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.

Earlier this week, NRATV shared a minute-long video of Kim Corban, a woman who had been raped in her college dorm at the age of 20 and had since gotten a gun to protect herself and her family.
 
In the clip, she mentions her horrible rape, what she was thinking while it was happening, and states that “I’m a mother of two, and if a predator or anyone else tries to harm me or my family, they have to come through my firearm first.”
 
The woman in the clip gives a very legitimate and fair reason to own a firearm and anyone who watched the clip could understand. However, in comes CNN host Chris Cuomo, replying with a simple: “Only in America” tweet.
 
Usually, that phrase “only in America” carries with it a sort of negative or mocking connotation. So the fact he tweeted that in response to a video of a woman who survived a rape and decided to get a firearm (Cuomo himself owns a gun, btw) and didn’t offer any further explanation for quite a few hours led some people to mock him.
 
Dana Loesch, a spokeswoman for the NRA, replied to Cuomo by saying: “Not sure what you mean by this. ‘Only in America’ can a rape survivor protect herself and her family against any future threat? This is bad how?”
 
Steven Crowder, host of the show Louder with Crowder, mocked: “Man mocks rape survivor who protects her children with firearm… Only on CNN.”
 
Steve Krakauer replied: “Only in America can a woman be raped and held captive for hours, tell her story, and subsequently be snark-tweeted by a CNN anchor so blinded by his own political agenda he can’t display basic humanity.”
 
Jarrett Stepman replied: “Yes, in America we preserve the right for women (in this case a rape survivor) to defend themselves and their families. God bless America.”
 
These are but a few of the kind of replies Cuomo received for his mocking tweet. And after a few hours, he had had enough and attempted to explain. Key word here is “attempted” because he failed gloriously at that too.
 
He first replied to a woman named Janice Dean, who tweeted at him the following: “You might want [to] explain this tweet a little better to those of us who’ve actually had to face predators in our own homes and defend ourselves without a big strong man like yourself?”
 
Cuomo replied with: “1/2 You are right. No offense intended. Too short on twitter. ‘Only in America’ are we still debating the legitimate right to protect oneself like you and many others vs sensible way to keep guns from wrong people. Only here can we not address the issues around school shootings.”
 
Yeah, not a good explanation at all there. It looks more like he’s trying to change the topic of conversation to school shootings and keeping guns away from people who shouldn’t have them. Problem here is that the video does not address that and he acts as though it’s self-evident with his “Only in America” tweet.
 
He then replied to Janice with: “I am sorry for confusion. I take the issue and the stories of violence seriously. Muscles don’t stop bullets, as you know. Again, I have always been clear about the right to own and what needs to be improved. Apologize if you were misled.”
 
He still doesn’t acknowledge that his original tweet made absolutely no sense given the video and offers no real good explanation for the original tweet.
 
Then, when Janice replied with: “That’s a lot of explaining. Honestly I think you just need to apologize to Kimberly Corban. That would be a good start,” Cuomo got defensive: “Of course I apologized for this negative attention that was not intended. You asked a question and I answered. That’s what should happen. This place and sadly this issue brings out the worst in too many. No need. Not helpful.”
 
Oh, of course people asking for an explanation and asking that someone apologize to the person being targeted is out of line. How dare they question the great Chris Cuomo when he offered a shoddy explanation that changed the topic and offered an apology not to the woman he mocked but for not being more clear with his three-word tweet?
 
Basically, Wednesday night was a bad night for Cuomo, trying to explain things away (and failing miserably), trying to shift the subject and getting defensive over it. But despite what a lot of people were saying, I think the biggest problem here is simply that Cuomo did not watch the video he commented on… which is a pretty bad thing considering he’s supposed to be a “journalist” and it’s his job to look into this sort of thing.
 
I think what happened is that he saw the video was from the NRA TV Twitter account, saw that it was captioned: “’I’m a mother of two, and if a predator or anyone else tries to harm me or my family, they have to come through my firearm first.’ – Kim Corban,” ignored the part about a predator or someone harming her or her family, focused on the part about “having to come through my firearm first,” which could be considered a threat (a good one, all things considered) and his mind went into auto-pilot and offered criticism towards the NRA and the woman.
 
Had he watched the MINUTE-long video, he would’ve likely not commented like that (or at all) and avoided making an utter fool of himself.
 
Sadly, given the current state of not just CNN but the entirety of the MSM, where things are reported on without the facts or before they come in (i.e. Covington Catholic, some e-mails that supposedly proved collusion but they got the dates wrong, really the entirety of the Russian collusion narrative, and most recently, a story about the USS John McCain’s name being covered up before Trump’s trip to Japan but was reported as having been covered up during it, etc.), this sort of anti-journalistic work is par for the course. There is good reason I largely don’t call them journalists anymore. They are propagandists and use the guise of journalism to pretend objectivity in their highly subjective reporting.
 
Chris Cuomo likely didn’t watch the clip (I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt here. If he did watch the clip, this makes it all the worse), made assumptions based on the source and what was captioned (even then, he had to have ignored the part about harm coming to her) and offered a rather vague, mocking criticism that has led (unsurprisingly) to people thinking he was mocking a rape survivor (which he was, but I don’t think he intended to do that).
 
Given his title as “journalist”, one would expect him to watch the video before saying anything about it. But this is the state of the media: facts be damned; if a story hurts Trumps/the Right, roll with it. And if the NRA has someone saying someone will “have to come through my firearm first”, mock that to oblivion without first checking to see who is giving that sort of threat and why. No investigative journalism, or even watching the video easily offered, is necessary. Just type away, criticize and be on your merry way.
 
This encapsulates the state of the media. They are not trying to report on reality but rather shape it. Facts will only get in the way of their reporting if the facts don’t agree with their narrative.
 
