Second Amendment

Johns Hopkins Study: No Evidence ‘Assault Weapon’ Bans Reduce Mass Shootings

A study released by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health declares there is no evidence “assault weapon” bans lead to a lower “incidence of fatal mass shootings.” The push for an “assault weapons” ban is central to the Democrats’ gun control agenda nationally and is front and center for Democrats at the state level in places like Arizona and Virginia. According to the Johns Hopkins study, researchers”did not find an independent association between assault weapon bans and the incidence of fatal mass shootings.” Researchers did claim licensing requirements like those in Connecticut help reduce the number of mass shootings, but their study omitted the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School in which 26 were killed at the school and another victim was killed in a private home. In other words, a study which claims licensing reduces instances of mass shootings omitted one of the most often cited mass shootings in U.S. history, even though that shooting occurred in a licensing state. Moreover, John Hopkins’ criteria for licensing laws allowed them to bypass Illinois which, in turn, allowed them to sidestep the never ending gun crime of Chicago. But the study was clear there is no evidence tying “assault weapons” to a lower incidence of mass shootings.

Gee..  Imagine that…  This is the type of story you will NEVER see on CNN, MSNBC, PBS/NPR, or any other organ of the dominantly liberal mainstream media, as it totally undercuts their fascist anti-gun narrative.

Joe Biden: It Is Rational to Prohibit ’50 Clips in a Weapon’

Democrat presidential hopeful Joe Biden spoke in Hudson, New Hampshire, this week and told attendees that it is “rational” to prohibit “50 clips in a weapon.” Ryan Saavedra quoted Biden maligning the absence of “a rational policy” that makes it illegal to have “20, 30, 40, 50 clips in a weapon.” Also in Hudson, Biden intimated that gun owners who cling to their AR-15s and AK-47s are no match for the government. He made reference to gun owners who quote Thomas Jefferson’s statement on the tension that exists between free men and the rulers who wish to subjugate them, a statement that includes Jefferson’s observation that “the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants.” Biden then said, “Those who say ‘the tree of liberty is watered with the blood of patriots’ — a great line, well, guess what: The fact is, if you’re going to take on the government, you need an F-15 with Hellfire missiles. There is no way an AK-47 is going to take care of you if you’re worried about the government knocking down your door.” He also stressed his belief that the right to keep and bear arms is limited, saying, “There is a Second Amendment, and you do have a right to bear arms but not an unlimited right.” He added, “The Constitution does not say anybody can own a weapon; it says only certain people can own weapons.”

Wow…  Just think, crazy ol’ Joe is a former Senator and former Vice President of these United States, and he’s saying such spectacularly, factually incorrect statements like this.  I’ve got the Constitution and the Bill of Rights right here in front of me, and NOWHERE does the Second Amendment specify who can, and who cannot own a weapon.  As for the clips comment…  C’mon..  We all know he means “rounds;” not clips.  So, on that minor gaffe, we’ll give him a minor pass.  But, he’s SO out-of-touch, and being 77, his age is showing.  Joe should have just stayed retired.  Now, he’s just making a fool of himself each time he gets on stage.  Ya almost feel sorry for him..  It’s unlikely he’ll get the Dem nomination now, and even if he somehow pulls that off, he’d get destroyed and humiliated by Trump.

Texas churchgoers are training to fight off attackers wielding guns

Beneath the Christmas lights still hanging in the church’s fellowship room, Jack Mills pointed a Glock handgun at his enemy’s chest and pulled the trigger. A loud crack rang out as a shell casing flew from the weapon, but the man facing the gunfire didn’t fall. Instead a red light on his high-tech vest began blinking, signaling a hit from the laser in Mills’ gun. A U.S. Air Force veteran, Mills began designing the equipment a year ago to help armed churchgoers learn how to confront a gunman. Shooting a paper target is one thing, Mills said. Firing at a real person is another. “If you haven’t shot somebody in the face, how do you know you can?” he said. Mills is part of a growing cottage industry in Texas that uses police-like tactics to train churchgoers who fear the next attack could target their house of worship. Requests for help spike after each tragedy, businesses said. The most recent came in December, when a man opened fire during Sunday service at a White Settlement church and killed two worshippers, before he was fatally shot by an armed congregant. There’s no official count of how many congregation members pack heat in Texas churches. But security businesses said the number is growing thanks to recent changes by the Legislature that make it easier for worshippers to carry guns in church and form teams of armed protectors. With few industry standards, however, the training offered in Texas runs the gamut from active shooter drills, to programs that demand congregants pass a psychological evaluation and train for hours in life-like scenarios. One Texas firm has a trainer walk the church halls shooting blanks, so parishioners learn what approaching gunfire sounds like in their own sanctuary. “What’s driving it is an awareness,” said Carl Chinn, president of the national Faith Based Security Network. “We were under some illusion that because we had a cross on the roof and a name over the door that we were somehow immune from these kinds of attacks.” Still, congregations grapple with whether to welcome guns in the door. Just under half of 1,000 Protestant pastors nationwide reported arming their members, according to a survey released in January by Lifeway Research. Roughly 6% of the pastors said they hire police or armed security during services, a step that can be out of reach for smaller churches that don’t have the funding. Some critics warn that letting congregants carry guns without any training could lead to catastrophe if a firefight erupts in a crowded church. It can be a delicate balance stationing armed congregants at the church doors, while still maintaining an atmosphere inviting to newcomers.

