If you don’t do anything else, just listen to this video – it is a must. It emphasizes to the government that the Constitution must be followed.

What an interesting video which explains to the Congress, Senate, and others who were  in the audience what the ramifications are if they even think about messing with the Constitution and gun rights.  I posted this earlier under “Virtual President” which is really a misnomer.

Gun free zones are just like Obamacare – it is to control the people and a dream come true for Muslim terrorists!

After thinking about gun-free zones and how ridiculous we are in thinking the government and its officials are trying to protect us.  Have gun-free zones really made us SAFE?  No, in fact it has had the opposite effect.  In fact, listening to the Democratic Muslim Party you would think because of these shootings – it all has to do that we do not have a total gun free society and that is what these people aspire.

A note to all of you government officials – facts are facts.  In fact, this government has actually set up zones where the terrorists know they can go and kill without anyone stopping them.  You would think if they have this type of zone,  you would at least have some kind of security; but, no.  I have come to the conclusion these areas are set up to continue to reduce the population.

What is the definition of GUN FREE ZONES – it started out being an area, in and around school property, where illegal possession or use of a firearm carries an increased penalty. And, now the government has gone one step farther and that is to set up other zones outside of the school area.  In other words, the government’s arm is reaching out for other locations like government buildings, hospitals, and on and on.  Slowly creeping in to take our right away for owning a gun.

Chicago is a Gun Free Zone.  Chicago is a soft target.  Every day mass amount of murders occur in Chicago, the hometown of Obama.  Has anything been done to reduce the murders.  Why no, this is part of the game – 92 percent of mass shootings since 2009 occurred in gun-free zones.

************************************

The candidate for president in the Democratic Muslim Party in one of her campaign stops discussed guns and following is a rebuttal letter to her malarky:

Dear Mrs. Clinton

I saw your interview with Seth Meyers, where you talked about gun control. In it, you discussed the need for “common sense gun control” and to close several “loopholes.” At first, it was obvious to me that you really don’t know what you are talking about.
1.The gun show loophole. You mean the ability for individuals to sell a limited number of personal firearms in a year in face-to-face transfers? Because FFL dealers must have buyers fill out Form 4473’s and perform NICS checks at guns shows. Gun Shows are not gun law free bazaars.
2.The online loophole. You mean were anybody can sell a gun online… and then have to ship it to an FFL to do a Form 4473 and NICS check on the buyer. Of course an online seller can to an in-state face-to-face transfer in a state where it is legal, but most don’t. This used to be called the “classified ad loophole” back when people still read newspapers.
3.The Charleston loophole. Where if a NICS check doesn’t come back with a “deny” in three days, the sale can proceed. That one is necessary to keep politicians (like you, potentially) from enacting a gun ban, by just holding off all NICS checks indefinitely.
4.Universal background checks. The idea that the guy who is fencing stolen guns to criminals can be persuaded to perform background checks on them. Or the idea there is no such thing as Straw Purchases. Really, universal background checks are just a potential annoyance for the law abiding shooter whose shooting buddy want to make him a better offer than the local gun store on a trade in.

Had you stopped there, I would have just let your interview go, recognizing the usual Liberal Democrat, know-nothing, anti-gun, bullshit talking points.

But you had to go one further and “repeal the immunity from all liability that gun makers and gun sellers have.” You called for the repeal of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. First of all, Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act doesn’t provide complete immunity against liability. It protects gun makers from being sued when criminals commit crimes with guns if the guns were sold by the company legally to law abiding distributors.

On a side note: When CNN calls you out for being wrong, you know you fucked up.

I, like most of the gun community, knows what you are trying to pull. Gun control is not a winning position to take in America. Your husband learned that in 1994 after getting the Brady Bill passed. The Republicans took 54 seats in the House and 8 in the Senate which was due heavily to campaigning by the NRA.

So you want to go after the gun companies with lawfare. Again, this was something your husband tried, and was somewhat victorious with. He got Smith and Wesson to acquiesce on backing gun control by agreeing to settle on some lawsuits. The CSGV went after the ammo retailer Lucky Gunner after Sandy Hook, and got their asses handed to them with a dismissal and $203,000 in legal fees. The CSGV made it clear that they wanted to put Lucky Gunner out of business.

It’s clear you want to pave the way for individuals, probably with the backing of the DOJ, to sue gun makers out of existence. If you can’t ban guns, shut down the gun makers.

Logically, your position makes no sense. If a drunk driver runs over a little kid, the parents can’t sue Ford for making the car. Even Bernie Sanders has enough decency and common sense to understand that “If somebody has a gun and it falls into the hands of a murderer and the murderer kills somebody with a gun, do you hold the gun manufacturer responsible? Not any more than you would hold a hammer company responsible if somebody beats somebody over the head with a hammer.”

The thing is, you are hitting just a little too close to home for me. I am part of the firearms industry. You are taking about taking away my livelihood. I have a wife, a baby, a couple of dogs, a car payment, a mortgage, and student loans. I go to work, to a job I love. I work with wonderful people who also love their jobs. We sell guns for people just like us: hunters, sportsmen, target shooters, people who want to ability to defend themselves. We are a strong part of the local economy. We are the middle class that you claim to want to help.

You are not just threatening my guns, you are threatening my home, my career, my ability to put food on my table.

I can only hope the other people, working in other industries understand what you are. How easy it is for you to want to put tens of thousands of people out of work, and cost the economy millions and billions of dollars because you don’t like the products we sell. This isn’t about saving lives. This isn’t about preventing the next terrorist attack or mass shooting. This is about hurting your enemies.

This I will not abide.

From the bottom of my heart, and with the deepest sincerity, FU! (reduced the wording since all of you know what the letters stand for.)

J.Kb. (Registered Voter)

************************************************

Dear Mrs. Clinton
Everyone in this room is now dumber

I used to like The Daily Show. I know the Jon Stewart was a liberal and his show had a Left leaning bias, but so is pretty much every other news show on TV. What Jon Steward had going for him was that he was genuinely funny, and he dished it out to the left as well, calling out liberals on their incompetence and hypocrisy.

Trevor Noah, the new anchor of The Daily Show is no Jon Steward. With him at the helm, The Daily Show has become a mean spirited hatchet-job against the Right. On Friday, The Daily Show did a bit on concealed carry and active shooters. They went out to mock the idea that what it takes to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun and shill for gun control. What they created was so bad it will actually make you dumber watching it.

So brace yourselves…

The only statement made that was completely honest and accurate is that the correspondent, Jordan Kelpper, is an “idiot with a gun.” I know The Daily Show is a comedy show, but the behavior of the correspondent in the range was down right embarrassing. Honestly, I wouldn’t have tossed him from my class. Guns are serious. Fun, but serious.

First and foremost, the continuous lie pushed by antis and now The Daily Show is that “it’s so easy for people to get CCW permits, that any idiot can get a permit and we’ll end up with a whole bunch of idiots carrying guns in public.” This is usually followed by argument “these untrained idiots will only make any situation worse.”

Let me start with my credentials on this issue. I have CCW permits from UT, AZ, FL, IL, and AL, and I used to have permits from SD and IN, but those states don’t allow for non-residents permits. I have been a CCW permit instructor.

Virtually every person I have sat through a CCW class with or have taught was a shooter before applying for their permit. In my experience, people who get their carry permits regularly practice with their carry guns. Concealed carry is a right in most states, a permit, and more importantly a mindset and a lifestyle. That is what never gets touched on and The Daily Show went out of its way to ignore. What I never see is the pubic discussion about permit holders who shoot weekly or monthly, maintaining their skill at personal expense.

The reason, I believe, that this never gets addressed is that there is no way for those who advocate for bigger and more overbearing government to slap their magic seal of government approval on individual practice or readiness. An NYPD officer shooting 50 rounds every 6 months, is what qualifies as a “professional” in the mind of an anti. A civilian with a CCW permit shooting several hundred rounds every few months more more… well.. that just doesn’t count.

With his CCW in hand, the correspondent heads over to The Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training program and gets shot to pieces with Simunitions. Proving that The Daily Show really doesn’t get it.

It is the duty of police to run towards the gunfire. They are first responders. Call 911 and they should show up.

CCW permit holders are not first reposonders. It’s not our job to run towards the gunfire. When an emergency happens near me, 911 doesn’t connect to my cell phone. In an active shooter scenario, I’m not going to advance on a shooter. Let the men with rifles and hard armor do that.

Ultimately, The Daily Show, after making fun of millions Americans with CCW permits, doesn’t give an alternative solution.

“Could we just figure out a way to just not put a gun in this asshole’s [pointing at the mock active shooter] hands?”

GREAT! Except:
1.Even Liberals were forced to acknowledge that all the gun laws they have passed in places like California, failed to stop mass shootings like in San Bernardino, Oregon, or elsewhere. Especially when guns are obtained through illegal straw purchases or stolen. They have yet to propose new gun control laws that can guarantee no more mass shootings.
2.If you find yourself in an active shooter situation, what do you do? Just sit there and wait for death? The FBI has acknowledge that sometimes you have no choice but to fight, if running or hiding aren’t options.

It’s easy to criticize, it’s hard to propose meaningful solutions; which is The Daily Show’s modus operandi. In this case, the mockery does real damage. Reducing concealed carry is not going to make anybody safer in an active shooter scenario, and will probably make things a whole lot worse.

You want to figure out how to keep guns out of the hands of potential mass shooters WITHOUT infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens, I’m all ears. But I haven’t heard one proposal that would do that.

I’d much rather the police take on an active shooter. But they can’t be everywhere all the time, and even some police are recognizing the effect armed citizens can have in preventing mass shooters.

But calling CCW permit holders idiots with guns because we’ve (by and large) never been to a LEO training academy is ridiculous.

I don’t carry because I go looking for trouble. I carry just in case trouble finds me.

*****************************************

Now for the facts:

By AWR Hawkins11 Oct 2014
On October 9, the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) released a revised report showing that 92% of mass public shootings between January 2009 and July 2014 took place in gun-free zones.

The CPRC report was released in response to an Everytown for Gun Safety study claiming only 14% of mass public shootings took place in gun-free zones. Everytown actually claimed 86% of such incidents occurred in places where guns were allowed.

CPRC showed that the 86% claim rests on Everytown’s “inclusion of attacks in private homes” and “numerous errors in identifying whether citizens can defend themselves.” For example, Everytown “[ignores] rules that prevent general citizens from carrying guns [for self-defense]” in certain cities, and they fail to recognize that “allowing police to carry guns is not the same thing as letting civilians defend themselves.”

So Everytown might count an attack in a public area in Los Angeles as a mass shooting where guns are allowed because certain guns are allowed in the city with a permit. However, they miss the fact that L.A. County issues a minuscule number of concealed carry permits, and many of the ones that are issued are granted only “to wealthy [political] donors.”

Using the same numerical standard that Everytown used–four or more people killed–but taking all rules and regulations against firearm possession into account, CPRC showed that only 8% of mass public shootings occurred in places where citizens could have guns for self defense.

Gun-free zones provide false sense of security.

************************************************
Glenn Harlan Reynolds 6:31 p.m. EST December 14, 2012

Killers aren’t stopped by these policies.

Mass shootings generally occur in places where firearms are banned.
Gun-free zones are premised on a lie: that murderers will follow rules.
As gun ownership has expanded over the past decade, crime has gone down.

After a shooting spree,” author William Burroughs once said, “they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn’t do it.” Burroughs continued: “I sure as hell wouldn’t want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military.”

Plenty of people — especially among America’s political and journalistic classes — feel differently. They’d be much more comfortable seeing ordinary Americans disarmed. And whenever there is a mass shooting, or other gun incident that snags the headlines, they do their best to exploit the tragedy and push for laws that would, well, take the guns away from the people who didn’t do it.

There are a lot of problems with this approach, but one of the most significant is this one: It doesn’t work. One of the interesting characteristics of mass shootings is that they generally occur in places where firearms are banned: malls, schools, etc. That was the finding of a famous 1999 study by John Lott of the University of Maryland and William Landes of the University of Chicago, and it appears to have been borne out by experience since then as well.

In a way, this is no surprise. If there’s someone present with a gun when a mass shooting begins, the shooter is likely to be shot himself. And, in fact, many mass shootings — from the high school shooting by Luke Woodham in Pearl, Miss., to the New Life Church shooting in Colorado Springs, Colo., where an armed volunteer shot the attacker — have been terminated when someone retrieved a gun from a car or elsewhere and confronted the shooter.

Policies making areas “gun free” provide a sense of safety to those who engage in magical thinking, but in practice, of course, killers aren’t stopped by gun-free zones. As always, it’s the honest people — the very ones you want to be armed — who tend to obey the law.

This vulnerability makes some people uncomfortable. I teach at a state university with a campus gun-free policy, and quite a few of my students have permits to carry guns. After the Virginia Tech shooting a few years ago, one of them asked me if we could move class off campus, because she felt unsafe being unarmed. I certainly would have felt perfectly safe having her carry a gun in my presence; she was, and is, a responsible adult. I feel the same way about the other law students I know who have carry permits.

Gun-free zones are premised on a lie: that murderers will follow rules, and that people like my student are a greater danger to those around them than crazed killers. That’s an insult to honest people. Sometimes, it’s a deadly one. The notion that more guns mean more crime is wrong. In fact, as gun ownership has expanded over the past decade, crime has gone down.

Fortunately, the efforts to punish “the people who didn’t do it” are getting less traction these days. The Supreme Court, of course, has recognized that under the Constitution, honest people have a right to defend themselves with firearms, inside and outside the home, something that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit recently acknowledged in striking down Illinois’ gun-carry ban. Given that gun-free zones seem to be a magnet for mass shooters, maybe we should be working to shrink or eliminate them, rather than expand them. As they say, if it saves just one life, it’s worth it.

Glenn Harlan Reynolds is a professor of law at the University of Tennessee. He blogs at InstaPundit.com.

In addition to its own editorials, USA TODAY publishes diverse opinions from outside writers, including our Board of Contributors.

kommonsentsjane