It’s official: Anti-gun groups oppose law-abiding gun ownership

gty_tsa_screeners_lax_jrs_120425_wgIt has been long argued by freedom-loving Americans that anti-gun groups from around the nation actively strive for civilian disarmament that disproportionately effects the law-abiding, and a recent statement from the Moms Demand Action group provides evidence that this argument is pretty accurate.

On November 1st, Moms Demand Action (the gift that keeps on giving the whole year) posted an official statement about the shooting at Los Angeles International Airport.  Of course, the statement calls on Congress to enact more laws to supposedly “fix” the problem of gun crime and implement a full ban on so-called “assault weapons” for civilians, a phrase that many out-spoken critics of gun ownership in American cannot intelligently define.

Within the statement, the group inadvertently reveals the true nature of their involvement in the gun debate.  In their attempt to prove that the “gun lobby” wants more guns everywhere, the statement includes the following text:

Despite these tragedies and increased gun danger at American airports, the gun lobby continues to fight to make it easier to carry loaded guns inside airports. For example, the gun lobby advocated for the new policy that makes it legal for permit-holding gun owners to bring loaded weapons into the Hartsfield-Jackson airport in Atlanta, one of the busiest airports in the world.

This statement is a point-blank attack on law-abiding gun freedom in the United States of America, something that most anti-gun groups claim to support.  Here, Moms Demand Action takes issue with permit-holding gun owners bringing loaded weapons into the Atlanta Airport.

Read that again: permit-holding gun owners.  Permit-holding gun owners are not criminals – that’s why they hold a valid state gun permit.

Many states already provide permit-holding gun owners more carrying freedom, without cause for alarm.  Arizona, for example, allows permit-holding gun owners to carry guns into bars and restaurants that serve alcohol provided the gun owner does not drink.  The AZ permit also allows gun owners to carry guns in some state parks, all national parks and within 1,000 feet of schools (when was the last time you heard about a school shooting in Arizona?).

The LAX shooting proves that criminals will ignore the law.  But Moms Demand Action actively supports restricting law-abiding gun freedom in the United States of America, and this official statement proves it.  Why would anyone want law-abiding gun owners to bring loaded weapons everywhere they go?  To protect themselves, and others, from the Paul Ciancia’s of the world (LAX shooting), from the Major Hasan’s (Ft. Hood shooting), from the Aaron Alexis’ (Washington Navy Yard shooting) and from the Adam Lanza’s (Newtown, CT shooting).

I call on Moms Demand Action to start putting their money where their [loud] mouth is.  If they truly feel like gun crime is a problem in the country, then start fighting criminals and stop fighting the law-abiding.  Their rhetoric is fooling no one, and the damning truth of their real agenda is not difficult to figure out.  It is even easier to see when groups like this publicize their disgust for law-abiding gun freedom.

The assumption is as clear as it is frightening: this group treats law-abiding people as if they were criminals.

Congratulations, Moms Demand Action – you ARE the problem.

December 14th: Guns Save Lives Day in the USA

tdy-121217-littlest-victims-combo.TdyDoubleDecember 14th marks the first anniversary of the tragic Sandy Hook incident where a deranged man gunned down 26 innocent teachers and children in a “gun free” school in Newtown, Connecticut.  Defenseless and vulnerable, innocent lives were lost as Adam Lanza enjoyed several minutes of indiscriminate shooting into classrooms without any fear of being shot at. Continue reading

What makes Sandy Hook victims credible on gun control?

Risking the chance of being insensitive to the victims of Sandy Hook’s tragedy last year, their involvement in gun control legislation around the country has me wondering why these parents are considered credible participants in the gun control debate.

The involvement of these parents bring nothing but emotion into the issue of gun control and personal protection – and emotion never makes for good politics.  This week, Four parents from Sandy Hook had a meeting with Delaware Governor Jack Markell to “discuss” gun violence.

