Why Liberals Are In The Wrong Mindset About Guns

Ronald Reagan once said:

It isn’t so much that liberals are ignorant. It’s just that they know so many things that aren’t so.

Whenever I look at current research, surveys, similar past laws, current laws, etc I ask myself “why don’t liberals get it? I mean the information is all there!” I believe the truth is that liberals are constantly being fed falsified information to support an agenda. If you feel that you know everything already, why would you feel the need to look at research, journals, history, or past/present/future laws? 

I think about why I started this blog in the first place. Moving from Texas to the DC area was a huge change for me. I wasn’t used to homeless men threatening to shoot me and my family on the street in the middle of the day if we didn’t give him money (might I add, he finished this sentence with “Merry Christmas”). I wasn’t used to hearing about shootings or how crime rates are increasing. I wasn’t used to hearing about violent break-ins. I wasn’t used to the fear that sweeps over me every time I walk to my car by myself at night after meeting my husband for dinner. Fact of the matter is, I wanted to know that in a dangerous situation, I could rely on more than a can of mace to protect myself. 

Once I came to the conclusion that I should get a gun and learn proper gun safety, I then started to gain interest in current events pertaining to guns. But what if I was a liberal? What if I had liberal parents, liberal grandparents, and a liberal husband? What if from day 1, I had it engraved in my brain that guns were dangerous? In that case, I wouldn’t have looked into owning a gun as means to protect myself. Which would mean that I wouldn’t have gained interest in current laws and wouldn’t be the gun advocate that I am today. What’s the difference between me and that liberal? I didn’t assume that my prior knowledge of guns was correct. In fact, my research and follow-up has only further validated my previous claims that guns are for protection.

When I said “I want to get a gun”, it was natural to me because I was in that mindset based on previous/current knowledge. Liberals come from a different background or mindset and believe whole-heartedly that guns are not safe. Why? Because every time there is a tragedy, anti-gun advocates blame the gun instead of the shooter, which in turn puts fear in the hearts of people who are not well-informed. And because people FEAR guns, they aren’t willing to do research to validate statements they hear from people like Obama and Feinstein.

The main reason for this blog is because I want to share research findings and compare current events to that of past ones in a way that makes freedom to own and carry easy to digest. Along the way I choose to provide entertaining videos and stories to show you that guns aren’t dangerous in the hands of law-abiding citizens, so why take them away from them? Along the way, I take emails, comments, and tweets to heart because I can’t change your opinion if I don’t understand where you’re coming from. 

What do you, the gun control advocate, have to say about research findings showing that stricter gun control laws increase gun-related crimes?

Have you, the gun control advocate, ever learned how to properly shoot a gun and took courses to educate yourself of gun safety?

How will laws restricting law-abiding citizens from owning/carrying a gun stop criminals from conducting in mass shootings like Aurora or the elementary school in Newton?

If you don’t know how to answer these questions, how can you continue to stand up against something that you cannot logically defend? Shootings like this cause anger, heartache, frustration, confusion, sadness. These are all emotion-based and do not void the fact the research shows that stricter gun laws increase gun-related crime. 

Basing your arguments on emotion rather than logic and fact does not put you in the proper mindset. Educate yourselves and review the data that Obama and other anti-gun advocates want to keep from you. Maybe then you will see that law-abiding citizens are not the problem. 

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.