Tag Archives: Gun Control.

What Secretary Clinton Believes About Guns and Why You Should NOT Vote for Her

Maple Grove Firearms is unashamed tohttp://reason.com/blog/2016/06/08/its-pretty-clear-clinton-does-not-think be pro-2nd Amendment. It is a right given to us by our founders and our Creator. Secretary Clinton doesn’t believe the way we do, so we want to outline what she believes from public comments and writings she has made and then ask you to NOT vote for her in the coming election.

On her campaign web site, Mrs. Clinton will do everything she can to repeal the Protection in Lawful Commerce of Arms Act (here too). Signed by George W. Bush in 2005, the Act prevents firearm manufacturers from being held liable if someone uses their products to commit a crime. Mrs. Clinton, presumably, would let the trial lawyers have a red-meat feast of suing these manufacturers to the point where defense costs would drive up retain pricing, thus reducing the number of people who could afford to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights.

Mrs. Clinton is simply wrong on this issue. If one can sue firearm manufacturers when their products are used to commit a crime, why not sue baseball bat manufacturers when a Louisville Slugger is used to kill someone, or sue hammer manufacturers when a hammer is used to kill someone or the automobile manufacturers when a car is used to commit a crime? She is inconsistent – calling out only the firearm manufacturers – for this type of exposure to liability.

Moreover, on her campaign web site, Mrs. Clinton will work to reinstate the assault weapons ban that was signed by her husband and ended under Bush 43’s administration. So all you folks who have AR-15’s and similar types of weapons, she wants to ban them, take them away and probably use that opportunity to ban other types of weapons and magazine sizes as well.

Thirdly, she doesn’t really believe the 2nd Amendment is a constitutional right that we have. Check out this article on her interview with George Stephanopoulos regarding her basic belief about the 2nd Amendment. She says “IF it is a constitutional right….” (emphasis added) (here and here too). “IF”? Seriously? She disagrees with the Heller decision. Fine. But her side lost at the Supreme Court. It is a personal right that is not tied to serving in the Militia the Court concluded. There is no “If”. But in her mind, it’s still “If”.


So, there are three examples of why you shouldn’t vote for Mrs. Clinton for President if you’re pro-2nd Amendment:

  1. Mrs. Clinton wants to expose the firearm manufactures to endless lawsuits that will drive up the costs of firearms and ammunition to the point where most will not be able to afford to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights
  2. She wants to reinstate the ban on “assault” firearms. But rest assured that she’ll not stop with the AR-15 – she’ll want to include many other semi-auto firearms in her ban. I know I’m not wrong on this prediction.
  3. She doesn’t recognize or respect the Court’s Heller decision. She doesn’t think you and I have a personal right to carry a firearm for self-defense

Three very good reasons to not vote for Mrs. Clinton.

Bill English
Maple Grove Firearms

Gun Control is Crouching at Your Door

Recently, 124 House Democrats have co-sponsored HR 4269, the Assault Weapons Ban of 2015. You should stop right now and read the bill before you read further in this post.

The bill would, in effect, prohibit the manufacturing, distribution and possession of most (what are commonly known as) assault rifles, while exempting those rifles that are already in existence. I guess their thinking is that over a period of decades, the assault rifle would die off and not be available for mass shootings.

It also bans the gifting of assault rifles between private parties and all “grandfathered” weapons would be subject to the same limitations and exclusions as new weapons.

If this thing were to ever pass, say goodbye to your AR-15 and other similar types of firearms.

Mind you, this will do *nothing* to stop mass shootings. According to the Congressional Research Service, in 2009, there are a total of 310 million firearms in the United States broken out as follows: 114M handguns, 110M rifles and 86M shotguns. Any one of these types of guns can be used to kill numerous people at the same time. Regulating assault rifles in order to lower mass shootings is a bit like regulating minivans in order to lower automobile deaths. It will have little effect – except to create a black market for AR-style firearms and turn those who own them into criminals.

In addition, the same report showed that firearms-related murder and non-negligent manslaughter rates per 100,000 citizens dropped from 6.6% in 1993 to 3.2% in 2011. This report did not find a correlation between the increase in the number of firearms and an increase in firearm-related murders and manslaughters. This report also found that the use of weapons in non-lethal crimes decreased from 2.4 persons in 2000 to 1.4 persons in 2009.

The mere existence of firearms does not pose a threat to society or individuals within that society, much like the mere existence of fattening foods does pose a threat to us. It’s what we do with the firearm that matters. You can leave a fully loaded shotgun on your front porch and I’ll promise you that everyone will be safe and no one will be harmed until someone picks it up and uses it to shoot another person.

If gun control people really want to solve this problem by removing guns from our society, then they should go big or go home: either abolish the 2nd Amendment or go home.

California FAQ: Just the Beginning of Where Anti-gun Forces Want to Take Us

The California FAQ on firearms reveals a state that is run by anti-gun forces.  If you ever take for granted our rights in this state, just take a few minutes and think through what California residents are faced with if they want to defend themselves.

Anti-gun forces here in Minnesota would take us farther down the road than California, in our estimation.  Be sure to stay active in pro-gun legislative activities and encourage your friends and family members to be proficient in the safe use of a firearm.

Violent Crime Nationwide Decreased after the Assault Ban ended in 2004

The call to end ownership of assault rifles was loud and clear after the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary.  In an interesting article by John Lott in the Wall Street Journal, we learn, among other things, that 2.6% of all murders are committed with some type of a rifle and that violent crime is down since the assault rifle ban ended in 2004.

Calls to reinstitue the assault rifle ban are tantamount to calls for the increase in violent crime in our society.  Quote Lott from the Wall Street Journal article:

Since the Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired in September 2004, murder and overall violent-crime rates have fallen. In 2003, the last full year before the law expired, the U.S. murder rate was 5.7 per 100,000 people, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Report. By 2011, the murder rate fell to 4.7 per 100,000 people. One should also bear in mind that just 2.6% of all murders are committed using any type of rifle.

Well, now.

While we all love our children and are all horrified by what happened, let’s also not make public policy based primarily on emotion.  I’d rather base public policy on solid research that indicates a particular course of action.  In this instance, an assault rifle ban is contra-indicated by the research.

Bill English

466 Children shot in 2012 in Chicago – the City With the Most Restrictive Gun Laws in America

NPR has reported that 466 children were shot in 2012 in Chicago, 66 of the children died due to their gunshot wounds. This tragedy is easier to absorb, perhaps, because they were not all shot at the same time, inside a school with principles and staff trying to protect them.

But it is every bit as much a tragedy as what happen at Newtown.

Gun violence is a serious issue. I don’t know of *anyone* in the pro-gun movement who likes or supports the use of guns in non-self-defense situations. We all deplore this and condemn senseless acts of gun violence.

If guns were the only instrument used to commit mass murder, perhaps we would be more open to curtailing gun rights in the US. But they are not. Knives, cars, bats, sticks, rocks and other instruments are used in senseless violence. The problem is our culture of violence, not the presence of instruments that can be used for both good and evil.

In the coming days, we’ll face a barrage of ideas on how limiting Second Amendment rights will ensure that a crazy person will never commit senseless violence again with a gun. They will be wrong, of course, but that won’t matter. Most of what Washington does is based on politics and emotions, not on reasoned, thoughtful solutions that are brought to bear on a complex problem. Gaining votes from low-informed people who think primarily with their emotions rather than their heads may rule the day. Reducing serious issues to sound bits and pithy questions will further serve to keep our society from thinking through the difficult issues.

If 66 children needlessly killed in one year in one city isn’t worthy of prime time on Today or the Nightly News, then why is Newtown? Reinstituting the assault rifle ban will help many feel better, but it will do *nothing* to curtail senseless violence. Criminals will still get assault rifles and will use them to kill. It’s just that their victims, many times, who are law-abiding citizens will be outgunned because they obeyed the law and didn’t purchase an equal gun with which to defend themselves.

The 2nd amendment was written primarily to keep a tyrannical government from using force to overcome it’s citizenry. But the by-product of this right is our ability to defend ourselves against *any* aggressor, be it government or private citizen. To the extent our right is curtailed, the government’s and the criminal’s ability to impose their will on the minority or the defenseless through the use of force only increases.

Freedom is messy and difficult. The person to blame in the Newtown shooting is the shooter. Had the guns not been available, he would have found a different instrument or set of instruments to use to carry out his plan. He knew what he was doing. He knew it was wrong. And he carries the sole responsibility for his actions. Everyone wants to blame others because, I think, they want an explanation. If we can find someone to blame, then we have a basis from which to form our thinking about making sense of this senseless act.

But the mother isn’t to blame. Nor is the father or his brother. Guns didn’t force him to do this. The presence of a car didn’t make him drive the paths he drove to get to the school. The food he ate that morning didn’t give him the energy to commit this act and the bed he slept in didn’t cause him nightmares that resulted in this tragedy. Liberals are not to blame. Neither are conservatives. The shooter is the one to blame. Him alone.

I hope our Congress doesn’t act while emotions are running at a fever-pitch. Instead, I hope they take their time and whatever changes they do make, I hope they are reasoned and measured. But I will guarantee this: whatever changes they make will not stop the next act of senseless violence. They will tell us that their new changes will stop Newtown-types of senseless violence. But don’t believe them. Man has been killing man since the beginning of the world. That is not going to change, no matter what Congress does.

For a well-articulated opposing viewpoint, click here.

For a well-articulated book on how more guns means less crime, click here.

Bill English
Maple Grove Firearms