Gun Control – Where Were the Usual Actors?

Opinion by Dave Dolbee

Protest After Election
A major push for gun control, two weeks before a midterm election, would not help their gun control agenda—it seldom does anyway. However, in this case, it would incite gun owners—who vote Republican for the most part—and sent them to the election booth.

USA – -(AmmoLand.com)- A murderous rampage – there simply isn’t a better definition of what happened two weeks ago at Tree of Life Synagogue. The murderer and that is a key, and honest description—not the shooter as the media has tried to downplay him to—killed at least 11 worshipers and wounded six more, including four of the responding police officers intent on stopping the murderer.

Whenever one of these murders exploits the dangers posed by entering a gun-free zone, I become incensed. “Gun-free zone”… Doesn’t the term itself sound so falsely utopian? It conjures images of safe zones or areas of protection when reality proves to be precisely the opposite. It is much easier to conjure clever terms that promise protection than it is to deal with the fact that evil exists and feeds on weakness. Likewise, reality does not support the position of anti-gun politicians and media. While gun-free zones are merely red meat for these murderous cowards, I am straying from my actual point here.

Whenever one of these tragedies is perpetrated, there are typically three common threads—mental health, a soft target such as a gun-free zone, and a host of media and politicians with gun control agendas spewing their rhetoric.

(rhetoric: noun, language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect on its audience, but often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content).

Not surprisingly, when I watched as the coverage of the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting unfolded, and details were released, two of the three elements were predictably obvious. The murderer chose a soft target, the Tree of Life Synagogue—a gun-free zone. He also had a history of mental illness as identified by a previous interaction with law enforcement where he agreed to voluntarily commitment after a suicide attempt.

The third element to the gun control advocates’ response was conspicuously absent. Where was the outrage? Did you hear any of the usual calls to repeal the Second Amendment or ban AR-15s and high-capacity magazines? Did you hear or read any of these claims? The politicians were silent, and so was the media.

My first reaction was a bit of happiness. I thought, “The antis finally get it!” After mulling it over with a couple of coworkers, my hopes were quickly dashed as something much more insidious emerged.

The deafening silence of the antis was intentional and politically motived but in a much different way. A major push for gun control, less than two weeks before a midterm election, would not help their gun control agenda—it seldom does anyway. However, in this case, it would incite gun owners—who vote Republican for the most part—and sent them to the election booth.

The anti-gunners made a choice, and in doing so, they showed their true colors. These are not the social justice warriors they pretend to be. Repealing the Second Amendment or vilifying and outlawing standard-capacity magazines or their so-called “assault weapons” is not at the top of their agenda. Politics and political control are their real motivation. You might expect political games from the politicians, but let’s not forget that the media’s usual rally against our Second Amendment rights was also absent. This did not happen by accident. This is a coordinated act between the politicians and the media. Political motives sway politicians, but the media’s silence was due to nothing less than its reluctance to veer from the wishes of its political masters. All of the usual political talking heads and their media lapdogs were silent. In my opinion, that points to collusion.

The lack of a response from gun control politicians and the mainstream media also reveals that their assault on our Second Amendment rights is not so much an ideology as it is a political tool in their bag of tricks.

Their real goal is a rebuke of the pro-Second Amendment forces within the government. Today, President Trump and the Republicans, with a few exceptions on both sides, lead those forces.

Following that path of logic, you can see why the anti-gunners did not haul out their tired and overplayed gun control arguments. That is why the media was conspicuously silent and failed to tout “common sense” gun control during its Pittsburgh coverage. It is not that they have suddenly come to the actual common-sense realization that gun-free zones breed environments for tragedies such as the massacre at the Tree of Life Synagogue. It is merely a play against the Second Amendment via political gamesmanship but in a much smarter way.

Think of a political scale with the Second Amendment on one side and gun control on the other. After a high-profile event such as Pittsburgh, the anti-gunners typically do not attempt to place a thumb on the scale; they send Diane Feinstein or Chuck Schumer out to jump on it with both feet. This is overt and obvious.

This time, they are playing a different political card—one that is much more dangerous. The anti-gunners are unanimously silent, placing an invisible thumb on the pro-Second Amendment forces’ side of the scale. This certainly is not done to help our cause. Instead, it is to suppress our urge to rally and vote against anti-gun candidates. They are not giving up their attack on our Second Amendment rights—they are outflanking us.

Absent are the overt calls for gun control and banning particular firearms or accessories. That would have encouraged you, me, other gun owners to vote. This plays into the long-term strategy of the anti-gunners. Instead, they want us to feel confident and secure, so secure by a lack of reaction that we do not vote. That way, a path for Democrats to win a house of Congress, Governor's races, Senatorial, and House seats, and state and local elections would be easier.

In truth, their silence is as much of a referendum against President Trump and his policies, including his staunch, pro-gun stance, as anything. Before I draw the anger of too many of my brothers and sisters who support and fight for Second Amendment rights, President Trump is not on the ballot; there is no hidden agenda in this writing to support him. However, regardless of party affiliation, his record on our Second Amendment rights is clear, as clear as the support from most Republicans and opposition from most Democrats.

