A
study from the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) shows 89 percent of mass
shootings between 1998 and June 2019 occurred in gun-free zones.
CPRC reports 21st mass shooters are not typically religious,
“80 percent are at least 21 years of age,” and the majority of them–56 percent–views
handguns as the weapon of choice for an attack. Rifles alone have only been
used in 13 percent of 21st century mass shootings. Shotguns alone have only
been used in four percent.
Weigh
popular Democrat gun control campaigns in light of these finding and it quickly
becomes evident that gun control is not the solution to mass shootings.
For
instance, one popular control is to raise the age for rifle purchases to 21
years of age. What good does this do when 80 percent of mass shooters are
21-year-old or older?
Another
gun control push is to ban “assault rifles.” But this is an impotent approach
when you consider the fact that rifles alone are used in only 13 percent of
attacks, while handguns are the overarching weapon of choice.
Ironically,
the one thing that could diminish mass shootings is to go in the other
direction and repeal gun control statutes that create gun-free zones. As
recently as the July 28, 2019, Gilroy Garlic Festival, and the May 31, 2019
attack at Virginia Beach, we saw that gun-free zones turn people into sitting
ducks. Such zones guarantee attackers will find a captive audience; one that
cannot shoot back or respond in a lethal way.
The
Virginia Tech attack (April 16, 2007), Aurora movie theater attack (July 20,
2012), Sandy Hook Elementary School attack (December 14, 2012), DC Navy Yard
attack (September 16, 2013), San Bernardino attack (December 2, 2015), Orlando
Pulse attack (June 12, 2016), Parkland’s Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School
attack (February 14, 2018), and the Borderline Bar & Grill attack (November
7, 2018), all constitute mass shooting incidents that Democrats use again and
again to push gun control. Every one of these attacks occurred in gun-free
zones.
The
problem is not the gun, but the statutes barring law-abiding citizens from
having guns with them for self-defense. I, for one, ignore those stupid signs
put up stipulating it is a gun-free zone. I am armed and will be armed. Period!
We
have been required to have guns since we stepped onto the shores near
Jamestown. Each glebe had a militia, each colony had a militia and the local
militia were instrumental in conquering the British and sending them back home
to King George. The militia were comprised of every able-bodied man between the
ages of 17-55. They were to be armed as was the standing army with their arms
in their personal possession. They were to “keep and bear” those arms. I know
this from my own family research/ genealogy. My family arrived in Boston in the
Fall of 1718. I have lists of their being a part of the local militia from
Pennsylvania where they first lived in Mt. Joy, Chester/ Lancaster County.
Then, they were listed in the militia in Lunenburg, VA; that was followed to
their being listed in the militia of Surry Co, NC, then Rowan Co, NC, then
Iredell Co, NC, then Mecklenburg Co, NC, followed by Stewart Co, TN. Then came
the Civil War; by that time, they were in the militia of Izard Co, AR. At that
time in our history, the local militia elected their Captain. My GGGrandfather,
Robert Calvin Matthews, was elected Captain. He fought for the Confederacy in
the Trans-Mississippi Theatre, primarily under two different Confederate
Generals. These militia lists were considered another form of census, along
with Tithables Lists, Tax Lists, etc.
We
remain the militia, you and I; it is written:
2nd
Amendment Text: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed”
There
are 2 separate issues mentioned—the [1] militia and right of the [2] people to
keep AND bear arms. I know what it means. It is not that difficult to
understand. People who argue otherwise just like to argue. It is a lost
argument.
10
US Code Title 10 Sect 246
(a)
The militia of the United States consists
of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided
in section 313
of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and
of female citizens of the United States who
are members of the National
Guard.
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the
members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.
--In
other words, we are all the militia. There is no exception for the “Mentally
ill”, nor should there be unless that is accompanied by an adjudication that
disqualifies the possession of firearms by court order. Those would not pass a
background check. Period! They must be “able-bodied”.
I
grew up with those who were “mentally challenged” or “mentally ill” in a small
town. We all know who they were. I would never be the one to say they do not
have the right of self-protection. Would you?--to protect oneself or one’s family
is a natural right, by whatever means, not bestowed of man but by the Creator.
If you are looking for easy answers, there aren’t any.
Black's
Law Dictionary Definition of able-bodied:
"A
person who is capable of serving in the military. It does mean that there are
no defects but that a person is able."
This sign is a danger to society...
No comments:
Post a Comment