Like I said in my first article since the first day of election month (Nov. 3rd), it is pretty obvious that polls are not to be trusted. Granted, I have said this plenty more times before then, really since around 2016 when the polls showed Hillary would win that election but Trump ended up winning, but the point remains that there is no doubt in mind that polls are not in any way accurate.
 
Similarly, I suspect the same of a recent Gallup poll which shows that support for stricter gun laws are at their lowest level since 2016.
 
57% of respondents said that they would prefer stricter gun laws than what we currently have, which like I just said, is a four-year low. The record low was in 2012 when just 43% said they wanted stricter gun control laws, and was actually a point lower than the amount of people who wanted gun laws to remain as they were. It went back up to 58% following the Sandy Hook shooting and the most recent high was of 67% support back in 2018, likely following the Parkland shooting.
 
34% currently support maintaining gun laws as they are and 9% support less strict gun control laws.
 
Gallup reports that they had “been tracking the public’s views on this measure since 1990, when a record-high 78% of Americans supported stricter laws for gun sales as the nation’s crime rate was rising. A majority of Americans held that position until 2008.”
 
Support for handgun bans also remains low, at around 25%. This makes some sense because even liberals who support AR-15 bans and such express support for people owning handguns (largely because they ascertain that “you don’t need an AR-15 to defend yourself or your home,” despite the fact that AR-15s are very efficient at that).
 
However, even despite the numbers that we see throughout the poll, I can’t help but think about how every single other poll about roughly every other topic suffers from the oversampling of Democrats and undersampling of Republicans in order to skew results, and I can’t help but think about how this poll could also be suffering from the same thing.
 
While Gallup included a demographic of gun owners, with 57% saying they wanted gun laws to remain as they are and 17% want less strict gun laws, I doubt they surveyed an equal amount of gun owners and non-gun owners.
 
And I’m not just talking about this recent poll, either. I begin to call into question every other result from this poll beginning from 1990, as well as the results of just about every other poll.
 
A recent NRA-ILA article pointed out the following:
 
“Economist John Lott contends that many Americans refuse to answer or do not answer truthfully when asked about whether they own a firearm… Lott noted ‘current events influence people’s willingness to acknowledge gun ownership. After mass shootings, a sudden drop can be seen in the polling numbers.’ Wake Forest Professor of Sociology David Yamane shares Lott’s belief that inaccurate polling systematically underestimates gun ownership in the U.S. In a 2019 piece… Yamane laid out the case for systematic underreporting and provided a bevy of reasons why gun owners would be reluctant to be truthful with pollsters. The professor noted, ‘My educated guess is that the underestimate is at least 10%, that 25% would not be an unreasonable amount, and more than 25% is likely.”
 
This does not surprise me in the least bit, since I can point to many polls which likely have this happen, where a surveyor refuses to answer a question because they do not wish to receive any backlash or will actually lie for the same reasons.
 
Remember that article about the Oakland residents both exclaiming support for “defund the police” and expressing that they wish for the police force to either remain the same or increase in numbers? That poll, like I talked about in the article, is most easily and perhaps logically explained by the sort of phenomenon that likely plagues a lot of other polls including this one: people lying to pollsters about what they believe.
 
Especially in Oakland, if it’s discovered that one does not support the “defund the police” movement, they are likely to face some sort of retribution from a number of people. Likewise, I suspect plenty of people fear showing themselves to either be gun owners or be in support of gun ownership, so they lie to the pollsters about their true beliefs.
 
Since this can reasonably be expected from these recent polls, it’s hard to tell if all other polls are equally flawed. Who knows, maybe back in 1990, when the high was at 78%, that was not a true result. Maybe a lot of people had fear of retribution back then as well and did not want to express support for gun ownership or for less strict gun laws. And as Lott noted, after a shooting, the amount of people who say they own guns drops dramatically because they do not want to be persecuted against or associated with the shooter(s).
 
It’s hard to tell because the overall American culture back in 1990, as far as I can tell (given the fact that I both had not been in the U.S. yet nor anywhere in the world), was a tad more openly tolerant of right-wing beliefs, even if many did not agree with them. The idea that people could suffer backlash for having a differing opinion was not yet present, as far as I know, since cancel culture was not really around back then, all that much.
 
Again, I could be wrong about that, but the point remains that I really don’t know if any results whatsoever, from just about any time period, could be considered trustworthy. Even if people were more open with their beliefs back then because they did not fear backlash, it could still be that polls were still systematically skewed by the pollsters through oversampling of Democrats or undersampling of Republicans (or both).
 
After all, it’s not like the politics of certain people in the media were hidden even decades ago. For crying out loud, they called Al Gore “President-elect” before the state of Florida had stopped counting, just because he was a Democrat!
 
So I begin to call into question whether or not any survey result from the last few decades is even close to accurate. I wouldn’t be surprised, in the least bit, if the number of people who support less strict gun control laws is considerably higher than even the number of people who support stricter gun control laws. Considering that this year has seen some of the highest gun purchase rates in a long time, I cannot be at all inclined to believe most people support stricter gun control laws than what currently are in the books.

I can buy that Gallup saw a dip in the numbers, but I suspect the dip is far bigger than what is advertised.
 
Psalm 37:2
“For they will soon fade like the grass and wither like the green herb.”

Over these last few days, many American cities, particularly Democrat-owned cities, have been practical warzones with endless cases of looting, arson, vandalism, assaults and even a few murders here and there.
 
Given all the destruction and chaos we have witnessed over social media, television, etc., I cannot help but thank the Lord for our 2nd Amendment rights. I mean, good grief, if there ever was a better reason to own a gun, it is this insanity.
 
Amidst this chaos, we have seen people looting and burning businesses. But not just any businesses. The businesses that these animals have been looting and destroying all have one thing in common: they were not being protected by armed people.
 
Take for example a place called Corbo’s Italian Bakery, located in downtown Cleveland, Ohio. The rioters very well could have ransacked the place for its food or just burned it to the ground. However, two armed individuals made sure that there would be no looting or pillaging of the store. That place was not ransacked and razed to the ground precisely BECAUSE of armed people protecting it.
 
