Recent polls indicate that mass shootings by deranged individuals do not sway public opinion regarding gun control. Angered by this predicament, gun control advocates, who seek to capitalize on tragedy, are now up in arms whining that imaginary monsters, such as the National Rifle Association (NRA), conservatives, and so-called weak politicians are the cause for inaction. They refuse to recognize that the NRA, conservatives and politicians see the writing on the wall: Accidents, suicides, and mass murder will continue to occur with or without restrictive gun laws.
It is true that in an election cycle such as this, with the White House, Senate and House being up for grabs on Election Day in November, incumbents like to sit on rather than rock the boat on polarizing issues. Pursing agenda-driven legislation is for after the election. Of course, that doesn???t stop the anti-gun lobby from complaining and blaming innocent gun owners for tragic circumstances. A fear campaign to convince the public that their ideas are right, and ours are wrong, is in perpetual commencement.
In light of the recent tragic occurrences in Aurora, Colorado and Oak Creek, Wisconsin, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, founder of Mayors Against ???Illegal??? Guns calls us ???cowards??? for not supporting gun control, now; Legislators and pundits bring back the ???assault weapons ban??? topic even though that ban has long been expired, and Americans are not trying to bring it back from the dead. Dan Gross, President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, appeals to the public???s emotions referring to the ???reoccurring nightmare of American gun violence??? as a reason to implement gun control.
Let???s talk about Bloomberg, first. This is a corrupt man who, knowing full well he could not win in a well oiled New York City Democrat primary, switched to the Republican Party from the Democrat Party to win his seat as Mayor, assuming office in January 2002. Ignoring choice of conscience in a City already recognized as the ???Abortion Capital of the World??? Bloomberg compels medical interns to perform at least one abortion before they could apply for work at a public hospital. Except for militant pro-abortion fanatics, who does that?
What???s good for the goose in not good for the gander. While Bloomberg travels with armed security guards, the People who are cowards ought not to be able to carry firearms even if for their own protection. Bloomberg promotes gun bans, smoking bans, sugar bans, trans-fat bans, salt bans, car bans, and the list goes on and on. Any reasonable person must conclude Michael Bloomberg operates like Benito Mussolini, the Italian politician who led the National Fascist Party leading up to his death in 1945.
Bloomberg convinces a-h-a-m pays off a Democrat controlled New York City Council to extend his term of office, even though the voters set term limits. So, expect him to be around until 2016.
Moving on to resurrecting the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (FAWB) passed by Congress on September 13, 1994, and which expired ten years later on September 13, 2004. Did you know that a legal definition of the phrase ???assault weapons??? did not exist until Congress made it up out of thin air? The law is directed at 118 models of firearms, having features that ???appear useful in military and criminal applications but unnecessary in shooting sports or self-defense???. Just because a firearm may be useful for the military and/or appear unnecessary for sport or self-defense is not a good enough reason to ban it, at least according to the meaning behind the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The intent of FAWB was supposedly to prevent violent crimes from occurring, yet studies show that the arbitrary law had little effect, if any, on limiting violent crime. Politicians who promoted and are still promoting FAWB have little use, if any, for the Second Amendment. For example, Senator Diane Feinstein of California said the ban worked to ???dry up supply and drive up prices???, yet limiting firearm supply and driving up prices is not consistent with the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and in effect the ban acts in direct violation.
Fear mongering is a useful tool used by politicians from both sides of the aisle. Dan Gross of the Brady campaign uses it as well. The Brady campaign is a cover for anti-firearm, anti-freedom soldiers who seek control of the People by circumventing the Constitution to enact laws that infringe upon our rights to keep and bear arms. By recalling the horror of violent crimes, Gross appeals to the People???s compassion for the victims. He bloviates the following:
???In the case of the Aurora theatre massacre, our laws allowed the shooter easy access to a semi-automatic assault rifle and a 100-round drum ammunition magazine, enabling a single person to mow down a theatre full of people without the need to even reload.???
Easy access to firearms in this case is non-existent. James Holmes, the accused killer, obtained his firearms after a Federal background check was conducted, a law promoted by the Brady campaign. Another restrictive law promoted by the Brady campaign is implementation of ???gun free??? zones. The theatre where the killing occurred was a ???gun free??? zone which inhibited law abiding citizens to protect themselves from sociopaths that will stop at nothing to kill others.
The mere fact that a rifle has a capacity to shoot in rounds without the need for trigger is not reasonable to compel the government to enact laws that infringe on the rights of innocent Americans to keep and bear arms.
The very reason our Founding Fathers instituted the Second Amendment goes way beyond a course for sport or self-defense. In fact, the right of the people to keep and bear arms??? main purpose is to have the capacity to overthrow a despotic government that does not abide by the rules set forth in the United States Constitution. Just as the American Patriots fought against British rule in their effort to break away from cruel and oppressive government; we the People also have that same option of scission.
In the event our government becomes despotic, the Constitution lays the foundation for a popular uprising so as to insure freedom. Now, if the American Patriots were limited in their capacity to be armed they would never have been able to gain independence from British rule, and form the United States of America.
We the People can not fall for the trickery of the anti-firearm movement, because doing so leaves us completely vulnerable to oppressive rule of law without any recourse to change it. Falling into the fear trap is a spit in the face to the many lives lost in the American Revolution. If we turn our backs to the realization that the Second Amendment is meant to protect the People???s liberty, their lives would have been lost in vain. Today???s Patriot knows better. Keep the Constitution intact, otherwise lose liberty, and the American way of life – forever.