The DOJ recently released a report surveying criminals who committed crimes (both violent and non-violent) at the state and federal level.
 
In their survey, they discovered that roughly 43% of the prisoners got a gun either off the street or through an underground market. 7% say they found a gun at the scene of the crime that would later be committed by them and 6% say they had stolen the gun. 25% got a gun through a family member, friend, or generally as a gift.
 
And one of the most interesting statistics provided by the report is the following: “Among prisoners who possessed a firearm during the offense for which they were imprisoned, 7% of state and 10% of federal prisoners serving a sentence in 2016 bought or traded for the firearm from a gun shop or gun store.”
 
So 90% of federal and 93% of state prisoners acquired guns outside of a gun shop or a gun store.
 
And the Left says we need more gun control measures?
 
What’s more, only “1.3% of prisoners obtained a gun from a retail source and used it during their offense,” according to the Daily Wire.
 
And by the way, that 7% of state and 10% of federal prisoners obtaining a gun from a gun store only counts towards criminals who POSSESSED a gun during the crime they committed for which they were imprisoned, not necessarily those who actually used the firearm.
 
Roughly “29% of state and 36% of federal prisoners serving a sentence for a violent offense in 2016 possessed a firearm during the crime. About a quarter of state (23%) and federal (25%) prisoners serving time for a violent offense used a firearm during the crime.”
 
The survey also breaks down the demographics for people most likely to have possessed a firearm during the crime committed for which they were imprisoned and found that “male prisoners were more likely than female prisoners to have possessed a firearm during their crime. About a fifth of male state and federal prisoners serving a sentence in 2016 possessed a firearm during the crime.”
 
According to the survey, 20.9% of state prisoners possessed a firearm at the time of committing the crime for which they were imprisoned, while 13.9% actually used a firearm. 20% of federal prisoners possessed a firearm with only 5% having used one. However, these are just the numbers for the number of total prisoners. In other words, these numbers include violent and non-violent crimes.
 
When it comes to violent crimes, as stated previously, 29.1% of state prisoners possessed a firearm and 23% used it, while 36.2% of federal prisoners possessed one and 25.3% used it.
 
Unsurprisingly, homicide and robbery saw the biggest number of people having possessed and used a gun both at the state and federal level, with assault trailing behind.
 
But the biggest focus for this particular conversation should be the statistics for how firearms are procured by the criminals.
 
Again, only 7% of state prisoners and 10% of federal prisoners obtained guns through a gun shop. At least 90% obtained it through different means.
 
Now, we do also have to look at that 25% who say they obtained their guns via a friend, family member, etc. I won’t get into that particular way to get a gun, since that can be a relatively slippery-slope to go through in terms of the extent of their legality.
 
What I mean is that, in my opinion, the most logical way to buy a gun for someone else is to go to a gun shop with the person you are gifting the gun to so that the store can run a background check for that person. I am well aware that people also do things differently, but the reason I bring this up is because that seems to be the most logical and least legally obscure way of gifting a gun for someone else.
 
But in any case, like I said before, the main focus of this article is that statistic showing that a very miniscule amount of criminals obtained their guns at a gun shop.
 
Which really drives home the point that gun control simply doesn’t work. A bad guy will find ways to get guns if they have enough of a desire to do evil (and as a side note, a wall would really help regarding the flow of illegal guns into our country).
 
It makes no sense to punish those who follow the law for the actions committed by those who don’t follow the law.
 
Whenever there is a shooting, the Left will automatically blame the gun and call for more gun control which only affects law-abiding citizens.
 
But if this report is in any way accurate, then the argument for gun control goes out the window. If criminals tend to acquire their guns through ILLEGAL MEANS then there is not much more gun control laws will do except leave innocent people vulnerable to more attacks.
 
As I have said in multiple other articles discussing gun control and the 2nd Amendment, things like marijuana, crack and other illegal drugs are already illegal (for the most part). You are not legally allowed to have a bag of crack on you or in your home. And yet, people find ways to do it.
 
Those who obey the law will not have bags of crack on them (unless they are planted on them). Those who obey the law, by definition DON’T BREAK THE LAW!
 
Those who don’t obey the law will not care if there is more gun control or not, at least in regards to them obtaining a gun.
 
If anything, criminals love it when more gun control legislation passes. It means things get harder for people to acquire guns through legal means and they can be left a bit more vulnerable.
 
It’s not rare to hear of stories of someone, usually a woman, who wishes to obtain a gun through legal means because they fear for their life, but end up dying because of gun control legislation that makes it very difficult to obtain a gun.
 
And it’s not rare at all to hear of multiple weekends of bloodshed in places like Chicago, where gun control is faithfully implemented as much as it can be.
 
So not only does gun control usually mean more bloodshed and death wherever it is implemented, but it is not even doing what it supposedly is supposed to do: keep guns away from people who should not have them.
 
Not that that comes as any surprise to you or me. But it is good to see that rhetoric put down on paper, studied, and thoroughly looked at and basically proven.
 
Most criminals don’t obey laws. Who knew?
 
Proverbs 21:15
“When justice is done, it is a joy to the righteous but terror to evildoers.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
​

Let me tell you, unlike the coward Parkland cop I wrote about last week, none of these officers will claim that it was not their duty to do what they did. In Richmond, Indiana, tragedy was averted last Thursday when Richmond police officers were given a tip of a 14-year-old teenager going to a school while armed.
 
District spokeswoman Bridget Hazelbaker said that the schools in the Richmond community had received a tip of the shooter and had gone into lockdown. When police confronted the armed teen, he reportedly “shot out the glass of a locked entry door to the school, and ran inside with police officers in pursuit,” according to police.
 
According to The Daily Wire: “Police confronted the suspect at the north door, but the teen shot out the glass of one of the school’s locked doors to get inside the building. Police pursued the suspect and there was another exchange of gunfire, officials said. It ended in the south stairwell on the second floor where the teen died from ‘an apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound.’”
 
Indiana State Police Sergeant John Bowling said: “Someone knew something, and they said something. Local police had received information and they reacted on that very swiftly, and I think because of their swift reaction and also the swift reaction at the school that no student injuries happened.”
 
Captain Dave Bursten added: “We are very, very grateful for the person who made the call. Had they not made the call, there is no doubt in my mind that we would be having a much different conversation right now.”
 
No officers or students were harmed.
 
Richmond Mayor Dave Snow also praised police officers and school officials for their great work at impeding tragedy, saying they “did everything right today.” Unfortunately, he later went on to blame lack of gun control measures, saying the incident was “yet another example of gun irresponsibility, poor mental health awareness and access… This is only going to continue until concrete action is taken so that guns do not fall into the hands of our kids. The irresponsibility that leads to a child walking into a school with a gun is unacceptable.”
 
It is unacceptable, but no amount of regulation would’ve stopped this. A 14-year-old is not allowed to have a gun, in case you didn’t know. I don’t know how he managed to get his hands on one, but gun control didn’t prevent this tragedy. A miracle prevented this tragedy.
 
And I don’t think I am overstating how important that tip was by calling that a miracle. Apart from the poor soul that had either the mental instability or the evil heart (or both) to attempt what he attempted to do, no one else died from this. No innocent child, no faculty member, no police officer, and they are the ones who were most at risk.
 
We really must thank God for this.
 
Now, I could go on to make this article about how no amount of gun control prevented this, but I think I’ve already made my point pretty clear. The Richmond Mayor, being a politician, is clearly just trying to score political points and insist that further gun control measures should be implemented, but he is completely wrong in that case. Still, I won’t go further into that topic of conversation because I am just glad that no innocent life was lost in this incident.
 
