|
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
0 Comments
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
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
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 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." Full disclosure, we support the Second Amendment right and the individual decision to exercise it through gun ownership. We also understand that there are times where an abortion is justified (danger to the mother’s life due to complications, quality of life for the baby due to sever development issues in the womb, etc.) therefore, we support the right of the individual to make their own decision regarding an abortion. Having said that, we know that each have the potential to cause death and the individual responsible for it (justified or not) will have to live with that decision, along with any possible repercussions from it. According to the data, abortions are responsible for far more deaths or the potential for death when used, than guns are. 619,591 - Induced Abortion in 2018 [source 1] 39,523 - Gun Deaths in 2019 [source 2] Our issue is not with either one, but with how politicians apply their “concern” to them unequally. For instance, in a statement released on January 22nd, 2021 by President Biden and Vice President Harris (full statement down below), they address their commitment to protecting the right of people to have an abortion and making it more available to people “regardless of income, race, zip code, health insurance status, or immigration status” [source 3]. I am very glad to hear that they are committed to protecting the rights of...some people anyway. Clearly, they are not as concerned about the death caused by abortion, which is interesting because in almost every instance, abortion leads to death. What It sounds like they are more concerned with is the individual right to make the decision to have an abortion, not the almost certain death caused by it. Applying their own logic to guns, they are on the opposite side of the spectrum. They want to restrict or ban guns because in some instances they cause death. What it sounds like here is, they are more concerned about the possibility of death, not the individual right to make the decision to own a gun. Now that we’ve established their concern for death, along with the individual right to make their own decision is not applied equally, my question is why? Since both topics concern the individual rights of a person and the potential for death, each topic should be able to be compared fairly on those two parameters. Since that is not the case here, I wonder what is the real motivation to further restrict or ban guns? Is it because it’s a political agenda? Is it because they want to deprive Americans from making the individual decision to exercise their Second Amendment right? Because guns are scary? Because “gun control” is a “feel good” topic? I do not know what the real reason is, but to me, the reason is not about the preservation of life, which they push. My ConclusionEvidence of their (President Biden and Vice President Harris) hypocrisy can be found in past statements discussing their concern for death caused by guns or that gun violence is a national health crisis/epidemic. My question to you sir and ma’am, how is approximately 39,523 death caused by guns any more of a health crisis or epidemic than approximately 619,591 deaths caused by abortions? Gun deaths in 2019 equal approximately 6.4% of the number of induced abortions for 2018. It should be noted, out of the 619,591 induced abortions it is reasonable to assume that some of them did not result in death or the fetus was no longer viable, so the cause of death might be slightly lower than that number. My opinion is, just like most politicians, they are full of crap. They have a specific agenda they are pushing in order to stay relevant and liked by the people who are most likely going to vote for them again in the future. To be fair, this is nothing specific to just them. This is politics and politicians on both sides of the political isle do the same thing. Matter of fact, more times than not, people decide who they are going to vote for based on the alignment of that politicians views with their own. There are plenty of politicians I support and plenty that I do not support, and even more that I think are worthless because they form their “beliefs” on what is trending at the time. My issue is not so much with politicians or what they stand for, but how they apply cause or “justification” against or for certain topics. If a politician is pushing to further restrict or ban the rights of the American people on the basis of preservation of life, then they better apply that concern consistently across the board. I get it, these two topics are not the same so it is very difficult to compare them equally, but they are similar as both require the right to make a personal decision which could result in the possibility of death. In my opinion, regardless of your stance or position, if you support one more than the other, then you should support the individual right to make a decision on either. Thank 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
Statement Release by President Biden and Vice President Harris
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.  Image curtsy of Star Tribune Thank 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
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 -  Thank 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
Following January 6th, 2021, many people, groups, media outlets, and companies have classified the speech [source 1] given by President Trump at the Save America Rally as “hate speech” and/or labeled it as rhetoric or a “call to action” which incited violence that led to the breach of the Capitol. I have listened to and read the transcript (at the same time) of the President’s speech from that day. I have done this twice just to make sure I did not overlook anything the first time. There was nothing in that speech that I heard or read that would lead a rational person to assume the use of violence was the message. It is my opinion that if someone or a group of people were “compelled” to use violence or went there with the specific intent to create chaos, that idea or action was a forethought before the day or event even started. Something else to consider is, there is a probability that some or most of the people who used violence that day may not have been present during the speech as it was held near the White House, which is approximately 2 miles away (+/- depending on the route). The speech however did contain information with supporting figures on how President Trump believes the election, which was conducted on November 3rd, 2020, was filled with fraud and/or had fraudulent elements that ultimately lead to his victory being stolen from him. The election itself is a whole other topic, but President Trump, along with many millions of Americans believe there was an element of fraud present within the election process. Even though some media outlets and other people have stated “there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud that could change the outcome of the 2020 election” that statement in and of itself recognizes that there was some fraud, just not widespread or maybe not enough to change the outcome of the election. Therefore, the accusations of the President’s “baseless” claims of voter fraud are not necessarily baseless since there is recognition of some type of fraud (maybe not widespread) by media outlets, Department of Justice, and other people. Bottom line, him (President Trump) or anyone else are free to believe and discuss this openly or in private as it does not violate the 1st Amendment, just as those who do not believe this are free to do the same. I brought all that up because some people, along with some media outlets suggest that it was the “baseless” claims of voter fraud that fueled the violence there at the Capital. Since it is widely accepted by so many people that there was some voter fraud (maybe not widespread) associated with the 2020 elections, it is reasonable to assume that that information alone, whether on a large scale or a small scale, would not be enough to incite violence. I have heard or seen some people suggest that a “call to action” or “use of violence” was inferred or implied by the President. Based on his mannerisms, along with his vocal tones/inflections, and certain words that were or were not used, I simply do not see where, how, or why a levelheaded person would suggest that the use of violence was inferred or implied. Typically, when an individual or individuals are attempting to rile up a crowd or group for the specific purpose of carrying out certain tasks or actions, they use intentional verbiage with the hope of creating an emotional response. Commonly, that verbiage will have elements of the desired task or action within it. For instance, if I wanted to encourage a group of people to destroy something and I had their undivided attention, I would use words associated with or closely related to my desired actions, which would be destruction. If I wanted that group to successfully carry out the action of destruction, it would not be in my best interest to use words that would promote something opposite of that. For instance, peace or peacefully. Words like that would be counterproductive. Lastly, if I really wanted to sell this, I need to put on a show. I have to be very emotionally charged, I have to be loud, my actions need to be quick (possibly somewhat violent), they have to see that I am just as upset (or whatever other emotion) as they are. They need to know that I will be there with them leading the charge and taking part in the destruction. Of course, just like anything, that is not always the case. Sometimes people can get a crowd going with the energy of an old shoe, but even then, there is still specific verbiage used. Understanding that, I went through the transcript looking for specific verbiage that would be needed or at a very minimum, make sense to use that would help rile up a crowd or incite a riot. The list of words directly below this sentence were not mentioned and/or used in the President’s speech:
The following words were mentioned and/or used in the President’s speech, but they are used in such a way that the context is not applicable to “a call to action” or “a call for violence”:
The following word was mentioned and/or used in the President’s speech:
My ConclusionAgain, after going through this information repeatedly, I cannot see how a rational person could take such a negative connotation away from this, even if they do not like or support President Trump. In my opinion, specific to this speech, you do not have to like or support someone to be honest about a situation. I find it very difficult to believe this speech was the motivation for the violence at the Capitol. I also do not believe that this speech justified the actions of some organizations to sensor the President, but that too is another topic. My main focus here was the speech and whether or not the President should be held solely accountable for the actions of some based on the words here and in my opinion, no. I think linking cause-and-effect here is a stretch and a bias one at that. Thank 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." Sources 1. President Trump's Save America Rally Speech: CLICK HERE FOR SOURCE
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. Thank 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
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.  Thank 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
|
ArticlesOur goal is to provided accurate, informative content on current events, guns, training, and other topics. Categories
All
Archives
November 2024
|
RSS Feed
