Tag Archives: Criminals

News

Joe Biden promises to confiscate all multi-round magazines, disarm church-goers

2 Comments
Gun ownership up, gun violence down
Gun ownership up, gun violence down

This is a repeat post, I just want to remind everyone where Biden stands on legal firearm ownership from his past comments.

In the wake of mass shootings by people who don’t obey the law, Democrat presidential candidates are vowing to confiscate ALL semi-automatic pistols and rifles, as well as ban magazines with more than one bullet. They believe that by taking weapons from law-abiding Americans, they will be able to stop violence committed by those who don’t care about laws. Will that work?

First, let’s get the news from the Daily Wire:

Democrat presidential candidate Joe Biden went far to the left on the issue of guns on Monday, telling reporters that he wants to ban magazines that hold “multiple bullets” — which means all magazines.

Biden, who made the remarks while talking to the press during a campaign stop in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, said there should be “no compromise” on guns as he also voiced his anger at the state of Texas for allowing people to carry firearms in places of worship to defend themselves from those who seek to harm others.

“And we’re talking about loosening access, to have guns, to be able to take them into places of worship, I mean, it is absolutely irrational. It’s totally irrational,” Biden said. “The idea that we don’t have elimination of assault-type weapons, magazines that can hold multiple bullets in them, it’s absolutely mindless.”

“It’s no violation of the Second Amendment,” Biden falsely claimed.

Biden’s extreme gun control push, if ever enacted, would effectively ban the overwhelming majority of handguns, all semi-automatic shotguns and rifles, and many hunting rifles which use magazines.

We’ve actually had a number of mass shootings where left-wing atheists attacked Christians during worship. I guess Joe Biden has an alternative plan for protecting Christians from far-left atheist Democrats. Maybe he plans to show up at the mass shootings in churches, and have a talk with the shooters about following gun laws.

Not to be outdone, here’s another candidate promising to ban all semi-automatic weapons, pistols AND rifles.

The Daily Wire reports:

Far-left Democratic presidential candidate Robert Francis O’Rourke announced over the weekend that if he is elected president, he intends to confiscate tens of millions of semi-automatic firearms from law-abiding Americans.

O’Rourke made the remarks while campaigning in Charlottesville, Virginia, on Saturday when he was asked by a reporter how he plans to address peoples’ fears that the government is going to come and take many of their semi-automatic firearms.

O’Rourke responded: “I want to be really clear, that’s exactly what we are going to do. Americans who own [the technically undefinable sub-class of semi-automatic firearms referred to as “assault weapons”] will have to sell them to the government.”

It’s amazing to me that there is so much evidence that gun violence is caused by fatherlessness, but Democrats don’t want to do anything about it. If we stopped giving women welfare money for having babies before they are married, gun violence would dry up in a second. We’ve always had access to guns in this country, but it was wasn’t a problem when every child had a mother and father.

If strict laws were effective, then why do we see such high rates of gun violence precisely in Democrat-run areas where law-abiding people are prohibited from owning weapons to defend themselves from criminals? Mass shootings get a lot of press, but the truth is that more people died in Chicago last week in ordinary crimes than died in the most recent mass shooting in Odessa, TX.

The peer-reviewed research

Whenever I get into discussions about gun control, I always mention two academic books by John R. Lott and Joyce Lee Malcolm.

Here is a paper by Dr. Malcolm that summarizes one of the key points of her book.

Excerpt:

Tracing the history of gun control in the United Kingdom since the late 19th century, this article details how the government has arrogated to itself a monopoly on the right to use force. The consequence has been a tremendous increase in violent crime, and harsh punishment for crime victims who dare to fight back. The article is based on the author’s most recent book, Guns and Violence: The English Experience (Harvard University Press, 2002). Joyce Malcom is professor of history at Bentley College, in Waltham, Massachusetts. She is also author of To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an AngloAmerican Right (Harvard University Press, 1994).

And the result of the 1997 gun ban:

The result of the ban has been costly. Thousands of weapons were confiscated at great financial cost to the public. Hundreds of thousands of police hours were devoted to the task. But in the six years since the 1997 handgun ban, crimes with the very weapons banned have more than doubled, and firearm crime has increased markedly. In 2002, for the fourth consecutive year, gun crime in England and Wales rose—by 35 percent for all firearms, and by a whopping 46 percent for the banned handguns. Nearly 10,000 firearms offences were committed.

[…]According to Scotland Yard, in the four years from 1991 to 1995 crimes against the person in England‟s inner cities increased by 91 percent. In the four years from 1997 to 2001 the rate of violent crime more than doubled. The UK murder rate for 2002 was the highest for a century.

I think that peer-reviewed studies – from Harvard University, no less – should be useful to those of us who believe in the right of self-defense for law-abiding people. The book by economist John Lott, linked above,compares the crime rates of all U.S. states that have enacted concealed carry laws, and concludes that violent crime rates dropped after law-abiding citizens were allowed to carry legally-owned firearms. That’s the mirror image of Dr. Malcolm’s Harvard study, but both studies affirm the same conclusion – more legal firearm ownership means less crime.

Related posts

News

Which political party stands up to evil at home and abroad?

7 Comments
Let him who desires peace prepare for war
Let him who desires peace prepare for war

Lately, I’m being asked to make a positive case for why anyone should vote Republican. Many Christians think that they can take the easy way out and just prove that Republicans do better than Democrats on social issues like marriage and abortion. But that’s lazy. A better strategy is to take a kitchen sink approach by arguing that Republicans are also better on fiscal policy and foreign policy.

Today, let’s look at three stories that clearly show that Republicans correctly identify evil and take effective steps to deter it – at home and abroad.

Let’s start with an international story, where Trump is confronting the autocratic Iranian regime, which is seeking nuclear weapons to menace peaceful countries in the region.

The Washington Free Beacon reports:

The Trump administration on Monday announced an unprecedented set of new sanctions on Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile sectors.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was joined at the State Department by top Trump administration officials as they announced the new measures, which target Iran’s proliferation of nuclear materials used to feed its atomic weapons program. The sanctions also seek to restrain Iran’s contested ballistic missile program, which has progressed in tandem with its nuclear program as the country seeks to construct a weapon capable of carrying a nuclear warhead.

The most far-reaching sanctions will target Iran’s Ministry of Defense and Armed Forces Logistics agency, as well as its leaders, for exporting arms to Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro, who also was targeted by the new sanctions. The measures are aimed at stopping Iran from exporting arms across the globe, including to regional hotspots such as Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq.

The new sanctions are being issued under a fresh executive order announced Monday by the White House enabling the United States to sanction Iranian government actors and those globally who have been identified as aiding Iran’s nuclear and missile programs. The move comes a month after the United States invoked a procedural mechanism at the United Nations that ordered the “snapback” of all global sanctions on Iran. Snapback took effect on Saturday. The unprecedented move was met with anger by European powers and Tehran’s allies, raising questions about whether the world will uphold the sanctions. Pompeo and senior Trump administration officials warned that they will not hesitate to sanction any country caught working with Iran.

“Now that virtually all U.N. sanctions have been reimposed on Iran, stakeholders worldwide are warned that the United States will aggressively use U.S. sanctions authorities to impose consequences for failures to comply with the snapped-back U.N. measures on Iran and ensure that Iran does not reap the benefits of U.N.-prohibited activity,” the State Department said in announcing the new action.

Let’s move down to the federal level, with a story from The Federalist:

The Department of Justice labeled New York City, Portland, and Seattle as cities “permitting violence and destruction of property,” in a statement Monday.

Attorney General William Barr said state and local leaders in these cities are endangering citizens, including peaceful protestors.

“We cannot allow federal tax dollars to be wasted when the safety of the citizenry hangs in the balance. It is my hope that the cities identified by the Department of Justice today will reverse course and become serious about performing the basic function of government and start protecting their own citizens,” he said.

Citing various failures by each city such as rising gun violence, police budget cuts, lack of prosecution for those arrested and charged with “protest-related charges,” lack of protection against property destruction and vandalism,  rejection of federal law enforcement, and allowing anarchists to take over certain geographical areas such as CHOP, the DOJ noted that these cities all failed to handle the rapidly increasing violence that occurred in their areas in response to the death of George Floyd in May.

The article notes that this action follows on an order from Trump to not waste federal tax dollars on cities that neglect to protect their citizens from criminals.

Meanwhile, at the state level, there was this story from Florida, repported by Daily Wire:

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis announced new legislation Monday that would create additional felonies to punish protesters who turn violent and would create severe penalties for cities that elect to defund or disband their police departments.

Local Miami news reports that “violent protesters and looters would face new felonies” under the legislation, particularly if they damage property as part of their demonstrations, engage in “disorderly” conduct,” or assault a law enforcement officer.

If caught and convicted, violent protesters could lose their access to state-based welfare programs, DeSantis said.

DeSantis says, though, that the new legislation is designed to prevent the type of violence, anarchy, and destruction Americans have witnessed in places like Portland, Oregon, where unrest has raged unabated for more than 100 days. The legislation also covers activities like harassing people dining at restaurants and tearing down monuments.

[…]To reinforce the idea that the new laws were designed to provide law enforcement with more tools to control destructive demonstrations, the package includes proposed penalities for municipalities who elect to “defund the police” or disband their local police departments.

“The proposed package would also strip municipalities of state money if they defund law enforcement,” local Miami news reported.

I think it’s important for people to understand that good and evil do exist. We can’t fix everything in the world, but we can certainly deter future aggressive acts by standing up to terrorists and criminals at home and abroad. If you agree, then you vote Republican.

News

Joe Biden promises to confiscate all multi-round magazines, disarm church-goers

6 Comments
Gun ownership up, gun violence down
Gun ownership up, gun violence down

In the wake of mass shootings by people who don’t obey the law, Democrat presidential candidates are vowing to confiscate ALL semi-automatic pistols and rifles, as well as ban magazines with more than one bullet. They believe that by taking weapons from law-abiding Americans, they will be able to stop violence committed by those who don’t care about laws. Will that work?

First, let’s get the news from the Daily Wire:

Democrat presidential candidate Joe Biden went far to the left on the issue of guns on Monday, telling reporters that he wants to ban magazines that hold “multiple bullets” — which means all magazines.

Biden, who made the remarks while talking to the press during a campaign stop in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, said there should be “no compromise” on guns as he also voiced his anger at the state of Texas for allowing people to carry firearms in places of worship to defend themselves from those who seek to harm others.

“And we’re talking about loosening access, to have guns, to be able to take them into places of worship, I mean, it is absolutely irrational. It’s totally irrational,” Biden said. “The idea that we don’t have elimination of assault-type weapons, magazines that can hold multiple bullets in them, it’s absolutely mindless.”

“It’s no violation of the Second Amendment,” Biden falsely claimed.

Biden’s extreme gun control push, if ever enacted, would effectively ban the overwhelming majority of handguns, all semi-automatic shotguns and rifles, and many hunting rifles which use magazines.

We’ve actually had a number of mass shootings where left-wing atheists attacked Christians during worship. I guess Joe Biden has an alternative plan for protecting Christians from far-left atheist Democrats. Maybe he plans to show up at the mass shootings in churches, and have a talk with the shooters about following gun laws.

Not to be outdone, here’s another candidate promising to ban all semi-automatic weapons, pistols AND rifles.

The Daily Wire reports:

Far-left Democratic presidential candidate Robert Francis O’Rourke announced over the weekend that if he is elected president, he intends to confiscate tens of millions of semi-automatic firearms from law-abiding Americans.

O’Rourke made the remarks while campaigning in Charlottesville, Virginia, on Saturday when he was asked by a reporter how he plans to address peoples’ fears that the government is going to come and take many of their semi-automatic firearms.

O’Rourke responded: “I want to be really clear, that’s exactly what we are going to do. Americans who own [the technically undefinable sub-class of semi-automatic firearms referred to as “assault weapons”] will have to sell them to the government.”

It’s amazing to me that there is so much evidence that gun violence is caused by fatherlessness, but Democrats don’t want to do anything about it. If we stopped giving women welfare money for having babies before they are married, gun violence would dry up in a second. We’ve always had access to guns in this country, but it was wasn’t a problem when every child had a mother and father.

If strict laws were effective, then why do we see such high rates of gun violence precisely in Democrat-run areas where law-abiding people are prohibited from owning weapons to defend themselves from criminals? Mass shootings get a lot of press, but the truth is that more people died in Chicago last week in ordinary crimes than died in the most recent mass shooting in Odessa, TX.

The peer-reviewed research

Whenever I get into discussions about gun control, I always mention two academic books by John R. Lott and Joyce Lee Malcolm.

Here is a paper by Dr. Malcolm that summarizes one of the key points of her book.

Excerpt:

Tracing the history of gun control in the United Kingdom since the late 19th century, this article details how the government has arrogated to itself a monopoly on the right to use force. The consequence has been a tremendous increase in violent crime, and harsh punishment for crime victims who dare to fight back. The article is based on the author’s most recent book, Guns and Violence: The English Experience (Harvard University Press, 2002). Joyce Malcom is professor of history at Bentley College, in Waltham, Massachusetts. She is also author of To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an AngloAmerican Right (Harvard University Press, 1994).

And the result of the 1997 gun ban:

The result of the ban has been costly. Thousands of weapons were confiscated at great financial cost to the public. Hundreds of thousands of police hours were devoted to the task. But in the six years since the 1997 handgun ban, crimes with the very weapons banned have more than doubled, and firearm crime has increased markedly. In 2002, for the fourth consecutive year, gun crime in England and Wales rose—by 35 percent for all firearms, and by a whopping 46 percent for the banned handguns. Nearly 10,000 firearms offences were committed.

[…]According to Scotland Yard, in the four years from 1991 to 1995 crimes against the person in England‟s inner cities increased by 91 percent. In the four years from 1997 to 2001 the rate of violent crime more than doubled. The UK murder rate for 2002 was the highest for a century.

I think that peer-reviewed studies – from Harvard University, no less – should be useful to those of us who believe in the right of self-defense for law-abiding people. The book by economist John Lott, linked above,compares the crime rates of all U.S. states that have enacted concealed carry laws, and concludes that violent crime rates dropped after law-abiding citizens were allowed to carry legally-owned firearms. That’s the mirror image of Dr. Malcolm’s Harvard study, but both studies affirm the same conclusion – more legal firearm ownership means less crime.