This situation has been repeated time and time again throughout all mass shootings, including Orlando, Virginia Tech, Newtown, San Bernardino, Fort Hood, and Aurora. In every instance, not ONE of the intended victims was armed.
Being unarmed in the presence of a mass shooter DOES NOT WORK. Just look what happened in Norway: One mass shooter. Seventy-seven dead. Why? Because not a single one of the victims and many more people subject to Breivik’s attacks were armed. They were unarmed. They were defenseless, and they suffered the worst fate because of it.
If that’s not a wake-up call, I don’t know what is.
How many more wake-up calls must we suffer before those in power actually wake up and smell the coffee? Before they realize that disarming the populace has ALWAYS resulted in a significant increases in violent crime?
Being unarmed DOES NOT WORK, America.
It doesn’t work in America. It doesn’t work in Norway. It doesn’t work in Nigeria, Chad, Niger, and northern Cameroon, where Boko Haram have killed 20,000 and displaced 2.3 million from their homes. It did not work in Nazi Germany, when Hitler largely disarmed the general populace, restricting ownership of firearms to “…persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit” i.e. card-carrying members of the Nazi Party. Disarmament has not worked in the United Kingdom, where violent crime rose 250% after they disarmed the general populace. Sure, it reduced firearm murders, but what Piers Morgan and the others refuse to tell you is that the overall murder rate increased.
An armed populace, however, does work. During the last thirty years, firearms laws have been relaxed in nearly every state. Also during that time, crime has dropped — a lot — but the drop always followed the relaxation of firearms laws.
The trend in gun control relaxation began in the mid-1980s, but the overall trend in violent crime peaked around 1991, from nearly 800 per 100,000 population to less than 400 per 100,000. That’s half, a huge reduction, throughout which firearms laws continued to be relaxed. Put simply, the relaxation of gun control laws resulted in more American citizens being armed. As a direct result, violent crime is about half of what it is today as compared to thirty years ago.
Being unarmed has never worked. It never will. Disarming Americans is a direct violation of our God-given, Constitutionally supported and protected rights. Our Founding Fathers established the Second Amendment’s “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” for outstanding reasons, most notably of which is that a well-armed populace is the best deterrent against criminal activity.
From the article…
In a major victory for gun rights advocates, a federal appeals court on Thursday sided with a broad coalition of gun owners, businesses and organizations that challenged the constitutionality of a Maryland ban on assault weapons and other laws aimed at curbing gun violence.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit said the state’s prohibition on what the court called “the vast majority of semi-automatic rifles commonly kept by several million American citizens” amounted to a violation of their rights under the Constitution.
Well, almost outstanding. The judge seriously erred when he said, “In our view, Maryland law implicates the core protection of the Second Amendment — the right of law-abiding responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.” That’s not quite the “fundamental right” our Founding Fathers penned into the Constitution via our Second Amendment.
Chief Judge William Traxler erred when he limited the scope of understanding to “in defense of hearth and home.” A “hearth” is the floor in front of a fireplace, where families of old would gather for dinner, usually cooked over that fireplace, and while away the evening hours basking in its warmth, discussing the day, and playing.
Our Second Amendment knows no such bounds, either on location or type and size of arms.
The Constitution states that all ratified amendments become a part of the Constitution. Thus, the Constitution states “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
This prohibition against the right of the people to keep and bear arms is absolute. It’s application isn’t limited to a specific government entity. It applies to everyone. Furthermore, it’s scope isn’t limited, either. For example, it’s not limited to “hearth and home,” but rather applies every where a free man may travel.
It’s not even limited to “firearms.” Our Founding Fathers chose the term, “arms,” even though knew exceedingly well that the term “firearms” was a type of arms that used a rapidly-burning powder to discharge a projectile. A sword is also a type of arms, as is a club, mace, hatchet, machete, and knife. They are all “arms.” Thus, any restriction — infringement — on their size, length, weight, caliber, action, mechanism, or capacity constitutes an infringement, and an un-Constitutional one, at that.
On January 4, 2016, Obama issued an “executive order” directing the Pentagon to find ways to make not so much more lethal firearms, but safer ones” “Obama comes along and tells the Army that, in this administration, money is going into small arms to build — not a deadly weapon, not an effective weapon, not a dominant weapon, not a lifesaving weapon, not a technological cutting-edge weapon — but a weapon that prevents accidental discharge.” – Story
Yeah, I know. Stupid, right?
A White House fact sheet states: “The Presidential Memorandum directs the departments to conduct or sponsor research into gun safety technology that would reduce the frequency of accidental discharge or unauthorized use of firearms, and improve the tracing of lost or stolen guns. Within 90 days, these agencies must prepare a report outlining a research-and-development strategy designed to expedite the real-world deployment of such technology for use in practice.”
I have previously covered the absurdly dangerous idiocy behind so-called “smart guns.” Suffice it to say that they’re as ridiculously idiotic as so-called “gun free zones.”
