FYI, American Handgunner has a bunch of my articles posted in one convenient place here if you'd like to take a look.
FYI, American Handgunner has a bunch of my articles posted in one convenient place here if you'd like to take a look.
If this myth had any serious grain of truth we'd be in a world of hurt, because guns would be useless oxymorons and we'd be defenseless slaves by now. Everyone would be slaves, even the slave masters. This myth could never work. It's circular logic that never ends. Lookit:
If you had a gun to protect yourself, but the crook could just take it from you, you wouldn't need a gun. You could just take the crook's gun and use that.
Folks, guns just don't work that way. If they did, guards could never guard anyone, slaves could simply shoot their masters, the masters could then just shoot the slaves, it's absurd. The one with the gun gets things done son.
“The crook would just take it” myth has enormous value because it lights up the scrambled eggs that pass for brains in the progressives and anti-rights bigots who offer up that silliness when the issue of self defense and guns is addressed.
So many of the people we battle over our gun rights are so terrified of guns they can only picture themselves like Don Knotts from the Andy Griffith show, fumbling and bumbling, doing themselves total harm and failing incompetently, with the crook masterfully overpowering them.
Guns Make You Strong
Anti-gun-rights advocates have no idea of the empowerment a firearm provides. They have no space in their psyche for true empowerment, the very idea is abhorrent and inconceivable. So they concoct this magic of a gun simply being wrested away, instead of fired and stopping an adversary cold. Isn't that what the gun is for?
The party of the teachers union (democrats), the people who consider themselves so much better educated and capable than the knuckle-dragging republicans who tout and laud guns -- how ironic that they are the ones who can't imagine having gone to a class and learning anything about a gun before venturing out with one and getting it snatched.
The idea that they might be trained, know how to hold onto the darned thing, grip it tightly, keep their distance, even know how to avoid the criminal in the first place... All their minds fill with is this notion that: “If I had a gun the criminal would take it and then I'd really be in trouble.”
Can you imagine living your life like that? Never feeling a sense of competence, ability, feeling like an adult who could handle and persevere in a difficult situation, especially given the overwhelming power a gun provides? God made us, Sam Colt made us equal. Not in their book.
Sure, it is possible to lose a firearm in a struggle. Police are shot with their own firearms. There are retention holsters and retention techniques and all sorts of steps a person can take to prevent that frightful awful experience from occurring. Shoot happens. But hinging your safety on the idea that a criminal might best you in an incident, and so deciding not to be able to respond, well, that's a choice you're free to make for yourself, but not for anyone else.
If a person doesn't want a gun because they harbor an internal terror that an attacker might get it (and I've met plenty of people like this) I counsel them in no uncertain terms, “You should NOT have a gun.” That puts their fears to rest. Sometimes. Takes the pressure off. Whew, I don't have to have a gun. No one ever really told them that in so many words. Release. I would never insist a person have a gun, and in fact I know people who I'm convinced should not have a gun, for all kind of reasons.
On the other hand, once some people hear that, especially “I think you should never have a gun,” some of them feel left out, a sort of, “What, you're special and I'm not?” kind of reverse psychology motivation, and suddenly the only thing they're interested in is owning a gun. Or three. They're not all too happy living with their recognized 'fraidy cat disability. Might maybe I should try that more often.
If you were ever suspended from school it would be a blot that would travel with you, a failing to make your parents livid, earn reprimands no youngster wants to face. At least that's the way it used to be.
Trayvon Martin was suspended three times. Caught with apparent burglary tools, and apparently stolen jewelry in his school bag (police released him without trial, so you have to say "apparently"). He was out in the rain looking for prescription drugs without a prescription (it's in his twitter feed, public record from the later trials). He wanted to make "purple drank" a street get-high cocktail.
Trayvon met his demise beating a community watchman to near unconsciousness, before being shot to death in self defense. That's a true statement. Read it again. Multiple trials and civil rights investigations confirmed the not guilty verdict, shooting this guy was justified.
The media flat out lied about this case constantly, from swapping an 8-year-old angelic baby picture for his gangster Facebook pose, to calling his watermelon juice ice tea. They still lie about that. Just like Hillary is doing in promoting the Trayvon Foundation for her campaign. Foundation? Puhleeze.
She is swindling black people into rallying around her with this dead criminal-type guy as her flag bearer. This is what they mean when they say the whites are still using blacks and keeping them in bondage. Pick a hero for a hero, don't canonize the thugs, where is your morality? Look at what Hillary is doing.