Let your conscience be your guide, but if you still have any doubts, look to more than what you see and hear from the mainstream media. Pay attention to what you expect, but do not hear. Look for what is conspicuously absent, such as the anti-gunners exploitation of tragedies and high-profile shootings for political purposes—and question why. Watch for the flanking maneuver and vote every chance you get.

I am a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment. I do not care whether you vote Red or Blue. Hey! Vote Green if that is what moves you. For me, it is only important that you vote pro-gun. However, in today’s political environment, the Republicans as a whole have shown the strongest support for our Second Amendment rights and that is worthy of being noted. However, as I earlier noted, there are exceptions on both sides.


Dave Dolbee
Dave Dolbee

About Dave Dolbee

Growing up in Pennsylvania’s game-rich Allegheny region, Dave Dolbee was introduced to whitetail hunting and firearms at a young age. At age 19 he bought his first bow while serving in the U.S. Navy, and began bowhunting after returning from Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm. Dave was a sponsored Pro Staff Shooter for several top archery companies during the 1990s, increasing his love for the shooting sports.

During Dave’s writing career, he has written for several smaller publications as well as many major content providers such as Guns & Ammo, Shooting Times, Outdoor Life, Petersen’s Hunting, Rifle Shooter, Petersen’s Bowhunting, Bowhunter, Game & Fish magazines, Handguns, F.O.P Fraternal Order of Police Journal, Archery Business, SHOT Business, Tactical World, Tactical Training, Gun World, World of Fire Power, Military Surplus Firearms, Concealed Carry, Cheaper Than Dirt!'s The Shooter's Log, K-Var's The Armory, and many more.

  • 37 thoughts on “Gun Control – Where Were the Usual Actors?

    1. Its not just the US, its everywhere in the world, and its only going to get worse I’m afraid! The society we as the world live in now! Things are changing very rapidly, and not for the good! There are more seriously mentally I’ll people than there used to be , and so on! And most slip through the cracks and can get a gun! And then there’s criminals who don’t care if they can’t have a gun, but do! So what’s the answer?

    2. It is no longer “IF”; it is “when”. The radicals have blinders on, and simply will not accept facts, truth, or reason, rather will choose to replace them with dogma and sbeeplike adherence to lies and propaganda. I see no other way to eliminate such a pox on our nation as a land of laws and responsibility, than to, well, ‘eliminate’ it. Or, we will be forced to face off against one another in what can be no other than a civil war. So sad, so foolish, but what do people do who are pushed literally into a corner by what they know to be wrong?

    3. Anyone that thinks we can reason with killers, in congress or in the populace, is seriously deficient n common sense.
      The answer is a good guy with the best gun they can afford. The biggest most deadly is strictly preferred. Any gun owner that votes for a liberal of either party does not deserve to own a gun of any kind.
      What do we expect when we remove God from our society? If we don’t have spiritual revival we will eventually have another revolution. If you are an atheist please don’t waste my time with an answer. I’ve heard it all before.

    4. They stopped the gun control rhetoric until the elections and the next day they started back up again. God help us, with the Demonrats and the Globalist Media idiots. I hope every conservative that sat on their backside and did not vote, feels the painful sting we deserve for being complacent and losing the House and get out and vote next time. #AllHands #WalkAway

    5. The author is giving the liberals a real broad ability of thinking and I’m not sure they are capable of that. Yes it is true that they didn’t get all up in arms about banning guns but I am not sure they think deeply enough to relate it to the midterms.
      It is possible they dislike Jews enough to keep their mouth shut but then again, most Jews are democrats. It is thought provoking why they didn’t have a tizzy over this.

    6. Another reason for the silence from the left and the media (but I repeat myself) is that the victims were Jews, whom they love to hate. They quietly (for the most part) wish for the extermination of the Jews from their homeland (and in the U.S., where they claim that they interfere in almost everything) in order to give it back to the “Palestinians” as their rightful homeland. None of their claims are true, of course, and the people of Israel have a perfect right to their homeland and to strike back when they are attacked without provocation.

      1. I would suggest that you watch the short clip “The Easiest Targets”, put out by “IfAmericansKnew.Org”. And you might want to bone up on who “The Khazars” are. You might change your mind as to who does the provoking, and who the rightful owners are. Once upon a time, there was an Intelligence Asset who was brainwashed into thinking just like you do now. His name was Joe Cortina. He was sent to Israhell in the course of his duties, and had his eyes opened to the reality. He explains it all in his blog titled “MyNameIsJoeCortina”. And then there is “Brother Nathaniel”, who grew up a NYC Jewish boy, surrounded by Zionists who actually made him want to puke, so he converted to Christianity and makes videos explaining how those murderous, genocidal, thieving land grabbers brainwash the world thru their control of the media, government, education system, etc. Yyou really ought to educate yourself so that you don’t come off as one of “The Lobby”. BTW, wouldn’t you agree that AIPAC and all the other Israeli “charities”, and organizations that make up “TheLobby”, should register as foreign agents ??? And what’s with this relatively new “Canary Mission” that is spying on American citizens and feeding the info to the Israeli government ? And their “TALPIOT PROJECT” that is doing the same thing ? These Zio-Nazi scumbags that are doing this need to be charged as SPIES, and hung from their scrawny necks, as far as I am concerned. And speaking about the alleged synagogue shooting, the first news reports claimed that the shooter was ranting about his victims being members of H.I.A.S. (Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society) and he was ticked off at them because he felt they were being instrumental in importing terrorrists, much like “Mrs. Specter From Sweden” has admitted being part of the organizations who imported millions of fighting aged rapists and criminals into Europe during the past few years.

