Posts Tagged ‘gun control’
The Reason We Have a Second Amendment
This is American History. The history few of our public schools or institutions of higher learning teach any more. Our ignorance has and always will be our undoing.
The Second Amendment was inspired by British plans to disarm every American. A part of you probably already knew this, but didn’t have the details. Those details should chill you to the bones and give you every piece of evidence you need moving forward through the renewed gun debates. So buckle up.
It began In 1768. “The freeholders” led by John Hancock and James Otis, met in Boston at Faneuil Hall and passed several resolutions, including “that the Subjects being Protestants, may have Arms for their Defense.” The royal governor rejected this proposal. The petition was then circulated under the pseudonym “A.B.C.” It is likely this was Samual Adams. “It is reported that the governor has said that he has Three Things in Command from the Ministry, more grievous to the people than any thing hitherto made known. It is conjectured 1st, that the inhabitants of this province are to be disarmed. 2nd The province is to be governed under Martial Law. 3rd that a number of gentlemen who have exerted themselves in the cause of their country are to be seized and sent to Great Britain. Unhappy America! When thy enemies are rewarded with honors and riches; but they friends punished and ruined only for asserting thy rights, and pleading for they freedom.”
Shortly after Sam Adams’ petition was circulated, per the Boston Evening Post, (Oct. 3, 1768) British troops took over Faneuil Hall. Then, per The New York Journal, (Feb. 2, 1769) they ordered colonists turn in their guns. “That the inhabitants had been ordered to bring in their arms, which in general they had complied with; and that those in possession of any after the expiration of a notice given them, were to take the consequences. Sam Adams would write about this time later that month saying, “it is said orders will soon be given to prevent the exportation of either navel or military stores, gun-powder, to any part of North-America.”
In another article he signed “E.A.”, Samual Adams went on to recall, “The right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defense.” Under the auxiliary subordinate rights of the English Bill of Rights. Shortly after in 1770 protesters “armed with sticks” were shot dead in the streets of Boston during the infamous Boston Massacre. It would be 4 years before the first physical attempt to disarm the Colonists would be tried and would fail. This per the Massachusetts Spy, Sept. 8, 1774 – “It is said, it was proposed in the Divan last Wednesday that the inhabitants of this town should be disarmed and that some of the new-fangled counsellors consented thereto, but happily a majority was against it.”
Now comes the part that makes my blood boil and reminds me of Democrat voters who most assuredly would be on the side of the English and would pull a similar stunt to entrap their opponents. In an affidavit, a man name Thomas Ditson testified that an Undercover British soldier pressured to him to buy a gun he had. When Ditson caved, a group of British soldiers appeared and he was tarred and feathered. “I enquired of some Townsmen who had any guns to sell,” he said. “One whom I did not know, replied he had a very fine gun to sell.” Ditson felt, “there was something not right…and left the gun”, but the townsmen followed him and urged him to buy the gun.
The Connecticut Courant had this account in April 3, 1775 revealing ammunition seizures followed. “The Neck Guard seized 13,425 musket cartages with ball, (we suppose through the information of some dirty scoundrel, of which we have now many among us) and about 300 pounds of ball, which we were carrying into the country – this was private property – The owner applied to the General first, but he absolutely refused to deliver it.”
This was followed shortly there after by the widely published American account of April 19, 1775, when a British officer shouted: “Disperse you Rebels—Damn you, throw down your Arms and disperse.” Then per the Connecticut Courant, a General Gage decided to change the British tune. See, They just wanted to hold the guns for a little bit “for safe keeping” and then they promised to return them; “And that, the arms aforesaid at a suitable time would be return’d to the owners.” Bostonians proceeded to turn in 1778 muskets, 634 pistols, 973 bayonets and 38 blunderbusses.
