and carrying a gun in any of these places can still get you a ticket (with about the same consequences as a speeding ticket).

I keep thinking more and more about this bill.. I do not know that guns need to be present in a church. I mean, as far as I know, I don’t see or hear of many church shootings. However, if that was the only place where guns weren’t allowed, would it open up doors for criminals to WANT to go to a church instead of a school to attack because they know no one is armed?

Another place I am not sure would be a great idea would be the bar. You’re advised not to operate heavy machinery while under the influence of alcohol or drugs because in inhibits your ability of knowing what’s right and wrong. It also messes with your perception obviously! I’ve run into some pretty angry people at the bar, literally. From my experience (and your’s may be different), violent people become even more violent while under the influence.

Alright, now to the areas I am sure about. I 100% support allowing teachers and administrators to carry at school. Most if not all ISD employees are required to undergo extensive background checks. Heck, some schools even require that their employees go through training on how to deal with a violent student. If they pass their background checks, random drug/alcohol screenings, and have to go through gun safety and violence preventative training, they why shouldn’t they be allowed to carry? Why should they not be ENCOURAGED to carry? Now before all your anti-gun lunatics go nuts over what I just said, hold your pants for just a second. When I say that teachers and campus administrators should be allowed to carry, I also think that there should be rules in place for appropriate times to use your weapon. If a student is yelling or threatening, I believe there are better ways to handle the situation. But think about this- If a student brings a gun to school and plans to use it on his/her peers, who is at the disadvantage if he/she is the only one armed or has access to a firearm? You are. Your students are. Your kids are. Your friends are. Everyone accept for the student holding the gun.

Do you honestly think that the result of past school shootings would have been more damaging if faculty were armed and properly trained on how to use a firearm? What about employees at banks? Or pharmacies?

I also wouldn’t be against having legal carry in airports. If something goes wrong, you have easy access in favor of your defense.

Well, Mindy Fischer certainly disagrees..

We have a reported 300 million guns in this country right now. When is enough enough America?? When will we value human life more than our beloved guns?? We need to really stop and take a look at all of the senseless gun violence every single day, most of which no longer even gets reported because we’ve all become so immune to it. Look at all of the mass shootings that we’ve had…that we continue to have…and that will surely go on. Look at Congress doing nothing to pass common sense  legislation.

Instead, what are they passing? They are passing things like Georgia’s House Bill 875, which expandsStand Your Ground and allows people to carry these massive amounts of loaded guns absolutely everywhere. And when more guns equals more deaths, will we all act shocked? Honestly, I just can’t even wrap my head around this type of legislation. Not in this country. Not in this century. Is this really who we’ve become?”

As much as I can KIND OF see her point, this law is not a bad thing. When will the value of human life be more than our beloved guns?! Can’t you people see that human life is of value which is why we want to protect it? When a criminal has a gun, who do you call? The police. And what do police do to stop a threat? The use their guns. Why do we need that middle man step when we can train to protect ourselves? Once again, look at the states who have banned guns. Is crime rate higher or lower? I hate to tell you this but IT IS HIGHER. Criminals don’t follow laws. That’s why they’re criminals! Like I said earlier, if you’re not armed and a criminal is, who is at the disadvantage? Who is going to get hurt? Who’s friends, family, neighbors, are going to get hurt? YOUR’S.

Finally, let’s take a look at the new gun law in Connecticut and compare it to Georgia. What do you think will happen in CT if police implement the No-Knock invasion to confiscate guns? People will fight back to protect their families and their constitutional right to bear arms. This will result in either the loss of life for the citizen or for the officers. I guarantee you. Now, I’ll try to play devil’s advocate with the GA law. Let’s say after this law passes, all the crazy nuts decide to go on a killing spree because they can now carry everywhere and anywhere they want. Don’t the good citizens have the same right? Will they or won’t they use their right to protect you and anyone else against these loons? Or we can look at it from a different standpoint. Is it a possibility that because guns are allowed everywhere for anyone that the state has created a deterrent from gun violence? If you were a crazy killer and were given a gun in a state where EVERYONE else has one, do you think you would reconsider your “master plan”? Because the end result would not look so good for you now would it?

All I am saying is that I encourage people utilize their right for defense, and implementing this law may not be the BAD HORRIBLE CRAZY STUPID DANGEROUS idea that you’re screaming about.

What are your thoughts?

Millions of dollars requested for gun violence research

Yup. You heard it right! Democrats are now asking Obama to designate $10 million towards researching gun violence. Nevermind that our country is already trillions of dollars in debt! What’s another $10 million to conduct research that we already have conducted?