Trump calls the media sleaze and dishonest and the media can't believe it? They chastise him -- for speaking truth to power. Hillary for her part is hiding from the media -- and running for president?! Where is the outrage? Where is the consternation and explosions of tirade? Where are the newshounds?
The Uninvited Ombudsman noticed. The Associated Press could not be reached for comment. They were busy praising Hillary.
Has anyone even read the bill that has democrats staging a sit-in on the floor of Congress?
"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..."
It gets worse.
Under the excuse of fighting terrorism, these democrats, with republican allies, want to deny Americans their individual rights to keep and bear arms -- without probable cause, without due process, and get this -- without being able to view the evidence against them or face their accusers. Their accusers and the evidence remains a secret. Your rights would be denied solely by a secret-police list.
You can't challenge the proposed law's legality because it hasn't got any. It would not pass even the slightest scrutiny, and they know that, hence that clause. My republican senator from Arizona, Jeff Flake, supports this, smiling when he announced it on TV.
The people proposing this 17-page tyrannical travesty should be removed from office.
No court shall consider the lawfulness or constitutionality of this section.
This wholesale violation of the Bill of Rights evaporates the Second, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. There is no valid legal argument for doing this. In fact, the arguments being used are overwhelmingly absurd. It's preposterous even if you hate guns -- it makes no sense -- while undermining our entire legal system. Does that matter?
The sound bite looks good at first blush:
It's insane to let people on the no-fly list buy guns.
But the truth burns the sound bite:
Then isn't it insane to let people on the no-fly list travel?
And isn't it insane to let people on the no-fly list keep all the guns they have?
(They can you know, didn't anyone tell you that?) That's because:
People on the no-fly list aren't charged with anything,
haven't been convicted of anything,
and can't be locked up for any violation of anything.
If people on the no-fly list are that dangerous -- why are they out walking around?
What's to stop them from driving to Orlando, or taking Amtrak or a bus? (Hint: nothing.)
And don't the TSAairport checkpoints work on these people?
They work on us -- or don't they?
And how do you get on the list if you aren't charged with anything? (It's a secret.)
And if they're that bad, how come the law lets them keep guns they already have?
(People added to the no-fly list can't buy new guns but are not banned from guns in any other way.)
But the real truth is too deep for most people today, and is grounds to have politicians removed from office:
Politicians want to give central government the power to take people's rights away by writing your names on a list. Their justification: "The muslims made me do it!"
The democrats' dream scheme gives broad discretion to "proper authorities" to decide if you can buy a gun. The conditions are spelled out for many pages. Any bureaucrat could fit you into the descriptions with ease. Does this make you safer, or make you feel safer?
By coincidence, the same Justice Dept. decides if: 1) you meet the criteria for the no-new-guns list, and 2) for the freedom-to-travel-but-not-by-air list, and 3) it's the same Justice Dept. that controls review of the list, and 4) it also controls appeals for reversals if you sue. By law, after your first hearing, no appeals are allowed. Have a nice day:
"(h) EXCLUSIVE REMEDY.—The judicial review under a petition for review filed under subsection (c)* shall be the sole and exclusive remedy for a claim by an individual who challenges a denial under subsection (a)(1).
* "(c) An individual... who seeks to challenge a denial... may file a petition for review and any claims related to that petition in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit or in the court of appeals of the United States for the judicial circuit in which the individual resides."
And for good measure, in case you want to know why you have been denied:
"(d)(4) No discovery shall be permitted, unless the court shall determine extraordinary circumstances requires discovery in the interests of justice." Read it all for yourself if you have the stomach.
Please pardon my constant rant, but why hasn't the "news" media even mentioned any of this? The public is too bored with the details? They can't understand it, haven't got the attention span? It's not sexy enough? We don't need an informed republic? Constant repetition of inanity is enough? We need more time to hear about the candidates?
HERE'S WHERE IT GETS UGLY
"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 except pursuant to a petition for review under section."
Yes, this says you cannot question if the Flake Amendment (my name for it), the no-fly-no-buy law is legal. Clearly, it isn't, hence they won't tolerate questions. This is so much like what we endured with King George.
The absurd attempt to deny review if this thing gets enough votes is an affront to every American -- blamed on the muslim jihad, guns, and rationalized for safety. Due process is removed, you are guilty before any trial, and in fact there is no trial. Constitutional rights are simply summarily suspended.