In June of 1775 General Gage declared martial law and offered to pardon to all who would lay down their arms—except Samuel Adams and John Hancock. Seriously though, how badass were these guys? The Gazettes in Virginia and Maryland both reported more attempts to confiscate weapons through the summer of 1775. The Continental Congress adopted “The Declaration of Causes of Taking Up Arms”, July 6, 1775. This was drafted by Thomas Jefferson and John Dickinson, and to be perfectly honest, we should probably know as much about it as we do the founding Documents.
Wonder why we don’t.
“It was stipulated that the said inhabitants having deposited their arms with their own magistrates, should have liberty to depart.” They accordingly delivered up their arms, but in open violation of honor, in defiance of the obligations of treaties, which even savage nations esteem sacred, the governor ordered the arms deposited as aforesaid, that they might be preserved for the owners to be “seized by a body of soldiers.” In other words, they went back on their “word.”
In 1777, British General William Knox, under British Secretary of State, circulated a proposal entitled “What is it to be Done with America?” Along with the unlimited power to tax and an official Church, what else did he propose? You guessed it. YET AGAIN. Gun confiscation. “The militia laws should be repealed and none suffered to be reenacted, & the arms of all the people should be taken away, & every piece of ordnance removed into the King’s stores, nor should any foundry or manufactory of arms, gunpowder, or warlike stores, be ever suffered in America, nor should any gunpowder, lead, arms or ordnance be imported into it without license; they will have but little need of such things for the future, as the King’s troops, ships, and forts will be sufficient to protect them from any danger.”
This time it was too late. The colonists were at war. The damage had been done.
To this point in time the colonists had endured entrapment, banning of imports, promises of “safekeeping” and return at some point, direct seizure of guns, and tar and feathering of any who refused to comply. But the British weren’t opposed to shooting anyone bearing what they called “arms.”
As we watch Congress bloviate today over ways to disarm us, we’re reminded of all these ways the British tried to do the same thing 250 years ago and how that congress fought to save us from the common enemy. We beat the British and won our freedom, however, it appears those who consider themselves our betters and currently rule in positions of government and power have decided to use these old worn out and tired tactics against America again.
Now it seems many of those who supposedly serve in congress are no different than our old enemy. They are, quite frankly, the enemy within. They do their dirty work by preying on the good hearts and minds of the people. Using the victims of shootings to push their age old ploy. Effectively dancing on the graves of the dead while using the dead to shame any who would suggest disarmament isn’t the answer to the evil designs of evil people. This is how they gain powerful minorities or even outright majorities calling for an end to the horrible loss of life. No one wants to see innocents slain. No one. Not pro-gun nor anti-gun. But the anti-gunners know how to manipulate. They know how to blur the truth, how to hide or fix the data, how to use Hollywood and Professional athletes to push the narrative.
Strangely, the shootings always come in bunches right around elections. They happen in inexplicable numbers in short periods of time almost as if they are driven by the 24 hour news cycle frenzy. Talking heads reading the scripts handed to them by the “King’s Men” and before we know it they have the votes and our right to defend ourselves, our homes, and our property are gone and millions of law abiding Americans become criminals overnight.
So what do we do?
We learn from our past.
Sam Adams had always drawn the connection that those who wanted to disarm us, also fiercely wanted to stop us from petitioning our grievances. There is more power in petitioning grievances than we realize and that is why the founders enshrined it in the first amendment—Before the second amendment.
Maybe that’s a good place to start. In the meantime, bone up on our history and be ready to defend the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights…EVERY ONE OF THEM.
Sources: Archives of Boston Evening Post, Boston Gazette, Massachusetts Spy, Massachusetts Gazette, Connecticut Courant, Essex Gazette, Connecticut Journal, Virginia Gazette, and The Independent Institute.
A Declaration for the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms.
Thanks to The Red Headed Libertarian on Twitter for the sources and highlights.
Is it Time for Civil Disobedience?
Civil Disobedience is the act of disobeying a law on grounds of moral or political principle. The classic treatise on this topic is Henry David Thoreau’s “On the Duty of Civil Disobedience,” which states that when a person’s conscience and the laws clash, that person must follow his or her conscience.