    7. It would seem the conflict between pro guns/ no guns groups will soon will reach the boil over point- for the same reason slavery caused the Civil War. Neither side is prepared to make consessions, so violence may be the outcome.

      Sensible people hope and pray this does not happen. As the Bible says, a nation divided against itself cannot endure. But if reasonable mindsets are discarded by our politicians, those who hold the words of our Constitution irrevocable and immutable must stand fast against them.

      A storm is approaching. With it undoubtably will come those who wish to change our great country into something vastly different from the vision of our founding fathers. It seems only prudent to decide beforehand how we will prepare.

      1. Agreed. It is no longer “IF”; it is “when”. The radicals have blinders on, and simply will not accept facts, truth, or reason, rather will choose to replace them with dogma and sbeeplike adherence to lies and propaganda. I see no other way to eliminate such a pox on our nation as a land of laws and responsibility, than to, well, ‘eliminate’ it. Or, we will be forced to face off against one another in what can be no other than a civil war. So sad, so foolish, but what do people do who are pushed literally into a corner by what they know to be wrong?

    8. The Second Amendment will always be on the chopping block
      for liberal democrats. The fact that they were silent before an election should be ample cause to turn out the vote against them. However the facts seem to point out three possible things: 1. We are out numbered. 2. We don’t care or 3. The system is rigged.
      I just don’t get Liberal Democrats, more government, higher taxes, fewer rights. It just doesn’t add up.

    9. Put the anti-gun people (mostly DEMO’s) in a gun free zone and tell them NO ARMED GUARDS will be allowed in . Just see how fast they scream.

      1. @Roy D, And old lady, libtard, Supreme Court Justices that have fallen and broke three ribs have consequences, too! This just in: ” Eighty-five-year-old Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg fractured three ribs in a fall in her office at the Supreme Court and is in the hospital, the court said Thursday. The court’s oldest justice fell Wednesday evening, the court said. She went to George Washington University Hospital in Washington early Thursday … She was admitted to the hospital for treatment and observation after tests showed she fractured three ribs.”

        Ginsburg has had a series of health problems. She broke two ribs in a fall in 2012. She has had two prior bouts with cancer and had a stent implanted to open a blocked artery in 2014. She also was hospitalized after a bad reaction to medicine in 2009.

        1. And give this some thought…Ginsberg croaks…take Kavanaugh and multiply the liberal response by 10…very well could be the spark that burns this country to the ground.

          1. I pray she recovers, I have no ill will to anyone! But I agree that when it comes time to replace her, it will be a huge conflict that may result in violence if any short of a leftist/liberal is appointed, not a likely occurrence if it happens during the Trump Administration. I am not looking forward to that fight.

            1. ????? Are you kidding me? “If any leftist/liberal is appointed”. Were you not paying attention during the Kavanaugh appointment? Ginsberg is ALREADY a liberal leftist, replacing her in kind isn’t going to change a damn thing on the SC. But replacing her with another Trump appointment ..that’ll tip the SC completely to the right and you and your liberal friends will be rioting in the streets.

    10. Sadly, over and over we see when a bad guy with a gun (wolf) wreaks death and destruction upon the unarmed (sheep) there are no good guys with guns (shepherds) to be found. Most of the sheep either freeze in place or run away. Can any military or law enforcement veteran (shepherds) imagine what would likely happen if one of these wolves attempted to assault a gathering of military or law enforcement veterans (shepherds)? Even if the shepherds were unarmed, I would bet the wolf would face a violent counter response from the shepherds. As a society, if we are going to insist the potential victims of violent crime be unarmed, we ought to at least begin training potential victims to resist violence with whatever violence they can visit upon the wolves. Better yet, even the playing field by enforcing the Second Amendment and ensuring, “The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms , Shall Not be Infringed.” In short order, the wolves would be endangered and the former sheep will have transitioned to shepherds.

      1. Perhaps, we ought to at least begin training in compassion, understanding and not de-humanize human beings by labeling members of our communities into three simple categories of “Wolf, Sheep and Shepherds”? Perhaps a little more compassion and understanding is needed. I like to shoot, but enough is enough. This is not as simple as US v’s THEM. We all have to live here in this country together, people shouldn’t have to live in fear and be packing heat during every single moment of their lives to feel safe. There should be some mutual respect and understanding, so perhaps our efforts need to be spent better training people in skills to improve their communication with one another, how to agree to disagree and find a workable solution some place in the middle. To have better access to data so if someone is at risk of being a risk to the community, that the community be informed ( just like a sex-offender list).

        1. Oh how soft and fuzzy and liberal you sound……. you have taken a sort of parable and recast it into a hard-and-fast one dimensional slam.

          It comes down to one of two options:

          Option One, I, as an individual citizen, have the right to DEFEND MY own life wherever I am, whenever I am there, and with whatever means I decide is appropriate given the circumstances
          or:

          OptioinTwo, I am fully at the risk and mercy of others who will: One, dictate to me the extent to which I can act to defend my life, and/or Two, undertake on my behalf to provide (or not) for the protection of my life in any or all situations.

