ORLANDO MASSACRE AND IT'S CONSTITUTIONAL AFTERMATH

[M]

From http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/ site reprinted with permission;

​ORLANDO MASSACRE AND IT'S CONSTITUTIONAL AFTERMATH

Editors Note: Normally I would not put this here. But, In the aftermath of the Orlando Terrorist Massacre and it's probable impact on the Second Amendment, I feel justified to sound the voice of reason on this issue. Now as always, the Overreaching Progressive Faction in the Federal Government is again blaming the tool instead if the agenda and the persons responsible for the tragedy. Again we have yet another Mass Murder in a "Gun Free Zone". It is my contention that we now need to stop all the rhetoric towards the Liberal agenda to disarm the law abiding public, and preventing them from having the means to defend themselves. I feel we now need to put extreme pressure on Congress against the agenda of the Gun Grabbers It was Congress heeding the loud demands of those who agenda is to totally disarm the public for politically correct reasons that contrived the concept of "Gun Free Zones" and put in place to "Make Us Safer". How well has that worked out for the multitude of innocent victims? How many fewer bodies of innocent people would there have been if armed Law Abiding Citizens had been on hand to stop the murderers at the beginning of their rampage? It is my considered opinion that Congress has erred in not abiding by the intent of the Second Amendment, and because of that collective decision, has endangered the lives of every American Citizen by removing their capability to defend themselves!

In The Aftermath Of Orlando, This Is Most Intelligent Argument Against Gun Control And Against Gun Free Zones I Have Seen
Source; http://www.selfreliancecentral.com/2016/06/13/another-shooting-tragedy-gun-free-zone/?utm_source=160613SRCDBSPOTNUTRITION3&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=160613SRCDBSPOTNUTRITION3


by Dan Mitchell

It’s happened again. A nut went to a gun-free zone and engaged in a mass killingIn this example, the perpetrator apparently was an Islamic fanatic upset about gay people.
But let’s set aside the question of motive and ask the important question of why politicians and bureaucrats don’t want innocent people to have any ability to defend themselves (they’ve even adopted policies prohibiting members of the military from being armed!).
The invaluable Crime Prevention Research Center has already weighed in on the issue.
Since at least 1950, only slightly over 1 percent of mass public shootings have occurred where general citizens have been able to defend themselves. Police are extremely important in stopping crime, but even if they had been present at the time of the nightclub shooting, they may have had a very difficult time stopping the attack. Attackers will generally shoot first at any uniformed guards or officers who are present (the Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris last year illustrates that point).  …In this particular case the police only arrived on the scene after the attack occurred. That illustrates another point: it is simply impossible for the police to protect all possible targets. It is hard to ignore how these mass public shooters consciously pick targets where they know victims won’t be able to defend themselves.
By the way, if you think that allowing guns in bars is somehow a recipe for carnage, consider the fact that it’s already legal in many states to have concealed carry or open carry where alcohol is served, yet we never read stories about mass shootings in these states.
Among the recent states that allow permitted concealed handguns in places that get more than 50 percent of their revenue from alcohol are: Georgia (2014), Louisiana (2014), North Dakota (2015), North Carolina(2014), Ohio (2011), South Carolina (2014), and Tennessee (2009).  Besides Florida, other states that prohibit them are: Illinois, Kentucky, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Washington and Wyoming.  Many of the states that allow one to carry a gun in a bar still prohibit you to consume alcohol.  Here are some other state laws: Alaska, Idaho, Michigan (allows you to open carry if you have a concealed handgun permit), and Montana (allows you to openly carry a gun into a bar), and Oregon.