The U.S. Bill of Rights asserts that the authority of a government is derived from the consent of the governed, and whenever any form of government becomes destructive, it is the right and duty of the people to alter or abolish it.
Civil disobedience is often an effective means of changing laws and protecting liberties. It also embodies an important moral concept that there are times when law and justice do not coincide and that to obey the law at such times can be an abdication of ethical responsibility. The choice of civil disobedience and non-cooperation is not for everyone. We all choose to do what feels right to us personally.
I share former congressman Allen West’s opinion on the recent executive orders issued by President Obama with regard to gun control. I deem them unconstitutional and an attempt to circumvent the 2nd amendment incrementally. To set the stage for future liberal progressive ideologues to eventually disarm the populace.
Those in favor of the president’s actions claim his executive orders are innocuous and simply strengthen current gun laws. I suggest those making such claims study these orders in detail. Such study will perhaps awaken them to the big picture.
So I endorse and share this open letter to President Barack Obama penned by Mr. West and encourage all who read it to consider where they stand.
President Obama, before you try that gun grab, I have a WARNING for you
President Barack Hussein Obama, on behalf of true Americans, I want to inform you that we will not follow your unconstitutional executive order.
We the American people have no other recourse than to resort to civil disobedience. We have no representatives in Washington DC who will stand and the Supreme Court has failed us as well.
You have embraced violent protest movements in America such as Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter. We are not lowering ourselves to that despicable progressive socialist “rules for radicals” model.
We, the people, are just telling you “No.” We will now be sending you emails and social media posts as well as calling OUR White House to say one word, “No.”
And if you persist and take the same course of action as Xerxes, we will give you a two-word response, Molon Labe.
This is your final year as president of the United States so let us come to an agreement: you leave us alone and we, the American people, will let you stay and finish your term.
Heed these words of counsel. Our American blood is descended from men and women who rejected tyranny — so shall we honor their memory.
If you do not wish to honor your oath to the Constitution and protect us, we shall protect ourselves. And NEVER forget the oath we American Warriors take is to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign, and domestic.
I beseech you, do not come down on the wrong side of American history. Do not come out into the East Room and issue these executive orders, which you know very well are not constitutional. America is a Constitutional Republic, not a constitutional monarchy, and we are not ruled by edict.
We have a system of checks and balances, separation of powers, and coequal branches of government. If you cannot govern this Nation according to its principles and established laws, then tell us so, and kindly vacate the office.
Nothing you are proposing by this executive action has any relevance to recent incidents. You have released countless criminals and now you wish to restrict law-abiding citizens’ rights to keep and bear arms.
Go to your hometown in Chicago, take a walk this evening in Washington DC, or drive up to Baltimore if you want to rectify “gun violence.”
But as a proud gun owner, husband, dad of two daughters, the third of four generations of American combat veterans, a former Member of the US Congress, and an American, I am telling you simply, “Stand down.”
Allen West, January 5, 2016
The New York Times is the Paper of Advocacy
If anyone was still arguing whether the New York Times was fully vested in the Liberal mantra and political ideology, you need only look at the front page of Saturday’s edition, December 5, 2015.
An editorial on gun control.
Not since 1920 has the times run an editorial on page one.
In the past 95 years not a single page one editorial on Nazism, Communism, Pearl Harbor, Japanese internment camps, segregation, JFK’s assassination, or 9/11 to name a few noteworthy exceptions.
No, the Times feels gun control is the most important issue of the past century…
But this isn’t about the article. If you want to wade into the depthless and mundane here is a link to the editorial.
This is about blatant, open, in-your-face, advocacy by major news media. The paper of record is the paper of activism. Journalistic objectivity and integrity be damned. They’ve chosen sides.
“But it’s an editorial” you shout at your computer screen! “It’s opinion! It’s not the same as news!” Unfortunately in today’s “new media” the lines have been so blurred, that argument is becoming tougher to win.