          Your idea of better access to date so as to promote a community that is “better informed” is bogus. Data are only about what HAS happened. The day before that synagugue murder was perpetrated, that was not part of the data set. The day after it now is. Data are only useful in a reaction formulation way.

          Our nation was founded in principles that are not reactive, but ratjer preemptive. Instead of arranging for me to reach out to some government appointee/approved individual to respond when the bad guy confronts me as I go about my business, a radically different preemp[tive prinicle is established, and protected: “the security of a free state” rests upon the shoulders of THE PEOPLE. How is that, you wonder? Simple. That word “militia” mentioned just prior to the above quote means, quite simply, THE PEOPLE. It is precisely BECAUSE “the security of a free state” rests upon the shoulders of THE PEOPLE that those individuals comprising militia THE PEOPLE< must and always will have the right to whatever tools THE PEOPLE deem appropriate to assure "the security of a free state".

          The head rabbi of that synagogue had decided that HIS people were not to be allowed to take upon themselves "the security of a free state" when at that facility. We now see the results. Furhter, individuals who knew the perpetrator, and that he was dangerous, failed to see to "the security of a free state" by dealing which his violent tendencies. Somehow he was able to procure for his own use the tool he used to kill. By law, he should not have been able to. WHICH individuals FAILED to see to "the security of a free state"? Remember the Sutherland Springs church murders? How about the Parkand Springs school murders? In BOth cases the perps had committed crimes that by law disable them from possession of arms. In BOTH cases, individuals made decisions to NOT act as they were required to act, and thus both were able to easily obtain their chosen tools of destruction.

          In the analogy triggering your diatribe, three "classes" of people were considered. In reality, these are three tendencies (you interpret far too simplistically) One, to be a helpless victim. I choose not to live in this tendency, preferring always and everywhere to be ready to see to "the security of a free state" by being alert, aware, cautions when necessary, perceptive of my surrounds.. and suitably prepared to take whatever action is needed to preserve not only my own self but those round aobut me. Yes, that means I carry everywhere I lawfully can, and some I "may not" but do anyway. Hidden is hidden. Two, to be one determined to perpetrate evil and/orharm on others, the most likely targets being those who have no means to stop me. I choose never to live in this category. And Third, they who not only see to their own security, but that of those around them, and this can be effected in several ways, not JUST being armed to enable rising to the defense of the first category when the second rises to do evil.

          YOU can decide which of these categories you will occupy. But let me assure you, if you do not delibarately choose to live in the third, you will eventually find yourself in the first, and the second will have its way with you. YOU decide….. do YOU really trust the coppers to come instantly whenever you whistle? Funny, that did not preservve any of the eleven lives forfeit that day. Had I, or any of the hundred million other gun owners within the US ben inside that facility that day I am absolutely certain that the number eleven would not be connected with this event. It would have been significantly lower. More like the incident at a Mc, DOnalds, where one customer, leaving with his two sons as the employee let them out of the locked door (it was closing time), turned around and went back in as a would be murderer forced his way IN the door as they exited… and pulled a gun to threaten and rob the staff inside…… and who instead got his sorry worthless self shot and killed by that armed citizen who was leaving. The intended death toll by the perp was somewhere around six., with himself safely down the road unscathed. Because of one "shepherd" type, one wolf and zero sheep met harm that day. Everyone in that small town is thankful that ONE man decided to prepare himself against possible trouble.. in short, he took the principle that "the security of a free state" rests upon HIS PERSONAL shoulders.

          If this would become the norm across this land, the risk/reward equation for would be bad guys would be so dangerous to them they'd make informed decisiond and take up a different line of work. Woiuldn't THAT be nice? No more churches, schools, synagogues, nighrclubs, banks, concerts, military forts, coffee shops, restaurants, airplanes, would be the scenes of hundreds of captive, defensless, helpless, sheep bleating until each one is silenced by the wolf who has come in to destroy. The wolves would be all but extinct. Natural selection will have reduced the wolf population to a level below replacement rate. Wouldn't THAT be a nice place to live?

          1. Do you think there is space for a socialist -like baseline? So that people who are disenfranchised perhaps through circumstances i.e. wife suddenly dies, kid gets cancer and you have to take months- years off work to be in hospital with then. If we had a system that at least stopped people from falling lower (not into poverty, homelessness etc) give them access to healthcare, then on the other end we work the capitalist model of make as much money as you want, have the guns that you want as long as you can tick off being mentally sane?

            If you think the left is a domestic enemy of the country, how do you describe these “wolfs” running around? Can we call them “White male domestic terrorists”?
            Where do we draw the line?

            I agree with you on that, it certainly feels like we’re heading for civil war.

