Connect with us

Guns and Crime

Gun grabbing is a process that starts with ‘common sense’ measures and leads to oppression

Published

on

Common Sense Gun Control Measures

In today’s world of thousand-page pieces of legislation and 5000-word terms-of-use just to post an image on Instagram, it’s often challenging for people to understand how the 27 words of the 2nd Amendment can suffice. They do.

Let’s read them:

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.

There are sticking points that many will try to debate, particularly gun grabbers. They’ll point to “well regulated” and say that’s the reason we need more gun laws. They’ll say “Militia” is outdated and therefore the whole concept is outdated. They’ll even say that the idea of establishing “security of a free State” means the police and military and therefore shouldn’t apply to citizens.

They’ll skip the last half or, as is more common lately, say that the right to keep and bear arms should no longer apply to Americans.

Those are the talking points of the overt gun grabbers. I’m not as worried about those people. They can neither be convinced that they’re wrong nor bothered by actual facts, though an occasional exception does pop up from time to time:

How one gun-grabber slammed head-first into reality

https://www.conservativereview.com/articles/how-one-gun-grabber-slammed-head-first-into-realityLibresco went on to explain how she arrived at the conclusions many on the Right arrived at long ago. Both of these pieces, based on Libresco and her colleagues’ work, are worth the read. They are also worth sharing with your friends on the Left.

When presented with the facts, from someone who once believed as they do, perhaps the liberals you know will change their minds as well.

My bigger concern are the people on the right, left, and in-between who acknowledge the legitimacy of the 2nd Amendment and believe in gun owners’ rights but feel that we need just a little more in the law books to make it safer for everyone. They point to Las Vegas, Sandy Hook, and other mass shootings as examples for the necessity of stricter measures to make sure the “wrong people” don’t get their hands on the “wrong weapons” or any weapons at all.

There are two problems with that. One is big and one is much bigger. The big problem is the challenge with identifying what makes a person or a weapon wrong. Stephen Paddock, the Vegas shooter, was prescribed anti-anxiety drugs in June. He had no psychological issues reported nor did he have a criminal record. The two primary ways that common-sense gun law advocates want to identify potential violent criminals is through their psychological and criminal records. Unless we’re ready to take guns away from anyone in America with anxiety, no law could have identified Paddock as someone who shouldn’t possess firearms.

The other aspect of the argument is in controlling the types and/or quantities of guns and ammunition a person should be able to own. The laws on the books today already do this, often to an extent that some consider TOO drastic. With liberals and the media calling anything scary looking an “assault rifle” and making arguments that you don’t need a machine gun to hunt deer, it’s clear to anyone familiar with the laws as written that many on the left simply don’t understand guns, their applications, or the limits already in place.

If someone is determined to kill people with the type of modified weaponry Paddock used, the only laws that would prevent them from being able to do that are laws that would greatly hamper every American citizen’s rights to protect themselves from harm or oppression. Moreover, people like Paddock would still be capable of achieving their goals through illegal channels while law abiding citizens would by their nature be unable to do the same.

This brings us to the bigger problem: oppression. Two decades ago, it would have been hard to imagine America establishing unconstitutional healthcare mandates on the people. A decade ago, nearly 2/3rds of Americans, including Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, opposed gay marriage. Two years ago, nobody imagined the primary method of communication for the President would be Twitter. Things change culturally and politically. These changes are dramatic and often universal, just shy of a 1984 scenario where opinions are shifted swiftly and permanently. “Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia.”

It’s important to understand the speed at which things change in society today because the vast majority of Americans cannot imagine the need to defend themselves against oppression from within. We assume that the government has our back and will always have our back as long as we pay our taxes and don’t rip the labels off our mattresses. It’s unfathomable that circumstances may arise that convinces the government we’d all be better off if they seized more control, Constitution be damned.

I’m not a conspiracy theorist who thinks the government is out to get us. I don’t believe they’re turning the frogs gay. I have a healthy distrust of politicians who want to consolidate power and prolong their membership in the DC country club, but I also have faith that the majority of them don’t want to do us harm. With that said, I’m acutely aware that politicians go in the direction of the political winds. Right now, gun grabbers are blowing as hard as they can to push for totalitarianism whether they know it not. They can’t do it alone. They need the sensible people to embrace “common-sense measures” in order to build the steam necessary to lead to their gun-free utopia.