The Times editorial, poorly written and shallow as it is, hit the Leftist talking points with shameless consistency, including a jab at Republican congressional leaders who “offer prayers for gun victims and then, callously and without fear of consequence, reject the most basic restrictions on weapons of mass killing, as they did on Thursday.”
What happened on Thursday?
“Every Senate Republican except Mark Kirk of Illinois voted against legislation to prevent people on the F.B.I.’s consolidated terrorist watch list from purchasing guns or explosives” and this has the Times editorial board on fire with righteous indignation aplenty!
How dare those hateful Republicans vote to allow over 700,000 people (up from 47,000 at the end of the Bush presidency) any form of due process or right to be considered innocent until proven guilty? How dare they consider the fact that these lists are about as arbitrary as any “Top 10 Best” lists you’ve ever seen, in the wake of these shootings?!?
Now Rewind to 2014 and two “New York Times” editorials. This was the Times’ stand on the terrorist watch lists just ONE YEAR AGO.
No Fly List is Unconstitutional!
The intellectual gymnastics being preformed by the Times would make any side-show contortionist proud.
This is what happens when you practice agenda driven journalism. Consistency goes out the window. Journalistic standards must be ignored or abolished altogether and before long you find yourself struggling to remain off par with the publications on the grocery store tabloid rack at the checkout stand.
It’s embarrassing to watch journalists become overzealous converts to a political ideology they are meant to watch and cover with skepticism, ever questioning, never endorsing, always neutral.
With the exception of editorials of course. Sure, whatever.
When You Treat Only the Symptoms and Ignore the Cause
When it comes to our health we’re taught not to ignore symptoms of illness and get them treated quickly so they don’t develop into something more serious later. If we visit a doctor he or she will attempt to learn the cause of the symptoms we are experiencing, find the root of the problem, diagnose and treat.
Done right, we get well and our symptoms disappear.
However, if the diagnosis only treats the symptoms in an attempt to only relieve pain or discomfort, the root cause will get worse and if left untreated can result with far worse or even fatal results.
Using this analogy, our nation has been suffering with painful symptoms of corruption, crime, debauchery, to name a few, for decades. Some will argue these problems have plagued our country in all generations, but I would suggest not at the magnitude or frequency we see today.
The doctors in this analogy are our civic leaders, elected to govern, to prevent societal ills if possible and treat them when discovered and to provide laws and regulations that work but are not overreaching or infringe upon the rights established in the constitution. Like a doctor, our leaders should have the knowledge and skill to diagnose the root cause of a problem and attack it with the proven methods to solve it. The doctor uses medicine, the politician uses principles. Without these tools the prognosis of a cure in either case is bleak at best.
The skilled physician who is altruistic in his approach can diagnose and treat disease with high levels of accuracy and success and with permanency. The not-so-skilled doctor or the doctor who may be less concerned about the patient than the pay, may only treat the symptoms prescribing treatment to provide temporary relief but certain to require return visits and more prescriptions. Regardless of intent this is not an uncommon occurrence in the medical practice today. 
The skilled politician who is altruistic in his approach and true to his oath of public service will look to long-standing principles that have worked to the benefit of all segments of society throughout history to diagnose and treat the ills described and attack the problem at its source through legislation that is enforceable, fair, and specific. The politician who seeks office for reason of fame, fortune, power, or anything outside the core values of public service will too often treat only the symptoms through appeasement, redistribution, giveaways, cronyism, deficit spending, inequitable taxation, and a litany of procedures to distract the public from the root cause and thereby avoid the more difficult task of actually solving the problem. Regardless of intent this is not an uncommon practice of political leaders in government today.
For an example we need only look at the current gun control debate. Too many elected officials are focused on a symptom, guns, when regarding the problem of violent crime specifically that of mass public shootings amplified by the recent school shooting in New Town, Connecticut where 26 people were shot by a mentally deranged man, 20 of those killed were children under age 7.
