|
|
AN AMERICAN WARNING
Because you should know!
December 2006 - Posts
-
|
A new year is almost here, and with it comes new challenges and fights for gun owners. A few days ago I looked back on 2006, but I want to take a minute to look ahead at 2007.
We've seen great success in enacting the Castle Doctrine around the country, but our work continues. In the coming months, I want you to fight for the Castle Doctrine in Texas, Arkansas, Pennsylvania and other states where it will be introduced.
I expect that at some point this year, U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her anti-gun friends will try to push some type of gun-control law in Congress. Get your U.S. Representative's office number on your speed dial, because we'll need your voice to be heard if we're going to have a chance to beat back this legislation.
In battleground states like New York, California, New Jersey and Massachusetts, you can be sure anti-gun bills will be introduced. It may be a gun ban, it may be some type of gun owner harassment law, but these bills are coming. Let's be ready. Pay attention to your ILA alerts and work with your state organizations.
Have you noticed a common thread here? In order for us to be successful, we have to work together. Most importantly, we have to work. Now's not the time to be quiet and think that some other gun owner will pick up your slack. There's too much that needs to be done.
Enjoy your New Year's holiday, but get some rest. Something tells me 2007 is going to keep us busy.
|
-
|
Get a load of what the president of the Brady Campaign recently said while he was in Maine. Paul Helmke let loose with this: "I absolutely don't want to do anything to make it harder for the legitimate hunters or gun collectors or anybody who even wants it for personal protection."
Oh really? Mr. Helmke, it's time to put your money where your mouth is. If you're not opposed to people having guns for self-defense, then I've got an offer for you. Let's make history together. When Congress convenes next year, let's both push for passage of the D.C. Personal Protection Act. This bill would restore the Second Amendment to our nation's capitol, something that I'm sure you support. After all, you don't want to make it harder for people who want a firearm for personal protection, right?
And let's push to end those stupid "one-gun-a-month" laws. Like you said, you don't want to do anything to make it harder for gun collectors, right? Ever try to buy a matching set of pistols in a state with a "one-gun-a-month" law? Good luck.
While we're at it, since you don't want to make life harder for hunters, then I'm sure you'll stop pushing for another Clinton-style gun ban. Do you have any idea how many great hunting rifles and shotguns the last guy that ran the Brady Campaign wanted to ban? How foolish it is to think that banning guns will somehow make crime go away. Has he looked at the crime rate in Washington, D.C., lately?
So how about it, Paul? Ready to usher in a new day at the Brady Campaign? Or do you just expect the public to fall for more make-believe from your side? I won't hold my breath waiting for an answer.
|
-
When is it good to get a failing grade? When the Brady Campaign is the one issuing the report card.
The anti-gun group comes out every year with its list of "gun grades" for every state, and lots of newspapers rush to publish their results. Their goal is to lead you to believe that there is some type of relationship between their "gun grades" and gun crime.
But there's not.
Howard Nemerov, a freelance writer, recently published a piece that tears apart the Brady belief that more guns equals more crime. Nemerov found that states that have passed shall-issue Right-to-Carry laws have a violent crime rate 27.5 percent lower than states that don't have shall-issue Right to Carry. And even though the crime rate went up nationwide last year, it climbed less than one percent in shall-issue Right to Carry states, but it went up more than five percent in the states without shall-issue Right to Carry.
What does this mean, besides the fact that the Brady Campaign's "gun grades" are useless?
It's simple. Law-abiding gun owners aren't the problem. Criminals are. And the laws the Brady Campaign tries to pass don't do anything to stop criminals- just law abiding gun owners.
The Brady grades don't indicate anything other than a willingness to disarm law-abiding citizens and leave them at the mercy of the bad guys.
Maybe an "A" grade means "Anti-gun," and an "F" stands for "Freedom."
In that case, I'd be glad to live in a state with a Brady failing grade.
|
-
In the two years since Florida passed the Castle Doctrine, I thought I'd heard every emotion-driven argument against the law. They said it's the "Shoot the Avon Lady Law." They said it's going to lead to blood in the streets. I wouldn't be surprised if they said the Castle Doctrine causes global warming!
But I wasn't expecting to see the magazine The New Republic try to blame the Castle Doctrine for the death of 92-year-old Kathryn Johnston. She's the elderly woman who shot at police during a no-knock raid on her home in Atlanta last month. She was killed in the returning fire.
No one wanted this to happen. Not Kathryn Johnston, and certainly not the police officers who executed the no-knock warrant. But to blame this on the Castle Doctrine? That's called looking for a scapegoat.