By itself, this would only constitute a misuse of taxpayer dollars. As most people are well aware by now, however, this is a part of Obama’s plan of issuing more “executive orders” to make such technology mandatory, an action that far, far oversteps the bounds of Presidential authority while simultaneously and directly infringing on the Constitutional right of the people to keep and bear arms.
Just because Obama says his “executive orders” are legal doesn’t make them legal. Even if 51% of Congress agreed with him and said they were legal, it would NOT make them legal. In fact, even if 100% of Congress agreed with Obama, it would STILL not make Obama’s executive orders legal. They would REMAIN ILLEGAL.
The reason is simple: Congress can NOT amend the Constitution. They can only propose an amendment. Only the States ratify the amendment[SUP]1[/SUP], thereby transforming the proposal into an amendment.
And until such an amendment appears, giving the President authority to issue executive orders, all executive orders are ILLEGAL.
1. Our Tenth Amendment states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Thus, to see whether or not a U.S. President has the Constitutional authority to issue executive orders, we need merely examine the U.S. Constitution. Therein we find only one instance in which he can issue an order to a civilian. Article II, Section 2 states, “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices…”
His duties as “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States” involve members of the military, not civilians. He can, however, “Commission all the Officers of the United States.”
His authority to make treaties requires “the Advice and Consent of the Senate … provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.”
He has the authority to nominate “Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States,” but no appointment is final without “the Advice and Consent of the Senate.”
He can fill up vacancies during Senate recess, but those commissions expire a the end of the next session.
He is authorized to “give to the Congress information of the State of the Union” including his recommendation of measures for their consideration.
On “extraordinary Occasions,” he can convene one, the other, or both houses of Congress. If he disagrees with their solution during these conventions, all he can do is adjourn them for a while.
He can receive “Ambassadors and other public Ministers.”
THAT IS ALL, people. Neither Obama nor ANY U.S. President has the power or authority to issue “executive orders” dictating what We the People can and cannot do. The “supreme Law of the Land” () and its Tenth Amendment are exceeding clear on this point, and that’s all I need to tell Obama to take his executive orders and shove ’em.
[B]Two-Thirds Rule[/B]: Proposing amendments to the U.S. Constitution require two-thirds consensus of either both houses of Congress (2/3 of the House AND 2/3 of the Senate) OR two-thirds consensus of the legislatures of the States.
[B]Three-Fourths Rule[/B]: Ratifying amendments to the U.S. Constitution (making them legal parts of the Constitution) require three-fourth’s consensus of the legislatures or conventions of the States.
Until they are properly ratified, they are NOT amendments. They are proposals.
His action directing the Army to do the research into a lamer, less effective firearm is entirely within his authority as “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States.” As a retired military officer, I think it’s insanely stupid, not to mention a waste of valuable military resources, as it is at odds with the military’s mission.
He can even take the results and submit them to Congress for their consideration.
What he can NOT do, however, is to mandate the use of such weapons or restrict the use of civilian firearms to such weapons, as that would be a direct and flagrant violation against the Second Amendment’s prohibition against any infringement on the right of the People to keep and bear arms. Such a change would require a fundamental change to the Second Amendment itself, and that requires consent of either three-fourths of the state legislatures or a convention of three fourths of the states.
I don’t see that happening.
Until then, all civilian, military, and law-enforcement officers remain bound by their oaths of office to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic,” INCLUDING sitting U.S. Presidents who, for whatever reasons of megalomania, insanity, or criminal activity, think they’re somehow above or beyond the law.
The term “infringement” doesn’t mean “prohibition.” It means “an encroachment or trespass on a right or privilege.” If I were to move off the sidewalk and walk through my neighbor’s grass, I would be infringing. It does little direct damage, but over time, that section of grass would die. If I then moved over to a fresh strip of grass, that would die, too. When our Founding Fathers penned “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” in our Second Amendment, they created an absolute prohibition against any and all infringements, no matter how slight, in order to protect — absolutely — the right of the people to keep (own/possess) and bear (carry) arms. Furthermore, this prohibition not limited to the federal government. It doesn’t not say, “Congress shall not…” It simply states that our right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This applies to EVERYONE, EVERYWHERE, and FOR ALL TIME, WITHOUT CESSATION. It is an absolute right, to be protected at all costs, without question.
Please feel free to copy the text below and send it to your members of Congress. I did.
To the Honorable (Full Name of your Senators and Representative):
I read the news this evening (9:19 PM ET, Wed December 16, 2015) with grave concern: “As his administration prepares an executive order tightening access to guns, President Barack Obama met Wednesday with former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a proponent of new gun laws who has become the chief enemy of the National Rifle Association. The White House said Obama and Bloomberg “discussed ways to keep guns out of the hands of those who should not have access to them and what more could be done at the state and local level to help address gun violence in America.”
Below, I provide specific excerpts from our Constitution and Federal law that highlight President Obama’s blatantly un-Constitutional actions:
1. The U.S. Constitution is “the supreme Law of the Land” (Article VI) and all amendments “shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution” (Article V).