Indeed, guns are used to kill people, which is abhorrent to nearly every human being and because it is such a horrible thought it incites an immediate and powerful emotional response. But decisions made in the heat of emotion are almost always wrong. History, crime statistics, gun crime statistics, and common sense overwhelmingly discredits the current political diagnosis and prescribed treatment of the problem of violent crime in this country. Yet the emotional response being pushed by politicians and media is to ban entirely the weapons used in the commission of these crimes which infringes upon the rights of all people not just the criminals who voluntarily abdicate their rights the moment they commit a crime.
Emotion doesn’t recognize logic and emotion is driving the debate. Imagine your doctor making every decision on your behalf based on his or her emotional attachment to your malady. It doesn’t work in either case.
Until our elected officials recognize the root cause of most or our societal ills, moral decay and the blurring line between right and wrong, the disease will get worse and at some point it will become fatal.
I’ll punctuate my argument by sharing a video from the ongoing public hearings in Hartford, Connecticut concerning gun control, where Henson Ong issued a passionate defense of the Second Amendment with irrefutable facts and historical data. Exclamation point.
Related articles
- Father Of Slain 6-Year-Old Sandy Hook Victim: “Gun Laws Are Not The Problem” (freedomoutpost.com)
When the Media Gets It Wrong…Intentionally.
The major news media in the United States has failed its purpose and can no longer be trusted as a source of reliable, thorough, and objective information.
The Big 3 as they are known, ABC, CBS, and NBC, once a staple of the news and information diet of this nation have, by their own action or perhaps better stated inaction, alienated viewers and cast a shadow of doubt on the continuing freedom of this nation.
“Without a free press there can be no free society. That is axiomatic. However, freedom of the press is not an end in itself but a means to the end of a free society. The scope and nature of the constitutional guarantee of the freedom of the press are to be viewed and applied in that light.” – Felix Frankfurter, New York Times, November 28, 1954
Thomas Jefferson said, “I deplore… the putrid state into which our newspapers have passed and the malignity, the vulgarity, and mendacious spirit of those who write for them… These ordures are rapidly depraving the public taste and lessening its relish for sound food. As vehicles of information and a curb on our funtionaries, they have rendered themselves useless by forfeiting all title to belief… This has, in a great degree, been produced by the violence and malignity of party spirit.”
“The press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood.”
The power of the word in the hands of those viewed, read, or listened to by millions is immeasurable and when abused can have abhorrent consequences.
I believe our major news outlets are engaged in that abuse. Whether in ignorance by coercion, or as a willful accessory the Big 3 and many of the cable news networks and new media are not providing the citizens of this country with the information they need to make important social, political, and personal decisions.
The most recent glaring example comes in a report from the recent gun control hearings before a General Assembly task force in Hartford, CT where over 600 people, including many of the parents of the children killed in the Sandy Hook school shooting in December, were invited to share their thoughts and feelings on gun control and what might be done to curb the violence and prevent another Sandy Hook from happening again.
Comments came from all sides of this debate. More than 1500 people attended. The mood was somber as parents of lost children spoke. Some in favor of more gun control others against it. But it was the comments of one father, Neil Heslin, and reactive comments from some members of the audience that have been thrust into the forefront of the debate and are now being used to “prove” the insensitivity and coarseness of the argument on the right.
At one point during his comments Mr. Heslin turns and questions the audience, “I ask if there’s anybody in this room that can give me one reason or challenge this question … why anybody in this room needs to have one of these assault-style weapons or military weapons or high-capacity clips.” At this point Mr. Heslin pauses and looks around him as if awaiting an answer, when none came he said, “Not one person can answer that question.”