According to the magazine, the warrant alleging drug activity in Johnston's home "appears to have been issued in error." That's the problem, not your right to self-defense.
|
-
|
I grew up in Roanoke, Virginia. It was a great place to be a kid. Too bad the town has changed.
Chris Moore runs the local 4-H Shooting Sports program in Roanoke. For the past year, his team's been practicing in the local National Guard armory, which is city property. But then Chris realized that, under city ordinances, the program shouldn't be practicing within the city limits.
No one told Chris to stop, but Chris wanted to teach his kids a lesson about responsibility and honesty. So he went to the City Council and asked that the ordinance be changed to allow educational programs like the 4-H Shooting Sports to operate in the city limits. Pretty simple, right?
It looked like things might go Mr. Moore's way until the city manager stepped in. He said there was no reason to change the law because Mr. Moore could simply move the program outside of the city limits and into the county. Never mind the fact that Chris Moore doesn't have a place to hold practice outside of the city. Never mind that many members of his team would be forced to drop out if they had to practice outside the city. The city manager made up his mind, and that's that.
Well, Chris is fighting City Hall, and I say, "Good for Chris!" The 4-H program is a great way to teach our kids about responsibility, confidence, discipline and teamwork. Why the local government of my hometown wants to take that away is beyond me, but I know one thing: This isn't the same town where I grew up. I just hope one day soon it will be again.
|
-
|
As we wrap up 2006, I wanted to take a minute to highlight a couple of the great victories we've seen this year.
We saw many states pass laws that will forever prevent what happened in New Orleans from happening again. And President Bush signed federal legislation that stops any law enforcement agency receiving federal funds from taking your legally owned firearms in a time of emergency.
The battle cry of NRA members this year has been "Remember New Orleans!" Thanks to your help, those dark days should never again be repeated. If any agency tries to break that law, we'll once again be there to stop them. Our lawyers continue to fight New Orleans in court, because officials there continue to believe they did nothing wrong. If we can't convince them, I believe the courts will.
We saw the Castle Doctrine enacted in 15 states around the country, and I expect that trend to continue. There is no reason you should be required by law to retreat if you're under criminal attack. People are hurt because of this stupid requirement, and it’s time it goes away.
Preemption was passed in Ohio, Right-to-Carry was passed in Nebraska and Kansas and we beat back anti-gun bills in California. I could go on and on, but this is a blog, not a novel. Just remember, we did great things in 2006, and we did it together.
Merry Christmas, and I'll talk to you again in a few days.
|
-
|
It's hard to imagine a newspaper with more reckless disregard for readers' lives than the Argus-Leader of South Dakota. That rag decided to publish a database of every Right-to-Carry applicant in the state, despite TWO laws passed to prevent that very outrage.
The paper had been publishing the name of everyone who has a Right-to-Carry license until the South Dakota legislature in 2005 passed a law blocking media access to those names.
So the Argus-Leader countered by publishing the names of every Right-to-Carry applicant instead. Pretty sneaky, huh?
So the legislature closed that loophole, too. But the paper still published a database of all applicants as of June 30th, the last day the media had access to the information.
What are they thinking?
Thanks to the Argus-Leader, South Dakota criminals now have a shopping list of homes with guns. Worse still, if you're a woman who isn't a Right-to-Carry holder, you're now at greater risk of being raped or assaulted. The bad guys know you're defenseless, courtesy of the Argus-Leader.
I can't imagine anyone continuing to support a paper so willing to jeopardize their safety.
You're exposed, Argus-Leader. Your anti-gun bias has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you care more about your headlines than your citizens. You oughta be ashamed.
|
-
I think I struck a nerve with the anti-gunners. On a blog run by the anti-gun group Freedom States Alliance, the anti-gunners are taking me to task for asking you to call on the ATF to investigate Mayor Mike Bloomberg's straw purchases. And just like the rest of the anti-gunners, they have to misrepresent to make their case.
These anti-gun groups have the nerve to say that Bloomberg begged for help from law enforcement before he sent his private eyes to break the law. Oh really? As Dave Workman reported:
"ATF spokesman Rich Marianos said he had no prior knowledge of the Bloomberg gun 'sting.' He said the ATF Office of Public Affairs traditionally liaisons with law enforcement agencies on such operations. But Bloomberg's operation involved private investigators, not police officers. Marianos stressed that Bloomberg's 'sting' was ‘conducted independent from ATF.'