2. The U.S. Constitution grants only certain, specific, and limited powers to the federal government. Article I outlines the powers and responsibilities given to Congress; Article II outlines the powers and responsibilities given to the President; Article II outlines the powers and responsibilities given to the Judges of the Supreme Court. The Tenth Amendment states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
3. The U.S. Constitution and U.S. Federal Law holds Congress, the President, the Supreme Court Justices, and all civil and military officers accountable to the same exacting standard by way of oath of office. For all but the President, the oath of office reads: “I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”” (Article VI and 5 U.S. Code § 3331 – Oath of office, (Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 424.)). The President’s oath of office reads, “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” (Article II, Section 1).
4. The 1982 Congressional Report on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms provides 65 references in Constitutional and Federal law, along with 21 citations of case law that fully explain the efficacy and scope of our Second Amendment (http://ryoc.us/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/1982-Congressional-Report-on-the-Right-to-Keep-and-Bear-Arms.pdf).
5. Our Second Amendment reads, “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.” This right is an individual right (Heller) and applies to all the states (McDonald). District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held in a 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to federal enclaves and protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes. McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that determined whether the Second Amendment applies to the individual states. The Court held that the right of an individual to “keep and bear arms” protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. Furthermore, the “shall not be infringed” clause is open ended, applies to all entities including the federal government, and allows zero wiggle room for any sort of infringement. The term “shall” means It is an absolute command, one without recourse. Thus, any local, county, state, or federal legislation or executive order that limits, impedes, restricts, slows, or otherwise interferes with an individual’s right to keep (own/possess) and bear (carry) arms is patently un-Constitutional.
As a reminder, Congressman/Senator X, this also applies to federal enclaves, which means the No Firearms sign posted at the entrance of your district office is also in violation of our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms (District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)). As we have clearly seen since 1990, so-called “gun-free zones” provide absolutely zero protection while actually inviting criminally insane behavior. The 1982 Congressional Report on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, along with recent decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court and federal courts are undeniable with respect to the strength of protection the Second Amendment affords our right to keep and bear arms. Statistics clearly show that both the general public as well as office workers are safest in areas void of any such “gun-free zone” restrictions. Please respect that by removing the sign. Thank you.
6. Any “executive order” penned by Obama with respect to the right of the people to keep and bear arms is rendered null and void by the U.S. Constitution before the ink hits the paper. “Executive Orders” may carry the “weight of law,” but only insofar as:
A. They’re directed to a department or other government entity under the Constitutional authority of the President of the United States of America…
B. The orders themselves do not violate the Constitution itself or any local, state, or federal statute which lawfully derives its authority from the Constitution.
In fact, the ONLY power the President has with respect to “executive orders” stems from Article II, Section 2: “…he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices.”
That’s it, Congressman/Senator X. Obama can order the State Department, for example, to provide a written report.
Obama can NOT “infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms,” and ANY leeway given to him by Congress exceeds both the President’s and Congress’ authority to do so.
I did NOT trade the best 20 years of my life to stand idly by while those who cannot respect and follow our Constitution erode the rights of myself and my countrymen.
I respectfully request you adopt the same mindset and do everything in your power to stop Obama’s blatantly un-Constitutional actions.
Thank you for your time.
Link to originating article: http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/16/politics/obama-mike-bloomberg-gun-control/index.html
Seriously, people. Let’s do a reality check, here: No gun owner I’ve ever met was off his or her rocker, but I’ve met more than a handful of anti-gunners who were certifiable. In fact, I have found that those who exercise their Second Amendment rights to be more stable, on average, than those who don’t.
Each year armed American citizens stop approximately 650,000 to 800,000 violent crimes, usually without firing a shot. This strongly indicates that if any armed student had encountered the Virginia Tech shooter in 2007, it’s likely things would have ended much sooner, with fewer lives lost.
Because they’re perpetrated by the criminally insane, mass shootings are NOT “preventable.” Even if everyone in the U.S. received psychiatric evaluations (itself a massive violation of Constitutional rights), I doubt it would ID even half of these nuts. A number of studies indicate that most would slip through the cracks, whereas such a program would generate literally millions of false positives, thereby denying countless Americans their Constitutional rights on error. Not only does this approach fail all tests of rationality and common sense, but it would utterly fail to achieve its objective while slaughtering human rights and putting millions of innocent individuals in harm’s way in the process.
That is absolutely, unquestionably, unacceptable.
These mass shootings can be mitigated by more people exercising their right to keep and bear arms. It’s certainly not for everyone. For those who are well-trained (the 2nd Amendment’s “well-regulated”), however, carrying is an effective means of stopping shootings in progress, and widespread open carry is also an effective deterrent, as evidenced by the fact that more than 4 out of 5 mass shootings occur in “gun-free zones” whereas such zones only occupy less than 10% of the locations people frequent. The truth is that that just because they’re crazy or criminally insane doesn’t mean they’re stupid.
After examining all the evidence surrounding this issue, there’s only one logical conclusion at which a rational person can arrive: Either Obama, Bloomberg and other anti-gun nuts are the ones who are crazy, or they’re the criminals, disarming the general public in preparation for tyranny.