          2. You say that data doesn’t matter to prevent, well kind of. Data helps us see the pattern of behavior, and trends. America has had a love affair with guns from the beginning, we continue to amass more weapons than ever before. SO we have MORE guns, but are we safer? What does the data say. Its a really interesting infographic based on data of all the shooting, you can see who the shooters are, who the victims are…. I guess my point is, the definition of INSANITY is doing the same thing and expecting different results. We’ve been doing the same thing. GUNS GUN GUNS for everyone, available everywhere…. but the numbers don’t lie. Things haven’t improved, the results clearly show that as a nation we are worse off. More guns = more deaths = more lives destroyed.

            https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/national/mass-shootings-in-america/?fbclid=IwAR1Mqt8YyLEnyVhB0ZMEGkzzjcuXRi5BHn7Zao7Tgu0aU6vtYhYRHKV3fDc&utm_term=.736660f5bf6b

            Also, just because I like to golf, doesn’t mean I want to drag my clubs around with me everywhere I go, (just incase!) people should have the right to not need their guns on them ALL of the time.
            Perhaps I want to go to a bar or a dinner out with my family and not carry a concealed weapon with me -THAT would be a nice place to live too. A place where we’re not referring to ourselves as some hero/ guide for all “shepherd” protector. Its a bit self inflating of the ol’ fragile ego. Its not as simple as the IGNORANT guy, BAD guy, and then yourself as HERO. This is not a video game. This is real life and its complex with lots of grey areas in between.

            1. Indeed, if we look at just “mass shootings” (which BTW are extremely rare occurrences to begin with despite what the media would have you believe) probably have increased, but that’s not the whole story when it comes to safety. There are other crimes and as the number of guns have increased, the overall crime rate in most places has been decreasing. I carry a firearm and a can of pepper spray on me because I am far more likely to get mugged or assaulted or raped than I am to stumble upon a mass shooting. The Utopia you would like, a world without firearms or crime or criminals will NEVER happen, They are out there, and giving them hugs and calling them “nice people” isn’t going to change that.

            2. @Herb, I am surprised to hear you worry about being raped.

              I never said I want a utopia of hugs and high fives for nice people. FFS we have more legislation around women’s reproductive parts, than we do around firearm ownership and use of weapons.

              I’m just asking for a little more level playing field.

        2. The hell this isn’t “as simple as US vs THEM” !! The disrespect and misunderstanding and failure to communicate… comes directly and solely from the liberal Left – which flatly refuses to (in any way) “agree to disagree.” Finding a “workable solution” requires honest and accurate communication and negotiation – which Leftists again flatly refuse.

          The liberal Left – and certainly its political leadership – are flatly demanding (without any alternative) that this country MUST be changed from its current existence as a constitutional republic to a socialist regime. Nothing else will satisfy them. They refuse to negotiate that.

          Problematically, that stance makes them – by any sane, rational definition – domestic enemies of this country… which I (and all ex-military and law-enforcement personnel) swore to defend against. That definitive, sacred oath has no expiration date (no sunset clause), and no wiggle room.

          When – and ONLY when – the Left drops its demand for a socialist regime – THEN the honest and open communication, and negotiations for real problem-solving, can begin. Until that time, this country IS indeed headed directly for a civil war. Homeland Security initially advised Congress of that more than two years ago, and there has been no change since.

        3. @Raven, You are talking about Christianity and what the churches used to teach. That is no longer allowed. Pick something other than compassion training, understanding for others, and mutual respect. Then rewrite your appeal.

    11. We see gun control in action, Cali, toughest gun laws on the books and 11 killed, including 1officer multiple wounded! One man, no AR-15 surprise, surprise! It is a bad deal ,but if a good guy or gal with a ccw armed, could of stopped it or limited casualties? But I don’t even no if you can get a ccw, handgun semi auto, or even ammo in Cali?

      1. The Sheriff said that there were five or six off duty officers working security and he said that none of them were carrying a gun. That is criminal as far as I am concerned. I carry everywhere I go unless I must pass through a metal detector. Ask yourself, how many sporting events, shows, special events, etc have you gone to where it is clear that most of the “security” people are not carrying a gun. Radios yes, guns no. Screw that.

        1. Apparently in California even off duty police officers are encouraged NOT TO CARRY! That is insane to me! Or have I misunderstood the media reports and the News Conference given by the Sheriff? I find it nonsensical that an off duty police officer or sheriff’s deputy is encouraged to be unarmed. The State Of California has truly gone nuts if this is true, but that is the impression I got from listening to the Sheriff answering questions this morning.

        1. @Raven Really? Are you kidding?
          Let us quote some pass history of Authored comments;

