John Paul Stevens And The Vermont Legislature Just Became The NRA’s Next Biggest Membership Drive Boosters Since David Hogg
If you are a supporter of the Second Amendment and believe in the right to bear arms is a constitutional right for everyone, then this week has been very busy and quite frankly – scary. As if last Saturday’s March For Our Lives protests and constant coverage from the Main Stream Media outlets parading the Parkland, Florida Survivors (with the exception of Kyle Kashuv, of course) to push their political agenda of banning guns wasn’t enough to keep you on edge, along come two more reasons to white knuckle your AR just a tad bit more.
On Tuesday former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote the dissenting argument to the D.C. vs. Heller case no less, wrote an Op-Ed piece in the New York Times. In the piece Stevens calls for an outright repeal of the, and I’m quoting here, “relic of the 18th century“ we all know as the Second Amendment. He then goes on to say how the Heller decision did nothing but provide propaganda for the NRA and how simple it would be to overturn that ruling and get rid of the Second Amendment all together via a constitutional amendment.
Yeah, Good luck with that J.P.!
But then, just as I was smugly laughing off J.P.’s Op-Ed and moving on to Russia test firing an ICBM dubbed ‘Satan’ – Vermont comes along and essentially tells J.P. to “hold my beer…” with this classy little piece of legislation.
House Proposal of Amendment S.55, as it is being referred to in the Vermont Legislature, passed with a vote of 17 -13 (Yea/Nay) today. Originally S.55 was proposed to enforce laws prohibiting the sale or dispensation of illegal drugs. Somehow it got changed to a gun control bill which I have yet to understand the leap from drug enforcement to banning guns – but I digress. In essence the bill says you can’t buy a gun until the age of 21 (with exception of law enforcement, military, national guard, etc.), bans large capacity magazines, bans bump-stocks (the only part I’m fine with) and tosses in wording to investigate into how best to impose background checks for private firearms sales.
This legislation is not a gun ban. However, I view it as a precursor to that now very plausible future state when taken with Stevens Op-Ed published earlier in the week. The Left and the Main Stream Media wasted no time in touting their praises for the article and for Vermont on passing S.55.
Because make no mistake about it. Their end goal is an outright repeal of the Second Amendment and a ban on firearms. Their general argument being that they are looking after the safety of the children. Statistically speaking, however, it has been shown that less guns do not equate for greater safety. In fact, the data shows exactly the opposite of that narrative.
According to FBI Statistics from 2007-2011 there were 46,313 murders committed by firearms in the United States.
According to the reported analysis of Firearm Justifiable Homicides and Non-Fatal Self-Defense Gun Use conducted by Violence Policy Center there were 235,700 cases where self-protective behavior was reported with a firearm. Unfortunately this report does not specifically indicate if those self-protective incidents were successful, but based off the wording of the report it is assumed that the incidents were prevented.
Given those numbers, far many more lives were potentially saved than lost by firearms. In fact it is more than five times the numbers of lives saved.
This is far below the number of lives saved in self-protective incidents as reported by the NRA where that estimate hovers around the 2.5 million mark. However, it is still an impressive number and more ardently supports the case that having a firearm is far greater than not having one when it comes to the ability to defend yourself.
To me that is what the Second Amendment and the Heller decision are all about. Having the ability to defend myself, my family and my property should the need ever arise. The Left and their crusade to impede my ability to do so is unconstitutional at its core. I find their reasoning to be factually inaccurate and their solution of having Government, State and Local Officials protect us unacceptable. Especially when you take into account the recent failures of those very agencies tasked with protecting those students in Parkland, Florida.
It is an insult to those lives lost that the survivors are now being used by the Left and Main Stream Media to advocate for their political agenda of banning guns under the false pretense of more safety.
The facts simply do not support that argument.