Nolte: Democrats Want to Abolish the Police and Confiscate Our Guns

John Nolte6 Jun 2020

Maddie Meyer/Getty Images

4:58

A radical, utterly sincere, and determined movement is on to abolish police departments.

A radical, utterly sincere, and determined movement is on to confiscate our guns, to confiscate our right to defend ourselves.

This is no accident.

But first the facts…

Links to mainstream Democrats calling for the police to be defunded, which will obviously result in the police being abolished, can be found here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and most especially here.

Links to mainstream Democrats like Joe Biden, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and others calling for — not just gun control — but straight up confiscation, can be found here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Secondly, to those of you who think this idea of abolishing the police and the Second Amendment is insane and can therefore never happen, you need to remove your head from the sand. Here are some more facts…

• We went from zero to gay marriage in less than ten years.
• We went from zero to drag queen story hour in about ten seconds.
• The left is blacklisting us for referring to biological men as “he.”
• The corporate media are now describing the burning and looting of cities as “political speech.”
• This same media are describing peaceful protests by Tea Partiers and those ravaged by anti-science lockdowns as “dangerous” and “violent.”
• Lego is blacklisting its own toys.
• The NFL just committed suicide.
• Drew Brees is now on his third 1984-ish public confession, a full-blown grovel tour, for the sin of expressing respect for the American flag.
• Legions of white people are kneeling to ask forgiveness for something they had no part of.
• Healthcare “experts” are telling us the coronavirus is lethal if you want to go to work, school, or your grandmother’s funeral, but not so lethal if you are out en masse to support “approved” causes.

The Democrat Party has been completely radicalized, emboldened, and is currently eating itself alive in the kind of cultish moral panic we have not seen since McCarthyism or the McMartin preschool scandal.

Now, you might say, there’s no way Democrats will abolish the police; this will only make life infinitely worse for the people who live in Democrat-run cities, which is where a bulk of the black population live.

Must I explain everything?

Democrats have completely failed black people, and that is by design. Democrats know that once people become middle class, they are much more likely to vote Republican. So the goal is to keep people poor, keep ’em scared, keep their schools crappy (no school choice, no charter schools), tell them there’s no hope because America is evil and racist — in other words, keep ’em voting for Democrats.

You’ve heard of Jim Crow and Southern Segregation…? That was ALL Democrats. George Wallace and Bull Connor were Democrats. The whole system was created and enforced by Democrats. Black lives were destroyed in the South to keep Democrats in power then; black lives in urban areas are destroyed to keep Democrats in power now.

Good grief, we just elected a black president for two terms, we just brought black unemployment to a record low, and the entire country was repulsed by what happened to George Floyd, most especially President Trump… But people are still rioting.

Why?

So Democrats and the left can cover up their own staggering failures.

For decades Democrats have had sole providence over almost every major city in America. We’ve literally poured trillions of tax dollars into the War on Poverty and public schools… In other words, Democrats have had sole control over these areas, have instituted every policy they believe in without opposition, and have received swimming pools full of federal dollars… And look at the result… Total failure.

What you are seeing in all this social unrest is 1) the of the abject failure of leftist ideas that have had 50 years to work, and 2) the whipping up of the mob to distract from those failures and blame a guy who’s only been in office — who’s only been in politics three years: the Orange Bad Man.

Making life worse for black people is not a bug in the Democrat Party, it’s a feature. As is tyranny. Good grief, what better example of the Democrat tyranny do you need than these anti-science lockdowns? What more proof do you need than Democrat governors and mayors arresting people for going to church just days before they openly encourage and join massive protests?

So of course Democrats want to abolish the police and confiscate our guns.

Of course these power-hungry leftists want us helpless and defenseless.

Duh.

Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC. Follow his Facebook Page here.

Joshua Skovlund | June 02, 2020    A Marine Corps veteran turned security contractor, who asked that his name not be used for security reasons, unintentionally took the internet by storm after a video surfaced of him disarming a Seattle rioter who had stolen a police officer’s AR-15 from a destroyed squad car Saturday.   

