How Obama Is Misusing Gun Terms To Deceive You

Think about words that you hear most in anti-gun debates; high-capacity magazines, gun show loophole, high-power ammunition, and assault weapons. As I have plenty of opinions on the supposed ‘gun show loophole’, I’ll save that discussion for a later post.

One of my biggest points that I have mentioned in previous posts is that most anti-gun advocates don’t actually know much, if anything, about guns. They believe that guns are a threat to their safety as well as their family’s. In the wrong hands, a gun can be a threat to anyone’s safety. Which is why I strongly believe in proper knowledge of how to handle a firearm. 

Obama is taking advantage of other anti-gun advocates to promote his own agenda: to disarm law-abiding American citizens. How can he take advantage of them? Because they aren’t properly educated. How can you advocate for gun control if you know nothing about guns in the first place?

Think about Obama’s speech in Denver in April of 2013. He says:

The type of assault rifle used in Aurora, for example, when paired with a high-capacity magazine, has one purpose: to pump out as many bullets as possible, as fast as possible. It’s what allowed that gunman to shoot seventy people and kill twelve in a matter of a few minutes. I don’t believe that weapons designed for theaters of war have a place in movie theaters. 

 

First of all, none of the weapons used in the Aurora shooting were automatic weapons. Which means, none of them were “assault weapons”. The weapons the gunman used include:

  1. An AR-15 rifle
  2. A Remington 12 Gauge 870 Shotgun
  3. 2 .40 caliber Glock handguns

Guns that have cosmetic features, such as an AR-15, look like military weapons. Because of this, Obama and other anti-gun advocates misuse the term “assault weapon” to confuse the public. That way, uneducated citizens are made to believe that an AR-15 is a military weapon and thereby associate a perfectly legal gun as an “assault weapon”. 

The public is extremely confused over fully automatic versus semi-automatic weapons. Anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun, even if it does not function in the same way. An automatic weapon continues to fire as long as the trigger is pulled. A semi-automatic weapon needs time to reload, therefore requires a trigger pull each time in order for a round to be released into the chamber and fired out the muzzle. FULLY automatic weapons have been highly regulated for civilian ownership under the National Firearms Act of 1934.

Since 1934, there have been 2 homicides associated with LEGALLY owned automatic weapons.  When looking at automatic weapons obtained ILLEGALLY, the number associated with homicides is extremely low, even including cities with high homicide rates such as Miami and Detroit. This is mainly because criminals prefer something they can conceal. Furthermore, automatic weapons have been banned from manufacture and import since 1986. With such limited supply, you’re looking at more than $20,000 for an automatic weapon. If a criminal can neither afford these guns nor prefer them due to the lack of options for concealed carry, these guns aren’t the issue. Sorry Obama, it looks like you don’t have this girl fooled. 

It is extremely hard to find crime rates and statistics associated with assault weapons. One reason being that people like Obama and Freinstein insist on misusing the term “assault weapon” and because homicides hardly ever happen using a machine gun. 

Now is when you say, but doesn’t AR in AR-15 stand for ‘assault rifle’? No. Actually it doesn’t. It actually stands for ArmaLite Rifle, the company in which developed the model. Once the rights were sold in 1970, there were other manufactures that mimicked the model and released it for sale. If you ask me, I think it stands for ‘awesome rifle’, but I highly doubt the libs will agree with me (unless they shoot one). 

The term that you, Mr. President, SHOULD be using is ‘Modern Sporting Rifle’. Tell the truth- you aren’t going after law enforcement and military guns. You call these ‘assault weapons’ because you want to scare people into believing that standard semi-autos should be banned as well. Not to mention, they shoot ammunition at the same speed and power as other guns. These certain ‘cosmetic features’ that you say make a firearm an ‘assault weapon’ actually have NO effect on how the firearm actually functions. Do you know what ‘cosmetic features’ Obama refers to in determining whether or not a firearm is an ‘assault weapon’?

