More on Red Flag Laws

January 14, 2019
Red Flag Gun Laws – Chapter 4
We here at the USGOA are taking on a team project of sorts as we address the Red Flag Gun Laws that are so BIG in the news right now.
As this begins the posts published have been submitted by Admins and Moderators and are OPINION pieces, their opinions, and as such, may or may not represent the entire staff or membership OF the USGOA.
This article is written by Cary Cartter, a personal and longtime friend. Cary is a very knowledgeable gun hand, a former Marine and one of our Admins, and has stuck by me through thick and thin for quite a few years now.
———————-
The latest attempt at control of what they want to be “their subjects” by the politicians with a totalitarian bent are the so-called “Red Flag Laws.” Specifically, these left-leaning people want to remove firearms from otherwise innocent persons without due process. I look at laws of this type as Slippery Slope propositions, since they often make it easier to erode the rights of the citizens, since a step has already been taken in that direction.
Let me make one thing clear up front: The Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights says “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.” I take that to mean that the individual right to keep and bear arms is not to be stopped, slowed down, reduced, prohibited, or prevented in any way, shape or form. ANY law that restricts the sale or transfer of a firearm (or any related item, including but not limited to ammunition, magazines, accessories, or components thereof) from one person to another without government control is an infringement on the Second Amendment Right of all citizens.

Now, I will be the first to admit that no, I don’t want a bunch of crazy people running around with guns. I’ll get back to that in a minute. What I DO want is for the individual to be able to decide whether or not they have the mental capacity and mental strength to arm themselves in case they need to defend themselves or others. There is no government agency, at any level, that has the authority to assume administrative control of this (or any!) enumerated right.

(For those who may not be following this thought yet, insert the Freedom of Speech as a substitute for the Right to Bear Arms – if the mindset is that the “arms” involved were meant for the technology invented at the time, get off the internet, write me a letter with iron gaul ink and a quill pen on parchment paper, have it hand delivered to me by a guy on a horse, and we can begin to discuss why you are wrong.)
Supporting or advocating for the removal of firearms because of a complaint about someone’s mental state is a step on a very slippery slope. The method of reporting, the authority and response of law enforcement agencies, the anonymity of the reporting party and the procedures to be followed vary from instance to instance, proposed law to proposed law (in some cases, enacted laws). Typically, John Doe can be reported by Jane Public to be a threat to his own or someone else’s safety. Law Enforcement is then directed to act on the anonymous tip, **seize any weapons in the possession of John Doe** and take Mr. Doe into protective custody, all without Mr. Doe having committed any crime. Sounds like the plot from Minority Report, doesn’t it?
Let’s take a look at some points of order with the above scenario:
-Who is Jane Public? Is she an expert on psychological issues? Has she studied the causes and effects of mental illnesses long enough to be able to spot a crime before it has happened? Or is she simply the disgruntled former romantic partner of John Doe, and bent on revenge in any way, shape, or form?
I imagine there are a fair number of divorces in this country that have had less-than-amicable results, where one person has wished for some way to “get back” at the other. A claim of suspected danger from the ex is a perfect way to put them through the wringer without getting your own hands wet.
-Amendment 4: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.”
Probable Cause – a crime has been committed. Supported by oath or affirmation – a judge must have a sworn statement, made by the person searing the warrant, which means the judge must know who the prosecuting party is. Describing the … things to be seized – a list of items to be seized must be provided – not a blanket warrant saying “any and all firearms and/or weapons.”
The phrase “weapons” can be widely interpreted – knives, baseball bats, bare hands, any number of items that can be used to inflict bodily damage on another person – and unless a government entity has been demanding to know (assuming authority over a right) what weapons are owned by which people, how is a list of firearms and/or weapons owned by John Doe going to be made?
-Amendment 6: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right … to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.”
None of these conditions are met in the above scenario, since no crime has been committed, only the “feeling” that something is wrong. Jane does not have to support the reasons for the warrant, either to the judge or John. John has no opportunity to confront the complainant in order to know the nature of the charges being used to deny him his Second and Fourth amendment rights.
Now, mental acuity: unless a person has been evaluated by psychological medical experts, there is no laymen’s method to determine the mental state of an individual. Oh, I’m sure you can tell when someone’s cheese has slid off their cracker, but unless an evaluation has been done there is no legal standing of that person’s mental state. The left, with their propensity to be “progressive” and “caring” and “inclusive”, has managed to outlaw having someone called crazy enough to warrant evaluation. It is considered impolitic to call up the Sheriff and say “Bubba done stepped over the line, he needs looked at.” Unless, of course, Bubba happens to own a firearm, then we go back to step one of the Red Flag Law.
Why are firearms the first item to be confiscated?
Because the Left has deemed them to be Not Good for the Public Safety.
The Left has decided that “they” (amorphous and anonymous) need to be in charge of telling the rest of us what is good for our own good. The Left should be allowed to make the rules as they go along, not following the same rules in their own life (see: celebrities and politicians who advocate for gun control and against border walls from within their walled compounds surrounded by armed guards).
Once it has been established that the Fourth amendment can be ignored in the quest to disabuse the people from exercising their Second Amendment, and the ability to prevent government from becoming a dictatorial body without fear of reprisal from the governed, then the rest of the amendments (and, by sequence, the entire constitution) can be removed from our grasps and done away with at their leisure.
The state of California is an example of the erosion of rights, and the slippery slope they are on. There are those who claim that a bloodbath will ensue anytime the already unconstitutional gun laws in place are either tightened or loosened; the ones against gun control will point to places within our country where tight gun control (meaning only the law-abiding will follow the law) has resulted in higher murder rates and other places within our country where relaxing the restrictions has resulted in lower overall crime rates; while those who favor control (not just of guns!) point to those same places and falsify claims about the same crimes.
A process to ensure the safety of all is needed, yes – but removing the ability of one to defend one’s self, either legally or physically, should not be the first step, and it certainly should not be done anonymously with no responsibility of the accusing party.

A Silver Bullet; Gun Owners of America

January 12, 2019

Gun owners have a “silver bullet” that can stop the gun control agenda being peddled by Nancy Pelosi — thanks to a pro-gun member of the House of Representatives.

Republican Rep. Richard Hudson of North Carolina reintroduced his concealed carry reciprocity bill last week, and he was able to secure the same number as last year.

Like his previous bill, H.R. 38 would advance gun rights protections in several ways, as it would:

1) Allow your concealed carry license to be recognized in every state in the country — thereby eliminating the possibility that you would be imprisoned for decades, merely for taking the wrong ramp off an interstate.

2) Protect the right of people from Constitutional Carry states to also carry firearms out of state — so they could carry across the country with no permit!

3) Protect the right of citizens from anti-gun states (like NJ, NY, IL, HI, CA, etc.) by allowing them to carry in their own states, after getting a permit from a more gun-friendly state.

4) Open the door to allowing teachers to protect their students against mass murderers who attack their children in the classroom.

H.R. 38 already has nearly 100 cosponsors.

Urging Rep. Liz Cheney (R) to Cosponsor H.R. 38 is NOT a waste of your time!

H.R. 38 is a great bill. But why try to get cosponsors on a pro-gun bill when Nancy Pelosi controls the House?

Surely, Pelosi is not going to let H.R. 38 get a vote, right?

No, she’s not.  But we shouldn’t jettison our agenda, simply based on who controls the Congress.

Have you noticed that the anti-gun Left never stops pushing for votes — even when they are in the minority? That’s how they keep their momentum and their agenda on the table.

We at Gun Owners of America will not stop pushing for concealed carry reciprocity.

Besides, it may be the best way to kill the anti-gun agenda that Pelosi wants to cram down our throats.

In 2013, Senator Harry Reid would have passed Obama gun control (probably with 50 votes), had not our threat to offer reciprocity thwarted him.  Reciprocity became the “silver bullet” which helped us kill the entire Obama gun control agenda in the Senate. (See p. 6 here.)

Well, 2019 is going to be a long year and there are going to be a lot of legislative battles.

And we are going to need to stay on offense if we expect to win the war.

Heck, you may even see H.R. 38 as an amendment to an infrastructure or immigration bill.

Remember when our pro-gun parks amendment passed as an amendment to a credit card bill — with Barack Obama’s signature in 2009?

That’s why I say that we should never give up and never stop going on offense — no matter which party is in power.

Gun Bans and Gun Confiscation Orders

On Tuesday, anti-gun Democrats introduced Universal Background Checks in the House — legislation that effectively amounts to a ban on private gun sales.

And you can bet that the rest of Michael Bloomberg’s playbook, like so-called “assault weapon” bans, bans on gun parts kits, and more onerous gun controls will be soon introduced, as well.

In the other chamber, Senator Marco Rubio of Florida has introduced a Red Flag Gun Confiscation Order bill (S.B. 7).

The Rubio bill probably has the best chance of passing and represents the greatest danger.

There can be no real Due Process wherever Red Flag Gun Confiscation Orders exist.

Because stripping you of your constitutional rights in the middle of the night — not because you have committed a crime or would ever commit a crime — but because you’ve been subjectively determined to be dangerous is inherently a violation of Due Process.

The battle lines are drawn. Gun grabbers are out to rip up the Constitution — and the Second Amendment specifically.

So fasten your seat belt. It’s going to be a rough ride for the next two years.

I need you to stand with GOA … to take action … and to forward this email to your pro-gun family and friends.

Thank you so much.

In Liberty,

Erich Pratt
Executive Director

More on Red Flag Laws

January 11, 2019

Red Flag Gun Control Laws – Chapter 2

We here at the USGOA are taking on a team project of sorts as we address the Red Flag Gun Laws that are so BIG in the news right now.

As this begins the posts published have been submitted by Admins and Moderators and are OPINION pieces, their opinions, and as such, may or may not represent the entire staff or membership OF the USGOA.

This article is written by Tex Reynolds, another personal and longtime friend, a very knowledgeable gun hand, a retired Law Officer and one of our Admins.

————-

Laws that permit police or family members to petition a state court to order the temporary removal of firearms from a person who may present a danger to others or themselves, have come to be called Red Flag Laws. Their purpose is supposed to be to prevent violence before it happens.

As of February 2018, five states have passed laws allowing for the seizure of weapons before a crime has occurred. These laws allegedly temporarily remove firearms from citizens making everyone safer. The laws obviously are all worded a bit differently and require varying levels of procedures.

Many advocates of such laws have described them as a new frontier.

Actually, the idea has been around since 1956 in a science fiction story, later made into a movie, The Minority Report.

The idea of thought police is nothing new. The elite have long desired to have total control over the populace. Our Founding Fathers recognized this and gave us the 4th Amendment to prevent this from occurring. They said, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Advocates of Red Flag Laws claim that their laws don’t violate the 4th Amendment because the laws require a warrant, yet the current laws do not allow for the accused to rebut the argument, they eliminate due process beforehand, they do not allow the accused to face their accusers and in fact actually require the accused to prove that they are innocent. Our system of laws is based upon innocent until proven guilty and Red Flag Laws trample all over this tenet of our legal system.

These laws are not about people who can be proved to have committed crimes of violence, or can be proved to have threatened to commit such acts; we have laws already on the books for these actual crimes. Red Flag Laws take it several steps further and punish citizens for what they someone thinks they might do.

Advocates for Red Flag Laws couch their support for this in nice language that basically says the government can take away your rights at any time without due process. Of course first the Government must determine that the accused owns guns, and down the road they will need to know that so everyone must register their weapons. That’s the next proposal to the Red Flag Laws.

Do we want unstable people in control of weapons? Of course not! But can we trust people not to lie to the police, to judges, etc.

How do we balance the accused rights against the safety of the community?

How about the way our Founding Fathers laid it out? With “Due Process”!

If a person is a threat to themselves or others, arrest them based on a warrant or detain them for a 72 hour mental hold.

Take the weapons into protective custody, place a time limit on length of time the weapons can be held and make this time limit extremely short. If accusations cannot be substantiated within a set period of time not to exceed 30 days the weapons must be returned to the owner immediately and at no cost with no delaying legal procedures and all records that identify the firearms must be expunged.

Law Enforcement needs a procedure to immediately confiscate weapons from a high risk situation without retribution. But the clock starts on the expeditious return of those weapons at that time.

Red Flag Law advocates use all kinds of statistics to prove their case but deep drilling shows most of the statistics don’t help their argument. Duke University researchers looked at the application of Connecticut’s Red Flag Law between 1999 and 2013, they found that police served 762 so-called “risk warrants” during that period and estimated that “a gun suicide was prevented for every 10 to 20 seizures.”

So, in 14 years Connecticut’s red flag law prevented between 38 and 76 suicides (?), but wait, 21 of those people went on and committed suicide but only six used firearms. So in depriving 762 citizens of their Constitutional Rights over a 14 year period gun violence statistics in the state were reduced by at most 61. That’s four per year. I looked to see why there was such a wide disparity in the figures and I could find no data. It appears that if record keeping is not an accurate science. Basically all their statistics proved is that the end result of their Red Flag Laws delayed six suicides by firearms. Twenty-one people were identified as a threat to themselves and yet Government couldn’t prevent them from killing themselves.

The government cannot legislate common sense. The government cannot legislate mental health. We cannot let government continue to chip away at our inalienable rights and expect our Republic to survive!

Red Flag Laws

January 9, 2019

          Red Flag Gun Control Laws

So called Red Flag Gun Control Laws seek to disarm individuals deemed too violent to be allowed to possess or control firearms. “red flag law is a gun violence prevention law that permits police or family members to petition a state court to order the temporary removal of firearms from a person who may present a danger to others or themselves.”

 

   This accusation can be made by anyone, anywhere, and without any probable cause. The accused party has no ability to present counter arguments in their defense. Most, if not all of these laws do not have any time table built into them for a hearing for restoration of that person’s property or Second Amendment rights. Many politicians see this as a holy grail for putting a halt to much of the gun violence that happens, as well as other.
Those others may well be; Jilted ex-lovers; ex- spouses, former business partners, angry neighbors, co-workers that have serious disagreements with the targeted person, and political opponents just to name a few. Accusations such as these can also be used for harming a person’s public, personal, and professional reputation as well. Arrest records never go away. Indeed, investigation records never go away, and can be brought up, and used against a person decades later just based upon the fact that they were investigated for something. Much like frivolous lawsuits the damage is done simply by the existence of the accusation. These laws are written in such a manner that no legal action may be taken against the person(s) lodging the complaint.