I don’t know who the tipper was or how they managed to get this kind of accurate information relating to the potential shooter, but it is a very good thing that he or she did what they did.
 
But this is a great example of what happens when police actually do their darn job. I know I talked about him in length at the end of last week, but Broward County (FL) Deputy Scot Peterson doesn’t hold a candle stick to any of these officers. Now, I assume there was more than just one officer who confronted the would-be shooter, so they had the number advantage that Peterson didn’t have, but they also knew that they ran a risk intercepting and engaging the suspect anyway. Any one of their lives could’ve been lost by a simple confrontation, and there definitely was a gunfight that ensued, so any of the officers could’ve lost life or limb, and they knew that perfectly well.
 
Because that is precisely what a police officer is supposed to do, as I explained in the last article. “Protect and Serve” is not just a motto, but pretty much a code for law enforcement.
 
And let’s not forget that the Broward County Sherriff’s office and the FBI could’ve also prevented the tragedy at Stoneman Douglas. If you remember, they were acutely aware of the large and real possibility of a school shooting happening, but did not follow up on that whatsoever. So it’s not just Scot Peterson who was apathetic regarding the Florida shooting, but so was the FBI and the Sherriff’s office.
 
Richmond police were given information about a shooter, took it seriously, and acted swiftly. As a result, the only life lost was the one that would’ve taken the lives of others. Still tragic, since any loss of life is a tragedy, but if reports are accurate that it was a self-inflicted wound, there wasn’t much officers could’ve done in that situation.
 
Of course, officers were ready to kill the shooter if need be, but if they could’ve simply arrested him, that’s what they would’ve gone for. So the kid taking his own life is not something the officers could’ve had much of a chance of preventing.
 
Of course, I don’t know exactly what happened in that situation. There reportedly was an exchange of gunfire that ended “in the south stairwell on the second floor”, where the shooter died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound. I don’t know the layout of the school or how close the officers were to getting the kid, but I assume he felt there was no alternative at that point. I don’t know how much of an opportunity police had to convince him not to kill himself, if any at all. So that’s tragic, but at least the guy had no opportunity to actually cause harm to innocent kids and faculty.
 
God bless the man or woman that tipped off the police about the shooter, otherwise this article would’ve been about something completely different, and very similar to other articles discussing school shootings, unfortunately.
 
I won’t rail on the Richmond Mayor much for insinuating that gun control would’ve prevented this just as well, if not better than police and the school district did because we breathe a sigh of relief over the fact that a school shooting was expertly prevented.
 
Here’s hoping tragedy can be prevented in the future, not simply through a miraculous tip and through police response to it, but through encouraging hearts and minds to follow Christ and His teachings. That would truly be the only way tragedies like these can be put to an end.
 
Psalm 77:14
“You are the God who works wonders; you have made known your might among the peoples.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

Often times, whenever there is a tragic shooting that the entire nation talks about, such as the most recent one at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh that claimed the lives of 11 Jews, the Left will claim that the argument of a “good guy with a gun” is not real and does not happen - that it’s largely a hoax.
 
And to make sure they can continue saying that sort of thing, they will avoid stories like the one I am about to share with you. A story where a good guy with a gun potentially saved the lives of countless people at a McDonald’s in Birmingham, Alabama.
 
On Saturday night, the same day as the Tree of Life Synagogue shooting, a masked gunman opened fire in a McDonald’s in Birmingham. WBRC-TV covered the story, saying that the gunman entered the McDonald’s “when an employee opened the door for a father and his sons to leave.”
 
The shooter “then opened fire in the restaurant. At that point, the father began shooting at him.”
 
The father, the shooter, and one of the sons were all hit, but only the shooter died, with the father and the son sustaining “non-life threatening injuries.”
 
At this time, authorities do not know if the shooter was simply robbing the restaurant or targeting a specific employee.
 
Unfortunately, there does not appear to be CCTV footage of the incident, so I cannot exactly tell one way or the other. From the description given by WBRC-TV, the employee opened the door to allow for the family to leave, at which point the shooter entered and opened fire.
 
That appears to be, from the description, the chronological sequence of events in this story, so it appears that the shooter did not intend to rob the restaurant, but rather intended to shoot up the place and leave as many people dead as possible. If he were robbing the place, he would’ve let the family go, so there would be less people to worry about attacking him or calling the police.
 
And considering this was late at night, I don’t think there were that many people inside.
 
Now, from the apparent sequence of events, I find it miraculous that the father was quick enough to pull out his own gun and fire back at the shooter. Not knowing fully how the whole ordeal went down, and only picturing it from the description given by the local news source, I find it incredible that the father reacted quickly enough to see the gun (if the gun was even out before the shooter went in, which it must’ve been the case), pull out his own gun and start firing back, while he and one of his sons took at least one shot themselves.
 
I imagine there are a few details missing from this since that would simply have to be next to inhuman reactions to be as effective as he was while sustaining as little damage as he did.
 
Regardless, that’s for the people to know and for us to wonder (unless more details arise).
 
The father, as is to be expected, will not face any charges for his actions, according to local authorities.
 
In the aftermath, one of the employees told WBRC-TV that he was “feeling grateful”. “Wrapping my head around it all, I was just wishing someone would come wake me up from this nightmare.”
 
Another employee added: “He’s my hero. Because I can only imagine how it would’ve went if he wasn’t armed. We might not be here having this interview.”
 
As incredible and fascinating as this story is, it has next to no chance of being covered by the fake news media. And if it does, they will likely entirely ignore the father having saved the day, or at least mention him as though his contribution had been next to irrelevant.
 
The reason for this is that this largely helps support the notion and argument that conservatives use that a good guy with a gun can beat a bad guy with a gun. That the answer to gun crimes like these aren’t to restrict law-abiding citizens of their rights to bear arms but to help them protect themselves with less restrictive gun laws because there will always be bad people with guns. Just look at Chicago, the city with the strictest gun control laws in America.
 
But aside from this one story alone, there are countless other instances when a good guy with a gun saves the day, either by saving his/her own life, property or other people.
 
According to a study by The National Academies’ Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, which was ordered by the anti-gun Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), “Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence.”
 
“Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”
 
A different study suggests that there are over 1 million (1,029,615, to be exact) DGUs per year “for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere” but excluding “military service, police work, or work as a security guard.” According to Paul Hsieh, a conservative columnist on Forbes who wrote about this subject using both of those studies, says that the second study “[yields] an estimate of 162,000 cases per year where someone ‘almost certainly would have been killed’ if they ‘had not used a gun for protection.’”
 
In other words, people tend to protect themselves when faced with a deadly threat, particularly when they are armed. It’s very common, but it feels as though it isn’t given the amount of times the Left covers a shooting taking place in a school, an office, a church/synagogue, etc. which most of them are typically gun-free zones.
 
This story, alongside many that the media refuses to cover, serves to further support the notion that the best way to deal with a bad guy with a gun is through a good guy with a gun. It’s really not something even the Left should be able to argue.
 
When a shooting happens, who do people tend to call? Cops aka good guys with guns. Either they call the cops or security to deal with the threat. And both entities tend to have guns.
 
So the gun isn’t the problem here. It’s the sociopathic and evil individual perpetrating the evil deed.
 
In the UK, you may not see an awful lot of shootings (though they still happen), but you do see an awful lot of knife attacks, acid attacks, vehicular manslaughter, etc. That goes to show that the tool of use is largely irrelevant. Bad people will do bad things with whatever they have available to them.
 
The biggest difference between this story and any other story of a shooting is that there was a good guy with a gun right there to step up and eliminate the threat, even if it comes at a cost.
 
Thankfully, the father sustained injuries that are not life-threatening, but things could’ve turned far worse had he not had his weapon on him.
 
Gun control doesn’t keep bad people from owning or getting guns. It keeps good people from protecting themselves, having to hurdle through tons of bureaucratic bullcrap just to have the hope of being able to protect themselves should the need ever arise.
 
Luke 22:36
“He said to them, ‘But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free. No hidden fees and nothing to pay for down the line. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

NRA TV has made a lot of great, logical videos in support of the 2nd Amendment and in the dissection and destruction of Leftist arguments pushing for gun control. One of their latest videos, made by NRA TV host Colion Noir, talks about one of the potential reasons for the frequency of mass shootings taking place in America being the willing or unwilling glorification of mass shooters by the mainstream media.
 
Noir begins by saying: “Can anyone tell me the last time a mass school shooter left a manifesto, a comment on social media, or a video where they said they were inspired to commit their atrocity because of a firearm? Name one. I’m sure you can’t, and neither can I. Because as much as the media love to pivot the conversation after a mass school shooting to gun control, the pen is still mightier than the sword.”
 
“These kids aren’t being inspired by inert junk of plastic and metal lying on a table. They’re inspired by the infamous glory of past shooters, who they relate to. And no entity on the planet does a better job, whether directly or indirectly, of glorifying these killers and thereby providing the inspiration for the next one than our mainstream media.”
 
The video then cuts to clips of mainstream media sources covering the Parkland shooting.
 
Noir then continues: “You may hate guns and wanna ban every single one of them. But even you know what I just said is true. Attention-seeking in this country is at an all-time high. And if social media has proven one thing, it’s that there are people out there willing to do anything for attention, even if it means slaughtering classmates they hate, but letting the ones they like live so they can tell their story to every mainstream media news outlet who are itching like fiends to be the first to do a deep-sea dive into the killer’s background.”
 
The video again cuts to MSM sources talking about the perpetrators of shootings, and their motives behind the shootings.
 
After a while, Noir then gets to his apparent point: “It’s time to put an end to this glorification of carnage in pursuit of ratings, because it is killing our kids. It’s time for Congress to step up and pass legislation putting common sense limitations on our mainstream media’s ability to report on these school shootings.”
 
“There’s no need to cover these shootings for two weeks straight plastering the kids’ face over and over and over again. Pass a law stopping the media from reporting the killer’s name or showing his face. You can still report on the shootings… We just need reasonable laws that place limitations on the glory and fame you give to these killers and their twisted motivations.”
 
He says all of this with a completely straight face. He seems to mean every word he is uttering. For anyone who appreciates their 1st Amendment rights, which includes just about everyone, even liberals, they might be angered at seeing Noir pushing for government regulation on the media’s 1st amendment rights to report on something how they see fit.
 
If that were the end of the video, one would reasonably think that Noir abandoned his conservative principles and switched to Leftism and believing that it is up to the government to dictate what a news organization can and cannot say or report regarding something.
 
What Noir says next is precisely what makes this video so brilliant: “You know that feeling of anxiety that shot through your body when I said the government should pass laws to limit the media’s ability to exercise their First Amendment right? That’s the same feeling gun owners get when they hear people say the same thing about the Second Amendment.”
 
“Hearing me advocate for the government’s ability to limit ANYONE’S 1st Amendment rights, including the media, should anger ALL of you watching this video – the same way it should anger you when anyone tries to use the same limitations on the 2nd Amendment.”
 
He knew precisely what kind of reaction he was going to get upon seemingly advocating for increased government power over the media. He knew that no one, either from the Left or the Right, would advocate for the government’s ability to suppress what the media can report. That feigning advocacy for government obstruction of the media’s 1st Amendment rights would anger even liberals, and would let them know precisely what gun owners feel when their side calls for government obstruction of people’s 2nd Amendment rights.
 
Noir then proceeds to explain that he does believe that news organizations should be mindful about how much glory, either willingly or unwillingly, they are giving to people who have committed unspeakable horror against innocent people. And he’s right.
 
With the Parkland shooter (whose name I will no longer share so as to not be part of the problem), his face would be plastered in every media outlet, and his name has become infamous, which is another way for someone to become legendary. Not to mention that he also received love letters from crazy girls who “loved” what he did and “loved” him for it.
 
Do you have any idea what a guy would do to receive such attention from girls? He would do precisely what the Parkland shooter did and try to one-up him and do even more damage. So anyone who is not of the right mind and of the right heart would look at the Parkland shooter’s situation and be envious of the attention he was receiving. So, he would decide to make a name for himself and receive that much attention or perhaps even more, if he can cause more damage.
 
So the media does have a hand in school shootings, if only in the kind of attention that they give to people who have committed tremendous evil.
 
But Noir, being the conservative that he is, knows full well that the answer does not lie in government intervention and legislation. Such legislation would only do more harm than good in the long-run. That is the case for both legislation limiting the media’s 1st Amendment rights and limiting people’s 2nd Amendment rights.
 
What makes this video so brilliant is that it turns the tables on the Left and makes them feel precisely what we feel whenever they advocate for gun control, using language and talking points that are precisely like the Left’s. Calling for “common sense media control” is something that angers the Left (as it should), but calling for “common sense gun control” delights them. Calling for “common sense media control” is something that angers conservatives (as it should) and calling for “common sense gun control” is precisely the same.
 
It gives people a different perspective and allows liberals who advocate for gun control to walk a little in our shoes. Hearing someone advocating for the government to come in and restrict the media is not something any liberal would want to hear. It’s something that is very obviously fascistic and tyrannical. It’s what socialist countries do (which is why I find liberals’ advocacy for socialism so ironic and tragic at the same time). It’s the same thing gun owners and conservatives feel when they hear someone advocating for the government to come in and further restrict people’s 2nd Amendment rights.
 
Taking away anyone’s 1st Amendment rights is just as tyrannical as taking away anyone’s 2nd Amendment rights. The ironic thing is that the Left loves the 1st Amendment when it protects THEIR right to free speech but not when it protects anyone who has a different opinion. However, part of what makes this video so great is that the mainstream media is largely Leftist. To say that the government should limit the MSM’s free speech is something abhorrent for anyone regardless of political leaning. So it can successfully give liberals some perspective, when someone advocates for the regulation and suppression of something they love.
 
Kudos to the people who came up with such a great idea. While I highly doubt this will change very many people’s minds, since Leftists are mostly stubborn, it is possible that the more reasonable of liberals will be willing to reconsider some things.

And if even one person can be successfully reached in deep thought regarding this issue, then the video has done its job perfectly.
 
Psalm 119:130
“The unfolding of your words gives light; it imparts understanding to the simple.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

It is rare to see a member of the MSM acting not so much like a propagandist and more like an actual journalist, pressing the interviewee with tough, but fair questioning, regardless of the political party the interviewee belongs to.
 
CNN held a town hall meeting on Wednesday, in which survivors of the most recent school shooting got the chance to ask House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi questions regarding gun control and what her party, as well as the government in general, can and/or will do regarding making schools safer.
 
Particularly, a female student named Alexis Wilson asked the following: “Where does the government stand on arming and training our teachers, much in the way we use air marshals on airplanes?”
 
A good and logical question to ask a member of Congress. Pelosi, being the Leftist that she is, simply dismissed the idea, saying that she and her peers “do not think that is the solution”, adding that she does not “support arming teachers and the rest.”
 
Upon this reply, Chris Cuomo did the unthinkable: he actually CHALLENGED Pelosi’s response and supported the student’s question. “There’s a little bit of an either-or problem with how we’re trying to approach solutions,” said Cuomo.
 
“The building we’re in now, the building you work in, the point of entry there is secure. You don’t walk in with a trench coat with a shotgun underneath your jacket, and get in. It doesn’t happen, you know this… Why can’t that be part of the equation? Talk about universal background checks, fine. Talk about mental health, how to identify them, money for treatment. But why either-or? Why not make schools safer?”
 
Pelosi is visibly shaken by the line of questioning and struggles to find a coherent or relevant answer, repeating that she does not believe it is a solution.
 
While it is always likely Nancy Pelosi will say something dumb, particularly if given the chance to speak for a long time, as the town hall provides, it is rare to see the interviewer issue such a good question that challenges the interviewee, regardless of whether the interviewee is a Democrat or Republican.
 
We don’t usually see the MSM be tough but fair with Democrats. They usually allow for Democrats to get away with a lot of things (not necessarily always, to their credit) and will usually side with Democrats.
 
Here, Chris Cuomo seemed more like a real journalist than a propagandist. I will give him credit for that, at least, since pretty much every other time he talks, it’s Leftist propaganda. But in this instance, he did a good job. So much so, in fact, that even NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch praised Cuomo for his job.
 
“This was a good line of questioning from Chris Cuomo here and he makes a good point about CNN’s security and controlled access points – which I’ve walked through many times.”
 
It also overall makes a good argument against people who do not believe we should install more security and metal detectors in schools, out of fear of making schools look like prisons.
 
Regarding this argument, I’ve talked about this before, but I will reiterate my points.
 
First of all, a school already feels like prison for any student that walks through those doors. Even I, who used to like going to school as a kid, hated going to school once I hit puberty and once I entered high school. It’s something in our hormones that makes us think school is a massive waste of time and we would rather be anywhere else but there. The only reason I was willing to go to school was because of my friends. Aside from that, school felt like prison… except you will likely find far less problems to solve in prison. (Math joke).
 
So adding security to our schools might make our schools look like prison, but they essentially already are for the students.
 
Second, because of the type of security at prisons, people don’t just walk in and shoot up the place. It’s a sad realization to see that prisons are hundreds of times more secure than our schools. Not that prisons shouldn’t be secure. Given the criminal element residing in prisons, security is a top priority. But our children should be able to feel just as safe, at least from those who would wish to shoot up the place.
 
Third, it’s not just our prisons that have high security and metal detectors. Airports also have a lot of security. Government buildings also have a lot of security. The only reason people use prisons to argue against metal detectors and added security is because that has more of an impact than saying “but then schools will feel like airports or government buildings!”
 
Nevermind the fact that schools ARE government buildings and are somehow less secure than the office of your Congressman or woman.
 
The argument of “don’t make schools like prisons” is entirely a psychological weapon. One can make the same comparisons to other government buildings, but that would not be anywhere near as impactful. So, those who do not wish to create any real change and solutions that will work use this argument.
 
Finally, the reason Pelosi and other Democrats don’t want to use this solution is because it is something that will actually help. Part of the reason the Santa Fe high school shooting isn’t made to be a big a deal as Parkland is because the perpetrator didn’t use an AR-15. In fact, there’s nothing remotely legal about what the shooter (whose name I refuse to share so as to not give him the satisfaction) did. He used an illegal gun, which he possessed illegally, and most of all, he committed the illegal action of KILLING people.
 
Not one single gun control measure or law proposed by any Democrat would’ve prevented the Santa Fe shooting. To be fair, not a single one would’ve also prevented Parkland, but they at least have somewhat of an argument to sell to people there.
 
In this case, the shooting doesn’t help the Left further their anti-gun agenda, so it’s almost entirely ignored.
 
And since added security can actually help, it means a reduction in the likelihood of a school shooting happening or being lethal for anyone other than the shooter. Such a result is detrimental to the Left’s anti-gun agenda, so they dismiss it as something that “wouldn’t work”.
 
It’s not that it wouldn’t work. It’s that it would put Democrats OUT of work. The Left’s ultimate goal, as we already know, is to establish Communism in the United States. That will not be possible if the American people still have their guns. Lenin made sure that people could not revolt against his rule once he established Communism in Russia and became its leader. Hitler took away people’s guns so that they couldn’t fight back against the Nazi’s Socialist rule.
 
And in Venezuela, Hugo Chavez issued an all-out ban of private gun ownership back in 2012. According to the United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime, Venezuela’s intentional homicide rate in 2015 stood at 57.15. Contrast that to the United States’ intentional homicide rate in the same year of 4.88, and you can see precisely how little help the ban in Venezuela was. And, by the way, Venezuela’s intentional homicide rate is only the second highest in the Americas, with El Salvador, which also has some tight gun control laws, being first.
 
But those numbers are entirely irrelevant to the Left. They don’t honestly care if the world around them is in chaos, so long as they are safe and protected and they still are the ones with all the power. This is the case for the Left wherever you go. In Venezuela, people are starving and dying while Maduro celebrates his “victory” and issues probes into opposing news organizations. In North Korea, the situation is even more dire, with people being forced to clean and organize pictures of North Korea’s former leaders in order to avoid them and their families being sentenced to life in prison.
 
These are the rules that the Left wants to imitate here in America. What they all have in common, aside from being dictatorial rules of injustice, is that their people cannot rise up against the regimes in revolution. Sure, people are standing up in defiance over the sham elections in Venezuela, but I have little hope that much will come of it. Maduro, unless ousted by the military in a coup, will not leave office any time soon. Even then, the military could simply invoke an even harsher rule, so there is little hope for Venezuela’s rule change.
 
And that is precisely what the Left in Venezuela wants… and what the Left here wants. Unending rule and power, regardless of how many people will suffer.
 
To seek any solution other than gun control (which as I’ve said multiple times is not a solution) is a non-starter. Cuomo correctly points out the either-or hypocrisy of the Democrats. They don’t want to make schools safer. They just want to guarantee their own power becomes eternal.
 
Yet another case of humans trying to be like God.

Isaiah 10:1
“Woe to those who enact evil statutes and to those who constantly record unjust decisions.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

Earlier this week, Fox News host Tucker Carlson had a discussion with Democrat Representative Eric Swalwell (D-CA) regarding gun control. Swalwell wanted to push for “assault weapons buybacks” which would prosecute those who would not comply. Of course, to anyone with half a brain, that is clearly a gun confiscation. But Swalwell knows quite well that calling for such a thing might not be best, particularly for their chances in November.
 
Swalwell, when Carlson correctly pointed out that he was pushing for confiscation, replied: “I’m not calling for confiscation. What I’m saying is we should invest in the buyback, that we should restrict any weapons that aren’t bought back to gun clubs, hunting clubs, shooting ranges. Keep them there, where it is safe, not on our streets. And if you are caught, just like if you were caught with drugs or anything else, they have probable cause to go into your home and you have one of these weapons, yes, you’d be prosecuted.”
 
No, your Honor, I didn’t rob the guy, I simply purchased his belongings at gunpoint with payment pending.
 
Carlson, like the professional he is, read from a USA Today opinion piece written by Swalwell, which says: “We should ban possession of military-style semiautomatic assault weapons, we should buy back such weapons from all who choose to abide by the law, and we should criminally prosecute any who choose to defy it by keeping their weapons.”
 
Again, that is clearly gun confiscation, not a buyback. Swalwell, of course, exempts law enforcement and people who guard members of Congress from the buyback. Because, of course the government is the only entity allowed to have guns. That is only ever a good thing, just look at the Soviet U…, or how about Nazi Germa… Or, wait, what about Communist China, North Korea, Venezuela and other remaining socialist/communist nations? They definitely don’t have any sort of murder rates.
 
Wait, let’s also look at France, which has one of the most strict gun control laws in the world! Wait, you’re telling me that a large group of masked men opened fire on a crowd of people in France? Impossible! It’s extremely difficult to get guns in France! Tougher gun control laws means safer places, don’t they?
 
Well, let’s ignore that and instead focus on England. They also have severe gun control laws. Sure, murder rates are still really high and people are using knives instead of guns to kill people, but that’s better!... somehow.
 
We keep going in circles in this debate, never really making any sort of progress. Not that the Left wants any. The only acceptable response to shootings is more gun control to the point of eliminating the 2nd Amendment, or at least rendering it ineffective, in the Left’s mind. When a shooting happens, people blame the gun rather than the gunman. Even more so, they blame an organization meant to protect people’s rights, calling them terrorists despite the fact that they had nothing to do with it.
 
People accuse the NRA of paying off Republicans, despite the fact that Planned Parenthood pays FAR more money to Democrats. They accuse the NRA of being a terrorist organization, despite the fact that the perpetrators of these shootings are Left-leaning evil people 100% of the time.
 
Even worse, they accuse gun owners of being part of the shootings, despite that being a ridiculous claim. It’s really no surprise that ignorant people like Scalwell, who’s from California, no less, want to take people’s guns away by force.
 
In their effort to paint Trump as Hitlerian, it is they who wind up being the actual Nazis. But that really shouldn’t be a surprise either.
 
Communism, socialism, fascism and Nazism all have one common root: Marxism. They all derive from Marx’s ridiculous notion that people are oppressed under capitalism and that communism liberates people. It’s utter stupidity. Which is precisely why this fits the Left and Democrats so well.
 
A stupid notion based on unrealistic non-facts is bound to attract those who cannot see the errors of the philosophy.
 
Taking guns away from good people only leaves them more vulnerable and susceptible to attack. Criminals, by definition, don’t care about laws. If you pass a law that forces people to turn in their guns, that is like Christmas to bad guys. They get to assault, kill or rob people all they want without fear of pushback or a firefight breaking out.
 
Democrats are a criminal’s best friend. They continuously push for laws that will only affect those who obey the law, continuously push for the innocence of those who commit basic immigration crimes and defend the worst of the bunch. In their defense of MS-13 from Trump, they have shown that even rapists, killers and anarchists are preferable over the typical American family, over blue-collar workers, over law-abiding citizens.
 
While doing some research, I had come across an article written on The Hill. The title read: “We can change the trend of fatal shootings by voting in November.”
 
As one can guess from a mainstream media source, this is an article asking people to vote Democrat. The author pretends this issue of shootings is a relatively new issue, particularly an issue specific to the Trump administration.
 
Let me remind you of something: there were more shootings during Obama’s term than the four previous Presidents combined. According to TruthStreamMedia, who collected this information from information given by Mother Jones’ Investigation: US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015, as well as the Wikipedia page for Mass Shootings and a Wikipedia page for Postal Shootings, President Ronald Reagan had 11 mass shootings in his 8 years in office, with 5 incidents involving the deaths of 8 or more people.
 
President George H.W. Bush had 12 mass shootings in his 4 years (not a good look for him), with 3 incidents involving the deaths of 8 or more people.
 
President Bill Clinton had 23 mass shootings in his 8 years, with 4 incidents involving the deaths of 8 or more people.
 
President George W. Bush had 20 mass shootings in his 8 years, with 5 incidents involving the deaths of 8 or more people.
 
President Obama, in stark contrast, had 162 mass shootings in 6 years (2009-2015) with 18 incidents with 8 or more deaths.
 
That wasn’t even his complete term and he had far more mass shootings than his four predecessors combined.
 
The author of the Hill article insinuates that people are safer with Democrats in control. The evidence proves otherwise. People are never safer with Democrats at the helm. Children in schools are not safer with Democrats in control. Frankly, they are lucky to even survive the womb, nowadays.
 
Democrats are the worst enemy of the People. The fact that the author of the Hill article thinks Democrats will change the trend of mass shootings would be laughable if the subject wasn’t so tragic.
 
What is laughable is Scalwell’s attempt at b.s.ing you into believing he’s even remotely honest about what he’s trying to do. It’s a flat-out gun confiscation that he’s pushing. One which would blatantly violate people’s 2nd Amendment rights.
 
Let me tell you something, Rep. Scalwell. The American people are smart enough to see the bull you are trying to pull. That feeble attempt at justifying and redefining an unconstitutional gun grab, combined with other Leftists’ efforts to prioritize animalistic illegal immigrant gang members, prioritizing the death of children in the womb over the care of our Nation’s veterans, and the constant push for destroying the economic stability we see with the Trump administration will utterly doom the Democrats in November.
 
I’ve often said this, but this is a prime opportunity to repeat myself: there is zero reason for anyone to vote Democrat at any point. The mask has come off and the beast reveals itself. And it is ugly. The Democrats are among the scum of the Earth and darn proud of it. So much so, in fact, that they want to force the rest of the country to join them in their filth.
 
From ramming LGBT “rights” down our throat in every movie, including Disney movies, to promoting the deaths and violence against prominent right-wing people like Anne Coulter, to wishing for the gruesome end of Donald Trump, these people are the deplorable ones. Their hearts are filled with evil, and their mouths are thirsty for blood.
 
Like a vampire, the Democrats will suck the blood (money) out of you and enslave you. But at least vampires offer cool powers. All the Democrats offer is misery.
 
Proverbs 8:13
“The fear of the Lord is hatred of evil. Pride and arrogance and the way of evil and perverted speech I hate.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

​It’s no secret that you’re more likely to find anti-gun stories in the media than you will pro-gun, particularly if you look through the mainstream media. So whenever a story like the one I’m about to share with you comes up, it brings a smile to my face.
 
Early last week, Mark Robinson, a North Carolina citizen and gun-owner, spoke in front of a city council meeting in Greensboro, North Carolina about his and every other citizen’s right to bear arms as given to us by the 2nd Amendment.
 
Mr. Robinson begins: “… I’ve heard a whole lot of people on here talking tonight about this group and that group; domestic violence, and blacks; these minorities and that minority. What I want to know is: when are you all going to start standing up for the majority? And here’s who the majority is: I’M the majority. I’m a law-abiding citizen who’s never shot anybody. Never committed a serious crime. Never committed a felony. I’ve never done anything like that. But it seems like every time we have one of these shootings, nobody wants to put the blame where it goes, which is at the shooter’s feet. You wanna put it at my feet.”
 
“You wanna turn around and restrict my right, CONSTITUTIONAL right, as spelled out in black and white. You wanna restrict my right to buy a firearm and protect myself from some of the very people you’re talking about in here tonight! It’s ridiculous. I don’t think Rod Sterling could come up with a better script. It doesn’t make any sense. The law-abiding citizens of this community and many communities around this country, we’re the first ones taxed and the last ones considered, and the first ones punched when things like this happen. Because OUR rights are the ones being taken away.”
 
“That’s the reason why I came out here today – gun show or no gun show; NRA or no NRA – I’m here to stand up for the law-abiding citizens of this community. ‘Cause I’m gonna tell you what’s gonna happen: you can take the guns away from us all you want. You wanna write a law, I’ll follow the law, I’ll bring my guns down here, I’ll turn them in. But here’s what’s gonna happen: the Crips and the Bloods on the other side of town? They’re not gonna turn their guns in. They’re gonna hold on to them. And what’s gonna happen when you have to send out the police down there to go take them? The police can barely enforce the law as it is… We demonize the police… vilify the police and we make the criminals into victims.”
 
“And we’re gonna talk about restricting guns? How are you gonna do that? How are you gonna do that when the police departments are already [restricted] (couldn’t quite catch what he said there). You ain’t gonna be able to come down here and take these guns and restrict them. So the criminals are going to hold on to their guns; they’re still going to have them. They’re still going to break into my house; and they’re still going to shoot me with them. And guess who’s going to be the one who solves this. It’s going to be me… I’m here to tell you tonight: it is not going to happen without a fight. And when I say ‘fight’, I do not mean ‘shots fired’, I don’t mean ‘fists thrown’. I mean I’m going to come down here… and raise hell just like these loonies from the Left do until you listen to the majority of the people in this city, and I am the majority.”
 
“The majority of the people of this city are law-abiding… and they want their constitutional right to bear arms. They want to be able to go to the gun show and buy a hunting rifle or a sport rifle. There ain’t no military-grade weapons sold at the gun show. And an AR-15 is not a military-grade weapon. Anybody that would go into combat with an AR-15 is a fool. It’s a semi-automatic, .22 rifle. You’d be killed in 15 minutes in combat with that thing. So we need to dispel all these myths and we need to drop all this division that we’ve got going on here. Because the bottom-line is the 2nd Amendment was written whether the Framers liked it or not. They wrote it for everybody… and we want our rights and we wanna keep our rights. And by God, we’re gonna keep them; come Hell or high water.”
 
I know that’s a lot, and I mean a LOT of things to cover here. Obviously, I can’t cover absolutely everything said here, lest I make this article way too long. But I didn’t want to cut much of this short, promptu speech by this gun owner. Everything he said made sense and everything he said was important.
 
From calling out the politicians for only listening to this minority and that minority and not listening to the majority of the people of this country, who are people like Mr. Robinson, to dispelling myths about the deadliness of an AR-15. And he’s exactly right.
 
A hunting rifle is far more powerful and deadly than an AR-15. A classic hunting rifle, like a Mossberg, uses .308 caliber rounds. Let me tell you, if you had to choose between getting shot by a .22 rifle or a .308 rifle, you’d be foolish to pick the .308. The reason the Left goes after AR-15s is not because they’re deadly, but because they look scary. An AR-15 looks like an M-16 or an M4 rifle. That’s really their biggest issue with them. Because an AR-15 looks like a weapon used by the military, they deem it a military-grade weapon when nothing could be further from being the case.
 
Here’s a visual representation:

Which one looks scarier? The one on the top, right? It looks scary, and it looks like it’s used by military snipers if you add a scope. Well, what if I told you that the one that looks scariest is the one that’s less powerful? Yep, the one that looks like your run-of-the-mill hunting rifle is more powerful than the scary, liberal’s-pants-filling “military-grade” rifle. The one at the top uses .223 caliber rounds and the one on the bottom uses .308.
 
The scary-looking rifle is about as powerful as an AR-15. And since both look like military-grade weapons, the Left wonders why they would be allowed to be sold to civilians.
 
But aside from dispelling the myth of the power of the AR-15, Mr. Robinson makes other fantastic points about the dangers of gun control and a full-on ban on weapons. He said that he’d be willing to obey the law and give up his weapons if such a law was passed (which I personally disagree with. I’d rather fight and die free than give up and live an eventual slave to the State, for if the government gets rid of the 2nd, they’ll go after the rest. Just look at Great Britain to find the proof of my words).
 
But he said he’d give up his weapons but knows full well that criminals won’t. Criminals, by definition, don’t obey the law. So no law passed will keep criminals from having guns. And the police will have an incredibly difficult time doing as much. Drugs are already illegal and police have enough problems dealing with that. Criminalizing the possession of all weapons will only make things harder for police and will likely cost them their lives.
 
Not that the Left cares one bit. They only care about the police if they’re on their side. And even then, they don’t really care about the individual officer. If the Left can make martyrs of police, they will. They already make martyrs of criminals; making martyrs of police should be easier.
 
But returning to Mr. Robinson, I’m elated to see this viral video (shown below) on the internet. I’m happy to see this man standing up for We the People’s right to bear arms. We the People’s right to purchase firearms and protect ourselves from all who would do us harm, whether it be a regular robber, a home invader, a potential murderer, or even a tyrannical government (as was the original intention of the 2nd Amendment).
 
In a media world where just about every source of “journalism” is nothing more than anti-gun propaganda, I’m happy to see this one man standing up for what he believes and that he stands up for what is right.
 
Galatians 5:1
“For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

​It’s not a surprise at all that Leftists will automatically blame any shooting on the NRA, saying the NRA is either directly or indirectly responsible for it. But there are times in which it’s far easier to dispel the NRA’s association with a shooting.
 
Of course, no NRA member has ever participated in a shooting unless it was to stop one, but there are times such as this most recent shooting taking place at YouTube’s HQ in San Bruno, California, where it’s far easier to destroy any arguments made against the NRA.
 
But Alyssa Milano, likely not having sufficient information, seemingly blamed the NRA for this recent shooting.
 
Milano tweeted: “If NRA or NRAtv were run by brown or black people, it would be labeled a terrorist organization with hate propaganda programming that incites violence,” before sharing a video from NRAtv that responded to YouTube’s censorship against videos and content creators that share videos about guns and called for people to “rise up”.
 
So she’s both racist and dumb for tweeting that. First, the NRA does have brown and black board members in Allen West, Carl Rowan Jr., and Roy Innis.
 
Second, the NRA has as little to do with this shooting as it has for all previous shootings that have ever taken place.
 
The shooter was not an NRA member. Far from it. She was a Muslim woman (I won’t share her name or face because I don’t want to unwittingly glorify her) who was a vegan and belonged to PETA. She was clear-cut Leftist as you can get.
 
And her reasons for shooting up YouTube’s HQ were seemingly for censoring her and demonetizing her content. That’s likely where Milano wishes to draw a comparison, but as Breitbart News shares with us, “There is no evidence she belonged to the NRA and her anger at YouTube pre-dates YouTube’s decision to censor videos made by gun hobbyists.”
 
So the shooter didn’t “rise up” against YouTube because the NRA said she should (although no sane person believes the NRA called for people to shoot up YouTube, but rather take a stand against their censorship and demand change diplomatically and peacefully. We take up arms against a tyrannical government, not a jerkwad of a company).
 
The NRA didn’t encourage the shooter to take up arms against YouTube. She made that decision all on her own, and seemingly before YouTube’s censorship policy.
 
Now, this being Twitter, you absolutely knew that people would criticize and ridicule her ignorant and, frankly, racist tweet.
 
One person commented: “Wow, that sounded racist. Why do you leftys always put color labels on people? We’re all human beings no matter what flavor you are. Putting color labels on people is racist.”
 
Another said: “You’re dumber than Nancy Pelosi”. Now that one’s a zinger… and also true… possibly. Both have said incredibly stupid things in the past.
 