It takes almost nothing to access FBI local and state databases and run comparisons. This has already been done but information was tossed aside like a piece of trash because it didn’t line up with their argument. Do you think that if the objective research convinces them that guns protect more than harm that Democrats will all of a sudden agree and get off this frustrating gun control kick? Absolutely not. This money isn’t to do “research”, it’s to advance a long standing discrimination campaign of lies against gun owners and produce biased information because they are searching so desperately for the credibility they need to ban guns. For them this is about control and nothing more. Want further proof? Do you honestly think that if a gun control supporter’s family was in real danger, that they would yell to the cop “No! Put that gun away! You’ll hurt somebody!”? I’m 100% positive that in a life threatening situation, you wouldn’t hear an argument in favor of control from them.

The scariest part of this is, Obama is the puppeteer for all of his little puppets. He says dance, they dance. He says “guns are bad!” and they all jump ahead to fight this battle for him. He doesn’t want to look like the bad guy here. He wants you and everyone else to think that he has your best interest at heart. If that’s true and he thinks guns are so horrible then why is he surrounded by armed forces every second of every day? If your safety is truly his concern, why is he freeing murderers from prison at an unprecedented level due to “overcrowding” instead of releasing more non-violent criminals instead? It is because he has an agenda. What do you think Obama will do first once these criminals that HE RELEASED starts harming someone? He is going to yell “See!? We told you. Gun crime is increasing, we need to disarm the public.”

DR.Gary Kleck, Criminologist, at the University of Florida, shared his Government funded research to show that firearms are used for self defense over 2 million times a year. Just imagine what the homicide rate would increase to if those people and future families didn’t/won’t have a gun to protect themselves. What’s you next step then Obama?

Guns used in self-defense are by Americans who have a LEGAL right to carry with a LEGAL license or permit. Guns used for violence are by criminals with an ILLEGAL right (most likely because they failed a background check) with ILLEGAL guns (stolen, unregistered, and foreign) who shoot UNARMED innocent people. Hmm. So let me get this straight. Obama wants to disarm Americans who are using their guns in a legal fashion yet he won’t do anything about controlling the border to stop foreign criminals from invading America and using their illegal guns to do so? Do you honestly not see a problem with that?

If he really cared about the safety of US citizens, he would start by putting this $10 million dollars towards border control and getting criminals off the streets.

Don’t think criminals are the only problem? Really? That’s interesting. All it takes is to look at cities and states that have banned guns. Look at Illinois (mainly Chicago and East St. Luis, which by the way is #1 on the most dangerous cities in the US in 2013 list), Massachusetts, and Michigan in cities like Detroit, Saganaw, and Fint (all list in the top 10 most dangerous cities in the US). You already know how dangerous Chicago and Detroit are. You hear shootings on the news on a weekly basis. So let’s look a little into Massachusetts shall we? MA banned all guns in 1998. Legal gun ownership has dropped from 1.5 million to less than 200,000. This resulted in 300% higher crime rate and 200% more hospital visits due to gun related injuries. Can you imagine what this would do to an entire country? Anyone who thinks that Obama doesn’t realize this either thinks he is an idiot or is an idiot themselves. So what is his agenda?

Let me give you an example. Let’s say there is a neighborhood street with 2 houses. For the sake of an argument, we’ll say they are both nice houses with expensive things. Both have children and beautiful wives. One house has a man outside cleaning his guns on the front law once a week when he gets back from a hunting trip. The other is an anti-gun activist who likes to display signs in their yard that guns should be banned. If a killer/robber/rapist walks up to this street, which house do you think he’ll go to? The one that doesn’t threaten him because they are unarmed or the one who has an armed man who knows his way around guns? YOU and your family are being put at a disadvantage by not owning a gun. Once killers/robbers/rapists know that no one has guns, what’s stopping them from committing MORE crime?

Switzerland is a country that has the LOWEST crime rate in the entire world. Why? Several reasons. One being that the vast majority of men between the ages of 20-30 had to undergo military training, including weapons training. Another reason is that Switzerland has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world with 45.7 out of every 100 citizens owns a gun legally.  But noooo, the fact that they have the lowest crime rate in the WORLD is just a coincidence.

Wake up America. You’ve heard it before and you’ll hear it again. When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Disarming Americans will lead to MORE gun violence, not less.

Stop asking questions like:

“Who will conduct this research?”

                             “Where is the money coming from?”

And start asking WHY Obama is so eager to disarm us and in a way that turns Americans on each other instead of on him.