Does that sound like cooperation to you?
Then the anti-gun guys say:
"Bloomberg sent his own private detectives down into Georgia and Pennsylvania, caught dealers on tape allowing straw purchases (when his private detectives were making it very clear that they were asking the dealers to do something illegal)."
Oh really? Have these anti-gunners seen the tapes that Bloomberg paid for? Because the last time the media reported on it, Bloomberg was refusing to turn over the tapes to ATF. The ATF was asking to see these tapes so they could determine if a crime was committed, and Bloomberg's refusing access!
One more thing; These anti-gun groups say that Bloomberg had to do this, because the NRA has worked to make sure, "the dealer suffers exactly zero responsibility under the law."
These gun grabbers can't go two paragraphs without telling a whopper. They'll misrepresent about what Bloomberg did, they'll misrepresent about what the laws are, and then they'll do it again about what the NRA stands for. No one wants to get tougher on criminals than the NRA, but no man is above the law, not even New York’s mayor.
You know, the National Shooting Sports Foundation and the ATF have a joint program called "Don't Lie for the Other Guy." It's good advice, especially when the other guy is Michael Bloomberg. Think about it, anti-gun guys.
|
-
People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. That's advice that New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg and Boston Mayor Tom Menino should take to heart.
Bloomberg and Menino have been trying to blame violent crime in their own vicious cities on the gun laws of Vermont.
And they want Vermont to pass New York City-style gun bans 'cause they claim it'll cut crime in their own cities.
But who are they to tell other people what their laws ought to be? Their cities are both disasters compared to the state of Vermont. And yet they want Vermont to adopt their lame laws?
Massachusetts requires a permit to purchase handguns, a special ID to purchase a long gun, and every gun owner has to be licensed by the state. Yet their murder rate is double Vermont's and their violent crime rate is triple Vermont's.
Look at New York City. In New York City, you need a permit to purchase any firearm, and every firearm has to be registered. Yet New York State's murder and violent crime rates are almost four times as high as Vermont's.
New York State and Massachusetts are two of the only states in the country that routinely deny the Right to Carry to honest citizens.
Vermont is one of just two states that requires no permit whatsover to carry a concealed firearm.
Yet more people are killed in one week in New York City than in the entire state of Vermont all year.
So where do Mayors Bloomberg and Menino get off telling Vermont what they should do? Who do they think they're fooling?
Vermont shouldn't adopt New York City-style gun bans. New York City should adopt Vermont-style freedom!
|
-
|
There's someone out there telling folks to buy guns illegally, and I think it's time we put a stop to it. He's directing contract employees to walk into gun stores, lie on the paperwork about who's buying the gun, and walk out after making a straw purchase.
Even worse, he's bragging about what he's doing. He's holding press conferences to tell the world about what he's done, but so far law enforcement doesn't seem to be listening.
Well, I think it's time we help out the ATF agents that enforce our nation's gun laws. We need to call their Illegal Gun Hotline at 1-800-ATF-GUNS (that's 1-800-283-4867) and alert them to this illegal firearms activity. Tell them that New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is hiring private investigators to initiate straw purchases in several states, and you want them to enforce the law.
Oh, I know Bloomberg says he wants to rid New York's streets of illegal guns. But he's not asking for help from local law enforcement agents. He's not asking for the help of the ATF. He's not even using his own police department.
Bloomberg is using his own private army of investigators to lie on the paperwork in order to sue the small business gun dealers, alleging that they're to blame for the lies they've been told. And once he sues, he offers the trapped gun dealers a devil's bargain: Give Bloomberg all of your business documents, and the lawsuit goes away.
Have you ever wondered why Bloomberg wants to know who's buying guns in Georgia, Virginia, Pennsylvania and elsewhere? If this were really about stopping a criminal's ability to get a gun, we'd be talking criminal trials, not civil suits.
No, this is about Bloomberg gathering information that he can use to ban more guns that he doesn't like. And from what I've seen, there's not a gun out there that meets with Bloomberg's approval.
If Bloomberg wants to ban all guns, we'll fight him in Congress and in statehouses. But he shouldn't be ordering people to break the law to get his way. Lying on the firearms purchase forms is a crime, and the ATF needs to investigate these straw purchases. It's up to us to hold their feet to the fire.
|
-
|
If you live in Buffalo, New York, I've got advice for you: Move.
It might just save your life. Because what some so-called leaders of that city are telling you, and not telling you, can threaten the life of every resident of Buffalo.
