By Matt Agorist
Annapolis, MD — While Americans watched the 2018 Olympics and mainstream media put on scripted town hall meetings to demonize law-abiding citizens who own guns, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia handed down a blow to the Second Amendment.
In a 10-4 ruling, the federal court ruled that the state of Maryland’s ban on 45 different “assault” weapons and its 10-round limit for magazines was not a violation of the citizens’ constitutional rights. The ruling was not without harsh dissent, however.
“Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protections to weapons of war,” Judge Robert King wrote for the court, adding that the Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller explicitly excluded such coverage, according to NBC.
“It’s unthinkable that these weapons of war, weapons that caused the carnage in Newtown and in other communities across the country, would be protected by the Second Amendment,” Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh, who spearheaded the movement, said.
“It’s a very strong opinion, and it has national significance, both because it’s en-banc and for the strength of its decision,” Frosh said.
As NBC reports, however, Judge William Traxler issued a dissent. By concluding the Second Amendment doesn’t even apply, Traxler wrote, the majority “has gone to greater lengths than any other court to eviscerate the constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms.” He also wrote that the court did not apply a strict enough review on the constitutionality of the law.
“For a law-abiding citizen who, for whatever reason, chooses to protect his home with a semi-automatic rifle instead of a semi-automatic handgun, Maryland’s law clearly imposes a significant burden on the exercise of the right to arm oneself at home, and it should at least be subject to strict scrutiny review before it is allowed to stand,” Traxler wrote.
Elizabeth Banach, executive director of Marylanders to Prevent Gun Violence, says this ruling is “overwhelming proof that reasonable measures to prevent gun violence are constitutional,” adding that it doesn’t go far enough.
“Maryland’s law needs to become a national model of evidence-based policies that will reduce gun violence,” Banach wrote in a statement.
Sadly, the court entirely ignored the Supreme Court case of District of Columbia v. Heller which determined that the Second Amendment protects weapons that are “in common use at the time for lawful purposes like self-defense.”
As TFTP has previously reported, every time a lunatic, who is usually on some form mind-altering pharmaceutical, goes on a shooting rampage, the do-gooders in Washington, with the aid of their citizen flocks, take to the TV and the Internet to call for disarming the American people.
The citizens who call for themselves and their neighbors to be disarmed, likely think no deeper than the shallow speeches given by the political blowhards, designed to appeal to emotion only. They do not think of what happens during and after the government attempts to remove guns from society. They also completely ignore the fact that criminals do not obey laws and making guns illegal would have zero effect on criminals possessing guns.
In the perfect Statist world in which only the government has guns, we’re told that crime rates would plummet, people wouldn’t be murdered, gun violence would be brought to its knees, and a disarmed heaven on Earth would ensue. But how effective would disarming the citizens actually be at preventing gun violence, while at the same time keeping guns in the hands of government?
One simple way to determine the outcome would be to compare mass shootings in America with those killed by police. It is entirely too easy to compare all senseless murders carried out by the State to those carried out by citizens, so we will zoom in with a microscope.
However, just as a point of reference, in the 20th Century alone, governments were responsible for 260,000,000 deaths worldwide. That number is greater than all deaths from illicit drug use, STDs, homicides, and traffic accidents — combined.
Now, on to the micro-comparison.
According to a comprehensive database of all American mass shootings that have taken place since 1982, constructed by Mother Jones, there have been exactly 816 deaths attributed to mass shootings that have taken place on American soil.
As Mother Jones notes, in their database, they exclude shootings stemming from more conventional crimes such as armed robbery or gang violence. Other news outlets and researchers have published larger tallies that include a wide range of gun crimes in which four or more people have been either wounded or killed. While those larger datasets of multiple-victim shootings may be useful for studying the broader problem of gun violence, our investigation provides an in-depth look at the distinct phenomenon of mass shootings—from the firearms used to mental health factors and the growing copycat problem.