“A bunch of high school kids wearing MAGA hats are pictured, with one of them smiling at a Native American who is right in his face? Obviously it’s the MAGA kid’s fault and he’s a racist and white supremacist and clearly hassling the Native American! And it’s all Trump’s fault!”
 
“You’re telling me the Native American guy was accosting the high school kids and the kid at the center of the picture was simply smiling out of awkwardness of the situation, not knowing how to react to such a strange situation? You’re saying the kids were on a school trip, happened upon a group of racist black supremacists yelling obscenities at the white kids (and even the black kids of the group) and the Native American guy escalated the situation? And the Native American guy has a history of this sort of thing? Nonsense, put him on an interview where he will act like the victim. You mean to say he has done that in the past too? Bury the story and never admit fault. It’s still because of Trump that this even happened in the first place. There were no racial problems in America when Democrats were President.”
 
“We have a Congressman who claims he has evidence of Trump colluding with Russia? Have him speak about it but don’t ask him to show the evidence at all. Just affirm our petty beliefs that Trump did collude with Russia and Saint Mueller is coming down from heaven to rescue our poor souls.”
 
And this is when they are not actively colluding with the FBI to report on a dossier even the FBI admits is not verified.
 
A CNN anchor opined on a topic he did not care to even slightly research. Only on planet Earth.
 
Proverbs 1:7
“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction.”
 
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.

A recent story from North Carolina caught my eye. In all certainty, it won’t be reported on the mainstream news, or anything outside of the actual area where this is happening, but a North Carolina man, who has an extensive background in gun-handling and safety, is teaching children as young as six about gun safety.
 
Michael Pegram, founder of Echo Firearms Training in Mint Hill, North Carolina, told WBTV: “There was no other class like this. So, I decided to come up with it.”
 
The children of his class reportedly spend about four hours, both in the classroom and shooting. Pegram says that, “It’s the parents’ choice of what their kids should be around. I’m just offering a class to let them learn to be safe, if they’re going to be around them.”
 
Seeing as North Carolina is a concealed-carry state, this class makes a lot of sense.
 
But it should be noted that it’s not a class where kids simply are given “military-style” or “assault” weapons. Far from it, they work their way up from using and shooting a Nerf gun (that also happens to be how I started out) and eventually get to shoot nothing more powerful than a .22 or a 9mm.
 
Pegram says: “A lot of times they’re not shooting a nine-millimeter. But once in a blue moon, if they know what they’re doing, and I know they can do it, we have done that.”
 
WBTV also asked parents about this subject, with mixed results. Some parents were concerned about the program, while others were happy about it. A pretty normal result, all things considered.
 
One man said: “My daughter’s five years old. And thinking of her shooting a gun, it’s kind of crazy.” Another man said: “It seems like a bad idea.” But they were also open to the idea being a good one at least for older children. The same man who said he thought it was a bad idea went on to say: “If we’re going to have guns in this country, one of the things we need is really strict training classes.”
 
And the man who mentioned he had a five-year-old later said: “On one hand, maybe it’s good to teach gun safety. But then on the other hand, that would be my one concern, is it would make kids comfortable handling guns, and could lead to more accidents, possibly.”
 
Other parents, however, were happy with the idea of a course that taught young kids about gun safety, with one saying: “If we keep it away from the kids, they most likely will want to mess with it.”
 
One 9-year-old who recently graduated from the course told WBTV a little about what he learned, with things like: “If you see a gun, tell your parents,” and “Never point a gun at people.”
 
Pegram also mentions that the purpose of the course is to take away the unknown from the children. “And they have the knowledge to be safe when they do come across a gun.”
 
As mentioned earlier, Pegram has an extensive background in gun-handling and safety. He is an NRA-certified handgun instructor and range safety officer with over 30 years of experience handling firearms, has a concealed carry permit and is an instructor for those who wish to receive one of their own in North Carolina. He also reportedly has 24-hours of South Carolina Law Enforcement Department training and his company, Echo, provides courses for adults surrounding much of the same topics of firearms safety and handling, as well as self-defense and has a course for teachers about how to respond to an active shooter.
 
Suffice it to say, the man is well-qualified to be teaching firearm safety to children.
 
Now, what am I thoughts on all of this? Given the tone of the article thus far, you can guess that I approve of this.
 
Let’s review some of the comments made by the concerned parents.
 
But before that, I will say that I don’t blame them for their skepticism.
 
The idea of a five-year-old firing a gun can seem crazy. And to acknowledge the point of one of the parents, having kids be more comfortable handling guns could potentially lead to more accidents in as far as a child using a gun is more likely to get into an accident than a child not using a gun.
 
And that makes sense, as the likelihood of an accident occurring with a firearm increases with just the use of it. But then again, the whole point of these classes is to get kids used to handling a gun and handling it safely.
 
I’d much easier trust a child with a gun if he or she knows how to use it than I would trust an adult with a gun if he or she does not know how to use it. I often call guns “the great equalizer” not simply because they can be used by people who are physically weaker than their attackers but because they can be used by anyone who knows how to use them to great effect.
 
Children who learn how to use firearms safely and responsibly are more likely to grow up with that mindset, knowing perfectly well how to use guns to defend themselves should the need ever arise.
 
But what matters more than anything else, regardless of whether or not you agree that this sort of class is a good idea, is that children are taught the right things.
 
For example, one parent mentioned that kids might mess with guns if you try to keep them away from them. While he and I agree that this course is a good idea, that is not exactly a good argument. We keep alcohol away from kids too and no one suggests we train them on how to drink responsibly (until they are of legal age, at least). And besides, children can be kept from trying to mess with a gun by simply teaching them the right things.
 
For me, when I have children, I will teach them how to use weapons maybe around the age of 6, 7 or 8 (provided my wife also approves). Naturally, I will have at least one gun (likely more) in my house by the time I have children, so before I teach them how to use a gun, I must first instill the fundamental knowledge that a gun is not a toy and they are not allowed to mess with it, otherwise they could get hurt.
 