To be sure, it’s possible at some point that some moron with a gun will do something wrong in one of these states, so it’s not as if there’s no possible downside to having guns legally in places where alcohol is served.
But the really bad people are far more dangerous, and their evil actions are enabled and facilitated by gun-free zones.
For my safety and the protection of my children, I want there to be more well-armed law-abiding people, whether in bars or anyplace else in society.
Including schools.
Professor Nelson Lund of George Mason University Law School explains in the New York Times that gun-free zones on campuses simply don’t work.
…colleges pretend that disarming responsible adults makes their students safer. The university at which I work, for example, forbids faculty, staff and students to bring their weapons to school, even if they have a concealed-carry permit issued by the government. …The university police are unable to prevent violent crimes, and it is heartlessly arrogant to disarm potential victims, leaving them and those they could protect at the mercy of rapists and other predators. Armed citizens frequently save lives and prevent violent crimes, often without firing a shot. Nearly all mass shootings occur in “gun-free zones,” and some of these massacres have been stopped by civilians who intervened after retrieving a gun.
He points out that the evidence favoring concealed carry is overwhelming.
…states have adopted laws allowing law-abiding adults to carry a concealed handgun in public. About 13 million Americans now have concealed-carry permits, and 11 states do not even require a permit. As the number of armed citizens has skyrocketed, violent crime has gone down, not up, and permit holders almost never abuse their rights. In Florida, for example, where permits have been available for almost thirty years, they have been revoked for firearm misuse at an annual rate of 0.0003 percent; even the police have higher rates of firearms violations (and higher overall crime rates) than permit holders.
So what’s the bottom line?
Professor Lund has an understandably low opinion of the “callous” school bureaucrats who think grief counselors are better than self defense.
When murders and even massacres occur, …university bureaucrats will undoubtedly absolve themselves of guilt, wash the blood from their demonstrably unsafe spaces, and call in the grief counselors. Some state legislatures have put a stop to these callous disarmament policies.

.The moral of the story is that lawful people should have the right to defend themselves and others.
The police play an important role, of course, but they generally show up after bad things have happened. Which is why the vast majority of cops oppose gun control (and even a growing number of police chiefs, who often are corrupted by being political appointees, now say private gun ownership is important to deter bad guys).
That’s why legal gun ownership is important, particularly for communities that are targeted for violence, such as European Jews, or for people such as teachers who could be in a position to protect others who have no ability to defend themselves.
The good news on this sad day is that more and more states are moving policy in the right direction. Hopefully something good will come out of this tragedy and there will be further moves to help law-abiding people defend themselves from evil.
Of course, I won’t be surprised if the people who can’t pass this IQ test argue instead for more gun control. 

​Out of the Mouths of Babes, Here's what a 16 year old had to say about the unnecessary Orlando Radical Islamic Terrorist Attack and Murders;

FINAL NOTE:
​One extremely important fact to remember is; The Vast Majority Of Muslims World Wide Are Honorable, Peaceful, God Fearing People. They Are Getting The Bad Reputation From The Few Who Use Their Religion For Power, Politics, and Personal Gain.

The real and only problem is: The Elitist Liberals in positions of power, and who have armed security for their personal protection, have put in place laws and regulations to make the rest of us victims, who must cower and beg for the protection of an indifferent and hostile government as serfs had to under the Kings, instead of having the capability to exercise our God given right of self protection. 

[M]

Logically speaking, and I do believe the general public will see the truth in this, including most of the Liberal Factions seeing it too. Since the days of Kings, Satraps, Despots, War Lords, Centurions, etal. The ruling Elite have done every thing in their power to keep weapons out of the hands of those they ruled over. The Founders knew this since King George tried to disarm the colonists. That being the final straw which precipitated the American Revolution. That is the reason for the Second Amendment, even if it is symbolic today. A reason the Elite Gun Grabbers don't want people to believe in or acknowledge.

>

The Elitists do that simply because they recognize  if the subjects had the means to fight back, they would do so. They would do it especially if the ruling elites stepped over the bounds of decency and abused their subjects. They knew the people would remove them from power if they had the physical means to do so. That is the main and maybe the sole reason todays ruling elite want the same thing. They believe in Self Preservation/Defense for themselves but not for us who they believe to be their subjects.

>

The private ownership of guns is the basic Symbol of our self rule with the Elected Representatives warned away from trying to be modern day Kings.

[kevin kiernan]

Metal forging in the colonies was very closely regulated by the Brits. Many small forges, were in the deep back woods. It was a true black market of the times.