If we were to compare the 816 citizens killed in mass shootings to citizens killed by police in the same time frame, the comparison would be off the charts. So, for the sake of simplicity, we will compare all of the mass shooting deaths in the last 35 years, to the number of citizens killed by police since the beginning of last year.
Already, in 2018, American police have killed 188 people. When we add that to 1,189 people killed by police in 2017, that number is 1,377. This number is set to increase by one, on average, every 8 hours.
When comparing the total number of mass shootings over the last 35 years to just the last 14 months of police killings the ratio is 1.7 to 1, citizens killed by cops vs. citizens killed in mass shootings. That is a massive difference.
The comparison is staggering and should shock the conscience. But to truly get a perspective, lets go back three years and compare all of the citizens killed by cops since the beginning of 2015 to the number of mass shooting deaths.
Since 2015, cops in America have killed 3,733 citizens.
In a time period that is less than one-tenth the amount of time it took mass shooters to kill 816 people, cops have killed nearly 5 times as many citizens.
The 2nd Amendment wasn’t put into place so Ted Nugent could piss off liberals in a horrible reality TV series, or so the Duck Dynasty folks could shoot their dinner. It was put there because the ability of a people to defend themselves is the only thing standing in between freedom and slavery.
Of course, a society without guns sounds fantastic and, in a perfect utopian world, it would be nice not to need a gun. However, we do not live in utopia.
It’s not about “clinging to the Second Amendment” or being addicted to firepower. It’s about protecting you and your family and no one having the right to hinder that protection.
As John Locke stated, self-defense is the first law of nature. Each person owns his or her own life and no other person has a right to take that life. Those who would attempt to stop you from defending yourself are attacking the very right from which all other rights are derived — protection of one’s own life.
Matt Agorist is an honorably discharged veteran of the USMC and former intelligence operator directly tasked by the NSA. This prior experience gives him unique insight into the world of government corruption and the American police state. Agorist has been an independent journalist for over a decade and has been featured on mainstream networks around the world. Agorist is also the Editor at Large at the Free Thought Project, where this article first appeared. Follow @MattAgorist on Twitter, Steemit, and now on Facebook.
This begs the question then why are we arming the police with weapons of war? Not a gun freak here but during the LA riots [decades ago] the only shopkeepers that could protect their stores were not the ones with shotguns but the ones with semi-automatic weapons because too many people were looting and police weren’t helping. What we really need is less pharmaceuticals ;especially ones with suicidal & homicidal side effects!
You make too much sense, CAWS.
In any honest investigation of “mass shootings” the question of psychotropic drug prescriptions assigned to the shooters before the event should be examined as a fundamental cause- emphasis on the “mental”.
I totally agree. But, there will never be an investigation into statin drugs and mind control doesn’t exist so say the orthodox narrative. The law protection and enforcement corporation will indeed do just that for the currency making corporations. Great comment CAWS.
I believe in 1776, the musket would have been considered a “weapon of war”.
When the founding fathers included the right to keep and bear arms in our constitution they meant for each citizen to be armed as well as any invading army. If a farmer could have afforded a cannon it would have been acceptable.
The minuteman concept was for each citizen to arm himself on a minute notice to defend a bridge, road etc.
” If you see something, say something ” The local police & the FBI received the “SAY SOMETHINGS” !!!!! Well, this mentally Ill creatin could have easily been restrained as a result of the many complaints! The Police & FBI should have to account for their negligence ?????
Criminal Negligence is what it was. Plus the reports of multiple shooters by some witnesses. Another false flag Project Gladio assault on the public. I just wonder when the criminals are going to start using actually terrorism and terrorists, and not just in a ‘lone wolf’ scenario, against us?
Let’s ban guns from police while we’re at it. Let’s prosecute police who have no reason to kill or injure people, and only allow that to happen when they are defending ourselves. So if it’s so dangerous to be a police officer, it’s also as dangerous to be an innocent citizen who has to contend with both criminals and criminal government law enforcement. People need to band together to implement citizen groups who prosecute those who are guilty and aren’t prosecuted by the government, especially corrupt officials.
