Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Tuesday, December 12, 2017

Among gun some gun rights advocates, talk of “control” and “regulation” can eventually end up at “conspiracy”.

Some are convinced national political leaders want firearms confiscation.

But why would the U.S. government want to take everyone’s guns?

To begin, according to the government, it doesn’t. Mainstream proponents for gun-control do not call for disarmament — only the most extreme do, but what’s actually being asked for on Capitol Hill is universal background checks with every gun purchase and a ban on assault rifles like the one used two weeks ago in the Pulse nightclub massacre in Orlando, which claimed the lives of 49 people.

Erika Soto Lamb, Chief Communications Officer for Everytown for Gun Safety, the nation’s most prominent gun-control group — largely funded by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg — told The National Memo, “We believe – along with a majority of Americans including gun owners and NRA members – that the Second Amendment goes hand-in-hand with common sense public safety measures that will save lives.”

Why so suspicious?

Ladd Everitt, Director of Communications for the National Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, told The National Memo he deals with the suspicion daily. He attributes the paranoia to the National Rifle Association’s public relations team, particularly the organization’s Executive Vice President, Wayne LaPierre, who Everitt said does an incredible job of spreading misinformation.

Everitt said disarmament is a myth propagated by the NRA and its core members, who share a foundational belief in insurrectionism. This crowd, Everitt said, is “profoundly anti-government… They want to be in opposition with the government.”

Everitt thinks the insurrectionist myth is largely driven by fear stemming from changes in culture and demographics. The influence of America’s white majority, and that of white males in particular, is waning as other groups achieve more social power and growing in numbers. The shift of political capital, Everitt said, breeds the fear that creates insurrectionism.

It creates plenty of false equivalences, too: Insurrectionists frequently point to Nazi Germany as a historical example of the relationship between disarmament and totalitarianism. The Nazi Weapon Law of 1938 prohibited Jews and other persecuted peoples from gun ownership.

Everitt said the pro-gun rebels believe in the sovereign right, at the individual level, to shoot government officials perceived as tyrannical — “like Timothy McVeigh,” he noted, referring to the domestic terrorist who killed 168 people, including 19 children, in the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.

McVeigh loved guns and hated the government. He was a Gulf War veteran with an exceptional record of soldiering, especially as a marksman. In 1992 McVeigh tried out for the Special Forces but quit after three days and left the Army. He became a transient, roaming the country, buying and selling weapons at gun shows and vocalizing disdain for government, which he believed was a threat to his rights and guns.

That summer saw the bloody standoff between the FBI and white separatist Randy Weaver, who was charged with selling illegal sawed-off shotguns. Weaver’s wife and son were killed. CNN observes the event became “a rallying point for McVeigh and others immersed in the militia movement.”

Then “Waco” happened. McVeigh travelled to the Texas city to protest the federal siege of a Branch Davidian religious compound where the group’s leader, David Koresh, stood accused of possessing illegal weapons and refused to give himself up, but he left before the April 19 firefight that killed 80 Davidians. Two years later to the day, after stewing for years, McVeigh carried out his murderous bombing-plot against the government.

Twenty years later, in an article for Huffington Post, Executive Director for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence Josh Horwitz argued the NRA had brought McVeigh’s insurrectionist idea into mainstream conservatism. It was easy for Horwitz to display the connection between McVeigh’s political philosophy and that of the NRA:

Speaking to a student journalist at Waco in 1993, McVeigh said “The government is afraid of the guns people have because they have control of the people at all times. Once you take away the guns, you can do anything to the people. You give them an inch and they take a mile. I believe we are slowly turning into a socialist government. The government is continually growing bigger and more powerful and the people need to prepare to defend themselves against government control.”

In an April 1995 NRA fundraising letter, sent six days before McVeigh bombed the Federal Building, the Washington Post reports LaPierre wrote, “It doesn’t matter to [the government] that the semi-auto ban gives jack-booted government thugs more power to take away our constitutional rights, break in our doors, seize our guns, destroy our property, and even injure or kill us.”

