Searching For The Truth Regarding Guns

Yesterday American Greatness posted an article detailing some of the lies the American people are currently being told about guns.

The article reports:

There’s a lot to unpack here about so-called “assault weapons.” The first challenge is the absence of any fixed legal definition of what constitutes an “assault weapon.” Numerous state laws have defined the phrase as everything from paintball guns to all semiautomatic firearms to Remington 11-87 shotguns, the latter famously used by former presidential candidate John Kerry (D-Mass.) on Labor Day in 2004 to demonstrate his legitimately good trap-shooting skills.

The vague term “assault weapon” is distinct from an assault rifle, however, which refers to a rapid-fire, magazine fed rifle that allows the shooter to select between semiautomatic (requiring you to pull the trigger for each shot), fully automatic (hold the trigger and the gun continuously fires) or three-round-burst modes. Assault rifles are, for all intents and purposes, already banned in the United States. More on that shortly.

The next lie is that the assault weapons ban worked:

Except it didn’t. “There is no compelling evidence that it saved lives,” according to Duke University public policy experts Philip Cook and Kristin Goss. A 2004 Department of Justice study found no evidence the ban had any effect on gun violence, stating “should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.” Other studies have found no statistically significant relationship between “assault” weapons or large-capacity magazine bans and homicide rates.

There is also substantial misunderstanding surrounding what the Assault Weapons Ban, which passed in 1994 and sunset in 2004, actually did. It didn’t ban anyone from owning an “assault-style” (again, an undefined term) weapon. All magazines and weapons produced before the ban were grandfathered in, and some companies actually ramped up production of the soon-to-be-outlawed firearm components, drastically increasing ownership of what lawmakers were seeking to reduce.

The article mentions:

Also, given the frequently cited claim that “assault weapons lead to more murder,” it’s worth pointing out that at least 730,000 AR-15s (not an assault rifle, but more on that in a bit) were manufactured and legally sold while the Assault Weapons Ban was in effect, and the national murder rate declined.

Please follow the link to read the entire article. We are being sold a bill of goods by people who want to take our Second Amendment rights away.

The article concludes with information about the shooting that recently occurred in Odessa, Texas:

The shooter was also prohibited under federal law from owning a firearm because a court previously had found him mentally unfit. He evidently had tried to purchase a gun in January 2014 but failed because the nationwide criminal background check system had flagged the mental health determination.

The federal Firearms Transaction Record, form 4437, required for all gun purchases, asks “have you ever been adjudicated as a mental defective or have you ever been committed to a mental institution?” Falsifying the form is a crime.

It was later revealed the shooter had a criminal record that included pleading guilty to criminal trespassing and evading arrest, both of which are misdemeanors in Texas. He did not receive jail time, but instead got two years of probation.

The Odessa shooting was a horror. But existing laws prevented it from happening sooner. And the fact that he got a gun at all tells us what common sense already teaches: motivated criminals don’t abide by laws.

As my boss, former U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) said recently, the breakdown of the culture is more responsible for mass shootings than the availability of the guns themselves. There are myriad reasons for this, but lawmakers, he noted, need to set a better example for how to treat people before rushing to strip Second Amendment rights from the rest of us.

If guns are illegal, people who follow the law will not have them. If guns are illegal, people who do not follow the law will have them. It’s that simple.

Jim DeMint Introduces Repeal Of Healthcare Reform In Senate

This story is based on two sources–the first is a press release by Senator DeMint and an article at

Senator Jim DeMint has introduced legislation to repeal fully the healthcare reform bill that President Obama signed into law on March 23, 2010.  There are thirty-four Republican cosponsors for the bill to repeal. 

These are the reasons Senator DeMint lists for repealing the bill:

    • Leading Economists project that ObamaCare will add roughly $500 billion in new health care taxes, passing those costs to patients and will raise the federal budget deficit by more than $500 billion over the next 10 years and by nearly $1.5 trillion in the following decade.
    • According to the Congressional Budget Office, ObamaCare will increase health care costs to families by $2,100 per year.
    • The Heritage Foundation estimates that the economy will lose 670,000 jobs under the new law, many of them in the health care industry.
    • An American Action Forum study finds that employers will be forced to drop employer-sponsored health care coverage for as many as 35 million Americans.
    • An analysis from HSA Consulting Services concludes the new law restricts the use of Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) and reduces the amount of money that can be contributed to Flexible Savings Accounts (FSAs).
    • As of Dec. 3, 2010, 222 waivers from ObamaCare’s annual limit requirements had been granted to businesses, labor unions, and insurers, affecting 1.5 million enrollees.
    • On Dec. 13, 2010, a U.S. district court ruled that it is unconstitutional for the government to impose an individual mandate to buy health insurance.

At this point, I would like to mention that the number of waivers as of December 30 was 729. 

The article at wtlx points out:

“Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-KY, has said he will work to put the House repeal measure on the Senate voting calendar.
The DeMint bill is meant as a backup in case the House bill fails. Democrats outnumber Republicans 51-47 in the Senate, and two independent members vote with Democrats.

“DeMint’s measure is almost certain to fail, but it will put each senator’s vote on the record. That could be used against Democrats when they come up for re-election.

“If DeMint brings his bill to the floor, Democrats are prepared to offer measures that would force Republicans to vote on some of the law’s most popular provisions, such as one barring insurers from denying coverage due to pre-existing conditions, Reid’s office said. Votes to repeal such provisions could come back to haunt Republicans in the next election.”

Obamacare is a very bad bill.  The House Republicans have already begun working on replacement bills that would solve some of the problems in our healthcare system without creating a massive government bureaucracy.  The Senate Democrats’ plan to list the good points in Obamacare may not work if the Republicans have proposed alternatives the the dramatic increase in government spending and authority.  It really is time for everyone to take an honest look at what is best for the counrty.  The problem here is a basic difference of philosophy.  If you believe the government makes better decisions than you and your doctor, support Obamacare.  If you believe that your medical needs are best met by you and your doctor, and not by the government, support repeal.  Remember, the government brought us the Postal Service and the IRS.  Do we really want them controlling medical care?