Even if controls were implemented the utter lack of due process make these unacceptable in a Republic with a Bill of Rights such as in The United States. Further, there are already mechanisms codified into law that have been used for decades to address the core issues of being a danger to one’s self or others without abusing the natural rights of a person. These are commonly called mental health holds, or intoxication holds. Therefore “Red Flag Laws” are an abuse of authority by society upon an individual as well as the weaponization of government by groups and individuals for the sole purpose of political and or social conquest.

Have the dots connected..?

December 29, 2018

Can this be vetted? Without committing suicide by way of two shots to the back of one’s head..?

BREAKING:
Is this accurate? And why is no one asking any more questions?

ARE THE DOTS NOW CONNECTED?

Anonymous 11/12/18 (Mon) 06:10:2822321c No.3865762
BERGDAHL WAS RELEASED IN EXCHANGE FOR 5 TALIBAN GENERALS IN ORDER TO COVER UP THE OBAMA/HILLARY STINGER MISSILE SALES TO LIBYA.
BENGHAZI AND THE MATCHING SERIAL NUMBERS

So here’s the REAL story: Ambassador Stevens was sent to Benghazi to secretly retrieve US made Stinger Missiles that the State Dept had supplied to Ansar al Sharia in Libya WITHOUT Congressional oversight or permission.

Sec State Hillary Clinton had brokered the Libya deal through Ambassador Stevens and a Private Arms Dealer named Marc Turi, but some of the shoulder fired Stinger Missiles ended up in Afghanistan where they were used against our own military.

On July 25th, 2012, a US Chinook helicopter was downed by one of them. Not destroyed only because the idiot Taliban didn’t arm the missile. The helicopter didn’t explode, but it had to land and an ordnance team recovered the missile’s serial number which led back to a cache of Stinger Missiles kept in
Qatar by the CIA.

Obama and Hillary were in full panic mode, so Ambassador Stevens was sent to Benghazi to retrieve the rest of the Stinger Missiles. This was a “do-or-die” mission, which explains the Stand Down Orders given to multiple rescue teams during the siege of the US Embassy.

It was the State Dept, NOT the CIA, that supplied the Stinger Missiles to our sworn enemies because Gen. Petraeus at CIA would not approve supplying the deadly missiles due to their potential use against commercial aircraft.

So then, Obama threw Gen. Petraeus under the bus when he refused to testify in support of Obama’s phony claim of a “spontaneous uprising caused by a YouTube video that insulted Muslims.”

Obama and Hillary committed TREASON!
THIS is what the investigation is all about, WHY she had a Private Server, (in order to delete the digital evidence), and WHY Obama, two weeks after the attack, told the UN that the attack was the result of the YouTube video, even though everyone KNEW it was not.

Furthermore, the Taliban knew that the administration had aided and abetted the enemy WITHOUT Congressional oversight or permission, so they began pressuring (blackmailing) the Obama Administration to release five Taliban generals being held at Guantanamo.

Bowe Bergdahl was just a useful pawn used to cover the release of the Taliban generals. Everyone knew Bergdahl was a traitor but Obama used Bergdahl’s exchange for the five Taliban generals to cover that Obama was being coerced by the Taliban about the unauthorized Stinger Missile deal.

So we have a traitor as POTUS that is not only corrupt, but compromised, as well and a Sec of State that is a serial liar, who perjured herself multiple times at the Congressional Hearings on Benghazi.

Perhaps this is why no military aircraft were called upon for help in Benghazi: because the administration knew that our enemies had Stinger Missiles that, if used to down those planes, would likely be traced back to the CIA cache in Qatar and then to the State Dept’s illegitimate arms deal in Libya.

Forward this again and again and again until everyone reads the true story of Benghazi. More than half of US citizens DO NOT KNOW THIS!

If this is indeed true people need to hang. No if’s ands or buts, period.

The Modern Musket

December 12, 2018

http://thefederalist.com/2018/12/12/top-10-reasons-ar-15/?fbclid=IwAR0bCoBNyjvCbumJcj_3ugOoliXXoKlibj1j7yL7DV3zehEM1w1SMAgbaC0

The language we use.

December 12, 2018

An Oldie but goodie

For Publication, 3,449 Words, 2/29/00
One-time North American Serial Rights
Copyright 2000 Alan Korwin
Not-for-profit circulation is approved.

POLITICALLY CORRECTED Glossary of Terms
by Alan Korwin, Author
Gun Laws of America

Part One — The Concept

Certain words hurt you when you’re talking about your rights.  People who would deny your rights have done a good job of manipulating the language so far. Without even realizing it, you’re probably using terms that actually help the people who want to disarm you.

