Some Of The Signs Don’t Agree With The Stated Purpose

The rallies held around the country yesterday supposedly had the aim of ending gun violence, but when you looked at some of the signs the protesters carried, you began to wonder what the actual agenda was.

Jazz Shaw at Hot Air posted a few pictures from the “March for Our Lives”:

So what have we here? The march opposed the Second Amendment–an Amendment that actually protects their right to protest–without the Second Amendment it is very unlikely that the right of free speech or the right of assembly would exist. The march blames the GOP for the loss of life due to gun violence. To say that is a stretch is a bit of an understatement. Also, doesn’t that make this a political march? If so, why did schools bus children to various cities to participate? Is that not a use of tax dollars for political purposes? The march targeted the NRA–a group that promotes gun safety. I guess they needed a target–regardless of the validity of targeting that organization.

The true purpose of this march was to register young Democrat voters–the Democratic party is losing voters because of its dramatic shift left. As the party is being taken over by the likes of Elizabeth Warren, Nancy Pelosi, and Chuck Schumer, the traditional base of the Democratic party is leaving the party. President Trump’s win in 2016 included votes from many of the Democrats who were Reagan Democrats. This is frightening to the party leaders. The two groups currently being used to build up Democratic voters by the party leaders are Hispanic immigrants (legal or illegal) and youth. This march was an example of the lack of knowledge of American history and the U.S. Constitution in our young people. These things are no longer being taught effectively in school. Therefore these young people are easily manipulated through emotion rather than logic. We may be in danger of losing the republic that we know and love if the Democratic party is successful in their goals.

There is some good news. Breitbart reported today:

A report indicates attendance at Saturday’s student march for gun control was approximately 200,000, which is less than half of the expected crowd size.

…But CBS News reports that the actual number of attendees turned out to be about 300,000 lower than Witt expected. They put the number at “202,796” at its peak.

Nevertheless, USA Today reports that march organizers claimed “800,000 protesters attended the gun-control demonstration in Washington, DC, on Saturday.”

Despite what you have heard in the media, hopefully many of our youth are smarter than we give them credit for.

When Potential Victims Are Armed, Crime Goes Down

Breitbart.com posted an article today about the rise in concealed carry gun permits.

The article reports:

On May 22, Breitbart News reported that the demand for concealed carry permits witnessed its greatest surge ever between May 2016 and May 2017. Fox News referenced Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) data showing there were 14.5 million permit holders in May 2016 and approximately 15.7 million in May 2017.

Now the NRA is tweeting data which shows that the bigger picture is not just the one-year surge but a 215 percent jump in concealed carry permits between 2007 and 2015.

…It is interesting to note that the murder rate dropped by 14 percent while concealed carry permits surged. And “the overall violent crime rate” dropped by 21 percent. This is not what the left tells us will happen if concealed carry expands.

This is simply common sense–Grandma is less likely to be mugged if she might be packing!

The article further reports:

On December 4, 2013, Breitbart News reported a Congressional Research Study (CRS) which showed a similar correlation between gun ownership and plummeting murder numbers. Gun ownership climbed from 192 million firearms in 1994 to 310 million firearms in 2009, CRS found that murder rates fell sharply during the same time period. According to the report, the “firearm-related murder and non-negligent homicide” rate was 6.6 per 100,000 Americans in 1993 but fell to 3.6 per 100,000 in 2000. By 2011, the murder rate was 3.2 per 100,000.

Even if you disarmed every law-abiding citizen in America, criminals would still find a way to obtain firearms. At that point you would have armed the criminals and disarmed the victims–not a good idea. I would love to live in a world where guns and other weapons were not necessary at all, but unless human nature undergoes a drastic change, I don’t see that happening. Meanwhile, keep calm and carry.

Why We Need New Media

Breitbart.com is reporting today that The New York Daily News has called for the U. S. State Department to designate the National Rifle Association (NRA) as a terrorist organization.

The article reports:

They based this request on their belief that national security faces a greater threat from armed citizens than from “foreign terrorists,” and they singled out the NRA as the bulwark preserving citizens’ right to keep and bear arms. They suggested, “The NRA should take its rightful place on the State Department list of terrorist organizations, because its influence is more of an immediate threat to the lives of our citizens than foreign terrorists.”

To be on the State Department’s list of designated terror organizations a group has to be state-sponsored for terrorism–which the NRA is not. Moreover, they do not exist for terrorist reasons. Rather, they exist to defend the civil liberties protected by the Second Amendment. Undaunted by these things, the NYDN simply declares the NRA a “terrorist group” and suggests it falls under the State Department’s purview by being “nearly-state sponsored.”

The NYDN added, “Although the NRA is not an officially state-sponsored organization it is the supporter of the state with its massive member and lobbyist donations to our elected officials.”

I am not personally a member of the NRA, but I appreciate the fact that they are trying to protect the Second Amendment rights of American citizens. This statement by The Daily News is truly an example of a small group of people attempting to deny the rights of free speech and political activism of a group they not not agree with. That in itself is un-American.

The problem with school shootings is not guns–the problem is that all of the gun-free zone signs are not heeded by criminals. Why do politicians believe that laws that take guns away from law-abiding Americans will be followed by criminals?

The Outrageous Claim Of The Day

The following statement made on MSNBC (and reported at Hot Air) gets my award for the Outrageous Claim of the Day:

If only there was someone around who could educate the American public about the actual level of risk. Someone who was trusted as a public health expert and whose job it was to help us understand what we really need to worry about and what precautions we should take.

Actually, that is one of the primary responsibilities of the United States surgeon general. There’s just one problem: Thanks to Senate dysfunction and NRA opposition, we don’t have a surgeon general right now. In fact, we haven’t had a surgeon general for more than a year now — even though the president nominated the eminently qualified Dr. Vivek Murthy back in November 2013.

I am supposed to believe that there is only one man in all of America who can educate the American public on how to deal with ebola? Wow. Just for the record, the fact that Dr. Murthy’s nomination did not go through was not the fault of either the NRA or the Republicans (two favorite targets of blame on MSNBC). Conservative Democrats opposed the nomination because of Dr. Murthy’s stand on gun control (which he considers a health issue). The NRA opposed the nomination because the Doctor did not support the rights of Americans outlined in the Second Amendment. However, the Congressmen who voted are responsible for their vote–not the NRA.

The article at Hot Air concludes:

Murthy is a vigilant spokesman for the idea that guns are a health issue, and doctors should be asking patients if they have weapons in their homes. (Not to mention potentially collecting that information and passing it along.) This is very much along the same lines as finding out who enjoys hang gliding or lives in tall apartment buildings. The problem with this sort of muddled thinking is that it confuses the topics of disease and injury. We want to reduce the incidence of illness among Americans and education can play in important role in that mission. But injuries are a different category, and gun injuries in particular have nothing to do with communicable health hazards.

Murthy is a willing volunteer in a somewhat obscure column of the army trying to limit the Second Amendment rights of Americans. We don’t need him taking a seat in the Cabinet. And in the meantime, the White House can surely find someone else with a medical degree to talk about Ebola.

I wonder if people who get all of their news at MSNBC actually believe what the network is saying.