The second amendment is to protect against government tyranny. Right now the government of the US is a corrupt organized crime operation that meets the definition of tyrannical government. The judge that made this ruling committed treason and needs to be tried for treason.
The only solution I can see is to change our political system to a Lottocracy,
That is A lottery for all government jobs, not only the elected positions but all judge positions, with a defined term.
A lottery would be set up so that the citizen says I can do the job, the citizen then pays $200 to vet the citizen to make sure that that citizen has the necessary experience and education and can actually do the job. Then if they meet the criteria, their name is put into the hat.
Come SELECTION DAY, the contents of all the people are poured out for all to see, then put back in the selection hat, and one name is pulled out and that person gets the political job for one term.
Elections are easy targets for fraud. A Lottocracy will allow randomness, so that all people that meet the job criteria have an opportunity to get the job. No bigotry involved. We then are all on the same side. No more partisan ship. Political parties were perpetuated by the elites so that they can divide and conquer.
Term limits, very low chance of getting selected twice.
Next government staff, 6 years maximum and accumulative appointments, no more. We need to have government staff turn over, so that the deep state will be removed and never again get in. Contract services will be the correct move. And these can change yearly.
Nice. Perhaps that could be the way to go. That is, if people still want to have centralized power in Washington D.C. I say no, I say with you Lottocracy, local reps will also represent people at the state and interstate level. Collectively, throughout the US. No need for a ‘Fed’. Tear down the UN buildings while we are at it.
It’s called Civic Lottery. Places in Canada are experimenting with in now on a local level. I believe the ancient Greeks used it also.
I really like the ideology of this Civic Lottery. Keep me updated on how it goes on the local level in Canada please? I did not know that about ancient Greeks. Interesting and appreciated info. Some sports use it as well, but that is just as controlled as a controlled demolition *chucking*.
I will not give up my guns…period…. and, just to remind you good folks here, nothing is illegal until a Jury says it’s illegal…. Jury Nullification…. 2nd Amendment….
Damn straight. I remember stories being told about an elderly ex-professor gentleman standing outside courthouses holding a sign proclaiming Jury Nullification in the Eastern US. He was arrested several times for this.
take them away from the Police…. go back to Shotguns and .38 revolvers…
Another 10 idiots in black robes who couldn’t understand the Constitution if the pages jumped up and bit them.
Let’s see if the 9 up on the mountain agree with them.
If so, it seems the end is here.
Any yet the government that doesn’t support using “weapons of war” sends S.W.A.T. teams, armed with the weapons of war, into people’s homes for growing plants that produce an unprecedented medical value. They commit treason by making war against Americans using “weapons of war,” soldiers of war and tactics of war in a vain attempt to stop a natural substance from being used by nature’s people. And we the people watch flickering boxes to entertain us. We pay to watch programming and are subjected to paid programming (advertisements).
“When you see that in order to produce you must obtain permission from people who produce nothing.
When you see money flowing to those who deal not in goods but in favors,
when you see men growing richer by graft and by pull than by work
and your law don’t protect you from them, but them from you;
When you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming self-sacrifice you may know that your society is doomed.”
Should I leave or stay is the real question cause WTF can I really do about his untenable situation?
I concur with your last sentence. I think about it every day. I like the quote, That paragraph explains it perfectly. If criminals set up an organization, how does it then become legal? Is the quote your own,and if not, where does it originate?
Hi lightingstrikesthrice. The quote is from Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged.” Old man Rockefeller was very fond of the woman and has reproduced her fictional society in America today. Want to start a revolution?
We surely do need one. I guess I never got that far into Atlas Shrugged. I have it downloaded, but got only so far. Ol’ Rand was definitely a propagandist. Done some good things picture wise during the depression, but kept many things hidden as well. I read that she was a lover of a Rockefeller. Heard anything about that Banished Jester?
I did raise the point didn’t I?
You did indeed. Very well done. Raised it eye level for all to see, whether they wish to or no, or block it from there minds for fear of bubble bursting, realization setting in.
I as referring to your question about Rockefeller and Ayn Rand. But the need for revolution takes far more precedence in importance. Raise it up brother!
In my world here where I am, I just, alas!, here an echo of my own voice. ‘Tis sad it ’tis. But, I’ll keep trying anyways.
The Second Amendment was in fact about armed citizens (“a militia”) having a right of self defense even under the circumstance of peace, but prepared to wage war on an out-of-control totalitarian government. That was the basis of the American Revolutionary War- our Declaration of Independence from Great Briton, and the claiming of our individual sovereignty. Back then, a muzzle-loading flintlock rifle was considered state-of-the-art weaponry in the hands of a common soldier. Today, it is the AR-15. The same caliber and mechanism I have in my “perfectly legal” Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle, but without the plastic folding stock and handle.
The Second Amendment presents the premise of a need for a militia (which Article 1,Section 8 places under the control of Congress, which calls it forth, organizes, arms, and disciples it) for collective defense. No where is individual self-defense mentioned in the Constitution, which reverses many of the principles of the Declaration of Independence, including equality, consent of the governed, and replacing the right of armed revolution with the duty of able-bodied men to put down revolutions (Article 1,Section 8 explicitly names 3 reason for the militia (needed in the absence of a standing army, which of course means it is no longer needed): to enforce the laws Congress passes, to put down invasions, to put down insurrections.
All the rest—self defense, taking up arms against the government, hunting, sporting, etc are invented and do not appear in the Constitution.
Here is the Big Lie of the 1/3 of Americans who own guns: “It’s not about “clinging to the Second Amendment” or being addicted to firepower. It’s about protecting you and your family and no one having the right to hinder that protection.
As John Locke stated, self-defense is the first law of nature. ”
Homes with guns, according to peer-reviewed research, have nearly 3 times as many gun deaths as homes without so, logically, the best self-defense is to get rid of your guns. Home invaders murder 100 Americans each year, according to the FBI, but family and friends murder over 5000.
The safest nation on earth (Japan) has virtually no guns and no gun violence; it has about 10 gun murders a year, or 99.9% lower gun murder rates The safest homes have no guns. Self-defense is an inherent right but the evidence shows that the best defense is the absence of guns.
I suggest you read “Control Exposing The Truth about Guns” by Glenn Beck. It’s not an opinion tomb. It explains how facts get twisted into propaganda and how they can get untwisted to show the truth.
I do not find Glenn Beck a credible source; his work is not peer-reviewed and he clearly has a history of partisan propaganda. I suggest you read Goebbels’ Principles of Propaganda as the textbook of how to twist facts and then Orwell’s Politics and the English language, for lessons how how political speech is used to mask the truth. I do not twist facts; I learn the facts from reading primary sources and then report on what I have learned. For instance, did you know that for every stranger who invades a home and murders someone, there are 50 family or friends murdered in the home? You can find this information, as I did, in the FBI’s Table of Homicides and Uniform Crime Reports.
So you know that guns make a home less safe, as peer-reviewed research found that homes with guns have 270% higher rates of gun deaths in the home than homes without.
Here are more interesting facts: “Guns kept in the home are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal unintentional shooting, criminal assault or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.1 That is, a gun is more likely to be used to kill or injure an innocent person in the home than a threatening intruder.
Though guns may be successfully used in self-defense even when they are not fired, the evidence shows that their presence in the home makes a person more vulnerable, not less. Instead of keeping owners safer from harm, objective studies confirm that firearms in the home place owners and their families at greater risk. Research published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that living in a home where guns are kept increased an individual’s risk of death by homicide by between 40 and 170%.2 Another study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology similarly found that “persons with guns in the home were at greater risk of dying from a homicide in the home than those without guns in the home.” This study determined that the presence of guns in the home increased an individual’s risk of death by homicide by 90%.3
Claims that guns are used defensively millions times every year have been widely discredited. Using a gun in self-defense is no more likely to reduce the chance of being injured during a crime than various other forms of protective action.4 At least one study has found that carrying a firearm significantly increases a person’s risk of being shot in an assault; research published in the American Journal of Public Health reported that, even after adjusting for confounding factors, individuals who were in possession of a gun were about 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession.5” http://lawcenter.giffords.org/category/gun-studies-statistics/gun-violence-statistics/
The numbers in the citation refer to primary sources, which can be accessed at the link provided.
You clearly have a biased subjective opinion to reject any source outright. GB is just another source to be vetted and I do not necessarily agree with him on many things. However, for people like you, something is considered true because they believe it rather than believing something because it is objectively true. The data in Becks book comes from sources like FBI statistical information and is contrasted with how biased, willful and faulty misinterpretations from ‘the media’ and public figures who do not check their facts are purveyed.
The book CONTROL is well balanced and sourced, but you will never accept that, and because you won’t even bother to read it, shall remain willfully ignorant as a result. That only contributes to perception bias which serves to reinforce a foregone conclusion. I expect as much from most people, because most people are lazy and irrational when it comes to their strongly held beliefs.
Personally, I would rather be corrected a thousand times in a public forum than to remain wrong on any one subject even though it is a painful and humbling sensation. It’s not easy having both solid convictions based on objective facts and an open, plastic, and ever regenerating mind, but it’s worth the discipline. Some call it life long learning. I call it “There is no box from which one needs to think out of, in the first place.”
As a parting shot, let me add this about self-defense with a firearm, “It’s better to have one and not need it, than to need one and not have it.” (Yes. Pun intended.)
I avoid bias by not taking seriously the views of propagandists like Beck. He is not a scholar, has no peer-reviewed studies, has done no research at all I avoid bias by using only pubic evidence (such as FBI Table of Homicides, etc) and peer-reviewed studies.
About self-defense: homes with homes have nearly 3 times more gun deaths than homes without. For every stranger who commits a murder in the home, there are 50 gun murders of family and friends. Let that soak in when you think about how best to protect your family. The best-defense against gun deaths is, as the evidence shows, to get rid of your guns. Gambling against the odds is dangeous and foolish.
[About self-defense: homes with homes have nearly 3 times more gun deaths than homes without.]
The semantics of your sentence aside…
Right there is a prima facie example of how gullible-dumb some people are. OF COURSE homes with guns in them have more gun related deaths! They HAVE GUNS IN THEM. More people die on the roads with traffic than those roads without traffic. Do they (homes with firearms present) have statistically significant MORE deaths over-all? No. Therefore, objective logic dictates that homes with guns present are as safe as those without. I would even argue they are more safe when used against criminal invasion but less safe for those doing the invading. You see, it does make a statistical (snicker) difference whether an innocent person is harmed or a bad guy with criminal intent. Use some common sense man.
There is also a huge difference between ‘murder’ and ‘killing’. Murder is never justified. (unless you’re a doctor, but that’s another issue) A killing can be ruled justifiable. BOTH are recorded as homicides. One needs a good grasp of terms as well as facts.
Someone afraid to read a book due to preconceived notions about the author’s character or intent shows enormous lack of intellectual maturity, a diminished capacity for educability and a willful ignorance only fostering a self deluded ongoing state of plausible deniability. That makes for a good propagandist, but not for one trying to make a credible argument.
Oh well, we can at least agree to disagree. Stay safe and keep your powder dry. (Baby powder I’m assuming.)
Homes with guns are less safe because nearly 3 times as many gun deaths take place, of which 1% are by outsiders and 99
% are members of the family or friends (including both murder and suicide.
This fact proves that homes with guns are more dangerous…so the idea that guns make the home safer is refuted by the evidence.
Guns are bought to make the home safer but they make it less safe.
Sorry you can’t see that self-evident truth.
If you want to have a safer home, get rid of your guns. Over half of all murders are done among family and friends and unknown home invaders do 1% of the murders
I have heard your argument dozens of times but it proves that the gun does not make the home safer and therefore, the best form of self-defense is a home without guns.
I can’t make it any clearer Only a person blinded by illusion and reckless enough to gamble against the odds would claim that “Of course homes with guns have more gun deaths”
If you want to lessen the chance of gun death in your home, get rid of your guns. If that doesn’t make sense, you are too irrational to be trusted with a gun.
I have to say you are the worst example of artificial intelligence in a human being I’ve seen to date. Congratulations, you win the internet for the next 24 hours…
You shouldn’t be trusted with a keyboard and an internet connection.
Translation: I can’t muster a rational response so I will insult you.
You may read my articles at opednews and quora under my name.
“Insults are the weapon of the impotent.”
Say what you will, but I’m not wrong or wrong about you. Regurgitating the same tripe is not an argument and bad for your teeth in the long run.
Raw data needs to be analyzed and properly interpreted in context to be meaningful. You fail to take the next steps and seem proud about it. My words are not meant to be an insult, but rather an indictment. I proffered that ‘rational response’ at the outset, didn’t shy from naming the author of a legitimate literary work on the subject knowing full well you would likely respond as you did with negative bias. That does not strike me as one who is scholarly minded or willing to risk being proven incorrect. Your open mouth (via keyboard) gives testimony to your closed, and dare I surmise, arrogant mind. Don’t continue to mistake pithy repartee` with impotence, either, it takes all the fun out of chatting with you.
Now, my challenge to you is, (unless you’re impotent) find a library and get a free loaner copy of Beck’s book “Control”, read it, check the listed sources and report back to me if it was an objective argument or filled with lies. You don’t even have to say whether or not you agree with the writer’s information. You might even want to borrow “More Guns, Less Crime” by John Lott while you’re at it. Until then, it’s back to work for me.
You cannot begin with insults and seek to persuade. You are wrong about gun laws and wrong about me. I will not read Beck’s book because I am aware (I used to watch his program on Fox) of his views.
““Gun-free zones don’t deter criminals-they help them by providing a guarantee that they will not face any armed resistance. But they do deter the law-abiding. A faculty member with a concealed-handgun permit who breaks the campus gun ban would be fired and likely find it impossible to get admitted to another school. Bringing a firearm into a gun-free zone can have serious adverse consequences for law-abiding people. But for someone like the Virginia Tech killer, the threat of expulsion is no deterrent at all.”
― Glenn Beck, Control: Exposing the Truth About Guns
The two most gun-free zones in the world are the UK and Japan, which have 99.9% lower gun murder rates than the US. Virginia Tech, Columbine, and many other schools which had mass murders had armed security. Over half of US schools have armed security. The way that gun-free zones work best is to have the entire society gun free. But short of that, universal background checks (supported by 94% of gun owners and 3/4 of NRA members) and bans on assault weapons (supported by 2/3 of the public) would do what they have done in all other advanced nations, sharply reduce the level of gun violence and save lives.
I was having a pretty good day so far, then at 11:28PM I read this. Now I’m nauseated. I should have gone to bed at 9:30 and avoided the aggravation of reading about morons in the judiciary making political paper mache out of our Bill of Rights again. Maryland. What a surprise.
No doubt that the deep state is responsible for financing mass shootings.
I’m sure the (very bad) crisis actors have a full schedule ahead.
Learn to discern and prep up.
If you criminalize guns, only criminals will have guns. Aren’t we seeing and haven’t we seen this played out? All is legal or illegal according to kakistocracy. Blowing up babies in their cribs with flash-bang grenades falls under this prudence. Shooting the care taker of an autistic child also falls under this prudence. So does the 1800+ murders by police since 2017, according to this article.
Ignore and nullify.
The second Amendment has to do with states protecting themselves from the federal government. there exists no language regarding the individual having a constitutional right to murder other people or own firearms as it is called. Many States around the world restrict the use of firearms and not one of them has been taken over by the federal government. They are afraid the United States Government will take over the United states Government if we have no guns on our hips as individuals. The logic is insane.