          2ND AMENDMENTARTICLESBIG BROTHERGUN CONTROLHISTORYPOLITICSUS NEWS
          Gun Control Dictator Style – Tyrants Who Banned Firearms Before Slaughtering the People
          BRADLEE DEAN — JANUARY 8, 2013
          “All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party.”
          – Mao Tze Tung, Nov 6, 1938
          How ironic that those who are calling for gun control are those who want the guns, so they can have the control.
          It is of interest to the American people to take note of those who they entrust to serve them. We are a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, yet time and time again in this country we have leaders in government who put on the guise of “patriot” and then turn out to be the criminal in garb.
          We learned in the past about the criminal acts of anti-gun mayors. (http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/exposed-criminal-acts-of-anti-gun-mayors/) We found that anti-gun mayors are criminals themselves, guilty as charged within their own ranks of such crimes as tax evasion, extortion, accepting bribes, child pornography, trademark counterfeiting, perjury, and one demigod mayor was even convicted of assaulting a police officer.
          The crimes that these anti-gunner mayors are convicted of suggest they are public enemy’s rather than public servants. No wonder they want to take guns from law-abiding citizens.
          These politicians know all the well that where the citizenry operates in the rights given to them without government interference, namely the right to bear arms, crime diminishes. And with mud on their face, they know when they interfere with the right to bear arms, crime skyrockets.
          What we see is that some of today’s politicians are magnifying the crimes they are placed in office to prevent.
          They allow crime to be promoted through entertainment and when the crime is committed, they are there in hopes to grab the guns away.
          This is exactly how criminals in government operate. They demonize the gun, not the criminal.
          Friends, this mentality is like blaming spoons for people being overweight, as if to say the act is apart from the actor.
          Since criminal politicians refuse to look at history, which can be at the present our greatest teacher, it is very clear that gun banners know exactly what they are attempting to do -– put the Second Amendment in the crosshairs.
          Looking back, who has committed murder in the largest degree? Dictators Adolf Hilter, Mao Tze Tung, Josef Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, etc.
          Time and time again it has been a corrupt government who is responsible for the mass murder of their own people under the deceptive guise of “gun control,” all of which the said dictators implemented.
          Keep in mind these people promised their citizens protection and freedom upon the forfeiture of their guns.
          How many times, I ask, does history need to repeat itself?
          Paralleling History
          Let’s parallel history with the present ideology and methodology that those in the past blueprinted to implement gun control.
          Mass murderer Adolf Hitler at a dinner talk on April 11, 1942 said:
          “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So, let’s not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country.”
          Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
          Josef Stalin, the sole leader of the Soviet Union from 1924 to 1953, said:
          “If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves.”
          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.
          Mao Tze Tung, communist dictator of China said:
          “War can only be abolished through war, and to get rid of the gun it is necessary to take up the gun.”
          China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
          Idi Amin, president of Uganda from 1971 to 1979, said:
          “I do not want to be controlled by any superpower. I myself consider myself the most powerful figure in the world, and that is why I do not let any superpower control me.”
          Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
          Pol Pot, who created in Cambodia one of the 20th century’s most brutal and radical regimes, was responsible for killing one million of his own ‘educated,’ yet unarmed citizens.
          Conclusion:
          Our forefathers did not arm the American people for hunting, but rather to protect themselves from those who were doing the hunting, namely the tyrant King George. The second amendment is only to vouchsafe our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and to ensure all the other rights given unto us by our Creator.
          The wisdom of the framers of the Constitution once again is found consistent with the lessons of the Bible they used as their bedrock for civil law. The people’s individual protection should always be a primary concern of government “of the people”. In a righteous country, self-government reigns by the constraint of Christian morals. The civil government that desires such a monopoly of force (i.e. they are the only ones with guns) is a threat to the lives, liberty, and property of its citizens, for that government ceases to be “of and for the people.”
          George Washington, our first president, said:
          “From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that is good.”

          2.) LAWCOMMENTARY
          Here Are 8 Stubborn Facts on Gun Violence in America
          John G. Malcolm / @Malcolm john / Amy Swearer / @Amy Swearer /
          March 14, 2018 / comments
          Global statistics show that higher rates of gun ownership are not associated with higher rates of violent crime.
          COMMENTARY BY
          John G. [email protected]_john
          John G. Malcolm is the vice president of the Institute for Constitutional Government and director of the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, overseeing The Heritage Foundation’s work to increase understanding of the Constitution and the rule of law. Read his research.
          Amy [email protected]
          Amy Swearer is a visiting legal fellow at the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
          In the wake of the tragic murder of 17 innocent students and teachers at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, students, educators, politicians, and activists are searching for solutions to prevent future school shootings.
          As emotions morph from grief to anger to resolve, it is vitally important to supply facts so that policymakers and professionals can fashion solutions based on objective data rather than well-intended but misguided emotional fixes.
          Are there ways to reduce gun violence and school shootings? Yes, but only after objectively assessing the facts and working collaboratively to fashion commonsense solutions.
          Here are eight stubborn facts to keep in mind about gun violence in America:
          Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. But this can’t be done alone. Find out how you can support the efforts of The Daily Signal >>
          1. Violent crime is down and has been on the decline for decades.
          2. The principal public safety concerns with respect to guns are suicides and illegally owned handguns, not mass shootings.
          3. A small number of factors significantly increase the likelihood that a person will be a victim of a gun-related homicide.
          4. Gun-related murders are carried out by a predictable pool of people.
          5. Higher rates of gun ownership are not associated with higher rates of violent crime.
          6. There is no clear relationship between strict gun control legislation and homicide or violent crime rates.
          7. Legally owned firearms are used for lawful purposes much more often than they are used to commit crimes or suicide.
          8. Concealed carry permit holders are not the problem, but they may be part of the solution.
          Each of these facts is firmly based on empirical data. Here’s a deeper look.
          1. America is relatively safe, and the trend is toward becoming safer.
          • According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, violent crime has been declining steadily since the early 1990s.
          • The 2011 homicide rate was almost half of the rate in 1991, and according to the Pew Research Center, the 2013 gun-related death rate was half of the rate in 1993.
          • The number of nonfatal firearm crimes committed in 2011 was one-sixth the number committed in 1993.
          • In the past few years, there have been minor increases in certain types of violent crimes, mainly in large metropolitan areas. However, these increases are nowhere near those seen in the 1990s and are largely related to gang activity.
          • It should be remembered that it takes at least three to five years of data to show true trend lines. It appears that the collective homicide toll for America’s 50 largest cities decreased modestly in 2017 after two consecutive years of increases.
          2. The principal public safety concerns are suicides and illegally owned handguns.
          • According to the Pew Research Center, almost two-thirds of America’s annual gun deaths are suicides. Since 1981, when the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention began
          • publishing data, gun suicides have outnumbered gun homicides. In 2010 alone, 19,392 Americans used guns to kill themselves.
          • Most gun-related crimes are carried out with illegally owned firearms—as much as 80 percent according to some estimates.
          • The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports prove that the overwhelming majority of gun-related homicides are perpetrated with handguns, with rifles of any kind accounting for less than 3 percent of gun-related homicides. In 2013, 5,782 murders were committed by killers who used a handgun, compared to 285 committed by killers who used a rifle. The same holds true for 2012 (6,404 to 298); 2011 (6,251 to 332); 2010 (6,115 to 367); and 2009 (6,501 to 351).
          • More people are stabbed to death every year than are murdered with rifles.
          • A person is more likely to be bludgeoned to death with a blunt object or beaten to death with hands and feet than to be murdered with a rifle.