  1. A folding or a telescoping stock
  2. a pistol grip
  3. a bayonet mount
  4. a flash suppressor

Obama even tries to bring law enforcement in to justify his claim.

Weapons of war have no place on our streets, or in our schools, or threatening our law enforcement officers. Our law enforcement officers should never be outgunned on the streets.

First false claim right there. Law enforcement is not being ‘out-gunned’ by assault weapons. According to FBI data, in 2011 72 LEO’s were killed. 50 by handgun, 7 by rifles, 6 by shotgun, 6 by vehicle, 2 by hand, and 1 by knife. Even when asked if the ban on ‘assault weapons’ would have any effect on crime, 71% of police officials said none. Take a look at what our law enforcement officials are saying about gun bans:

  • An extraordinary 99 percent said policies other than an “assault weapons” ban are most important to prevent mass shootings. 
  • Almost 96 percent said that a ban on standard capacity magazines would not reduce violent crime. 
  • More than 91 percent stated that the use of a firearm in the commission of a crime should have stiff, mandatory sentences, and no plea-bargains. 
  • More than 91 percent stated they supported the Right to Carry by law abiding Americans. 
  • More than 81 percent said that “gun buy-backs” do not reduce gun violence. 
  • Eighty percent believe legally armed citizens can reduce casualties in incidents of mass violence. 
  • Nearly 80 percent said that a ban on private transfers of firearms between law-abiding citizens would not reduce violent crime. 
  • More than 76 percent indicated that legally armed citizens are important to reducing crime. 
  • More than 76 percent support the arming of trained and qualified teachers or administrators who volunteer to carry a firearm. 
  • More than 70 percent said that a ban on “assault weapons” would not reduce violent crime. 
  • More than 70 percent opposed the idea of a national registry of legal gun sales. 
  • Nearly 68 percent said magazine capacity restrictions would negatively affect them personally. 
  • More than 60 percent said that the passage of Obama’s gun control legislation would not improve officer safety.

So not only do a majority of law officials think that a ban on ‘assault weapons’ would not reduce crime, but take another look at the second bullet.

Almost 96 percent said that a ban on standard capacity magazines would not reduce violent crime. 

So much for Obama’s idea to ban ‘high-capacity magazines’. Wait a minute, WHAT is a high-capacity magazine? 5 rounds? 10 rounds? 15? 30? 50? 100?

Did you know that the average number of rounds fired in a criminal shooting is under 4? 

Another study, commissioned by
Congress, found that these bans
were not effective in reducing crime
because “the banned weapons and
magazines were never used in more
than a modest fraction of all gun
murders.”

Not to mention, you can have 4 separate magazines that meet the legal restriction, but that doesn’t stop you from using them. Which in this case, a magazine ban of over 10 rounds would be void because the shooter now has 40 rounds split between 4 magazines. Do you know how quickly you can release and load a new full magazine? I’m an amateur and I can do it in under 5 seconds. How quickly do you think it takes an experienced shooter to reload a handgun?

So as you see, Obama isn’t trying to implement these bans because he is some hero who has your best interest at heart. The research is all there. He is choosing to IGNORE the research and continually misuses terms to encourage people to get on board with his gun ban nonsense. 

Advertisements

Are NJ Gun Laws and CA Senators Trafficking Scheme Connected?

As most of you know from reading about recent events, California State Senator and gun-control advocate Leland Yee was arrested yesterday for accepting campaign donations in exchange for trafficking automatic weapons, missiles, and rockets to the Muslim rebels in the Philippines. What you haven’t heard is that the cargo ship filled with these high-artillery weapons was scheduled to dock at Newark Port in New Jersey.

If the weapons on the cargo ship were to be delivered to those involved, why not directly ship from Russia to the Philippines? Wouldn’t that have lessened the risk for exposure? If Yee’s plan was to ship weapons from Russia to the Philippines for the sole reason of supplying heavy artillery to an Islamic terrorist group, then why would the cargo ship come to the US? Or more importantly, why New Jersey? If you ask me, that is a long way in the wrong direction if his plan was to go down the way he claims. Which is where I get suspicious and you should too.