To preserve, protect and defend your rights in this critical debate, you need effective word choices.

They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
PRO GUN
It’s better to say (and they lose if you say):
PRO RIGHTS


They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
GUN CONTROL

It’s better to say (and they lose if you say):
CRIME CONTROL


They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
ANTI-GUN MOVEMENT

It’s better to say (and they lose if you say):
ANTI-SELF-DEFENSE MOVEMENT


They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
SEMIAUTOMATIC HANDGUN

It’s better to say (and they lose if you say):
SIDEARM


They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
CONCEALED CARRY

It’s better to say (and they lose if you say):
CARRY or RIGHT TO CARRY


They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
ASSAULT OR LETHAL WEAPON

It’s better to say (and they lose if you say):
HOUSEHOLD FIREARMS


They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
SATURDAY NIGHT SPECIALS

It’s better to say (and they lose if you say):
RACIST GUN LAWS


They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
JUNK GUNS

It’s better to say (and they lose if you say):
THE AFFORDABILITY ISSUE


They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
HIGH CAPACITY MAGAZINES

It’s better to say (and they lose if you say):
FULL CAPACITY MAGAZINES


They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
SECOND AMENDMENT

It’s better to say (and they lose if you say):
BILL OF RIGHTS


They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
ANTI GUN

It’s better to say (and they lose if you say):
ANTI-GUN BIGOT or ANTI-GUN PREJUDICE


They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
ANTI GUN

It’s better to say (and they lose if you say):
ANTI RIGHTS


WHEN THEY SAY:
Guns kill

YOU SAY:
Guns save lives


WHEN THEY SAY:
Guns cause crime

YOU SAY:
Guns stop crime


WHEN THEY SAY:
Guns are too dangerous to own

YOU SAY:
Then you should take a safety class


WHEN THEY SAY:
Guns are too dangerous to own

YOU SAY:
Then don’t trust the boys and girls in the military and police with them


WHEN THEY SAY:
People shouldn’t have guns

YOU SAY:
You shouldn’t be required to have one


WHEN THEY SAY:
The only purpose of a gun is to kill

YOU SAY:
The main purpose of a gun is to protect


WHEN THEY SAY:
People shouldn’t have guns.

YOU SAY:
Only the good people should have the guns.


WHEN THEY SAY:
Guns should go away.

YOU SAY:
Then you should personally sign up to never have a gun in your life, under penalty of felony arrest, as you would ask of me.


WHEN THEY SAY:
They should take all the guns away.

YOU SAY:
Bad guys first.


WHEN THEY SAY:
We need more gun laws

YOU SAY:
Everything criminal about guns is already illegal


WHEN THEY SAY:
Why would anyone want to own a gun?

YOU SAY:
You’re kidding, right?

You mean you really don’t know?

Well, why do you think the police have guns?


WHEN THEY SAY:
We’re not really against people having guns.

YOU SAY:
What sort of guns do you think people should have, and why.


WHEN THEY SAY:
Do you really have a gun?

YOU SAY:
Of course, don’t you?

Then just give it a rest and watch where it goes. You’ll hear their litany, replete with flaws. Don’t rebut, seize the moment, listen hard and learn — then just raise an eyebrow and think, “How ’bout that. Feller doesn’t even own a gun. It takes all kinds.” Then talk about something else. And boy, does the disjoint hang in their craw.

————————————————-

Part Two — THE GLOSSARY

PRO RIGHTS

A more accurate, and far more compelling term than the common “pro gun.” The reverse term, which describes them, is “anti rights.” Misguided utopian disarmament advocates love the phrases “pro gun” and “anti gun”, because they automatically win when they’re used. They believe the righteous path is to be anti gun, because only devils would be pro gun. You flat lose if you allow a debate to be framed that way.

The debate is really between people who are “pro rights” and “anti rights” (and then you automatically win), because the righteous choice between pro rights and anti rights is obvious. You’re pro safety; pro self defense; pro freedom; pro liberty; pro Bill of Rights (correctly casting them as anti safety; anti self defense; anti freedom; anti liberty; anti Bill of Rights). This is an accurate depiction of people who would restrict, repress and flat-out deny civil rights you and your ancestors have always had in America.

ANTI RIGHTS

A more accurate, and far more compelling term than the common “anti gun.” The reverse term, which describes you, is “pro rights.” Fight the desire to cast repressionists as “anti gun,” (and by so doing casting yourself narrowly as “pro gun”). Instead, always refer more broadly to the “anti-rights” posture they take. Make them argue rights, not guns. 

CRIME CONTROL

What “gun control” used to mean, and a generally good idea (the phrase “gun control” has morphed to mean “disarm the public” and thus should be avoided, more on this later). Everyone basically agrees there should be crime control, so it is good grounds for détente. A common sense and reasonable proposal. Includes forcibly disarming criminals. Emphasizes the differences between criminals and an armed public.