“We are trying to encourage lawmakers in other states and in Washington to embrace the concept of expanding background checks,” said one of the parents who lost a 6-year old child in the massacre.  Even the sponsors of the failed Senate background check bill admitted that background checks would not have prevented Sandy Hook and, likewise, will not prevent the next attack.

“We would also like to see a limit to large capacity magazines, in many of these mass shootings that would have made a difference in the lethality of the firearm,” he continued, apparently unaware that the Columbine shooters obtained their firearms and equipment from the state of California where magazine limits were already in place.  Again, another failed gun control “reform” that only takes freedoms and liberties away from the American people.

But this is not about true gun reform in any way.  These meetings are not about ensuring the constitutional rights of the American people are protected and nurtured.

These meetings are about making it harder for law-abiding citizens to own firearms due to emotional politics, and Governors and other politicians around the nation are shamelessly using the victims of Sandy Hook to make it happen.  Emotionally-driven politics with very little resemblance to anything even remotely close to true reform, these parents add nothing to the debate over gun control.

They lost their loved ones last year and are understandably devastated.  Everybody wants to find ways to prevent the next attack, but removing guns from law-abiding citizens won’t do it.  Running background checks ahead of gun purchases and assuming that will prevent a criminal from obtaining a firearm won’t do it.  Limiting magazine capacities won’t do it.  Demonstrably, these laws do not work.  Criminals don’t follow the law.

That’s why they are criminals.

Thousands in Connecticut flock to gun stores before vote

Before the expected passage of yet another terribly harmful slap-in-the-face gun control bill, this time in the state of Connecticut, state residents flooded local gun shops to buy up remaining items that will soon be banned, including so-called “high capacity magazines” and other firearms that the state will soon consider “assault style”.

The bill would limit magazine capacity to 10-rounds, meaning home owners need to be extra judicious (and lucky) when multiple intruders break into their homes to not run out of ammunition before the threat is neutralized.  The bill would also expand what the state considers to be “assault weapons” and would require all private sales to undergo background checks through an FFL before a sale of a firearm.

Ignorant state representatives considered the measure a “powerful response”, seemingly unaware that these types of bans are notoriously unsuccessful in virtually every way.  Are any of Connecticut’s lawmakers aware that the Columbine shooters obtained their ammunition magazines from California, which also had a 10-round limit in place at the time?

Many state residents are incensed, and they should be.  The number of those opposed to this nonsensical gun control bill vastly outnumber those in support of it during a rally today at the Hartford statehouse.

Poll finds fewer Americans in favor of stricter gun control

Article Highlights

  • 47% still want stricter gun control, but number down from 57%
  • 39% want laws to remain the same, 11% favor fewer gun laws
  • Emotional politics fading, reason and logic finally returning

CBS News released poll results this week that indicates 47% of those surveyed are in favor of stricter gun control, down from 57% shortly after the December shooting in Sandy Hook, CT.  Although this is only a single poll, the trend away from more strict gun laws is common between surveys.

This, of course, should tell us something very important: emotional legislation is not good legislation.  Had we quickly rammed through gun control shortly after the Connecticut shootings (like the state of New York did), we would end up with a piece of legislation that – once again – fails to accomplish its intended goal of keeping Americans safer from gun crimes.

Had we used the 57% popularity of gun control at the time, Americans would be forced to cope with legislation that was emotionally-driven and ill-conceived, requiring additional hoops for gun owners to jump through for no real benefit to public safety.  At the time strict gun control seemed popular because of the emotional environment, but more times than not, emotional politics are bad politics.

Even among Democrats, the poll finds, a whopping 78% of Democrats polled after the Connecticut shooting favored stricter gun controls.  Today, that number stands at 66% – still high, but nowhere near ridiculous 80% figure where it stood just months ago.

Why the across-the-board drop in numbers between these national polls?  Because emotions are fading and logic and reasoning are making their way back into the debate.  Slowly…but surely.