[kevin kiernan]

British Parliament  introduces Iron Act of 1750.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Act

[M]

Howard Stern had this to say to Obama and it makes a lot of sense;

[kevin kiernan]

I like this analysis by Howard.

[kevin kiernan]

Trump is right on the gun issue. Common sense says if you are on the Watch list you should not be able to buy guns at all. The problem is that The government can not do things right. And besides. If this Orlando shooter was not allowed to have guns, He would have just built a bomb or two.

[M]

Kevin,

You do realize that we could be on the watch list for what we say here. No. The watch list needs some hard and fast rules to go along with it including allowing people whom are on it to defend themselves if they feel they are on it by either mistake or political reasons like objecting to the President. etc. don't get me wrong, I think they should be banned from buying guns too but too many are on it by mistake or political retribution to just use the list, there has to be a way for the public to explain their actions and challenge the govt. putting them on it too.

[kevin kiernan]

Because the government uses the list to terrorize law abiding people does not mean we do not do what is right. It means we need to hold those accountable who use government agencies for their tools of tyranny. We the people should not stand for that. To many years the silent majority has been bullied under the rug....We need to hold government officials accountable . To many get greased from the government, Not enough Patriots.As long as we allow the establishment left or right to keep the status quo. We are done. It is now or never as far as using the elections to get things right.... I have said it for a long time now...This is my last election if we do not get it right.

[M]

Kevin,

I understand what you are saying. I am talking about the government using false methods to keep the law abiding public from owning or buying guns and ammo. The Govt. is on notice right now because of the massive increase of gun sales over the last seven years. I personally would like to see an amendment that clarified the fact that any American who was not incarcerated and over the age of 21 could have any kind of gun in their possession. If America was the same as it was during WWII when the Japanese passed on invading because they knew Americans had basically a gun behind every bush and would use them, then the Jihadi's would cease attacking us because they would know they most likely would be dead before they could do their dirty work.

[jack ludwig]

I would like to hear a logical argument why the general public should be allowed to own an assault rifle. I think they should be banned any collected from the general public. Anyone that is caught having an assault weapon would automatically get a five year federal prison charge for their first offence and for each time they are caught an additional five years sentence is tacked on. This law would also apply to those who sell such a weapon.  That would take the argument away from the liberals on gun control solving terrorist carnage. 

[Hankelvis]

Jack, you liberal loon. You cannot shoot wild hogs from a helicopter without a decent rifle.
One more reason: freedom, duh.
One more reason Obama does not want you to have one. I want 50 of them just like the one's your favorite AG, Eric Holder distributes to drug lords in mexico. One more reason: drug lords, immigrants, protection from shooters and the us government gone rogue.

[M]

Jack,

You have fallen prey to the dis-information the gun grabbers have put out. The AR15 and as a matter of fact any other rifle that can be legally owned by a civilian. A Fully Automatic "Assault Weapon" can not be owned by a civilian unless they have a thorough FBI/DOJ background check, a class three firearms license,and pay $300.00 for every component of that weapon including Scope and Clips. The AR15 is NOT an "ASSAULT WEAPON" it is simply a look alike. Many things have been released by the left press that simply are not true. Take the statement that an AR15 can fire 8 rounds a second. Not True even Jerry Miculek who makes his living performing as a competition shooter and is known as the fastest trigger alive, can only fire 5 rounds a second. Olympian shooter Amanda Furrer can only fire three. Those speeds are comparable with most hand guns. In short all the so called Assault weapons available to civilians are only look alikes, not true assault Weapons. That Assault Weapon Rhetoric is the gun grabbers playing on the fears of the uneducated in firearms public. I suspect you have not been in the service, and that's Ok, but had you been, you would know the difference. You would also know it's not the tools but the agendas and craziness of the shooters that cause the tragedies. Had he had a fully automatic assault weapon, the death toll would have been much higher and a good case for foreign State sponsored Terrorism could have been made.

Jack, consider this; the Ruger 10-22 plinking/varmint rifle has the same trigger mechanism as the AR15 but no one would call it an assault weapon. Both are in the same class but one looks traditional and the other looks scary. That is the difference.