The Surprising Way Gun Laws Are Used Against Us
I mean, you know that gun control are used against us.
There’s no secret.
But… the Kyle Rittenhouse trial has taught us some valuable lessons.
When the news media first picked up the news about the Rittenhouse shooting, they immediately published headlines like, “Was it Legal to Own This Rifle?” and “Did the Rifle Cross State Lines?” or “Was the Magazine Legal or Illegal?”
These questions were all in reference to the smaller gun control laws people don’t really think about.
Gun control laws like, “You need to get a concealed carry permit prior to carrying for self defense.”
Or laws that outlaw certain sized magazines.
These laws are created, published, and enforced by politicians touting “public safety.”
They want you to believe that these restrictions are put in place to reduce crime rate or keep people from getting hurt or killed.
But, in reality, these laws are created to control the individual, not to control the firearm.
Licensing Restrictions Are Leverage That Can Be Used Against Law Abiding Gun Owners
The first thing prosecutors – and the mainstream media – attacked Kyle Rittenhouse on was his possession of the firearm at 17 years old.
In all reality, Wisconsin law allows 16 and 17-year-olds to be in possession of rifles that have a barrel length of 16 inches or more and that have an overall length of 26 inches – which is why the possession charge was ultimately dismissed.
But what we need to ask ourselves is this…
Had that rifle not been “legal” in Wisconsin, would Rittenhouse lose the legal protection to defend his life with that firearm?
In Florida, it is illegal to carry a firearm outside of your home unless you have been issued a license to carry by the state.
Let’s say a Florida woman who doesn’t have a state issued license to carry is attacked out of her home. If she defends herself with a firearm concealed in her purse, should she lose the right to claim self-defense because she didn’t have the state issued permit?
These regulations can be just as dangerous to our fundamental rights – because the focus of the court system and media would be on the idea that the law abiding gun owner was NOT law abiding due to not having a firearm.
Licensing requirements give the government the upper hand over citizens.
Okay, good video as far as being easy to hear and understand the words themselves are concerned; that’s the good news. Now, this is just my opinion, but I watch hundreds of videos regarding the recent issues (covid, illegals, Afghanistan to name a few), and I notice that some of the programs/narrators are better at encouraging me to listen to than others. And that’s because they don’t use a lot of technical language that you have to have a degree in science, psychology, or law to understand. So, regarding this video, I’m good until the legal part ’cause I always get confused about what’s admissible and what’s not. …But the thing that really got annoying was how the camera kept switching perspective – from straight-on front at a distance to close-up front to 45 degree angle right to close-up to angle to straight distanced…. and so on every 2- 10 seconds. I know that’s supposed to make it look like he’s talking to a group and/or make the background less boring – but it really gets distracting after the 20th time. Maybe less. …Besides, Tucker Carlson and Stew Peters don’t do that, and they keep a viewership just fine. Anyway, that’s my 2 cents’ worth. Thanks for the time.
Hale