GUN BIGOT

A person who hates guns. Typically has little or no personal knowledge of guns, may never have even fired one, certainly doesn’t have any. Would subject innocent people to defenselessness without compunction. An elitist. One with an irrational and morbid fear of guns that is ignorant and immoral. Spews bile and venom at guns, gun owners, gun-rights advocates, gun-rights associations, pro-Bill of Rights legislators. Striking similarity and direct parallels with racial bigotry before (and even after) the civil rights efforts of the 1960s.

GUN BIGOTRY

The notion that you can only own a gun if it is expensive, or passes a drop test, a melting point test, a consumer products test, a government design test, a caliber size, an ammunition capacity, a lock test, etc. The notion that only idiots, miscreants, red necks, dim bulbs and other nasty-named people would own guns. The notion that you can only vote, oops, I mean have a firearm, if you pass a test run by your government, and pay the tax, often called a “fee.” The notion that anyone who fails the tests — or any other qualifications — automatically forfeits their rights “for the common good.” An inability to distinguish honest people from criminals.

GUN PREJUDICE

Discrimination against honest people merely for their legal ownership or possession of firearms. A common occurrence in society today. A violation of your constitutional and natural rights. Gun prejudice appears to be a federal civil-rights offense, punishable by prison and fine. Now there’s a thought. Repressionists have attempted some very novel court challenges to laws that protect our liberties. Turnabout’s fair play. If there were, say, a city bank somewhere that refused customers simply because they legally handled firearms…

AFFORDABLE FIREARMS

Anti-rights bigots curse these as “junk guns” and “Saturday night specials,” racial epithets you should never use. The racist goal of outlawing guns unless they’re expensive is self evident and reprehensible. A woman who eats inexpensive food and drives an inexpensive car doesn’t lose her right to protect her family because she can only afford an inexpensive gun.

SIDEARM

Or would you rather use the complex and dangerous sounding (though accurate perhaps) “semiautomatic handgun,” a term which many people think means machine gun, according to Handgun Control (who recommends use of the term “semiautomatic handgun”). Unfortunately, “handgun” has been vilified beyond usability, and needs to be retired or at least back-burnered for now. Remember, it was the so-called Brady “handgun” law that federalized all retail sales of rifles and shotguns.

PISTOL

Or would you rather use the complex and dangerous sounding (though accurate perhaps) “semiautomatic handgun.” A basic, reliable, standard type of pistol, a regular pistol, an ordinary pistol, the same kind of pistol anyone would normally own. A basic, reliable, standard type of sidearm, a regular sidearm, an ordinary sidearm, the same kind of sidearm anyone would normally own.

HOUSEHOLD FIREARMS

The type any household is likely to have. All the firearms you own, despite constant name-calling from the media, are just household firearms.

GOVERNMENT GUN

The only kind you can now buy in America at retail.

BASIC SELF-DEFENSE GUN

Any type of firearm that could save your life in an emergency.

CARRY

Expunge the word “concealed” because so many people hear it and believe only a criminal would conceal something. It implies you have something to hide. Because being discreet is a common sense, reasonable measure, there’s no need to demean it with an ugly adjective (in this use anyway) like “concealed.” “Carry license,” not “concealed-carry license.”

LETHALITY

The quality of a gun that makes it useful as a crime-stopping, life-saving, defensive tool. A point that is attacked subtly in most anti-rights arguments. When met head on, the issue works against the anti-rights position. Caliber and capacity restrictions reduce lethality and your ability to save yourself or the state. Reducing lethality costs lives. Why should police need more capacity than you, when you both face the same criminals. How few bullets may a person use against an attacker, and how small should they be.

Guns are dangerous. They’re supposed to be dangerous. They wouldn’t be any good if they weren’t dangerous. Anything that makes them less dangerous by reducing lethality puts you (or police officers) at unacceptable risk.

ANTI-SELF-DEFENSE MOVEMENT

People who believe you have little or no right to defend yourself if attacked, because social order may only be imposed by an authority, and that such authority is superior to your right to exist (if push comes to shove). Also sometimes referred to as socialists. Sometimes expressed as your right to keep a cell phone handy to dial 911. The anti-self-defense movement is often deceptively portrayed as the “anti-gun movement.” Never let them hide behind their comfortable disguise as anti gun.

POLITICALLY CORRECTED

Language that does not automatically bias a debate about the Bill of Rights against individual liberty and freedom. Opposite of “politically correct” language, which is basically socialist in nature. We all recognize that “political correctness” is “incorrect,” and then we sneer and dismiss it. We do this at great peril, however, for PC statements treated that way don’t just go away, they fester and insidiously modify the paradigm, and bend our thinking into acceptance of that which we have verbalized as “correct.”