The preliminary details of what happened have become distorted on social media, with misconceptions about a second rifle that was slung on his back as well as why he was at the protests that developed following George Floyd’s death in police custody. Coffee or Die obtained an exclusive interview with the contractor to set the record straight on what happened that day. 

The contractor served four years in the U.S. Marine Corps infantry in 1st Battalion, 3rd Marines, Alpha Company. After separating from service, he entered into his current career of military contracting, which has included working as a firearms instructor and in security, along with starting a community group on Instagram called Firewatch Official, a page dedicated to helping military and first responder personnel share their stories and quell demons that some carry with them. He said that he is in-between jobs, and due to financial strains incurred by the pandemic, is also in the beginning stages of starting his own company. “When you get to the bottom, it’s like, where are you going to go but up?” he said.

Being introduced to firearms at a young age helped him view guns as tools and develop safe handling practices. He said his father taught him the intricacies of firearms. “It’s a passion, it’s a hobby. It’s obsession. It’s a love. It’s the thing I choose to make my life around,” he explained. He was naturally drawn to working with firearms and in a career that allows him to use them. And he was in the right place at the right time during the protests and riots on the streets of Seattle. 

The contractor was hired to protect the crew of reporters from a local Fox News affiliate out of Seattle while they covered the protests and riots in the city, although he’s been accused of being at the protest to assert himself. “I was working and doing my job, trying to pay bills,” he said. “I’d rather be home playing with my dog — [laughs] my wife’s dog, she would kill me if she heard that one!”

He thought through every step of this contract and then some, starting with the decision to carry his pistol in a bag because he wanted to blend in. The contractor also expressed concern over the hundreds of people potentially bumping into him and trying to lift a side holstered pistol or his spare magazines on his belt. He dressed in multiple layers in case he was “made” by the rioters and would need to switch up to obscure his identity. 

The contractor and his U.S. Marine Corps crew. Photo courtesy of the contractor/Instagram.

The contractor met with the news crew around 3 PM to move them down to the area where they would be reporting. He said there was complete chaos when they arrived, and it continued throughout the day. He was immediately busy. “I was trying to keep them safe from anything, […] whether it was thrown, tossed or someone just rushing by,” he said. The contractor was especially cognizant of the Fox News photojournalist who had a camera on his shoulder, leaving him completely blind to the right side. “I became his eyes,” he said.

The news crew wanted to set up in a particular area to record what was happening to two police vehicles that were on the street. Rioters were destroying the squad cars rapidly, and the contractor had already made a mental note to watch them because he suspected that there were firearms inside. He saw the vandals digging in the first squad car and immediately moved the news crew around the corner to safety. “Stay safe, and I’ll be right back,” he told them.

“The first, he was a shooter. People are getting me on this. He was a shooter. He produced the AR-15, held it like good ol’ Rambo-style at the hip, and he fired four rounds into the police vehicle and the wall of the building,” he said. The contractor explained that he wasn’t sure why the rioter stopped at four rounds, but knew he needed to act quickly. The rioter didn’t see him coming, but ducked into a store next to the squad car. The contractor could still see a part of the vandal’s frame around the corner of the doorway, and as soon as he turned the corner, he yelled aggressively for him to put down the weapon. 

The contractor described the rioter’s reaction to the confrontation as a “deer in headlights, stunned — you know, wide eyes and his hands kind of opened up. And he’s still holding the rifle. He didn’t drop it. So, [I] snatched his weapon.” After confiscating the rifle, he backed out of the store slowly, then took off back to his news crew, simultaneously removing the bolt carrier group and the charging handle of the AR-15 and stuffing them in his pocket. He regrouped to continue his job. 

Shortly after the first incident, the contractor eyed a second rioter doing the same thing to the other squad car. Rinse and repeat — he said the second one caught on video was almost identical to the first disarming of a rioter. Even though he had successfully prevented two separate potential threats, he had a much larger threat looming. 

“I had just taken a firearm from a guy that was essentially aligned with hundreds, if not thousands, of people in this area,” he said. “And I drew a line around me that said, ‘I’m not with any of you here.’” In addition to keeping the news crew safe, his concern now grew to the rioters turning on him after he thwarted their plans. The contractor quickly called the police dispatcher and reported the two confiscated AR-15’s. 