The Buffalo News recently reported that city officials are planning to spend taxpayer dollars on yet another gun buyback program-as if hardened criminals would line up to turn in their guns to police in exchange for a few bucks.
Time after time, gun buyback programs prove they do nothing to curb violent crime. But they do give do-nothing officials the appearance that they're doing something about crime.
Buffalo Mayor Byron Brown already knows his buyback scheme won't have any real effect on criminals. But he plans to waste taxpayers' money and law enforcement resources anyway.
Even Dennis Henigan, from the anti-gun Brady Campaign, admitted that "most of the people who turn guns in to these programs are already law-abiding people." But Henigan and his anti-gun lobby still support wasting police resources on a proven failure.
That's downright dangerous for residents. Because while law enforcement spins its wheels at the buyback desk, criminals are given free rein in Buffalo.
One frustrated Buffalo police officer said, "A gun case at City Court is treated like a shoplifting case in the suburbs," blaming a revolving-door criminal justice system in Buffalo. And city officials admit to repeatedly seeing violent gang members arrested for gun possession and released on bail-only to be arrested at another crime scene within months.
Mayor Brown counters that, under his administration, police have confiscated 998 guns this year. But what the mayor won't tell you is that they didn't take the bad guys off the streets, because they refuse to prosecute. They just paid for more guns- at taxpayer expense.
So, if you live in Buffalo, here's my advice:
Keep your family safe, move away from Buffalo.
|
-
|
Maybe you've heard that the state of New Jersey has cancelled the black bear hunt that was supposed to take place in early December.
But you haven't heard the real reason behind the cancellation.
Commissioner Lisa Jackson, of the anti-hunting Department of Environmental Quality, told a group of outdoors writers last spring that she had asked "all the girls in the office, and they all agreed you shouldn't kill those cute bears."
That's right. The anti-hunting bigots are ignoring the scientific recommendations of wildlife biologists in favor of what "the girls in the office" have to say.
And what happens when "the girls in the office" think that Bambi shouldn't be hunted either? Will New Jersey end its deer season, so essential to wildlife population management?
Only an idiot would impose wildlife management policy based on the opnion of "the girls at the office" instead of sound science.
And next year, when black bears are again threatening the lives of northwestern New Jersey residents, don't blame the hunters who wanted to be a part of the solution.
Blame the problem: Commissioner Lisa Jackson and "the girls at the office."
|
-
You know, they oughta give Oscars to these anti-gun lawyers. How they keep a straight face while spewing this nonsense must take real acting skill.
Here's what I mean: Right now, lawyers for the District of Columbia are saying the Second Amendment doesn't mean what it says ... or that the words don't mean what they mean ... or something like that. It sounds like something from the mouth of Bill Clinton, where it depends on what your definition of "is" is.
According to these lawyers, the Washington, D.C., gun ban is perfectly constitutional because, they say, the Second Amendment doesn't protect a right of individuals- only a right of the militia.
That's as stupid as saying that ducks don't have feathers because only birds have feathers. All ducks are birds. And all adults are part of the militia.
George Mason, the founding father of our Bill of Rights, said, "What is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
Yet anti-gun liars and lawyers continue to claim that the militia today is the National Guard. But again, they're double-dealing in deception.
Under current federal law, the "militia" is made up of two parts: The National Guard, plus every able-bodied male between the ages of 17 and 45.
In fact, a study by the U.S. Department of Justice of the Second Amendment's origins, text, rationale and case law concludes that the right to keep and bear arms is and has always been an individual right.
And the D.C. drama queen lawyers can never change that.
|
-
-
|
It seems like a clear case of self-defense ... and it is. But what they didn't tell you about an armed invasion of a home in Chicago's suburb of Zion spells danger for innocent victims.
According to the Chicago Tribune, a 16-year-old thug named Gerrell Davis donned a black ski mask and gloves and forced his way into the home of middle-aged couple. Davis was armed with a loaded rifle and deadly intent.
The 55-year-old wife grabbed a 9mm handgun from her bedroom, ran to the kitchen and fired twice. The intruder was found by police on the kitchen floor, dead and still wearing the mask.
Authorities said they don't anticipate any charges against the couple, who acted in self-defense.
But what they won't tell you is that the violent attack never should have occurred in the first place. And that this wasn't the first time Davis had attacked with a gun. Two years ago, he was convicted of aggravated battery with a firearm and should have been in jail ... or at least in juvenile detention!
But he wasn't. In fact, Davis didn't serve any time. He got slapped on the wrist with probation. Free to do as he pleased.