But second, look again, the sentence is incomplete, so it makes no grammatical sense. It could be used at the discretion of whoever implements it, unless or until challenged, "pursuant to a review under section." This has no meaning. They know this. There is no review.
There are plenty of other problems of course, but do you really want to be bored? The members of Congress yelling from the floor only read the Talking Points, if that, and those don't mention what's actually in the bill. They just say, "Save the children," metaphorically speaking. The media is no better, they're just broadcasting the spitting. I've asked around. I had a hard time find the language myself.
No need to take my word for it.
You can read it, it's in more-or-less English. I posted it here:
The “news” media is ranting the democrats familiar song, after a muslim jihadi committed atrocities in a gay nightclub: “We must ban the AR-15, a weapon of war, it has no place in the public’s hands. Why does anyone need an AR-15 to murder Bambi?”
It doesn’t matter to the “fair and balanced“ media that the mass murderer (not “gunman,” a deliberate derogatory sexist slur against men—and guns) didn’t use or even have an AR-15.
Read more at Townhall.com.
Today we're looking at what may be the most ridiculous gun myth the (non) progressive left has convinced itself-and most everyone else-is real. “We've got to get the guns off the street!”
Look, folks, there are no guns on the street. Sure, it's just an expression, I get that, but it's not really. It has risen to urban legend, and is said and believed with such vigor it distorts a rational view of reality and the problems we face. Just like all the gun myths do. It causes severe harm.
In the good parts of town, which is virtually everywhere, guns are in drawers, and closets, and nightstands, and gun safes, and quick access devices, and beautiful wood and glass gun cabinets. And kitchen drawers. And holsters of every shape and description imaginable. And in glove boxes and every other compartment of vehicles. And in gun stores, can't forget those. Guns are everywhere in America, all 300+ million of them. In at least 60 million safely armed homes. But they are not on the streets. They never were. It's mythical, from minds that need treatment.
In the bad parts of town, what reformers can no longer call ghettos but now sanitize as the inner city, or impoverished neighborhoods, or neighborhoods of color, or ethnic communities, or who can keep up with what the left calls the places where gangs hang and so many murders occur, well, the guns aren't on the streets there either.
They're actually in the same places you'll find them in the good neighborhoods. In homes, vehicles, sometimes under lock and key, sometimes not. Often enough people carry them, sometimes legally. But the guns aren't on the streets. People are on the streets. The guns are under people's control. Just like anywhere. The left needs to be sayin' “We've got to get the guns away from the criminals.” Tellingly, they don't.
So you can see the point. Guns aren't on the streets. That's a twisted view of the world and of guns, held by a twisted portion of the population that is so out of its mind with gun fear that it fantasizes about guns and gets it all wrong. There are no guns on streets. As long as you think that way you have no prayer of finding an answer.
What you have on the streets are criminals. Malcontents. Miscreants. Gangsters. People with no moral compunction or sense of decorum or decency. People who would rob and beat you senseless in a heartbeat if they thought they could get away with it or get something out of it, even just kicks. They do it in large measure to each other, becoming banal statistics. You hear about the 6,000 black-on-black murders constantly. What you don't hear about are the 6,000 murder trials, because there aren't any. Black lives don't matter enough.
People exist who would shoot each other (or you) just to prove who they are, because they think so little of themselves. Life means little to them, they're out there. That's what you have “on the streets.” That's what we have to take off the streets. That's why good people carry guns -- it's rational.
Criminals have guns they're not allowed by law to have? But of course, monsieur! This is how it works. They represent a threat to society. They would assault you without compunction or remorse -- that's the problem. We don't have to get guns off a street they are not on. We have to get the murderers and stickup artists off the street. Until you start thinking like that, you will never solve the problem.
“Some people prey on other people.” Col. Jeff Cooper put it that way. He was right. Focus on that. Many more people would support removing all guns -- as long as you start with the criminals first. But that's sarcasm of course, there's no way to do that or 1) we'd have done it already, and 2) that's why the antis go after the innocent -- because they can. Until that changes, the world remains a dangerous place (like, since time began, and probably forever, nature's plan).
Connecting the dots, it is now evident progressives on the left aren't progressive at all, they're delusional, interested in getting guns off streets they are not on. The left is using a convenient catch phrase to confuse the issue -- a marxist technique from Saul Alinsky -- to evaporate your rights under false pretenses. Man, they are good at it.
“The left lies better than we tell the truth.” --Becky Fenger.