Looking at recent events in New Jersey- A law has recently passed limiting the sales and/or ownership of a high-capacity magazine (over 10 rounds) and the state is further pushing the matter that guns should be banned in general.

If Yee was looking to supply weaponry to radical Islamists in the Philippines, what makes you think he wouldn’t be looking to supply these same weapons to radicals in our own country? Why he would do this is simple- If he were to see to it that these weapons would be imported to criminal entities in the streets of New Jersey, this could create more gun violence ultimately leading to MORE GUN CONTROL. Fact is, groups like CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood are waging “civilization jihad” against our Constitution to gradually implement Sharia Law on Americans through Muslim judges and anti-gun leftists.

Which makes you wonder- Where any New Jersey politicians involved as well? It wouldn’t surprise me.

This past February, CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations)-NJ chose Mohamed Al Filali as their new leader.

He was also the chairman of the American Muslim Union’s Chapters Committee from 1999 to 2001. Mahmoud was on the executive board of the Muslim Arab Youth Association, a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity, at the same time that the FBI learned of Islamist rhetoric at its events”

Then you have NJ Governor Chris Christie. Don’t let the Republican title fool you. He is a sympathizer of Hamas (a terrorist organization), he appointed a pro-Islamist judge by the name of Sohail Mohammed (who also has questionable ties to Hamas, and in July of 2012 Christie welcomed Imam Qatannani at an Iftar dinner that was held at the governor’s mansion. Qatannani was arrested by the Israeli government and convicted of terrorism, and was threatened to be deported. Until Christie and Sohail Mohammed stepped in. Sohail Mohammed was Qatannani’s lawyer when he plead guilty to membership of Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. Shall I also add that Qatannani both defends and supports a ‘charity’ that provides funds to children of suicide bombers? At the Iftar dinner, Christie introduced Qatannani and said that “in all [his] interactions with Imam over the years, he has always attempted to be a force of good… any people who have a problem with him are racist.” The original audio of Christie’s speech has been pulled from YouTube, but luckily for you, I still have it:

Next, you have Bill Pascrell, who is the U.S Representative for New Jersey’s 9th congressional district. A district, might I add, that is heavily populated with Palestinians who openly wear the Hamas scarf (keffiyeh). If you’re not familiar with what that is, the scarf (keffiyeh) is used to express that they are committed enemies of Israelis and Jewish peoples. Keffiyeh is a slogan to mean “Jerusalem is our’s- WE ARE COMING!”

Tell me- If these individuals were given a free weapon, do you think there would be any hesitation in killing Jewish people? Or any people for that matter if to further assist towards their agenda? Do you not see that there is a growing threat of Islamic Jihad GROWING FAST in our country? That’s including our leaders!

To think that our guns could be taken away and placed in the hands of these people is sickening. What’s even more disturbing is that you don’t see what’s happening right in front of you. We have senators, congressmen, and US representatives that are in bed with Muslim terrorist groups. What do they all have in common? They want to disarm law-abiding citizens and take over this country. How will they do that? BY MAKING YOU THINK GUN CONTROL IS A GREAT IDEA.

If this sounds crazy to you then fine. Stay asleep at the wheel and watch your whole world crash and burn before your eyes. But before you do, answer me this-

Why is NO ONE talking about the cargo ship that was set to dock in New Jersey?

Is this all a matter of coincidence and poor timing when taking the New Jersey gun laws into play?

Why are the American people no longer asking questions about their government?

Finally, take another look at the affidavit that I posted yesterday. The undercover FBI agent is telling Yee (look pages 98-101) he has connections to the port of NJ, and assures Yee that he can ship the weapons there. While reading this, I asked myself “What connections did he have there and why would they ship them there?” Something was left out, but because the big, bad Yee was arrested, everyone thinks this is no longer an issue.