What is important is to teach them the right things the right way. My mother would sometimes tell me of how obedient I would be, even at an age when one wouldn’t think I’d be able to understand any command. When she would tell me not to do something, I would not do it. And while children often will vary in their obedience to their parents, I don’t doubt that I was raised the right way and will do the same with my own children.
 
Obviously, I would keep guns away from my very young children. Once they got old enough to ask why, I would carefully explain to them that guns aren’t toys and that if they were to play with one, they could get seriously hurt or worse. However, I would ensure them that guns aren’t inherently bad, but that they can cause some bad damage if one is not careful with them (and I would explicitly prohibit my children from actually holding a gun until me and my wife decide they are old enough).

Once they are old enough to be taught how to wield a gun, I would start them off with a Nerf gun, like I did and like how these children in Pegram’s course are. What is essential to be learned from the get-go about guns is to be safe with them and practice wielding a Nerf gun as one would a real one (gun pointed at the ground away from you but also away from other people, wielding arm at the side and pointed down, finger off the trigger at all times except when with the intention to shoot, correct hand and thumb placements of one over the other, correct stance, safety always on until you feel the need to fire, etc.)
 
Teaching gun safety is no easy task and it’s not to be taken so casually as teaching them how to read or write. A lot is at stake in this particular teaching course and it must be handled with extreme care so as to avoid accidents as much as possible.
 
I believe teaching children how to safely and responsibly wield and treat guns at an early age is a good thing, but it absolutely must be done the right way with the right measures being taken.
 
Proverbs 22:6
“Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it.”
 
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 DOJ recently released a report surveying criminals who committed crimes (both violent and non-violent) at the state and federal level.
 
In their survey, they discovered that roughly 43% of the prisoners got a gun either off the street or through an underground market. 7% say they found a gun at the scene of the crime that would later be committed by them and 6% say they had stolen the gun. 25% got a gun through a family member, friend, or generally as a gift.
 
And one of the most interesting statistics provided by the report is the following: “Among prisoners who possessed a firearm during the offense for which they were imprisoned, 7% of state and 10% of federal prisoners serving a sentence in 2016 bought or traded for the firearm from a gun shop or gun store.”
 
So 90% of federal and 93% of state prisoners acquired guns outside of a gun shop or a gun store.
 
And the Left says we need more gun control measures?
 
What’s more, only “1.3% of prisoners obtained a gun from a retail source and used it during their offense,” according to the Daily Wire.
 
And by the way, that 7% of state and 10% of federal prisoners obtaining a gun from a gun store only counts towards criminals who POSSESSED a gun during the crime they committed for which they were imprisoned, not necessarily those who actually used the firearm.
 
Roughly “29% of state and 36% of federal prisoners serving a sentence for a violent offense in 2016 possessed a firearm during the crime. About a quarter of state (23%) and federal (25%) prisoners serving time for a violent offense used a firearm during the crime.”
 
The survey also breaks down the demographics for people most likely to have possessed a firearm during the crime committed for which they were imprisoned and found that “male prisoners were more likely than female prisoners to have possessed a firearm during their crime. About a fifth of male state and federal prisoners serving a sentence in 2016 possessed a firearm during the crime.”
 
According to the survey, 20.9% of state prisoners possessed a firearm at the time of committing the crime for which they were imprisoned, while 13.9% actually used a firearm. 20% of federal prisoners possessed a firearm with only 5% having used one. However, these are just the numbers for the number of total prisoners. In other words, these numbers include violent and non-violent crimes.
 
When it comes to violent crimes, as stated previously, 29.1% of state prisoners possessed a firearm and 23% used it, while 36.2% of federal prisoners possessed one and 25.3% used it.
 
Unsurprisingly, homicide and robbery saw the biggest number of people having possessed and used a gun both at the state and federal level, with assault trailing behind.
 
But the biggest focus for this particular conversation should be the statistics for how firearms are procured by the criminals.
 
Again, only 7% of state prisoners and 10% of federal prisoners obtained guns through a gun shop. At least 90% obtained it through different means.
 
Now, we do also have to look at that 25% who say they obtained their guns via a friend, family member, etc. I won’t get into that particular way to get a gun, since that can be a relatively slippery-slope to go through in terms of the extent of their legality.
 
What I mean is that, in my opinion, the most logical way to buy a gun for someone else is to go to a gun shop with the person you are gifting the gun to so that the store can run a background check for that person. I am well aware that people also do things differently, but the reason I bring this up is because that seems to be the most logical and least legally obscure way of gifting a gun for someone else.
 
But in any case, like I said before, the main focus of this article is that statistic showing that a very miniscule amount of criminals obtained their guns at a gun shop.
 
Which really drives home the point that gun control simply doesn’t work. A bad guy will find ways to get guns if they have enough of a desire to do evil (and as a side note, a wall would really help regarding the flow of illegal guns into our country).
 
It makes no sense to punish those who follow the law for the actions committed by those who don’t follow the law.
 
Whenever there is a shooting, the Left will automatically blame the gun and call for more gun control which only affects law-abiding citizens.
 
But if this report is in any way accurate, then the argument for gun control goes out the window. If criminals tend to acquire their guns through ILLEGAL MEANS then there is not much more gun control laws will do except leave innocent people vulnerable to more attacks.
 
As I have said in multiple other articles discussing gun control and the 2nd Amendment, things like marijuana, crack and other illegal drugs are already illegal (for the most part). You are not legally allowed to have a bag of crack on you or in your home. And yet, people find ways to do it.
 
Those who obey the law will not have bags of crack on them (unless they are planted on them). Those who obey the law, by definition DON’T BREAK THE LAW!
 
Those who don’t obey the law will not care if there is more gun control or not, at least in regards to them obtaining a gun.
 
If anything, criminals love it when more gun control legislation passes. It means things get harder for people to acquire guns through legal means and they can be left a bit more vulnerable.
 
It’s not rare to hear of stories of someone, usually a woman, who wishes to obtain a gun through legal means because they fear for their life, but end up dying because of gun control legislation that makes it very difficult to obtain a gun.
 
And it’s not rare at all to hear of multiple weekends of bloodshed in places like Chicago, where gun control is faithfully implemented as much as it can be.
 
So not only does gun control usually mean more bloodshed and death wherever it is implemented, but it is not even doing what it supposedly is supposed to do: keep guns away from people who should not have them.
 
Not that that comes as any surprise to you or me. But it is good to see that rhetoric put down on paper, studied, and thoroughly looked at and basically proven.
 
Most criminals don’t obey laws. Who knew?
 
Proverbs 21:15
“When justice is done, it is a joy to the righteous but terror to evildoers.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
​

Last week, on Halloween, I wrote an article detailing the story of a man defending himself, his sons, and perhaps everyone inside a McDonald’s from a would-be shooter. Well, last Thursday, a mom in South Carolina protected her family and home with her gun from a would-be intruder.
 
Fox Carolina covered this story, and according to them, “A mother of three in South Carolina said she used her firearm to protect her family when a stranger tried to enter her house.”
 
According to Fox Carolina, the mother, named Ashley Jones, said “she heard someone banging on the door of her home in Anderson County around 6 a.m. Thursday.”
 
Jones detailed to Fox that “she looked out the window and didn’t see anyone, so she asked who was there. No one answered her, but she heard people speaking in front of the house.” Jones then called 911 and grabbed her gun.
 
According to Jones, she yelled: “I have a gun, I will shoot you, get away from my house.”
 
According to Fox, Jones said: “the man and a second person then went to the back of the house and tried to enter through the back door. Then, they went to the garage before coming back to the front door.”
 
Security footage from Jones’ security system showed much of the incident. It eventually shows the man kicking the front door, trying to get in, which is when Jones shot the guy, seemingly in the shoulder.
 
According to Jones: “Something just came over me, and I got calm. My heart slowed down and I got focused. I told myself if he comes in here, you can’t let him get past your doorstep. You have three young children to protect.”
 
Jones said she didn’t hesitate and would’ve fired again if the man persisted, saying “I would’ve killed him if I had to.”
 
According to Fox: “Jones said she was initially hesitant to be a gun owner and hoped she never had to use it. She took steps to train with the firearm and taught her children to avoid it. But after the events that unfolded Thursday morning, Jones said she is glad to be a gun owner.”
 
Jones herself said: “If I didn’t have a weapon, I wouldn’t have been able to fight him off.”
 
The two suspects caught on footage have been arrested, with the man being treated for his injury, which is non-life-threatening.
 
But this story highlights the great importance of owning a weapon and knowing how to use it.
 
As Fox Carolina notes, she was initially hesitant of being a gun owner. I get it. Guns can be scary when you don’t know much about them, much less how to handle one. All the time, you see them in movies, video games, t.v. shows, etc. and are constantly aware of how dangerous and deadly they can be.
 
Of course, real life is very different from fiction, but still. A gun can be scary if you don’t know anything about it. Particularly so when the news media and politicians make it a point to scare you out of having one and make it a point to convince you that they are bad and no one should have them.
 
But it’s largely because of situations like these that we have the 2nd Amendment. I often try to make the point, whenever possible, that the main reason the 2nd Amendment was put into place was as a safeguard against an oppressive United States government, in which the people of the country would be willing and able to fight once again against tyranny.
 
And while I maintain that that’s the main reason, that comes as part of the overall point of the importance of self-defense. The Framers had people’s defense of themselves in mind when writing the 2nd Amendment. Defense from the government, for the most part, but defense nonetheless.
 
So defending one’s own home from an outside force that threatens their very lives is part of people’s right to bear arms. Like Jones said, had she not had her gun with her, she would not have been able to fight him off and protect her family and home.
 
Given the actions described by Fox Carolina and Ashley Jones, the incident appeared to be an attempted home invasion. That much is obvious, but there’s a reason I mention that.
 
Let’s go over the details again. It was a Thursday morning in a usually quiet neighborhood, according to the live report on the incident. There were two individuals, seemingly a man and a woman. Neither of them were wearing masks or anything like that. Now, I wasn’t exactly expecting them to be wearing striped shirts and carry with them a sack of money, but I at the very least was expecting a mask.
 
Now, I am not familiar with how often home invaders actually wear masks. But you’d think it would be a common sense thing to wear a mask WHEN COMMITTING A CRIME!
 
But beyond even that, what really stands out as a red flag was the fact that Jones shouted at the two would-be home invaders and neither of them seemed willing to flee. Quite the opposite, since they went around the house looking for other points of entry before settling on kicking down the door.
 
Most home invaders attempt to flee when caught by the home owner. Not to mention that most home invaders don’t tend to continue in trying to get into a home when the home owner is acutely aware of their presence and even threatens them.
 
The guy literally kicked the door down before he was shot. What makes me think this could’ve escalated beyond a run-of-the-mill home invasion was the invader’s unwillingness to flee upon being discovered.
 
Now, regarding the threat, we can chuck it up to the guy thinking the woman was bluffing. After all, men tend to be stronger than women, so he thought he would be able to beat her physically, which he probably could have. He was a pretty big dude.
 
But it’s the fact that he and his partner in crime were both outside the home, the owner shouted at them, making them aware that someone’s home and someone knows they’re there, and they still attempted to enter the home.
 
That’s what makes me think things could’ve gone far worse and that the criminals possibly intended for far more sinister things than a mere home invasion.
 
Again, most home invaders tend to at least try to flee when discovered. These two were discovered BEFORE they were inside the home, had the best chance to leave, and still forced their way in.
 
Thankfully, Jones made the safe and smart decision of owning a gun and training herself with how to use it. Fox Carolina details that she hoped she never had to use it. Trust me, no safe and responsible gun owner ever hopes they get a chance to use it on anyone. We hope and pray to never have to use it, but thank the Lord we have it in the unfortunate case that we do have to use it.
 
Paraphrasing something I said in the article talking about the McDonald’s incident, people without a gun tend to go to people with a gun whenever a shooting happens. While this wasn’t a shooting, it is still a potentially life-threatening situation for the family of that home. She called 911, but you can never fully rely on the response time. Sometimes, you have to take action yourself. Had she not had a gun with her, who knows what they would’ve done?
 
Best case scenario, they would’ve taken a couple of things after likely beating Ashley to keep her quiet. Again, that’s BEST case scenario. I don’t think I have to detail what a worst case scenario would have looked like.
 
But because Jones was armed, and she knew how to use her gun, neither of the previously mentioned scenarios happened. The intruder was hit, and he and the woman fled before getting caught by the police and facing charges.
 
This highlights the importance of gun ownership and the importance of knowing how to use a gun. It’s not enough to simply have a gun. A gun can be dangerous in the hands of someone that does not know how to properly use it. You need to know how, when and where to aim, making sure you only hit your target and not someone else, and making sure that when it’s not in use, that it can’t harm you or anyone around you.
 
You need to know how to walk around with one (down to your side, pointed away from you, but also away from anyone you don't want to shoot, so best to aim at the ground at an angle that won’t hurt you), you need to know where to place your finger (never on the trigger unless you have the intention of shooting), you need to know how to aim (again, finger off the trigger, thumb over thumb, steady grip, and more things that I can’t properly describe), etc.
 
And Jones had all of that down and was able to protect herself, her family and her home. I am not surprised that the MSM won’t cover this story (I mean, it happened last week and I myself am just getting around to talking about it) considering that this is a pro-gun story. I am not surprised because the MSM has long ceased to be about honest, objective journalism and it’s all about narratives, rhetoric and the Leftist agenda.
 
But they can’t hide the fact that, in safe and responsible hands, guns can be a tool for good as much as it can be for evil. I had shared with you in that other article the statistics of defensive gun use (DGU) and how often it happens. That’s the result of good guys (and girls) with guns fighting against someone who would threaten their lives.
 
I’m thankful Mrs. Jones and her family are safe and I hope this story serves to help people recognize that safe and responsible gun ownership is never a bad thing.
 
1 Timothy 5:8
“But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”
 
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.

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

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

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

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

It’s rather rare for any celebrity nowadays to be a supporter of the 2nd Amendment or at least to not support gun control. Frankly, it’s often social and career suicide for a celebrity to not side with the collective mind of the Left. It’s dangerous for celebrities to stray from the same collective thoughts of the Left. Still, we occasionally see some celebrities come out against something the Left is pushing.
 
In this case, former NBA star Shaquille O’Neal is that celebrity. On an interview with WABC in New York City, Shaq weighed in on the gun rights debate and offered a solution that’s far closer to Trump’s than what Democrats propose.
 
“The government should give law enforcement more money. Give more money, you recruit more people, and the guys that are not ready to go on the streets, you put them in front of the schools.”
 
“You put ‘em in front of schools, you put ‘em behind the schools, you put ‘em inside the schools. And we need to pass information. I would like to see police officers in schools, inner cities, private schools.”
 
“There’s a lot of weapons already on the streets. So it’s not like, if you say, ‘Ok, these weapons are banned,’ people are gonna go, ‘Oh, man, let me turn it in.’ That’s definitely not going to happen.”
 
All of the things he said are nightmare fuel for the Left. Not just the content of the words but also who is saying those words. Shaq is considered one of the greatest Centers of all time and among the best players to play the game. He was the most dominant big man in the NBA for almost his entire career. He’s widely loved, admired and respected. So for him to be saying these things, the Left must feel hurt.
 
Shaq has dared go against their brainwashed think tanks. He’s dared challenge their policy and he’s dared to seemingly agree with Republicans on this issue. Even worse, he’s dared to seemingly agree with TRUMP on this issue. To the Left, for anyone, let alone a celebrity, to do that is bordering on a capital offense. At least, that’s what they would want it to be.
 
So let’s go into each particular point he raised. First, he mentioned that he wants the government to give more money to law enforcement. Right off the bat this is something that angers the Left. They’ve spent the last few years demonizing law enforcement. They’ve painted a horrible and demonic picture of police. The Left is adamantly against law enforcement… at least when it’s not under their direct control.
 
With Shaq saying that, it only angers them further. Of course, it’s important to know that Shaq is technically a cop since he completed an unofficial police academy program in 2016 and “has been named an honorary reserve officer by police departments around the country,” according to The Hill.
 
So his support for law enforcement should be expected, but that doesn’t mean it irks the Left any less. In fact, it should irk them even more considering he’s been an advocate for law enforcement for a long time now and his support has obviously not wavered even after all the Left’s attacks on law enforcement’s image.
 
Then, of course, he essentially is agreeing with Trump with his proposal to put trained and good people with guns inside and around the schools. This ties with the previous comments supporting law enforcement. Again, the Left has demonized police, so that’s part of the reason they disagree with this option. Of course, the other reasons are that this would mean siding with Trump on anything; this would mean there’d be more guns, not less guns, around; and that the “racist” police officers would be present in schools where they could “harass” the minority students.
 
And finally, he says that there are a lot of weapons on the streets already and that just declaring something to be illegal is not going to get people to give up their guns. First of all, the likelihood of a bill that would ban semiautomatic weapons passing Congress are slim to none. Under Republican control, there’s 0% chance that that would happen. Under conservative control of the Supreme Court, there’s 0% chance that it would be allowed, as it’d be a clear violation of the 2nd Amendment. And under President Trump, there’s 0% chance that a bill like that, if passed, would be signed by Trump.
 
And that’s just the legal side of things. Like Shaq said, people aren’t going to give up their weapons. If they do, they’ll have to be ripped from their cold, dead hands. We were willing to go to war over ridiculous taxes and over earning the rights of human beings. We’re certainly willing to go to war over keeping our guns. After all, the very REASON the 2nd Amendment exists is to protect the citizen from a government that has grown too big and tyrannical. The passage of such a bill would be the evidence the people need to see that our very own government has betrayed us and we have to rise and fight for our rights once again.
 
So realistically speaking, we’re never going to be without guns. And this is a concept that Shaq clearly understands. Rush Limbaugh has said this multiple times: the next shooter is already out there and he already has the weapon he’s going to use. No measure of gun control will prevent the next shooting, or the one after that, or the one after that.
 
I would also like to bring up an argument I’ve made in the past. And, to make things easier on you, I’ll even bring up the same statistic I used in the past. American Enterprise Institute (AEI) released an article not too long ago about the gun homicide rate in the U.S. from 1993 to 2013, a 20 year time span. It shows a 49% decrease in that rate during that time span. It also shows the number of owned guns in that same time span. The article says that “the number of privately owned firearms in U.S. increased from about 185 million in 1993 to 357 million in 2013.”
 
All of those numbers are significant, but, at the moment, I’d like to specifically focus on that “357 million in 2013” number. Do you know what the population of the United States is currently (or at least what it was in 2017)? Roughly 325 million. Statistically speaking, everyone in the U.S. owns at least one gun. So I’d like to raise the same point here as I did the first time I shared that stat line: if guns were the problem, even I would know and admit it.
 
There are more guns OWNED in the U.S. than there are people. I capitalize own because, first, it’s not quite clear whether that counts unregistered guns (in theory, it shouldn’t). I say this because there, in theory, should be a lot more guns in the country today. Again, I don’t think this counts unregistered guns and that is a number from 5 years ago at this point. There’s a good chance that there are far more guns today than back then.
 
So I’ll repeat myself: if guns were the problem, even I would know and admit it. If guns were the problem, we’d all be dead. If guns kill people and there are more guns than people in the country, it only makes sense to assume that the people would all be dead, right?
 
Regardless, let’s return to Shaq, one of my new favorite NBA legends (he already sort of was since I’m a Miami Heat fan and he helped us win our first championship in 2006). I’m glad to see Shaq side with logic over emotions on this issue. He obviously shows far more insight and knowledge on the topic than all the highly emotional high school students, Hollywood celebrities and elected Democrats (who showed up for an anti-gun rally in D.C. with high school students, but it wasn’t political, supposedly) have.
 
Here’s hoping more people, whether celebrity or not, actually think logically and realistically about this issue without holding on to Nazi-like pipe dreams of taking guns away from people.
 
Proverbs 20:15
“Gold there is, and rubies in abundance, but lips that speak knowledge are a rare jewel.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

Recently, at a meeting with members of Congress discussing measures to strengthen student security after the most recent school shooting that left 17 people dead, Trump made some comments that have sent conservatives for a loop and NeverTrump Republicans to shout “See! I told you he was no conservative!” I will carefully explain just why that’s an idiotic statement in a moment, but first, I’ll share the concerning comments made by the POTUS.
 
“I don’t want mentally ill people to be having guns. You have to do something very decisive. Number one, you can take the guns away immediately from people that you can adjudge easily are mentally ill, like this guy. You know, the police saw that he was a problem, they didn’t take any guns away. Now, that could have been policing. I think they should have taken them away anyway, whether they had the right or not. But I’ll tell you this, you have to have very strong provisions for the mentally ill.”
 
This isn’t the only thing that had conservatives worried, but let’s focus on this for now. You can clearly see why conservatives sort of panicked over this. I won’t lie, that’s a pretty Leftist comment. Taking away someone’s gun without due process is the stuff of fascists.
 
I can understand conservatives’ worries here. Who’s to determine if someone is mentally ill? There’s nothing to stop any Leftist from calling me mentally ill and wanting to take away my weapons. But, again, I’ll soon get to the reason why I’m not too worried about this.
 
First, let’s continue with the other comments that have made conservatives worried and Democrats like Diane Feinstein show more excitement than she ever has in her entire life.
 
At one point, Vice President Mike Pence said that Republicans in Congress want legislation that could allow for friends and family to apply to a court to suspend 2nd Amendment rights for someone who’s dangerously mentally ill and mentioned that, with that sort of due process, the rights given to us by the 2nd Amendment would not be infringed.
 
Trump stepped in by saying: “Or, Mike, take the firearms first, and then go to court. Because that’s another system, because a lot of times, by the time you go to court, it takes so long to go to court to get the due process procedures, I like taking the guns early, like in this crazy man’s case that just took place in Florida… To go to court would have taken a long time. So you could do exactly what you’re saying, but take the guns first, go through due process second.”
 
Now, Tom Maguire, a conservative pundit, has one explanation that may make some sense of this.
 
Tom wrote on his twitter account that: “On Trump’s no ‘due process’ quote: IMHO he misunderstood/misstated Gun Violence Restraining Order. Procedure is Court Order Confiscation Hearing to end or extend order. Trump conflated hearing with ‘due process.’”
 
So that offers some plausible explanation as to what Trump intended to say.
 
Again, I can understand conservatives’ worries over this sort of statement. It’s also a rather Leftist statement. What he’s talking about here would be the stepping stone towards turning this country into a socialist nation where people don’t have gun rights, or very restricted gun rights. You start by taking guns away from mentally ill people, then from “mentally ill” people (and I’m sure you know what I mean by that) and then from just people. I’ll be the first to say that it’s a very dangerous proposal.
 
Then Trump joked when talking about the NRA. He begins by saying: “I’m a fan of the NRA. There’s no bigger fan… These are great people. These are great patriots; they love our country. But that doesn’t mean we have to agree on everything. It doesn’t make sense… I have to wait until I’m 21 to get a handgun, but I can get [a long weapon] at 18. So I was just curious as to what you (he points to a Republican lawmaker) did in your bill.” The Republican replied: “We didn’t address it, Mr. President.”
 
Trump then joked by saying: “It’s because you’re afraid of the NRA, right?”
 
Again, that’s a bit worrying, but should be less so because it was very clearly a joke. Much as he joked that he hoped the Russians would find Hillary Clinton’s emails. The Left massively overreacted over that and actually theorized that he asked the Russians to hack into our elections. With this joke, I’ll take it for what it is: a joke. I’m not going to go the Ben Shapiro route and pretend it’s more than it is by saying: “Trump proceeded to rip on the National Rifle Association, and suggest that Republicans were in their thrall – just as Democrats have been maliciously claiming for years.”
 
He’s not suggesting a darn thing, he’s making a joke.
 
Then, Rep. Steve Scalise (yes, the same one that was in critical condition after a shooting targeting Republican lawmakers) said that the bill he’s proposed contains a concealed carry reciprocity statute. Trump said: “I think that that bill may someday pass, but it should pass as a separate bill. If you’re going to put concealed carry between states into this bill, we’re talking about a whole new ballgame. I’m with you, but let it be a separate bill… If you add concealed carry to this bill, you’ll never get it passed.”
 
Yet, Ben Shapiro took it to mean that Trump “dumped all over the idea of concealed carry reciprocity…” which is not the case at all. You heard Trump say that he’s with Scalise on the idea, but he’s concerned over the likelihood of that bill passing with that particular statute. Now, given that Republicans own Congress, it should theoretically pass if it’s a conservative bill. Unfortunately, that doesn’t always happen with the Establishment RINOs.
 
So Trump knows, after a year in office and trying to get things passed, that there are some things that are not too likely to get passed by GOP Establishment Congressmen. Now, typically, as with taxes, Republicans tend to be conservative about guns. But it makes sense that Trump might be doubtful of the bill’s success with that particular statute in it. Again, he’s not “dumping all over the idea”. He’s just trying to look at how likely it is to get passed in Congress and isn’t too sure about the likelihood that it will pass.
 
Now, taking everything that was said, I can understand if Trump supporters are confused and concerned over this. Here’s where I make my best attempt to give you peace of mind.
 
Over this past year, Trump has been one of the most conservative Presidents of all time. That’s in both policy and what he has said. Yes, this latest “mess” paints him in a Leftist light, but his record as President paints him entirely different.
 
I’ve seen some comments made on Twitter. One person said that Trump was always a “closet Democrat”. Well, if he’s a closet Democrat, he’s the worst Democrat the world’s ever seen. His track record as President shows very conservative. So he’s either the worst liberal of all time or he’s a very solid conservative. I’ve actually replied to the gentleman that made that comment and he replied by mentioning the “policy that conservatives around him are making.” As though Trump’s accomplishments aren’t his own.
 
I replied by pointing out his flawed logic here. So you’re saying he’s not a conservative because it’s the conservative people THAT HE APPOINTED that are making the policy? If he’s not a conservative, why would he appoint conservatives to his cabinet and to advise him? And don’t try to point to Ivanka and Jared being Democrats. Of course they’re going to advise him, THEY’RE HIS FAMILY! Besides, when all is said and done, I highly doubt that Ivanka and Jared will remain Democrat. The Party has already turned on them and their former friends in the media have attacked them as well.
 
The point I’m trying to make is that it’s honestly incredibly stupid and dangerous to overreact to this. Yes, what he said sounded pretty Leftist, but 99% of the time, he sounds pretty conservative. And 100% of the policy he’s enacted as President has been conservative.
 
If he wasn’t conservative, he wouldn’t have signed the tax bill into law. If he wasn’t conservative, he wouldn’t support the NRA.

If he wasn’t conservative, he wouldn’t have proposed ARMING some school teachers.

If he wasn’t conservative, he wouldn’t have pulled out of the Paris Climate Accord.

If he wasn’t conservative, he wouldn’t have ended over a thousand regulations on businesses.

If he wasn’t a conservative, he wouldn’t have nominated a conservative judge to serve on the Supreme Court.

And if he wasn’t a conservative, he wouldn’t be the most pro-life President in recent time, having enacted executive order after executive order to stop using U.S. tax payer dollars to pay for International Planned Parenthood with the Mexico City policy.
 
By the way, he signed that executive order THREE DAYS after he was inaugurated.
 
No, those comments didn’t sound conservative at all. I’ll hold Trump accountable for that. But I’m also not going to overreact and demand his resignation over this. These comments shouldn’t automatically trump every other conservative action he made and conservative speech he gave. Do I think it was a mistake for Trump to have said that? Absolutely! Does this make me support Trump any less? Not really. Unless he actually did the things he talked about regarding taking a mentally ill person’s gun away without due process, I’m not going to freak out.
 
Again, his track record is that of a very conservative President. Reagan wished he could’ve had as good a track record by this point in his own presidency. Besides, and I’ve said this countless other times, he’s not an idiot. He knows that to break away from his base will mark the end of his administration. He knows that turning Leftist isn’t going to make the Democrats like him. The Democrats already have their minds set about him. They think he’s a racist, sexist, sexual assaulter who cheated in the election. Nothing he does will earn him their respect, and neither should he try to get it.
 
To try to get the Democrats to like you as a Republican is a fool’s errand. The media will still trash him, the Democrats still oppose him and he would lose the only people that supported him throughout all the b.s. he’s had to endure so far.
 
Truthfully, had he said this earlier in his administration, I would be far more concerned. In the beginning, he was a wildcard. We didn’t know what we would get out of him. All we knew is that he offered something far better than Hillary. Had he done this earlier in his administration, I would’ve thought he had conned us, as the Left keeps trying to convince us he did. But this past year has shown me that, even if he’s not an ideological conservative the way you and I are, his instincts and actions SHOUT conservatism.
 
Yes, he made a mistake in saying all of that. What he said was very dumb. But those kinds of words aren’t enough to make me believe he’s not a true conservative. We’re far enough into his presidency to understand what kind of President he is. He wants action and he wants to take care of things himself. As a businessman of a private company, he had all the power to make decisions by himself. He’s used to being in charge. As President, he’s in charge but he’s, thankfully, limited in power.
 
I’m not saying he wants to have the power of a dictator. I’m saying he’s more used to handling things pretty much on his own. If there’s a problem, he wants to be the guy to fix it. History has shown us that it’s a bad thing for the government to be in charge of everything. He often attacked D.C. for being inefficient, and he was right. But being efficient isn’t the same as being in charge of every single thing that happens in this country. You can have an efficient government and a powerful government without it being very big at all.
 
If there’s anything I can say that Trump needs to improve on is this: he needs to learn that the government shouldn’t be taking care of everything. “Government’s first job is to protect the people, not run their lives”, as Reagan once said. I’m not saying Trump wants to run people’s lives. I’m saying he needs to learn that there are a lot of things the government shouldn’t be very involved in. I like his proposal to arm school teachers, but that really should be it in terms of gun law changes (except maybe making it easier to get a gun).
 
Regardless, knowing Trump, he’ll learn from this. He knows not to abandon his base, for that will only cause his base to abandon HIM. I have no doubt, given his track record so far, that he’ll continue to be a very conservative President.
 
I believe God put him in the White House for a good reason. I doubt that Trump will turn Leftist in terms of anything regarding policy.
 
Jeremiah 29:11
“’For I know the plans I have for you,’ declares the Lord, ‘plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.’”
 
Author: Freddie D. Marinelli.

The Left would have us believe that 'guns kill people'. Guns kill people just as much as forks make you fat. As most common sense people know, it’s not the guns that kill people, it’s the people that kill people. Bad people will always find a way to kill you.
 
Look at the Ohio State attack that happened late November 2016. This terrorist used a knife and car to try to kill as many people as he could. Thankfully, he only managed to hurt 13 people and not a single soul was lost that day. However, he TRIED to kill, but he was shot dead before he could do any more damage by Alan Horujko, an OSU police officer. The terrorist was stopped by a good guy with a gun. And you know what’s funny? Even though the terrorist used a car and knife to hurt people, failed Dem VP Tim Kaine, tweeted: 'Deeply saddened by the senseless act of gun violence at Ohio State this morning…' The guy, being the liberal that he is, automatically pushed the liberal agenda to DISARM good people.  
 
We know the Left doesn’t want you to have guns. We also know they don’t want you to trust the police. What do they want, then? 

They don’t want you to protect yourself and they don’t want you to trust someone who’s JOB is to protect you. So if you find yourself in a dangerous situation in which having a gun or police officer with you would be of benefit, the end result will always be your death.

The left wants you to die a violent death in the hands of criminals. Which is why we must never allow the left to push their agenda. When they succeed in implementing their policies, people DIE.
 
In 2015, the top five cities with the highest murder rates are run by DEMOCRATS:

1. St. Louis, Missouri. 
2. Detroit, Michigan.
3. New Orleans, Louisiana.
4. Baltimore, Maryland.
5. Newark, New Jersey. 

As you know, Democrats largely have been passing gun control legislations wherever they rule, so it only makes sense that these 5 cities stood as the most dangerous ones in 2015.
               
Democrats put your life in danger. Here are some stats on mass shootings from TruthStreamMedia:

• Under Reagan, there were 11 mass shootings, with 5 incidents in which 8 or more people died.
• Under Clinton, there were 23, with 4 such incidents.
• Under George W. Bush, there were 20, with 5 such incidents.
• Under Obama, there were a whopping 162 mass shootings, with 18 such incidents.

​Democrat’s gun agenda is in direct conflict with Scriptures. Yes, even Jesus wants you to protect yourself with a weapon.

​Luke 22:36: "He said to them ‘…Let he who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one'.”

​Jesus told His followers who would travel and deliver the Good News to purchase a sword for protection even if they had to sell a piece of their clothing. He wanted them to be safe from those who would do them harm by arming themselves.
 
And our Founding Fathers agreed with Jesus. They enacted the second amendment into the Bill of Rights to allow for the citizens of the United States to be able to rebel against a tyrannical government, much like they did against King George III.

The Left will have you believe that this amendment is outdated and has no place in the modern era. That no one needs a 30-round-holding semi-automatic assault rifle to go hunting. And while that part may be true, the Founding Fathers didn’t write the Second Amendment because the deer were coming. We use guns to keep ourselves safe not just from other people, but from those in power that seek to have ultimate power. That’s why the Soviet Union, Hitler, Communist China and Cuba all banned guns, so that their people couldn’t fight back. The Second Amendment is just as important today as it was during the revolutionary war.
 
According to an article on gunowners.org, 'Both Hitler’s Germany and Castro’s Cuba were preceded by regimes that imposed gun control to keep guns out of the wrong hands. In both cases, gun control failed to keep the bad guys from getting all the guns they wanted…' This means that the complete ban on guns in both countries resulted in Nazi Germany and Communist Cuba.
 
What kind of America do you want to live in?

Author: Freddie M.