Those two individuals are doing good work. Better than some police departments, too. I have seen some attempts by law enforcement to quell the riots, but clearly they are being rather ineffective (not everywhere, of course). Matter of fact, Raleigh Police Chief recently said: “I will not put an officer in harms way to protect the property inside of a building.”
 
In other words, you’re on your own. While no one would disagree that a person's life is more valuable than property, it is the job of the police to protect both life AND property. We are not asking her to send "an officer", implying only one. We are asking her to send however many officers it takes to make sure PEOPLE'S BUSINESSES AREN'T RUINED AND THEIR LIVES DESTROYED AS A RESULT! THAT is the job of the police, otherwise they are not worth the tax money we pay them.
 
Your business could be facing a massive threat, be it via people looting it AT BEST or people outright setting it on fire, supposedly as a means to “honor” George Floyd. The police won’t be there to stop them, that much is clear. The police won’t protect your business. You have to do it yourself and you sure as heck are not going to be able to do it with words of “peace” or whatever liberal nonsense one might try. You’re not going to convince rioters not to destroy your business because you are also outraged at Floyd’s death; they don’t care about George Floyd, else they would not be doing this. You’re not going to convince them not to destroy your business if you tell them you are their “ally” or are also “progressive,” as Left-wing news outlets like CNN have also been attacked. Not even a knife or a melee weapon would be enough to stop them, since the rioters are generally equipped with such weapons of their own.
 
The only thing standing in the way of these savages and your business is you and your ability to wield and use, if necessary, a gun. A big one would be preferable, and one that intimidates people. These people are ANTIFA, after all, and they scare easily at the sight of a gun that looks scary. An AR-15 would be pretty ideal.
 
But considering the gun control legislations in place, it can be difficult for one to acquire a gun to protect themselves or their business. Why else do you think that these riots have occurred pretty strictly in Democrat-controlled cities, counties, states, etc.? And why even in red states like Georgia and Texas, these riots have only occurred in blue cities and counties?
 
John Nolte from Breitbart put it best: “Antifa knows Democrats are cucks who will allow them to riot. Antifa knows Democrat-run cities have gun control laws that ensure you remain defenseless… Antifa knows you’re stupid enough to vote for the same Democrats who coddle them, who fund them, who aid and abet them by looking the other way (clearly talking about the Democrat voters who live in the Democrat cities that have riots going on). Antifa knows you’re stupid enough to vote for Democrats who disarm you so you cannot defend your family or business. Antifa knows you’re stupid enough to vote for Democrats who arrest people who go to church in their car but not the predominantly white left-wing Antifa thugs who loot and burn black neighborhoods (because white Democrats have been looting and burning black America since Reconstruction).”
 
In sum, Antifa is rioting in cities that they KNOW won’t put up much resistance. The ONLY reason they were successful in destroying Minneapolis’ 3rd police precinct is because they knew that the city’s limp-stick, Trudeau-Chinese-knockoff mayor would order the police to allow them to do it. When they attack any other police station that is allowed to fight back, they get quickly taken down and they don’t try the same stupidity again.
 
Moral of the story is that when people are allowed to fight back, the insane and violent people in the world tend to screw off. They know perfectly well that if a particular target of theirs is armed and is not afraid to fight back/doesn’t have orders to stand down, that person is not one that they should target or try anything with.
 
Wherever these insane and dangerous people meet resistance, particularly of the lethal weapon variety, they tend to be a bit more cautious. They want to riot, destroy and kill, if they can get away with it, but they won’t risk their lives in the process.

Of course, there are those who are just insane enough to get a gun themselves and open fire on people, such as in Oakland, California, where a BLACK police officer was shot and killed last Friday night (I guess his black life didn’t matter) and a second officer was reportedly wounded as well. But that only further demonstrates We the People’s need to be able to defend ourselves.
 
These people are bad guys and they are particularly threatening and scary when they are the ones with guns. Few of them do, but still, they are too dangerous to be allowed to do this sort of thing. Gun control law doesn’t keep bad guys from getting guns, it only keeps good, law-abiding citizens from getting them.
 
And such gun control laws show some of their horrible effects in these rioting cities, which generally feature gun-control-heavy laws and police officers being told to stand down to one extent or another.
 
These last few days have utterly butchered the Leftist idea that “you don’t need a gun” because “the police will be there to help you.” That was never true before, but that talking point was utterly annihilated these days. The only person you can ever trust with your life and your safety is yourself, and that comes through the means of arming oneself.
 
Even assuming that there aren’t a LOT of bad apples in police departments (and I’m not just talking about racist cops, since a WaPo database shows that, out of 41 unarmed people who were shot and killed by police, 19 were white, 9 were black, 6 were Hispanic, 4 were other and 3 were unknown, so police brutality extends past race), the idea that calling the police is all you need to protect yourself would be laughable if the subject matter weren’t so serious. Often times, the cops aren’t there on time.
 
Sometimes they might be, sometimes they might be nearby or inside a store being robbed, or something, but the average police response time in the U.S. is TEN MINUTES, according to American Police Beat (ignore the unfortunate name). Police can’t realistically be everywhere and help everyone. In the case of an emergency, where you need prompt action, you simply CANNOT rely on the police to handle everything for you.
 
For example, if your home were to be intruded and you weren’t armed, you stand the risk of losing your life. Most people would seek some sort of hiding place, like a bedroom closet or a bathroom, etc. However, unless you are living by yourself in a massive mansion (and such places are usually well-guarded by people with GUNS), it’s only a matter of time before you’re found out, at which point you are at the mercy of less-than-reputable individuals.
 
In high-stress situations, ten minutes feel like an eternity and a lot can happen. Only the fortunate ones live through such experiences without being discovered.
 
The police simply cannot be one’s lone lifeline in case of an emergency. There is a reason it is a RIGHT for people to protect themselves and their property. When someone kills another person, if it is proven that it was in self-defense, the “killer” is allowed to walk because they were being attacked and they have the right to defend themselves.
 
Guns are the means through which millions of Americans rightfully and justly defend themselves and their families and property. I can guarantee that if each of the places that were looted and/or burned had armed guards posted on them, be it a small mom-and-pop shop or even Target itself, rioters would think twice about causing mayhem there.
 
The police, even when allowed to work uninhibited, can only do so much to help even when they want to.
 