Those who are giving them steam, even when doing so in order to get just a couple more minor gun laws on the books, are the people who worry me the most. They don’t realize they’re helping to push the first in a string of dominoes that leads to full-blown gun grabbing. It starts with attempting in vain to stop people like Paddock. It moves on to further restrictions on the types and quantities of firearms and ammunition we can own. Background checks turn into competency tests which lead to psych evaluations. Gun registries turn into smart guns that can be turned off by law enforcement. This will continue, domino by domino, until the 2nd Amendment is repealed and replaced by European-style measures.

If you don’t believe it can happen like this, you’re not paying full attention. Here are three points to consider:

  1. America is shifting culturally to the left. This is undeniable.
  2. Politicians generally love extreme measures, particularly those on the left.
  3. The primary methods of media consumption (NOQ Report readers notwithstanding) are controlled by people who wish nobody had a gun other than their bodyguards and law enforcement.

The founders weren’t too worried about gangbangers or rampaging deer. They didn’t install the 2nd Amendment just for defending the home and hunting for grub. They had experienced life under an oppressive regime and were forced to fight for their rights to live free. They installed the 2nd Amendment so we would never fall as a people to an oppressive regime foreign or domestic. The unimaginable scenario where the 2nd Amendment was practically applied to defend against government oppression may seem far-fetched today, but things change quickly. From Spain to Iran to Venezuela to North Korea, we see clear examples of oppression where once it didn’t exist. Let us not be so pompous to believe that American politicians could never go that far or that foreign invaders could never breach our borders. With millions of people pushing politicians to take control, establish socialism, and prevent any “bad” people from committing violence, it’s delusional to think this scenario is impossible.

If you really want the government to reduce gun violence, tell them to do a better job of getting illegal weapons and components out of the hands of potential criminals. We don’t need more laws. We need the current laws enforced. We don’t need fewer people armed. We need law-abiding, responsible Americans to freely carry their firearms. Where gun owners’ rights are protected, crime rates are lower. New laws that “protect” Americans from attacks such as Las Vegas and Sandy Hook are laws that would make us less safe.

It’s understandable for conscientious Americans to want politicians to DO something. When it comes to gun control laws, the emotional responses calling for stricter measures can make even those who appreciate the 2nd Amendment inadvertently assist in weakening or eliminating it all together. We must prevent the first domino from falling because if it does, it’s going to be difficult to stop it from leading to totalitarian oppression.

Christian, husband, father. EIC, NOQ Report. Co-Founder, the Federalist Party. Just a normal guy who will no longer sit around while the country heads in the wrong direction.

Guns and Crime

British diplomat Rebecca Dykes raped, murdered in Beirut

Published

on

British diplomat Rebecca Dykes raped murdered in Beirut

Update:

A suspect has been arrested. Authorities say the Lebanese man has confessed to the crimes.

Original story:

Friends said Rebecca Dykes, 30, was preparing to head home for Christmas on Saturday. She’s been in Beirut as the program and policy manager for the Department for International Development since January 2017. After leaving a bad with friends Friday night, Dykes was abducted, raped, and murdered.

Hugo Shorter, the British ambassador to Lebanon, Tweeted: “The whole embassy is deeply shocked, saddened by this news. My thoughts are with Becky’s family, friends and colleagues for their tragic loss.”

Police do not believe the attack was politically motivated. She was sexually assaulted, strangled with a rope, and dumped on the side of a highway east of Beirut.

Further Reading

British diplomat found dead in Lebanon

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12/17/british-diplomat-found-dead-beirut/She had been out in the Gemmayzeh area of central Beirut for the leaving party of a colleague at the British embassy and had left just after midnight.

She was abducted some time after and killed. Her body was found dumped on the Metn highway several miles away.

Police sources told the Telegraph the first autopsy revealed the cause of death as strangulation, however a second postmortem examination is to be carried out later.

British Diplomat Found Dead in Suspected Murder

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/timothymeads/2017/12/17/british-diplomat-found-murdered-n2423738A spokeswoman for the Foreign Office confirmed Ms Dykes’ death and said they were providing support to the family.

She said: “Following the death of a British woman in Beirut, we are providing support to the family.  We remain in close contact with local authorities.  Our thoughts are with the family at this difficult time.”

British diplomat found dead in Lebanon

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12/17/british-diplomat-found-dead-beirut/She had worked for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office since 2010, previously on Libya and Iraq.  She is thought to have grown up in Hong Kong, but attended Malvern St James Girls boarding school in Worcestershire before later studying anthropology at Manchester University and International Security and Global Governance from Birkbeck, University of London.

In a statement her family said: “We are devastated by the loss of our beloved Rebecca. We are doing all we can to understand what happened.”

Continue Reading

Guns and Crime

We need more guns, not fewer, but that narrative is being lost on Americans

Published

on

It has been demonstrated over and over again that when an area in the United States limits gun ownership, gun crimes go up. In Chicago, gun laws are strictest, yet gun deaths are the highest. How can this be? Perhaps criminals are less likely to play by the rules, leaving law-abiding citizens defenseless.

This is common sense and backed by data, yet leftist mainstream media continues to push out the false narrative that we need fewer guns on the “streets.” They like to use the phrase “guns on the streets” because it instills fear that gun ownership means bad guys walking around armed and ready to do harm. Intuitively Americans know there are responsible gun owners who carry, but instead of believing the reality that if more law-abiding citizens carried, fewer criminals would be willing to take their chances, the false narrative has them pushing in the wrong direction.

The numbers are troubling:

American Opinions on Gun Ownership

Robert Farago at The Truth About Guns breaks down why this is a bad sign:

Guess How Many Americans Think America Would be Safer Without Civilian Gun Ownership

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2017/12/robert-farago/guess-how-many-americans-think-america-would-be-safer-without-civilian-gun-ownership/Still, the idea that 41 percent of Americans want to eliminate or reduce civilian gun ownership is deeply worrying. As is the idea that only 21 percent of Americans see guns as increasing public safety.

Then again, nearly the same amount of respondents (38 percent) reckon civilian gun ownership doesn’t have any impact on public safety.

That’s where the NRA, SAF, NAGR, GOA and The People of the Gun generally need to focus their pro-gun rights efforts: on the fence straddlers who aren’t antagonistic to civilian gun ownership, but don’t see a societal benefit. Yes?

 

My Take

I’ve been saved by a “good guy with a gun” and now I’m ready to be that guy if the need ever arises. I once thought it would be better if fewer people carried in public places, but I now see the error of my ways. Keep in mind that a lot of people who support gun ownership rights aren’t in favor of more guns. I was one of them. Now, I realize we need gun ownership, concealed carry, and open carry numbers to rise.

When violence breaks out, I don’t want to be the guy waiting 5-20 minutes for the police to arrive. A lot can happen in the interim as most Americans are all-too aware. It’s imperative that we start shifting the narrative back towards favoring gun ownership and carrying rights. Guns may scare people, but they should realize it’s better when good guys are carrying then when it’s just something the bad guys do. We don’t want America to turn into Chicago.

Continue Reading

Guns and Crime

Jim Jordan: “We’re going to subpoena Andrew McCabe, subpoena Peter Strzok”

Published

on

Jim Jordan Were going to subpoena Andrew McCabe subpoena Peter Strzok

If Congressman Jim Jordan’s threats are to be believed, FBI Deputy Director Andrew “Andy” McCabe and agent Peter Strzok will have some explaining to do before Congress. Jordan, a member of the House Judiciary Committee and former head of the House Freedom Caucus, has given us no reason to believe his threats shouldn’t be believed.

“Chairman Goodlatte has told us he is going to subpoena those individuals,” Jordan said in an appearance on Fox News’ “Justice with Judge Jeanine.”

Strzok exchanged around 10,000 text messages with former FBI counsel Lisa Page. Some of the texts described extremely anti-Trump views while expressing support for his competitor, Hillary Clinton. Page and Strzok were involved in an extramarital affair at the time.

One text in particular has everyone’s interest:

I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office – that there’s no way he gets elected – but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.

The “Andy” in question may have been McCabe.

The spin

Mainstream media and Democrats are spinning this as a distraction. They claim there’s no evidence that the political opinions of people deeply involved in the Clinton email investigation swayed how they performed their jobs, but there is:

Hillary Clinton was ‘grossly negligent’… until Peter Strzok edited it to prevent criminal charges

http://noqreport.com/2017/12/14/hillary-clinton-grossly-negligent-peter-strzok-edited-prevent-criminal-charges/The edit made by Strzok changed the phrase “grossly negligent” to “extremely careless.” This is important because being “grossly negligent” is a standard for criminal prosecution. If the conclusions in this report turn out to be true, it’s fair to draw the conclusion that this and other edits were made specifically to give Comey and the FBI justification for ending the investigation and recommending against criminal charges.

If it can be shown that Strzok intentionally swayed the investigation to benefit Clinton, all that’s left is determining what was discussed as the “insurance” plan and how involved McCabe was, if at all. While this is unlikely to yield real fruit, it casts a shadow of doubt on the FBI’s intentions. Was former FBI Director James Comey tainted? Is special counsel Robert Mueller tainted? Are they investigation the wrong people?

Should someone be investigating the FBI instead?

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.