Vermont gun owners and supporters of the 2nd Amendment have one clear choice for Governor on November 8. Phil Scott has received an A rating from the National Rifle Association. The rating indicates a candidate who is “solidly a pro-gun candidate including (his) voting record.” In the face of pressure by anti-gun group Gun Sense Vermont, an organization funded by notorious gun control advocate Michael Bloomberg, Scott stands firm with Vermonters, the U.S. Constitution and the Vermont Constitution.
“I don’t believe that we need more gun restrictions in Vermont at this time”, Scott told Vermont Public Radio. “I think we should enforce the ones we have. I think we should focus more on safety and gun education, but also addressing the violence problem that is systemic across the country – and I don’t have the answers for that, but that’s what’s driving this frustration, this outrage. And it’s alarming, the horrific acts are alarming. But from my standpoint, I don’t believe we need to change our gun laws in Vermont.” Scott does not support a background check on private gun sales, which is something Gun Sense Vermont is pushing hard for. Such checks would make criminals out of regular people who sell a gun to a friend or family member without what amounts to government permission. It’s typical of the big brother, intrusive thinking that infests the Democratic party.
Scott’s Democratic opponent, Sue Minter, is an enthusiastic supporter of limits on our Constitutional right to bear arms, by supporting background checks for all gun sales and a ban on “assault” weapons, like the AR-15 rifle, among others. As it stands today, every person who purchases a firearm from a licensed gun dealer must submit to and pass an instant background check conducted by the FBI’s NICS (National Instant Criminal Background Check System). It’s a quick process, usually completed in minutes.
Minter would like to expand that process to every single gun sale in the state of Vermont, commercial or private. That means that you can no longer sell a firearm to your brother-in-law, sister, or hunting buddy without permission.
Minter addresses her desire to attack the Second Amendment and the Vermont Constitution on her website:
”This has really been an issue that I stepped forward with early in my campaign … and I decided to support strong measures to promote gun safety with background checks for all gun sales – and I’ll tell you why. You know, people tell me that we don’t have a problem here in Vermont. But I know we do. And it often is behind closed doors … We have background checks existing at all federally licensed gun dealers and what I’m saying is let’s do the same for all gun sales. But I also, after the tragedy in Orlando, have stepped forward to say we also need to ban assault weapons.”
That’s a problem. Actually a few problems. First of all, what does she mean, we have a problem behind closed doors? A gun problem? It seems rather improbable that people are being shot and killed “behind closed doors” and no one has noticed or reported a spike in secret deadly shootings. Guns, at least unsilenced ones, are loud. Bodies are hard to hide. Let’s put that comment down to hyperbole and move on to her “assault” weapons ban and her disinformation regarding Orlando and “assault” weapons in general. First of all, the term “assault weapon” is disingenuous, and actually has no meaning other than “scary looking gun” – usually a rifle, often an AR-15 .223 caliber rifle. Just to be clear, AR stands for Armalite, the company that designed the rifle. It does not stand for Assault Rifle! There is an actual assault rifle used by the U.S. military, but it is highly illegal to purchase one.
The weapon used in the tragic Orlando nightclub terrorist shooting was a Sig Sauer MCX (not an AR-15 as was widely reported by the press).It was used by a terrorist to mow down innocent men and women because of his adherence to the twisted ideology of radical Islam. He could have just as easily used a bomb, or any other tool to accomplish his evil assault. That’s right – assault, which means, in this case, the intention by the shooter to do severe harm.
National Review’s Charles Cooke sums up the argument about the dubious efficacy of an “assault” weapons ban nicely:
“It is difficult to overstate just how absurd this is. Even if we were to swallow whole the novel set of definitions that the advocates of “assault” weapons legislation have imposed upon our national deliberations, the case in favor of their coveted laws would remain all but nonexistent. Between 1994 and 2004, Americans were flatly barred from purchasing or transferring 660 arbitrarily selected semi-automatic firearms and from obtaining any magazine that could hold more than ten rounds. This prohibition had no discernible impact whatsoever. Charged in 1997 with evaluating the short-term impact of the measure, the National Institute of Justice reported bluntly that “the evidence is not strong enough for us to conclude that there was any meaningful effect (i.e., that the effect was different from zero).” A second study – commissioned to coincide with the ban’s expiration in 2004 — calmly echoed this conclusion, while noting for the record that there hadn’t been much of a problem in the first instance. No subsequent inquiry has contradicted these assessments.”
Promising to ban “assault” weapons is nothing more than a base appeal to people’s fear of something with which many have little familiarity. Granted, it’s confusing, sorting out which classes of weapons are which. But according to the FBI, when it comes to “assault” weapons, it barely matters. Here is their 2014 of weapons used in murders in 2014: Handguns: 5,562 (47 percent), unknown firearms: 2,052 (17 percent), other weapons: 1,610 (13 percent),knives and cutting instruments: 1,567 (13 percent), hands, feet, fists, pushing: 660 (6 percent) Shotguns: 262 (2 percent) Rifles (including the “assault” weapon) 248 (2 percent).
Sue Minter has an F rating with the NRA, indicating she’s a “true enemy of gun owners’ rights. A consistent anti-gun candidate who always opposes gun owners’ rights and/or actively leads anti-gun legislative efforts, or sponsors anti-gun legislation.”
Sue Minter does not belong anywhere near the Governor’s office, where she and her associates will spread fear and falsehoods to try to gin up support for laws we don’t need and don’t want, all in the name of more government control over our lives and our personal property. Guns are just part of her agenda.
Give Sue Minter an F at the ballot box on November 8.