So I don’t want to hear anyone on the Left tell me that I don’t “need” guns because this past weekend has PROVEN otherwise. I need any and all kinds of guns. I need as much ammo as I possibly can have for them. I need to be able to defend myself from clearly disturbed individuals who have little to lose other than their lives and would love nothing more than to see my own end in an instant.
 
The gun control debate is over. Forever.
 
Psalm 144:1
“Of David. Blessed be the Lord, my rock, who trains my hands for war, and my fingers for battle.”

Many, many times throughout these years writing articles, I have alluded to the idea that the Left often lives in a bubble of their own, where they reject objective reality and substitute it with their own subjective version of it as they deem fit. However, never has that been more clear (apart from the times when people actually think Trump is like Hitler) than recently, as the Wuhan virus has driven many people to purchase guns for their own safety should things go south (which I doubt will happen at all).
 
Interestingly enough, the socialist “nation-state” of California is where we are seeing a massive rise in gun sales.
 
A good chunk of those people are first-time gun buyers and many of them are liberals. How can one tell? Well, according to RedState, the recent gun buyers are “shocked to discover they can’t just walk out of the store with a gun.”
 
Why are they shocked? Because the Left indoctrinates people into believing it is easier to purchase a gun than it is to, say, buy a car, or own a dog or get a house, etc. Liberals believe it when their favorite Hollywood actor/actress or favorite Twitter celebrity tells the lie about how easy it is to buy a gun. They believe that people can just walk into a gun store, take some money out, tell the retailer what gun they want and how much ammo they want, and can walk out of there, gun in hand, loaded and with extra clips or magazines in their pockets.
 
They believe it when Leftists say that America has extremely lax gun control laws and that that is the reason for having so many shootings and gun deaths. But reality is far different and, as I have said plenty of times in the past, one cannot live in constant relativism when it comes to truth. The reality of gun laws was going to hit these liberals at one point or another if they ever sought to buy a gun. They would realize what lengths people have to go (depending on the state, of course) to buy guns.
 
In California, the state with some of the strictest gun control laws in the country, it takes 10 days at a minimum to get a gun after having filled a lot of paperwork, and can only buy one handgun every 30 days.
 
RedState had an interview with a California gun retailer noting these situations. The retailer noted that the first-time buyers did not seem to have much of a grasp on gun safety, seemingly having only taken queues from television about guns:
 
“We tried to look at just who the new firearm purchasers were and we believe that more than 60% of these individuals were first time buyers. I can’t describe the amount of fear in my staff as we had the buyers show proof of safe handling as part of the purchase as required by law. You have never seen so many barrels pointed at sales staff and other customers. It was truly frightening. We had to keep stopping the process to give quick safety lessons. We are adding many more basic classes in the coming weeks and encouraged these buyers to please attend. We hope they do.”
 
Can’t say that I’m particularly surprised that they do not know how to handle guns safely, nor seem to have much problem pointing guns at staff and customers. It reminds me of an idiot journalist who playfully aimed a gun at his cameraman just to mess with him or “look cool” or something. They honestly do believe gun owners have guns not to protect themselves but to look cool in front of our friends or to “substitute masculinity” or to just shoot at anything or anyone they see at any point. Anti-gun liberals have no respect for guns or gun owners, so they do not realize the importance of gun safety. They do really think it’s basically just a toy, even if it can be deadly, and treat it as such.
 
But at any rate, for the gun retailer, he saw a slew of these liberal, first-time gun buyers being shocked and angered at the rules they had to follow.
 
“More than a dozen of these buyers (men and women) actually thought that since they filled out and signed everything, they could just walk out and go home with the firearm. Several actually said they saw how easy it was to buy a gun on TV and why did they have to fill out all these forms.”
 
“The majority of these first timers lost their minds when we went through the Ammo Law requirements. Most used language not normally heard, even in a gun range. We pointed out that since no one working here voted for these laws, then maybe they might know someone who did. And, maybe they should go back and talk to those people and tell them to re-think their position on firearms – we were trying to be nice.”
 
“Most were VERY vocal about why it takes 10 days minimum (sometimes longer if the DOJ is backed up) to take their property home with them. They ask why do I need to wait 10 days if I need the protection today or tomorrow? We pointed out again that no one working here voted in support of that law.”
 
“They really went crazy when we told them that for each firearm they had to do the same amount of paperwork and they could only purchase ONE handgun every 30 days…”
 
“We had people cuss at us and stomp out when we explained that secondary identification had to be part of the paperwork, as they felt insulted that what they had wasn’t good enough. We have a number of Yelp reviews calling us names and other things about how bad we are because of this whole new buyer rush.”
 
Again, the Left indoctrinates people into believing a narrative that suits them. The narrative here is that we have lax gun control laws and they are to blame for gun deaths and shootings, so we need more and stricter gun control laws. Those who do not own guns or even hate them agree with implementing these laws (not knowing we already have them) until they themselves feel the need to buy a gun, at which point they are faced with the reality they had previously advocated for: heavy gun regulations impeding their ability to buy a gun quickly and easily. All of a sudden, it becomes a problem that it’s not easy to get a gun.
 
I hope many of these people who were advocates of “common sense” gun control realize how little sense it makes for someone to have to wait 10 or more days to take their own gun home, or how little sense it makes to limit the amount of ammo one can have or limit the amount of guns one could purchase at any one time.
 
Because the reality is that places like California have extremely strict gun control laws. Most liberals will never know because they don’t care to go buy a gun so they don’t know how hard it is to get one. So when we see a surge like this, it’s not surprising to see many of these people shocked that the fantasy of being able to walk into a gun store and buy a gun with little to no paperwork filled or background checks done is just that, a fantasy.
 
How many times have we seen an idiotic “journalist” try to “make a point” about how “easy” it is to buy a gun by going into a gun store only to then find out that they can’t actually just take a gun home with them immediately?
 
These liberals believed for a long time that the entire country’s gun laws were pretty much strictly placed by Congress, believed that such laws are few and far between and that people can get a gun any time and anywhere. I mean, people honestly believe that one can buy a gun online and have it delivered to their home like it’s an Amazon package!
 
The narrative from the Left has long been that guns are easy to get and that, as a result, we need extremely strict gun control laws. I believe this is the reason so many liberals say “no one’s coming to take your guns”. They don’t know the gun laws that currently exist and don’t know that much more gun control in the books and we basically don’t have a Second Amendment anymore.
 
If these liberal, first-time gun buyers want to be angry at anyone, it should be at the California lawmakers for passing these strict gun control laws in the first place. Unfortunately, it seems some did not get the message, if those Yelp reviews are any indication. If anyone is to blame for people not being able to get guns so easily, potentially leaving some of these people in danger (waiting periods are extremely stressful and dangerous for plenty of people, as they might need a gun but gun laws prevented them from getting one on time), it’s the Democrats in California who can pass pretty much whatever gun control legislation they want.
 
I hope and pray that the vast majority of these first-time gun buyers realize that the reason they couldn’t get a gun quicker or more easily is because of the insane gun control laws in place and because of the insane Democrats who specifically do not want an armed populace to threaten their rule.
 
Proverbs 14:18
“The simple inherit folly, but the prudent are crowned with knowledge.”

Liberty is once again the victor against tyranny, as Virginia senators voted against instituting an “assault weapons” ban that Gov. “Coonman” had been clamoring for for a while now.
 
The AP reports: “Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam’s push to ban the sale of assault weapons has failed after members of his own party balked at the proposal. Senators voted to shelve the bill for the year and ask the state crime commission to study the issue, an outcome that drew cheers from a committee room packed with gun advocates. Four moderate Democrats joined Republicans in Monday’s committee vote, rejecting legislation that would have prohibited the sale of certain semiautomatic firearms, including popular AR-15 style rifles, and banned the possession of magazines that hold more than 12 rounds. The bill was a top priority for Northam, a Democrat who has campaigned heavily for a broad package of gun-control measures.”
 
A few things to say about this.
 
First, the bill technically is not completely dead. Like the report said, the senators voted to shelve it for the year, deciding to run a study to determine whether or not such a ban would be beneficial to the state (it wouldn’t be, at all, but we shall see what the study decides to say). So this is, by no means, the end of the story. Virginia Democrats will be irate at this (as will other Democrats in general) and will seek to bring this sort of thing back if they have the chance to do so.
 
Which brings me to the second thing: this particular bill, as it is currently put together, is more than likely dead for good. I know that sounds contradictory to what I just said, particularly in saying that it’s technically not completely dead, but I have good reason to say this. While Democrats are, obviously, vowing that they will try again in 2021, Sheriff Scott Jenkins believes the bill “will die”, largely because 2021 is an election year for Virginia, one of only two states in the country (the other being New Jersey) where state elections happen in off years.
 
If you remember, I covered the latest Virginia state elections to some extent (alongside Kentucky and Mississippi). It was in the 2019 state elections when Democrats took complete, though fairly narrow, control over the state legislature, with Democrats having won 21 out of 40 total seats in the House of Delegates and 53 out of 100 seats in the Senate. Again, narrow, but a majority nonetheless.
 
So when this “assault weapons” ban began to be brewed up, we honestly expected it to go through with little problem. After all, Democrats tend to be unified, right? They never stray from the collective, never dissent and never disagree, right? Well, the Democrats don’t seem to be as perfectly unified as the mainstream media would have us believe, and this clearly goes well beyond the circus that is the Democrat Primary process.
 
The idea behind the bill is still alive, as Democrats will always attempt to take away our rights, especially as it pertains to our right to self defense and gun ownership, but the particular bill will not likely be passed in a year, regardless of what the study will indicate.
 
Which brings me to my third point, the four “moderate” Democrats that voted against the “assault weapons” ban. I will give them credit for having voted this way, as I will give credit wherever it’s due. But they are not “moderates” by far. According to Hot Air: “These ‘moderate’ Democrats all voted for the ‘Virginia Values Act,” a bill which “will give Virginia some of the nation’s most left-wing employment laws, and the $15 minimum wage, which will wipe out 100,000 plus jobs.”
 
What’s more, the “assault weapons” ban is not the only gun control bill being discussed in the state legislature. There is a bill that would limit handgun purchases to only one a month and there is a proposed “red-flag” law being considered. I don’t exactly expect Virginia Democrats to be divided on these things.
 
But there is definitely cause for celebration considering the “assault weapons” ban is pretty much dead and “Coonman” doesn’t get to play communist dictator in the state of Virginia. This is a major blow to the communists and the gun control lobby (but I repeat myself), considering the major headlines that came out of this bill.
 
Many people went out into the streets to protest this bill, voicing their desire and commitment to protect their Second Amendment rights. Even multiple counties and county sheriffs voiced their displeasure with the bill, saying that they would refuse to enforce that law and many counties outright stated they would become “sanctuary” counties for the Second Amendment, refusing to follow the state’s radical gun control laws should they pass.
 
And while the media, unsurprisingly, tried to characterize the people that attended that march as “racists” and that it had the potential to become “violent”, given the open carrying of guns in that march, nothing of the sort happened or even really had the potential for happening (point to me someone who would be willing to fire at a crowd of armed people and I will point you to the dumbest person in the world) and I believe some people took notice. This bill had the potential to be an absolute killer for the Democrat Party in Virginia.
 
The ONLY reason they won as many seats as they did in 2019 is because many of those seats were utterly uncontested. There were no Republican candidates to run against the Democrats, so naturally, the winners were the unopposed Democrats. If the Virginia GOP had any sort of spine, they wouldn’t have allowed any race to simply go to the Democrat and the state likely wouldn’t be where it is now. “Coonman” may still be governor (again, if the Virginia GOP had a spine, they would’ve destroyed Northam on his blatant racism and hypocrisy but never ran on this), but the legislature would most likely still be in Republican hands, even if it is a fairly slim majority like what the Democrats have now.
 
There isn’t much room for error in that legislature and if the people of Virginia are irate at them, they will voice that irritation both in the streets (as they clearly showed) and at the ballot box.
 
But for now, let us celebrate the victory of liberty over tyranny, knowing that the Second Amendment won’t take a massive blow in Virginia (for now). Let us also remain wary at the desires of the communist Democrats. They will not rest until the people of Virginia (and the people of this country) cannot protect themselves with guns. They won’t rest until the people are incapable of fighting against the authoritarianism these people wish to bring about.
 
Celebrate this victory but be ready to continue this fight.
 
Proverbs 16:12
“It is an abomination to kings to do evil, for the throne is established by righteousness.”

To no one’s surprise, Democrat presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg, who is, himself, protected 24/7 by an armed security detail, does not want you, the ordinary citizen, to be able to protect yourself. The privileged, old, rich, white male (as the Left would usually call someone like him) ran an ad during Super Bowl LIV making wild claims regarding “gun violence” while the ad does not even explain how any of Bloomberg’s policies would help the case at all. His sole aim was to demonize guns, the second amendment and, by proxy, anyone who supports it and owns guns themselves.
 
The one-minute ad exploits the tragedy of a woman who lost her son in a shooting in 2013 and makes the claim that “2,900 CHILDREN DIE FROM GUN VIOLENCE EVERY YEAR,” and, as you all know, yelling something immediately makes it true.
 
But despite the clear attempts at demonizing the second amendment and trying to scare people into giving up their rights (or the rights of their fellow Americans who own guns), reality is far different from what Bloomberg tried to make it out to be, as Fox News explained:
 
“However, a recent report from the Bloomberg-founded group Everytown for Gun Safety came up with that same number – but only when it included teenagers ages 18 and 19 in the calculation. Bloomberg’s advertisement makes no mention of older teenagers and suggests that the statistic is referring to younger children only. Washington Free Beacon reporter Stephen Gutowski found that once adults were removed from the calculation, the number dropped by nearly half.”
 
“Additionally, court documents from a Texas state appellate court reviewed by Fox News show that the victim referenced in the advertisement, George Kemp, was 20 years old at the time of his death.”
 
So that statistic of 2,900 children dying from gun violence every year is extremely misleading and not at all correct. Half of those “children” would usually otherwise be considered young adults. What’s more, Fox News also reported that “the court said the case arose from a ‘gang-related shooting,’ writing that ‘two groups of young men’ had met that night ‘for a fight,’ including a group led by ‘B. Dilworth, which included… Kemp.’”
 
So the 20-year-old “child” was not simply the victim of a random shooting. He was involved with a violent gang and died as a result of it. That is still absolutely tragic and devastating for his family, do not misunderstand. But it’s already illegal to commit gang-related activity and the guy was involved in a gang. Not to take away from the tragedy of his death, but I can’t imagine he didn’t expect that to at least be a possibility.
 
Regardless, returning to Bloomberg, it is extremely misleading because the victim his ad focused on wasn’t some random kid who was the victim of a random shooting by some psycho. He was in a gang and that, in and of itself, is illegal. The guy was going down the path of a criminal, if he wasn’t already on it.
 
Amy Hunter, director of media relations for the NRA, told the Daily Wire that she wasn’t surprised that Bloomberg “exploited the emotional story of a mother losing her son to push his gun control agenda without addressing whether his policies would have prevented the crime in the first place.” They definitely wouldn’t have, which is why Bloomberg didn’t mention that part, as he does not have any viable solution to that problem.
 
But what’s more, Reason Magazine reported: “According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, FactCheck.org notes, the average number of firearm-related deaths involving Americans 17 or younger from 2013 through 2017 (the period used by Everytown for Gun Safety) was about 1,500, roughly half the number cited by Bloomberg. Furthermore, nearly two-fifths of those deaths were suicides, meaning the number of minors killed each year by ‘gun violence’, as that term is usually understood, is about 73% smaller than the figure cited in Bloomberg’s ad.”
 
That part is also something the gun-grabbing Leftists tend to ignore: the fact that most gun deaths in America are suicides, not homicides. The number of shootings, as we come to know them, is miniscule compared to the number of suicides by gun. Of course, that is still a problem, but not something that extreme gun control could possibly hope to fix.
 
The reality simply is that Bloomberg is a massive liar, exploiting the death of a young man by claiming he was a victim of gun violence, and that he was a kid, when in actuality, he was involved in gang activity which also involved guns and he was 20 years old. A tragedy, undoubtedly, which makes it all the more disgusting that someone would choose to politicize it and use it to scare people into giving up their guns.
 
2,900 children don’t die every year by gun violence. Half that number are legal adults and two-fifths of those were by suicide. To claim that guns are the culprit in any of those deaths is extremely disgusting and wrong.
 
As we have said time and time again when the topic arose, guns are merely tools. They can be used to cause harm, to oneself or another, but they can also help save lives. A school shooter uses his or her gun to cause harm. A law-abiding citizen prays they don’t find themselves in a situation where they have to use their gun, but will be willing to protect themselves and those they hold dear should such a situation arise. Those are called defensive gun uses, which the Left ignores like Joe is trying to ignore Hunter, because there are FAR more defensive gun uses every year than offensive gun uses, to the point where DGUs DWARF any other kind of gun use.
 
But as I said in the beginning, I am not surprised that the Leftist billionaire who is protected literally all the time by armed security would want to take away your guns and your rights. He doesn’t see you as a person seeking to protect yourself and your family. He sees you as, at best, an idiot and at worst, a massive danger to society as a whole.
 
But then again, the other candidates aren’t much different, are they? All of them, given the opportunity, would also seek to strip you of your rights, freedoms and ability to defend yourself. All of them are the very authoritarians they accuse Trump of being, if not more so.
 
Exodus 23:1
“You shall not spread a false report. You shall not join hands with a wicked man to be a malicious witness.”

All things considered, almost all of the stories I write about showcase the Left’s twisted logic and ideals, whether it be relating to climate change or transgenderism or socialism, etc., we really are in no short supply of such stories. But I would like to point out two particular recent stories that really put into perspective just how twisted the Left’s logic and ideals are and how truly evil they are.
 
Let’s begin with MSNBC’s Joy Reid hoping that the raid on the Baghdad embassy would have turned like Benghazi.
 
For a bit of context, if you haven’t been playing very close attention to the situation, Hezbollah supporters attempted to raid the U.S. embassy in Baghdad because of an attack that successfully eliminated dozens of terrorists from Kataeb Hezbollah (and the fake news media, always siding against the U.S., opted to call them “protesters” and “mourners” instead of terrorist-sympathizers and supporters).
 
What Joy Reid did was reply to a tweet from a bot account that noted the fact that Trump had tweeted on Tuesday: “Read the Transcripts!” in relation to the transcripts of the July 25th phone call with Ukrainian President Zelensky (though not sure why this was tweeted, since the impeachment story died pretty much as soon as the House voted to impeach Trump). Reid’s reply read as follows: “As Trump’s Benghazi unfolds in Iraq…”
 
Keep in mind that the embassy in Baghdad had diplomats and servicemembers trapped in there for hours and they were threatened with actual violence, as the “protesters” outside were chanting the usual “death to America” chants, as well as “down, down USA” and “death to Israel” chants. They could’ve caused some serious damage and actually might’ve killed some people, but Trump, unlike Obama, actually sent reinforcements to help and drive away the mob.
 
It’s worth mentioning the massive backlash that Reid received from a number of different people.
 
Donald Trump Jr. tweeted: “’Trump’s Benghazi’ was handled with decisive action, like an actual leader would respond. The response (since they actually bothered to respond, unlike Obama/Crooked [Hillary]) was really the anti-Benghazi response! You’re welcome.”
 
Former CIA officer Bryan Dean Wright (who is a Democrat, to be fair, though you wouldn’t know it from this) tweeted: “’Trump’s Benghazi’ is now ending with no dead Ambassador, no dead service members, and the enemy withdrawing. A disappointing conclusion for Joy Reid and The Resistance, no doubt, but a great day for America.”
 
Sen. Ted Cruz tweeted: “What’s wrong with you? Is partisan hatred really that deep? We root for American soldiers, not against them.”
 
Yes, her partisan hatred is that deep that she would gladly trade away the lives of multiple service members and diplomats in exchange for the opportunity to attack Trump on what would’ve been his Benghazi if he weren’t an actual leader and an actual president, unlike the last one.
 
Trump actually sent help because he doesn’t hate this country and those who serve it, unlike Obama, who left four Americans for dead in Benghazi. But Leftists like Joy Reid were really hoping this would turn out like Benghazi, if not far worse with considerably more bloodshed, all for the opportunity to politicize the ever-living crap out of it and use it as a weapon against Trump’s reelection.
 
To the Left, if a Republican is in the White House, particularly one that they really hate and isn’t willing to kiss the ground they walk on, it’s worth it to sacrifice the lives of our OWN SOLDIERS and diplomats if that’s what it takes to score a political victory. The deaths of everyone inside that embassy would’ve been worth it if the fake news media got to talk about it at length all throughout 2020 to try and get Trump out of the White House.
 
This is only one of the many examples of the Left’s twisted logic and ideals. But let us now move on to the next one.
 
This one is less of a story and more of an opinion piece as a result of a particular story. If you remember, I recently wrote an article about “Why People Have The Right To Defend Themselves” and in that article, I talked about a recent shooting in a Texas church that was thwarted thanks in part to a firearms instructor who shot the shooter and prevented more blood from being shed that Sunday morning.
 
Something I failed to mention in that story is the fact that, while the hero, Jack Wilson, was the one to stop the shooter, at least SIX other churchgoers were seen on video having pulled out their own guns and looking for the shooter, showing the restraint to not shoot randomly and risking causing more damage. So, at the very least, there were SEVEN people with guns in that church (not counting the shooter, who was a convicted criminal with no legal right to own guns and yet, still had one) and an opinion writer for USA Today thought it was “terrifying” that there would be any churchgoers aside from a firearms instructor who were carrying guns inside the church.
 
Yeah, the op-ed writer said it was “terrifying” that Christians were able to DEFEND THEMSELVES inside a church.
 
Elvia Diaz, the op-ed writer, wrote: “Texas has one of the nation’s least restrictive gun laws, including allowing armed security at houses of worship and allowing parishioners to bring their weapons to church. Gun advocates didn’t waste any time after the recent church incident to promote the idea of arming oneself.”
 
She writes that like the idea of arming oneself is bad, but that’s probably what she actually thinks. She thinks it’s bad that people are able to defend themselves, which is what I said in the beginning of that aforementioned article regarding people having the right to defend themselves: “People have the right to defend themselves. This much is factual and you would think there’d be no one who would disagree, but the Left, in all their inglorious stupidity (or evil), disagrees with this notion…”. That is literally the first two sentences of that article and Diaz is THE example of the kind of person I talked about there.
 
She doesn’t think people have the right to defend themselves and finds it “terrifying” that they do. Regardless, she continued: “The Second Amendment gives Americans the right to bear arms. And that isn’t going anywhere. But that constitutional amendment doesn’t spell out the types of firearms Americans should bear, nor does it give Americans the right to sell them to anyone to carry anywhere.”
 
Two points to make here. First of all, the argument of “the Founding Fathers never pictured assault weapons when writing the Second Amendment” is extremely stupid. Of course they didn’t picture it. THEY HADN’T BEEN INVENTED YET. But at the same time, they never specified that the people could only have a particular firearm BECAUSE THAT WOULD DEFEAT THE PURPOSE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT.
 
I’ve said this before, but I’ll say it again because it bears repeating: the Second Amendment wasn’t created for people to go hunting. It wasn’t created for people to protect their homes (though that’s a side benefit). It was created for people to defend themselves against a tyrannical government. “Spelling out the types of firearms Americans should bear” would go against the Founding Fathers’ intentions. They wanted an American populace to be able to defend itself against a tyrannical government should the need arise. Back then, just about everyone had muskets, pistols and horses, whether they be soldiers or farmers (and the soldiers back then, at least a good number of them, were farmers). The Founding Fathers wanted people to be able to defend themselves against a tyrannical government and if they could’ve envisioned the creation of “assault” weapons like the ones we have today, they would’ve allowed for people to have them.
 
Secondly, it does give Americans the right to sell them to anyone to carry anywhere. Existing laws in the books are what prohibit such a thing, for the most part, and even then, not entirely. Americans (with the legal ability to sell guns) have the right to sell them to just about anyone (who passes background checks and the like) to carry anywhere they are allowed to (not in gun-free zones, but that sure as hell doesn’t stop bad guys from doing it, which is why gun-free zones are idiotic and dangerous).