To read more, click on the text above.

Ammo Sales Surge as Virginians Anticipate Democrat Gun Control

Ammunition sales are surging as many Virginian seek to stock up ahead of a slew of Democrat-mandated gun controls for the state. WSET reports online ammunition seller AmmunitionToGo.com notes a 137 percent increase in ammo sales to Virginians now versus this same time last year. AmmunitionToGo’s Brandon Black said, “We’re now seeing a massive number of Virginia shooters stocking up on ammunition in anticipation of new laws that they believe will make it harder to purchase rounds legally.” Black noted firearm and ammunition sales are impacted by political change in a way unseen with other retail items. He said, “I doubt that any other businesses are affected as much by politics as firearm and ammunition manufacturers and retailers.” WSET reports Virginians have purchased enough ammo to take the state from simply being in AmmunitionToGo’s “top 20 markets” to being in the top five. On January 21, 2020–the day after thousands rallied for Second Amendment rights in Virginia–WJLA quoted a Democrat State Senator making clear his conviction a mandate for gun control remains. Sen. Scott Surovell (D-Fairfax) said, “We are in charge now” and “We feel like we have a mandate to do something and we are going to continue to move forward.” On the very next day the Virginia Senate took up various gun controls. Breitbart News reported those controls included a permanent ban on exercising Second Amendment rights on Virginia Capitol grounds. Stricter requirements for concealed carry permit issuance, gun storage laws, and penalties for gun owners who fail to report stolen firearms within 24 hours of the theft, are also being pushed. House Bill 961 would put in place a licensing requirement for all AR-15 owners and Democrats have made clear that the licensing process would be used to create a database of said owners.

The Democrat anti-gun, fascist Nazis are in charge in Virginia now…and they’re putting a target on the backs of law-abiding gun owners in that state.  Keep this in mind come November when we all go to the polls.  This is what happens when Democrats are in power.  They come for your guns and raise your taxes.  Unreal…

For First Time, A Colorado Judge Denies Confiscation Request Under Red Flag Law

For the first time, a judge has denied a request to take away a man’s guns under Colorado’s new red flag law. A Limon woman claimed a man who she had a relationship with threatened her with a gun and filed the request. Since the law took effect, the red flag law has had many gun owners seeing red. At least four requests have been filed since the first of 2020; CBS4 is aware of them being filed in Denver, in Larimer County and this one — in Lincoln County. Many gun owners, like Jak Gruenberg, despise it. “Red flag laws just allow for harassment of legal gun owners,” he said. The law allows guns to be taken away from those who present a danger to themselves or others. The decision is up to a judge. A woman wrote she was getting “verbal and physical threats” with a handgun from the man identified in the order. She said he had a problem with alcohol and marijuana. The judge denied the request to take his guns. “I think it’s a good thing. I think any other new law you’re going to have a lot of case law to determine exactly where the lines are,” said Gruenberg, a gun owner not associated with the case. Lincoln County is one of the many counties that has indicated it would not honor the red flag law.