The “JPFO” Orlando Solution for Jihadis:
BLOOMFIELD PRESS • GunLaws.com
4848 E. Cactus #505-440 • Scottsdale, AZ 85254 • 1-800-707-4020 Orders
602-996-4020 • firstname.lastname@example.org
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE -- June 15, 2016
The just-released booklet, Why Jews MUST Learn How to Shoot, provides the answer to the global jihad, which just touched America in Orlando, Fla., killing scores of people in a gay nightclub.
Gay “infidels” are a primary target of radicalized Muslims terrorizing the world. JPFO, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, a stalwart supporter of the gay Pink Pistols and the LGBT community’s right to arms, has published the controversial monograph.
Gran’pa Jack, the main character in the illustrated booklet (the 9th in a series started by JPFO founder Aaron Zelman), advises his grandkids that everyone, not just Jews, must learn how to shoot because of all the evil in the world. As fate would have it, he specifically mentions you must know how to shoot armed jihadis, as well as other outlaws, using guns to stop them when they harm innocent people.
The booklet is written so a child can understand it, but covers topics adults may not get if they rely on so-called mainstream sources for their news and information. Guns serve invaluable roles in American society, but are only portrayed in uniformly negative ways in the old media. This simple booklet reveals truths the so-called mainstream bends over backwards to hide from the public.
The lowest estimates indicate more than 100,000 defensive gun uses every year. The best scholarly figures show that guns save lives and stop crime more than 2.5 million times annually. Imagine how different the debate would be if the “fair and balanced media” showed even a fraction of that! Check out the bias: http://www.gunlaws.com/
Gran’pa Jack and his grandkids and friends have an educational time going to the range, learning how and why guns are useful and historic traditions for most Americans. Guns save lives, protect people and robust private firearm ownership is why America is still free. “Why don’t they teach us any of this in school?” Jack’s granddaughter asks. Gran’pa takes an honest look at the lack of education taking place in so many schools today and the role of educators as suppressors.
Jack’s black chum Leon adds candid commentary on the state of affairs in the black community, broadening the appeal, making it clear all Americans are potentially targets of attack. Bible passages are mentioned only to illustrate that the Book recognized evil exists and resisting it with force, even lethal force when absolutely necessary, is reasonable behavior, justifiable and required to preserve the precious gift of life.
Gran’pa Jack and JPFO propose the only course of action that is proven effective to thwart the jihadis and mass murderers—who always arm themselves illegally when seeking to prematurely end our lives. “YOU must learn to shoot.” As the jihad intensifies, you may come around to this view. A rogues gallery of other modern-day villains is included. It’s a long list—the global jihad is not the only threat facing America.
This booklet expresses JPFO’s adamant resistance to the anti-freedom approach of some public figures who are campaigning to diminish the public’s right to arms. Reducing your access to the high quality firearms and ammo our police and military prefer, as some misguided politicians dangerously demand, only makes matters worse, since we face the same predators —as the Orlando murders showed. “The correct response to a mass murderer is not to restrict the public, but to empower the public and give us every advantage possible over potential criminals.” –JPFO Policy.
Bloomfield Press believes candidates and politicians who do not support an uninfringed right to keep and bear arms for decent regular citizens are not worthy of holding office and should be removed.
Get and read Gran’pa Jack #9, then give it to someone you love. Buy a dozen for only $20 bucks and do some good with your copies.
Why Jews MUST Learn To Shoot!
by Kjartan Arnorsson and Alan Korwin with the late Ray Carter
Publisher: Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
Cheaper by the 100, and worth it, call:
JPFO.org • 12500 N.E. Tenth Place • Bellevue, WA 98005
1-800-869-1884 • email@example.com
|See the archives below, or click through to an index of Page Nine posts at Gunlaws.com|
|1.||Mar 17: Sailorcurt on "People of Color" Is Racism|
|2.||Dec 20: Richard Lutz on How to Manipulate a Poll|
|3.||Dec 18: Richard Lutz on Tucson Melting Guns. Again|
|4.||Dec 16: Old 1811 on Illegal Immigrants Come and Go|
|5.||Dec 14: rick on Fake News|
|6.||Dec 14: rick on Fake News|
|7.||Oct 31: Vince Barbour on For Arizona Voters|
|8.||Oct 30: thinkingman on Growth in Arizona Gun Law|
|9.||Oct 28: Vince Barbour on Miscellanea|
|10.||Oct 08: RICK on To Be Fair Just Let Anyone Vote|