You want a good example of neurolinguistic programming and transformational grammar on a national scale, there it is to a tee.  It’s how we get to the Orwellian point where war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength.

BILL OF RIGHTS

More broadly appealing and less polarizing than “Second Amendment.”  Sure, I like the Second Amendment, and talk about it all the time. But saying “Bill of Rights” protects you from malicious stigma and stereotyping as a gun nut. Much more difficult to oppose, slows the bigots down. All the rights count, don’t they, and they’re all under attack. Bill of Rights Day. Pro Bill of Rights. I support the Bill of Rights, don’t you? Actually, even virulent gun haters and gun bigots champion the First Amendment and other parts of the BOR, which, if you’ll recall, was a single amendment (with separate articles) to the Constitution.

SUNSHINE GUN LAWS

Laws that encourage gun safety training and responsible firearms ownership, as opposed to repressive laws that criminalize honest gun ownership and infringe civil rights. Civil rights.

THE FIRST AMENDMENT

Stop saying Second Amendment so much, since the other side tunes this out immediately, and marginalizes you as a gun nut. Say “First Amendment” instead, and make your comparisons there — does the government jeopardize your First Amendment rights? You betcha! Should you be concerned? Of course! What would you think of Internet censorship, government approved religion, font size limits, restricted word choices, acceptable word counts, licensed writers, training and testing before publishing controversial editorials, and tests for accuracy — now there’s a nice parallel.

People on all sides recognize there are threats to free speech, religion, privacy and more from our friends, the government. The same root problems affect the whole Bill of Rights, gun rights are no different than other rights under attack.

GUN-SAFETY CLASSES

Something that, with all the accidents reported in America, all Americans should be taking — from the tens of thousands of trainers out there. Always encourage people on both sides of a debate to take a real class. Why wouldn’t an honest person take a gun-safety class? Going out for some wholesome and relaxing target practice, with friends. Getting good at marksmanship. Target practice. Marksmanship. These words have not been defiled and cast a good light, use them. Privately promoted gun-safety training days. Talk up the goal of “National Accident Reduction” through education and training. Private enterprise should vigorously swell to fill the gaping theater called, “We need more safety.”

ROWANITES

Anti-rights bigots who secretly own guns themselves, rely upon armed guards for security, or live inside communities with private security forces, but decry your right to arms. Closet gun owners. Named in honor of Carl Rowan, a vicious anti-gun bigot whose syndicated newspaper column vilified guns and gun owners for years, to a vast audience, until he one day fired at a trespasser near his home.

 

GUN BUYUPS

Gun buy back programs are misnamed. You cannot buy back something you didn’t own in the first place. Since the Brady law prohibits dumping such guns into criminal lairs (gun buyers must be certified by the FBI these days), there is no longer justification for destroying firearms collected in buyups. That’s right, there is no longer any justification at all for destroying firearms collected in buyups. When buyups are government funded, meltdowns are therefore wanton destruction of a public asset, and someone deserves to be held liable. Tax dollars are buying legal property simply to destroy it, when the only way to sell it is to certifiably law abiding individuals. What an outrage. Where I live, savvy collectors have set up shop at widely publicized gun buyups to make competitive bids and cherry pick the merchandise, pre-smelter.

DEMOCIDE

Murder committed by government. The most prevalent form of murder, responsible this century alone for 170 million deaths. Regime-ocide.

 

GUN CONTROL

Now generally synonymous with “disarming the public.” Using the phrase “gun control” in its currently twisted form distorts the debate and should be avoided; it is the other side’s rallying flag, bolstered every time the words leave your lips; argue about gun control and you’ve already lost. Use “crime control,” “accident reduction” and “disarming the public” to distinguish issues and preserve accuracy.

Listen hard when you hear the term “gun control” in the news. You’ll notice they’re basically not talking about controlling crime. They’re talking about controlling you.

Always start by asking what a person means when they say this phrase, then shut up and see. Often, people who think of themselves as being anti gun, unwittingly adopt the position that only the rulers should be armed (cop and army guns OK, but not you; such a person isn’t anti gun at all, they’re simply anti rights — your rights).

When a “gun-control law” regulates or demeans honest people in the false name of controlling crime, that’s actually tyranny. When “gun control” controls your right to have a gun, that is people control. The phrase “gun control” is a dangerous misnomer (some would say euphemism) for an agenda now actively pursued by a segment of society — that would consolidate power solely in “official” hands.

Help seize the metaphor back:

1. Drop into conversation how your gun control at target practice recently was better than usual, or how you have pretty good gun control but you still need some lessons. Invite someone to your gun-control class at the range next Tuesday — free style target practice. A well advertised gun-control class might attract some pretty interesting neighbors. Jokes about gun control (“a steady hand”) are neurolinguistically challenged and don’t help. Say something else funny if you must be funny.