This so-called “red flag law” in Colorado (and in other states) is brazenly unconstitutional on its face.  And, the fact that some local judge can arbitrarily make the decision as to whether or not they’ll sign an order to remove someone’s guns without due process should have every law-abiding gun owner in Colorado (and other states that have similar laws) terrified.  Anybody can just go into a police station and say, “so and so scares me and I think he should have his guns taken away,” and then it goes to some local judge who makes the arbitrary decision.  Crazy!!  This is the kinda crap that happens when Democrats are in power.  The raise your taxes, increase the size and scope of government, and take away your freedoms.  Unreal…

Tomi Lahren: Why Dems don’t want to talk about the Texas church shooting

Sunday morning’s Texas church shooting is proof for why Americans need the Second Amendment, Fox Nation host Tomi Lahren said Tuesday. Appearing on “Fox & Friends” with hosts Dean Cain, Griff Jenkins and Rachel Campos-Duffy, Lahren said that the only way to “root out evil” is for “good people to stand up, step up, and do what they have been trained to do.” Two men were killed when a gunman opened fire Sunday at West Freeway Church of Christ in White Settlement, Texas. More than 240 parishioners were inside. Within seconds, he was shot to death by two congregants who fired back. “It’s not just for hunting. It’s not just for recreation. It’s for incidents just like this,” said Lahren. “Well, you have a lot of Democrats and a lot of anti-gun rights advocates being very quiet right now because they don’t want to talk about what happened in Texas,” she noted. “Because they know that it’s a win for the Second Amendment and they know that it’s exactly why gun rights advocates talk about the Second Amendment and how important it is.” Lahren said that Democrats don’t want to “fess up” and “own that” because “they know it doesn’t do anything to their anti-gun narrative that they’re going to be pushing all through this election cycle.” She added that states’ gun-free zones neuter law-abiding citizens like the Texas churchgoers, adding that bad guys don’t care about laws. “If they cared about your laws, they would respect the laws in the book and not carry a shotgun into a church to destroy innocent lives,” she told the “Friends” hosts.

Exactly!  And well said, Tomi.  What happened in that church in Texas completely undermines the Dem, anti-gun narrative.  Good guys with guns neutralized a bad guy within 6 seconds…SIX SECONDS, and countless other lives were saved.  Period.  Those two law abiding gun owners stopped a bad guy and demonstrated the value of owning a firearm for personal protection.  That was the lesson/take-away from that incident.  And, the anti-gun Nazis are doing everything they can to downplay this event, because they know it undermines their narrative as we get ready to go into an election year.  Kudos to those two church parishioners in Texas for standing up and doing the right thing without giving it a moments thought.

Supreme Court: Right to bear arms protected by highest category of liberty recognized by law

Last weekend’s mass murders in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, have produced a flood of words about everything from gun control to mental illness to white nationalism. Most of those words have addressed the right to keep and bear arms as if it were a gift from the government. It isn’t. The U.S. Supreme Court has twice ruled in the past 11 years that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual pre-political liberty. That is the highest category of liberty recognized in the law. It is akin to the freedoms of thought, speech and personality. That means that the court has recognized that the framers did not bestow this right upon us. Rather, they recognized its pre-existence as an extension of our natural human right to self-defense and they forbade government — state and federal — from infringing upon it. It would be exquisitely unfair, profoundly unconstitutional and historically un-American for the rights of law-abiding folks — “surrender that rifle you own legally and use safely because some other folks have used that same type of weapon criminally” — to be impaired in the name of public safety. It would also be irrational. A person willing to kill innocents and be killed by the police while doing so surely would have no qualms about violating a state or federal law that prohibited the general ownership of the weapon he was about to use. With all of this as background, and the country anguishing over the mass deaths of innocents, the feds and the states face a choice between a knee-jerk but popular restriction of some form of gun ownership, and the rational and sound realization that more guns in the hands of those properly trained means less crime and more safety. Can the government constitutionally outlaw the types of rifles used by the El Paso and Dayton killers? In a word: No. We know that because in the first Supreme Court opinion upholding the individual right to keep and bear arms, the court addressed what kind of arms the Second Amendment protects. The court ruled that the Second Amendment protects individual ownership of weapons one can carry that are of the same degree of sophistication as the bad guys have — or the government has. The government? Yes, the government. That’s so because the Second Amendment was not written to protect the right to shoot deer. It was written to protect the right to shoot at tyrants and their agents when they have stolen liberty or property from the people. If you don’t believe me on this, then read the Declaration of Independence. It justifies violence against the British government because of such thefts. Governments are the greatest mass killers on the planet. Who can take without alarm any of their threats to emasculate our right to defend our personal liberties?

Agreed..   Thanks to Andrew Napolitano for reminding us how much our precious Second Amendment is protected.  Andrew is a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey.  He is the author of nine books on the U.S. Constitution.