The good news is that the couple he attacked was able to defend themselves.
But how many more violent thugs roam the streets of Chicago and its suburbs? Free on probation, just like Davis, to do as they please?
That's the bad news. And that's what they didn't tell you today.
|
-
Rank-and-file police know how to stop and catch criminals. So why is Ohio
Governor Bob Taft going against them?
Ohio's legislature passed a preemption bill to make gun laws uniform across Ohio. The State Highway Patrol supported the bill, and it's easy to see why: For too long, lawful gun owners have had to live in fear of breaking anti-gun laws that vary from Cleveland to Dayton, from Columbus to Cincinnati.
It's a patchwork quilt of confusing, contradictory laws that turn honest gun owners into criminals while doing nothing to stop the real criminals. Yet Ohio Governor Bob Taft vetoed the bill, suggesting that somehow, it'll put the public in danger.
But if there's anything that puts the public in danger, it's Ohio's failed criminal justice system.
While the rest of the United States enjoys the lowest crime rates in decades, Cincinnati is set to break a 40-year record for homicide.
It's true: The last time Cincinnati had this many homicides was in 1967.
It would have been nice if Ohio Governor Taft stopped playing political games and started listening to police for a change, but he didn't. Now it's up to the state legislature to override Taft's veto.
Maybe it's time to let police stop harassing honest gun owners and start arresting the real criminals who terrorize Ohio citizens.
|
-
Every year, about this same time, anti-gun newspapers will reliably run one patronizing article portraying gun owners in a temporarily positive light.
I noticed the Baltimore Sun ran its piece a few days ago, praising hunters who donate deer meat to local homeless shelters and food pantries.
On one hand, I'm glad that even anti-gun papers will highlight the positive aspects of hunting. I think groups like Farmers and Hunters Helping the Hungry are great, and they deserve more positive press.
But these same papers would never dream about covering an armed citizen story. The message is clear: Guns for hunting might be okay, but guns for self-defense are not okay.
These reporters and editors should take a few minutes to think about the message they send.
Hunters aren't the only gun owners making valuable contributions to the community. Whether it's a county commissioner in Knoxville or a young father defending himself and his children against home invaders, they should report that responsible gun owners are good people to have around.
How about putting that in your newspaper? Or be known as the anti-gun elitists you really are.
|
-
The political clowns in Oakland again prove by their antics that they aren't serious about getting guns out of the hands of criminals.
Their latest proposal is a variation of the tired old "buyback" scheme, where people turning in firearms get a gift certificate or cash. These programs aren't effective at getting guns used by criminals, which is why Congress stopped funding these programs years ago.
In Oakland, it's not just a matter of relying on another ineffective program. This particular scheme is even more worthless than buybacks usually are. For every firearm turned in, Oakland residents will get two tickets to a concert by the rock band Guns N' Roses.
They're giving concert tickets in return for a gun?
Yes, Oakland city fathers are using a heavy metal band that hasn't had a hit in nearly 15 years to convince an urban audience to turn in their guns. San Francisco Chronicle columnist Chip Johnson says the idea belongs in a comedy show. I think the idea belongs in a garbage can.
If you want to get the guns away from the bad guys, get the bad guys off the streets. Don't cop a plea bargain with a killer so he gets nine years in prison, as prosecutors in Oakland recently did.
If someone threatens a woman with a weapon, you don't give them probation and let them out on the street. If you want to get tough on crime, get tough on the people committing the crimes.
And that doesn't involve sending good people to a rock concert in return for their guns. Unless, of course, you're one of the political clowns in Oakland looking for laughs-and honest citizens' guns.
|
-
|
I recently brought to your attention an editorial in The New York Times that complained that Americans are "confused" about the Second Amendment, because many think it is an individual right when, according to the Times, it is not.
I said then that the Times is wrong, and that most Americans agree the Second Amendment guarantees an individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
Well, in the past couple of weeks, two state Supreme Courts have referred to the Second Amendment as protection of an individual right.
First, in a recent decision, the Kentucky Supreme Court said, "Citizens have a right to keep and bear arms." Then the Washington State Supreme Court said, "Citizens have a constitutional right to bear arms under both the federal and state constitutions."
It's not surprising to me to see these words from the state Supreme Court justices.
But something tells me you won't be hearing about either of these rulings in the editorial pages of The New York Times.
|
-
|
Ohio Governor Bob Taft won't admit it, but when it comes to fairness and safety for thousands of his citizens, he's giving Ohioans the shaft.
Taft says he'll veto a bill just passed by the Ohio Legislature that would make Ohio's gun laws uniform and fair for everyone throughout the state.
He says his veto is in the interest of public safety. But he's not mentioning that the Ohio State Highway Patrol supported the bill overwhelmingly.
Ohio is one of the last states in the country that allows local governments to enact their own firearms restrictions. So in Ohio, citizens in one town can have much less firearm freedom than citizens in a neighboring community. That means a law-abiding gun owner can unwittingly become a criminal simply by crossing a city line.
It's confusing, it's unfair and it puts some Ohioans at greater risk than others of criminal attack-because violent predators aren't stupid. They'll go to the Ohio cities with the most restrictive laws to prey upon the most defenseless Ohioans.
But Bob Taft isn't worried about that. No matter where he goes in Ohio, he's got his protection, because he always goes with a state police escort. Chauffeured through traffic, with armed security at his side.
So while honest citizens are denied their rights and put in harm's way, Bob feels pretty secure with his veto ... and his armed guards.
|
-
Most NRA members know the facts: Firearms are used defensively to thwart crime between 1.5 and 2.5 million times every year - mostly through the mere presence of a firearm.
With so many states passing Right-to-Carry legislation, the number of defensive gun uses might be even higher today.
We rarely hear about these uses of a firearm, because the gun is almost never fired. So a police report is never taken, and the press never writes a story.
But even the most amazing armed citizen stories are often ignored by the media.
Chad Baus from The Buckeye Firearms Association reported that the Cleveland Plain-Dealer has ignored a recent armed citizen story.
As Chad points out, not only does the Plain-Dealer ignore a newsworthy armed citizen story, it also has a habit of printing the names of area citizens who exercise their Right to Carry.
It seems the Plain-Dealer will use its pages to harass gun owners, but not to report when gun ownership stops crime or saves a life.
If I lived in the Cleveland area or subscribed to the Plain-Dealer, I'd pick up a pen and write a letter to the editor letting them know that gun owners are onto their game.
Then I'd look for another place to get my Second Amendment news.
|
-
|
Authorities in Bridgeport, Connecticut, must have too much time on their hands.
They're giving holiday shopping advice, warning parents not to put a BB gun under the tree this year. While the media has portrayed this as a responsible safety message, what they're not telling you is that people are getting killed by violent repeat offender criminals in Bridgeport.
The truth they're ignoring is that the murder rate in Bridgeport is almost three times higher than the national average. In fact, Bridgeport's murder rate is higher than that of Boston, San Francisco, Minneapolis and even Los Angeles.
But Bridgeport police higher-ups seem more worried about BB guns than murder these days.
They say they're worried about parents gone astray. Bridgeport Police Sergeant Jesus Ortiz recently said, "The alarming thing is the BB guns are being supplied by the parents."
Alarming? You've got to be kidding me.
Every NRA member and gun owner understands that an airgun can serve as a valuable means of teaching a child safety and responsibility. If a responsible parent wants to give his or her kid a BB gun for Christmas, that's not alarming. That's good parenting.
Police officials and authorities in Bridgeport ought to find something more valuable to do with their time-like go out and confront the violent repeat offenders, take them off the street, and cut the murder rate.
|
-
|
You may have read about John Lee, an armed citizen from Philadelphia who recently defended himself against four armed robbers. And you may have seen a quote from a local politician supporting Lee's actions.
Pennsylvania State Representative Dwight Evans was quoted in the local paper as saying, "He was doing what he had to do to protect himself."
Sounds pretty good, doesn't it?
But here's the catch: Dwight Evans will soon be running for mayor of Philadelphia, and his recent rhetoric doesn't match up with his legislative record.
Evans has been the loudest voice in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives when it comes to more anti-gun laws. In fact, he's been working to change Pennsylvania law so that the city of Philadelphia can pass its own gun-control laws.
It looks to me like we're seeing another anti-gun politician put on some phony pro-gun camouflage just in time to run for office.
What types of laws are they talking about? Most of the public discussion has been about a "one-gun-a-month" law.
But you could expect to see bans on certain firearms, and there's even been some discussion about an end to Right-to-Carry in Philadelphia.
Point is, none of this anti-gun stuff will be possible without the election of Dwight Evans.
So here's a question for Rep. Evans: You say that John Lee was doing what he had to do to protect himself. So why are you making it harder for the John Lees of the world to do that?
If you're serious about self-defense, we need more than words. We need to see some action.
|
|
|
|