“Not too long ago,” LaPierre wrote, “it was unthinkable for federal agents wearing Nazi bucket helmets and black storm trooper uniforms to attack law-abiding citizens,” but under “Clinton’s administration, if you have a badge, you have the government’s go-ahead to harass, intimidate, even murder law-abiding citizens.”

Republican Validation

Fear mongering has been the NRA’s PR modus operandi for decades. The organization addresses disarmament on its website, asking “What kind of government cares more about appeasing Islamic terrorists than defending the constitutional rights of its citizens? A government that would disarm us during the age of terror.”

But the NRA wasn’t always this way.

A May 1995 article in the New York Times says the organization was founded in 1871 by a group of former Union officers who wanted to nurture excellent marksmanship in soldiers. This was the NRA’s focus for nearly 100 years, but with the rise of crimes rates in the 1960’s the group shifted its attention to gun violence.

Then, in 1968, the passage of America’s first noteworthy gun-control law compelled the NRA to become “the prototype of the modern single-issue lobby, turning out dedicated supporters at the voting booth to reward or punish candidates based solely on their voting records on gun-control.”

The NRA assigns grades based on whether a politician’s performance is in line with the group’s mission to protect citizens’ unfettered access to firearms. As of December 2015, The Guardian reports, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders had a D- and former New York Sen. Hillary Clinton an F. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz had an A+.

NRA candidates mimic LaPierre’s insurrectionist warning calls of encroaching despotism. The Washington Post reports that in October, Cruz warned voters that “Obama is coming for our guns.”

Cruz said, “Obama’s aides have alerted the press that if Congress won’t cooperate, Obama will use executive actions to, ‘keep guns out of the hands of criminals and others who shouldn’t have access to them.’ By ‘others who shouldn’t have them,’ Obama means you and me.”

Constitutional Militiamen

The fear of disarmament fostered by Republicans and the NRA seems far-fetched, but the paranoia is not unfounded; in fact it’s quite traditional.

Concern for firearm confiscation was birthed into the American cultural lexicon with the ratification of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1791. Federalists, and their drafting counterparts, the Antifederalists — think (very roughly) Democrats and Republicans, respectively — agreed that private gun ownership was a necessary and most efficient means of resisting the standing army of a tyrannical government, which, like all governments, was possible in the United States.

Antifederalist George Mason, co-author of the amendment, professed that history had shown disarmament to be “the best and most effectual way to enslave” the populace. And Federalist Noah Webster, in one of the original Federalist pamphlets, argued the amendment was unnecessary because, not only was the Constitution designed to prevent tyranny, but disarmament must occur before a standing army could seize control, and such a possibility was negated by the population’s possession of arms. The people simply wouldn’t allow it.

Federalist James Madison, who would become the fourth U.S. president, echoed Webster’s sentiment, writing that the Constitution was air tight, and a standing army would be opposed by “a militia amounting to near half a million citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from amongst themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by government possessing their affections and confidence.”

Obviously, they added the amendment, which states that “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The pro-gun crowd, and the Supreme Court, interpret this to mean gun ownership should always be legal because liberty requires it. Some from the gun-control camp will claim the Second Amendment doesn’t actually guarantee the right to gun ownership, that it provides the right to raise a militia with arms provided by Congress; and that all this got twisted around over the years, through interpretations and reinterpretation yielding a voluminous record of writings and rulings.

Today, the U.S. has a standing army, and American citizens have become accustomed to private gun ownership, which perhaps the founders took for granted.

Debunking the Myth

The Constitution remains the backbone of the gun lobby. The National Rifle Association hangs its hat on the Second Amendment. They won’t bend an inch. Any increase in regulation, they say, is the first step down the slippery slope to universal background checks, which they allege would be used to create a national gun registry that would give the Feds an itemized list of every legally owned firearm in America.

