Tell Us What You Think – Will More Gun Control Make America A Safer Place?

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterPin on PinterestShare on Google+Share on LinkedInShare on StumbleUponEmail this to someone

The left has decided that the great tragedy that we just witnessed down in Florida is an opportunity to try to grab our guns. We are witnessing an all-out assault on the 2nd Amendment like we haven’t seen in decades, and this will undoubtedly be one of the most hotly debated issues as we head into the 2018 mid-term elections. I will never compromise a single inch when it comes to the 2nd Amendment, but unfortunately not all politicians are willing to take the same stand. In fact, some of my opponents publicly indicated that they were willing to compromise on gun issues even before the tragedy in Florida took place. If you would like to help us win this race so that we can relentlessly stand up for your 2nd Amendment rights in Washington, here is how you can make a financial contribution…


Donate By Credit Card Online:

Donate By Paypal:

Donate By Check: Make your check out to “Michael Snyder For Congress” and send it to the following address…

Michael Snyder For Congress
PO Box 1136
Bonners Ferry, ID 83805

The 2nd Amendment says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed”.

Unfortunately, there has been a whole lot of infringing going on.

In this race for Congress, a couple of my opponents also say that they are “100% pro-gun”, but what they mean by that is very different from what I mean.

The status quo is not acceptable. For decades, Democrats have been moving the ball forward on gun control whenever they are in power, and then Republicans pledge to keep them from going any further once they take control. But the Republicans never go back and actually repeal the bad things that the Democrats put in place.

I believe that we need to repeal the major federal gun control laws that currently exist, and I am the only candidate in this race that has publicly taken that stand.

Keeping the Democrats from passing even more gun control laws is not enough. We must get rid of all laws that are currently infringing our 2nd Amendment rights, and if you agree with me I would like to ask for your support.

We have just 80 days until May 15th, and this race for Congress is super close. We have a great plan for pulling ahead in these last 80 days, but we haven’t raised all of the resources that we need to execute that plan. Here is how you can help…

Donate By Credit Card Online:

Donate By Paypal:

Donate By Check: Make your check out to “Michael Snyder For Congress” and send it to the following address…

Michael Snyder For Congress
PO Box 1136
Bonners Ferry, ID 83805

I live in north Idaho, and I sleep very well at night because I know that virtually everybody is armed. If some thieves decided that it would be a good idea to start breaking into homes at night, they would have extremely short criminal careers.

Gun control is never the answer. Just look at Chicago. It has some of the toughest gun laws in the entire nation and yet murder and other forms of violent crime are completely out of control.

We need to send people to Washington that understand that there can never be any compromise when it comes to our 2nd Amendment rights.

If you live in Idaho, make sure that you get registered to vote. If you are already registered, your local county clerk can help you with an application for an absentee ballot.

Of course most people will vote on May 15th, and it is imperative that we all mark that day on the calendar.

If we do not vote, we may wake up some day and find that our 2nd Amendment rights are gone for good. The left is absolutely determined to destroy this country, and we are not going to allow that to happen.

In Liberty,

Michael Snyder

  • The 2nd Amendment is and should always be the last word.

  • DJohn1

    I suggest that the real victims of “gun control” are the people aimed at other people with prescription drugs. Most are people on prescribed drugs doing crazy things.
    So who would do such a thing?
    Perhaps psychiatrists? What is the penalty? Are they penalized for prescribing the wrong drugs that causes people to go wrong?
    Who benefits? Possibly a government? Possibly an intelligence agency or community? Possibly a Democrat Party that has been trying to legislate strict gun control for their own purposes?
    In the meantime a whole lot of innocent people around the crazy people get killed including children and teachers . . .
    What happens in a court of law when civilians actually defends themselves? Are they also defending themselves from huge lawsuits and criminal charges?
    What happens when the police raid a home without notice and someone is murdered in their own home which has happened when people are armed?
    How many police people have been killed when a court allows search and seizure and someone thinks they are being invaded by a crook or crooks?
    Today it might be a foreign national in the south. Today it might be a Bundy or a tragic case in Oregon where police killed someone. Only the spotlight of the press kept the Bundy family alive as the FBI had snipers and lied about it.
    The question is who is next? Me? You?
    I have been a policeman in the service of my country in the US Air Force as an Air Policeman. Unless you are willing to shoot to kill when you draw a weapon don’t even own one.
    I refuse to have a gun in my own home for that reason. I am not willing to use one period. Neither do I think it is sport to kill animals in the wild. Would I shoot an armed intruder in a school? Yes. If I were a professional policeman. If I was protecting both the teachers and the children from harm.
    Could I live with killing anyone? I don’t know. The good Lord blessed me that I never had to find out. I don’t wake up with nightmares every night either.
    If you take away the guns then take them away from the police as well. That way no one has guns.
    Our laws are fragile and often wrong. That is why they made a balance. That is why people on the frontiers went around with guns. Whether it was bear, an indian terrorist, or a foreign invader, no one wanted to tackle an armed population even today. If there is a conspiracy to get rid of an armed population by one of our enemies in the world that is where I would start.
    IF our courts allow illegal search and seizures in their stupid attempt to control drugs in the real world and they faced armed home owners pretty soon they wouldn’t get any police to do it.
    Drugs in the real world are a form of slavery and no one has the ability to stop that addiction with pure will power. Anyone on the front lines of that war will tell you that. It changes the physical nature of the brain itself. They will do anything for that next “fix”.
    Restricting guns only works if everyone doesn’t have a gun.