          3. A small number of factors significantly increase the likelihood that a person will be a victim of a gun-related homicide.
          • Where do you live? Murders in the United States are very concentrated. According to the Crime Prevention Research Center, over 50 percent of murders occur in 2 percent of the nation’s 3,142 counties. Moreover, gun-related homicides are heavily concentrated in certain neighborhoods within those counties: 54 percent of U.S. counties had zero murders in 2014.
          • Who is your partner? According to a recent scholarly article in the Hastings Law Journal, people recently or currently involved in an abusive intimate relationship are much more likely to be victims of gun-related homicide than is the rest of the population, especially if the abuser possesses firearms.
          • Are you in a gang? According to the Department of Justice’s National Gang Center, particularly in urban areas, significant percentages of gun-related homicides (15 percent to 33 percent) are linked with gang and drug activity. Gang-related homicides are more likely to involve firearms than non-gang-related homicides are.
          • Are you a male between 15 and 34? The majority of standard gun murder victims are men between the ages of 15 and 34. Although black men make up roughly 7 percent of the population, they account for almost two-thirds of gun murder victims every year.
          • Women and children are more likely to be the victims of mass shootings and homicide-suicide shootings than they are to be the victims of a “typical” gun-related homicide.

          4. The perpetration of gun-related murders is often carried out by predictable people.
          • According to studies, almost all mass public shooters have extensive histories of mental health issues (whether delusional/psychiatric or depression/anger), disturbing behaviors, or interpersonal violence.
          • Intimate partner conflict and domestic violence history are major risk factors for homicide-suicides, even for those not involving intimate partners.
          • Especially in urban areas, offenders are typically responsible for the majority of gun violence.

          5. Higher rates of gun ownership are not associated with higher rates of violent crime.
          • Switzerland and Israel have much higher gun ownership rates than the United States but experience far fewer homicides and have much lower violent crime rates than many European nations with strict gun control laws.

          • While some will argue that the guns carried by Swiss and Israeli citizens are technically “owned” by the government in most cases, this does little to negate the fact that many citizens in those countries have ready access to firearms.
          • Canada is ranked 12th in the world for the number of civilian-owned guns per capita and reports one of the world’s lower homicide rates—but even then, some provinces have higher homicide rates than U.S. states with less restrictive laws and higher rates of gun ownership have.
          • Although many gun control advocates have noted that “right to carry” states tend to experience slight increases in violent crime, other studies have noted the opposite effect.
          • Higher rates of concealed carry permit holders are even more strongly associated with reduction in violent crime than are right-to-carry states. The probable reason for this is that right-to-carry studies often include “open carry” states, which have not been shown to correlate with more people carrying or even owning firearms. Rates of concealed carry permit holders are better indicators of the number of people who possess and carry firearms within a given population.
          • Further, as with most correlations, there are many other factors that can account for increases in concealed carry permits—including the fact that people who live in already dangerous neighborhoods seek out means of self-defense. The Huffington Post noted that the rate of concealed carry permit requests in Chicago has soared in recent years after the city loosened restrictions, in large part, according to the Chicago Tribune, because law-abiding residents are increasingly worried about rising rates of violent crime in the city.
          • The rate of gun ownership is higher among whites than it is among African-Americans, but the murder rate among African-Americans is significantly higher than the rate among whites.
          • Similarly, the rate of gun ownership is higher in rural areas than in urban areas, but urban areas experience higher murder rates.

