|
React to the Tactical Turtleneck Frogan Comment Video React to the Are We Wrong Podcast Gun Rights and Presidential Canidate Video
0 Comments
Mounting a Red Dot Sight (RDS) Onto a Glock 17 MOS
The name of this range game is NOOB and focuses on firearm proficiency. This is a mimic style game (similar to HORSE, but on the range and with guns) where a competitor will select a pre-written challenge. Once selected, they will verbally explain it to each person playing. Challenges might include time standards, distance standards, reloading (combat or administrative), purposely induced malfunctions, movement, multiple targets, unconventional shooting techniques, and/or a combination of those tasks and/or others. Following the explanation, the Competitor will physically perform the selected challenge. If they fail the challenge, the Challenger selects the next challenge, but if they are successful with their own challenge, the Challenger must perform the same task and/or tasks. If the Challenger is successful, they select the next challenge. If the Challenger fails, they get a Redemption Shot at a predetermined target(s) from a predetermined distance. If they are successful with their Redemption Shot they do not get a letter. The first person who fails enough challenges and/or redemptions that spell the word N-O-O-B loses the game. You might be asking yourself, "that sounds like an amazingly fun game but, what the hell is a NOOB"? Well, a noob is someone who is inexperienced in a particular activity, event, job, etc. The term is popular within the video game world, which is why we selected that name for this game we call NOOB. If you want to play, you are in luck. Down below you will see an images for specific NOOB variations based on firearm type. Click on that and you will find the rules to the game, along with all of the challenges applicable to that firearm. For future seasons we will incorporate different guns and different challenges, so stay tuned for that! Keep in mind, NOOB is created by two guys (Baker and Kennedy) who barley graduated potty training and who are fascinated by fire (like cavemen) and still think farts are funny (because they are). Although this game is meant to challenge you (depending on your level of proficiency), ultimately this game is designed to be fun. All of our NOOB videos are meant to be entertaining. If you have seen them, you know we do not take ourselves too serious, so you shouldn't either when it comes to our antics. Lastly, the Intuitive Defense YouTube and Rumble page has all of our latest videos of us playing the game so be sure to check that out too! DISCLAIMER: This game is designed for competitors/shooters who are already proficient in basic shooting fundaments and weapon manipulation tactics, along with unconventional shooting techniques. If you decide to play NOOB on your own or with others, you are doing so of your own volition and assume all responsibility and risk. Although this is a game, safety is not.   The topic for this Current Events video is not necessarily a new topic or event, as this has been working through the court system for over a year, but the outcome is new. As we have discussed in previous Current Event episodes, there is an amazing amount of willfully ignorant, do-nothing politicians and unelected bureaucrats who are tirelessly working to limit and reduce your individual freedoms and rights by enacting or attempting to enact unconstitutional laws and “rules”. Thankfully, some of those tyrannical actions imposed on pistol stabilizing braces and bump stocks have been stopped. Before getting into the individual rights victory, let me briefly describe what happened for those who aren’t up to speed. A pistol stabilizing brace is an attachment that allows for people with disabilities to more easily manipulate and more accurately fire a AR-15 or similar style pistol by attaching to their forearm or to shoulder fire if they so choose. It is not a buttstock, and it does not alter the way a weapon fires. The Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) administration retroactively decreed through a unconstitutional and arbitrary "rule" (ATF Rule 2021R-08F) in January 31, 2023 that pistol stabilizing braces are were illegal to own, possess and/or use unless you comply with their new law or what they call, "rule". Once the "rule" was published (ATF "rule" link), an individual in possession of an unregistered pistol stabilizing brace was technically committing an arrestable felony offense. Keep in mind, this was action was taken after 10 years of the pistol stabilizing brace being legal and millions of people purchasing them. Basically, because the ATF changed their mind, they attempted to turn millions of Americans into felons if they did not comply by surrendering or destroying their property (the brace) or if they did not pay the government money in the form of a tax stamp to possess property, they already own. To learn more about this, please watch our Current Events video on this topic: Current Events E1 The other item the ATF arbitrarily banded through the use of a “rule” was the Bump Stock in 2018, but the final rule did not go into effect until March of 2019. Following a mass casualty event, Former President Trump demanded the ATF ban bump stocks. They did this by reclassifying the bump stock as a machine-gun by manipulating the definition of machine-gun in the Gun Control Act (GCA) and the National Firearms Act (NFA) to fit their requirements. Per the NFA, which is a whole other unconstitutional topic, a machine-gun is defined as: Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The bump stock is an attachment and does not alter the way a weapon fires. It does however use the already existing recoil motion of the weapon to reset the trigger, which means each time the weapon fires, the trigger is being rest. Only one projectile is being shot with a single function of the trigger, therefore it is, by definition, not a machine-gun, but the ATF didn’t care because they were given presidential authority to violate peoples’ individual rights and send them to jail because they could. During congressional testimony and political speeches, several anti-gun and anti-Second Amendment politicians vigorously and adamantly called for further restrictions of attachments by using examples of pistol stabilizing brace and bump stock. Unfortunately, these same people are not informed on such topics and continually confused a pistol stabilizing brace with a bump stock. My point being, people who don’t know what they’re talking about desire to arbitrarily infringe on your rights using incorrect or made up information as the justification to limit your freedom. To see these conversations, please watch our Current Events Episode about this: Current Events E3 Now that that’s out the way, let’s get into the good news. First up, braces and I’m not talking about the kind that go on your teeth. Sorry to all my British friends. There has been a lot of ongoing litigation in defense of free ownership of pistol stabilization braces. There were also several temporary injunctions in place preventing the ATF from taking enforcement action, but those injections only applied to certain people, groups, or states. On June 13, 2024, the Mock v. Garland ruling changed everything. Judge Reed O’Conner vacated the entire rule. In short, he found the pistol stabilizing brace rule put forth by the ATF to be invalid and struck the rule down in its entirety. This provides national relief to all people, not just certain groups or states. This means, for now anyways, you are no longer a felon for simply owning, possessing, and/or using a pistol stabilizing brace. You do not have to jump through hopes to continue possessing property you already own. The second update applies to bump stocks. On June 14, 2024, in a 6 – 3 decision by the Supreme Court in the case of Garland v. Cargill (which was a case challenging the governments unlawful ban on bump stocks), they ruled in favor of Mr. Cargill. In short, this means the ban on bump stocks has been lifted by the Supreme Court because a bump stock, when attached to a semiautomatic weapon does not change or alter the function of a single fire trigger, thus not meeting the definition of a machinegun and cannot be confined to the same restrictions and regulations as one. Keep in mind though, these accessories might become regulated again through legislative action, but for now, bureaucrats got their little pee pees slapped by the judicial system. Even if you do not support the Second Amendment, as a free person you should support the actions of an overreaching government being limited. If you allow the government to infringe on certain rights and freedoms because you don’t like or agree with those particular rights and freedoms, it’ll only be a matter of time until the government sets their sights on rights and freedoms you do like. If you give the government an inch, they’ll take a mile. They easiest way to prevent them from taking a mile is to never give them an inch. My ConclusionThose are my observations and opinions. Although this video is specifically related to the Second Amendment, that does not mean the issue here is only limited to the Second Amendment, obviously. If they are willing to deprive people of certain freedoms and rights using manipulative methods and bureaucratic overreach, they are willing to do it on all freedoms and rights. It is the job of government to protect our rights, not limit them. Remember, the Second Amendment was not created to limit what people could or could not own, which is why it does not specify ownership of certain objects like muskets or cannons, or certain time periods of which people can own certain objects. The Second Amendment was created to limit the Government, which is why the only limitation specified within the Second Amendment applies to Government, "shall not be infringed".  Video Version of This ArticleThank you for reading this article. We hope it was informative. If so, please share it with others and don't forget to leave a comment below!
- Intuitive Defense -
"TRAIN. ACT. LIVE." Related Articles
Sources
The topic for this Current Events video is not necessarily a new topic or event, as this proposed legislation is a re-do of previously proposed legislation, but that does not make is any less important to talk about, especially since it is expected to be signed into law by the Louisiana Governor, Jeff Landry very soon. On July 4th, 2024, Louisiana will become the 28th state to allow permitless concealed carry of a handgun. This is great news for people who want to exercise their Second Amendment right without having to first petition and pay the government for approval to use a right they already have. As mentioned before, this is not a new proposal of legislation. In previous attempts, the concept of legislation either failed to pass the Louisiana Senate or was vetoed by the previous Louisiana Governor, John Bel Edwards. This time though, a modified version of previously proposed permitless carry/constitutional carry legislation passed the Louisiana Senate on February 28, 2024, by a vote of 76 – 28. The State Senator who spearheaded this legislation, Senate Bill 1, is Senator Blake Miguez. Not only is Senator Blake Miguez pro Second Amendment, but he is also an avid and expert shooter. He was a contestant on Top Shot for Season 1 and Season 5 and an expert consultant for Season 2. He has been a competitive shooter for most of his life. He is also a licensed attorney in the State of Louisiana. His practical knowledge and real-world experience with firearms, along with law makes him a subject matter expert on this legislation, which is very important. The next step is for the new Governor of Louisiana, Jeff Landry to sign it, which he is expected to do very soon or depending on when you are watching this video, he may have already done. Not only is Governor Landry pro Second Amendment, but he is also a subject matter expert on this new legislation. Prior to being elected as the 57th Governor of Louisiana, Jeff Landry served in the military and was also a law enforcement officer here in Louisiana. In 2010 he was elected to the U.S. Congress and in 2016 he was elected as the 45th Attorney General of Louisiana. Once Senate Bill 1 is signed by Governor Landry it will have an effective date of July 4th, 2024. Senate Bill 1 is very simple in nature, and I would encourage you to read it for yourself by clicking on the link in the description of this video. That being said, I’ll quickly discuss the important aspects of this bill. Any person who is 18 years of age or older and is not prohibited from possessing a firearm by state or federal law is allowed to conceal carry a handgun without a permit. The Bill specifically states person. In previous versions of this Bill, it stated a resident of Louisiana. Amending the text from resident of Louisiana to person is an important change because it allows for any person from any state who meets the legal requirements to carry a concealed handgun to do so here in Louisiana. Another change was to the minimum age requirement. Again, in previous versions of this Bill the minimum age was 21. That has now been amended to 18 years of age, which I think is a positive change since the age of majority in Louisiana, the age at which an individual is legally considered an adult is 18. If a person is allowed to enter military service at 18, they should be allowed to carry a weapon (open or concealed). I think adjusting the minimum age requirement was important for many reasons, one of them being this. In 2022 the Louisiana Senate passed Bill 143, Act 680 which allowed any resident of Louisiana who is currently serving or has served in the military to carry a concealed handgun without a permit as long as they were not prohibited from possessing a firearm and 21 years of age or older. This legislation was a step in the right direction, but what bothered me about it is the minimum age requirement. What it effectively said was, a person 18 - 20 years of age is old enough to die for their country on foreign soil, but not old enough to carry a concealed handgun in their own state. I am very grateful that Senate Bill 1 has corrected that. There are some restrictions of concealed carry as it pertains to Senate Bill 1. A person cannot carry a concealed handgun in any facility, building, zone, or area in which firearms are banned by state or federal law. A person who is carrying a concealed handgun into a private residence must first receive the consent of that person. Of course, this new legislation is not welcomed by everyone. There are a lot of anti-Second Amendment people or groups who think this will turn all of Louisiana into the O.K. Corral. To them I simply say, allowing law abiding people to carry a concealed handgun for their protection without a permit does not add to the actions of violent, lawless criminals. A criminal by definition is a person who defies a law in order to commit a crime. For instance, if the only way a person in Louisiana could legally carry a concealed handgun was by permit, then law abiding people who did not have a concealed carry permit would not carry a concealed handgun because they would be breaking the law. You know who would carry a concealed handgun without a permit though?...Criminals. You know why?...because they don’t care what the law states because they’re criminals. Criminals also murder people even though murder is against the law. My point is, criminals are going to criminal no matter what the law says. So, a law that mandates people have a conceal carry permit to conceal carry a handgun only prevent law abiding people who do not have a permit from carrying a concealed handgun, not criminals. Something else to consider is, the permit process has a monetary cost associated with it that not every person can afford to pay, therefore ensuring that a law-abiding person who does not have the extra financial means to afford a concealed carry permit cannot use a right that is already theirs to use. You know where the majority of crime happens? In low-income areas. When a state implements a permit process to conceal carry a handgun, they (the state) turn a right into a privilege based on wealth. If a person can afford the extra cost of a permit, they then have the privilege of using their “right”. If a person cannot afford the extra const of a permit, they are denied the privilege of using their ‘right”. So, a law-abiding, low-income person who might live in a high-crime area and who would potentially benefit the most from carry a concealed handgun for their protection cannot do so because the state has removed their right based on their wealth. That is not how it should be, but unfortunately, that’s government. Thankfully, Louisiana is correcting this by allowing any law-abiding person (regardless of their wealth) who decides to exercise their Second Amendment right to do so without first petitioning and paying the government for approval to conceal carry a handgun. Let me go back to the permit process for a second. Part of the permit application process is mandatory training. This includes legal information on when, how, and why you can do certain things pertaining to using a handgun in a self-defense situation (use of force training), along with when, how, and why you can or cannot carry a concealed handgun into certain places. The applicant is also required to do a live fire shoot to ensure they can safely and accurately handle a handgun. Some people have a legitimate concern regarding the new permitless carry law because there is no mandate of training required for those who decide to conceal carry. I would agree that training is a good thing and would greatly benefit those who decide to carry concealed, but I do not believe that government can or should mandate training as a requirement to use a right. It’s a slippery slope. If they make it a requirement for one right, they can make it a requirement for all rights. Imagine if the government mandated training in order for you to use your First Amendment right or your Fourth Amendment right. Again, when government attaches requirements to a right in order for you to use it, it is no longer a right, but a privilege. That being said, I absolutely believe a person who chooses to exercise their Second Amendment right should seek out training, especially if they are going to conceal carry. Training is only going to benefit that individual. Here in Louisiana, there are many companies that provide firearms training, Intuitive Defense being one of them. If you are not familiar with our training, we offer several options including basic pistol and rifle courses along with advanced pistol and rifle courses. We also have a concealed carry training course. This is not a permit course but rather a carry course designed to help people become more confident and proficient when carrying a concealed handgun. The whole point of being armed is to better protect yourself or others if you are placed in a self-defense situation. The last thing you want to do is use that firearm, but if that is your only option, you need to be prepared. Our concealed carry training course focuses on many important aspects of carrying a concealed handgun. Some of the information covered in that course is, but not limited to:
To learn more information about this course, please click here: Concealed Carry Tactics Course Granted, training has a monetary cost associated with it that not everyone can afford, and I understand that, which is why I would like to see the State of Louisiana encourage people to get training by allowing for a tax credit. There are details that would need to be worked out, but overall, it is a very reasonable and simple concept in my opinion. Even if the state did not offer a tax credit, but a person sought out training on their end, I believe they would still come out ahead in terms of cost. With the previous concealed carry permit process, on average a person would spend approximately $300 just to get a permit. That cost would include the concealed carry training, application fees, photo, and fingerprints. That cost could be more depending on training course fees and permit type. A 5-year concealed carry permit is $125 for a person 21 – 64 and a lifetime permit is $500 for a person 21 -64. In my opinion most concealed carry permit courses are mediocre training at best. That being said, mediocre training is better than no training at all. I believe though with the new permitless carry law, if a person takes that previous average cost of $300 to get a permit and puts that towards basic firearms training or a purpose-built concealed carry training course, they will receive better training now than with a specific permit training course. My ConclusionThose are my observations and opinions. Although this new Bill is specific to Louisiana and the people living here, it still benefits people visiting the state. In the bigger picture is also positively helps enforce the rights and freedoms protected by the Second Amendment by adding another permitless carry/constitutional carry state to the growing list of states standing up for our right to better protect ourselves if and when a person in thrust into a self-defense situation. Violent, lawless criminals are going to carry a gun regardless of what the law states, therefore recognizing our right and allowing law abiding people the opportunity to carry a concealed handgun without a permit now puts criminals at a disadvantage. Again, I am gratefully for those in leadership positions who are diligently working to protect our rights and freedoms. Unfortunately, there are still some states where their leadership is diligently working to deprive their people of their rights and freedoms as it pertains to the Second Amendment. I’m not going to mention any names, but Governor Gavin Newsom of California is one such person. Although he is continually surrounded by an armed security detail for his protection, he is actively working to limit and reduce the rights and ability of citizens there to own and carry guns for their protection. Be fearful of the person who is surrounded by guns demanding you give up yours. Again, I don’t want to say any names, but the Governor of New Mexico, Michelle Grisham is another anti-Second Amendment leader who is boastfully working to infringe on people’s rights and freedoms. Remember, government cannot 100% guarantee your safety 100% of the time, therefore self-defense is a personal responsibility. If and when you are put into a life-or-death situation due to the actions of a lawless, violent criminal, you will be there at that moment, not government which is why it is import you rely on your own abilities and means (gun ownership) to protect yourself, not government. The governments job is to protect our rights so we can protect ourselves, not limit our rights. Unfortunately, there are many elected “leaders” who act as though the Second Amendment is meant to limit what the people can and cannot do or what they can and cannot own, but in fact, the only limitation stated within the Second Amendment applies to government – “shall not be infringed”. I hope that more states continue taking pro Second Amendment actions and that more people wake up to the idea that self-defense is a personal responsibility.  Video Version of This ArticleThank you for reading this article. We hope it was informative. If so, please share it with others and don't forget to leave a comment below!
- Intuitive Defense -
"TRAIN. ACT. LIVE." Related Articles
Sources
The topic for this Current Events video is not necessarily a new topic or event, as this proposed legislation is a re-do of previously proposed legislation, but that does not make is any less important to talk about, especially since this shitty remix is currently playing right now. As we have discussed in previous Current Event articles, there are a plethora of willfully ignorant, do-nothing politicians masquerading as intelligent, problem solvers whose bright ideas are going to make everyone safer and it won’t cost you a thing, except for your some of your freedoms and rights, along with some money and maybe a few other things. The lead rocket surgeon with the bright idea for this article is Congressman David Beyer (D-VA). In August of this year (2023) he put forth H.R. 5135, which is a piece of legislation that would impose a 1,000% excise tax on the sale of large capacity ammunition devices, also known as magazines and semiautomatic “assault weapons”, which would most likely include rifles and pistols that fall into the “definition” of “assault weapon”. At the time of writing this article, August 12, 2023, the text for H.R. 5135 was not available. If history is any indication of the bill text, I would assume the bill will mirror or closely resemble H.R. 8051 from the 117thcongress. That bill, which was named Assault Weapon Excise Act was introduced in June of 2022 by nonother than Congressman David Beyer (D-VA). The intention of H.R. 8051 was to impose a 1,000 percent excise tax on Second Amendment protected items just like H.R. 5135 does. Although the text for H.R. 5135 is not available, the objective is the same as H.R. 8051 so I will use that as a gauge to what H.R. 5135 will most likely include. Anyway, H.R. 8051 sought to impose a 1,000% excise tax on “high capacity” magazines, which included most detachable magazines that had the capacity to hold 10 or more cartridges. To learn more about the deception behind “high capacity” magazines, I would recommend watching our Current Events Episode 5 video. H.R. 8051 also imposed a 1,000 percent excise tax on “assault weapons” (pistols and rifles) that are vagally defined using arbitrary feature and/or attachments. Remember, the politicians that create this legislation are not subject matter experts and the majority of the time, those same people are not intelligent individuals. You put those two factors together and you are sure to get an ignorant piece of legislation. If you want to read the text for H.R. 8051 to see the definitions, that link is available at the bottom of this article. One of the areas where an excise tax is applies is to harmful things or services, such as gambling, alcohol and tobacco. This is commonly referred to as a sin tax. One of the reasons behind an excise tax or sin tax is to compensate the government for the high social cost these harmful things or services might impose. The theory is, if it cost more, then people are less likely to do it or do more of it because of the financial burden they absorb, assuming they consume, use, or participate with that thing or service legally. Another example of excise taxes are fuel and some retirement/investment accounts. So again, this is not a new concept and unfortunately, there are already excise taxes applied to items protected by the Second Amendment. 1919 brought about the first excise tax on firearms and ammunition as part of the tax increase associated with World War I. Of course, even after the war ended, some of the taxes remained. Since then, excise taxes have been removed and re-imposed on firearms and ammunition. The current excise tax on firearms and ammunition is 10%, which in my opinion is 10% too much. H.R. 8051 and H.R. 5135 is legislation that 100…or should I say, 1,000 percent targets law abiding citizens, which tells me the politicians who drafted and proposed this legislation 1,000 percent think that law abiding citizens who choose to exercise their Second Amendment Right are viewed as a larger problem than the lawless criminals committing violent crimes using a firearm. If they did not think that, they would not be pushing legislation that will only apply to law abiding citizens who legally purchase a firearm. Last time I checked, when criminals buy an illegal firearm they do not pay taxes on it. Furthermore, if passed, this legislation will not start making them pay taxes on illegally purchased firearms. Therefore, this does not apply to or target lawless criminals. This will not act as a deterrent to lawless criminals. It will however act as a deterrent to law abiding citizens who wanted to purchase a firearm but cannot afford the 1,000% tax. Not only should these politicians be voted out of office, but they should be held criminally and civilly liable for their actions. With this proposal, they have penned their name to a document that shows specific intent, without due process or justification of action, to intentionally coerce or influence law abiding citizens from being able to exercise their Second Amendment Right using unjust and unreasonable taxation. This is the gray area that they are deceptively playing in. These politicians are not depriving law abiding citizens of their Second Amendment Right as they are not specifically banning the purchase of a firearm or Second Amendment protected items, they are targeting an individual’s financial ability to purchase a firearm or Second Amendment protected item. A law-abiding citizen can still purchase a Second Amendment protected item as long as they can afford it. Another way to say this is, a law-abiding citizen can still exercise their Second Amendment Right, assuming they have the money to afford the protection of this right. What they are essentially doing is penalizing law-abiding citizens for using or wanting to use a right. This penalty would be issued without a law-abiding citizen breaking any laws or demonstrating a reasonable fear or concern that any laws might be broken by them. Instead, the law-abiding citizen is forced to pay an unreasonable amount of money (tax) simply to use a right they already have. The politicians pushing this legislation say this is a necessary step to reduce gun violence. But again, how will charging law-abiding citizens a 1,000% tax discourage lawless criminals from using a firearm during the commission of a crime? If in fact their objective was to truly reduce gun violence, they would put forth legislation that would target lawless criminals. Since this legislation specifically targets law-abiding citizens, it is clear that the objective here is to impose a great financial burden through the form of punishment upon law-abiding citizens that will strongly discourage and in most cases, prevent a law-abiding citizen from exercising their Second Amendment Right. Now if you are anti-Second Amendment, you probably support this type of legislation. Remember though, the grass is always greener because they used more shit. Don’t think for a second these same politicians will not come for a right you support and use, or any of your other important rights. For instance, what if politicians propose a 1,000% tax on the protection the Fourth Amendment provides, which is unreasonable search and seizures by the government. This would be very difficult to do, but if it was for your safety, they could possibly pursed people to go along with it. For instance, if they said, “criminals use defense attorney’s to beat criminal charges, that is dangerous and detrimental to the wellbeing of society. So, by imposing a 1,000% excise tax on legal counsel, most criminals won’t be able to afford it.” Most people would probably think to themselves, “well yeah, that makes sense. Law abiding citizens don’t need defense attorney’s. I support this and gladly surender my right for the illusion of safety!” Then when the government undoubtedly abuses their power and starts searching and seizing everyone and everything, you are screwed. Once you offer up your freedoms and rights on a platter to the government, you don’t get them back. Anyway, this would not deprive you of your right, but if they imposed a 1,000% tax on any and all legal counsel there is a very high probably you would live with the repercussion of an unreasonable search and/or seizure by the government because representation from a $5,000 defense attorney would now be $50,000. What if the government charges you a 1,000% tax anytime you use your First Amendment Right? People say mean things all the time using their First Amendment Right. Given the right opportunity and social sentiment, they could justify a limitation to this right because of a high social cost these harmful words might impose. A reasonable person can assume if the government can tax an individual to use one right (the Second Amendment), they can also tax them to use all rights. When a right requires permission to use or a tax paid in order for use, that right is no longer a right, it is a privilege and a privilege can be revoked at any point for any reason by the issuer. Don’t say, “that’ll never happen” because that statement is only true until it does happen. History is filled with frightful moments that people never thought would happen. On top of the issues I have already mentioned, think about another aspect this proposed legislation brings about. If a 1,000% tax turns a $600 pistol before purchase into a $6,000 pistol after purchase, how many people can realistically afford that? Not that many. In the current environment, a lot of people already struggle to purchase a $600 pistol. People depend on firearms to provide effective means of self-defense. The people who live in high crime areas might need that protection more than those who live in low crime areas or those people who live behind tall walls or have security details. Typically, people who live in high crime areas also fall into the low-income category. If you fall into the low-income category, you probably can’t afford to pay a 1,000% tax on a firearm you desperately depend on to protect you and your family from violent criminals in your high crime area. I know Congressman David Beyer says that his proposal will make everyone the most safest anyone has ever been, but it actually sound like it creates unsafe environments and situations for low income individuals living in high-crime areas. To be fair, it will make criminals safer because law abiding citizens will not be able to afford to legally purchase a firearm to defend themselves against said criminals…so, there’s that. If this legislation is passed; at that point, the Second Amendment will no longer a right that everyone has access to, including low-income individuals, it will then become a privilege that only a few have access to. Whooo, that’s scary stuff. Just image if the government treated all rights the same way. You’d be living in an unsafe third-world shit hole, but hey, I’m sure that would never happen… My ConclusionThose are my observations and opinions. Although this video is specifically related to the Second Amendment, that does not mean the issue here is only limited to the Second Amendment, obviously. If they are willing to deprive people of certain freedoms and rights using lies, they are willing to do it about all freedoms and rights. The government doesn’t want just a little bit of power, they want is all. Think of the government as a gold-digger. They want your money, they want your time, they want your freedom, they want your possessions. What do you get in return? Even higher taxes, even higher costs of goods, limitations and restrictions on freedoms and rights through unconstitutional laws, and if they have time, they might turn a pothole into a speedbump because they can’t properly fix the roads. It is the job of government to protect our rights not limit them. Elected “leaders” act as though the Second Amendment is meant to limit what the people can and cannot do or what they can and cannot own, but in fact, the only limitation stated within the Second Amendment applies to government – “shall not be infringed”. Rational people understand this, emotional people disregard this and Congressman David Beyer is acting on emotions or just complete distain for your Second Amendment Right. Either way, it is a problem.  Video Version of This ArticleThank you for reading this article. We hope it was informative. If so, please share it with others and don't forget to leave a comment below!
- Intuitive Defense -
"TRAIN. ACT. LIVE." Related Articles
Sources
The topic for this Current Events article is not necessarily a new topic or event, but it is a current Second Amendment issue as there is ongoing litigation and disingenuous talking points being pushed. This article focuses on firearm magazines, more specifically, the ban and limitation of firearm magazines in some areas. As it stands, there are currently 13 states that have some type of firearms magazine ban, limitation, and/or restriction, 14 counting District of Columbia [source 1]. Those states are:
A semi-automatic Glock 17 uses a detachable magazine. Semi-automatic means only one projectile is fired with one press of the trigger. Automatic or “full automatic” means multiple projectiles are fired with one press of the trigger. This will continue until the trigger is released, the ammunition is depleted, or there is a malfunction. Automatic firearms are illegal for a citizen to purchase, own or possess unless certain paperwork is filled out and approved. Remember, automatic firearms are just too dangerous for you to own, unless you pay the government money, then they become less dangerous to own. In order for a Glock pistol (just like the firearms) to fire a projectile (bullet), one single cartridge must be fed or placed into the chamber of the pistol. From there the user would then apply rearward pressure to the trigger until the weapon goes boom due to the firing pine striking the primer located on the bottom of the cartridge or casing. Once that happens, the primer ignites the gun power contained within the casing. Since energy takes the path of least resistance and because the cartridge is securely held in place within the chamber, the energy leak happens where the bullet and casing meet casing the projectile (bullet) to travel down and eventually leave the barrel. After the boom, the pistol slide is forced to the rear and the spent casing is ejected from the pistol. So now that we have a better understanding of ammunition, let's talk about the loading process. Alright, there is really only two ways for a cartridge to enter the chamber. Either by placing it inside the chamber by the operator, which would have to be physically done each time the pistol cycles following the boom and projectile leaving the barrel, or using an ammunition feeding device also known as a magazine. The manufacture issued magazine from Glock for use with their Glock 17 pistol can hold up to 17 cartridges. The magazine is filled 1 cartridge at a time. The purpose of the magazine is to feed a new cartridge into the chamber each time the weapon cycles, which under normal operation is done with each press of the trigger. Assuming there is no blockage, stoppage or other malfunctions, the operator can continue to fire the pistol by pressing the trigger until all ammunition within the magazine and chamber is expended or until they decide to stop pressing the trigger. Most firearm manufactures use a proprietary magazine design for their firearms. That being said, some firearm manufactures will use a certain magazine from another firearm manufacture for their firearm or design a firearm that will use a very common magazine and/or magazine type. For instance, the Palmetto State Armory Dagger pistol (9mm) uses a Glock style 9mm magazine. Another example is the AR15 style rifle platform. There are many firearms manufactures for this weapon system. For the most part, they all use the same style magazine that will function and operate from manufacture to manufacture. There are also non-firearm manufacturer companies that specialize in firearm accessories that design and manufacture their own magazines that will work with specific firearm manufactures and/or certain style firearms. For instance, Magpul Industries manufacture magazines that will work in a Glock or Glock style firearm, along with magazines that will work in an AR15 style firearm. Some firearm manufactures will include a Magpul magazine or magazines with their firearm.
Also, the firearm type can dictate magazine capacity. For instance, a handgun that is designed to be used primarily as a concealed carry handgun typically has a smaller frame for concealment purposes. Because of this, a smaller handgun magazine would be used. Since a smaller magazine is utilized, the cartridge capacity is less than a magazine for a larger frame handgun. An industry standard might influence magazine capacity as well, but it is not because of firearm limitations. For instance, the firearm industry standard for cartridge capacity with an AR15 style firearm is a 30-“round” magazine. Meaning it will hold 30 individual cartridges. There are magazines that can be used in an AR15 style firearm that have a lower capacity than 30 and magazines that have a higher capacity than 30, but the industry standard is 30. The most common type of firearms manufactured and purchased right now are detachable magazine fed firearms. Meaning, the firearm is designed and intended to be used with a detachable magazine. It can operate one cartridge at a time without a magazine, but it was intended to operate with a magazine. The cavoite to this is, some firearm manufactures have what is known as a magazine safety. The firearm, more specifically the firing mechanism will not operate without a magazine, thus converting the firearm into a mean looking paperweight if there is no magazine inside the firearm. Almost all firearm manufactures include a magazine with a firearm. Sometimes they include one magazine, sometimes they include five magazines. Sometimes they include a proprietary magazine, sometimes they include a third-party manufactured magazine. Sometimes they included a magazine or magazines that have a cartridge capacity of seven, sometimes they have a cartridge capacity of 30. Just depends on the firearm and manufacture. Understanding that a firearm magazine, in most cases, is a fundamental part of the firearm, let’s move onto magazine bans. As mentioned earlier, there are 13 states that have a “high-capacity” or “large-capacity” magazine bans in place. The District of Columbia (Washington D.C.) also has a “high-capacity” magazine ban. The term “high-capacity” is a made-up term used by anti-Second Amendment politicians and groups as a way to package their anti-gun bullshit into a more manageable and easier to “sell” box. They would get more pushback if they just said magazine ban than when they say “high-capacity magazine” ban. They are counting on the fact that the people who buy into their anti-Second Amendment bullshit do not know the difference between a “regular” magazine and a “high-capacity” magazine. They are also counting on the fact that those same people don’t know much about firearms and/or self-defense situations to begin with. The anti-Second Amendment politicians and groups intentionally use other people’s lack of firearm knowledge and understanding against them and anticipate that those same people will share factually inaccurate anti-Second Amendment talking points because they don’t know any better. They also know there are willfully ignorant people who despise anything to do with the Second Amendment that will gladly share their propaganda without any consideration of facts. When you think about it, to the person that does not know much about firearms, a “high-capacity” magazine ban is an easy sell because in their mind they think there is a difference between a “high-capacity” magazine and a “standard-capacity” magazine. It’s an easy assumption to make because they use the words “high-capacity”, which would lead a reasonable person to assume if something is labeled high-capacity it is because it exceeds the standard capacity. Due to ammunition types and firearm types, along with other variables, there is no “standard-capacity” magazine that applies to every firearm equally, therefore there is no “standard-capacity”, so the term “high-capacity” is irrelevant. This is the disingenuous verbiage and talking points I mentioned earlier that anti-Second Amendment politicians and groups intentionally use to deceive people and why I felt it was important to discuss firearm magazines previously before getting into this information. If you do not understand firearm magazines, you will have a hard time processing this information and understanding how deceptive these anti-Second Amendment politicians and groups are. If these anti-Second Amendment laws were truly about safety as they claim, then they would not have to use deception to justify their need to infringe on the freedoms and rights of people. So, if it is not about safety, what is it about?... Right now, you might be thinking to yourself, “surly they wouldn’t just create a term that is based on a lie. A high-capacity magazine probably holds significantly more cartridges than the magazine provided by the firearm manufacture and because of that, although there is no standard-capacity magazine, they refer to this larger capacity magazine as a high-capacity magazine”. First, your name probably isn’t Shirley and second, that would be a logical assumption and an easy on to make. Since it is a logical assumption and an easy one to make, it is understandable to see how some people could support the idea of a “high-capacity” magazine ban. So, what is the magic number that creates a “high-capacity” magazine? Obviously, it has to be more than 70, 80, 100, 150, 200 cartridges, right? Wrong, it’s 10. The magic number is 10 cartridges! Which is actually less than the capacity of most included magazines from the firearm manufacture. So, if we use a included manufacture magazine for a Glock 17 as an example, and called it a “standard-capacity” magazine as it pertains to that specific firearm, then in this cases a “high-capacity” magazine is capable of holding fewer cartridges than the “standard-capacity” magazine provided by the firearm manufacture. That doesn't make any sense. Exactly, it is not supposed to make sense. Almost all gun laws don’t make sense. It’s not about making sense or making sensible laws or even about safety, it’s about control, which is why they used to call certain legislation gun control. Anyway, there are a few states with “high-capacity” magazine bans that allow more than 10 cartridges [source 2]. Those are:
The other nine states, along with the District of Columbia limit the allowable cartridges per magazine to 10 in all firearms. Hawaii is the expectation out of these states. Although they still have a limit of 10 cartridges per magazine, their “high-capacity” magazine ban only applies to handguns. What is the idea behind “high-capacity” magazine bans? Well, on paper the theory kind of makes sense if you do not understand criminals, crime, and self-defense situations. The intention is to create a law that will limit the number of cartridges a magazine can lawfully hold and/or limit the number of cartridges that the user of the firearm can lawfully place inside the magazine. By doing this, it will cause the user of the firearm to only be able to fire the legal amount of ammunition contained within the magazine before having to reload the firearm with another magazine which obviously is filled with the legal amount of ammunition. In a situation where multiple people might be randomly shot, the “high-capacity” magazine law will prevent the individual doing the shooting from having more than the legal amount of ammunition contained within the magazine. I guess it’s a fail-safe style law. They figure since the shooter completely disregarded the law preventing them from randomly shooting people, this other law will prevent them from shooting more people… In all reality these are do nothing laws macerating as doing something laws. What I mean by that is, the politicians that create and pass these laws tell you this will reduce crime without them reducing crime because criminals disregard them. The only people these laws effectively target are law abiding citizens, not lawless criminals. Law abiding citizens do not want to break the law and therefore comply. In some states with magazine restrictions and/or “high-capacity” magazine bans, the state does not grandfather already existing and owned magazines into their new ban, which then forces citizens to surrender or destroy their once legal property without any compensation because if they continue to possess magazines which are now classified as “high-capacity” magazines, they are breaking the law. So, if these laws are going to specifically target and negatively impact thousands or millions of law-abiding citizens, why do politicians create these laws? Because it’s easy and they are lazy. They can brag to their constituents that they have done something to help protect people because, even though they have done nothing, and their new law negatively impacts more people than it “protects”. Also, the majority of these politicians are not subject matter experts on firearms, so they really have no idea what they are doing or talking about. Oregon Ballot Measure 114 [source 5]. This was a piece of legislation that introduced, among other things, a ban on the manufacture, purchase or sale of magazines capable of holding more than 10 cartridges. This was recently challenged in Federal Court and unfortunately, upheld as constitutional in July of 2023 [source 6]. According to Federal Judge Immergut “large-capacity” magazines are not commonly used for self-defense and are therefore not protected but the Second Amendment. Because of this, the state of Oregon can set cartridge capacity limits on firearms magazines. Q: Are magazines commonly used for self-defense? A: Yes, because most common use firearms that are currently manufactured, sold, and possessed require the use of a detachable magazine. Q: Because of this, are magazines then protected by the Second Amendment? A: Yes, because they are a fundamental part of that firearm. My conclusion for those questions, the Judge was wrong on this ruling, and I believe it will be challenged. I know sometimes Judges do not want to be the first to do something, especially when their ruling can go against the government or set a precedent, so sometimes it’s just easier for them to side with the government and let another judge deal with it if the ruling is appealed. In my opinion the Judge here either capitulated and sided with the government or the Judge does not fully understand firearms, their operation and function, along with self-defense situations. I think the second option is the most realist option as the Judge included the term “high-capacity” magazines when relating to self-defense situations. As I have already talked about, the term “high-capacity” magazine is a generic term and does not apply to all firearm magazines equally, therefore, it cannot be applied to all firearm, firearm magazines, and self-defense situations equally. You must break it down even further. Either the Second Amendment protects firearm magazines, or it doesn’t. The capacity of the magazine is irrelevant. The Judge failed to do that. All of that was said to say this, the politicians that put forth anti-Second Amendment legislation and the judges that rule in favor of it say or think they are “protecting” people, but in all reality, they are putting people in an even worse situation when they are faced with a life-or-death threat and they only protection they have is themselves. Getting the exact number of defensive gun use or self-defense satiations when a gun is used and/or present for protection is difficult because a situation might not always be reported to law enforcement or it might not be tracked if it is reported. Typically, if a gun is fired in self-defense, it is report. If a gun is just present or shown in a self-defense situation it might not be reported. Depending on what statistics you look at, research you study, or articles you read, self-defense situations involving a firearm can happen anywhere between 70,000 – 1.5 million times a year [source 7]. I know that is a large gap, but in my opinion, I believe defensive gun use situations/uses are on the higher end of this range. Most politicians and media outlets are quick to talk about how bad guns are and how we need more gun laws because the hundreds of already existing gun laws are not working, but a new one will solve the problem. Sure... Although there are evil people out there that do horrible things using guns, there are even more people out there that rely on a firearm for self-defense. Those are the people that are intentionally left out by most politicians and media because they don’t want people understand there is a legitimist use for firearms. These are also the same people that gun laws specifically target and negatively effect. Since the government cannot 100% guarantee your safety 100% of the time, self-defense is a personal responsibility. The most effective means of self-defense is a firearm. Seeing as how certain firearms require the use of a detachable magazine in order to operate and properly function; when an individual who decides to exercise their Second Amendment Right chooses a magazine fed firearm as their means of effective protection, firearm magazines then become a necessary and fundamental part of that firearm. Since millions of individuals own magazine fed firearms, magazines therefore become commonly used for self-defense and protected by the Second Amendment. Also, since there is no definitive answer on how many bullets are always necessary to always stop a threat and/or threats in every self-defense situation, the Government cannot dictate the reasonable, appropriate, and/or maximum/minimum amount of bullets needed for a self-defense situation, therefore, the Government should not enforce magazine capacity limitations. Because of this, any and all firearm magazine bans and/or limitations are a direct infringement on the Second Amendment Right of citizens. My ConclusionIn my opinion, I believe the Government intentionally infringes on the freedoms and rights of the people, and although they say the justification is safety, their motivation is for other reasons. Don’t fall victim to their deception or subtilty go along with their verbiage. If you give them an inch, they will take a mile. Also, take into consideration that a lot of politicians are either ignorant or willfully ignorant on a lot of topics, so be cautious on what they are saying because they are probably an idiot. I wish the Government and its representatives worked as hard to protect the freedoms and rights of people as they do to limit them.  Video Version of This ArticleThank you for reading this article. We hope it was informative. If so, please share it with others and don't forget to leave a comment below!
- Intuitive Defense -
"TRAIN. ACT. LIVE." Related Articles
Sources
In this article I will be talking about a current event that demonstrates how certain politicians and groups use misleading words to push a certain narrative to further their anti-Second Amendment agenda. Before moving on, let me just say that the job of elected leaders is to protect the freedoms and rights of the people they represent from government overreach, along with working to the betterment of their constituents. In short, making the community or area they represent a better place while preserving freedoms and rights. The priority is the people, not themselves or their agendas. Unfortunately, that is not always the case. There are many elected leaders who hold certain offices or positions that tirelessly work to their own benefit. To be fair, this is not a problem that is exclusive to a specific party, state, or even country. There are elected leaders all over the world who work to the benefit of themselves, instead of the people. In most cases their motivation is the following or a combination thereof:
Many elected leaders are known for their fancy talk and emotional speeches. Often these speeches are “compiling” and help steer a narrative in a certain direction based on their energy and words. The energy is usually part of the show, but the words tell the true story of intent. Verbiage is very important and often used to intentionally mislead people by saying specific words that are similar, interchangeable, or just overlooked. It is important to understand that when this happens, it is not by accident, but by design, in most cases. The curator of the statement carefully selects a specific word or words to create an emotional response. The definition of the word does not fit the context of the statements, but the intention is not on the definition, but the word itself because of the emotional value that word can provide. When this happens, the curator of the statement knows full well what they have done, but they do not care because the statement was never intended to be factually correct, just emotionally appealing. They also know that willfully ignorant people will defend the statement even when it is pointed out that the verbiage was incorrect and the information is factually wrong because those same people will stay something to the extent of, “but the message is still the same”. That’s like me saying, math is important, 2 plus 2 is 5 and then someone says I am wrong and then I say, but the message is still the same, math is still important!
Let’s break down his statement starting with the first sentence. “Gun violence is the leading cause of death for children in America”. That is not true. He used the word “children”. Maybe by accident or as a generic term to describe a young human, but most likely the word was selected by design. When the word “child” is used, it typically makes the listener/reader mentally picture an incent and playful young human. This could cause an emotional reaction when associating death, more specifically a gun related death to that visual image of the child, leading to outrage and/or anger from the listener/reader. This outrage and/or anger is not focused on the person or actions responsible for the death, it is focus on the object (gun) highlighted and associated with the death. It is important to understand the word “children” he used and the context in which he used is not as matter of fact as he stated. I’ll break this short, but powerfully misleading sentence down. According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the American Medical Associations (AMA) age designations are as follows [source 2]:
It should be noted there are many different age levels and definitions of the word child as it pertains to age. Some definitions and groups use the word child when describing a human from birth to 18 years of age. Some use the word child from birth to 10 years of age all the way to 15 years of age. Adolescents is typically the definition given to a young human who is between the age of 10-18. Again, some definitions and groups set the adolescent ages in different ranges. For instance, the American Medical Association (AMA) use an adolescent age range from 13-17 years of age, Johns Hopkins [source 3], when describing gender differences and biological changes, uses an adolescent age range 13-18 years of age, and the World Health Organization (WHO) [source 4] uses an adolescent age range from 10-19 years of age. The World Health Organization has a larger breath of coverage and might use 19 years of age as the adolescent cut off because the age of majority (the age at which an individual has legal control of their person, actions, and decisions) is higher in some countries than it is in most states within the United States. It is important to note that within the United States 18 years of age is when an individual is legally considered an adult. (age of majority), therefore they do not fall into the “children” category. There are only three states where the age of majority is higher. Those are [source 5]:
Anyway, as we can see, verbiage is very important, and the lack of correct verbiage can make the meaning and message of a statement different. He did not say gun violence is the leading cause of death for children, adolescents, and teenagers or young adults, he only said children because that would spark a more emotional response from people than the larger age gap would. Him including the other age groups would cause further questions and potentially lead to the failure of an emotional response to his vague word usage. Again, this is not about truth and facts, this is about emotions. You cannot debate facts with an individual who argues with emotions. If this statement was about truth, he would have made it truthful. Meaning, he would have included other important and descriptive words to correctly cover the age groups represented in the study he quietly references. He would not have only used the word child in his statement as it is factually inaccurate. I am assuming the “data” he is “referencing” is from a letter published to the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) in April of 2022 [source 6]. In this letter it states the leading cause of death among children and adolescents (defined as person 1 to 19 years of age) in 2020 was firearm-related injuries. In this letter it specifically uses the words children and adolescents, which is why it was important to cover the age groups earlier. Although death caused by firearm-related injuries is up, this letter does not focus on the causes themselves. All these deaths are tragic, but understanding the causes give more context to the numbers and the problem. Included in those numbers are:
Suicide: There is a very high probability that an individual who used a firearm to commit suicide would have still committed suicide if a firearm was not an option. These are individuals who were intent on taking their own life, regardless of the means in which it was done. Meaning, when they are ready, they will find a way to do it whether it is falling from a high structure, overdosing on medication, using a sharp object, using a firearm, or intentionally putting themselves in a situation where they will probably be killed. Homicide: Firearm-related assaults where the intent was great bodily harm or death are most frequently committed by people between the age groups of 15-35 years of age in the year 2020 [source 7]. Gang related or affiliated assaults would be included in this number. Recent gang data is not as prevalent or in some cases as detailed as older data, but I would image the statistic are still relevant today. [source 8] [source 9] [source 10] The largest age range commonly associated with gangs are individuals 15-24 years of age. The majority of their members are within that age group. Individuals 15-17 years of age is commonly referred to as “youth gangs” and individuals 18-24 is commonly referred to as “adult gangs”. The average age of a gang member is 17-18 years of age [source 11]. This is relevant because of the statement made by Hakeem Jeffries where he attributes firearm-related death to children only, when in fact, adolescents and young adults (18 years of age or older) are being factored into those numbers. When you look at individual deaths from firearm-related injuries between the age group of 1-14 years of age [reference source 7 again], those numbers are dramatically lower than those that would include the adolescent and adult age range used in the New England Journal of Medicine letter. Ironically enough, gang related and gang affiliated deaths from firearms-related injuries of individuals who are 17, 18, and 19 years of age are also included in those numbers within the letter and would be part of the “children” statement made by Hakeem Jeffries. Accidental: As mentioned before, accidental, or negligent death from firearm-related injuries is also included in those numbers as it should be, but it is important to understand there was no specific intent to cause great bodily harm or death. It was a series of unfortunate events that lead to it. The same is true when a newborn, infinite, child, adolescent, or adult dies from any other accidental or negligent means. So, if firearm-related injuries are not the leading cause of death for children, by definition, what is? According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), accidents (unintentional injuries) are the leading cause of death in children [source 12]. The CDC separates the child health data into three age groups:
The top three leading causes of death for children 1-4 years of age is:
The top three leading causes of death for children 5-9 years of age is:
The top three leading causes of death for children 10-14 years of age is:
Under adolescent health [source 13] on the CDC website, the top three leading causes of death for adolescents 15-19 years of age is:
According to the definition and data, the statement made by Hakeem Jeffries of, “gun violence is the leading cause of death for children in America” is not correct. Either he is intentionally deceiving the American people, or he is ignorant on this topic. Either way, it is a problem because he is actively using his position to limit and reduce the freedoms and rights of the American people using lies and ignorance. Freedom is not free, but once it is had by the people, it is continually chipped away at by individuals who desire to take back that freedom. Typically, this is done using lies and the justification is safety. For your safety, “insert the lie”. Hakeem Jeffries is that individual chipping away at your freedom using lies to reduce your Second Amendment Right in an effort to make you “safer”. He is not the only person pushing this lie though, which to me, shows that there is specific intent to deceive the American people on this topic because it is a talking point regurgitated by so many individuals. Almost as though it is a coordinated attack in an effort to make this lie become “truth” by continually saying it. (to view videos of politicians saying the same or similar lies, use the source links at the bottom of this article or watch the Intuitive Defense Current Events E3 also located at the bottom of this article). Getting back to the tweet posted by Hakeem Jeffries, more specifically the second sentence, “Yet right-wing extremists in the House voted this week with the NRA to make it easier to kill innocent Americans” I believe the vote Hakeem references is the repeal of the pistol stabilizing brace rule H.J. Res. 44 (House Joint Resolution 44) [source 14] which is sponsored by Rep. Clyde Andrew (R-GA) and passed the House by a vote of 219-210 on June 13, 2023. Anyway, nothing within the text of H.J.Res. 44 makes it easier to kill innocent Americans. The focus of H.J. Res. 44 is to overturn the new pistol stabilizing brace “rule” put out by the ATF in January of 2023. The pistol stabilizing brace is a piece of plastic that does not dramatically alter the way a pistol functions or fires. If you want to learn more about that “rule” or a pistol stabilizing brace, we discuss it in our Current Events episode 1 video which is linked in the description of this video. Hakeem is being emotionally dramatic because he is an emotional person, not a logical person. He also associates a YEA vote (in support of) for H.J. Res. 44 as a “right-wing” extremist ideology. Making it sound as though some radical faction of individuals which is comprised of only “right-wing” people are in support of repealing the new ATF pistol stabilization brace “rule”. There is an estimated 20-40 million pistol stabilizing braces owned by American citizens. I personally know individuals who affiliate as a demarcate, liberal, or libertarian who exercise their Second Amendment Right through firearms ownership. Those same individuals also own or have owned an AR style pistol equipped with a pistol stabilizing brace and do not agree with the new ATF “rule”. Seeing as how they themselves said they are not affiliated with the Republican Party or even on the “right”, how do they fit into this “right-wing extremist” category mentioned by Hakeem Jeffries? It would seem to me that Hakeem uses emotionally charged verbiage to lump a large group of people together in a very specific category in an attempt to paint a certain picture using only the broad strokes of a paintbrush. The best way to understand a painting is through the details. You know what broad stokes leave out? The details? If Hakeem Jeffries was a rational person, he would concentrate on the details. Emotional people use broad strokes and vague statements. I don’t know about you, but I do not want elected official or leaders making decisions or creating law based on feelings and emotions, because those are subjective. I want them making decisions or creating law based on facts and logic. My ConclusionIn my opinion, emotional people have a hard time debating or explaining their opinions, principles, and ideas because those are founded in emotions, which can change with the wind. This is typically why they tent to yell or be quickly and wildly accusatory of others because emotions are all they have. They cannot debate facts because they do not have logic. They also want to be a part of the latest trend or support the latest thing because of the emotional appeal or the “virtue” that is comes with it. That’s a lot of wishy-washy shit that causes leaders to make poor and uninformed decisions that can potentially affect (usually negatively) hundreds, or thousands, or millions of people. It’s kind of ironic that he mentioned children in his tweet. You know whose entire world is emotions? Children. Children are very emotional creatures. Children operate on emotions; adults should operate on facts. If Hakeem Jeffries truly cared about the lives of children, he would act like an adult. Anyway, the verbiage and the lies associated with it might seem like a small issue and not worth the hassle of identifying or even calling out, which is exactly what freedom grabbing people like him want you to think. The small issues are used to drive larger narratives meant to deprive you of something. They do not need to take all your freedoms and rights at one time using force when they can coerce you into freely giving away your freedoms and rights over time. As I have said before, as it pertains to your freedoms and rights, the Second Amendment protects the rest. There is a reason why the power-hungry elitist politicians, leaders, notable figures, and certain groups are always going after the Second Amendment. It has nothing to do with your safety as an individual, it has to do with the safety of their agenda, whatever that may be. If they can take away your freedom and right to effectively protect yourself (a gun), then it is easier to take away your other freedoms and rights. Throughout history, governments who seek more power and control also sought disarmament of it’s people. Don’t ingest the lies served to you on a platter of emotions and think you are better off without a specific freedom or right. If you give them an inch, they will take a mile. Hakeem Jefferies and other individuals like him are just asking for an inch of your freedoms and rights at the moment. Pro tip: Don’t sacrifice your freedoms and rights for the illusion of safety. In the eyes of the government, and as it relates to your freedoms and rights, you will never be safe. They will always find a new danger that requires you to give something else up in order to remove the fear.  Video Version of This ArticleThank you for reading this article. We hope it was informative. If so, please share it with others and don't forget to leave a comment below!
- Intuitive Defense -
"TRAIN. ACT. LIVE." Related Articles
Sources
Politicians do not their lack ignorance prevent them from selling their talking points to other people who are just as ignorant on the same topic. This then becomes regurgitated by other people who are too lazy to do their own research or who are emotionally loyal to a particular agenda regardless of how inaccurate the information is. This eventually snowballs into a version of their own “truth” that becomes a steadfast talking point used by other…idiots. By the time the facts and truth finally filter through, it does not matter, the damage has already been done and the majority of the people have already forgotten the lies said. Unfortunately, most politicians are never held accountable for their actions or their words. To help steer a narrative in a particular direction, many politicians can say whatever they want to say or need to say on a particular subject without any correction of facts. If you are on the side of further infringement of freedoms and rights, you are ok with that. If you are on the side of less infringement of freedoms and rights, you are not ok with that. At the moment, a large population of people within society seem to not only want less freedoms and rights, but they support the deceptive means in which politicians and government strip people of their freedoms and rights. It is not in the interest of The People to encourage government to become larger and more controlling. Power gained by government is power lost by people. Just because some people do not want to use their freedoms and rights, does not mean they have the authority to prevent me from using mine or you from using yours. Just because a freedom and right exists does not mean you have to use it. That choice is up to you. The important part of this is the freedom and right stays in place in the event you ever decide to use it. We should all agree that Ignorance is not a trait we want in leaders. Article VideoSources used in the Current Events E3 video:
In June 2023, a proposal for a 28th Amendment was put forth by Governor Gavin Newsom out of California [source 1]. Before getting into that, let me just do a brief overview of the important documents that pertain to our freedoms and rights and the process in which one of those documents can be amended. We have the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution. They are two different documents but are often confused [source 2]. The Declaration of Independence is a list of grievances against the crown in England. This document was created in 1776 for the purpose of separation from British rule. The United States Constitution is a legal document that contains laws and principles to establish a system for governance. This document was created in 1787 and first ratified in 1791 with the first 10 amendments known as the Bill of Rights [source 3]. Currently there are 27 Amendments to the United States Constitution [source 4]. Throughout our history, there has only been one amendment repealed, which was the 18th amendment (Prohibition of Liquor) through the use of the 21st amendment (Repeal of Prohibition). Side note. As it stands, the only amendment repealed was one that limited freedoms and rights (the 18th Amendment). Regardless of your stance or opinion on alcohol, the 18th Amendment removed the freedom and right from people to make their own decision on alcohol. You do not have to agree with a particular freedom or right, but you should agree with the ability for people to make their own choices on how they want to use their freedoms and rights as long as their use of them does not deprive others of their freedoms and rights. It is also important to understand that the government can’t simply remove or repeal an Amendment on their own. What I mean by this is, they can’t just say, you know what, the Fourth Amendment (unreasonable searches and seizures) doesn’t exist anymore. We’re removing it from the constitution. The only way to repeal an amendment is with the ratification of a new amendment that would specifically alter, limit, or repeal a previous amendment. For example, the 21st Amendment had to be ratified in order to repeal the 18th amendment. The only way to repeal an amendment is through the ratification of a new amendment [source 5]. In order to ratify a new amendment, it must be Constitutional. Meaning, the proposal of a new Amendment (stand-alone or repeal) must be done one of two ways.
A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States). The proposal and ratification process can be lengthy and detailed. This is a good thing because it helps keep or slow a power-hungry government or leaders from gaining power overnight. Welcome to June 2023, the current event moment. As mentioned in the video intro, Governor Gavin Newsom has invoked Article 5 of the United States Constitution (the process to alter the Constitution) by releasing a promotional video [source 6] proposing the idea of a 28th Amendment, which targets the Second Amendment. He will have you believe the addition of a 28th Amendment protects freedoms and rights, but it specifically places limitation or bans on certain aspects protected by the Second Amendment. By definition, if you are seeking to limit or reduce individual freedoms and rights you are not protecting individual freedoms and rights and therefor are infringing on them. So, he is either ignorant on his own proposal or he is lying and deceiving people using verbiage that alters his true intentions. Either way, his actions are problematic and designed to take away from the American people. I have said in previous videos and articles that governments and leaders us a common “this is for your safety” tactic or justification to coerce people into surrendering their freedoms and rights. Governor Gavin Newsom is deploying the same strategy with the 28th Amendment “Campaign for Democracy” video. From the second this video starts; he is using fear and emotions to push his idea. He highlights tragedies and introduces some pro-Second Amendment villains as a way to subtlety demonize the gun and people who support certain types of guns while at the same time introducing himself as the hero. Keep in mind, Governor Gavin Newsom is a politician, and a very good one at that. Not good in the sense he uses facts and logic to do what’s best for the people he supposedly represents, but good in the sense that he uses fear and emotions to do what’s best for him. Usually, good politicians work to the benefit of themselves, which is what makes them good, they can play the game and stay in the spotlight longer. They say and do things in preparation for their next move within the political environment. Due to his recent Campaign for Democracy tour in several states [source 7] some people are speculating he might throw his name in the hat for a Presidential run in 2024. If those speculations are correct, his video introducing his idea for the 28th Amendment, in political terms, would be a very good move for him. Not only would this give him a controversial topic to run on, but he would also be leading the charge on it. If this is correct and he does run for president, this whole 28th Amendment proposal is for political gain. Again, he is doing something for himself, not the American people, no matter how virtuous he makes this sound, this is for selfish reasons. Also, keep in mind, if him running for President is the case, he wants to limit the rights and freedoms of people to better himself. That is just my opinion. Maybe he is just testing the waters with this video or maybe he has no intention on running for President, maybe this is just his way to be known for something more than just being the Governor of California. Whatever his motivation is, in my opinion it is not about saving lives. The 28th Amendment is seeking to add 4 new additions to the law.
If he was truly concerned about saving lives or reducing crime where a gun or any other weapon for that matter is used, these new laws would specifically target lawless, violent criminals for their actions, not law-abiding citizens for no actions. Keep in mind, a gun is an object, just like a bat, hammer, knife, car, etc. For that object to do harm a person must interact with it. Instead of blaming the actions of the person who used it, they blame the object. So, in all reality, he and other ant-gun politicians and anti-gun groups do not have as big of a problem with the actions of violent criminals as they do with the object (gun). They make it sound as though if the object (gun) was not there, the violent, lawless criminal would have never done violent, lawless criminal things. They also act as though a new law will magically prevent criminals from doing criminal things. If that was the case, then all the existing gun laws would prevent crimes involving guns, all drug laws would prevent crimes involving drugs, and all murder laws would prevent crimes involving murders. If it’s one thing I’ve learned, it’s criminals will not break a new law… We do not have an object (gun) problem, we have people problem. Something has shifted in our society that is influencing people to do horrible things to each other with or without the use of objects (bats, hammers, knives, cars, etc.). If people like Governor Gavin Newsom truly wanted to fix the problem, they would address the real issue (people) not an object (gun). Therefore, if he wants to ignore the real issue, what is his true motivation to go after the object (gun)? With an estimated 400 million guns in the United States, if guns were in fact the problem, we’d know about it because everyone would be dead, some twice. Raising the Minimum Age to Purchase a Gun to 21 Increase the minimum age requirement to purchase a gun to 21. For a handgun, that is already the minimum age, but for a rifle or shotgun it is 18. I do not agree with this. In fact, I do not agree with the already excising minimum age requirement to purchase a handgun. In most states the age of majority, the age at which an individual has legal control of their person, actions, and decisions is 18. If at this age they are considered an adult and can vote or enter into military service, they should not have an additional limitation to exercise their Second Amendment Right. Especially now that there are many people and groups that are pushing for individuals under the age of majority to make life altering decisions without parent or garden consent or to even vote. It would seem to me that if a minor is adult enough to do some things, then they are adult enough to do other things when they reach the age of majority, including exercising their Second Amendment Right. Universal Background Checks Background checks are already in place and used when an individual purchases a firearm from an FFL (Federal Firearms Licensees) at a gun store or gun show. In most cases they are not needed for private transactions, but that is something they want to change and track. Universal background checks are nothing more than a way to create a gun registry. Which might sound like a good idea, but a registry makes confiscation easier and is the path that leads to deprivation of rights. History has proven this. Leaders with evil intentions stripped people of their means of protection before stripping them of their freedoms and rights. It’s not hyperbole, weaker people are easier to control. The Second Amendment protects the rest. Meaning, if the Second Amendment is repealed or modified, the people lose the means to effectively protect their individual freedoms and rights. It’s a domino effect. When one falls, they all eventually fall as a result of the first. A Reasonable Waiting Period for Gun Purchases A reasonable waiting period for all gun purchases. Notice, he does not say what this time period might be. It could be an hour; it could be 3 months. I do not agree with this, or the current waiting periods used in some places already, including California. This is a right, not a privilege therefore you should not have to wait before exercising your right. It is your right to use it when you want, not the governments right to tell you when you can use it. Due to the failed policies founded on flawed ideologies of some leaders throughout the United States, along with soft on crime District Attorneys and lower numbers within law enforcement, criminals are become even more embolden. Because of this, a large amount of people have decided to take responsibility for their wellbeing by exercising their Second Amendment Right. Over the last few years gun purchases and new gun owners (first time buyers) have increased. Women and minorities responsible for a large percentage of those numbers [source 8] and [source 9]. If an individual is worried enough to become a new gun owner, that means they feel there is a possibility of a large threat present, and they immediately want a more effective means of protection. Since bad things can happen to good people within the blink of an eye, they should not be forced to undergo a “reasonable” and arbitrary waiting period due to the failures of government. It should be noted these new gun owner numbers include people who never wanted or “liked” guns, but now they understand the benefit of being able to protect themselves or others more effectively. I personally know several people who were “never gunners” and encouraged the big government principle of stricter gun laws but are now gun owners who see the dangers and misconceptions (often lies) of gun laws. Taking an anti-gun stance, especially for “virtuous” reasons is your right, but you do not have a right to limit or reduce my right because of your “virtue” or “fear” or willful ignorance. My theory is I would rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it. The safety of an individual and means to self-defense is not something that can wait a “reasonable” amount to time. Banning the Civilian Purchase of Assault Weapons Bans civilians from buying “assault rifles”. This is a generic term used by anti-gun people and anti-gun groups based solely on how a rifle looks and the attachments it might have. Usually when you hear an individual use the term “assault rifle” that is a pretty good indication they have no idea what they’re talking about, and the next few sentences will be regurgitated BS they’ve heard other idiots say. An “assault rifle” and “weapon of war” is specific verbiage designed to illicit an emotional response. The majority of anti-gun people and groups argue on emotions instead of debate on facts. It is very hard to prove or disprove what a person feels, which is why they use emotional verbiage and talking points to further their agenda because they are never wrong…they are also never right too. Facts are just that, facts and can be statistically proven or disproven. Emotional people will not use facts and often when facts are provided, they fall back on emotions. It is obvious when this happens because they will be the loudest person in the room saying the most ridiculous things. When all else fails, they just resort to labelling or name calling. This of course happens on most topics, not just guns. Anyway, our Founding Fathers used “weapons of war” to defend themselves (and others) from a tyrannical government. Given the technological advancements made throughout history, it is ignorant to assume the Founding Fathers did not anticipate future advancements in firearms. Therefore, the Second Amendment protects the freedoms and rights for people to own, poses, and use all weapons, regardless of the title given to them or time period they exist. There is a reason the Second Amendment does not set limitations on the types of weapons. Matter of fact, the only limitation within the Second Amendment is to government. Shall not be infringed. People like using the term “common sense gun control” or “common sense gun laws”. “Common sense gun control” was typically a term used by anti-gun politicians and anti-gun groups. They have since stated using the term “common sense gun laws” because gun control implies controlling guns and the anti-gun politicians and anti-gun groups were getting called out over it, especially when they would say, “no one is coming for your guns” right after saying, “common sense gun control”. They didn’t change their position; they just changed the words, which is something that happens a lot. Although the words are slightly different now, the action is still the same. Limitation of freedoms and rights either through gun control or gun laws. Making good people helpless does not make bad people harmless My ConclusionTowards the end of his video he states, “to protect our communities and to protect our freedoms, support the 28th”. Supporting the 28th 100% limits freedoms and rights, he even said that by using words like “ban”. That’s what this whole thing is about. Again, you cannot protect freedoms and rights by limiting freedoms and rights. That’s like saying, “support driving safe by driving your car off a cliff” Remember, this new amendment idea is coming from a guy that not too long-ago limited peoples freedoms and rights in the name of safety, but conveniently, it was safe enough for him and his friends to do the very things he deprived others of. He is part of the “rules for thee, not for me” crowd. Not to mention, he has the luxury of an armed security detail who if necessary will use an “assault rifle” or “weapon of war” in defense of Governor Gavin Newsom. Kind of ironic that again, it is not safe enough for you to own such a weapon, but it is safe enough for him to be surrounded by people who have those weapons…”rules for thee, not for me”… Now I’m sure someone would argue, “he is the Governor, and he is very important and deserves to be safe”. Sure, I get it, but is his safety more important to the average citizen then their own safety? The average citizen does not have a security detail. They are their own security. So, if an “assault rifle” or “weapon of war” is good enough for Governor Gavin Newsome’s security detail to use for his security, they are also good enough for the average citizen to use for their security. At the end of the day, the reason of use is the same, protection. If Governor Gavin Newsom feels so strongly against the use of certain firearms, he should lead by example and prevent his security detail from using them to potentially save his life should a situation arise. Actually, if he really wants to lead by example and show the average person how much he believes in his new laws and how much safer they will make everyone, especially since California is already implementing so many of those laws, he should immediately dismantle his protection detail and move like the peasants do. Pay attention to the people demanding that you give up your freedoms and rights. They are usually the same people who are in positions that allow for or come with a protective detail, or they have enough money they can pay for security. Their position or their wealth has made them out of touch with reality. I’m not against people having security by any means. If someone has that luxury or can afforded to purchase it, good for them. No hard feelings. That being said, do not deprive me of my right to self-protection while you are enjoying the benefit of someone else protecting you. That is the elitist mentality that Governor Gavin Newsom has displayed on many occasions including now with his 28th Amendment proposal. He does not view The People as equals, he views them as subjects, which is why he want to take your freedoms and rights while making sure his are not affected. If Governor Gavin Newsom does run for president and he is elected, he will be afforded the luxury of Secret Service protection for the rest of his life. Meaning, although he does not think you have the right to purchase an “assault rifle” or “weapon of war” with your own money, money from your own pocket in the form of taxation would help pay for his protection detail armed with “assault rifles” or “weapons of war”. Again,” rules for thee, not for me”. It should be noted that another anti-gun individual who believes there should be limitations of freedoms and rights imposed on people to exercise their Second Amendment Right is the same person who signed (in 2013) the Former Presidents Protection Act of 2012, which reinstated lifetime Secret Service protection [source 10]. This individual is former President Barack Obama. At least anti-gun politicians are consistent in making sure they are continually surrounded by guns for their protection…  Video Version of This ArticleThank you for reading this article. We hope it was informative. If so, please share it with others and don't forget to leave a comment below!
- Intuitive Defense -
"TRAIN. ACT. LIVE." Related Articles
Sources
|
ArticlesOur goal is to provided accurate, informative content on current events, guns, training, and other topics. Categories
All
Archives
November 2024
|
||||||||||||||
RSS Feed