    • DW3

      Would I shoot an armed intruder in a school? Yes. If I were a professional policeman.”

      “The professional policeman” was hiding, genius.

      Got an answer for that?

      BUILD the WALL.
      DEPORT 100% of Illegal ALIENS.


  • NoMoreFalseGods

    Canada: Living the American dream without the violence since 1867.

    • LOL, I suspect that is ironically why so many Americans just haaaate Canada, lol.

      • NoMoreFalseGods

        They’re just jelly.

        • Yup, exactly right (but I only admit that because it’s here, on the anonymous Interwebz).

          • NoMoreFalseGods

            Mightly big of you, like an honourary anonymous canadian. :D

    • Scott

      Heavily armed Switzerland, besting Canada’s crime rate since 1867.

  • rickj2

    Question: How many home schooled kids have been killed in school shootings?

    • The Turpin family almost had 13 such school shootings!

      And the Duggar girls who got molested no doubt would’ve wished they’d been shot instead of what they had happen to them :(

  • rickj2

    If ALL guns were banned, would the Mexican cartels prosper? Would they “mule” guns along with drugs, and illegals?

  • Sopater

    Yes, more gun control will make America a safer place… for the criminals…

  • MaxRockatansky33

    Yep! hiccup. I’m goin to a shot some annoyin pigeons.

  • Sure that will work just as making smaller spoons will cure the obesity problem.

    • Actually… using smaller utensils has been proven to cause over-eaters to eat more mindfully and slow down their eating until they learn to eat more mindfully… and it does lead directly to weight loss.

  • Sgt. Misanthrope

    I employ gun control every time I pull the trigger…by using both hands to steady my aim!

    • Hey, look at you, using the same joke that MS13 gangbangers use! You must watch Showtime at the Apollo too!

      • Sgt. Misanthrope

        Don’t have cable/satellite, etc. I learned that the first day I learned to shoot back in 1964, when I reached my 12th birthday. Thanks for playing!

        • I don’t have cable/satellite either; Showtime at the Apollo is on the same channel as the failed Reality TV show, The Apprentice!

          Thank you for playing (and for letting me win so easily)!

          • Sgt. Misanthrope

            Still don’t have a clue what you’re talking about, because I don’t waste my time being mesmerized by a boob tube. But I know a troll when I see one. You’re such a boor. Blocked.

  • Bernard FitzMaurice

    The second amendment exist for one reason only. It is the last defense against our own government. It was created by those who had just finished an armed uprising against their own lawful government which was abusing the people. They knew by experience that the ONLY way to guarantee their own personal freedom was to have the ability to overthrow their own government when it becomes oppressive. Check your history books! the first thing that happens before a dictatorship even starts is the confiscation of all weapons. Once the people are unarmed, who can hinder those in power from abusing that power! While I do believe that mentally ill people should NOT have access to firearms, restricting law abiding citizens will make everything worse. We need to inforce the laws already on the books, and the only new laws should be to insure that doctors, hospitals, police, etc., identify mentally ill people and remove their ability to get guns. If a mentally ill person lives in a household with guns in it, then those guns must be removed to a safe location. If the owner of the guns is not the identified mentally ill person, then they should still be able to get access to their guns to use, but they must be returned to a safe location daily and there must be a way to insure that the unauthorized person cannot gain access.

    • Lonnie Young

      The government has nuclear weapons and fet fighters, who do you think would win that fight?

      • Bernard FitzMaurice

        Do you really think that those in control of a repressive government in Washington D.C. would nuke Washington D.C if they were attacked there by an uprising of the American people? Do you really think they would nuke New York City or any other major city if there was an uprising there? Do you really think that the American soldiers, sailors, and airman would follow such an order?They would be dropping nukes on themselves and their families! As for jets and other “high tech”, look at Afghanistan. All the jets and technology of the USSR and the USA have not eliminated the Taliban and others like them. Use your head! A knee jerk reaction like yours is what is wrong with this country. I think the American people would win such a Fight! There is NO way that this government, No matter how many weapons or how powerful they were, could win against an uprising of millions of Americans. The British were the SUPERPOWER back in 1776. It didn’t do them much good, did it!

    • Camille Cheaney Patterson

      I agree with some of your postulations; however have serious concerns. Mental issues are not backed by observable science or by scientific tests, except in a few rare cases of organic brain dysfunction, which is truly rare. The DSM is due to peers backing each other. My point in this is: who gets to decide who is mentally ill: a psychiatrist, a group of counselors, the biological family, a judge in court who knows nothing about the person involved? The problem with this is that there is no OBJECTIVE science to it, it is all subjective. Everyone has differing subjective opinions. Therefore, in reality, it is likely impossible to have due diligence in this scenario. I agree, DANGEROUS mentally ill ppl should not have guns, but again, who decides? It is putting the 2A in the hands of the wrong ppl. Is it someone with anxiety disorder who has never harmed themselves or others & has no intention of ever doing so? Is it someone with PTSD? Is it someone who has their finances taken care of by others? This is a VERY SLIPPERY SLOPE, and the beginning of the end of the 2A.

      • Bernard FitzMaurice

        Hi Camille,
        Obviously we can’t solve these problems in an online blog, but we can suggest possible solutions for discussion. While there is very little observable science to determine mental health or especially potentially violent behavior, there is common sense, which does seem to be severely lacking in todays society. I do not trust any psychiatrist, sociologist, counselor or judge to make this type of decision! But perhaps a panel of them may work. I speak from experience! My sister was a psychiatrist, married with two sons. She and her children were murdered by her husband. Other than an odd remark at their wedding that I noticed, no one in our family was aware of any mental illness or family problems. I was probably more closely connected to him than others in our family and I didn’t see any problems. What could have been done in this situation? There were no guns involved, He burned the house down while they slept! Afterwards some things came out, but my sister never told anyone about them. She should have used some common sense to protect herself and her children. Some people refuse to consider any restrictions on the second amendment because even something minor is just a first step down that slippery Slope. In many ways I agree! The liberals are nor interested in gun control, they are only interested in winning the debate! Once they get one step done they immediately start on the next step. That is their tactic on every subject! What I want to see is some common sense applied to the problem! I have no problem with someone who is accused of a violent crime having their access to guns removed until after their trial proves them innocent. Some may think that they are innocent until proven guilty, they are right, but just like they can be arrested before trial and jailed and their rights curtailed they can have their access to guns blocked temporarily. Another situation may be when someone files for divorce or protection with the court. An order to temporarily remove access to guns would be appropriate. It would be necessary for an immediate hearing to determine if it should happen or not but so many murders are crimes of passion that a period of cooling off seems like a common sense idea. I don’t think that anyone’s second amendment rights should be permanently removed until it is PROVEN that THEY are dangerous. Accusations are NOT enough, but restricting their second amendment right TEMPORARILY until some type of immediate hearing can be held is reasonable, I think. As far as who would make such a decision, In our country and our current form of government it would be the judges. It should be required however that certain people should have a say in the matter. The family members should get the most consideration. Next would possibly be LOCAL police and other LOCAL persons such as clergy or neighbors that know the individual personally. Lastly should be doctors or hospital staff who have been involved in any incidents with the person. To be honest, we will never cure violent behavior or mental illness with any particular law. All we can do is try to use common sense to prevent what we can and heal what we can.

  • DJohn1

    There is a misconception as to what the current job description of the police is.
    Basically they are the ones who gather evidence for the lawyers to fight over in court. They are not your friends.
    Neither are they there to protect us against criminals. They will often delay going to a hostile scene in hopes that the people involved will settle it themselves, then they go in. Arrest whoever survived and again it is in the hands of lawyers for both sides.
    The evidence in the Florida shooting as discussed on line tells me a different story and there may have been more than one shooter. If so, the professional got away clean because he or she left no evidence that she was ever there.
    Or did that person shoot a different gun with different bullets that left a trail?
    Good police work may have that evidence in the forensic team that obviously went in. If the school isn’t torn down first to hide what happened. What I am discussing is a possibility discussed by Mr. Whitehead who is against confiscation of weapons of any kind.
    Cover up what happened? No way . . . unless something very seriously wrong is going on. I am just a civilian and no where near the scene of what happened.
    Trump is calling for gun control and breaking into people’s homes to do it.
    The same motivation as a police person has will make it armed swat teams that go in if anyone does and a whole lot of innocent people will die.
    Get a clue. The police are not there to protect us.
    That has to change. But I do not envy any police person assigned such a task.
    I know many very good professionals in the police profession. They do not want this any more than we do.
    A good policeman always thinks of maintaining our constitutional rights above anything else. That is the Oath often taken on a Bible that all professionals swear to uphold.
    That probably includes the oath taken by Mr. Trump as President of this country.
    I do not envy any policeman or group maintaining the law the task that is before them.

  • Chamele0n

    Gun control only helps criminals and the elite. It screws everyone else. Gun control is against the Constitution. The Supreme Court has ruled on this. Anything that goes against our 2nd amendment right indicates a tyrannical government, which voids the contract of the Constitution, thus making our own government the domestic enemy… Be wary of the political correctness, which erodes our 1st amendment in order to eventually destroy our 2nd.

  • Camille Cheaney Patterson

    We here in Maine are NOT giving up our guns, and the day they come to take them is either the day we die or they die. We will not be slaves.

  • John Parson

    I believe that if the government tries to take our guns it will result in the biggest bloodbath this country has ever seen. And the Democrats will finally learn why the 2nd Amendment was put into the Constitution. There will be blood. Just saying…..