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 ArticleRelated Articles
Sources
0 Comments
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 ArticleRelated Articles
Sources
Questions for the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) As It Pertains to Stabilizing Braces5/5/2023 The Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) administration has now retroactively decreed through a new unconstitutional and arbitrary "rule" (ATF Rule 2021R-08F) earlier this year (January 31, 2023) that pistol stabilizing braces are now 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. Thankfully, the ATF was kind enough to allow for an amnesty period that expired on June 1, 2023. Following the amnesty period, the ATF expects law-abiding citizens to bend the knee, or what they call "comply" with their new "rule". Compliance with the new "rule" is not as simple as it should be. This is due to government overcomplicating things, along with conflicting statements made by Steven Dettelbach (ATF Director) during his testimony (under oath) before Congress on April 26, 2023 (testimony link) and then later by the ATF. During questioning from Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), Director Steven Dettelback implied through a statement that if an individual simply removed the stabilizing brace from their pistol, that was sufficient means of compliance. The ATF later stated that was not sufficient means of compliance and laid forth the following guidance.
All of those "options" provided by the ATF are not rational options. This is why I say that. For over 10 years an individual could legally and without any restrictions own, possess, and use a stabilizing brace on a pistol. That is not opinion or hyperbole, that is fact corroborated by the ATF on multiple occasions. For 10 years the ATF stated it was legal and then because of political pressure (they did the same thing with the bump fire stock following pressure from then President Trump), the ATF altered and/or changed definitions to better fit certain criteria and categories. Then, through the use of a new "rule", they go back on their previous statements and positions to make was what once a legal and common use object now an illegal, but still common use object. The ATF put this new "rule" out after millions of people purchased stabilizing braces. The exact numbers are not known, but estimates are between 10 - 40 million people own a stabilizing brace. This means the ATF, along with the politicians pushing and backing this new "rule" willingly and knowingly put a large number of law-abiding citizens into a no win legal position for possession of an object, that they were told by the government was legal to be in possession of, but now, through no fault of their own and without due process, they are forced to destroy, surrender, or register their property or face criminal prosecution. It is the job of government to protect our rights, not limit them. The actions of the government as it pertains to stabilizing braces is without a doubt limitation of rights. If they are willing to publicly do this to millions of Americans, just think what they will do outside of the public view. Another dangerous aspect of this is the precedent this sets. What other rights will the government arbitrarily infringe on? Some people vigorously embrace this action from the government because those same people do not support the Second Amendment and believe that no private citizen should be able to exercise their Second Amendment Right. That is fine, people have the right to be willfully ignorant. But if those same people think for a second that the government, at some point, will not come for a Right that they support, they are filled with stupidity. History has shown, governments will always seek more power and when they take a Right from the people, the people never get it back. The stabilizing brace issue is a pivotal moment as it pertains to free people. QuestionsQuestion 1: What is the difference between an ATF rule and a law? Question 2: Where does the ATF get the authority to lawfully punish/prosecute a person for breaking or failing to comply with an ATF rule? Question 3: Was this new rule specifically designed to target law abiding citizens who own pistol braces or was this law designed to target lawless, violent criminals who may or may not own pistol braces? Question 4: According to the research done and data compiled by the ATF in order to make this new rule not be arbitrarily constructed and disenfranchise a certain group of people for absolutely no legal reason, who is believed to own more pistol braces. Law-abiding citizens or lawless, violent criminals? Question 5: Who does the ATF have a problem with, law-abiding citizens or lawless, violent criminals? Question 6: Who does the ATF expect to largely comply with this new rule. Law-abiding citizens or lawless, violent criminals? Question 7: If it’s law-abiding citizens why did the ATF create a new rule targeting them? If it’s lawless, violent criminals, why didn’t the ATF create a new rule targeting only the criminal? Question 8: After millions of people legally purchased and used a pistol brace, why did the ATF suddenly change their mind and decide to put law-abiding citizens in a “no win” and compromising situation for owning/using something that was legal and without committing any previous crime? Question 9: According to the research done and data compiled by the ATF, does the ATF believe that the “safety” this new rule brings about benefit society more than it benefits the millions of law abiding citizens that will potentially be labeled and prosecuted as felons now from owning and using a piece of plastic/metal that was once legal and is not a firearm? Question 10: If the benefit to society does not greatly outweigh the damage done to millions of law-abiding citizens, why is the ATF implementing this new rule? What is their motivation? Question 11: The ATF is kind enough to give people options on how they can comply with this new rule (thank you for that). Unfortunately, none of these options provide compensation for loss of property and/or time occurred by the owner in order to comply. The only compensation is lack of prosecution if one complies. Therefore, compelled seems to be a more accurate term as one would be “complying” in lieu of prosecution for owning and using something that even the ATF said was legal not that long ago. One of those options is to register the firearm as short barrel rifle (SBR) what is the realistic turn around time from moment of application submission to approval? As it stands right now, that takes many months. What happens when all of a sudden millions of applications are submitted onto of the backlog. With it now be years? Question 12: As it pertains to bump stocks, in June of 2018 the ATF said they “misclassified” some bump stock devices, which is why the agency is “entitled” to “correct” its “mistakes”. Is the same true with pistol braces? Did the ATF misclassify some pistol braces and are you now “correcting” a “mistake” on your part by issuing this new rule? If so, why does the ATF continually make these “mistakes” that will eventually lead to Americans, in some cases, millions of Americans being deprived of their property? Also, how do we (The People) know that this new rule is not yet another misclassification mistake on the part of the ATF? A reasonable person can surmise that ATF “mistakes” in the past can also happen in the present and in the future. Question 13: Are these “mistakes” made by the ATF and later “corrected” by the ATF a result of intentional deprivation of property owned by American citizens, ATF incompetence, political pressure, and/or agenda driven? If the answer to any of those is yes, leadership within the ATF should be immediately held accountable both civilly and criminally and the ATF should be dissolved since they cannot be trusted to protect the rights of The People. Question 14: What is the next piece of property that is now legal to own and use that the ATF will realize they “mistakenly misclassified” and demanded that the American people comply with (using fear of future prosecution)? In other words, what will the ATF go after next? Optics, magazines, grips, slings, triggers, charging handles, rifle cases, muzzle breaks, flip up sights, weapon mounted lights, lasers, thermal optics, etc. I would like to know that why I can better prepare to be deprived of my property, money, and/or time for subjective and arbitrary reasons without any compensation. Question 15: What does the ATF care more about as it pertains the the Second Amendment Rights of American citizens? 1: Protecting those Right from government overreach. 2: Infringing on those Rights using government overreach. The answer is either 1 or 2. There is no explanation or sidestep needed as the answer is that simple. Question 16: The ATF is allowing individuals who own pistol braces to submit the short barrel rifle paperwork without paying the fee since the ATF changed the definition which now negatively effects millions of Americans. Technically an individual is not supposed to be in possession of a SBR until their paperwork is submitted and they are approved. Since the ATF has now made millions of Americans be in possession of what they classify as an SBR, those said Americans are now in possession. If they submit that paperwork and they get an automatic deny due to background being open for more than 88 days (assuming it is because of the overflow of new submissions) what will happen to that individual? Since the ATF is making people incriminate themselves (submission of paperwork), with the ATF then take enforcement action against them for being in possession of an SBR because they government changed the definition on the previously legal item they owned? If enforcement action is taken, what can that individual expect to have happen? This situation is being caused because of the government. What this an unintentional oversight of the writers of this new rule or an intentional “oversight” to turn law abiding citizens into felons and take their guns from them? Intentional or unintentional, this is a problem. Question 17: Does this new “rule” limit our rights or protect our rights? Video Version of This ArticleThis letter is in response to his (Senator Bill Cassidy) involvement with drafting an agreement on principle for gun safety legislation on Sunday, June 12, 2022. Some of these proposed laws seem "reasonable" on the surface, but just like current gun laws, have the potential for further restrictions as it pertains to existing and/or new legal gun owners. I will list the main talking points of each proposed gun law. For further information on each or all points, please reference the article on the CNN Website.
LetterSenator Bill Cassidy,
Good morning sir. I do not know if you directly read these emails or if a representative of yours does, but I will address this as though you and I are speaking. Before going any further, I would like to give my background and experiences because it is relevant to this topic. I served in the United States Army (active duty and Louisiana National Guard) for approximately 11 years before being honorably discharged with the rank of Staff Sergeant/E-6, along with having two deployments to Iraq. I also have approximately 10 years in law enforcement with time spent in Narcotics, S.W.A.T. Team, and other specialized units to include a Task Force Officer (TFO) for the United States Marshals Service, Violent Offender Task Force based out of Lafayette, Louisiana. I left law enforcement with the rank of Sergeant for an antiterrorism/counterterrorism position overseas. I am still actively working overseas and am currently in the Middle East. Now the reason for this email. According to several media sites, you, along with several other Senators (Republican and Democrat) have engaged in a "compromise" as it pertains to "reducing gun violence". I have some concerns regarding this agreement on principle for gun safety legislation, which I will list below. 1) Senator Chris Murphy stated as part of a tweet announcing the deal, that it "will save lives". I would like to know the overall intentions of this "deal" along with the factual data on how more gun laws will save more lives and how these measures will be monitored/tracked to ensure that in fact these actions work. 2) Who will these new proposed laws actually impact most? Existing and/or new legal gun owners or lawless criminals? 3) Does any or all of the new proposed laws in the slightest way begin to or does infringe on the rights and freedoms of the American people? 4) Could any or all of the new proposed laws in the slightest way begin to or does open up the door (at any time) for federal and/or state governing agencies to restrict and/or remove the rights and freedoms of the American people without due process? 5) Do current gun laws impact existing and/or new legal gun owners more or less than lawless criminals? 6) Are any of these new proposed laws directed specifically at existing and/or new legal gun owners or lawless criminals? 7) "Who" is the problem? Existing and/or new legal gun owners or lawless criminals? 8) "What" is the problem? The object (gun) or the person (lawless criminal)? 9) Do any of these new proposed laws actually impact/target "who" and "what" the problem is? If so, is it the real problem? 11) Could any or all of the new proposed laws in the slightest way limit and/or reduce an existing and/or new legal gun owners ability to adequately protect them, their family or others in a defensive use situation? If so, what is the largest priority? Knowingly and willfully limiting and/or reducing one's ability for self defense or possibly limiting and/or reducing the actions of a lawless criminal, assuming they are concerned with and abide by these new proposed laws? 12) Using existing gun laws as a reference, do any or all of the current laws in the slightest way limit and/or reduce an existing and/or new legal gun owners ability to protect themselves, their family or others in a defensive use situation? If so, what is the largest priority? Knowingly and willfully limiting and/or reducing one's ability for self defense or possibly limiting and/or reducing the actions of a lawless criminal, assuming they are concerned with and abide by the current gun laws? 13) Factually speaking, will these new proposed laws be more effective at stopping lawless criminals than the existing gun laws? If so, how? If not, what is the point of the new proposed laws? 14) Who is drafting and/or helping to draft these new proposed laws? People who have real world experiences with guns and/or using them in defensive use situations (along with other pertinent topics) or people who have little to no real world experience? If it is solely being drafted and/or influenced by people who are not well-versed (subject matter experts) in these matters, why are they doing it? 15) Are these new proposed laws born out of facts and logic or feelings and emotions? Which one of those is more important and plays a larger role in the real world? Do you, Senator Bill Cassidy, truly believe that any or all of these new proposed laws on their own will save more lives from the actions of lawless criminals or limit and/or fail to give law abiding citizens the means to effectively save their own lives from the actions of lawless criminals? I understand you are a busy individual and I thank you for your work and service to Louisiana. I hope this email finds its way to you for review. I know an immediate response, more specifically an in-depth response from you personally is an unrealistic expectation, but from one professional to another, I trust to hear something at some point. These questions are very important to me especially since these proposed laws could restrict certain rights and freedoms of the American people. Because the government can not guarantee my safety all the time, it is my opinion that self defense is a personal responsibility. As such, if I so choose, I should have access, without further limitation, to the most effective means of protection; a gun, whether it be a pistol, rifle, and/or shotgun. "It is not the job of government to limit our rights, it is their job to protect them". My last question to you sir, do any or all of the new proposed laws limit our rights or protect our rights? Thank you for your time Senator. WARNING: This post is about freedom, individual thought, and pointing out hypocrisy. If those things intimidate you, I’d recommend retreating to your “safe space” immediately. Wear a mask or don’t wear a mask, leave your house or don’t leave your house, get the vax or don’t get the vax, go to a crowded event or don’t go to a crowded event; I don’t care because at the end of the day you have the freedom to make your own choice that you think is best for you based on your own specific reasons and health. Life is dangerous and every day without question we make decisions that could positively or negatively affect others. Your freedom does not end where someone else fear beings. What I do find annoying over the last 18 months is politicians and celebrities who have been continually preaching to the masses about how “selfish” or “irresponsible” you are for not wearing a mask, or not social distancing, but when they have the opportunity to praise themselves, they do it at crowded events while not wearing masks. We’ve seen this “rules for thee, not me” mentality from elitist politicians and celebrities time and time again. Based on their political affiliation or social group allegiance they are given a pass to create or attend events or parties that would be otherwise labeled as a “super spreader event” if done by other people/groups. These range from Obama’s birthday party to the Met Gala where the “important” people played by a different set of rules than the “help”. They are fast to give recommendations, but slow to follow. They insist it’s about “science”, but refuse to apply science to other topics. This “science” however only applies if:
They quickly replaced freedom with mandates and science with silence. There will be no additional questions about it. If you don’t like their “answers” or ask for clarification or have your own opinion, you are a “science” denier and it does not matter how popular you are, they will still shun you for not following the status quo. Don’t believe me, just ask Nicki Minaj.
This is the type of hypocritical “woke” BS that is dividing this country. Virtue signaling has become such a competitive space amongst people lately that even CBS was looking at capitalizing on it by creating a reality TV show called The Activist where six “inspiring” activists would out “woke” each other. At the moment this show is now being “reimagined” (another popular BS term) because a lot of people didn’t buy into the agenda, but the idea proves that the majority of these social justice movements or other areas of activism have become nothing more than propagandized woke theater in which the main motivation is personal recognition and money. This picture is from the recent Emmy Awards and shows that the people you idolize do what is best for them, not for you. If you have to continually prove or tell everyone how “good” a person you are, you’re probably not that great of a person. Actions speak louder than words. Enough of the hypocritical, controlling BS. Stop allowing these people to influence your life and convince you that your freedom is bad all while they’re taking full advantage of theirs. Your freedom is yours to use, not theirs to control. Just because they give you excuses to use doesn’t mean you have to use them. Just because they force their opinion on you doesn’t mean you have to accept it. Just because they treat you like a peasant doesn’t mean you have to act like one. Point being, live your life, not the life they authorize you to live. There are people around the world who wish they had the freedom and rights that a lot of Americans are eagerly trying to give away just so they can show how “good” a person they are. This statement has less to do with the inauguration or the security associated with it and more to do with the double standard of protection that has been present for many years. More specifically, the right of protection across the board and it being applied or “allowed” to be applied evenly. Whether you are rich or poor, elected or not, your right to protection does not increase or decrease. However, the extent of protection may increase as a privilege due to social standing or elected position, but the basic right of protection naturally granted to all people remains steadfast. It is very interesting that politicians have gone to incredible lengths by bringing in thousands of people armed with guns to ensure their safety and protection during the January 20th Presidential Inauguration. This of course is on top of the already thousands of people stationed/living in the DC area who provide armed security on a daily basis. To be fair though, I am not privy to the intelligence or credibility of threats they may have to justify this show of force. There could be legitimate concerns of violence there at the Capitol or in the D.C. area. I also acknowledge and understand the level of security needed to protect high profile people. This is even more exaggerated with the level of security needed when pertaining to the President of the United States. Having said that, a lot of politicians who have supported and encouraged this escalation of force in D.C. are at the same time actively working to limit, restrict, or prevent the American people from owning guns for their own protection. That me say this again, but word it a little differently. They (politicians) are calling for more guns for their protection at the same time they (politicians) are calling for less guns for our (American people) protection. Is our right to protection not the same as theirs (politicians)? The American people do not have the ability to call in thousands of military or federal law-enforcement personnel any time we are faced with a threat(s). For instance, if the crime rate goes up in my neighborhood or there is the potential for it to go up, I cannot call in 15,000 troops as a show of force. Instead, the option I’m left with, just like most Americans, is the ability to call local law enforcement during or after the incident (assuming I’m not dead). Unfortunately, many politicians have recently supported the idea of defunding the police which in turn, can reduce their ability to prevent crime, along with their reaction times when crime is present. Without question, this negatively impacts the American people. My last line of defense, along with millions of other Americans is the right to bear arms (for now anyway). I rely on this right (not privilege) of gun ownership (handgun, shotgun, and/or rifle) as an effective method of protection for me, my family, and others in the event of a threat or the possibility of it. Before going any further, allow me to clarify. I am not in support of or condone the violence used at the Capitol where people got hurt or killed. Similarly, I did not support or condone the violence used for many months in American cities/towns/neighborhoods where rioters hurt and killed people, along with damaged or destroyed businesses, homes, and government property. In some cases, burnt them to the ground and deprive people of their ability to earn a living. What I do support is the ability for all American people, elected or not, to have the same right to protection. If you, a politician, have the means to call in the military because of a potential threat, then I, not a politician, should have the means of gun ownership (handgun, shotgun, and/or rifle) because of a potential threat. Oddly enough, the American people’s last line of defense (individual gun ownership) is the politicians first line of defense (other people with guns). I know that these situations are not the same, but they are similar as the end result is protection. Whether it is protection at the Capitol or protection at my home, the purpose is the same regardless of location. If the politicians have the means of protection through the action of others using guns, then why are Americans who have the means of protection through their own guns looked down upon? In some instances, these same gun owning Americans are verbally belittled and told by politicians that they cannot be trusted to own a gun. In other words, these same Americans are told by their representatives that they cannot be trusted with their Second Amendment right. I hope that pattern does not continue with other rights... In closing, the elected official is being protected by a person with a gun, just as I am protecting myself with a gun. At the end of the day, the means of protection through the use of a gun is the same. The only difference is the person holding the gun. Again, I ask, is our right to protection not the same as theirs (politicians)? It seems when something affects the politicians, their actions (the politicians) are quick and justified and tend to be for the betterment of themselves. On the flip side, when something affects the American people, their actions (the politicians) are slow and questionable and tend to be against the betterment of the people. Case in point, further restriction of our right and ability for protection. It’s pretty obvious to see which group thinks is more important the other. Related Articles
H.R. 127 is a bill introduced by Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX-18) on January 4, 2021 which seeks to further restrict the Second Amendment right of the America people. Some people might be familiar with Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee from past statements where she showed her ignorance about firearms when she made absurd correlations. It is also imperative to mention that she is not a subject matter expert in this area, but yet, she is spearheading this bill. This bill does not necessarily prevent people from owning firearms, but it makes the whole process more difficult, time consuming, costly, and less private. In my opinion, this will not make anyone safer. In fact, I think it will hurt people because criminals tend to prey on people who do not have the means or ability to effectively protect themselves or their family. A gun is that means, especially in the uncertain times we are in now with crime rates continuing to rise across the country, mostly due to failed policies and practices of elected officials. Here are some of the objectives this bill seeks to accomplish:
This bill will only negatively affect gun owners who use their gun, magazines, and ammunition for sport shooting, hunting, target shooting, and defensive applications. For instance, requiring a license for gun ownership is infringement of a right. Licenses are used for privileges like driving and therefore can be revoked at any point in time for any reason. A right is a right, not a privilege. Another way this negatively affects gun owners is banning magazines over 10 rounds. Almost all semi-automatic handguns and rifles come from the factory with magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. So current gun owners who have magazines that fall within this ban will be forced to discard their own property which was legally bought before implementation of this bill. They would be expected to do this without compensation or due process of assets forfeiture. I think it is good advice for gun owners to seek additional training, but it should be voluntary, not mandatory. If people are ok with mandatory training to use this right, then I guess they’d be ok with the government making training mandatory to use other rights, as in, you can only use your freedom of religion after going through government training. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, along with other politicians seek to make it a requirement that the American people who choose to exercise their Second Amendment right undergo psychological examinations and apply for a license, along with providing additional information in order to use one of their rights. If this bill passes, hang onto your butts because it will only be a matter of time until politicians attempt to apply these same requirements to our other rights. Imagine being forced by the government to undergo mandatory training to use your First Amendment right. Imagine being forced by the government to apply for a license before you can use your Fourth Amendment (protection against unreasonable search and seizure) right. Imagine being forced by the government to undergo a mental evaluation before you could use your Ninth Amendment (the rights that are enumerated cannot infringe upon rights that are not listed in the Constitution) right. H.R. 127 is filled with “feel good” stuff that, at a quick glance, seems to be “common sense”, but when you break them down, it sets a dangerous precedent for our other rights and does nothing to “protect” people. If the objectives in this bill really work to provide “safety” to people, then cities with very strict gun laws would theoretically have the lowest amount of gun related injuries and/or deaths. It is reasonable to assume, if this bill passes, we will see crime rates continue to climb. Do not sacrifice your rights or the rights of others for the illusion of “safety”. Whether you use your Second Amendment right or not, it is yours to use or not us if you so choose. Do not let your ability to choose be taken from you. It is not the job of government to limit our rights, it is their job to protect them! Contact your representatives and let them know it is their job to protect our rights, not infringe on them. Let them know H.R. 127 is not good for the American people. It is important that we all do this, even if you are not actively using your Second Amendment right. Just because you’re not using it does not mean it is not yours. If one right falls, they all fall. - Link to the Bill - Related Articles
When one person uses action and/or force against another person where the end result is death, death is still death regardless of the means and/or intention used to commit it. Sometimes the death is justified. For instance, if there is specific intent or perceived intent of a person using intentional action or force to deprive another person of their rights, freedom, or life. Case in point. If a person or people, who do not have the legal and lawful authority or purpose of doing so, kick in my door or breach my home using other methods at two in the morning, there is a reasonable amount of perceived intent on my part that they are there to deprive me or my family of our life based on the fact that they have already deprived us of our sense of individual privacy, security, and safety in our own home. Based on that reasonable amount of perceived intent on my part caused by the individual or individuals actions of kicking in my door or other means of entrance at two in the morning with the intention of further depriving me or my family of our rights, freedom, and/or life, I have every right and obligation for the preservation of life (pertaining to me and/or my family) to use an amount of justifiable action and/or force (up to and including death) necessary to stop the threat of further persecution from the individual or individuals. Regarding the use of deadly force in a self-defense situation or for the preservation of life like the one I just mentioned, I have heard the statement or similar sounding statements of, “what if they are there just to steal your TV? Is their life worth more than your property?” To me, it would seem that the individual or individuals who are or attempting to deprive me of my rights, freedoms, and/or life by breaking into my home decided that my property is worth more than my life, or the life of my family, or even their own life. Just to further clarify, whether their (individual or individuals committing the home invasion) intent is to deprive me or my family of property and/or life, it is not the responsibility or obligation of the person (homeowner) who is actively being deprived of their rights and freedoms to determine the intent (good or bad) of the other person or persons. So, whether someone kicks in my door at two in the morning to steal a TV or to murder my family, I am going to reasonably assume the worst in that person or persons and expect violence on their part towards me or my family because they have already proven they are capable of using some form of it. When it is all said and done, it is important to remember, I did not put them in that situation, they willingly and intentionally put me and/or my family in that situation and they did so against our will. It is also unreasonable to assume an individual or individuals who are actively and illegally depriving a person of their rights, freedoms, and/or life who also have the advantage of intimidation and fear, along with the element of surprise, will at any point cease their actions or have a de-escalation of force one their own freewill or with the good intention to stop their persecution of others before things get any worse. It is also unreasonable to assume that that same person or persons standing in your house at two in the morning are not capable of committing additional crimes (assault, rape, murder, etc.) if the opportunity presents itself. Meaning, if the person or persons who just kicked in your door or other means of forced entry into your home at two in the morning with the sole intention (at that time) of just illegally depriving you of your property now sees you cowering in fear in the corner of the room, bagging for your life, there is a high probability that person will now capitalize on your fear and use some type of physical violence against you. It is imperative that you understand, predators in the animal world do not stop using violence because their prey is weak or disadvantaged, they in fact turn that into their (the predator) strength. In a similar way, most people who are actively using actions or force to illegally deprive other people of their rights, freedoms, and/or life have a predatorial mindset and they will not stop just because the other person is weak or disadvantaged. People like that are not good people. They are not there to do good things to the other person. They do not have the desire to help. They are in fact, bad people doing bad things and they will continually do bad things to more people. Often times the threat of incarceration is not enough to prevent them from committing crimes or breaking laws, especially if they are currently doing so. Laws only help prevent crime or protect those from crime or violence if people are willing to abide by them. Once that crime has been committed, that law is effectively useless in preventing further crime or providing further protection during that moment or moments. Typically, their deprivation will only stop when they are met with a force equal to or greater than what they are using or capable of. If and when you find yourself in a life-or-death situation caused by the actions of another person or persons with the intention or perceived intention of illegally depriving you of your rights, freedoms, and/or life, please do not be fearful to act in self-defense. If you have the means to act, you need to do so immediately and effectively. If they see that you are not willing to fight to save your own life, they absolutely will not fight to save your life. The idea that a bad person doing bad things to you will at some point start doing good things is a miscommunication and a dangerous one at that. It is extremely important that if you feel the need to use self-defense or placed in a situation or position to use it, that it is truly the time and place for it. If you use "self-defense" in a situation where it was not self-defense (i.e. if you are the aggressor) than that death or the possibility of it is not justified and is classified as murder, manslaughter, or another variation of a criminal action. Having said that, we (Intuitive Defense) recommended that you do not allow other people to negatively influence your right and ability to protect you, your family, or others in a self-defense situation. If someone tells you that using self-defense is wrong because it is never, “right to take a life”, remind them that self-defense is preservation of life. People who give poorly formed advice such as that tend to package it in the means of a “guilt trip” or “virtue signaling”. They do this to put down or be little your right and/or ability for self-defense. More times than not, those same people have not been in a true life or death situation. Because of this, their uninformed and non-experienced based opinion means very little. If they find themselves in a similar life or death situation and want to maintain the “moral highroad” there is a very good chance that road will only lead them and possibly their family to the hospital or to the grave. If you have a weapon (knife and/or gun) or are looking at getting a weapon for the primary purpose of self-defense, we recommend getting training with it at some point. Knowledge is power. When things get bad, seconds and inches matter and those can be the two factors that determine if you live or die. The best time to learn the application of violence for the preservation of life is in times of peace, not chaos. Related Articles
We here at Intuitive Defense support the decision for any American to exercise their Second Amendment right (regardless of reason or reasons) just as we support the decision of any American who does not want to exercise their Second Amendment right (for any reason or reasons). Just because it is there, does not mean you have to used it, but the important take away from this is, that right is there regardless of use or not. Having said that, we here at Intuitive Defense take full advantage of the Second Amendment and we use it every day. To us, a gun does not equal death. Of course, death in general is something people cannot escape and death due to a gun is possible, but not guaranteed. Just because a gun is designed, manufactured, sold, bought, and used does not mean that particular gun will ever be the cause of death or even injury. This principle is true with many things that have some level of danger or death associated with them, to include, but not limited to: motor vehicles, knives, ladders, airplanes, power equipment, machinery, ect. Certainly, my primary reason that I choose to exercise my Second Amendment right through the ownership of a gun is for personal protection. If I never have to use it in a self-defense situation, I will be ok with that, but a gun is more than just a tool for protection. To me it is a means of enjoyment. I enjoy the challenges of target shooting and the implementation of tactics and techniques that allow me to hone my skill. I enjoy the craftsmanship of a well-built gun. I enjoy the sound of a full metal jacket bullet leaving my pistol and impacting on a steel target 35 yards away. I enjoy walking onto a range and knowing that I will push myself mentally and physically to do better this time than the last time. I enjoy holding myself accountable. I enjoy sharing my passion with other individuals who also enjoy exercising their Second Amendment right. I enjoy the responsibilities that come with owning a gun. I enjoy teaching people who are new to guns and watching their progress. I enjoy the gun for the gun, not the possibility of death. More importantly, I enjoy using my freedom to exercise my Second Amendment right that is guaranteed to me for use whenever, wherever, and without reason. Every day it seems that gun owners have to explain or justify why they own a gun or guns or more simply put, why they are exercising their right. Imagine having to explain or justify why you use one or all of your other rights, or more simply put, why you feel the need to use your freedoms. Not that gun owners are obligated to explain or justify why they exercise their right, just as Americans do not need to explain or justify why they exercise their freedom of speech, but sometimes people just want to better understand why a gun owner is a gun owner. Typically, when faced with questions like that, I say something to the extent of, “I own a gun because I am free to do so, just as you are free not to own a gun if you so choose. The right to bear arms, just like all of our rights, work together to prevent the infringement of our other rights. If we have to justify the use of our rights or any specific right to the government or to other people, then that means there is a failure on the part of the person asking to understand the purpose of those rights and therefore, the necessity of them. If one right is deemed “dangerous” or not “necessary” then there is a probability that at any time, other rights will soon become extinct. Our rights are written is such a way that they can withstand time, and as they are written, still provide protection regardless of technology, environment, application, politics, and people. Unfortunately, their weakness is weak people who do not understand the importance of our rights or who prefer the illusion of “protection” over freedom or who choose to support individuals that desire to deprive American people of their rights for evil reasons. If one right falls, they all fall and then we are no longer free.” Usually, they follow my response up with a slightly confused look as I did not provide the simple rebuttal they were looking for, especially if they were hoping for an argumentative response. To then drive the importance of that statement home, I replace the right to bear arms with any other right. For instance, freedom of speech, or protection against unreasonable search and seizure. “I said what I said because I am free to do so, just as you are free not to if you so choose. The freedom of speech, just like all of our rights, work together to prevent the infringement of our other rights. If we have to justify the use of our rights or any specific right to the government or to other people, then that means there is a failure on the part of the person asking to understand the purpose of those rights and therefore, the necessity of them. If one right is deemed “dangerous” or not “necessary” then there is a probability that at any time, other rights will soon become extinct. Our rights are written is such a way that they can withstand time, and as they are written, still provide protection regardless of technology, environment, application, politics, and people. Unfortunately, their weakness is weak people who do not understand the importance of our rights or who prefer the illusion of “protection” over freedom or who choose to support individuals that desire to deprive American people of their rights for evil reasons. If one right falls, they all fall and then we are no longer free.” In my opinion, if an individual cannot understand the importance of that statement, then they take freedom for granted and they do not comprehend how dangerous complacency can be. Our rights, all of them, are in place for the preservation of freedom. Freedom is in place for the preservation of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. If you are the type of person who is intimidated by the freedom of others, then by all means, please relocate to a country where your freedom is restricted or in some cases, condemned. If you decide to stay here in America because the thought of your freedom or lack thereof being controlled by others terrifies you (and it should), then I beg of you, stop trying to restrict or condemn other people’s freedoms here. Defend freedom by supporting it, even if you choose not to use that particular freedom. Related Articles
|
ArticlesOur goal is to provided accurate, informative content on current events, guns, training, and other topics. Categories
All
Archives
November 2024
|