          6. There is no clear relationship between strict gun control legislation and homicide or violent crime rates.
          • The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence ironically makes this clear with its ratings for states based on gun laws. “Gun freedom” states that score poorly, like New Hampshire, Vermont, Idaho, and Oregon, have some of the lowest homicide rates. Conversely, “gun control-loving” states that received high scores, like Maryland and Illinois, experience some of the nation’s highest homicide rates.
          • The Crime Prevention Research Center notes that, if anything, the data indicate that countries with high rates of gun ownership tend to have lower homicide rates—but this is only a correlation, and many factors do not necessarily support a conclusion that high rates of gun ownership cause the low rates of homicide.
          • Homicide and firearm homicide rates in Great Britain years immediately following the imposition of severe gun control measures, even though most developed countries continued to experience a downward trend in these rates. This is also pointed out by noted criminologist John Lott in his book “The War on Guns.”
          • Similarly, Ireland’s homicide rates spiked in the years immediately following the country’s 1972-gun confiscation legislation.
          • Australia’s National Firearms Act appears to have had little effect on suicide and homicide rates, which were falling before the law was enacted and continued to decline at a statistically unremarkable rate compared to worldwide trends.
          • According to research compiled by Lott and highlighted in his book “The War on Guns,” Australia’s armed and unarmed robbery rates both increased markedly in the five years immediately following the National Firearms Act, despite the general downward trend experienced by other developed countries.
          • Great Britain has some of the strictest gun control laws in the developed world, but the violent crime rate for homicide, rape, burglary, and aggravated assault is much higher than that in the U.S. Further, approximately 60 percent of burglaries in Great Britain occur while residents are home, compared to just 13 percent in the U.S., and British burglars admit to targeting occupied residences because they are more likely to find wallets and purses.
          • It is difficult to compare homicide and firearm-related murder rates across international borders because countries use different methods to determine which deaths “count” for purposes of violent crime. For example, since 1967, Great Britain has counts any case that does not result in a conviction, that was the result of dangerous driving, or in which the person was determined to have acted in self-defense. All these factors are counted as “homicides” in the United States.

          7. Legally owned firearms are used for lawful purposes much more often than they are used to commit crimes or suicide.
          • In 2013, President Barack Obama ordered the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to assess existing research on gun violence. The report, compiled by the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council, found (among other things) that firearms are used defensively hundreds of thousands of times every year.
          • According to the CDC, “self-defense can be an important crime deterrent.” Recent CDC reports acknowledge that studies directly assessing the effect of actual defensive uses of guns have found “consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”
          • Semi-automatic rifles (such as the AR-15) are commonly used as self-defense weapons in the homes of law-abiding citizens because they are easier to control than handguns, are more versatile than handguns, and offer the advantage of up to 30 rounds of protection. Even Vox has published stories defending the use of the AR-15.
          • AR-15s have been used to save lives on many occasions, including:
          • Oswego, Illinois (2018)—A man with an AR-15 intervened to stop a neighbor’s knife attack and cited the larger weapon’s “intimidation factor” as a reason why the attacker dropped the knife.
          • Catawba County, North Carolina (2018)—A 17-year-old successfully fought off three armed attackers with his AR-15.
          • Houston, Texas (2017)—A homeowner survived a drive-by shooting by defending himself with his AR-15.
          • Broken Arrow, Oklahoma (2017)—A homeowner’s son killed three would-be burglars with an AR-15 (the man was later deemed to have acted in justifiable self-defense).
          • Ferguson, Missouri (2014)—African-American men protected a white man’s store from rioters by standing outside armed with AR-15s.
          • Texas (2013)—A 15-year-old boy used an AR-15 during a home invasion to save both his life and that of his 12-year-old sister.
          • Rochester, New York (2013)—Home intruders fled after facing an AR-15.

          8. Concealed carry permit holders are not the problem, but they may be part of the solution.
          • Lott found that, as a group, concealed carry permit holders are some of the most law-abiding people in the United States. The rate at which they commit crimes generally and firearm crimes specifically is between one-sixth and one-tenth of that recorded for police officers, who are themselves committing crimes at a fraction of the rate of the general population.
          • Between 2007 and 2015, murder rates dropped 16 percent and violent crime rates dropped 18 percent, even though the percentage of adults with concealed carry permits rose by 190 percent.
          • Regression estimates show a significant association between increased permit ownership and a drop-in murder and violent crime rates. Each percentage point increase in rates of permit-holding is associated with a roughly 2.5 percent drop in the murder rate.
          • Concealed carry permit holders are often “the good guy with a gun,” even though they rarely receive the attention of the national media. Concealed carry permit holders were credited with saving multiple lives in:

          • Rockledge, Florida (2017);
          • Antioch, Tennessee (2017);
          • Arlington, Texas (2017);
          • Lyman, South Carolina (2016);
          • Winton Hills, Ohio (2015);
          • Conyers, Georgia (2015);
          • New Holland, South Carolina (2015);
          • Chicago, Illinois (2015);
          • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (2015);
          • Darby, Pennsylvania (2015);
          • Chicago, Illinois (2014);
          • Portland, Oregon (2014);
          • Spartanburg, South Carolina (2012).

          3.) Author: Rhodney Freeman
          Comment:
          A LITTLE GUN HISTORY
          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.
          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, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
          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.
          Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
          56 million defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control:
          You won’t see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.
          Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.
          Take note my fellow Americans, before it’s too late!
          The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.
          With guns, we are “citizens”. Without them, we are “subjects”.
          During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!
          If you value your freedom, please spread this antigun-control message to all your friends.

    Leave a Comment 37 Comments

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *