Home»Politics»Mainstream Media Now Advancing “Gun Confiscation” Agenda To Stop Mass Shootings

Mainstream Media Now Advancing “Gun Confiscation” Agenda To Stop Mass Shootings

1
Shares
Pinterest Google+

It was several years ago, during the usurper’s time in the White House, that I reported on where the abundance of gun violence took place, including mass shootings.

In another report, it was discovered that the majority of gun violence takes place in large metropolitan areas, and much of that happens in poor neighborhoods.

Additionally, more than 90% of mass shootings have occurred in government-regulated, but unconstitutional, “gun free zones.”

All of these so-called “gun control” measures are only aiding to promote full on gun confiscation and gun prohibition, except for guns being in the hands of government.

Most recently, ABC News has begun to advance the gun confiscation narrative.  They reported:

One relatively unknown tool for stopping gun violence may soon get a lot more attention.

An Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) empowers family members and police to take guns away from a person who may pose a danger to themselves or others. The person’s access to firearms is blocked until they can demonstrate that the risk is over. Essentially, ERPOs are a temporary restraining order for guns.

As of now, only Washington, California, Connecticut and most recently Oregon have ERPO laws (while Indiana and Texas have modified risk warrant statutes). Over the past year, however, spurred by a string of mass shootings beginning with the Pulse Nightclub attack that killed 49 in June 2016, legislatures in 19 states and Washington, D.C., have taken up 32 separate ERPO bills for consideration, according to Everytown for Gun Safety, a nonprofit organization that advocates for gun control.

Everytown’s deputy legal director, William Rosen, told ABC News that list will grow. “We expect to see at least as much interest in 2018,” he said.

“There is a growing consensus,” added Lauren Alfred of the gun violence prevention group Sandy Hook Promise, “that this is the first step we should be taking when we are talking about people who are at risk of hurting themselves or others.”

OK, stop and take time and think about that.  Your rights now go out the window and into the hands of either family members or a policeman to confiscate your gun simply based on how they feel about you.

To further violate the law (the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution) and the American understanding of “innocent until proven guilty,” the person my have their rights not only infringed, but be completely blocked from obtaining firearms until they can prove they are not a risk!

That’s completely backwards from what the Constitution states.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. -Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution

This is why we really need to stop referring to those on “the left” as “the left,” and start referring to them as “the criminally minded.”  Why?  Because they are seeking to not do what they were put in office to do, namely to execute justice upon the evil doers (Romans 13:1-5), but to violate the very law they swore to uphold by appealing to emotion.

Emotional decisions almost always lead to sin (transgression of the law, 1 John 3:4).

No one is thinking about how this would actually play out.

For instance, we’ve seen police officers pull all sorts of stunts to arrest people, strip search them, and put them through horrible ordeals in which no crime was actually committed.  Does anyone actually think there won’t be cops who would jump at this in order to deal with those they have a grudge against?

I’m thinking of someone like officer Joseph Peterson, who threatened John Cinque who told Democrat and Republican representatives in Connecticut that he would not comply with their illegal and unlawful gun measures if they passed them, with kicking in his door and taking his guns from him.

Then, what about a family member that has it in for you?  They claim that you are mentally unstable without any evidence and the police act on that because they are only out to cover their own backsides and take your guns and see to it that you can’t pass a background check, something else that is unconstitutional, to obtain more guns.

Does any of this seem likely to you, America?  You better bet your bottom dollar it will be happening all over the country and that will result in more filled courtrooms over things that should not have been occurring in the first place if people simply followed the outline of the Second Amendment and got rid of all “laws” that seek to regulate or restrict arms, including knives and other weapons.

Awr Hawkins provided some great commentary on the Extreme Risk Protection Order at Breitbart:

For one, it does not differentiate between Americans who die due to suicide versus those who die via gun crime, homicide. Gun crime only makes up one-third of gun deaths each year in America. Two-thirds of the deaths are suicides.

The second misleading aspect of claiming “4,500 Americans died due to gun violence in August” is that the annual average for gun deaths is 31,000 to 33,000 (and the vast majority of these are suicides, as previously noted). If 4,500 were being killed each month, that would push the total number of gun deaths to 54,000 annually, which is an outlandish claim.

In addition to Washington state, gun confiscation orders exist in Oregon, Connecticut, and California. They were passed in California after Elliot Rodger complied with every state and federal gun control on the books, then drove around Santa Barbara shooting people on May 23, 2014. UCLA law professor Adam Winkler spoke with the National Journal about the orders and explained that they would not have stopped Rodger nor would they have stopped Sandy Hook Elementary School gunman Adam Lanza. The reason in both cases is because family would have had to recognize the propensity for violence in the two attackers, for the purposes of securing a confiscation order, and there is no indication that either family did.

Professor Winkler put it this way: “The truth is that it is very rare to know in advance when someone is going to be dangerous with a firearm. This is not going to make a huge dent in our gun violence statistics.”

That’s exactly right.  So, the best thing for government to do is absolutely nothing and for the people to take responsibility for their own safety and protection by arming themselves everywhere they go.

I told you, these people will not stop at simply banning this or that or having more background checks or whatever.  They want your guns, and they want them so that they are the only ones with them and control you fully while they live in luxury and ease at your expense.  Don’t doubt me on this one.

I’ll leave you with the brilliant 1-minute video from Scott Buss showing you why gun control is a really evil idea.

Don't forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

Previous post

Biden Blasts Gun Carried By Man Who Shot Texas Church Murderer: "Shouldn't Be Carrying That Kind Of Gun"

Next post

Obama Rarely Prosecuted Criminals Who Sought To Buy Guns Illegally