2. When reporters and others inevitably ask, “Are you in favor of gun control?” they often don’t realize their question is as biased as, “Are you still beating your wife?” So it’s up to you to show them. They’re looking for a pro or con answer, and then a question of how much. Don’t play into it. Instead, try responding, “Well me, I’m in favor of crime control. How about you?”

3. When you write about so-called “gun control” or so-called “gun-control laws” always put it in quotes, to disparage it.

THE HENIGAN/BOGUS THEORY

Named by Dave Kopel in honor of its two leading proponents (Dennis Henigan and Carl Bogus). This is the notion, first arising a few decades ago, that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right. It stands in opposition to the fact that “the people” means all of us, and is responsible for the widely armed population we observe today. Covered more thoroughly in an earlier article of mine, The Big Lie (posted under Position Papers at http://www.gunlaws.com). Kopel’s recent paper on this, for the St. Louis University Public Law Review, is nothing short of brilliant. David can be reached at http://www.independenceinstitute.net.

COGNITIVE DISSONANCE

A tool for reaching closed minds. The use of questions to point out fundamental illogic, which can then topple the notions a person builds on that flawed base. An application of the Socratic method. The mental awareness that forms when a simple question challenges fundamentally held beliefs. Here are many. One at a time is usually enough for most minds.

If a registration list makes sense for the Second Amendment, would it make sense for the First Amendment?

Are criminals and an armed citizenry the same thing?

So why do people these days carry guns anyway, and does it ever work?

Should it be against the law to defend yourself?

If a person can’t have a gun, why should the police have them?

So if you are allowed to defend yourself, how many bullets can you use?

Shouldn’t we disarm the criminals first?

Why haven’t we disarmed the criminals?

Why don’t they arrest all the Brady criminals they find?

Are you against an armed citizenry?

Do you believe that only the rulers should have guns?

Now let me see if I understand this; when you say “gun control,” do you mean “stop crime” or “disarm the public”?

Now let me see if I understand this; when you say you’re anti gun, do you mean you want to disarm the police and the armed forces?

If you don’t want to disarm the police and military, you’re not really anti gun at all. You’re anti private gun. Why is that?

You know, after listening to you for a while, you’ve convinced me that you should never own a gun.

I’m against the idea that you should be forced to own a gun, and I would stand up for your right to not be armed.

Maybe you could sign up to be permanently disbarred from ever owning a gun. Would you do that (as you would ask me to do)?

Closing Note:

This article doesn’t end here. In attempting a document like this, I know I can never reach its ending. It defines a path which simply stretches forward.

If I wait until I have this evolved to my satisfaction it will never wrap. These ideas are too important to let wait that long. Consider it an early peek at a work in progress.

Alan.

 

“Social balance has evolved into a war of the metaphor — neurolinguistic programming meets George Orwell.”

— Alan Korwin

 

Interesting times. Maybe sinister times..?

December 8, 2018

http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index2631.htm?fbclid=IwAR1XJmcsItW5bJmF5HVKK-w2C_CTgJn1Yv1eTX-rpOxTK0UECY46AWKwMZs

White Hats Take Out Obama Spy Chief

December 8, 2018

WatchmanMomma

In an astounding update to my last post, after an FBI informant and his family were massacred, Trumpassassins have now taken outPresident Obama’stop spy chiefMichael Hayden.

Michael Hayden’s government service was described by the Columbia Journalism Review:

Hayden has a long history of making misleading and outright false statements, and by the estimation of many lawyers, likely committed countless felonies during the Bush administration.

It is something of a wonder that someone responsible for so many reprehensible acts is now considered a totally above-the-fray, honest commentator on all issues intelligence.

When you hear Michael Hayden spin his garbage, remember,Michael Hayden is a war criminal and a liar.

After Donald Trump defeated HRC in the 2016 election, Hayden claimed he had “wasted 40 years” of his life. Meaning, he witnessed President Trump unravel the coup plot thatHaydenhad…

View original post 306 more words

A Family Pays the Price for a Clinton Connection

December 8, 2018

WatchmanMomma

President Donald Trumphas just taken over personal command of allUnited States intelligence agenciesfollowing the brutal massacre of an allegedFBI informant namedKeith Caneiro, his wife and two children—who, with his brotherPaul Caneiro, hadbegun penetrating the computer networks ofCitibank—theAmericanbanking giantbeing targeted byTrump, and who hadorderedPresident Obamato makeHillary ClintonhisSecretary of State.

Following theassassination a fortnight ago of topTrumpadvisorDaniel Best, coupled with this week’s massacre ofFBI informantKeith Caneiroand his family,President Trumph hand picked the rest of the members of hisPIABand put them in charge of the entireUSintelligence community:

Experts say Trump could roil the intelligence community by asking his hand-picked panel to draft reports, for example, on alleged surveillance abuses against his 2016 campaign associates…

View original post 202 more words


%d bloggers like this: