Let’s Try a Gun Control Experiment! Let’s Make These Laws…

Ok with the continued cry for stricter gun control and the call for the removal of assault weapons, adding magazine limits and more, let’s try those and a few more new laws as an experiment and see what happens to the murder rate! As a supporter of the 2nd Amendment and individual rights, I confess that we have to do something to help make people safer right? So let’s try what those calling themselves #gunsense or #guncontrol want.

Let’s start out by enacting laws that require the following:

  • universal background checks
  • gun registration requirements
  • Gun Violence Restraining Orders
  • a ten-day waiting period for gun purchases
  • an “assault weapons” ban
  • one-gun-per-month limit on handgun purchases
  • minimum age of 21 to purchase a firearm
  • ban carrying firearms on campuses
  • “good cause” restriction for concealed carry permit issuance
  • limit the buying of ammunition to state-approved vendors
  • gun free zones mandated for anywhere that sells alcohol

Those should be a good start right! If we can only enact all of those new laws we should be able to curtail and maybe even reduce the number of murders by a significant amount I hope. You see many are clamoring for “common sense gun control”, yet they fail to say just what that is. I have asked many a gun control supporter just what they want and they almost always look at me with a vacant look. Like they had not thought out just what they have been led to believe is the answer. To them, gun control of any kind is what they want. Anything that will help. So I suggest the above as a start to see what happens. (bear with me and read to the end)

I mean we have an “epidemic” of gun violence in the US right? That’s what the Doctors told me when I read their posts, tweets, and articles. We have a crisis of gun murders right? That’s what Mom’s Demand Action, Everytown, and Micheal Bloomberg have told us right? The media tells us all the time that we have a huge problem of gun violence in the US. We have a crisis/ epidemic of school shootings in the US now right? That’s what they have blasted all over the media and social networks. So something has to be done about all this right?

OK, so what if I told you a state has already enacted those laws that I listed above? And guess what happened? Well, the murder rate went up 18%. WHAT!?!? That is right, the state of California already has enacted those things (all of them) and the murder rate in that state went up 18%. How is that possible? We have been told over and over that restrictions and new laws will help curb the murder and shooting epidemic. I guess not.

And as for those claims of a national epidemic or crisis of firearms shootings, murders and school shootings being a crisis or epidemic, I had to look at the numbers just to see how bad it was. Imagine how surprised I was (not really) when I discovered that instead of increasing sharply or even being higher than in the past, murder and firearms victimizations have dropped dramatically over the last 25 years or so. And not by a few percentage points, but by more than 45% each! That’s right, according to the FBI Crime database (FBI Crime Statistics) murder and firearms victimization has dropped by almost half over the last 25 years. So what about our crisis and epidemic?

Now I do not profess to be a linguist or language scholar, but even I know that when something drops by almost half it is not anything close to an epidemic or crisis. In fact by anyone’s standards that would be called a very positive trend. So why are we being told it’s a crisis, epidemic or problem? Maybe because if it was known that it’s not, those people would have no basis for these restrictions and laws? So why don’t people point out these facts to those calling for these new laws and restrictions? We do, but of course are told we are lying, or making stuff up, even with the numbers available to all.

And what about the school shooting epidemic? We all can agree that is real right? Well, let us look at the numbers again. NPR (National Public Radio) not known to be a very conservative media outlet, published an article titled “The School Shootings That Weren’t“. In this very interesting article they say:

“This spring the U.S. Education Department reported that in the 2015-2016 school year, “nearly 240 schools … reported at least 1 incident involving a school-related shooting.” 

Now that is alarming! 240 school shootings in just one year. Anyone can agree that is terrible and should be investigated farther. So NPR did just that and looked into that further. And they reported, “We were able to confirm just 11 reported incidents, either directly with schools or through media reports.” They report that two-thirds of the reported school shootings reported by the DOE NEVER HAPPENED. Now that is just downright scary that the U.S. Department of Education would report things that are in such error. But they do. And it is picked up and run with by many who support any kind of firearms restrictions that it takes on a life of its own, even when it’s false. If it’s on the internet it has to be true right?

We hear it over and over that firearms are the problem. Murders, firearms victimization and other gun related things are a crisis. Why do we hear this when the numbers do not support these claims? Because the world has changed. The internet has made the ability to post and have spread around the nation or world in minutes any claim that anyone wants to make. Even if it’s not true. And many people today are just plain too lazy to do any research for themselves. They rely on others, even when those others may not have the facts, or may have an agenda, to tell them what they should think.

Here is a fun experiment to try. Find someone that wants to have stricter gun control laws or restrictions. Ask them simply why they want them. If they say because of all the murders or school shootings simply ask them how much have these things gone up over say the last 25 years or so. Ask them to tell you what the increase in numbers has been. When they can’t, simply ask them then why do you want restrictions? If they point to bogus made up numbers, point them to the FBI Violent Crime Statistics and ask them to again prove their claim. They can’t.

We live in the instant information age, even if that information may be misleading or worse, made up. Information takes on a life of its own and becomes fact because so many people read it and tweet it and post it, it must be true right? The answer? No.




2020 Florida Amendment Petition Drive to Ban “Assualt Weapons” Will do Nothing Except make Felons out of Law Abiding Citizens.

Recently a group calling themselves “Ban Assault Weapons Now” proposed a Florida Constitutional Amendment that bans assault weapons and requires registration be added to the 2020 Florida election ballot.

Now in order to put it on the ballot in 2020, they will have to get upwards of over 750,000 valid signatures on the petitions. Then they must get 60% of Florida voters to vote in favor of it. While we like to think that is unlikely, stranger things have happened. Just look at the recent elections and some of those elected like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and you will see just how far away from the middle of the road we have gone.

Looking into this lunacy further we find the definition that they want to use for “assault weapon”: “Assault Weapons – For purposes of this subsection, any semiautomatic rifle or shotgun capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition at once, either in a fixed or detachable magazine, or any other ammunition feeding device. This subsection does not apply to handguns” 

Read that carefully. If you know anything about firearms this would apply to most semi-automatic rifles, even some shotguns. If that was not bad enough, what the “Limitations” states should make you cringe: “If a person had lawful possession of an assault weapon prior to the effective date of this subsection, the person’s possession of that assault weapon is not unlawful (1) during the first year after the effective date of this subsection, or (2), after the person has registered that weapon by make, model, and serial number with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement or its successor agency, as designated by the legislature. Registration records shall be available to local, state and federal law enforcement agencies for valid law enforcement purposes but shall otherwise be confidential.” So, in other words, they want to grandfather in already owned firearms, but you have to register them within one year.

So what is the punishment or penalty for not doing this? You become an instant FELON! Here are the penalties: “Criminal Penalties – Violation of this subsection is a third-degree felony. The legislature may designate greater, but not lesser, penalties for violations”. So if you fail to register your assault weapon within a year you are a felon. If you buy or take into your possession an assault weapon (by their definition) you are a felon.

So let us look at this logically. Just exactly what would this do to reduce the crime rate or shootings or mass shootings? Nothing. You see MURDER is already against the law. Taking a firearm onto school grounds is already illegal. Harming someone without a lawful reason is illegal. So the only thing this proposal will do is make felons out of hundreds of thousands if not millions of Floridians. There is NOT ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE that this would reduce anything.

Then there is the little problem of resistance to this proposed amendment/ law. I for one will go on record saying that I will not comply with this if it becomes part of the constitution. You do not legislate through Constitutional Amendment, you make laws through the Florida House and Senate. The reason for that is to prevent exactly what this group is trying to do. Prevent the possibility of a majority taking away the rights of a minority. As James Madison once said: “The purpose of the Constitution is to restrict the majority’s ability to harm a minority”.

Florida has the highest number of concealed carry permit holders in the US. Currently, it is at 1,941,097 as of October 31st, 2018! While not all of those may be rifle owners, I would be willing to bet a good number are. These are people that have shown less propensity to commit a crime than even the police in Florida, yet they want to restrict them even more. In what reality does that make any sense?

So I guess I should close by going on the official record. As a 35+ year veteran law enforcement officer in Florida and U.S. Army veteran, I will not comply with this should it pass. I am sorry but there comes a time when the purpose of the 2nd Amendment becomes obvious, to protect the citizens from the over-reaching of the government they elected. They tried to take firearms from the citizens of the United States once before, it was in 1775, and we ended up shooting those that tired and kicking them out of the country. Think about that.

Here is a link to the petition.

Florida’s Justifiable Use of Force Laws…

OK, I think it’s time to educate the public on something that they have been so misled on in the media and from the anti-firearms, gun control, and other anti-rights groups.

With the recent shooting in Clearwater, the media and many others seem to be misquoting and misunderstanding Florida’s “Justifiable Use of Force” laws. So maybe a bit of simple education is in order.

First Florida does not have any law titled “Stand Your Ground Law” or “Castle Doctrine” law. Those are names given by the media and anti-self-defense legislators to a very simple, and for a law, easy to read law that governs when you can and cannot use force to defend yourself or another person. It also spells out when you can and cannot use force in defense of property and gives immunity from arrest and prosecution when self-defense is lawful. So, let’s break it down for everyone.

Florida’s self-defense law is Chapter 776 of the Florida statutes and is titled “Justifiable Use of Force”. The first subsection is “776.012 Use or threatened use of force in defense of person.” In subsection (1) it discusses when you can use physical force (but not deadly force) to defend yourself against another using illegal force against you.

“(1) A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force.”

It says that you can threaten to use (make verbal threats or raise and shake your fist for example) or use physical force against another when that person is using illegal physical force against you. And that you do not have to run away or try and flee before doing so. Pretty simple. But it specifically says you cannot use deadly force to do this. That comes next.

“(2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.”

Now subsection (2) spells out when you can threaten to use or use deadly force. And this is the whole thing that the recent shooting in Clearwater was viewed under. You can threaten or use deadly force (that includes shooting someone, stabbing them, even running them over with a car if that is all you can do) to stop or prevent someone else from killing you, causing you great bodily harm, or to stop or prevent the commission of a forcible felony. So let’s break those down. Killing you, I think most people understand that one, but what many do not know is that what does it take to kill you? Can being shoved hard to the ground kill you? Yes, it can. If you Google it you will find many examples of it already happening. And the law allows you to prevent this from happening if you think the criminal is about to try this, they do not have to already have tried and failed or try a second time.

While the term “great bodily harm” is not defined in Florida Statute it is in many cases citing’s taken as “face value” meaning that it is talking about an injury that causes great harm. Or more importantly “imminent” great bodily harm, meaning it does not have to already have occurred, you can use force to stop it from happening if you feel it is going to happen unless you do something.

The last part of that subsection is the forcible felony part. This is where the law spells out crimes that it considers so serious that you can use deadly force to stop them if they are being committed against you, or another person (person not property). Those forcible felonies must be committed against a person and are spelled out in:

776.08 Forcible felony.—“Forcible felony” means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.

If you are having any of those crimes committed against you, or another person, you may use the threat of, or actual deadly force to prevent them. The important part to remember is that those crimes must be committed against a person not just a piece of property. So the burglary listing must be a burglary of an occupied house, not an empty one. You can’t shoot someone for stealing property, although in some states you can!

In both subsections, the law states that you have a right to not flee your attacker as long as you are legally where you are allowed to be. That is the entire “stand your ground” part. As you see a very small part of the law itself.

So, in summary, you can use non-deadly force to stop a non-deadly attack on you. TASER’s, pepper-spray, and other devices are non-lethal and can be used. You may use deadly force ONLY if you fear that you are going to be seriously (great) injured or possibly killed by the attack. And you may use it to stop the attack once it has started or even to prevent it from happening, like someone threatening you with a knife and trying to rob you.

Next lesson will be on the law allowing the defense of your home. If you like this and find these lessons helpful, please leave a comment so I know they are useful to people to help them understand the practical application of Florida Law.

NOTE! Of course, I must state that I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice, but I have a fair amount of experience teaching this law to police officers (almost 28 years’ worth, and also using the law myself as a LEO for 35 years).

Florida’s misnamed “Stand your Ground” law and the term “Castle Doctrine”.

OK, I think it may be time for some education and clarification on the history and use of Florida’s misnamed “Stand your Ground” law and the term “Castle Doctrine”.

First a little history, how did Florida’s “Justifiable Use of Force” statute, Chapter 776 in the Florida State Statutes, become referred to as the Florida “Stand Your Ground” (SYG) law? Why if those words do not appear in the statute do we keep hearing it referred to as that?

Well, you must go back to when the law was being debated on the floor of the Florida Legislature prior to being passed. Prior to 2005, Florida residents already had the right to use deadly force to defend themselves, but they had to prove they could not have escaped the threat. Basically, requiring them to try and run away, or be cornered and not able to before they could use deadly force to defend their own lives. A terrible way to live and putting people at the mercy of violent criminals. In a quote from a 2005 article (https://wapo.st/2LJzEio) on the law being considered Rep. Dan Gelber is quoted as saying “”It’s almost like a duel clause” and “People ought to have to walk away if they can.” Meaning that if you did not retreat from a threat, you cannot use force to defend your life.

The press needed something to call the law that had negative connotations to it and they figured that something uttered by an opponent to the law at the time, was a good choice. It makes the law sound like, as it was also referred to, as a “dueling” law. When it is nothing of the sort.

Something of interest from back then also is this little tidbit from the same article “Florida Attorney General Charlie Crist, a leading candidate for the Republican governor’s nomination in 2006, was among those who wrote letters of support.” So back then Ole Charlie was a Republican and in favor of the Self defense rights of Floridians. What happened to Charlie?

In a CBS article dated April 26th, 2005 (https://cbsn.ws/2LKU5f1), CBS legal analyst Andrew Cohen said: “It says to people: You can stand your ground and if you feel reasonably threatened that harm is going to come to you, you can fire away.” This is the first reference to the term “Stand your ground” that can be found in the press. The term caught on and the bill and law were forever after referred to by the anti-self-defense rights as the Florida “Stand your ground law”, even though the words in the text of the bill is “stand his or her ground” and only a small part of the statute.

The term “stand your ground” is a huge disservice to the statute that allows a person to defend themselves, wherever they have a legal right to be, without having to run away or flee first, or try to flee. There are several parts to the law and the ability to defend yourself is not bound by location and should not be.

So where did the term “Castle Doctrine” come from? Well, that now the famous term that describes the ability to defend your home (and in Florida your vehicle or other places you are residing or occupying). Several studies try and show that the original reference to “castle” refers to English common law rules protecting a person’s home and the phrase “one’s home is one’s castle.” It is also reported the actual coining of the phrase “Castle Doctrine” to refer to Florida’s and now other states similar laws came from none other than our very own 2nd Amendment rights supporter, Marion Hammer! The Washington Post article I used above for some quotes also states that the Florida bill was given the name the “castle doctrine” by Florida lobbyist Marion P. Hammer, a former National Rifle Association president.

But in researching the actual 2005 Bill that was submitted we find that the drafters of the bill wrote the following in the preamble of the bill; “WHEREAS, the castle doctrine is a common-law doctrine of ancient origins which declares that a person’s home is his or her castle, and…” so in reality the first reference to it being called the “Castle Doctrine” law was written in the preamble of the law itself. (http://laws.flrules.org/files/Ch_2005-027.pdf)

What has happened is that the law repeatedly being called these terms has diluted the true meaning and understanding of the law by the public, and they have no clue what the law really says or actually means. They now believe the media’s portrayal of the law and have never even bothered to read the law. Maybe now understanding where those terms come from and why people might want to learn more about the law that allows them to defend themselves and not have to flee criminals. A basic human right that should not even have to be written into law, but as humans we have this tendency to do just that, have to write down common sense to make sure those without it can read it. (http://bit.ly/2Lzis2g)

If you are going to rely on a law for your safety and that of your family, maybe you might want to actually read it, and not base your knowledge on the media and biased reports by those who want you to have to run away when threatened by a criminal.

It Happened Again in Santa Fe, Texas, and We Could Have Done Something!

With today’s shooting in Santa Fe Texas, it brings to the forefront once again that the people of the United States are not looking at these issues with logic and experience in how we can help lessen these types of incidents or at least minimize the damage done when they do happen.

Wake up America. Criminals, as the name applies, commit crimes. They violate the laws already on the book and any others that may be thought of. What then can be done to stop these types of attacks? We should look at what has worked other places and in other types of places.

The military has a specialty called “physical security”. It is used to provide security for anything the military considers important. Things like nuclear weapons, specialty equipment, and locations that need protection are “hardened”. Rings of various levels of security measures are put in place to make things secure and safe.

My specialty in the U.S. Army for half my time in the military was as the training coordinator for the security forces in charge of the physical security of several hundred nuclear weapons in what was at the time, West Germany.  We, of course, had fences, alarms, and various other physical barriers, but also had armed security on the sites. These were trained and equipped soldiers that took the security of these special weapons very seriously. We could be up and out into the fray in 30 seconds or less on these sites. We trained daily for it.

While I am not recommending that we place military units in our schools, I am recommending we take some of the lessons learned by the military and by other countries that have school security (Israel comes to mind) and look at what has worked and what could be implemented to protect our schools. It is simple really. As long as have no or little physical security measures in our schools, they will remain a target for depraved minds and those wanting to cause mass casualties. Armed response to an armed attack is also another thing that must be thought about. Why do you think you call the police when something like this happens? Because they are bringing guns to confront the armed suspect. Again I call it common sense.

I train law enforcement for a living. I teach law enforcement firearms and have for over 2 decades. I will be the first to tell you that police for the most part (not including specialty units like SWAT Teams) are not any better at using firearms than many civilian firearms owners and carriers. Putting law enforcement officers in the schools, called school resource officers can and has been effective at stopping mass school shootings. Just this same week in Illinois a school resource officer, Ofc. Mark Dallas, confronted a 19-year-old who was armed and started shooting at Dixon High School in Dixon, Il and was able to stop the shooter, by confronting him with an armed immediate response. Yet that, of course, did not make much in the way of news, because the only casualty was the criminal himself.

So let’s stop panicking and becoming emotional and trying to pass laws that only affect law-abiding citizens, and takes away the rights of regular citizens to be able to protect themselves, and we need to make some changes to the physical security in our schools, and allow or place armed security in the schools. For heaven’s sake, we require fire extinguishers in schools. fire alarms,  and fire education. Yet we do not require bullet resistant glass in the doors, or entry control points with armed security or officers or other easy things that can absolutely reduce or mitigate the damage for these types of things.

America, stop listening to the media, stop listening to the right or left, stop getting emotional about things like this and let those with the knowledge and ability of those that know about these types of things help make “common sense” changes to our schools and the security that they have.

There are many things that we can do in the short term to help secure the schools until physical changes are made to help also. Police Officers placed it he schools is not a negative thing, it’s positive. An armed immediate response is what is needed to stop these types of criminals.

Until America realizes that you don’t stop these things with just laws and emotion and demonstrations, we are doomed to continue to repeat it over and over. They say that doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome is the definition of insanity. So America, let’s stop the insanity, and give our schools the armed security they need and realize you fight fire with fire, in this case, it is you fight an armed attacker with an immediate and armed response.

Get over it America, stop arguing over “common sense gun safety” and focus on the real things that will make a difference. Making changes to our schools and the security we provide them.

To Those Who Want More “Gun Control” and Think We Have a “Gun Crime Epidemic” in the U.S.A.

I find it very distressing, and actually a bit disgusting, that there are people out there calling themselves “Americans” who do not understand the very basics surrounding the issue of firearms crime and use in the United States and yet are crying for the removal of certain firearms, or the reduction of the ability for law abiding citizens to arm and defend themselves. How can anyone with half a mind and says with a straight face that they are for disarming law-abiding citizens to try and reduce the number of murders by firearms in the US? In what fantasy world do they live in where murder, violent crime, school mass murders and virtually any other crime involving firearms has become an “epidemic” or “risen sharply”?
Why can’t those same people that cry for “common sense gun control” use that same supposed common sense they claim to have to look into and deal with the real facts surrounding firearms use and crime? The only answer I can see is that they have decided that they don’t care about facts, they don’t care about rights, and they don’t care about safety and would rather give up their rights to make themselves “feel” like they did something. I hear it over and over we have to do “something”! Why? And is a uniformed, ill-conceived something better than taking the time to look into the facts before taking action?
Let’s take a hypothetical situation and see what those same people think. Let’s say for discussion sake that we reduced or removed the vast majority of firearms from American society. And that after that was done, while murder by firearm goes down some, other violent crimes rise sharply. Crimes like rape, battery (hitting a person), and other physical crimes go up. The criminals are still using guns, but those citizens who would have been able to defend themselves before, no longer can so those crimes happen more and more frequently. And the criminals then also turn to using other weapons, say knives. In fact, let’s say knife crime and other crimes go way up, to the point that combining those crimes and the still happening gun crimes, the crime rate is called “out of control” and “worse than New York City’s crime rate”? What would you say about the firearms being the problem then? Well, this hypothetical is not so much one since it’s exactly what has happened in Britain.
In what reality does it make any sense to disarm the victims and let the criminals be the only ones able to use a firearm? How can that possibly protect people? Of course, it can’t. Removing the ability of people to defend themselves does absolutely nothing to reduce crime. If you had two people standing in front of a store, and a criminal was looking at who to rob, would they choose the person that they see is armed and take the chance of being shot or possibly killed, or would they choose the unarmed person who they know they have the upper hand on? Please don’t try the stupid line “well they can rob the person of the gun.” That’s idiotic. Of course, they would choose the easy unarmed victim. In fact, a 1985 Department of Justice survey of incarcerated felons reported that 57 percent of felons polled agreed that “criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police. Did you read that? Criminals worried more about armed citizens than the COPS!
How can anyone who considers themselves an American EVER think about reducing or giving up the very rights our founding fathers fought and died for? I find it repugnant that people who live in this country and enjoy the freedoms they have become so used to they don’t realize they are using a right and are willing to give some up based on fear and nothing more.
Wake up America! Let’s set the record straight once and for all. DO NOT tell us, the law-abiding armed citizens of the U.S. that you only want to restrict certain firearms and pass “common sense” laws. Murder is already against the law, yet it still happens with and without firearms. The cry is for making “assault firearms” illegal to own (although there are millions of them in the US already and are one of the most popular firearms in the U.S.) is blatantly ridiculous in the light of the fact that more people are killed with hands and feet and baseball bats than those terrible “weapons of war” as they like to call them. Oh and that brings up the point, many against the owner of the AR-15 say that the 2nd Amendment does not say you can own such “weapons of war”, and that even if the 2nd Amendment meant weapons that you can use to overthrow a tyrannical government were protected, no one could fight the US military with AR-15’s. Yet it is a weapon of war? So which is it, either it’s a weapon of war and one that should be allowed under the 2nd Amendment, or it’s not a weapon of war and therefore should be OK to own. Make up your minds, please.
But the FACT of the matter is that murder in the United States is down from the highs in the 1980’s by 48%. While it has increased by single-digit percentages in the last two years (2015/2016) overall the murder rate down by almost half of what it was in the 1980’s. It still is way down over the last 30 years. So let me understand this, even though murders by firearms are down by almost 50%, it’s still an “epidemic”? Violent crime of all kinds is down it the US. All one has to do is look up the numbers from the FBI and Department of Justice. At the same time, while violent crime is way down and firearm crimes included, firearms ownership has increased dramatically. If firearms were the problem, would not the increase in firearms ownership and the number of firearms make the murder rate increase as well as other violent crime? It’s a simple concept. People claim that murders and shootings are increasing not decreasing. Yes, they are for the last two years only but are still 48% less than 30 years ago.
So to all those people who claim to know what they are talking about and want the reduction in rights and firearms in the United States, my simple question is this, WHY? What fact supports your stance for this need? There is none; you have nothing to base your “fear” on. You have been convinced by the media and anti-rights groups that firearms are bad and firearms murders are an epidemic, yet that is not the case. So now what? Now, what do you base your unfounded fear on since you now know you have based your fears and wanting for “common sense gun control” is no longer based on facts but media and anti-rights group bias. Anyone with half a brain and common sense and even a bit of intellectual integrity would realize that there are real issues out there that need to be addressed, and it’s not firearms.
So when you, those calling for the removal of rights, and the restriction of the ability of people to defend themselves, want to try and justify your position, come back when you have something to base that position on and can talk about real facts and issues. Otherwise, no you cannot have our firearms or our rights. That’s the beauty of rights; they are for everyone, even those that don’t understand them.

An Open Letter to Those Who Support the Student Anti-Gun Movement!

After reading and watching the reports about the “national” day of protest recently, and listening to dozens of media talking heads tell us just how “great”, “fantastic” and “mature” these high school students are, I almost lost my logical, calm mind. Around 4,500 students in my county alone walked out of class and the media followed by telling us how we should “listen to these young people” when it comes to this particular issue.

Enough is enough! First off, the State of Florida just passed a law stating that 18-20 year-olds are not old enough, mature enough, and cannot be trusted to buy firearms of any kind. Hold on! Why am I supposed to listen to the voices of high school kids when it comes to firearms and gun violence, yet I cannot trust those same kids until they turn 21? How does that make sense? On one hand, you want me to pay close attention to, listen to, and take what they say to heart. On the other hand, you want me to violate their constitutional rights when they turn 18 and legally become an adult?

Let’s get one thing straight—violating anyone’s rights is wrong. For any reason. Can we all agree on that? Let’s agree that discriminating against anyone based on race, age, or gender is against the law and the Constitution. Remember the small phrase “We the People”?

So, let’s just come out and be truthful. I know for some that is hard, but lets just for once be honest and utilize logic when discussing controversial matters.

First, the movement being presented by the young people in high school is not their movement. It is your movement, one in which you saw an opportunity to use these kids to further your anti-gun and anti-rights agenda. You jumped on the chance. Who funded the buses to move these groups around? Who funded the signs they held? Who funded the food? It’s wasn’t paid for by the kids themselves, that much any person with half a brain can see.

Second, let’s just come out and say what your group’s real goal is. You want to make all firearms illegal. You will work a little at a time, but the real goal is to get firearms banned in the United States. In case you are not educated enough, or have been so brainwashed into thinking it’s not, that is against the Constitution. The document that all of our other laws are based on.

Third, you are not willing to have an honest and open discussion about the real facts about firearms in the U.S. If you were, your movement would die a quiet death—the facts do not support your emotionally driven half-truths and lies about firearms.

So, this open letter is to anyone who supports the student anti-firearms movement. If you were really concerned about our young people, and wanted to keep them safe, you would try and push for real, concrete actions and laws that help make our schools safer. Give law enforcement the tools and training they need—put money and research into trying to figure out the underlying causes of why these things happen. But of course, you really are not interested in those things. Because an unarmed populace is one that fears its government. Why do some people fear firearms so much? It’s most likely their lack of education on the topic. If you’ve never had to carry one to protect yourself and others, you don’t understand the real use of a firearm in the hands of a law-abiding citizen.

So, let’s drop all the half-truths and lies, drop all the fake, emotionally driven, do-nothing laws and bills. Let’s get a group of people together, who have some actual knowledge about physical security, firearms, law enforcement, training, and the like. Let them come up with real solutions to make our schools safer instead of turning them into “gun-free zones”—where the only free gun is the one in the hand of a mass murderer killing our young people.

When you are willing to talk about facts, truths and real solutions, we will be listening and willing to help.

Until then, stop violating constitutional rights.