On January 22, 2013, in response to a White House proposal for universal background checks, Wayne LaPierre told a crowd in Reno, Nev. that President Obama “wants you to believe that putting the federal government in the middle of every firearm transaction — except those between criminals — will somehow make us safer”:

“That means forcing law-abiding people to fork over excessive fees to exercise their rights. Forcing parents to fill out forms to leave a family heirloom to a loved one — standing in line and filling out a bunch of bureaucratic paperwork, just so a grandfather can give a grandson a Christmas gift. He wants to put every private, personal transaction under the thumb of the federal government, and he wants to keep all those names in a massive federal registry.”

“There are only two reasons for that federal list of gun owners,” LaPierre said, “to tax them or take them.”

LaPierre very ominously paints gun-control like a hellish trip to the DMV that ends in totalitarianism — and perhaps it is, but come on… Either way, reports LaPierre’s claim that universal background checks would create a “massive federal registry” is simply untrue. In fact, such a registry would be illegal. Here’s why:

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 established the National Instant Criminal Background Check System to keep guns out of the wrong hands and ensure timely transfer of firearms to eligible buyers. The FBI says “more than 100 million such checks have been made in the last decade, leading to more than 700,000 denials” of gun purchases. Most people pass background checks, and the records created by the checks are destroyed by law, which states “The NICS is not to be used to establish a federal firearm registry; information about an inquiry resulting in an allowed transfer is destroyed in accordance with NICS regulations.” The Brady Act bans federal agencies from keeping “any record or portion thereof generated by the [NICS] system,” and bars the “registration of firearms, firearm owners, or firearm transaction” of individuals cleared by the background check. Congress has further added language to annual spending bills that force the FBI to destroy records of gun transfers within 24 hours of validation.

President Obama’s plan to expand criminal background checks would include all sales and transfers of firearms “with limited, common-sense exceptions for cases like certain transfers between family members and temporary transfers for hunting and sporting purposes.” The president’s proposal states no intention of changing current law to generate a federal gun registry; when asked if it would, the White House said no, Obama’s proposed gun laws would not change any regulations, but would simply bring all gun transactions into the existing NICS.

As Ladd Everitt of the National Coalition to Stop Gun Violence pointed out, a handful of states already require background checks, and no registry has been created.

However, on Thursday, Hawaii Gov. David Ige signed into law a bill requiring state police to enroll gun purchasers into an FBI criminal monitoring system after they register their firearms as already mandated, Reuters reports.

Amy Hunter, spokeswoman for the NRA’s institute for legislative action, told Reuters, “As you can imagine, the NRA finds this one of the most extreme bills we’ve ever seen.”

The law gives Hawaiian police the ability to determine whether a gun owner should be allowed to possess a firearm after being arrested for any charge.

Hawaii state Senator Will Espero, a gun owner and Democrat who co-authored the legislation, called the law “common sense legislation that does not hurt anyone.”

“It just means local police will be notified,” he said.

Ige’s office also signed into law two additional firearms bills. One establishes convictions of stalking and sexual assault as offenses that would ban a person from owning a gun, and the other forces gun owners diagnosed with a mental, behavioral or emotional disorder to surrender their weapons.

The NRA will likely sue the state.

One wonders whether the founders considered such provisions when drafting the Second Amendment.

Photo: AR-15 rifles line a shelf in the gun library at the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms National Tracing Center in Martinsburg, West Virginia December 15, 2015. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst 

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2016 The National Memo

56 Responses to Is Disarmament An Insurrectionist Myth?

  1. We do not live in 1788, when the US Constitution was ratified in New Hampshire. We do not maintain organized local militias. We do not live in the Wild West of Abilene or Dodge City. We live in cities and suburbs and, decreasingly, small towns. Protein-rich foods are plentiful and well distributed. The vast majority of us do not need to hunt for food. We really don’t need firearms for “protection,” because only a very few cases exist in which personal firearms were actually used to prevent a crime.
    Most of our gun use results in suicide, homicide, accidents and injuries to the children and adults who, somehow, survive being shot. Increasingly, our firearms are used to successfully complete mass murders in remarkably short periods of time.
    Don’t let the National Rifle Association scare you. Our federal government does not have the manpower, funding, or will to confiscate privately owned, legally used firearms. A majority of voting citizens do have the will to reduce the tens of thousands of annual firearms deaths, just as we have enacted laws to make cars, toys, vitamin supplements, drugs, clothing, and foods safer for consumption. It’s the reasonable thing to do.

          • Most people believe that we have a right to drive a car and most people also believe that drivers who suffer from mental disorders or drive while intoxicated (among other things) should not be permitted to drive. Why shouldn’t these same people (and certainly others) likewise not be permitted to purchase guns?

          • Sure. But the Orlando shooter was never diagnosed with a mental illness, and there is no evidence he was intoxicated. So how would your criteria have prevented that tragedy?

          • The ONLY thing that could have prevented the Orlando shooting is to outlaw and deport all Muslims. That isn’t what our country does, nor should it. The ONLY way to fight a silialr attack is to lose the stupid laws that restrict good people from having their sidearm, ANYWHERE they go. When I mean ANYWHERE, I mean just that, especially government buildings. I have a logical reason for that too!

          • Our current laws do not permit private ownership of certain weapons, among them “machine guns.” The restriction was passed before WWII, to restrict armament for future Bonnies & Clydes, and other crime celebrities who were popular.
            Does this restriction devalue your Constitutional rights?

          • Hate to burst your bubble, but private citizens CAN lawfully possess and shoot fully automatic “machine guns”. It’s called a Class III license. Maybe until you learn to research things you obviously no little about, your right to free speech should be registered and given permission to be used.

          • I will not be drawn into your ridiculous arguments based on half-truths and loose interpretations of unsettled law, David.
            Good night.

          • “Unsettled law”? Lol. Check with the BATF on the requirements to be issued a Class III permit. Kinda tough to go into a battle of wits half armed isn’t it?

      • David, in some cases it would be perfectly reasonable; for example, you can’t be excused for yelling “FIRE!’ in a crowded theater. Nor can you be excused for acquiring weapons with the intention of walking into a crowded theater or grammar school and opening fire on innocent men, women and children. I’m sure you can think of other reasonable examples.

        • Again, I have no problem with control of weapons as long as due process is used in restricting the right to keep and bear arms.

    • In the event of a mass power outage that may be lengthy, you will find out just how sad your mindset really is.

      • In my region of the country, Zilla, prolonged power outages lasting weeks are not, by any means, rare or unusual occurrences. In all of my many decades here, none of the prolonged outages required, or resulted in, armed citizen conflicts.

          • Well, Paul, you guessed wrong. On both counts.
            There are densely packed cities AND they are full of people who worked and some who also received government assistance to make up the difference between their earnings and the actual costs to live here.
            After the disaster, though, we were ALL dependent on each other, and our government.

    • You said “Our federal government does not have the manpower, funding, or will to confiscate privately owned, legally used firearms.” Think again. The number of guns held by non-military departments of the federal government, like the IRS, exceeds the number of guns held by the US Marines. Local police departments are being sold Army surplus weapons designed for combat.

      The federal government DOES have the manpower, funding and weapons to confiscate civilian guns. And civilians, even with all their non-military weapons, could not resist. (AR-15’s are not assault weapons – M-16’s are assault weapons. If you don’t know the difference, you have no business suggesting laws against them.

        • Oh… I know that one!
          Apparently they’re waiting for the “right moment”…
          Apparently having a Kenyan Muslim in the white house wasn’t right enough.
          I guess they’re waiting for Trump or something?

          Plus it’s always just about to happen… how else would you drive maximum gun sales?

