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.