Gun Control is Killing People

Before we get started lets lay some ground work with the some facts and trigger words Gun Control Activist like to use. A wise man once said, "A right not exercised is a right lost" and this is true with the second amendment, and what is worse is the false information put out by the liberals with the help of bias media. Have you ever heard that every mass shootings in the US has taken place in gun free zones. James Holmes bypassed five closer theaters to go to the one with, "No Weapons Allowed" and shot 82 people killing 12. Why did he pick the "No Weapons Allowed" theater? As all criminals, he knows two things; 1) criminals don't follow the law, and 2) he would be safe from anyone firing back because good citizens follow the law. You will hear many definitions for the key words liberal anti-gun people want to use, mostly all made up. Take the term Assault Weapon, what is the true definition?

The US Military Definition of an Assault Rifle-A weapon that can fire intermediate powered cartridges on "Select Mode" which means fully automatic fire; what we call a machine gun which has been banned since 1936. Law Enforcement, military, and very few civilians or civilian organizations are allowed to own them.

The Liberal Definition of an Assault Rifle-A weapon that fires more then one round.

This is from Senate Bill 23 Assault Weapon Characteristics so before you ask, no I didn't make it up.

A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following: (Why? Makes no since, what does a detachable magazine have to do with fully automatic?)

1. A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon. (Why? Makes no since, this is cosmetic in nature.)
2. A thumbhole stock. (Why? Makes no since, this is cosmetic in nature.)
3. A folding or telescoping stock. (Why? Makes no since.)
4. A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
5. A flash suppressor. (Why? Makes no since.)
6. A forward pistol grip. (Why? Makes no since, this is cosmetic in nature.)
1. A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds. (Why? Makes no since, never seen a FIXED magazine of 10 rounds .)
2. A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches. (Why? Makes no since.)
3. A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
   
1. A threaded barrel, capable of accepting a flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer. (Why? Makes no since, you can legally buy even silencers with a class 3 license.)
2. (B) A second handgrip. (Why? Makes no since, this is cosmetic in nature.)
3. A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel that allows the bearer to fire the weapon without burning his or her hand, except a slide that encloses the barrel. (Why? Makes no since, so you want people to be injured by a rifle?)
4. The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip. (Why? Makes no since, this is cosmetic in nature.)
4. A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds. (Why? Makes no since, I haven't seen a semiautomatic pistol with a "fixed" magazine.)
5. A semiautomatic shotgun that has both of the following:
1. A folding or telescoping stock. (Why? Makes no since, this is cosmetic in nature.)
2. A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, thumbhole stock, or vertical handgrip. (Why? Makes no since, this is cosmetic in nature.)
6. A semiautomatic shotgun that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine. (Why? Makes no since, the largest detachable shot gun magazine is 5 rounds the same as a standard pump.)
7. Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder. (Why? Makes no since, the largest revolving cylinder shot gun I found is 5 rounds, the same as your standard pump.)
1. "Assault weapon" does not include any antique firearm.
2. The following definitions shall apply under this section:
1. "Magazine" shall mean any ammunition feeding device.
2. "Capacity to accept more than 10 rounds" shall mean capable of accommodating more than 10 rounds, but shall not be construed to include a feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds. (Why? Makes no since, was this baffling enough?)
3. "Antique firearm" means any firearm manufactured prior to January 1, 1899. (Where did they pick this date from? Makes no since.)

None of this comes close to what the military calls an "Assault Rifle", so where did they pull it from; probably out of their stinky hole. This shows how ill-informed and ignorant they are about guns; most of these proposals are all cosmetic and they even removed safety devices. Lets see if they are also speaking out of their stinky holes.

California State Senator Kevin de Leon (Democrats) shows us two things in this clip; one, he knows nothing about guns and two that all liberals use disinformation and fear mongering to try and pass laws to take our rights. Thirty rounds in half a second is 6,360 rounds a minute; even the militaries mini gun which is the fastest shooting weapon we have that I know of can only shoot 6,000 rounds a minute and has six barrels. 

A fully automatic AR style rifle at the max can fire 650 rounds per minute, 10 times less then what our honorable Senator said. He is holding a civilian version which is semi automatic and with a 30 round clips readily available you may if you are extremely good, get 60 rounds off. So are you telling me this honorable senator is flat out lying or didn't research to find the truth before he opened his mouth. It is probably both. Basically he is deceiving and lying to the people about guns; is there others? 

Here is liberal Congressman Diane Feinstein telling us she doesn't want to take our guns but previously she said she wants to take everyone of them. She as all liberals will say what ever they think their audience once to hear and then vote which ever way they want. Liberals seem to have a need to deceive the people because if most of the people knew what they were up to, they would never get back into office.

Mitt Romney says he is not for gun laws but then in this clip he is for strong invasive gun control, this shows another liberal lying to the people. When I say liberal, I am not saying Democrat as you can see because Mr. Romney is a liberal Republican and being liberal is the reason he will never be elected  as president under the Republican party.

Liberals are trying to "Set Up" gun owners for confiscation. Health care personnel are required to ask you questions about owning guns; this is mandated in The Affordable Care Act (TACA) and they will have to document your answers in the system. Because the IRS will be handling The Affordable Care Act and the IRS is considered an "Enforcement Agency" all "Law Enforcement Agencies" will have access to your medical records which will effectively work as a registration of gun owners. This violates The Firearms Owners Protection Act; so in essence the TACA violates the law but that won't matter once they take your guns. A Sheriff is asked if he would assist the Federal Agents in taking everyone's guns; remember I said they were trying to confiscate your guns and many of you laughed. He said it would lead to the second revolution and he wouldn't do it. Most places the Police Chief want to defend the law abiding citizens against criminals but not in Chicago. Garry Francis McCarthy is the current Superintendent (Police Chief) of the Chicago Police Department was appointed by Mayor Rahm Emanuel who by the law wasn't allowed to run for Mayor but this is Chicago; the law doesn't matter. Garry Francis McCarthy is really a politician and the reason the crime rate is still on the rise; he's a liberal and liberals have no clue how to legally deal with crime. 

He should be going after the gang members and criminals in Chicago but him and the mayor would rather go after law abiding citizens trying to protect themselves. This gets worse on the federal level, Mexico wants the United States to provide a registry of all gun owners on border states; why would we even consider that? In case you didn't know, "The Firearms Owners Protection Act" makes required registration of firearms illegal but if it was legal, why would we give a foreign government our citizens private information? If provided this could be used to target US citizens by drug cartels and would be a betrayal of the people by their government.

Many of the anti-gun people say that guns just cause more deaths. The Department of Justice says about 800,000 attacks are stop every year just by showing the attacker you have a gun, and Gary Kleck, Professor at Florida State University Criminology and Criminal Justice, gun study shows up to 2.5 million attacks are stop every year just by showing the attacker you have a gun so just as all liberals, these anti-gun people are talking out of their stinky hole, following a liberal line of thought based at the best on an emotional response to an event instead of hard evidence. Hard evidence would be like all mass shootings taking place in gun free zones. Like it or not, guns, even assault weapons save lives.

A citizen who witnessed an armed robbery and confronted the two robbers, they drew their guns and defending himself, the citizen drew his own weapon and killed both robbers; now the families of the slain robbers want to sue the citizen. It is disturbing what one of their moms says. Another incident there was two Waffle House robbers, one is killed by a citizens and now the family of the robber wants stricter gun laws. All criminals want stricter gun laws because that makes them, the criminal safer but it doesn't the law abiding citizen. A thug with three pending trials for robberies was shot but not killed while robbing a store and the thugs momma is mad as hell at the good Samaritan for "Shooting her Baby", he shouldn't of gotten involved. She should be glad he wasn't a better shot and killed him. These criminals and their relatives is what liberals are turning America to and it needs to be stopped. You even have stories of legally armed citizens saving the police from shooters like Vic Stacy, saving the officers life. Here are a few extras that show why we should be allowed to own and carry across the US.

Mom saves kids with assault rifle.

Citizen with Concealed Weapon Permit Shoots Armed Robber Dead.

Armed Customer with CWP Stops Armed Robber in Wisconsin.

Female store clerk shoots and kills would-be robber who shot her first.

Gun Carrying Man with CCP Ends Stabbing Spree at Salt Lake Grocery Store.

One old man with a pistol bests three teenage robbers.

Gun Owner with CCP Kills Burglar

Young Single Mom Asks 911 For Permission To Shoot Intruder - Actual Call

Tell me that guns don't protect people, that is why most of the gun laws need to be thrown out. If you want to punish criminals more for using guns, great but stop punishing the legal gun owners. Please comment.