  2. Strangely enough I have to agree that confiscation is a myth at this point in time. First, who would like to go on a suicide mission in an attempt to take them? For now, this should be put to rest……BUT……..the idea that Universal background checks will change anything is living in a fantasy land. Criminals don’t follow laws. Terrorist’s don’t give a rats rear end about laws. The only people affected by any laws are those of us who are law abiding, decent people. Common sense gun safety laws that are being pushed will have no affect on future mass murders or terrorist activity. The Dumbocrats may as well just pass a law that outlaws mass murder……..oh, we already have that law, how’s that working out?

    • Law abiding gun owners have no restrictions, Zilla.
      Why can’t we ask law abiding gun sellers, dealers, and organizers of gun shows to make it more difficult for criminals and terrorists to get guns? Why do we freely permit individuals on the Homeland Security’s No-Fly list to buy as many guns as they want?
      Nothing will stop murder, or murders that happen at the point of a gun. But can’t we try to reduce them?

      • We have a system in place that has failed (background checks). But we still have it and changing it won’t change a thing. How does one know who is a criminal or a terrorist? Is it really necessary to grope little girls and old ladies at airports? No, it’s stupid. Want to stop the radical Muslim’s from buying guns? How does one know if one is a radical or just a peaceful Muslim? My answer is to profile and deny sales to ALL Muslim’s. Even then, it won’t stop them from getting guns.

        As far as the No-Fly list, it denies people due process. Set up a system to challenge it and make it work. Unfortunately, government can’t make much of anything work.

        Amazingly, we are ranked 112th out of 212 countries when it comes to our murder rate. Take away the killings in Democrat controlled cities and we would be have the lowest murder rate in the world. In my region, we all carry concealed (and open). We have almost no crime, even the petty stuff. Everyone is polite and looks out for one another. Even the cops are polite.

        We can stop murderers with laws. The only defense against a killer like the one in Orlando are good people with guns. Too bad so many places disallow folks to have a gun when in the facility, NO-GUN zones are nothing but a killing factory for sick people. Want to lower our murder rate, get rid of laws that prohibit good people from defending themselves. Anti-gun laws only affect the law abiding and makes them vulnerable. I’m amazed that the Liberal Left can’t grasp that after all the killings in no-gun zones.

          • “…when the stores have no food.”
            That’s happened five times in my region of the country, Zilla. Our stores and most of our homes were flattened, washed away, or both. So were the fire department buildings and equipment, and City Hall.
            The National Guard came to clear debris, put up tents, and begin giving out water and food. The Red Cross and FEMA came. Scores of volunteers from neighboring states, and some places we’d only read about, came to help us.
            It never occurred to us to draw a bead and fire at them.

          • Yeah~! When the dystopian future comes and it’s only me and mah rifle… you’ll allllll be sorry.

            You know what freak me out about you knuckle dragger Americans? It’s how gleefully you’re always looking forward to the end of the world. The Rapture… The Government tyranny… The Mayan Apocalypse.

            You’re a death cult who will only be happy when the USA is a barren wasteland peopled by angry starving mobs carrying automatic weapons.
            Then you’ll sit there in your deck chair next to your 5 million stockpiled rounds of ammo for your AR-15 and finally be f**king happy.

            All I see is evidence that the GOP hate machine and Wayne La-Douchebag have successfully poisoned your minds for decades until all you feel is fear, and all you see is the end of the world.

            What was the screaming fear-chorus before Obamacare? Oh yeah… “Death Panels”. How many death panels have you been on so far? Oh… none?

            How about the screaming fear-chorus just before Obama was elected? Oh yeah… he was going to make guns illegal and come and take them all off you. So has that happened? No? No coming to take all your guns?

            Or the screaming foghorn of gun confiscation before Obama’s re-election? So did they actually do anything of the sort that time? No?

            Do you want to know what’s really f**king funny?
            Watching you death-cultists continue to believe the same people who HAVE BEEN WRONG EVERY SINGLE TIME.

            Apparently “never being actually right about anything” qualifies them as the person you get your life advice from.
            And that’s pretty funny.