That’s when you hear several voices say, “The 2nd Amendment”. The few who answered did it respectfully. There was no shouting or hint of anger in the voices heard. Yet it has been widely reported that Mr. Heslin was “heckled” by the crowd. MSNBC aired a clip of the Mr. Heslin’s comment and the reaction to his question, however, they curiously edited out the part where Mr. Heslin pauses, looks for an answer, and then makes his statement that there is no answer. This selective editing (which NBC has now become infamous for with Andrea Mitchell’s doctored Mitt Romney clips and selectively editing the George Zimmerman police tapes) makes it look like Mr. Heslin indeed was being heckled. However, when you view the full video including Mr. Heslin’s question it becomes self-evident that no “heckling” occurred at all.
I’ve included the unedited video of Mr. Heslin’s comments so you can be the judge. Forward to about the 15 minute mark to hear the relevant comments.
Unfortunately, those who watch MSNBC or read articles posted in The Daily Beast, Slate (updated), The Huffington Post, Gawker or even Hearst Communications CT Post, a Connecticut newspaper, were provided a biased and incorrect perception of what actually occurred. Andrew Kaczynski of BuzzFeed Politics, CNN’s Piers Morgan, David Frum of the Daily Beast, Eric Boehlert of Media Matters, Michael Skolnik of the Global Grind, Democrat Congressman Jim Himes, Talking Point Memo’s Josh Marshall, and Vanity Fair’s Kurt Eichenwald all chimed in on their twitter feeds condemning the “gun nuts”, “gunners”, and “right wingers” for being soulless, horrible, uncivil human beings.
Here is the “edited” version shown at MSNBC’s website. Note the verbiage used in the URL string.
http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/01/29/emotional-father-of-sandy-hook-victim-heckled-by-gun-nuts/
Piers Morgan, the former tabloid chief and talent show judge, who now has his own “News Show” on CNN tweeted this gem after going to his unbiased objective news source Huffington Post.
Will any of these “news resources” admit their mistake, retract their false reports, and apologize for smearing decent people who happen to believe the 2nd Amendment is as relevant today as it was 235 years ago?
Don’t hold your breath.
It’s time for all Americans to demand the media return to its founding principles and begin reporting the truth. Until they change, we the people, can take our eyes and ears away from them. Be proactive. Contact the media networks. Make your voice heard. It makes a difference. They will notice.
Editor’s note: Slate has updated their story and is now saying it wasn’t heckling. Kudos to Slate for the correction. David Frum of theDailyBeast has also recanted his initial remarks on twitter but with a heavy helping of aspersion to go with it.
Your Little Book!
From the Washington Post:
“Piers Morgan dismissed gun-rights advocate John Lott by scoffing at him.
Piers Morgan dismissed gun-rights advocate Larry Pratt by insulting him.
Piers Morgan dismissed gun-rights advocate Alex Jones by saying nothing.
And Piers Morgan struggled to find the appropriate strategy for dismissing Ben Shapiro, editor-at-large of Breitbart.com and a foe of extraordinary polemical agility.”
When it comes to the topic of gun control, Piers Morgan continues to show himself to be little more than a vernacular illusionist. Like the guy who sits at the table with 3 cups and 1 ball fooling and frustrating each passerby with his smooth and tricky sleight of hand, Morgan used his well honed skills of aversion and confusion to make Lott, Pratt, and Jones look silly and ill-prepared. In Jones’ case victory was handed over on a silver platter when Jones became a tad agitated (understatement intended).
But Ben Shapiro, Editor-at-Large at Breitbart.com, came to his interview on CNN’s Piers Morgan Tonight, knowing the trick and by knowing, picked the right cup every time.
Shapiro was concise, confident, and most of all capable of putting Morgan on his heels, sending his straw men flying in the storm of facts Shapiro brought to the discussion. Including the bold accusation that Morgan was using the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting as a club to bully anyone who disagrees with his restrictive gun control stance.