A large group of protesters started running around the corner, past the contractor and the news crew. He walked around the corner expecting to see the police approaching, but there were no officers in sight. The contractor knew he needed to get the rifles off him due to the growing threat.

“Until I got to about three and a half blocks away where I was getting closer to the police, I had people on me, I had a horde of people on me saying all kinds of things imaginable, phones out, all that,” he said. “So there was definitely an uptick. It went from maybe 15 to 50 percent of attention because people were just looking at me like, you know, Why do you have this rifle? […] Everyone’s after me.”

The contractor headed out with one of the news crew members to get the rifles back to the police, and two males were following him. He turned to confront them and found out that they were following him to make sure he got there safely. He recalled that one of them wore an American flag bandana and had another in his pocket, partially showing.

One of the two rioters that the contractor disarmed. Screen grab from video uploaded to YouTube by KOMO News.

“[That tells me] you’re here to protest, and you’re trying to hold up American values, which I thought was excellent,” he said. The American flag protester assisted the contractor the whole way, while the second peeled off prior to the police line. The protester jogged ahead to gather intel on whether the police were actually there and confirmed their position. 

As the trio approached the police line, the contractor said, “They’re on high alert just as well as I was, you know? […] I made it very clear what my intentions were. I listened to what they were saying, and I approached showing them exactly what I was doing.” He popped the AR-15’s, slung them over his forearm, and holstered his pistol to make it clear that he was not threatening the police. 

The contractor and his crew were met with some resistance from the police and were ordered to stop approaching. He explained to the officer talking to him that the rifles were theirs and they needed to take them. “I took the bolt carrier groups and charging handles out of my back pocket. I put them in his hand, and as his lieutenant walks up, his eyes were just kind of like, what the hell?” he said. He explained the situation and that the rifles actually belonged to the police, handed them over, and ran back to find the crew member who had stayed by their original location. 

Rioters and protesters recognized him from the previous events, so he switched out his outer layer of clothing and wore a mask for the rest of the night. But he kept his news crew safe while simultaneously preventing the potential deaths of police officers, protesters, and rioters.

Editor’s Note: Article updated to remove name due to security concerns. 

Joshua is a staff writer for Coffee or Die Magazine. He has previously covered the 75th anniversary of D-Day in France, multinational military exercises in Germany, and civil unrest during the 2020 riots that followed the death of George Floyd. Born and raised in small town South Dakota, Josh grew up playing football and soccer before going on to serve as a forward observer in the U.S. Army. After leaving the service, he earned his Crossfit Level 1 certificate and worked as a personal trainer while earning his paramedic license. Josh went on to work in paramedicine for over five years, much of that time in the North Minneapolis area, before transitioning to his career in multimedia journalism. Josh is married and has two children, and is currently pursuing his bachelor’s degree in multimedia journalism. His creative outlets include Skovlund Photography and Concentrated Emotion, which is where he publishes poetry focused on his life experiences.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances,"

--the First Amendment

If you know anything about Joe Biden, you know that gun control was going to be a major part of his 2020 campaign. He has a long history with the issue, and he was promising to make it a central plank in his administration’s platform. A quick glance at his recent campaign gaffes will show you that he was gearing up for a major anti-2nd Amendment push.

In August of 2016, he told Anderson Cooper that he was indeed coming for your guns:

COOPER: So, to gun owners out there who say, well, a Biden administration means they’re going to come for my guns?

BIDEN: Bingo. You’re right if you have an assault weapon. The fact of the matter is, they should be illegal, period. Look, the Second Amendment doesn’t say you can’t restrict the kinds of weapons people can own. You can’t buy a bazooka. You can’t have a flame thrower.

In February, while debating Bernie, he was making ridiculous claims about guns killing 12 million Americans each year since 2007:

“Imagine if I stood here and said we give immunity to drug companies, we give immunity to tobacco companies. That has caused carnage on our streets. 150 million people have been killed since 2007 when Bernie voted to exempt the gun manufacturers from liability, more than all the wars, including Vietnam from that point on.”

TRENDING: So . . . social distancing is over, right?

Then he announced that, should he win, he’d put Beto in charge of his confiscation efforts and berated a Detroit factory worker who supported gun ownership. Clearly, this consistent escalation was heading toward a major push in advance of November. One assumes the Democratic National Convention was going to be awash in anti-gun rhetoric, promises would be made, and they would have used promises of wide-ranging gun control to stir up the base.

Then the riots happened, and the gun control debate is over for a generation.

One of the left’s favorite tactics is to ask “why do you need a gun?”  Sometimes they’re referring to a specific category of weapon, other times they reveal their true intentions and it’s all weapons. Either way, we all know their ultimate agenda is the total elimination of privately-owned firearms.

That’s all over.  It’s simply not going happen.

The question, “why do you need a gun,” has been answered by feckless Democrat leaders who refuse to protect their citizens. It’s been answered by violent mobs who wreak havoc, burn buildings, and kill.  It’s been answered by police that are either unable or unwilling to handle the protection end of “serve and protect.”

No one who believes in the right of the people to protect themselves will ever again lack a justification for their instincts.  Red states will not tolerate anyone who attempts to pare back their rights, and even blue state Dems will be thinking twice about the issue. Those who say there’s “no need” will now look as ridiculous people blaming Benghazi on a YouTube video.

Or… as ridiculous as Joe Biden offering shotgun advice.

The divide amendment has been gaining co-sponsors. See if your NYS Senator or Assembly member on the co-sponsor list below.

If either of your two legislators are NOT on this list of co-sponsors of A05498 - S5416 a NYS constitutional amendment to divide the State into three autonomous regions. Please contact them:  NYS Senate (not federal) Sponsor Ortt; Co-sponsors Borrello, Helming, Jordan, O'Mara, Ranzenhofer, Seward.  Assembly Sponsor DiPietro; Co-sponsors Salka, Lawrence, Crouch, Palmesano, Tague, Norris, Manktelow; Mlt-sponsors Byrnes, Hawley, Kolb. If your NYS Senator is NOT on list. Please ask your Senator to co-sponsor the Senate bill S5416 in the NYS Senate; you can use this link https://www.nysenate.gov/senators-committees to find the office phone numbers of your Senator by scrolling down and clicking on their picture followed by clicking on contact or clicking on the "Find your Senator" button and then enter your information. Also if your NYS Assembly member is NOT on the above list. Please ask your Assembly member to co-sponsor the Assembly bill A05498 in the NYS Assembly; you can use this link https://www.assembly.state.ny.us/mem/ to find the office phone numbers of your Assembly(wo)man by scrolling down and finding their name or clicking on "Search by Address" button and entering your address. If you have to leave a message. Please leave your request that he/she co-sponsor A05498/S5416 and request for a written reply to your address in your message.

Cuomo blames nursing homes for the large number of deaths in their facilities despite the fact he ordered them to accept the patients. He claims they should have refused to take those ill with the COVID based upon any number of pretentious reasons.  

Not only did he direct the sick patients to be allowed to be moved from hospitals to the homes, he authored an order (*) prohibiting the homes from testing incoming patients. This was on the NY Health Dept website but has since been conveniently removed. 

(* “No resident shall be denied readmission or admission to the nursing home solely based upon a confirmed or suspected diagnosis of COVID” *)

A CDC guideline provided a nursing home with the option of opting out if they didn’t believe they were ready to accept a COVID patient. Cuomo’s order gave them no such option. 

Yet he has now provided the nursing home executives with immunity. His immunity declaration actually provides nursing home execs with greater protection than deserved. It obviously applies to deaths resulting from following his order. But it increases the level of protection despite the degree of culpability of an exec. The immunity allows for exoneration in nearly all cases of negligence. 

A related point, not be ignored, was the absence of family members in these homes while the health of their relatives was possibly declining rapidly. We all know how important it is for any patient to have a strong advocate closely monitoring the patient and their environment. Peeking through a window at a potentially dying loved one does nothing to provide needed assistance. 

Relatives could have been allowed visits following temperature checks. Masks and “social distancing” were other options. 

The Guardian, which many consider a ‘lefty’, criticized Cuomo for giving immunity to nursing homes execs following large campaign donations in excess of two million dollars. Hmmmm!

The Veterans Outreach Center of Rochester, NY Quarter Master issued an all call to anyone who can help replenish their food cupboard. They are providing boxes of food to needy veterans during this crisis.  They need:

• Non-perishable boxed foods – rice, pasta, cereal, oatmeal, prepared meals, etc.
• Non-perishable can food – fruit, tuna, vegetables, beans, prepared meals, etc.
• Small packs of toilet paper or paper goods
• Baby items – diapers, cleansing wipes, etc.
• Personal care items – soap, shampoo, toothpaste, mouthwash

I will be personally collecting product donations on SATURDAY MORNINGS FOR THE NEXT FEW WEEKS OF THE CRISIS from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. and I will deliver them to the VOC each Monday. Bring items to the clubhouse – no contact drop off.
If you cannot donate vital supplies, you can donate cash or a check to Veterans Outreach Center of Rochester. 
ALSO – we have two veterans who need a vehicle to get them to and from life saving medical procedures. Our good friend, Jerry Slater, put out an appeal and was able to generate donations from ORGC ($500), Blue Star Mothers ($500) and Legion Riders ($500) to put toward a vehicle.  If you have a vehicle you can sell or donate, know of someone who can help or if you would like to donate to this immediate need, please call me, Steve Verdi, 585-739-3195.
Our veterans in need, need us more now than ever before. Please help. I’m driving deliveries of much needed supplies today to North Greece and Palmyra for VOC. I hope you can help.
Steve, Verdi, Chairman BOD
Via Frankie LaMarca

This morning the Supreme Court issued orders from the justices’ private conference last week. The justices did not add any new cases to their argument calendar for next term. Perhaps most significantly, they did not act at all on the 10 gun rights cases that they had considered for a second time at last week’s conference.

The gun rights cases have all been on hold, some for over a year, presumably until the court issued its decision in the challenge to New York City’s ban on the transport of handguns outside the city. The justices dismissed that case as moot at the end of April, and a few hours later the court had distributed the 10 petitions for consideration at the justices’ May 1 conference. The justices normally only grant review after they have considered a petition at two consecutive conferences, so it was no surprise that they did not act on the petitions when they issued orders on May 4. There’s no way to know whether the justices are still trying to choose among the petitions, have not yet decided what to do or have some other reason for waiting to act on the petitions.

The justices denied review in Wexford Health v. Garrett, involving whether a prisoner who does not use all the administrative remedies available to him before filing a lawsuit can “cure” that failure by filing an amended complaint after he is released from prison. The question came to the court in the case of Kareem Garrett, who was a prisoner in the Pennsylvania correctional system when he filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against prison officials and medical staff in 2014. Garrett alleged, among other things, that the officials and staff ignored his serious medical needs – by ending his use of a walker, for example, and stopping his psychiatric medications. The defendants in the case argued that the Prison Litigation Reform Act required the court to dismiss the claims that Garrett had not first raised administratively, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit disagreed. It ruled that although Garrett had been required to exhaust his administrative remedies, his May 2015 release from prison cured the problem.

Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from the denial of review. Thomas observed that the courts of appeals are divided on the question presented by Wexford Health’s petition and that the resolution of that question “will have significant ramifications for not only prisons and prison officials but also federal courts” because of the large number of lawsuits filed by prisoners challenging prison conditions. Until the question is resolved, Thomas emphasized, prisoners in different parts of the country will face different and unequal requirements under the PLRA.

The justices also turned down a trio of petitions (here, here and here) asking them to review rulings by lower courts finding that government officials were entitled to qualified immunity from lawsuits. In two of the cases, “friend of the court” briefs supporting the requests for review had urged the justices not only to grant review, but also to rethink the doctrine of qualified immunity more broadly, but the justices denied the petitions without comment.

The justices’ next conference is scheduled for Thursday, May 21. We expect orders from that conference on Tuesday, May 26, at 9:30 a.m. EDT.

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- The Supreme Court has re-listed the ten Second Amendment cases it has previously distributed for conference.

This morning the Supreme Court issued orders from the justices’ private conference last week. The justices did not add any new cases to their argument calendar for next term. Perhaps most significantly, they did not act at all on the 10 gun rights cases that they had considered for a second time at last week’s conference.

The gun rights cases have all been on hold, some for over a year, presumably until the court issued its decision in the challenge to New York City’s ban on the transport of handguns outside the city. The justices dismissed that case as moot at the end of April, and a few hours later the court had distributed the 10 petitions for consideration at the justices’ May 1 conference. The justices normally only grant review after they have considered a petition at two consecutive conferences, so it was no surprise that they did not act on the petitions when they issued orders on May 4. There’s no way to know whether the justices are still trying to choose among the petitions, have not yet decided what to do or have some other reason for waiting to act on the petitions.

Ten Second Amendment cases have been re-listed for the Supreme Court conference to be held Friday, 15 May, 2020.  As noted in the SCOTUSBLOG post above, a writ of certiorari is usually not granted until a case has been heard at conference at least twice. The ten Second Amendment cases have now been to conference at least three times each. Perhaps, because of the number of cases, the Supreme Court Justices are taking more time on this issue.

No orders for any of the Second Amendment cases were issued as of Monday, 18 May.

It is noted in each case whether the Department of Justice has submitted a brief in the case.

The cases are shown in the list below. The link on the name of the case is to the Supreme Court case history and assignment to the conference. The second link is to documents showing the particulars of the case. The ten cases are:

Mance v. Barr

The DOJ has filed a brief claiming the law is Constitutional.

A challange to the ban on out of state handgun purchases in the 5th Circuit (Texas).

Rogers v. Grewal

A challenge to the NJ may issue carry permit scheme in the 3rd Circuit.

The DOJ has not filed a brief in this case.

Pena v. Horan

A challenge to the microstamping and restrictive “approved” handgun roster in California in the 9th Circuit.

The DOJ has not filed a brief in this case.

Gould v. Lipson

A challenge to the restrictive Massachusetts may issue ownership and carry permit scheme in the 1st circuit.

The DOJ has not filed a brief in this case.

Cheeseman v. Polillo

A challenge to the NJ may issue carry permit scheme in the 3rd Circuit.

The DOJ has not filed a brief in this case.

Ciolek v. New Jersey

A challenge to the NJ may issue carry permit scheme in the 3rd Circuit.

The DOJ has not filed a brief in this case.

Worman v. Healy

A challenge to a ban on common firearms described as “assault weapons” and magazines with capacity of more than 10 rounds in the 1st Circuit.

The DOJ has not filed a brief in this case.

An amicus brief was filed by 94 members of Congress, asking the Court to uphold the Second Amendment and to strike down the law as unconstitutional.

Malpasso v. Pallozzi

A challenge to the Maryland extreme may issue carry permit scheme in the 4th Circuit.

The DOJ has not filed a brief in this case.

Culp v. Raoul

A challenge to the Illinois refusal to issue carry permits to residents of some states, in the 7th Circuit.

The DOJ has not filed a brief in this case.

Wilson v. Cook County

A challenge to a ban on common firearms described as “assault weapons” and magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rds in Cook County, Illinois, in the 7th Circuit.

The DOJ has not filed a brief in this case.

The ten cases above were appealed to the Supreme Court from November of 2018 through November of 2019.  Some of them have been held for conference, waiting on the resolution of the New York Rifle and Pistol case, which has now been ruled moot by the Supreme Court.

Six of the ten cases are about permits to carry. Two are about bans on widely owned and popular firearms, variously defined as “assault weapons”. One is about federal restrictions on the purchase of handguns across state lines, the other about numerous and prohibitive restrictions on what handguns may be purchased in California.

In addition to the ten cases above, the Supreme Court has asked the City of San Jose to submit a brief in Rodriquez v. City of San  Jose. This is not due until June 22, 2020.

No one knows how many of the ten cases will be granted a writ of certiorari, if any. Several of the cases could be lumped together.

The Supreme Court has scheduled a conference each week until the end of June. There is an opportunity for the Court to issue orders after each conference. There is a reasonable possibility the Court will decide to take one, several, or all of the Second Amendment cases before the end of the term.

However, oral arguments would not be heard until next fall, possibly after the election.

Special to Toronto Sun

May 6, 2020 3:53 PM EDT

JOHN LOTT AND GARY MAUSER

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has unveiled a ban on the sale of 1,500 models and variants of firearms.

Some of these guns are already banned, but none of the prohibited weapons are “military-grade assault weapons” — the supposed target of Trudeau’s measure.

And in the wake of the horrific murders of 22 people in Nova Scotia last month, it isn’t surprising that public opinion is on his side. A recent Angus Reid Institute survey found 78% of Canadians support a ban on “civilian possession of assault weapons.”

After all, who needs military-grade assault weapons? As Trudeau put it: “You don’t need an AR-15 to bring down a deer.”  In fact, an AR-15 is a hunting rifle.

It just looks like a military weapon, and Trudeau is playing off of people’s and the media’s ignorance about guns. Indeed, Trudeau has exempted Indigenous Canadians from his ban so they can continue hunting with them.

Usually, guns such as the AR-15 are called “military-style weapons.” They are similar to military guns in their cosmetics, but not in the way they operate.

The Canadian army uses select-fire rifles — the C7 and C8 — which can be switched to fire from semi-automatic to a fully-automatic (machine gun) mode of firing bullets. Canada banned the sale of machine guns to civilians in 1978.

The AR-15 uses the same sort of bullet as small-game hunting rifles, fires at the same rapidity (one bullet per pull of the trigger), and inflicts the same damage.

The gun’s .223-inch rounds are banned for deer-hunting in most provinces and U.S. states since the small bullet is likely to prolong the animal’s suffering with a wound rather than inflicting a swift death.

Contrary to Trudeau’s claims, no self-respecting military in the world uses these semi-automatic rifles.  Trudeau would at least be logically consistent if he proposed banning all semi-automatic rifles. But he has apparently decided to ban guns based on how they look rather than on how they function.

Semi-automatic firearms can be devastating weapons, but they also protect people and save lives.  While police are extremely important in deterring crime, they virtually always arrive after crimes have been committed.

It is the most vulnerable people — including those who are weaker physically such as women and the elderly — who benefit the most from owning guns.

The United States tried a ban that was similar to Trudeau’s proposal, and it produced no benefits.  Since the Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired in September 2004, murder and overall violent-crime rates have fallen.

In 2003, the last full year before the law expired, the U.S. murder rate was 5.7 per 100,000 people, according to the FBI. A decade after the ban, in 2014, the murder rate had fallen to 4.4 per 100,000 people.

Even a study sponsored by the Clinton administration (which imposed the ban) found: “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).”

It doesn’t help Trudeau’s argument that countries with the most guns tend to have the lowest per capita rate of mass public shooters and lower homicide rates.

Trudeau claims: “These weapons were designed for one purpose and one purpose only: to kill the largest number of people in the shortest amount of time.” But he completely ignores that guns can help protect people from violent crime.

Even Trudeau’s father somewhat understood this last point.  After he retired from politics, former prime minister Pierre Trudeau asked the RCMP for a special exemption that would allow him to carry a handgun for protection. It’s unclear whether his request was ever approved.

When compared to the U.S., there’s no doubt Canada’s murder rate is lower. But the last UN International Crime Victimization Survey in 2000 compared the same definitions of violent crimes in the United States and Canada, and the violent crime rate was over 50% higher in Canada.

The AR-15, like any gun, is indeed very dangerous. However, it is not a weapon “designed for the theater of war.”

Banning “assault weapons” will not make Canadians safer.

— Lott is the president of the Crime Prevention Research Center and Mauser is professor emeritus in the marketing department at Simon Fraser University.