          • A whole lot of them are still waiting for “The Rapture,” and “The Second Coming,” and will argue to the very end that the Earth is 6,000 years-old.
            Republicans LOVE uneducated voters.

        • Summary: “Changing things won’t change anything! Nothing can change! We shouldn’t even try! Nyah nyah na na nyah!!!1!”

          What a Pinhead.

          “Good people with guns”?
          So, how many times has that worked? Lay some statistics on me.

    • First of all, no ridiculous lunie toons myth is ever put to rest about anything as far as the gun nut crowd goes. And the rest of the unhinged, off the rails Right Wingers aren’t all that far behind in the conspiracy theory category. After all they’ve nominated the guy who stepped into Republican politics pushing the Birther bullsh!t, and his lying has only increased. And the more he lies, the more the popular he gets. So you tell me, what you know, and I’ll give you the RW zombie myth it’s based on.

      • Lets look at “unhinged, off the rails” LEFT WING! The most violent cities in the US continue that because the voters keep voting Liberal Democrat, for the last 5 decades or more. Ferguson Missouri and Baltimore riots, the voters are Liberal Democrats. Bottom line…the math says that your ILK are the unhinged, off the rails idiots, INCLUDING the Orlando killer, who was a registered Democrat.

        Facts suck when they destroy your bullcrap.

        • They vote in their best economic interests for the Party that brought them Social Security, FDIC, a minimum wage, and now healthcare.
          Any dummy knows the Right Wingers are slaves to big money special interests. Bought and paid for. Heck they all even sign a pledge to Grover, to first get his corporate approval before taking a crap in the morning. That’s the way it is, day in and day out on the Right. And you don’t know this? Why? Listening to Fox News much? Rush? Britebart,

    • I live in the country where most households have rifles to protect their animals from nature’s predators. Since the majority of people – including women – who use rifles here are trained, these are effective as defense from human intruders, if necessary. I also believe some people who live in urban/suburban areas – especially women – need to conceal carry handguns for their safety. But no one needs assault weapons!

      • Define assault weapon please. Where I live, we use them to assault feral hogs invading our herds and the occasional coyote.

        • The Wikipedia definition “varies among regulating jurisdictions, but usually includes semi-automatic firearms with a detachable magazine and a pistol grip, and sometimes other features such as a flash suppressor or barrel shroud.” Clearly military weapons (of mass destruction) designed for war. The weapons Omar Mateen used against 49+ people in Orlando, the Sig Saucer MCX aka “The Black Mamba” and the AR 15 Bushmaster semi-automatic rifle that Adam Lanza used to savagely murder 20 little children and 6 adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School are assault weapons.

          That deranged people can so easily acquire these weapons to destroy the lives of good people – and their families – at churches, schools, theaters, shopping malls, restaurants, nightclubs, concerts, sporting events, airports, train stations, etc., etc., is insane. Those who justify this carnage because they are paranoid of losing their lawful reasons to own responsibly used firearms are tools for terrorists and whack jobs. Those who advocate for the gun lobby’s greed have lost their souls.

          • How does a pistol grip (named after something that is part of every hand gun) or a flash suppressor or a barrel shroud make the weapon more deadly? Do you even know what those terms mean?

          • Looks like you agree with conservatives that the blame rests with the deranged. And you agree they should be denied firearms. But I doubt that you know much about military rifles if you believe semiautomatic rifles are defined as military grade. Perhaps you should do a hitch in the infantry to flesh out your weak spots.

          • Because you can always predict who is about to become “deranged”?

            How about because low muzzle velocity, poor long range accuracy (n most people’s hands), fire-as-fast-as-you-can-pull-the-trigger weapons are really only good for shooting people in crowds? And because you CAN’T predict who is about to have a bad day and decide they’d really like to buy something for exactly that purpose.

            How about you take your testosterone and shove it?

