Connect with us

Guns and Crime

Ohio Governor Mike DeWine rebrands red flag gun law, calls it ‘Personal Protection Order’

Published

on

Republican Governor Mike DeWine is the latest in his party to join Democrats in pushing red flag gun laws. But don’t you dare call it that in his state of Ohio. They’re called “Personal Protection Orders” in Ohio. It’s totally different.

Except, it’s not. If anything DeWine’s portrayal of Ohio’s reactionary gun law is worse than a standard red flag gun law because it utilizes the tried and true technique of Orwellian newspeak. He contends the law, which ignores a citizens right to due process by having secreting hearings to determine action, is perfectly in line with due process because “they have to go to court” to get the order. This ignores the fact that due process requires an attempt to allow the accused to defend themselves BEFORE action is taken against them.

In this interview with gun-control-supporting Fox News host Bill Hemmer, DeWine goes so far as to say anti-social behavior makes people a “menace.” He says there are many who exhibit “all the signs.” But here’s the problem with that statement, and it’s the major hole is so many of the talking points being pushed to promote these laws. They readily acknowledge that guidance counselors, health professionals, relatives, and mental health professionals regularly see people exhibit the types of traits found in mass shooters.

“Virtually every one of these cases, as you said, somebody’s looked up a long time ago and said, hey, this guy is giving all the signs, antisocial behavior,” DeWine said. “This guy is a menace and we need to be able to do something. The schools need the tools, we are now giving them the tools to do that.”

This is their evidence that red flag gun laws are necessary. But if there are so many people exhibiting these traits who should not have access to firearms, why aren’t there mass shootings regularly? Why are two mass shootings in a weekend such a huge deal? Based on the criteria for removal of a law abiding citizen’s firearms, shouldn’t it mean that without those laws, the thousands or ten of thousands of people who will be victimized by the law be shooting up Walmarts across the country every day? I’m not making light of the situation, but out of one hand they say the law will go after “many” but the statistics show there simply aren’t “many” shooters out there.

If there are “many” people who exhibit “all the signs” of “anti-social behavior” that makes them a “menace,” shouldn’t there be dozens of mass shootings in Ohio every year? No. His red flag gun law is a solution seeking a problem.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Advertisement

0

Conservatism

Why isn’t gun control considered to be sexist as well as racist?

Published

on

By

Why isnt gun control considered to be sexist as well as racist

Liberty [Gun] Control is rooted in racism. It also adversely affects women. Why isn’t it considered to be racist and sexist?

A recent video from One America News Network entitled: ‘Gun Rights Are Women’s Rights’ made this very important point on the topic of Liberty Control. The basic facts of science have one sex at a disadvantage to the other, with guns being the great equalizer.

Why doesn’t the Left have to answer for the sexism and racism of Liberty control?

These days, the national socialist Left wields pejoratives Racism and Sexism like an assault weapon. So why aren’t these labels applied to them for their incessant attacks against freedom? Firearms are the great equalizers, with the Left’s gun confiscation agenda having a disproportionate effect on women and minorities.  Somehow the Left escapes these facts being applied to them, while they exploit those words with abandon.

We’ve already detailed the racism aspect of this issue here, and case for Liberty control being sexist made in this video.

Why the gun is civilization..

We will wrap this up with a column written in 2007 by Marko Kloos on a WordPress blogging site the Munchkin wrangler. It encapsulates the issue of firearms down to one proposition on how human being deal with each other.

MARCH 23, 2007 by MARKO KLOOS
Why the gun is civilization.
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation…and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

[Emphasis added]

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Guns and Crime

If you support the President, help him see gun control won’t work

Published

on

If you support the President help him see gun control wont work

Some say the President and GOP will lose the 2020 election if they don’t do something to slow down gun violence. Others say the President and GOP will lose if the embrace gun control. To some extent, both are right, but for very different reasons.

If they do nothing that reduces gun violence, they’ll lose. But here’s the thing. Universal background checks, red flag gun laws, and “assault weapons” bans will not reduce gun violence. We can see this demonstrated with absolute clarity by examining where gun violence happens the most. Guess what… and this may shock you if you haven’t been paying attention… but gun violence is most prevalent where gun control is most obtuse. If gun control worked, Chicago would be at the bottom of the list for gun crimes because their gun control laws are extreme.

If red flag gun laws worked, Baltimore would have seen a dramatic reduction in gun violence following one of the loosest versions of the law passing in 2018. Instead, they’ve seen an INCREASE in firearm homicides despite 788 Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPO) applied for since the laws passage.

Baltimore’s homicides by firearm RISE 13% since red flag gun law went into effect

Baltimore is pacing for a 13% increase in gun-related homicides since the red flag gun law went into effect.

Following the mass shootings two weeks ago in El Paso and Dayton, emotions have been high. Even many 2nd-Amendment-defending Republican lawmakers are starting to bend in favor of embracing red flag gun laws. They’re an ideal choice for trying to look like they’re fixing the mass shooting problem, but despite 17 states enacting the law since 2012, there have been zero examples of a potential mass shooter who was stopped.

Here’s how the 2020 narrative regarding gun control will play out. If the GOP and the President back any of these gun control measures and they fail to make a dent in gun violence, Democrats will say they’re doing too little and actually use these efforts to condemn the President. And as people see the GOP’s gun control didn’t work, they’ll start to believe maybe the Democrats have the right answers. If, on the other hand, we stay focused on mental illness, getting more guns in the hands of good guys, and healing the fractured spirit of the nation, we can see a reduction in gun violence. There are ways to address gun violence without gun control.

Now, let’s say the President listens to his progressive advisers and enacts gun control measures. There’s little chance his supporters will vote Democrat; we don’t cut off our noses to spite our faces. But the passion, fundraising, and intangible support will diminish. Right now, the President needs his base to remain as passionate as possible if we’re going to overcome the tremendous bias in mainstream media. The way to win in 2020 is to galvanize the conservative base to draw in moderates and Independents behind a movement of pro-America and pro-American policies.

Gun control is neither pro-America nor pro-American. It’s a lukewarm appeasement to the left that won’t vote for him no matter what he does with guns. His progressive advisers who are pushing him towards gun control are flat-out wrong.

Supporting the President does not mean echoing bad advice by progressive members of his team. He will listen to voters and stop this gun control madness before it begins if we let him know we support the 2nd Amendment.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Dan Bongino calls out Antifa for what they really are

Published

on

Dan Bongino calls out Antifa for what they really are

There’s a strange series of contradictions within the Antifa movement. They claim to be anti-fascist, yet their actions can only be categorized as fascist suppression techniques. They claim to be against racism and misogyny, yet they intimidate any minority or woman who doesn’t agree with them. They pretend to be brave, yet they hide behind masks.

Conservative pundit Dan Bongino knows a thing or two about fighting fascism, stopping bigotry, and being brave. As an outspoken commentator and former Secret Service agent, Bongino has done more to defend this country and promote the proper ideologies we need in order to prevent fascism from ever rearing its ugly head here. He’s also no fan of Antifa.

As he notes, the real agenda of Antifa isn’t anti-fascism. Their name really implies they’re anti-FA – First Amendment. Even as they fight “hate speech,” they do so in ways that are designed to suppress our freedoms to speak. They’re quickly becoming a parody of the old progressive movements, albeit more dangerous today.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending