With Robert Francis O’Rourke and other Democrats desperately showing just how “woke” they are by sharing their totalitarian intentions surrounding gun ownership, it is important to understand just how much of a non-issue homicide by firearm is, at least on average. Of course, every shooting and every death is a tragedy, don’t misunderstand, but rifles are far from the most common means of murder in America, despite how many there are in the country.
 
The FBI’s 2018 report on crime in the United States shows us clearly the number of reported murders per weapon type.
 
In 2018, firearms killed over 10,000 people. However, over 6,000 of those deaths came from handguns, with nearly 3,000 deaths coming from non-stated firearms, 297 from rifles and 235 from shotguns.
 
Keep in mind also that these numbers are completely dwarfed by the Defensive Gun Use statistics from Florida State University criminology professor Gary Kleck, who reported that there are at least 760,000 defensive gun use cases every year. So in contrast, taking the specific number of 10,265 total firearm murders in 2018, dividing that by 760,000 DGUs (again, that is the minimum amount Kleck showed and it’s theorized most people tend not to report these types of things anyway because they don’t want to reveal they’ve used a gun to defend themselves out of legal fears), and you get 0.01%. Meaning that the total number of firearm deaths every year is 0.01% in contrast to the total number of defensive gun uses every year (minimum). In other words, guns are used for defensive purposes 99.99% of the time, at least in contrast to murders.
 
And take note that only 297 deaths came from the use of rifles, which includes all rifles, not just semi-automatic ones. 0.03% (rounding up) of firearm deaths came from all types of rifles in 2018.
 
Out of the total 14,123 murders reported in 2018, 1,515 came from knives or other cutting instruments. 443 reported deaths from blunt objects such as clubs or hammers, 672 total reported deaths from personal weapons such as hands, fists and feet, and 900 other weapons not specified.
 
There were far more deaths from objects like knives, hammers or even fists than there were from the ever-so-scary rifles. And these are completely overshadowed by vehicular deaths, which the NSC estimates were over 40,000 deaths related to vehicles in 2018.
 
And it’s not like this is all specific to 2018. The FBI’s page on 2018 deaths by weapons also includes 2014, ’15, ’16 and ‘17.
 
In every single year, there were far more deaths by all of the other weapons previously mentioned than by all types of rifles combined. In 2014, of only 7,803 total firearm deaths, only 235 came from rifles. In 2015, only 215 deaths came from rifles despite the fact that there were more total firearm deaths that year, at 9,103. In 2016, it ticked up a bit, with 300 rifle deaths, but still nowhere close to the total 10,372 firearm deaths that year and in 2017, there were 390 rifle deaths out of a total of 11,006 firearm deaths.
 
Every single year for the past 4 (recorded) years, there were far more deaths by handgun than any other type of gun, with rifles always competing with shotguns for the least amount of recorded deaths. And in every single one of those years, knives or other weapons in general were more used than rifles.
 
In 2014, 1,545 deaths came from knives or other bladed weapons. 431 came from blunted weapons and 668 came from personal (hands, feet, etc.) weapons. In 2015, 1,525 deaths came from bladed weapons, 436 from blunt weapons, and 647 from personal weapons.
 
In 2016, 1,558 deaths came from bladed weapons, 464 from blunt weapons and 664 from personal weapons. And finally, in 2017, 1,609 deaths came from bladed weapons, 472 from blunt weapons and 710 from personal weapons.
 
And yet, despite these numbers, rifles are the Left’s biggest target. Statistically speaking, it makes no sense. There are fare more dangerous and deadly weapons out there than rifles. But the Left’s objective isn’t to protect the people. It’s only to empower, enrich and protect themselves.
 
Like I’ve said in the past, the Left can only grow the government as far as the 2nd amendment will allow them. They can’t achieve the communist level of power they desire without first disarming the population. Every communist, socialist totalitarian in world history has understood their need to disarm the people. For a government to be totally unopposed, it cannot allow the risk of a revolution. The people can only be pushed so far before they rebel.
 
The people of Venezuela currently wish they hadn’t given up their guns to the government. An armed revolution is likely the only thing that can help the people of Venezuela to be free from the socialist regime of Nicolas Maduro.
 
And as I’ve said before, what is happening in Venezuela is what the American Left wants in the States, even if they don’t necessarily broadcast that to the people. The kind of power Maduro has is the kind of power the American Left salivates and strives for. This is the reason for their targeting of rifles, and it definitely wouldn’t end with just that.
 
So long as the people can defend themselves, the government’s ability to retain power is in some level of jeopardy. The Framers of the Constitution knew this and wrote the 2nd amendment knowing full-well what tyranny was like and what the threat of government on the God-given freedoms of mankind were.
 
Gun control advocacy, much like climate change alarmism, is not rooted in facts. Guns are heavily demonized when they shouldn’t be. Even taking the fact that most murders came from guns, 61% of all firearm related deaths in America came from suicide, with the rest being homicide, death by law enforcement (1.4%) or unintentional shootings (1.3%), according to the Giffords Law Center.
 
So the maligning that guns get is totally unjustified and the real target should be mental health and what people believe in.
 
Because let me tell you something: no Christian would ever even consider doing something like this – killing another person – unless it came in self-defense.
 
1 John 4:8
“Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love.”
 
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.

Gun ownership has been under attack quite a lot as of late, with 2020 Democrat candidates like Robert Francis O’Rourke promising to violate the 2nd Amendment and eliminate legal gun ownership of rifles (and he would move on to other things too) and other Democrats supporting ever stricter and more radical gun control policies.
 
But one of the arrows in the Left’s quiver to attack gun ownership is to insinuate that gun owners are simply “cowards” who are afraid of the real world or own guns as a means of “replacing” missing male genitalia. People like Geraldo Rivera and other Leftists have made this sort of “argument” in the past as a means of mocking gun owners.
 
However, a study from Florida State University finds that gun owners have LESS FEAR than non-gun owners.
 
Benjamin Dowd-Arrow, a sociology doctoral student, co-authored the study and said: “There’s a lot of popular rhetoric in the media and among politicians as to why people own guns. The biggest claim is that they’re cowards. So, we wanted to see if owning guns was truly a symptom of fear.”
 
The research focused on how fearful gun owners were in comparison to non-gun owners, and further investigated phobias and victim mentalities between the two groups.
 
Regarding fear, the study did not find that there was much relation between a person’s fear and the possibility of that person owning a gun as a consequence of having that fear, but there were exceptions. For example, those who reported having a phobia of animals or being afraid of getting mugged were found to be LESS likely to own a gun as a result of that fear. However, those who reported a fear of being a victim of a mass or random shooting said they were more likely to get a gun as a result.
 
This makes a good deal of sense to me.
 
If you’re afraid of, say, dogs, it makes little sense to purchase a gun because of that. Dogs, while they can be deadly, can be fought off against (in the case where it is necessary, as one also has the option of running away). As far as a mugging goes, considering the objective of the mugger will usually be to simply take your stuff and not to murder you in cold blood, it makes more sense to comply and give up your material possessions rather than fight and risk your life. And if one wishes to get something for self-defense due to these reasons, blades and tasers will usually be considered the cheaper and more logical approach.
 
But for people who fear being caught in the middle of a shooting, it makes more sense to wish to be armed so that they can protect themselves. Not everyone who is armed will be a hero and take on the shooter, but those seeking to protect themselves will fight for their lives.
 
So the findings from this study make perfect sense to me.
 
But moving on, the study, as mentioned previously, also focused on particular phobias and fears of gun owners in comparison to non-gun owners. The study suggests that gun owners report suffering from fewer phobias and fear of being a victim than non-gun owners do. The findings, according to the study, were consistent across multiple fears and phobias, such as fear of animals, being mugged or a fear of heights.
 
Dowd-Arrow further stated: “There’s little evidence to suggest that gun ownership is an effect of fear. However, gun ownership may be associated with less fear because firearms help their owners to feel safe, secure and protected in a world they perceive to be uncertain and potentially dangerous.”
 
I would like to say that it’s not simply a “perception” that the world is uncertain and potentially dangerous. The proof is in the pudding. No one is omniscient, so there is bound to be uncertainty about many things, until more information is known.
 
I have never set foot in New York City (and don’t intend to), so there is a lot of uncertainty with the idea of me going there – what would happen, where I would go, how I would fare, etc. And while the city’s crime rates have actually been statistically dropping since the 90s, there certainly is still potential for mugging and going to the wrong neighborhoods on accident.
 
The fact that murder exists at all is a sign that the world is potentially dangerous, so it’s not merely a “perception” that the world is “uncertain and potentially dangerous.” It IS uncertain and potentially dangerous.
 
And those who try and “prove” that it isn’t tend to find themselves being proven wrong the hard way, such as the couple who went on an expedition around the world to “prove” that evil wasn’t real and merely a perception of humanity as a result of being afraid of the unknown and the different and ended up being killed by ISIS terrorists.
 
So the world most certainly is uncertain, due to humanity simply not being omniscient, and the world most certainly is potentially dangerous, due to humanity’s very own nature of evil.
 
And one way for people to be able to protect themselves from this uncertainty and potential danger is to arm themselves and gaining knowledge as to how to safely wield guns.
 
People own guns not because they are afraid but because they don’t WANT to be afraid. They arm themselves so that they can protect themselves and their family from potential danger, whether that danger be a robber, a killer, a shooter, or an authoritarian government openly promising to take people’s guns.
 
Guns help people feel safer, and understanding how to use guns safely helps people to feel even safer than before.
 
One reason for people to not get a gun is because they think it is dangerous and they could hurt themselves. And while they’re not entirely wrong, learning how to use guns takes away the uncertainty and the unknown behind said guns.
 
When I watch action movies, I can tell who has held a real gun before and who hasn’t. Those who follow the typical safety instructions surrounding weapons (i.e., finger off the trigger, pointing away from people you don’t want to be hurt, etc.) in the movies have clearly held a gun before and would know how to use one. Those people fear guns less than those who do not know anything about guns.
 
That’s why we always stress that it’s not simply the owning of a gun that makes people safer, but the understanding of how to safely wield one that gives people more safety and confidence.
 
For those of you who are gun owners, think back to when you got your first weapon, whatever age it might’ve been. At first, you must’ve felt insecure, maybe a bit afraid, and had next to no confidence, right? If you were being taught by someone else, or were looking up YouTube videos on gun safety, you paid a lot of attention to the instructions they were sharing.
 
In the beginning, a gun owner will feel anxiety and a bit of fear. But once he or she learns how to use the gun and actually uses it for themselves at a shooting range – once someone gets used to the feeling of firing a gun – they feel far more confident and like they hold a lot more power than ever before.
 
It’s that precise confidence that I believe is the main reason for the study to have found what it found. People who feel confident in their own safety will undoubtedly report feeling less afraid about certain things than people who are not gun owners or who are not quite so experienced with guns just yet and have not attained that level of confidence (which honestly comes rather early in a person’s gun ownership).
 
The purpose of owning a gun isn’t to replace male genitalia (otherwise, why would women get a gun?), it’s not to mask insecurity and fear, it’s not because we are cowardly. We own guns to protect ourselves and our families from the dangers we KNOW are present and we do it so that we might not have to be afraid of the dangerous world.
 
It’s better to own a gun, praying you never have to use it and being ready in the case you must use it than to not own a gun and finding yourself in a situation where you wish you had one.
 
1 John 5:19
“We know that we are from God, and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one.”
 
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.

The third night of the Democrat debate took place late last week, and while there is an awful lot to talk about, I would like to focus on what I consider to be the biggest takeaway of the entire debate: Robert Francis O’Rourke announcing to everyone watching or even somewhat paying attention that he fully intends to confiscate people’s semi-automatic rifles by saying: “Hell yes, we’re gonna take your AR-15s and AK-47s” on the debate stage.
 
And while the audience may have cheered at his announcement (they are all far-Leftists, so this is no surprise at all), others were not quite so sure, including MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, who commented that Beto’s position was “extreme” and “I don’t know where you get away with that.”
 
Certainly, no one in the world outside of Leftistan was exactly thrilled about that declaration. Texas State Rep. Briscoe Cain (R), upon reading Beto’s tweet that essentially copied his on-stage declaration, replied: “My AR is ready for you Robert Francis.”
 
Beto, being the ever-so reasonable person he is, believed that to be a direct death threat against him: “This is a death treat, Representative. Clearly, you shouldn’t own an AR-15 – and neither should anyone else.”
 
Cain, in return, replied: “You’re a child, Robert Francis.”
 
For this exchange, Robert Francis reported Rep. Briscoe to the FBI for “threatening” him.
 
However, I doubt that will actually go anywhere, considering it’s not illegal to say something like that.
 
Back in 1969, the US Supreme Court presided over a case regarding something similar. During a political rally in 1966, a young black man said the following: “They always holler at us to get an education. And now I have already received my draft classification as a 1-A and I have got to report for my physical this Monday morning. I am not going. If they ever make me carry a rifle, the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J.”
 
The young man, for his comments, was arrested at that debate and the jury found the young man to have broken the law by “knowingly and willfully” threatening the President. However, the young man’s trial counsel had moved for a judgment of acquittal, on the grounds that the jury found “absolutely no evidence on the basis of which the jury would be entitled to find that [the young man] made a threat against the life of the President.”
 
This case went on for years until it reached the Supreme Court in 1969 known as Watts v. United States, which decided that such a comment, while crude, did not constitute knowingly and willfully threatening the President of the United States and is protected under the First Amendment, in large part due to the fact that the young man had no actual intention on doing as he said.
 
It’s for this same reason that someone like Joe Biden can say he would like to have a fist-fight with Trump and not be criminally prosecuted.
 
But regardless, I think Beto’s overall declaration is the bigger story here. He threatened, enthusiastically, to violate the 2nd Amendment and take people’s guns by force, as his comment implied.
 
Beto went on further, however, during the debate. He was asked to elaborate by ABC News host David Muir, asking him if he was proposing a confiscation, and Beto replied: “I am, if it is a weapon that was designed to kill people on a battlefield.”
 
Whether he intended to or not, he gave away the fact that he wouldn’t stop at AR-15s. Literally EVERY SINGLE WEAPON is a weapon designed to kill people on a battlefield. This not only includes shotguns and pistols, but even knives.
 
I don’t blame Briscoe for sending that tweet whatsoever. This is a threat to our right to bear arms by an Irish Hitler.
 
Now, Beto stands absolutely no chance whatsoever at becoming the nominee of the Democrat Party, but this open declaration of confiscation is similar, to me, as Bernie’s open declaration of being a socialist back in 2016.
 
Slowly, but surely, the mask is continuing to slip off and we are seeing these people for their true colors. They don’t care for your rights – your rights to protect yourself and your family; your rights to express yourself if you have a differing opinion; your rights to not be forced into doing something you don’t want to do like baking a cake for a gay wedding; your rights to even have a chance at life outside the womb.
 
But for as much damage as the Left intends to do to all our other freedoms, the only thing standing in their way is the 2nd Amendment, which is why they are so adamant about getting rid of it.
 
Now, there are a lot of things that stand in the way of the Left being able to do that and being anywhere near as successful as they want to be.
 
First and most importantly, it is going to be pretty much impossible to repeal the 2nd Amendment. As I mentioned in my article talking about why we are a Republic, not a Democracy, it is extremely difficult to change the Constitution: “A simple majority cannot add onto or eliminate an amendment in the Constitution… In order to ratify a Constitutional amendment, it takes two-thirds of the House and the Senate, and then three-fourths of the states in order to change the Constitution at all.”
 
Even in a worst-case scenario where a Democrat wins in 2020 and they retake the Senate and keep the House, it will be unlikely they will gather a two-thirds majority in both chambers. As it stands, there are Democrats in the House who want to vote to impeach Trump because he constantly hurts their feelings, but Nancy Pelosi knows that going for that at this point would be utter political suicide for the Democrat Party largely because of the Democrats who won in Purple or Red states.
 
Similarly, if Democrats in Red or Purple states have to be forced to vote to repeal the 2nd Amendment, that would also be political suicide, not simply because it’d be unlikely they’d get two-thirds votes (depending on how much they’d be able to win), but because it’s unlikely three-fourths of states would agree.
 
States like Commiefornia and New York, maybe, but they’d be lucky to get 25% of the states to agree, let alone 75%.
 
And even if they somehow managed to pull off the impossible and repealed the 2nd Amendment, that will hardly matter. How many more people are out there like Briscoe who are law-abiding citizens but wouldn’t be willing to give up their guns?
 
Repealing the 2nd Amendment wouldn’t work towards getting rid of guns at any capacity and would only spark a civil war, which is the last thing Democrats want if they wish to have as much power as they can.
 
But regardless of the actual possibility of repealing the 2nd Amendment, it’s becoming more and more clear what these people stand for. Kamala Harris wishes to do something similar with an unconstitutional executive order, so it’s not like Beto is alone in his desire to strip people of their legal guns.
 
And again, while neither Beto nor Kamala will get anywhere near the nomination, and while the three people actually likely to be the nominee might try and push back against that sort of thing, it’s clear where these people stand.
 
The people in the crowd cheered for Beto, which will make them think this is what people in America in general want. It’s not. The people that cheered do not themselves have guns, or at least are ignorant enough to think that the guns they do have (that are not AR-15s) will not be next on the chopping block.
 
The Left can no longer use the talking point they’ve been using for decades that they don’t want to take away people’s guns. Even Beto used that talking point back in 2018 when he was running against Ted Cruz. He insisted that people would be allowed to keep their legally-purchased AR-15s. What a difference one year makes, right?
 
Not really. These people have been wanting to take away our guns for decades because they know perfectly well that that’s what’s really standing between them and the authoritarian power they crave. They just made a point to not be honest about what they wanted to do.
 
Obama and Hillary wanted to do the same thing, but weren’t dumb enough to announce it to the country.
 
But make no mistake, folks. This is who these people are: sick, twisted, demented, power-hungry maniacs who care not for your rights, security and liberty if they at all stand in the way of them being able to dictate the way you live and have complete dominion over you. They seek to hold the power of God in their hands, though they claim not to believe in Him.
 
And they will fail miserably.
 
John 3:20
“For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed.”
 
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.

As with many other times in this country, the issue of gun control is widely talked about by many people. With Democrats demanding mandatory gun buybacks (that wouldn’t work at any capacity), ABC News and the Washington Post released a new poll that they claim shows favorability for more gun control laws.
 
The poll asked people a variety of questions, such as “would you support or oppose a nationwide ban on the sale of assault weapons?” The poll showed that 56% said they would support a nationwide ban on “assault” weapons sales, while 41% oppose.
 
Now, allow me to make one quick point about this, before getting to the major point: there’s no such thing as an “assault” weapon. Literally anything can be used for assault. Anything from an AR-15 to a pencil can be used in an assault. “Assault weapons” aren’t a real thing. And no, AR doesn’t stand for “assault rifle”. Only very ignorant people make that argument. It stands for the company that manufactures it: Armalite. An AR-15 is an Armalite Rifle series 15.
 
But now onto the grander point surrounding this question: that number doesn’t mean what the Left wants it to mean.
 
There’s no doubt that that number is high (of course, there are more Democrats and Independents than Republicans surveyed), but that is actually not a bad number at this point. You see, apart from just showing that number, the poll showed us other numbers from previous polls taken years and years prior, so that we might be able to find a trend or a pattern. That 56% support is rather normal, all things considered.
 
Here is what that question showed in the poll:
 

• 9/5/19, the day the poll was taken, shows 56% support a nationwide ban on “assault weapons”, with 41% opposing.
• 4/11/18, the support was at 62% while the opposition was at 35%.
• 2/18/18, 50% support, 46% oppose.
• 6/23/16, 51% support and 48% oppose.
• 12/13/15, 45% support and 53% oppose.
• 4/14/13, 56% support, 42% oppose.
• 3/10/13, 57% support, 41% oppose.
• 1/13/13, 58% support, 39% oppose.
• 1/19/11, 63% support, 34% oppose.
• 4/26/09, 54% support, 41% oppose.
• 4/22/07, 67% support, 30% oppose.
• 5/10/00, 71% support, 27% oppose.
• 9/2/99, 77% support, 22% oppose.
• 5/16/99, 79% support, 19% oppose.
• 6/14/94, 80% support, 18% oppose.

 
Over the last 25 years, support for banning “assault weapons” has DROPPED on average. And while there are some times when it goes a bit back up and goes down, it’s similar to market trends: the trend has been going down, with some shifts and hiccups here and there.
 
The fact that the number sits at 56% is statistically irrelevant considering the trend. People’s views on guns has not gone the way the Left has wanted it, thus far.
 
But wait, there’s more.
 
Like I said, they asked numerous questions.
 
For example, a question read as follows: “Would you support or oppose a law requiring background checks on people buying guns at gun shows or online?” This one has to do with that “gun-show loophole” (it’s not really a loophole, as most sellers in gun shows are licensed dealers and rules are not as lax as people think they are).
 
But this one shows a similar story. While the trend isn’t quite as extensive as the prior question, it does show that the number is virtually unchanged in the last 20 years. 89% said they support such a law, but in April of 2013, that number stood at 86%; in March of 2013, 91%; in January of 2013, 88% (there are three numbers for 2013 likely because they came only a few months after the Sandy Hook shooting took place); May of 2000, the number was at 92%; December of 1999, 90%; and May of ’99, 89%. It’s at the same number today as it was back then.
 
Now, again, that number isn’t particularly great, but the number doesn’t jump out at you when compared to prior numbers as it does on its own, which is how the media mostly portray these kinds of numbers: “Look at these numbers, Republicans! You will lose voters if you don’t act on gun control right now!”
 
That is the point of highlighting numbers like these, even though they often don’t mean all that much statistically speaking.
 
But in any case, let’s move on to another example.
 
Another question read: “Would you support a nationwide ban on high-capacity ammunition clips, meaning those containing more than 10 bullets?” Now, that’s a bit of an odd question to ask, at least with the second part, because 10 bullets are not “high-capacity”. Often times, that is regular capacity. An AR-15 can hold 30 rounds (though there are many dumb laws that require people to fill it with no more than 12 bullets, as if that makes criminals, who don’t normally obey laws, less deadly). 
 
But regardless, we find a similar trend. The number today stands at 60% who support such a ban. That number has been at 56% in April of 2013, 65% in January of 2013 (again, shortly after Sandy Hook), 59% in December of 2012 and 57% in January of 2011. The number is virtually unchanged in that time.
 
Another question asks people if they would support a law allowing the police to “take guns away from people who have been found by a judge to be a danger to themselves or others.” This one is also weird, considering it’s already a law, but the two dates show that it’s virtually unchanged (86% support now, 85% support April 2018).
 
So while the numbers the media highlight might make you a bit paranoid or scared that we will be losing our 2nd Amendment rights and that most people hate us for being gun owners, keep in mind that the trends aren’t particularly favorable for the Left, who has been really trying to push for more and more gun control.
 
No statistical change is bad, but trends that go further from what the Left hopes is utterly detrimental to them. 76% also said that improving mental health monitoring and treatment, which is what Trump is focusing on, was something that could help reduce mass shootings as opposed to 58% who said the same about stricter gun laws.
 
Republicans aren’t losing the battle on gun ownership, which is why (among other, more obvious reasons) I get annoyed by supposed “Republicans” who take aim (no pun intended) at the NRA and begin siding with Democrats.
 
It’s similar to abortion. We aren’t totally losing the culture wars here, and we need to understand that. Republicans might be scared about what the media reports and subsequently choose to side with them, but that is ultimately what leads them to lose elections. The media doesn’t report reality, they are trying to shape it – and are failing.
 
Proposals such as mandatory gun buybacks will only come to hurt the Democrats, particularly in rustbelt states.
 
Joshua 1:9
“Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous. Do not be frightened, and do not be dismayed, for the Lord your God is with you wherever you go.”
 
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.

On Wednesday, there were two stories largely being talked about: a man in Philadelphia shooting at cops, wounding 6 of them; and economic news that supposedly spelled doom and gloom and would lead us into a recession (which didn’t happen, but the Left is trying to see if they can take away Trump’s best weapon, the economy, by causing a recession which they will blame on him).
 
However, the media has largely stopped talking about at least the first thing for a couple of reasons.
 
But before I get to those reasons, allow me to give you the context of the situation.
 
The Philadelphia Inquirer reports: “The standoff [between officers and the suspect] began Wednesday about 4:30 p.m. when a Narcotics Strike Force unit attempted to serve a search warrant at a house on the 3700 block of North 15th Street.” After the suspect began to fire at the officers, the suspect and Philadelphia PD were engaged in a seven-hour-long standoff which ended once the suspect surrendered himself after calling his lawyer “in a panic”, who suggested he should surrender.
 
Following the incident, the suspect’s lawyer, Shaka Johnson, told CBS that his client would likely be charged with 6 counts of attempted murder and aggravated assault against the police officers.
 
But this is hardly the first time the suspect had any sort of run-in with the law.
 
The suspect has a lengthy criminal record dating back to 2001, when he was 18 years old and was arrested for possessing a gun with an altered serial number.
 
The Philadelphia Inquirer takes note of the suspect’s lengthy criminal history:
 
“Public records show that he has been arrested about a dozen times since turning 18, and convicted six times on charges that involved illegal possession of guns, drug dealing, and aggravated assault. He has been in and out of prison; the longest sentence handed him came in 2010, when a federal judge gave him a 55-month term. And, his record would indicate, he does not like to go to prison. In 2008, he was convicted of escaping, fleeing from police, and resisting arrest. Along the way, he beat criminal charges on everything from kidnapping to attempted murder.”
 
That aforementioned 2010 sentence came from pleading guilty in 2008 to illegally possessing a Smith & Wesson .357 (a classic revolver) and a Taurus PT .45 semiautomatic handgun. In 2013, he was convicted of perjury and given 7 years probation, but continued racking up more charges such as evading police officers and endangering civilians on an unregistered scooter, but those charges were eventually acquitted. In 2014, he was arrested on charges of drug possession and false imprisonment but also beat those charges as well.
 
The Inquirer also reports that: “According to court filings, his accuser told police she had agreed to sell marijuana for [the suspect] but then later changed her mind. When he summoned her to his house on the 6900 block of Greenway Street in Southwest Philadelphia days later, she says, she overheard [the suspect] and an associate discussing killing her. Fearful for her life, the woman said, she called 911. When officers arrived, she fled as [the suspect] and his associate hid the crack cocaine and marijuana in a tire out back. Investigators discovered 83 grams of marijuana.”
 
Due to the suspect’s lengthy criminal history involving several charges with illegal gun and drug possessions, as well as other things, it is safe to say that this story does not suit the Left’s narrative. The guy was involved in a standoff against the police officers, wounding 6 of them (though we have to thank God that none were killed), when he is one of those people who absolutely should not have a firearm and it is illegal for them to have one.
 
The suspect carried on a seven-hour-long standoff, obviously with firearms, but it’s pretty obvious not a single gun control law being discussed would’ve kept this from happening.
 
This is the reason the media and Leftist politicians often talk about gun control so soon after, or even during, a shooting occurs. Because once more information comes out and it’s discovered that the shooter should not have had said weapon or it was illegal for them to have one, the Left’s opportunity to push their anti-Second Amendment agenda is gone.
 
2020 Democrat candidate Kamala Harris went on CNN DURING THE PHILADELPHIA SHOOTING to push gun control policies BEFORE THE INFORMATION WAS AVAILABLE THAT NO GUN CONTROL POLICY WOULD’VE PREVENTED THIS! The reason for this is, again, because they have a small window of opportunity to push this crap.
 
And often times, once enough time passes and more information is made available, you have situations where the MSM or even politicians admit that no gun control legislation would’ve prevented any particular shooting.
 
Following the El Paso and Dayton shootings, CNN admitted no gun control policy would’ve prevented them. Following the Las Vegas shooting (of which we still know pretty little about), Diane Feinstein also admitted no gun control legislation would’ve prevented that shooting, which was the single deadliest shooting in U.S. history, taking 58 people’s lives.
 
As far as this shooting standoff goes, the guy is legally incapable of purchasing weapons. And yet, he had them to fire at police officers serving a search warrant. No amount of gun control would’ve prevented this shooting; no amount of gun control would’ve made it illegaler for him to get weapons, and so, the media doesn’t talk about it because there is no point.
 
They follow the Rahm Emanuel dogma of “never let a tragedy go to waste”. If there is a reported shooting happening, talk about it immediately, facts be damned, and ignore it completely if it’s no longer opportunistic. A good example of this is when there were reports of a shooting at Oregon State University and Hillary Clinton’s VP pick, Tim Kaine, immediately started talking about gun control. It later turned out that the attack was a knife attack, not a shooting, and no one cared from that moment on.
 
So now that enough time has passed for us to know more details surrounding the situation, we know for certain that no gun control measure would’ve prevented this from happening at all, so the media is moving on to other things.
 
But that’s not the only reason they don’t particularly care about this. That’s a major reason, yes, but not the only one.
 
The other reason they don’t care is because of who the target was: police officers.
 
The media can’t shed crocodile tears when they’ve been demonizing police officers for years. They can cry crocodile tears for children in schools or minority victims in Walmart, but not for the people they’ve been virtually at war with: cops.
 
For the past few years, any incident involving a white police officer and a black suspect that resulted in the suspect’s unfortunate death has led the police to be called “racist” for it. Take the example of Michael Brown. The Left claims he was “murdered” but he himself tried to assault and steal a cop’s weapon, presumably to use it against the cops. This was where the “hands up, don’t shoot” hoax came to exist because the Left, to this day, claims he was unjustly shot at when he begged the cops not to shoot him, even though that’s not at all what happened.
 
That hoax, alongside others like it, have led to organizations like Black Lives Matter forming up to “fight back” against the cops, who are in the right in these kinds of situations for the most part (though there are some times when the cops unjustly fired at unarmed suspects). The BLM movement was heralded by the Left and the media as a great thing and further demonized the police, leading to the Dallas police shooting of 2016, where 5 police officers were killed “as payback”, according to Dallas Police Chief.
 
That shooting also was not very widely covered by the MSM because the target were cops and because the motive was revenge against cops.
 
After years of demonizing all police officers for the actions of a few (who for the most part were justified in the actions they partook), when shooters target police officers, the media barely cares about it, apart from trying to spread gun control propaganda within the first few hours of learning about it.
 
The combination of the story not benefiting the Left and the target being police officers leads to the media not really caring one wit about the incident. And the demonizing of police officers leads to CITIZENS OF A CITY TO TAUNT AND HARASS THE POLICE OFFICERS WHO JUST GOT DONE DEALING WITH THE STANDOFF!
 
After Philadelphia police got done taking care of the suspect and arresting him, Philadelphia citizens were seen taunting and harassing officers, some of whom almost got into a fight with some officers and some who threw unidentified objects at the officers.
 
Do you think the officers would’ve received such hatred coming from (granted, only some) people in that city if police weren’t so routinely attacked as being racist?
 
The same really could be said of ICE facilities and workers. Earlier in the week, ICE facilities were outright SHOT AT and no one in the media talked about it at all.
 
When the target of gun violence is someone the media hates, they have no intention on pretending to be shocked or disturbed by it. They LOVE IT when cops get attacked like this. They LOVE IT when domestic terror organizations like ANTIFA attack people they perceive to be “alt-right” aka people they disagree with. They LOVE IT when ICE officers, who are often compared to the Nazi SS, get attacked and targeted.
 
They LOVE IT when lunatic politicians like AOC call ICE detention facilities “concentration camps” and when those facilities are subsequently attacked by people who believe that crap.
 
As long as the target is someone the Left hates, they have no problem with gun violence. They only care in as far as they can try and push more gun control legislation that would take LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS’ WEAPONS FROM THEM.
 
Because to reiterate, there is not one piece of gun control legislation that would’ve prevented this situation in Philly. The guy is not legally allowed to possess or own a firearm, and yet, that’s what he had. Wanna know why? BECAUSE CRIMINALS DON’T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT WHAT THE LAW SAYS, THAT’S WHY THEY’RE CRIMINALS!
 
I sound like a broken record saying that over and over again, but the Left is adamant about not caring about that sort of logic. And it’s not like they are that moronic, they know that criminals don’t care about the law. It’s just that they don’t care about the criminals. They know they can’t do anything about illegal weapons, but they can try to take away yours. If they can get away with getting rid of the 2nd Amendment and take away your guns, they can throw away the entire rest of the Constitution and fully turn this country into the communist state that they want.
 
So long as the people are armed, there is a limit as to how far the Left can go to the left. Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Soviet Russia, Communist China, Socialist Venezuela, all had to disarm their citizens in order for them to be fully in control and without opposition. That’s the aim of the American Left and that’s why they always have knee-jerk reactions whenever a shooting happens, so that they can further that goal.
 
According to a recent Rassmussen poll, 64% of likely U.S. voters say we need stricter gun control laws, even though they also admit that gun control won’t stop all mass shootings like the ones in El Paso and Dayton. This is what fuels traitorous Republicans to push for more gun control legislation and foolishly support “red flag” laws (yes, I know Trump says he supports this too, which if he does, is a disappointment and I heavily disagree with him, but I have my doubts that he really does support it). The people are being told by the Left that gun control is a good thing when it’s at least part of the reason we are where we are today.
 
Places like Chicago, Detroit, L.A., etc. have heavy gun control legislations in place and yet are some of the deadliest places in the country.
 
But that sure as Hell doesn’t matter to the Left, who run those places. For as much as they talk about being worried about gun violence, the Left doesn’t talk about Chicago an awful lot. That’s because that mess is entirely theirs to own, and since they can’t broadcast that their gun control agenda is literally counterintuitive to the goals they claim they have, they ignore it like math homework.
 
The Left’s ultimate goal is to fundamentally change this country, as was admitted by Bernie Sanders very recently. In order to do that, they have to take away our guns so that we can’t fight back against them and revolt.
 
And while I know there will be moronic Leftists who will argue “how are AR-15s going to help you against tanks and helicopters?”, allow me to refer you to the Vietnam War, the War of 1812 and the Revolutionary War. All examples of a massive military being beaten by relatively small rebels (except Vietnam, where the Soviets largely helped the North Vietnamese in what really was a conflict between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. but localized). According to a Pew Research survey from 2017, 42% of people live in a household with a gun and 30% currently own a gun themselves.
 
Let’s go with the smaller number of 30% of people who own a gun. The U.S. currently has a population of 327.2 million people. That means there are at least 98 million gun owners in America (relatively speaking, I imagine there are more now since 2017 was some time ago).
 
That’s 98 million people vs. the roughly 2 million soldiers the U.S. currently has either in active duty or in reserve (and of course, I imagine many American soldiers would leave the military if the U.S. faced an anti-communist revolution, but there could be those on the Left who would wish to join the military in turn, so let’s assume the number is roughly the same anyway). Even if a small percentage of those gun owners were to be willing to fight against a tyrannical government (exercising the true purpose of the 2nd Amendment), that’s still an awful lot of patriots for the military to fight against. And before you talk about the military being more organized, which they would be, allow me to refer you to the Goths, who were a band of raiders and barbarians who sacked Rome in 410 and were a terrifying force in ancient Europe.
 
So the best way for the Left to truly turn this country into a socialist one is to, at the very least, disarm Americans, as they are trying to do with “assault weapons” bans that really seek to ban any semiautomatic weapon they can.
 
In order to achieve that, they have to insist to the American people that things like the Philly shooting could have been prevented with more gun control, even if it eventually turns out that nothing of the sort would’ve happened.
 
The Left and the media never let a tragedy go to waste. Any shooting at all makes them happy because it allows them to spread b.s. to further their communist goals. But when a story no longer benefits them, such as the one in Philly, they drop it entirely and pretend nothing substantial happened. “If cops got shot at, who cares, they were probably racist anyway”, is their line of logic.
 
Finally, to reiterate a point I made in my article discussing what Oprah Winfrey thought about the El Paso and Dayton shootings, until we return to God, these things will only continue happening. People will target others for any given reason until we return to God as a nation.
 
Galatians 3:9
“So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.”
 
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.

One of the Left’s most powerful and oft-used weapons is deception. They will take something that is fairly true, misconstrue it and use it to tell a bold-faced lie. Anything from “Trump had Russians in Trump Tower” to “Trump assails against hate but not guns” are things that are basically true but heavily misconstrued to drive a narrative. The Russians that were in the Trump Tower meeting with Don Jr. were not from the Russian government and Trump’s assailing against hate but not guns is due to not blaming an inanimate object for mass shootings and instead attacks the ideologies the shooters had and their reason for killing people.
 
But the point remains that the Left often uses deception and lies to drive their fictitious narratives and advance their agendas. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) is no different and used this tactic when unveiling her gun control plan should she be elected President of the United States.
 
The funny thing is that, even before talking about gun control, Elizabeth Warren lied about something else: automobile deaths going down supposedly after government issued regulations to car manufacturers.
 
The senator wrote: “Over fifty years, we reduced per-mile driving deaths by almost 80% and prevented 3.5 million automobile deaths. And we’re still at it.”
 
However, Dr. John Lott, president of the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC), explains the logical deceitfulness of Warren’s claim:
 
“It is pretty deceptive to claim that government regulations reduced motor vehicle deaths by 80%. Those deaths were falling much faster before the federal [government] started regulating auto safety.”
 
He continued:
 
“As indicated by the figures from my book, ‘The War on Guns’: 1) it is easy to see that cars were getting safer from the time the very first data was released in 1921, long before there were mandated federal safety regulations, and 2) when you look over the entire period, the rate at which car safety improved actually slowed down after the federal government started regulating car safety. The first seatbelts were introduced in 1950 by car companies that were figuring out on their own how to make cars safer. But the New York Times’ graph doesn’t show the even faster drop in vehicle deaths per-mile-traveled that occurred before 1946.”
 
“It is important to note that accidental deaths from all sources are falling over time. Companies are competing against each other to provide customers with safer products, and items such as seat belts, shatter proof glass, padded dashboards, and safety cages were just some of the many safety features adopted by car makers long before the federal government got involved in regulating auto safety.”
 
Dr. Lott also figures that “government regulations slowed down safety regulations for a simple reason: the government micromanaged how companies would meet those safety improvements. It isn’t just that the government mandated that car companies had to use airbags in their cars, it is that the government would tell the companies exactly how to make those bags and how to install them. That forced car companies to wait on installing these safety features until the federal government told the companies exactly how they wanted the product made and installed. If the companies didn’t wait, they may find themselves spending hundreds of millions of dollars, or even billions of dollars, only to find that they had to redesign everything and start all over.”
 
In sum, Dr. Lott points out that Sen. Warren’s claim is purposefully misleading. Yes, automobile deaths were going down over time, but definitely not because of the government. If anything, those numbers would’ve gone down QUICKER without government involvement and regulation. The free market would’ve demanded car manufacturers to make their cars safer, installing more and more safety features. From seatbelts to airbags and even the fairly recent back-up cameras that are being installed more and more, the free market makes it so that companies compete with one another to make their products good and safe for the public. The government only gets in the way of progress.
 
Of course, the reason this is even being talked about is that Warren is trying to insist that government regulation “helped” lower vehicle deaths (it was actually a detriment to that) and as such, government regulation can “help” lower gun deaths (it would also be a massive detriment to that too). The problem that Warren faces is that reality speaks of a different story. The government DIDN’T help cars get safer and it certainly wouldn’t help lower gun deaths.
 
Now, that isn’t the only dumb claim Warren makes in her plan. Far from it, as much of it basically regurgitates the ridiculous gun control ideas other Democrats have put forth with some changes to make them her own. One of Warren’s ideas was to make private gun sales require background checks. Of this, Dr. Lott said:
 
“A lot of academic research by criminologists and economists on background checks on the private transfer of guns has found no effect on crime rates. There is a simple reason for this. A major source of illegal guns are drug dealers, who have weapons to protect their valuable property. You will have about as much success stopping drug dealers from selling guns as you have in stopping them from selling drugs, and if you think that you have stopped criminals from being able to buy illegal drugs, good luck thinking that you will stop them from being able to obtain guns.”
 
What Dr. Lott is essentially saying is that private gun sales, and particularly background checks, have no noticeable impact on crime rates largely because illegally-acquired guns are far more prevalently used. Whether it be through stealing it from someone or purchasing it from a black market, there is no legislation that has ever been thought up or could ever be thought up that would actually be able to completely stop the use of illegal weapons. Certainly, coming up with regulations that ban or make illegal guns that are currently legal don’t help either. Restricting the law-abiding citizens in their abilities to protect themselves and/or their families doesn’t keep gangsters or mass shooters from killing other people.
 
According to Florida State University criminology professor Gary Kleck, at minimum, there are 760,000 defensive gun uses (DGUs) per year. Meaning that there are at least 760,000 times and scenarios in which someone uses a gun in self-defense every single year (and the actual number is likely higher due to underreporting that tends to occur. People don’t tend to want to admit they used a gun to harm or kill someone else, even if it was in self-defense and they wouldn’t be held criminally liable). This dwarfs even the most ridiculous claims by Leftists about how many mass shootings there are in a year (they often claim in the hundreds, but they include shootings in which two or less people were killed and/or wounded, or even when there were no killed or wounded, but a firearm happened to have been discharged). So defensive use of guns far outweighs offensive use of guns such as in premeditated killings and mass shootings.
 
To restrict We the People’s ability to defend ourselves would only exacerbate the problem of mass shootings and killings. It’s no surprise, really, that Chicago often has very bloody weekends with all of its gun control regulations that are in place.
 
The last thing I will talk about regarding Warren’s gun control plan (there is a lot more, but I don’t want this article to be too long) is that she intends to allow for gun manufacturers and companies to be “strictly liable” for damages caused with a firearm. Of course, this leaves manufacturers in great financial peril given that it would allow for citizens to sue them to bankruptcy and that they would have to pay every single time a firearm causes someone some sort of damage.
 
Alongside that, she intends to increase taxes on firearms and ammunition purchases (30% and 50% respectively). It goes without saying that Warren’s plan would help bankrupt gun manufacturers and keep poor people from being able to protect themselves. The government can’t outright take our guns (there are far too many for that to be plausible and they would, at most, only be able to confiscate legally-purchased weapons, not illegal ones) but they certainly can make it a nightmare for people to make a living. Taxes and regulation are the enemy of businesses and they always restrict how much capital they are able to make.
 
There are certain times when I think regulation is a good idea, such as in the case of social media companies when they try to ban people for expressing differing opinions. If the end is to protect Constitutional rights, I think regulation can be a force for good (but, as with many things, can also be a force for evil when taken to the extreme). But in general, regulation is a detriment. You saw it in car manufacturing, with vehicle death numbers going down significantly until the government came in and told car manufacturers how to make their cars safer, and you see it whenever more gun control legislation is passed.
 
Joe Biden is somehow proud of the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, despite it not having stopped any mass shootings (Columbine happened when this ban was in effect). Similarly, any gun control measure would be equally as ineffective to combating gun violence in America. If you want to know what it would take for this country to be alleviated from this problem, read my previous article about our country turning its back to God. I believe that can provide some answers.
 
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 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.

​Over the weekend, the entire nation was rocked by two mass shootings happening within 24 hours of one another, a particular rarity.
 
A Walmart in El Paso, Texas was shot up by a white supremacist who has been reported as having been inspired by the Christchurch, New Zealand shooter and according to reports of the shooter’s supposed manifesto, was angry at the rise in the Hispanic population in Texas and decided to kill people, possibly targeting Latinos.
 
A bar in Dayton, Ohio was also shot up Sunday morning, though it’s unclear if the two are related (and it’s unlikely).
 
In all, around 30 people died to the combined mass shootings and plenty more were injured. Thankfully, it appears as though police were quick to stop the shooting in Dayton, which could have been more deadly.
 
Of course, as these are fairly-developing stories, the facts will come out as more time goes on and I likely won’t be able to cover as much as I would like. However, what is often expected and tedious following a mass shooting is the fact that the tragic event, which literally takes innocent people’s lives, gets politicized to the point where people who support the 2nd Amendment are accused of having blood on their hands for this.
 
Every. Single. Time. Whenever there is a shooting, the gun is immediately blamed. Not the shooter or his or her motivations (unless they are beneficial to the Left), but the gun. This has led, predictably, to Democrats calling on Congress to cancel the Summer recess in order to pass more gun control legislation that will neither serve to prevent the next tragedy nor serve to alleviate the mourning souls of the families of the victims. Why? Because that would be trying to cure a symptom rather than a disease.
 
What is to blame here isn’t the tool of destruction. Far more people die to automobiles, disease, stabbings, doctor malpractice, etc. than they do in shootings. Even Neil DeGrasse Tyson understands this, having tweeted about it with some figures to back it up.
 
What is to blame isn’t as simple as “the gun did it” because that is not even remotely accurate. It was the person that did it and it was the lack of a strong mental health system in this country that gets us to this point (as well as other factors).
 
The Dayton shooter, according to schoolmates of his, had “kill” and “rape” lists. A massive red flag that has somehow been ignored.
 
But despite that, instead of addressing the actual issues like President Trump is doing, people are pointing fingers at each other. The Left-wing media will focus on the El Paso shooter because he is a white supremacist and they can use that as rhetoric against Trump, saying that it’s his own rhetoric that is similar to the shooter’s when nothing could be further from the truth.
 
The white supremacist shooter reportedly hates Hispanics. Trump does not hate Hispanics. The white supremacist shooter is a freaking white supremacist. Trump is not a white supremacist and has disavowed white supremacists well before he was even President. The white supremacist is a Leftist and Trump is not a Leftist.
 
But the media has been insisting for the past few years that Donald Trump is a white supremacist and as a result, Twitter hashtags like “#TrumpsTerrorists” arise, when placing the blame on him is idiotic (even though the El Paso shooter is a registered Democrat and he used Leftist language such as pro-climate change talking points where he said we were killing our planet, not that the Left will focus on that bit of the manifesto).
 
Simultaneously, they will ignore the Dayton shooter because he was a very open Leftist who often liked Leftists’ tweets and endorsed people like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. On his Twitter bio, he did something only Leftists tend to do: identify himself as “he/him” to let people know what gender pronoun to use on him.
 
Beyond that, he literally had “leftist” in his Twitter bio. And he would often retweet and like tweets from Leftists such as the aforementioned Warren and Sanders, plus others who spew Leftist rhetoric surrounding the border, police, the ICE bomber being considered a martyr by ANTIFA, AOC calling the detention centers at the border “concentration camps”, and literally tweeted: “I want socialism, and I’ll not wait for the idiots to finally come round to understanding.”
 
Oh, and he also said he loved Satan.
 
Had this shooting been the only one to have happened, the MSM would’ve pretended nothing even happened. After all, the story on the Virginia baseball game shooter, who was targeting Republicans, died pretty quickly (and no one on the Left was blaming Bernie Sanders and his rhetoric, despite it basically promoting the attack of right-wingers).
 
Two mass shootings are what are being talked about, with one’s rhetoric taking center stage and the other’s being ignored.
 
Because white supremacy has often been taught to so many people as being a right-wing ideology (when history literally proves otherwise), the media will focus solely on the El Paso shooting and say it was Trump’s fault (2020 Dems have certainly already done this) and that it is his rhetoric that led the white supremacist (who is also a Leftist, I will remind) to target Latinos and Hispanics.
 
In reality, it’s the Left’s rhetoric that has endangered Latinos and Hispanics. In conflating legal immigrants with illegal ones, by simply saying that Trump’s rhetoric is “anti-immigrant”, it leads people to be equally as confused and believe that all Hispanics and Latinos are the same, whether they came here legally or illegally.
 
Of course, the vast majority of people are not quite so dumb, but as we are talking about people with clear mental health issues, it’s important to point this out: people’s lies and narratives have consequences.
 
The Left will talk at length about the El Paso shooter and try and blame Trump for it, all-the-while ignoring stories about Trump supporters being punched, harassed or otherwise mistreated just for being Trump supporters.
 
Donald Trump’s rhetoric is against illegal immigration, not because he doesn’t like illegals, but because he doesn’t like them breaking THE LAW to enter the country. If an illegal immigrant were to be deported and then come back in through legal means, all would be well. But the media insists that Trump’s rhetoric is entirely racially-based, which can lead to some people, such as the El Paso shooter, to believe Latinos don’t belong here and killing them is justifiable.
 
Now, having gotten that out of the way, I can imagine some people may be trying to say that I, myself, am politicizing a tragedy after telling people not to do so and will call me hypocritical. I am not politicizing a tragedy, merely responding to the politicization that has surrounded this tragedy already.
 
Like I said, every single time there is a mass shooting, the Left basically jumps for joy at the chance to use it for political gain. And if you think I’m exaggerating, Kamala Harris literally sent out a fundraising e-mail asking people for money following the tragedy, naming the El Paso and Dayton shootings in the e-mail. She is literally trying to profit from the tragedies, so don’t tell me that I shouldn’t say the Left is happy when shootings happen because they are.
 
It is a chance for them to insist we take action against gun ownership and purchases, when all that will do is hinder law-abiding citizens and help law-breakers in the long-run.
 
When tragedies like these happen, instead of putting our issues aside out of respect for the fallen and in mourning of them alongside the families and the communities, we further the divide that already exists and begin blaming people like Trump, the NRA, conservatives, gun owners, etc. Unless the shooter was a Muslim or a Leftist, in which case the Left jumps into defense mode to only attack the gun (and still blame conservatives somehow) while trying to shield Islam, hypocritically saying that not all Muslims are like this (which is true) and that Islam had nothing to do with it (not true) while attacking Trump and conservatives and saying shootings like last weekend’s have everything to do with our ideology.
 
Rather than be mourned over, victims of a tragedy are made into political tools to further the Left’s agenda. Rather than address the root causes of the problems, we focus on the tools used to bring death, destruction and desolation. A life lost is a life lost and it’s a tragedy, no matter the manner in which it was lost.
 
When there is a stabbing, people don’t tend to jump at the chance to spread “knife control” propaganda (unless you’re in the U.K.) because it is impossible to enforce (even full gun control is impossible to enforce, even if you were to get rid of the 2nd Amendment).
 
When there is a terrorist attack in which a vehicle was used to run people over, people don’t jump at the chance to spread “car control” because that would be stupid. It is only when a shooting happens when the actual tool is blamed more than the individual or individuals who perpetrated the heinous act of violence.
 
It doesn’t help anyone at any capacity because, again, you are not addressing the root cause. There are more guns in America than there are people, and while estimates vary, plenty of those are also illegal (far from the majority, but still) with some estimates saying there are over 100 million illegal firearms in the country (though it’s nearly impossible to accurately estimate unregistered and illegal guns, so take that figure with a grain of salt).
 
Still, given the estimates for gun ownership, such as the fact that there are 120.5 guns per 100 people in the U.S. (according to Small Arms Survey), meaning, statistically speaking, every person in the country owns at least one gun, it is quite clear that gun ownership and guns in and of themselves are not the problem, as we would all be long dead by now if they were.
 
Regardless of the estimates you may want to use for gun ownership and even illegal gun ownership, it’s quite evident that the problem lies elsewhere. Namely, mental health issues and, in my opinion, the fact that we live in a post-Christian America.
 
Ignoring and mocking God tends to have consequences for countries in terms of either being blessed by Him or being cursed by Him. And while I’m not usually one to claim that any given tragedy, man-made or natural, is because of our faithlessness to God, I understand that as He is the Sovereign King of the Universe, He has control over everything that happens, good or bad. And He has historically brought both blessing and curse to the people of Israel, blessing in time of faith and curse in time of disobedience to Him.
 
Regardless of whether or not you think that has anything to do with these shootings, one thing is clear: we must pray to God for healing. And while there may be those who say that “thoughts and prayers aren’t enough”, don’t pay them any attention because those are people who, themselves, are not faithful or pray to Him.
 
Prayer works, even if it’s not quite in the way we imagine. So we should continue to pray for the victims of the shootings, as well as their families and communities. Pray that they would be healed and that they would come to Him in their time of need, that those who might need saving would be saved and those who have already been saved may find comfort in Him.
 
I will only pay attention to those who would seek to divide us because it is my job to do so. Apart from that, I will also continue to pray to God that He might heal our nation and draw us closer to Him as one nation under God.
 
James 5:16
“Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working.”
 
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.

I’m certain you remember the Christchurch mosque shooting that happened in New Zealand earlier this year, where 51 innocent souls were lost to a hateful bigot. In the response to the shooting, New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said that the country’s gun laws “will change” and implemented a mandatory gun buy-back program targeting “military-style semi-automatic” weapons, with definitions that would include most pistols as well.
 
But surprise, surprise, virtually no one is giving up their guns. Reason, a conservative news outlet, reports that only 700 weapons have been turned in since the program began. That’s out of a possible total of 1.5 million firearms in the country (though it’s uncertain how many of those weapons fall under the established category of “military-style semi-automatic” weapons).
 
Philippa Yasbek of Gun Control NZ said: “These weapons are unlikely to be confiscated by police because they don’t know of their existence. These will become black-market weapons if their owners choose not to comply with the law and become criminals instead.”
 
And therein lies one of the biggest problems with gun control and why it doesn’t work: there is no effective way of enforcing the law. Establishing gun buy-back programs hardly works as most people would rather not surrender their personal defense weapons. Just look at Australia’s gun buy-back program. Often times, advocates of gun control will point to that as a good example of gun control working. For what reason, I am not certain, as it is estimated that only 20% of banned weapons were turned in. And like New Zealand’s, Australia’s was also mandatory, not optional (not that anyone cares, as it seems).
 
In effect, no gun buy-back program can actually be mandatory because there is no way to enforce it. The police would need to spend a ton of resources and money going house to house searching for weapons (which would also likely be rather ineffective, not to mention a massive violation of people’s rights, but that hardly matters to an authoritarian regime) because they don’t know where each particular type of weapon is. In the meantime, this gives nefarious people ample opportunity to commit heinous crimes like the one perpetrated by the bigot who killed over 50 people in a mosque.
 
Which brings me to the other major reason as to why gun control doesn’t work: criminals couldn’t care less about the law anyway.
 
A New Zealand news outlet even reported that gang leaders publicly stated they wouldn’t be giving up their weapons in accordance to the “mandatory” buy-back program. The only people that would actually follow the program are those the government doesn’t have to worry about: the law-abiding populace. So this puts innocent, law-abiding people at a massive disadvantage against those who couldn’t care less about laws.
 
In case this was not made aware to the New Zealand PM or anyone else in the government, MURDER IS ILLEGAL! That sure as hell didn’t stop the Christchurch shooter, did it? That doesn’t stop other evil people from committing that same crime, does it? Of course, that isn’t to say that murder ought to be made legal. That would be absolutely insane. But that is to make the point that criminals, by definition, don’t follow the law.
 
Is it really any surprise that gang leaders, or any other criminals, would not follow the gun buy-back program? Did the PM really expect criminals to say “gee, our wonderful and great Prime Minister is making a lot of sense here. I have been entirely reformed of my egregious ways of criminality and will follow this clearly well-thought-out mandatory gun buy-back program because I am now a better person”? Is the NZ PM Dora the Explorer or something? Because you would have to be a little girl in fantasy land to believe something like that would occur.
 
Criminals, as I have said COUNTLESS times in the past, don’t care about the law. Taking away people’s guns only puts them in serious danger and at a serious disadvantage because all of a sudden, someone that wants to do something bad has their gun, but those who abide by the law then find themselves without a gun to protect themselves.
 
But of course, as we can see is the case in New Zealand and Australia (and really everywhere else that has a “mandatory” gun buy-back program), most people would rather run the risk of being labeled a criminal than run the risk of being left defenseless against a shooter. And in that case, if someone wishes to fight back and save some people’s lives, the good guy with a gun runs the risk of being put in prison FOR BEING A HERO! So the likelihood of someone running to the rescue is lessened, while the likelihood of someone going on a murderous rampage only increases.
 
Only take a look at the American city with the heaviest gun control legislations: Chicago. Do you want to know how that city spent its Fourth of July weekend? With 66 people shot and 5 killed. This is about on par with many weekends in Chicago in the past few years. A city where most law-abiding citizens find it extremely difficult to legally get a gun and most criminals laugh at the idiotic politicians that do them a favor in making their bloodbaths easier to perform.
 
And the argument that people are getting guns outside of Chicago falls flat because that also points out the flaws of gun control: why wouldn’t there be more death around Chicago than within it if gun control is supposed to end these sorts of massacres?
 
So no amount of gun control, even gun buy-back programs that are mandatory or even full-on confiscations actually work. They are heavily ineffective in terms of money and action, do more to harm people than help them, puts them in more danger than before, and most people would rather be labeled as criminals by their own government for wishing to protect themselves than run the risk of being totally defenseless in the unfortunate circumstance that they would actually need to have a gun.
 
Virtually no one wants to give up their guns because they know the sort of risk they run henceforth.
 
But I am curious to see where New Zealand goes from here. Obviously, the PM’s ever-so-popular-with-the-media-and-people-who-don’t-know-jack plan to force people to return their guns for some sort of monetary exchange has failed. And I doubt the PM would be in any way willing to reverse course and be more lax on gun control in the future. Will we see heavier action against guns by the NZ government, or simply inaction until the next shooting happens? Either way, whatever action the New Zealand government takes in the future, if it is to implement more gun control legislation, it will be entirely ineffective in a number of ways.
 
Proverbs 28:16
“A ruler who lacks understanding is a cruel oppressor, but he who hates unjust gain will prolong his days.”
 
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.

Not that I find this surprising whatsoever, but what he actually says I feel must be addressed as he only continues to lie and mislead about gun laws in America.
 
Speaking at VTEX DAY, a digital convention in Sao Paulo, Brazil, last week, former President Barack Obama spoke about the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting that claimed the lives of 20 children and 6 adults and said it was the “hardest day of his life,” according to the UK Daily Mail. Okay, fair enough. It was a horrible tragedy that was heavy on everyone. The problem, however, comes in the fact that he, like every other ignorant Leftist, tries to blame the gun and gun laws in America as being culpable for the shooting.
 
“Gun laws in the United States don’t make much sense. Anybody can buy any weapon, anytime without, you know, without much if any regulation. They can buy over the Internet. They can buy machine guns.”
 
A rather short and concise statement, but full of lies and inaccuracies. First, not just “anybody” can buy a weapon. Depending on the state, there is a legal age limit for purchasing a weapon. Second, you can’t just buy a weapon “anytime… without much if any regulation.” That is the biggest lie in the entire statement.
 
Background checks can often be quite extensive, depending on the state. Going back to the original point of not “anybody” being able to purchase a weapon, one cannot even obtain a gun license (where one is required at least) if one is a convicted felon, is a fugitive from justice or has been proven to have some severe mental disorder that could lead to violence against another or oneself. So you absolutely cannot buy a gun “anytime”. Yes, it is possible to walk into a gun store, run the background check and it would finish within the day (often takes multiple days) and then purchase a gun, but it’s not like there is absolutely no regulation behind the purchase.
 
Third, not just anybody can buy “any weapon”. It is possible to purchase a machine gun, but that process includes tons of paperwork, a very in-depth federal background check, adding the purchaser’s name to a national registry and a nifty cost of $10,000 for the weapon on its own. And the legal inventory only includes weapons made before 1986, so no new weapons. Oh, and this entire process takes almost a year and a half to complete, so it’s not like you can just walk into a gun store, purchase a fully-automatic “military-style assault rifle” and walk out of it like it’s Grand Theft Auto (the video game series, not the crime).
 
Then there’s the claim about buying guns over the Internet. Technically, it’s true, but it hardly works the way it sounds. From the way people talk about it, you’d think the NRA would make a personal delivery to whomever purchased the gun online to the person’s house, or like how you would receive a package from Amazon. Far from it, as the NRA does not sell weapons and the gun is delivered to a gun store, where the process would have to be the same as if one were to walk into the store off the street. They still have to file all the paperwork, run all the background checks, etc.
 
Now, there is one more thing that I would like to point out. Obama has often said that his inability to restrict gun laws as much as possible is the “greatest frustration of his presidency,” according to the UK Daily Mail.
 
And while there were multiple times when he wished certain gun control resolutions would pass, only for them to fail in Republican-controlled Congress, there was a time when the Democrats held the Presidency, the Senate and the House of Representatives. That was after the 2008 election, when Obama was first elected. And if you remember, following the Sen. Ted Stevens case, the Democrats held a supermajority in the Senate.
 
Truly, this was the time for the Democrats, who usually manage to work together pretty well, to completely change our country’s foundation if they so desired. They could’ve swiftly passed bill after bill, changing whatever they wanted without a care in the world as to what the Republicans said. Obama and the Democrats could’ve done some serious damage to gun rights in America during those two years. So why didn’t they?
 
That’s really more of a rhetorical question than anything else. Research can only take me so far as to the reasons for this. I was too young at the time to really have paid attention to anything outside my own little world of Power Rangers and video games, so someone older might more easily be able to explain to me why they didn’t do more than they actually did.
 
Now, from what I know, I suppose one explanation could be prioritizing Obamacare, but that didn’t get passed until 2010, and even then, it had to be passed in two different bills, which the death of Sen. Ted Kennedy made harder, as that meant the Democrats would only have 59 votes, just shy of the 60 needed to pass anything at the time. Afterwards, Harry Reid essentially decided to employ the “nuclear” option, at the time called the “Reconciliation Rule”, in order to pass another bill to include into the ACA. So maybe the Democrats had tried to prioritize Obamacare, but again, that didn’t get passed until 2010 and they surely tried to get other stuff done, particularly with a supermajority, so there really isn’t much of an excuse for them here.
 
Now, that’s not to say that more heavy gun control legislation passing while the Democrats were essentially kings would’ve prevented any further shootings. Most of the time, guns used in shootings are illegally acquired, either by stealing them from someone else or getting one through some illegal black market. Whatever the case may be, legislation doesn’t stop a criminal from committing crimes. By definition, a criminal breaks the law. By “making it harder for criminals to get a gun”, that makes it harder for millions of other people who do not commit crimes to get a gun. And at the end of the day, these gun control legislations do not really make it harder for bad people to get a gun. Again, one can acquire a gun almost in any illegal way and these people literally do not care about what any law says.
 
Murder has been illegal for millennia in pretty much all countries ever, and yet, people still do it. Do you really think a criminal will care about Congress passing a bill that makes it harder to acquire guns legally? They are HAPPY when it happens because that means that THEY have guns but their targets have to go through more extreme lengths to get one through legal means.
 
So if there is one thing I can agree with Obama on is that U.S. gun laws really don’t make sense, but not in the same way that he thinks. It doesn’t make sense to punish the law-abiding for things they didn’t do. It doesn’t make sense to treat law-abiding people as criminals and potential (or actual) terrorists. It doesn’t make sense to force people who obey the law to jump through hoops just to protect themselves and their families.
 
But apart from that, everything Obama says is a complete lie or highly misleading. But then again, this is the former Liar-in-Chief we’re talking about, so what would we expect? I mean, for crying out loud, he’s tried on more than one occasion to take credit for Trump’s economy and he’s infamous for the line: “if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor”!
 
Proverbs 12:22
“Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord, but those who act faithfully are his delight.”
 
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.

Looking over some articles to draw inspiration from, I came across an article on the Daily Caller talking about what is currently happening in Venezuela and the fact that the Venezuelan government, under former dictator Hugo Chavez, banned private gun ownership less than a decade ago.
 
Perhaps the biggest reason I say this now is because Venezuela might face a military coup d’état in the near future, as Interim President Juan Guaido has called for a military uprising, dubbed Operacion Libertad, against the Maduro regime.
 
Ever since Maduro’s bogus “re-election”, where Maduro imprisoned opponents and overall made it harder for people to run against him and garnering more votes than were cast, the Venezuelan people have seen protest after protest, often turning into rioting with people throwing rocks and Molotov cocktails at armed forces that shut these protesters down.
 
In June of 2012, the Chavez regime banned all private gun ownership, only allowing for the military, police and security contractors to purchase weapons from a state-owned gun manufacturer. The reason given for this sort of law? “Improve security and cut crime” according to a BBC story reporting on the new law.
 
Under the guise of curbing the country’s crime rates, the government banned guns. Does that sound familiar?
 
And anyone who is found to be disobeying this law faces 20 years in prison.
 
Of course, that gun ban did nothing to lower crime rates. Quite the opposite, as crime rates only soared since the gun ban went into effect.
 
Luis Farias, a Venezuelan citizen, told Fox News: “Now the criminal mother is unleashed. Trying to ban guns didn’t take guns off the streets. Nobody cares about the law; the criminals don’t care about the law.”
 
Javier Vanegas, a Venezuelan teacher forced into exile to Ecuador, told Fox News: “Guns would have served as a vital pillar to remaining a free people, or at least able to put up a fight. The government security forces, at the beginning of this debacle, knew they had no real opposition to their force. Once things were this bad, it was a clear declaration of war against an unarmed population… Venezuelans evolved to always hope that our government would be non-tyrannical, non-violator of human rights, and would always have a good enough control of criminality.”
 
But therein lies, the problem, Javier. When you leave your hopes upon the government’s shoulders to do something, or in this case, to not do something like becoming tyrannical, you know you’re in a terrible position.
 
Given the opportunity, given the chance, a government will always become tyrannical. Why? Well, the answer is similar to that of many questions: Man is evil by NATURE.
 
People want power. Once they have such power, they crave for more of it and will not give it up easily. The gun ban was advertised as being an effort to bring down crime. What an absolute joke. In reality, it was an effort to keep people from being able to rise up against the socialist government. And it worked like a charm.
 
Javier himself notes that guns would’ve helped the people to remain free or at least fight back. That was the point of the gun ban: to keep people from being able to fight back. Now, the people are left starving, thirsty, without electricity, gas and many, MANY other things and can hardly do a thing about it.
 
They have to rely on Guaido succeeding and not turning into a dictator himself. They have to rely on the military taking their side in order to be free. Both are massive “ifs”.
 
I don’t know much about Guaido. He certainly says the right things, but everyone does. After all, Chavez advertised the gun ban as being an effort against crimes and the like. He said the right things, didn’t he? There was no way he could’ve come out and said: “yeah, we’re going to take your guns so you can’t fight back against us in the event we become too tyrannical, which you honestly should see coming considering this gun ban is even being talked about.”
 
Latin America’s history is marred by civil wars and coups. And at the end of the day, each “new” government wound up being the same old tyrannical one the previous one was, but with a few changes here and there. Only time will tell whether or not Guaido is really anti-socialist or if he’s just trying to get power for himself. Certainly, the temptation would be there.
 
I mean, George Washington had the option of becoming King of the United States instead of becoming President of the United States. Thankfully, he was a Christian and was humble enough and wise enough to understand that there was no way this new country would survive if after fighting off a tyrannical king, they placed in his stead a different one. But the option was there at one time. Again, I don’t know much about Guaido, but I am not willing to bet that he’s a George Washington. He might be or he might not be, but Latin Americans have seen this song and dance before.
 
The Venezuelan people have no other option than to hope and pray that Guaido is who he says he is; that he is not going to be simply replacing the socialist Maduro regime with his own, changing just about nothing and enjoying basically unopposed power.
 
Again, he says the right things. He advertises himself as a free-market capitalist, if his “Venezuela To Come” plan is anything to go by. So there is at least SOME hope he might do the right thing. But again, time will tell.
 
As it is now, Guaido has called for a military uprising against Maduro. For that he needs military support, which he might have at least to some extent. In a recent article where I at least somewhat briefly discussed the Mueller report, I mentioned that what is necessary for a successful coup is the military backing you up. If Guaido has such support from the military, Maduro’s days are almost certainly numbered.
 
So that’s an “if” question already taken care of, if there is enough support in the military for Guaido. But until it is proven otherwise, Guaido might not actually be any different from Maduro or any other socialist. He can say all the right things, but his actions as leader of Venezuela will show us his true colors.
 
Of course, I hope he will do the right things. But it is not a great situation to be in to have to rely on a military coup and a politician who knows how to say the right things (something they are often trained to do) to grant people their freedom. If Guaido succeeds in ousting Maduro, one of the tell-tale signs for his administration being capitalistic or socialistic will be whether or not he lifts the gun ban.
 
And as far as the United States goes, as the title says, the current state of Venezuela is what you get if we lose our guns. If we lose the 2nd Amendment, the rest will soon follow.
 
We have guns to protect ourselves, whether that means from a criminal or from a tyrannical government.
 
Isaiah 41:10
“Fear not, for I am with you; be not dismayed, for I am your God; I will strengthen you, I will help you I will uphold you with my righteous right hand.”
 
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.