    • Oh no….a myth cannot be such just because you figure they wouldnt go on a suicide mission. Govts dont work with that sense. Lets talk straight up–it was where, (Conneticut?) recently that banned certain weapons and 90% of the citizens turned them in on time. The 10% that didnt, the police gangs went house to house and picked up whatever they could that was left. No suicide, no massacre. Same in UK, same in Australia. Australians I figured for a pretty stout lot and wouldnt comply but they did. We only imagine a civil war, a bloodbath, but thats just it, imagination. Confiscation remains the goal but it may not come in that form, it can come by the other measures like gun liability insurance, ammunition unavailability, ammunition tax, bonds, etc, until a person cant reach that high and they give up. Go search around the site, Firearms Policy Coalition and see the breathtakingly myriad bills in California for these things. Many have passed, many are in the courts. They already took away the right of a father or grandfather to pass down ancient inheritance. If you prevent a person getting a gun in the first place, its tantamount to confiscation. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

      • Box, Connecticut passed a law to allow the confiscation of guns from people who have received temporary restraining orders arising from domestic violence. Just that. Only that.
        Please check your facts before you start spewing.
        At this point, you have shown yourself to be a huge Liar.
        Have some self-respect, man. Do better.

  3. This article is suitable for framing! I will! Its classic manipulation thats been done and written about for what, hundreds of years. I guess they figure since its tried and true, why not now, too? Its not written for the opposers but the choir to help strengthen their resolve for Hillary and hatred for the other side. Dont be sheep. I see both sides doing the same thing. This article doesnt appear in GOP media but mirrored articles do which are written to strengthen GOP resolve. Its totally transparent and laughable. Its the Dr saying to a little child, its just a little shot, it wont hurt at all! Search back on Bloomberg, yes he wants the guns and he’s said it over and over. If and when NRA or someone else highlights those words, they are immediately condemned as troublemakers and liars. It makes no difference to me who you vote for but do it eyes open, not like this.

    • Rah rah fear!
      Rah rah end of the world!
      Rah rah government tyranny!
      Rah rah slippery slope!

      You’ve bought the fear-mongering hook, line and sinker.

      God you’re a pinhead.

  4. Caterwauling on this issue simply isn’t justified because it’s not an issue. But the people are fed up with the nonsense. For example, the disputed no-fly bill contains this outrageous line: “No district court of the United States or court of appeals of the United States shall have jurisdiction to consider the lawfulness or constitutionality of this section…” This has become the leftist drill, citing rare catastrophic events and falsely representing them as common. Every time they hear a gunshot, they begin howling that a hundred million peaceable, lawful citizens who weren’t there should be punished with more regulation. But as usual, it’s just a distraction and a non-issue.

    The point is a Congressional Research Service study entitled “Mass Murder with Firearms…1999-2013,” found that mass shootings continue to be rare and the annual incidence is flat. Additionally, criminologist James Alan Fox found no solid trend in the numbers. Fact is, mass shootings account for only .004 percent of all deaths, about .66 percent of all murders and less than two percent of non-firearm murder victims. James Alan Fox clarified the data by pointing out the chance against a person being killed in a mass shooting would be about one in three million. Further, the CDC found that homicides by firearm have dropped by nearly half proportional to the population over the past two decades. During that time, sales of firearms tripled and ownership today is skyrocketing. Even if you cannot accept facts, it’s disgraceful that leftists believe disarming potential victims is rational.

    What’s missing is the data necessary to convince us that these laws will be effective. Instead of blindly accepting what leftists feed us, we need to start dealing with the real problem — not gun murders — just murders. Gun homicides are just part of the total reported murders per 100,000 population. In 1993 the number was seven. That number was reduced to to 3.8 per 100,000 by 2013. Of 218 nations measured, the U.S. now ranks 98th, about in the middle. Stated another way, your chances of being murdered in the U.S. are 38 thousandths of a percent (.000038). In the U.K., your chances are .8 thousandths of a percent (.000008). That’s a difference of 30 thousandths of a percent, a very small number any way you look at it. Leftists often say your chances of being murdered in the U.S. are almost five times as great as in the U.K. But five times almost nothing is still almost nothing. In other words this is a non-issue.

    When considering nations with lower murder rates, one must consider the large number of murders by illegal aliens, a major factor in the U.S. and in no other place on earth. Factoring out the GAO’s latest estimate of 5,639 annual murders by illegal aliens, the U.S. murders per 100,000 would be reduced to 2.1. That number would place the U.S. well within the safest one-third of the world. Someone should tell the leftists that tinkering with a system that works may make matters worse.

    • I keep saying it, guns are used as the hot button to gain control over ones mind and then the whole person. This is the Socialist way, and to wit: the no-fly measure isnt about guns, its about control by cutting off a persons path of redress. Now you wouldnt be able to appeal your place on the list. This is what they truly want, that they have the control and you do not.

      If that is not so, and liberals keep saying they dont want to take the guns, how is this comment today by Charlie Rangel explained, and why isnt NM reporting it as a followup to the “myth” article? They tell me I dont need a gun for protection because im dreaming, but their need is crystal clear and they are not dreaming. Dem supporters, please comment on this and explain how there is no relationship to confiscation. In other words, how would Rangel act on his words? What comes next? What Charlie Rangel sure knows is that its easy to control me when you have a gun to my head, but how strong are your actions when I also have one pointed at you?

      Outside USA, the gun buttons pushed in the media work the same way. Asians believe we are a murderous lot, spending all waking hours killing each other. Asians, like anti-gunners in USA dont want to look at facts, like you started to talked about. Dont listen to me, LOOK at CDC data and also FBI data. Here is CDC. If liberals wanted to cure the ills of society, why not choose anything else on the CDC list which outkills people? Because there is no way to popularize medical deaths, for example, it doesnt push any emotional buttons to get your attention like guns do.

    • “What’s missing is the data necessary to convince us that these laws will be effective. ”

      So why don’t you ask the NRA nicely to stop blocking all research on guns… so WE ACTUALLY HAVE SOME USEFUL DATA.

      • Our congress did that, ‘Sinnergy.
        The chief sponsor, Jay Dickey, Republican from Arkansas, is no longer a member of the House. In October 2015, he publicly expressed his deep regret for having done it.

        Our Congress can undo Dickey’s amendment. We just have to get over our aversion to voting in the “boring” mid-term elections.

      • I’m sorry you didn’t get it. Clearly implied is “What’s missing from LEFTIST CLAIMS is the data…” I just gave you pertinent data that proves the conservative points. Perhaps if you read it again, you might understand. By the way, the NRA is a private organization that does mountains of research on all sorts of firearms and accessories. Leftists refuse to research the field unless taxpayers fund it. As you know, the NRA has no authority to block research from your side.

  5. When it comes to discussing the uniquely American destructive phenomenon of being inundated with enough personal weapons, low-powered and high-powered, to arm every man, woman, and child, it’s obvious that the proponents for guns have myths as their foundation; a foundation that is destined to crumble.

    The removal of the delirious infatuation with guns, and the attendant dysfunction of paranoia that someone is out to take their weapons, is dependent on the introduction of common-sense in the narrative of the gun fanatics.

    But it appears that time is running out for common-sense to take hold, and therefore a total break-down in a sense of contentment with life and the waxing of a delusional paranoia that someone is out there ready to exterminate the gun-owner if he relinquishes his infantile mental dependence on gun ownership.

    Such a childish outlook bodes ill for the progress in the next world of the souls of such petty-minded gun worshipers.

    “O Son of Being! Bring thyself to account each day ere thou art summoned to a reckoning, for death unheralded shall come upon thee, and thou shalt be called to give account for thy deeds”, wrote Baha’u’llah in one of His Tablets.

    The rabid mental condition of the gun fanatic clouds his/her ability to comprehend the gravity of that pronouncement by Baha’u’llah.

Leave a reply