One last one I’ll share with you said: “Actually Alyssa, many black and brown folks (why must you always subdivide Americans?) have been saved by using their 2nd Amendment rights to protect themselves. #LearnYourHistory”.
 
And that last tweet reminds me of a comment made by someone in San Bruno mere moments after the shooting. One witness was interviewed by a Fox News reporter. The reporter asked: “What’s going through your mind?... people dropping, being shot multiple times, bullets whizzing, people bleeding. What’s going through your mind?”
 
The witness, who is a YouTube employee, answered: “… I knew I had to be smart. You gotta think fast, you gotta be fast. I didn’t have a gun on me, but wish I did.”
 
And that really says it all, doesn’t it? No doubt, YouTube’s HQ is a gun-free zone and look where that got them. Thankfully and by the Grace of God, no one died except the shooter. The Daily Mail reported that San Francisco General Hospital received three patients from the shooting. One who was “a 36-year-old man [who] was in critical condition, a 32-year-old woman was in serious condition and a 27-year-old woman was in fair condition”.
 
Hopefully, they will all be able to recover and return to their families after this.
 
But returning to Milano, you really have to be making a stretch to put the blame on this on the NRA. Again, NRA members have nothing to do with shootings in general, but even Leftists should be intelligent enough to not blame the NRA for this shooting. Emphasis on the word “should”, because at least this one certainly wasn’t intelligent enough. (And yes, I know Michael Ian Black, another Leftist, also blamed the NRA for this).
 
What we know is that the shooter was a Muslim, PETA-supporting woman who was angry at YouTube for demonetizing her videos. She perpetrated the act reportedly using a 9mm handgun and ended up harming at least three people, one of whom is in critical condition.
 
The Left can’t possibly blame this on the NRA, partly because a handgun was used, not a semi-automatic rifle (which is very different from an assault rifle and a military-grade weapon. The military doesn’t use AR-15s because they’re not powerful or reliable enough). But the Left can’t blame this on the NRA either because there’s no evidence of a relationship between her and the NRA (though no other shooters really have a relationship with the NRA either) and because she was clearly a Left-leaning woman herself.
 
Of course, this didn’t stop Milano from expressing her ignorance on Twitter (although I doubt she had these facts with her). But you also have to wonder, aside from blaming the NRA which could be attributed to simply being uninformed, why did she have to make it about race?
 
Granted, that’s a bit of a rhetorical question, seeing as to how she’s a Leftist herself and Leftists tend to be very much racist, and have been given their history, but still. Why bring race into this? The NRA has plenty of minority leaders and members, with even more supporters as well.
 
I don’t doubt that, in her mind, the NRA is just a bunch of white supremacists, despite the fact that I shared in the paragraph above and despite the fact that her political party has a horrendous history of white supremacy coursing through their veins.
 
Regardless, it’s entertaining to witness highly ignorant people making a fool out of themselves and further sharing their ignorance with you all.
 
Job 11:12
“But a stupid man will get understanding when a wild donkey’s colt is born a man!”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

Unless you strictly adhere to watching and reading fake news sources, you probably are aware that homicide in London is now at higher rates than New York City. And you know they royally (pun intended) screwed up if homicide in London is now WORSE than in New York City, the home of the Knicks, Mets, Giants, Yankees, Jets… and high crime rates.
 
Breitbart News made sure to point out a certain history about Great Britain that may help shed some light as to why homicides are now worse in London than in New York City.
 
According to Breitbart News, the network, back in September of 2014, reported that “gun control had made Britain extremely violent. That gun control was put in place during the 20th century via a relentless, incremental push, which began with laws similar to firearm owner identification cards and background checks and ended with a virtual ban on all handguns.”
 
They then proceed to quote that September, 2014 article: “Britain began placing restrictions on gun ownership after World War I with the Firearms Act of 1920. The passage was emotionally driven, based in part on the public’s war-weariness and in part on the fear that an increased number of guns – guns from the battlefield – would increase crime.”
 
Emotionally driven, huh? Now what does that remind me of?
 
“The Firearms Act of 1920 did not ban guns. Rather, it required that citizens who wanted a gun had to first obtain a certificate from the government,” much akin to some laws in some states, where someone has to get a Fire Owner Identification Card (if you’re in Illinois) or has to be vetted by police (like someone in Massachusetts) or both.
 
“Thirteen years after the passage of the Firearms Act, British Parliament passed the Firearms and Imitation Firearms Bill, making the possession of a replica gun or a real one equally punishable unless the owner of either could show the lawful purpose for which he had it. This was followed by the Firearms Act of 1937, which author Frank Miniter says ‘extended restrictions to shotguns and granted chief constables the power to add conditions to individual private firearm certificates.’”
 
“…On July 25 [2014], Breitbart News reported that Massachusetts police were pressing for ‘sole discretion’ on who could own a long gun; they already had such discretion over who could own a handgun. On August 1, they received the power they sought.”
 
“Britain continued to issue firearm certificates as World War II set in. But by the time the war was over, the gun control mindset had permeated society to a point where self-defense was no longer a valid reason to secure a certificate for gun ownership. Guns were simply for sport or for hunting.”
 
The article then proceeds to detail some shootings that happened in England that prompted even stricter gun control laws. “In 1987, Michael Ryan shot and killed sixteen people in Hungerford, including his mother. He wounded fourteen others, then killed himself. According to the Library of Congress, Ryan used ‘lawfully owned’ rifles to carry out the attack. Nevertheless, his attack prompted the passage of more laws in the form of the Firearms Act of 1988. This act ‘banned the possession of high-powered self-loading rifles’ and ‘burst-firing weapons,’ and imposed ‘stricter standards for ownership’ to secure a government certificate to own a shotgun.”
 
“In 1996, Thomas Hamilton walked into an elementary school in Dunblane, Scotland, and shot and killed ‘sixteen small children… and their teacher in the gym before killing himself.’ He brought two rifles and four handguns to carry out the attack. All six guns were legally owned: Hamilton had fully complied with gun control statutes.”
 
“The Firearm Act of 1997 was passed while emotions ran high. Gun control proponents push for an all-out ban on private gun ownership, in much the same way that Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) reacted to the heinous crime at Sandy Hook Elementary by trying to ban approximately 150 different guns.”
 
“Yet the Firearm Act did not ban all guns, ‘but served to essentially prohibit the ownership of handguns in Britain’ and to make the acquisition of certificate to possess a long gun an onerous and time-consuming one.”
 
Now, what did all of these firearm acts culminate to? In 2009, the Daily Mail reported that Britain was “the most violent country in Europe,” and that it had “a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S.”
 
On October 21, 2017, Breitbart News reported that “rapes in London were three times higher than in New York City”, and most recently, “homicides in London are higher than homicides in New York City, and the man with a knife is king.”
 
The multiple firearm acts across the 20th century has led England, and particularly its biggest city, London, to being highly dangerous places for everyone. Safety has gone out the window in England, largely due to the firearm acts. Sure, you could also blame the Muslims taking “refuge” (more like invading) England and bringing their horrible jihadist culture with them.
 
It’s the combination of those “refugees” and the insane gun control laws that will mark the destruction of Great Britain as we know it. The British government already has exercised more law enforcement muscle against its own citizens if they are deemed “offensive”. So the British government are effectively taking away people’s freedom of speech.
 
Thus, the people are left defenseless against an oppressive government dictating what they are allowed and not allowed to say or do, are left defenseless against other people who might wish to do them harm and are defenseless against an invading force taking the guise of refugees so that they may eventually turn Great Britain into another Muslim country, all the while the British government is more than happy to allow it so long as they are personally left alone.
 
