Gun expert John R. Lott has regrettably joined the “If Hillary wins, it’s over” bandwagon when it comes to our right to keep and bear arms. It’s not.
Defenders of the Second Amendment often use federal lawsuits in an attempt to protect their right to keep and bear arms.
This is a really bad strategy.
Just when you think gun control advocates couldn’t get it more wrong, they always surprise you.
According to Daily Caller, Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety has put out a video trying to shame men for owning firearms while encouraging women to join the gun grabber club.
Dubbed “Singled Out,” the campaign website curiously seeks to drive young women to the gun control cause by way of disparaging men who own firearms. To Everytown, gun-owning men are predominantly “gunsplainers,” a derivation of the term mansplainer, which is a man who attempts to explain something to a woman in a patronizing way. Therefore, a “gunsplainer” is “a man who repeatedly and condescendingly explains to a woman why she’d be safer with a gun.”
Among the ridiculous things said in the video is the following:
“Why bother strengthening our gun laws, criminals will find ways to get guns anyway!”
“That’s like saying why outlaw bank robbery? Bank robbers are always going to steal.”
This is what we call reframing. Notice they don’t deny the fact that criminals don’t obey laws. I know that may sound obvious to you but to Bloomberg’s people, a firm grasp of the obvious is needed.
Bank robbery is a victim-based crime. It’s not prohibited due to its perceived social utility, i.e. making society better. It’s because it’s stealing. It’s not there to prevent bank robberies, per se, but to acknowledge the property rights of the bank owners and the depositors.
In comparison, owning certain types of firearms or ammunition is not a crime unless the government makes it one by outlawing them. But then who is the victim if they break only that specific law?
The second claim is also wrong; bank robbers are always going to try to steal. What deters or stops them are either good security measures or, wait for it, armed guards.
What this statement is really saying is that we should pass gun laws not because they’re effective, which they’re not, but on principle.
Americans tried following that logic during the 1920s. Criminals don’t obey liquor laws, but hey, it’s the thought that counts, right? Nevermind the bootlegging and the mobs and huge crime wave that followed.
It’s disturbing that they would try to shame men for encouraging women to protect themselves from bodily harm by owning a firearm.
And shaming men for owning firearms? Good luck with that.
Besides, women don’t need to be patronized like little children to buy firearms. They already figured it out for themselves, which is why the number of female applicants for concealed licenses have risen dramatically across the country.
It doesn’t much “gunsplaining” to see the benefits of packing heat. A study by the Crime Prevention Research Center found that between 2007-2011 there was a 146 percent increase in the number of Americans who now have permits to carry concealed weapons, while at the as both murder and violent crime rates have dropped by 22 percent.
If anyone needs some “gunsplaining” to do, it’s the people who think that there is something wrong with a person wanting to be able to protect themselves and who encouragse those they care about to do so as well. Meanwhile, Bloomberg can finally “gunsplain” why he thinks he needs armed security guards if he believes ordinary citizens shouldn’t have them.
To quote Bloomberg himself, “Uh, we’ll get right back to you” when he does, if ever.
By now we’ve all heard that President Obama is calling for more federal gun control and has issued “New Executive Actions to Reduce Gun Violence and Make Our Communities Safer”. In addition, a group of Democrats in Congress recently introduced H.R.4269 – the Assault Weapons Ban of 2015.
What are the 31 Republican-controlled state legislatures going to do about it? Continue reading Will Red States Tell Obama to Pound Sand Regarding Latest Gun Control Efforts?!
The shooting tragedies in San Bernardino and outside of a Planned Parenthood facility in Colorado have raised gun control rhetoric to a fevered pitch. So far, President Obama has been all talk, but it seems increasingly likely he will eventually act unilaterally to strengthen federal gun control laws. This means states need to take action to stop it now.
Continue reading Stop Obama From Using Executive Orders To Implement Gun Control
GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee recently urged gun dealers to nullify in effect any future presidential orders requiring firearms background checks.
There were several important victories in the fight to protect the Second Amendment from federal attack during the 2015 legislative session. This sets the stage for further action to block federal infringement on the right to keep and bear arms in 2016. Continue reading Status Report: States Can Block Federal Gun Control in Practice
While many gun owners and gun rights activists across the country are waiting fretfully in anticipation of President Obama’s eventual decision to issue executive orders for more gun control, his proposals would be practically worthless if more states enacted laws like Idaho did last year.
In 2014, Idaho Gov. Butch Otter signed legislation into law that effectively blocks in practice any new federal gun control measures by prohibiting state enforcement of any future federal act relating to personal firearms, a firearm accessories or ammunition.
This law blocks in practice future federal gun control because the federal government lacks the resources to enforce its laws alone. It depends on state assistance, assistance it will no longer get from Idaho. Judge Andrew Napolitano suggested that a single state standing down would make new federal gun laws “nearly impossible to enforce” within that state.
The Idaho Federal Firearm, Magazine and Register Ban Enforcement Act, seeks to “protect Idaho law enforcement officers from being directed, through federal executive orders, agency orders, statutes, laws, rules, or regulations enacted or promulgated on or after the effective date of this act, to violate their oath of office and Idaho citizens’ rights under Section 11, Article I, of the Constitution of the State of Idaho.”
The legislation continues:
“any official, agent or employee of the state of Idaho or a political subdivision thereof who knowingly and willfully orders an official, agent or employee of the state of Idaho or a political subdivision of the state to enforce any executive order, agency order, law, rule or regulation of the United States government as provided in subsection (2) of this section upon a personal firearm, a firearm accessory or ammunition shall, on a first violation, be liable for a civil penalty not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000) which shall be paid into the general fund of the state”
Kansas and Tennessee have also passed legislation that sets the foundation to do just what Idaho did in 2014.
As James Madison argued in Federalist 46, a single state can impede federal actions, but many states acting together can create obstructions the feds simply cannot overcome.
All other states should join Idaho and take that first step in stopping any new gun control program before it ever gets off the ground.
Want to stop federal gun control but don’t know where to start? Interested in solutions from the founding fathers? Looking for model legislation to get things done? The new ShallNot handbook for legislators and grassroots activists is the tool you need to protect the 2nd Amendment from federal abuse. Continue reading The State-Level Plan to Refuse Federal Gun Control