Morgan, visibly taken back by the statement, could only reply with how dare you! “How dare you accuse me of standing on the graves of children that died there, how dare you?” To which Shapiro replied, “ I’ve seen you do it repeatedly, Piers…What you do, and I’ve seen you do it on your program, is you keep saying to folks if they disagree with you politically, then somehow this is a violation of what happened in Sandy Hook.” Morgan quickly switched the subject.’
At another point of the discussion Shapiro reached into his coat pocket and pulled out a miniature addition of the Constitution of the United States handing it to Morgan and encouraging him to read it, specifically the 2nd amendment. Morgan later in a huff would call it, “your little book”.
In a last ditch effort to save face and his crumbling argument, Morgan tried to turn the tables by accusing Shapiro of being the bully. Shapiro’s reply? “I call it punching back twice as hard”.
Which indeed is how you stop a bully. Ben Shapiro hit back at Piers Morgan and his baseless argument about guns in America with a powerful, knowledgeable, and fact-filled counter punch last night, the knock-out blow coming in “that little book”.
Well done, Mr. Shapiro. Well done.
Related articles
- Piers Morgan accused of exploiting Newtown (washingtonpost.com)
- Video: Piers Morgan discovers Ben Shapiro isn’t Alex Jones (hotair.com)
- Piers Morgan Gets OWNED By Ben Shapiro (dprogram.net)
- Ben Shapiro on why civilians need military style assault weapons: “For the perspective possibility of resistance to tyranny” (piersmorgan.blogs.cnn.com)
Guns and the Hearts of Men and Women
CNN’s British political pundit Piers Morgan has been making a case for gun control in the US and by so doing has been making statistical claims and comparisons between Great Britain and the USA to bolster his argument.
This week on Piers Morgan Tonight, his weekly program on CNN the Cable News Network, Morgan invited talk radio host and conspiracy theory icon Alex Jones onto the program to discuss gun control. The word discuss however would be an incredibly inaccurate definition of the dialogue that took place between Jones and Morgan. The colloquy that ensued must have had Morgan twisting and turning, jumping and shouting with glee on the inside, though you wouldn’t notice it on his calm and determined face.
Jones on the other hand came unhinged.
Regardless of whether you agree with Piers Morgan or Alex Jones or land somewhere in between, it’s important that facts be wielded correctly and in context. Neither Morgan nor Jones did that during this spectacle but Morgan has been peddling numbers and making statistical comparisons that simply don’t exist in fact. Jones facts got lost in the hysterical outburst that ensued where we were all left “rubber necking as if witnessing a terrible accident on the freeway.
FBI crime statistics which have recently come out for 2011 refute Piers Morgan’s argument, show his numbers to be low and incorrect, and more importantly show incontestably that guns do not cause violent crime, unstable people with evil and violent intentions use guns or any other weapon as tools to inflict their evil intentions.
Ben Swann, a broadcast journalist at Fox 19 WXIX in Cincinnati, Ohio, took Morgan to task on his numbers, comparisons, and insinuations on his Reality Check segment during a recent local newscast.
The numbers don’t lie but they can be cherry picked and used to mislead. Whether by intent, lazy fact checking, or ignorance, Piers Morgan is misleading his audience and bolstering an argument that isn’t based in fact. I don’t have a problem with Morgan’s opinion that some weapons should be banned. I do have a problem when he or anyone else misleads their audience and continually pegs the BS meter with false information.
Whether we, as US citizens, should support a ban on certain guns and/or gun accessories is a debate worth having but it must be won on its merits with all evidence laid out for all to see, digest, and then fall on a side. I believe in that scenario and when done with integrity the anti-gun argument falls apart and its non-solution position becomes self-evident.
The reasons for ratification of the second amendment of the United States constitution have not gone away. They are as valid today as they were the day it was ratified. A nation of citizens who cannot defend themselves are ripe for government overthrow and enslavement by tyrants. History has proven it over and over again. An armed citizenry does give pause to those who would consider such action and I believe prevents it from occurring.
Until all evil is eradicated from the face of the earth, the gun will be the determining factor as to whether men and women will remain free or lose their liberties and be ruled by an iron fist.
As Mr. Swann concluded in his report, “Violent crime is not the result of a gun or any tool, it is the result of the heart of men and women.”
Amen!
Related articles
- Piers Morgan told: ‘Republic will rise again when you attempt to take our guns’ (itv.com)
- Alex Jones on guns in America: “The Republic will rise again when you attempt to take our guns” (piersmorgan.blogs.cnn.com)
- ‘Deport Piers Morgan’ petition creator Alex Jones in pro-gun CNN rant at British presenter (telegraph.co.uk)
Sins of Omission
On December 14, 2012 a mentally unstable young man walked into a Connecticut elementary school and opened fire on students and faculty. The horrific act left 26 people dead, including 20 children. As would be expected following such a heart breaking ordeal there has been a lot of talk about increased gun control.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) has reintroduced an expired “assault” weapons ban in the Senate, British CNN host Piers Morgan has made it his full-time job educating Americans on the dangers of firearms, and left-leaning filmmaker Michael Moore has pleaded with “frightened,” gun-loving Americans to resolve their “race” problems.
But there has been a glaring omission from the side dominated in the mainstream media, Hollywood, and liberal politicians. In the midst of all the statistics being thrown at anyone who will watch or listen, including crime stats in both the US and abroad, there is a set of statistical data that is being completely ignored.
This video on YouTube was published at the end of December and puts this set of statistical data in its rightful and proper place in the gun control debate.
Why is it being omitted from the noisy arguments bombarding the public through the public airwaves? You’ll get a better idea once you’ve watched this video. You may also begin to understand why so many Americans no longer trust our major news outlets for their news and information.
It’s unfortunate that the Free Press appears to be ignoring key facts in a debate of this magnitude that debunk the emotional arguments surrounding gun control. It’s even more unfortunate how the Free Press has become a propaganda arm to government rather than the watch dog it was meant to be under the first amendment.
In case you want to review the statistical data for yourself here are citations for those resources:
FBI Uniform Crime Reports Table 1
FBI Uniform Crime Reports Table 16
FBI Uniform Crime Reports Table 8
Crimes Detected in England and Wales 2011/2012
Related articles
- Feinstein Gun Control Bill Requires Fingerprint Registration & Confiscation (amresolution.com)
Do As I Say, Not As I Do
A North Carolina State Senator was recently in the news after he shot one of two intruders at his home near Tabor City, NC. The intruder wasn’t killed and his injuries were reported to be non-life-threatening. 75 year-old RC Soles, Democrat in the North Carolina Senate, ultimately plead guilty to a misdemeanor assault charge, was fined $1,000 and sent home bringing cries of injustice from many in North Carolina. Whether his sentence was light or not isn’t the point. If he was acting in self defense I stand by his right to act as he did. But that’s not why this story made it into my blog nor is it what incited the headline.
You see, Senator Soles has a long history and has made his career in politics rallying against gun ownership for the general public. Interesting, how politicians like Soles are so eager to take away your right to defend yourself in your home with a gun yet don’t hesitate to do it themselves when faced by an intruder.
In typical hypocritical fashion, and some would say “Liberal fashion”, the “Do as I say and not as I do” Anti-Gun Activist Lawmaker picked up his gun and fired at his would-be assailant. Why hypocritical you may ask? One look at his long legislative record shows that the actions he took to protect his family, property, and life, are actions he feels ordinary citizens should not be allowed to take if they are faced with an identical situation.
It prompts us to ask if the Senator believes his life, family, and personal safety is more valuable than yours or mine. But, it’s what we’ve all come to expect from those who believe they can run our lives, raise our kids, and protect our families better than we can.
**********************************************************************************************************************
Just for fun here’s a little 2nd amendment “Tedbit O Fun” from our good friend Ted “Snakeskin Cowboy” Nugent as he schools CNN’s Piers Morgan on gun control. Gotta love Ted!
The Long Version 