I remember years ago, as a high school sophomore, having the opportunity to travel to England with my mother, accompanying her on her business trip. I remember saying to her that I didn’t want to go because “there’s no freedom there”. Honestly, I was simply feeling too lazy to pack a bag and make the trip and came up with that excuse before eventually agreeing to go with her (as well as getting the opportunity to miss a week of school). But I had a point then and that point has only become more significant since then.
 
The people of England have no freedom. They have no freedom to express themselves or even say a rather offensive joke, knowing that if they do, the government will convict and imprison them. They have no freedom to defend themselves from attackers who wish to simply harm their body at best or kill them at worst. Same goes for sexual attackers who wish to have some sense of “power”.
 
And they have no freedom to defend themselves from an invading force who wish to utterly destroy their culture and establish their own. Now, don’t misunderstand, I’m not saying that they should outright kill the Muslim “refugees”. What I’m saying is that, once there’s enough Muslims to force a cultural change to that of the Muslim World’s, the people will have no real way to guard themselves against it. No real way to rebel against it. They’ll be forced to adhere by the Quran.
 
I find it odd that people point to England as an example of gun control that works. Clearly it doesn’t. Sure, there’s not very many gun crimes happening, if at all. But crimes, and violent crimes at that, are only becoming more and more common.
 
So the purpose, the true purpose, of gun control isn’t to make people safer. The people of Great Britain surely aren’t safer. The purpose of gun control is to highly regulate and make it extremely difficult for people to have guns. The purpose of gun control is to allow the government to have near unlimited power over the people they supposedly serve. The purpose of eliminating the 2nd Amendment is so that the government (specifically, Democrats) can go after the first.
 
If gun control worked, meaning that it did its supposed job of keeping people safe, then Great Britain wouldn’t be in the huge mess it’s in. They don’t have much gun crime. But in return, they have higher rates of other crimes.
 
Congratulations, Great Britain. You’re ensuring that the fall of your empire is permanent.
 
Luke 22:36
“He said to them, ‘But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

​In reading up on the daily happenings of our world, particularly reading it from a non-Leftist source, I came upon a story on the Daily Wire about school safety and how children are feeling safer as of late than they were in the 90s.
 
Overall, the article talks about how the media makes it seem as though schools nowadays are essentially prisons where riots and murders take common place. But at one point, the article references a different article, one published on the Washington Post titled: “School shootings are extraordinarily rare. Why is fear of them driving policy?”
 
Frankly, I’m surprised at two things here. First, that an MSM source like this would dare publish this when it goes directly against the media narrative that children everywhere are in constant danger of guns and, two, that this article was written almost a month ago and I’ve just come around to reading it.
 
Mea culpa on that part.
 
But let’s see what the WP article actually says. “The Education Department reports that roughly 50 million children attend public schools for roughly 180 days per year. Since Columbine, approximately 200 public school students have been shot to death while school was in session, including the recent slaughter at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla. (and a shooting in Birmingham, Ala. On Wednesday that police called accidental that left one student dead). That means the statistical likelihood of any given public school student being killed by a gun, in school, on any given day since 1999 was roughly 1 in 614,000,000. And since the 1990s, shootings at schools have been getting less common.”
 
I’m certain I’ll be referencing this bit of information every time someone argues that children are being slaughtered very frequently (or that 18 school shootings have happened since 2018 began).
 
Now, I’m not trying to take anything away from the tragedy at Stoneman Douglas. 17 people died when they shouldn’t have. What I’m trying to say here is that, much like with anything else, the MSM is wrong about the frequency with which these things happen and the ridiculousness of blaming guns for these things.
 
There are more guns in the country than there are people, but since roughly the turn of the millennium, there have only been 200 students who have been shot to death while in school? If guns were truly to be blamed, we’d all have died long ago.
 
Now, if you think this is a surprisingly pro-gun article by the Washington Post, let me stop you right there, because it’s not. Later in the article, the writer says “Having more guns in schools, as President Trump advocates – or more guns anywhere – increases the likelihood of gun violence… The Parkland tragedy itself teaches that more guns don’t automatically mean more safety: the school was patrolled by an armed guard.”
 
So the writer still sticks to the Leftist philosophy that more guns equals more danger. What I say to that is that you need only look at Chicago to see that gun control doesn’t work. Chicago ranks 16th in Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. according to World Atlas, having 1,105.48 violent crimes committed per 100,000 people.
 
Detroit is another good example, as it’s ranked most dangerous both by World Atlas and Forbes, with over 2,000 violent crimes committed per 100,000 people.
 
St. Louis, Missouri is another example, coming in at #2 in the World Atlas rankings. As well as Memphis, Tennessee, Baltimore, Maryland and Cleveland, Ohio. Would you be surprised if I told you that they have all been strictly Democrat cities for ages?
 
What this all tells us is that Democrat policies, very much including gun control simply don’t work. The reason no one ever attacks a prison is because there are heavily armed guards there. People don’t attack places where there will likely be armed guards. And yes, I recognize that Stoneman Douglas had armed guards. The article itself reminds us as much. But none of those people did a darn thing. They had the power to put an end to the shooter, but cowered in fear for their own lives. The armed guards there should’ve been promptly fired upon the world knowing of their cowardice.
 
If an armed guard actually has the guts to do something against a very clear threat to the public, they will do something about it, as in the case of the shooting that happened in Maryland back in late March.
 
In that case, the armed guard had the courage to engage the shooter (who seemingly only targeted one person, but there’s always the chance that he could’ve targeted more) and promptly killed him. Unfortunately, the shooter’s target died eventually after being taken off life support, but at least she was given a chance, unlike the people in Stoneman Douglas.
 
Regardless, the WaPo article does something that no other media source wants to do: report things realistically and fairly.
 
Sources like CNN, MSNBC, ABC and what have you are more than happy to pretend the world is far worse than it really is if it means their agenda is pushed through and their preferred candidates win elections. Everything from the apocalyptic urgency of climate change to the apocalyptic urgency of not passing tax cuts (or at this point, getting rid of them) is what goes on in the news pretty much 24/7.
 
They never report on the economy unless the Dow Jones goes down hundreds of points one day. In such a case, they blame Trump for it, while saying that Obama was responsible for the Dow Jones skyrocketing to record-highs. They only dare report on the economy when the Dow Jones goes down hard but are hard-pressed to report it going back up by hundreds of points.
 
They haven’t reported much (if at all) on the defeat of ISIS so far, choosing to focus either on the Mueller investigation, saying that it will be the end of Trump, or focusing on Stormy Daniels, saying that she will be the end of Trump.
 
They literally report that Climate Change will result in deaths equivalent to 25 Holocausts, without stopping to think that if Climate Change is a global event, it surely should affect more than 150 million people (the Holocaust killed 15 to 20 million people, so even their “25 Holocausts” estimate is wrong).
 
At least this particular person, though still within the erroneous belief that guns kill people, makes it known just how unlikely an event such as the one in Florida is to occur and how few people since the turn of the millennium have actually died within school grounds due to people with guns.
 
Now, I’m not surprised that this sort of article wasn’t more widely read by people. If even I took some time to read it, it goes to show how reporting of this kind – honest (if even with some opinion mixed in) and informative – is extremely rare in today’s media.
 
Proverbs 19:1
“Better is a poor person who walks in his integrity than one who is crooked in speech and is a fool.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.