But regardless of these arguments, Diaz actually inadvertently makes a case AGAINST GUN CONTROL in her op-ed: “Sunday’s shooting isn’t just about Jack Wilson’s heroism. It’s about how [the shooter] got a hold of a weapon in the first place, given his criminal record.”
 
She accidentally recognizes that gun laws in place aren’t going to keep CRIMINALS WHO, BY DEFINITION, DON’T OBEY THE LAW from obtaining guns and using them at their pleasure. Again, the shooter was a criminal BEFORE the shooting, and didn’t have a right to own a weapon, and yet, because he is a CRIMINAL, he had one anyway and intended to use it against churchgoers and cause as much damage and pain as possible. No gun law that exists today or could be conceived would’ve prevented the shooting in that church. But a good guy with a gun, and if need be, several other parishioners willing to defend themselves and their fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, kept that shooting from being one of the worst ones in recent time.
 
The Left vehemently denies the power of the good guy with a gun EVEN WHEN TALKING ABOUT A STORY WHERE SUCH A GUY IS PRESENT.
 
Suffice to say that USA Today received major backlash for this piece.
 
Evan Todd, a survivor of the Columbine shooting, tweeted: “I stared down the barrel of a gun at Columbine, where 13 people were murdered and almost 30 wounded. I wished then and now that we had a Jack Wilson that fateful day. The world would be a better place if there were more men and women like Jack Wilson…”
 
Michael Malice tweeted: “Freedom is terrifying, insists the enemy of the people… This is the entire point of concealed carry, that murderers et al don’t know who around them is packing.”
 
Congressional candidate Lisa Sutton tweeted: “What’s terrifying is your attempt to downplay a heroic act by law abiding Americans, who were focused on stopping an evil person from inflicting harm upon others.”
 
Diaz found it “terrifying” that there were people in that church who were not firearms instructors and had access to guns. She writes that, while much is known about Wilson, nothing is known about the other parishioners who were seen wielding weapons. Why does it matter whether anything is known about them? THEY DIDN’T FIRE A SHOT AND THEY WEREN’T THE CRIMINAL! Jack Wilson stopped the shooter, so it makes sense to find out about him. The shooter was the evil s.o.b. that intended to kill many people that day, so it makes sense to find out about him. But why would it be important or necessary to find out about the others who were only ready to fight if they had to?
 
Again, they showed restraint and didn’t fire a single shot, not wanting to cause harm to anyone. That tells me that they have undergone at least some training with their firearms to be comfortable wielding them while also being extremely cautious. This is what JUST ABOUT EVERY LEGAL GUN OWNER DOES! The Left tries to paint legal gun owners as people who are just as sick and depraved as those who would shoot up schools, churches, etc. when reality is the exact opposite. Want to know what a legal gun owner looks like? Look at the people of the church in White Settlement. One of them acted and fired upon the shooter once he confirmed who it was. The other six were ready to join the fight if necessary but kept themselves from causing unnecessary harm to anyone. THAT is a gun owner, not the crazy demons that the Left makes us out to be.
 
But again, this piece is another example of the Left’s twisted logic and ideals. The writer of this op-ed found it “terrifying” that LEGAL GUN OWNERS COULD DEFEND THEMSELVES IN A PLACE OF WORSHIP. She even tried to blame this shooting on Gov. Abbott and the law that allows for people to carry in a place of worship when it’s because of that law (and the Grace of God, of course) that the shooting didn’t turn out much worse.
 
Evil will always look to do evil; you can’t legislate it into non-existence. But you can allow for good people to do something about it and not constrain them. That’s what that law aimed to do and what that law successfully accomplished. But to the Left, that’s not a good thing in the least.
 
Diaz says gun advocates quickly jumped on that story to advocate in favor of gun ownership. And that’s true because THIS IS A PERFECT STORY TO CONVINCE PEOPLE TO ARM THEMSELVES. As Diaz noted, the criminal had access to a gun, despite gun laws prohibiting him from doing so. This PROVES that criminals (since some people apparently need proof of this) don’t care for the law in the least and will do what they want. The best counter to such criminals is a good guy (or multiple guys) with a gun.
 
Think about the way shootings are prevented or stopped. When you hear of a potential shooting having taken place but was ultimately prevented, you hear of police or someone with a gun keeping the shooter from killing as many people as they could. The law is just a piece of paper that is utterly meaningless without those to enforce it. No law has ever prevented a shooting. PEOPLE have prevented shootings. More specifically, ARMED people have prevented shootings. And when they aren’t prevented, they are thwarted by such people.
 
This, in the mind of the Left, is not a good thing because it robs them of the ability to advocate for gun control, which only exacerbates the problem of shootings. These people are sick and twisted.
 
Isaiah 5:20
“Woe to those who call good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!”

People have the right to defend themselves. This much is factual and you would think there’d be no one who would disagree, but the Left, in all their inglorious stupidity (or evil), disagrees with this notion, choosing to live in a world of fairy tales where violence doesn’t occur and people are naturally good. That simply is not the reality we live in and as a result, people have to be able to defend themselves if and when the unimaginable does happen.
 
I say this largely because of the rather bloody and strange weekend we recently had. Let’s begin with the earliest story of the weekend, which is of an anti-Semitic attack by two women in New York (which ended an entire week of roughly 10 anti-Semitic attacks in the Democrat-owned state).
 
While this one did not really result in anyone’s death (thankfully), it showcases the need for people to be able to defend themselves regardless. A woman, Tiffany Harris, was arrested after having assaulted three Jewish women and shouting anti-Semitic slurs at them. She was then released by the NYPD without bail and was arrested once again in another assault against another woman (though it’s unclear if the woman was Jewish too).
 
Again, this one is not outright deadly, but it easily could be, particularly since the hateful bigot will not face any charges or punishment for her actions due to Bill de Blasio’s irrational “bail reform” laws that allow for the bad guys to be released extremely easily.
 
It’s not even as if the hateful bigot denied that she did it. She flat out admitted to the police upon her arrest: “Yes, I slapped them. I cursed them out. I said ‘F-U, Jews.’” She ADMITTED to the assault but the police could do nothing about it because of the idiot mayor’s pandering to criminals for votes.
 
While this case has a little less to do with the kind of self-defense I will be talking about in this article, it does relate to the sort of idiocy (at best) that fills the Democrat Party’s minds when it comes to legislation. Criminals and anti-Semites get to run amok in New York and de Blasio even has the nerve to try and blame this on Trump and on Rudy Giuliani (these things didn’t happen, particularly to this extent, when Giuliani was mayor of NYC). He’s a fraud and a danger to the people of New York City.
 
Regardless, let’s move on to another anti-Semitic attack that happened in New York, where a machete-wielding man attacked Jews in a Hanukkah party, wounding five people. The man was arrested and according to Rockland County Assistant DA Michael Dugandzic, he “was found with blood all over his clothing and a strong smell of bleach in the car, like he was trying to destroy evidence.”
 
Anti-Semitism has been on the rise in Democrat-owned New York, while the Democrats have tried to place the blame squarely on the shoulders of the President and his “inflammatory rhetoric” despite the fact that it’s the Democrats in the House who failed to pass a resolution condemning anti-Semitism because their openly anti-Semitic party members didn’t want to be singled out and Pelosi caved to their demands, switching from condemning anti-Semitism to condemning all hatred in general.
 
Again, the Democrat Party owns New York, where the bulk of this anti-Semitism is occurring. I don’t care whether or not you think Trump’s rhetoric is “inflammatory” (it isn’t), one cannot realistically blame Trump for anti-Semitic attacks when he has been the most pro-Jewish president in recent history. And for all the “anti-Muslim hatred” that he is accused of pushing, how come we don’t hear of stories where Muslims are targeted in anti-Muslim attacks? Not that I would want them to be, but the charge of Islamophobia is placed on Trump far more often than anti-Semitism, but we never hear of Muslims being targeted like this.
 
For all the charges of racism against Trump, we never really hear of anti-black attacks (unless they are made up stories like Jussie Smollett) or anti-Hispanic attacks as a result of Trump’s rhetoric. Granted, we also don’t often hear of anti-Semitic attacks largely because the media doesn’t care about them unless they are either fairly major (like the ones discussed) or can be blamed on Trump in some form or fashion. Again, the stories I talked about mark two of TEN anti-Semitic attacks in New York this week alone, but we have hardly heard anything about those other eight.
 
Now, moving on to the final act of violence that occurred this weekend, and what really drives the point of this article, let’s talk about the White Settlement church shooting that happened on Sunday.
 
During a Sunday service, a bad guy with a gun (who was a felon and wasn't legally allowed to own guns but still had them, further destroying any argument for gun control that clearly doesn't work) went into the West Freeway Church of Christ in White Settlement, Texas, and opened fire on churchgoers. According to The Dallas Morning News, “one person died at the scene of the shooting, one person died en route to a hospital, and another person was transported to a hospital in critical condition. The shooter is believed to be one of those three people, said Fort Worth Fire Department spokesman Mike Drivdahl.”
 
The shooter was neutralized by an armed churchgoer, preventing the shooter from taking more lives than he did. This is thanks in large part to a bill signed into law by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott last September that allowed for lawful gun owners to carry guns in places of worship. This law, by the way, was maligned by Democrats like Joe Biden, who said it was “totally irrational” to do that. It, in fact, is completely rational, as bad guys with guns will shoot wherever there are people to kill and will target people without guns (or people who worship God, if they hate Jews or Christians) no matter what the law says. This kind of law gives law-abiding citizens the ability to fight back should such a horrendous situation ever occur.
 
It’s for these kinds of situations that people have the right to defend themselves. Now, Leftists will still argue “if the bad guy with a gun didn’t have a gun in the first place, this wouldn’t have happened”. True, but there are more guns in the U.S. than there are people. There will always be bad guys with guns, so no legislation in the world will get guns out of the hands of bad guys.
 
New Zealand implemented a “mandatory” gun buy-back program and it’s a complete and utter failure. California, the state with some of the strictest gun control laws, had EIGHT mass slayings in 2019, according to The Associated Press. The AP reports that a total of 41 mass slayings occurred nationally in 2019 (The AP defines mass slayings as killings were four or more people are killed excluding the perpetrator). 33 out of those 41 mass slayings were firearm-related and, again, California was responsible for eight of them, the most out of any other state.
 
Despite the heavy gun control laws in places like California, Chicago, New York, Detroit, etc., we see some of the most bloodshed in such places. Now, Leftists could argue that if guns simply were not there, these things wouldn’t happen, which is altogether wrong. No shootings would happen, but killings would still occur. Just look at London and other places in the U.K. being ravaged by stabbing attacks day in and day out to find my words ring true.
 
Bad people will look for ways to hurt and kill others. Restricting good people from being able to defend themselves only worsens the problem and makes easy targets out of the innocent.
 
Had Texas not had the law that allowed for gun owners to carry inside places of worship, far more people would’ve died. The perpetrator had a gun and little was going to keep him from committing an act of violence. The little that keeps him from doing it is a good guy with a gun ready and able to fight back.
 
And returning to the anti-Semitic attacks in New York, do you think they would be anywhere near as bad if people were allowed to arm themselves? Recently, I had seen a picture on Twitter of Orthodox Jews openly carrying rifles in Rockland County (as seen above), the same county where the machete attack occurred. They have to protect themselves and have every right to do so, but New York laws restrict them. Of course, the particular Jews that were in those pictures do not have to worry too much about the existing gun control laws, but there’s no doubt that de Blasio and Gov. Cuomo want stricter laws which will only hurt the citizens of New York looking to arm themselves to protect themselves.
 
While the 2nd Amendment exists to protect people from a tyrannical government, a secondary benefit is that it allows for people to protect themselves against anyone who might wish to cause them harm, whether or not they are from the government.
 
The Framers of the Constitution knew perfectly well what tyranny looked like and wanted to prevent that from happening in the new country they had created. The 2nd Amendment was written and passed for the very purpose of keeping the government in check by We the People. The only reason this country isn’t far more authoritarian than it is is because of the 2nd Amendment, which is why it’s so heavily targeted by the authoritarian Left.
 
But the right to self-defense has existed long before guns were even a thing, as Jesus Christ Himself has advised His followers to arm themselves with a sword, even if it means selling the very clothes on your back.
 
We the People have the right to defend ourselves because the government cannot do a better job of it than we can.
 
Luke 11:21
“When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his goods are safe.”

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!

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!

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!