|
|
AN AMERICAN WARNING
Because you should know!
February 2007 - Posts
-
|
Sometimes I think there's something in the drinking water in Washington, D.C., that turns ordinary people into fools. How else do you explain the reaction to a recent column by Jonathan Turley in the Washington Post?
Turley's column basically said that kids will be kids, boys will be boys, and at some point little boys will point a stick or a finger or a toy and say, "bang bang." In most places around the country, this is a harmless fact of life and a normal part of growing up. But in the D.C. area, you'd think Turley was feeding his kids martinis and cigars!
Turley's column was so controversial that he had an online chat about it. A typical comment from a D.C. resident said that in 2007, toy guns "are not a part of childhood... for you to force them on your kids... will only make them outsiders in their peer group. I cannot fathom why a parent would handicap their kids like that and make them seem weird to their friends."
Turley also quoted emails that attacked his family, shown in pictures in the Post article. He wrote, "One attacked my kids as 'listless and joyless.' Another seriously informed me that I had defective DNA and explained how this diagnosis was made. Another insisted that I was not only a bad father, but with four kids, I was destroying the planet."
And this outcry is all over a father letting his kid play Army with his friends! The truth is, there's nothing wrong with children playing cops and robbers or pretending to be cowboys... as long as they're taught the difference between a toy gun and the real thing.
That's why I'm so proud of the NRA's Eddie Eagle GunSafe program, which has taught almost 20 million kids not to touch real guns. It's sad that so many parents would rather keep their kids in the dark.
|
-
|
It didn't make the newspapers or the network news here, but one of the loudest voices for England and Scotland's handgun ban has admitted it's been a dismal failure.
Ian Bell worked long and hard to make sure the ban passed a decade ago. But writing in Scotland's Sunday Herald, he says, "My idea didn't work... guns have become commonplace, so commonplace that every would-be terrorist worth his salt must be armed to the teeth. Bans have failed utterly."
What Bell says is true. Guns have become common, at least among the criminals in England. Gun crime has doubled since the ban took effect. But guns aren't common among the law-abiding. In fact, they've disappeared, leaving ordinary Britons helpless against criminals.
It's good that Ian Bell's admitted the ban's been a failure. But I notice he never called for an end to the ban. Admitting failure's a good first step, but it does nothing if you don't take the next step of righting a wrong.
|
-
|
England banned handgun ownership ten years ago. Today London is reaping the bloody harvest of unbridled crime we predicted all along, with rates of violent crime that make the U.S. look like Disneyland.
Fearless criminals know residents are defenseless, so the attacks escalate without mercy and without pause. Each day brings new reports of more murders, more robberies, more assaults — and fewer arrests.
It's a huge story, so profound and so vindicating of the NRA that you'll never see it in mainstream media.
According to the British government, the violent crime rate in the London area is 3,400 per 100,000. The violent crime rate in Washington, D.C., one of our most crime-ridden cities, is 1,459 per 100,000.
That's right. London, England, has more than twice the violent crime of our own crime capital.
What's worse, the British government's reaction would be comical if the consequences weren't so horrible.
Prime Minister Tony Blair is denying that there's a problem. While the Conservative Party leader, David Cameron, says London's most recent murder is evidence that British society is "broken," Blair says, "This tragedy is not a metaphor for the state of British society, still less for the state of British youth today, the huge majority of whom, including in this part of London, are responsible, law-abiding people."
Blair just doesn't get it. Of course the vast majority of British subjects are law-abiding people. But they're also helpless victims. The decade-long gun ban has only made things worse. Plus, most criminals get off with incredibly light sentences.
While London's law-abiding keep seeing the same released thugs on the streets, Tony Blair and company keep making the same excuses. Their failed policies are costing countless lives.
Every day Blair spends in denial, society breaks down a little more. How long before it can't be fixed at any cost?
|
-
|
I saw an armed citizen story the other day that made me cringe. Don't get me wrong, I'm proud when Americans use their Second Amendment right not to be some criminal's victim. But it's a last resort.
A woman in Darlington, South Carolina, walked into her living room the other night and saw a strange man there. As he pushed the coffee table out of the way so he could move towards her, she ran to her bedroom and retrieved her pistol. After shouting at the man that she had a gun, he fled the home.
Police say the man probably gained access through an unlocked patio door. That's the part of the story I don't like. If you're going to protect yourself, it requires more than a gun. You need to take sensible steps to keep yourself safe as well. Now maybe this guy would've broken a window or kicked in a door, but he didn't have to. He was able to quickly and quietly enter the home and gain the element of surprise.
When it comes to self-protection, don't forget the little things. A locked door may mean the difference between owning a gun and having to use it.
|
-
|
What is New York Governor Eliot Spitzer thinking? He's nominated a Manhattan liberal named Pete Grannis to run the state's Department of Environmental Conservation! How on earth is a guy who lives in the Big Apple going to make wise decisions about big game? The bottom line is this: He's not.
Pete Grannis is a gun-banning, anti-hunting politician. But Governor Spitzer thinks he should be in charge of hunting, fishing and trapping in New York. The New York State Rifle and Pistol Association says Grannis has been a longtime advocate for more gun-control laws, and has been honored by animal rights extremists. Hunters should be asking themselves and their representatives, "What would this do to hunting in New York state?"
I've heard rumblings that the New York State Senate might oppose the nomination of Pete Grannis because of his record on sportsmen's issues. It wouldn't be the first time a state legislature has rejected an anti-hunting official, but then again, several have been appointed around the country.
Not only do sportsmen have to worry about anti-hunting legislation, but we've got to watch out for anti-hunting regulations coming from our state wildlife agencies as well. The anti-s are using camouflage more and more, so we've got to stay vigilant to keep our hunting heritage intact.
|
-
|
It's been 25 years since Kennesaw, Georgia, passed an ordinance requiring households to have firearms and ammunition at the ready. The shootouts and spiraling crime predicted by anti-gunners hasn't happened, and most of the town's residents feel pretty safe.
The mayor of Kennesaw, Leonard Church, says there's no reason to get rid of the ordinance, and he's right. Why would you want to get rid of something the local police call a "crime prevention program"?
Kennesaw's grown a lot in the past 25 years, but the crime rate remains low. The Atlanta Journal Constitution says crime rates per capita have plunged since the law took effect, even while the town's population has climbed from about 5,000 to 30,000.
Any time some anti-gun idiot tells you that more guns equal more crime, you tell 'em about Kennesaw, Georgia. Twenty-five years later the residents are still proving the gun banners wrong.
|
-
|
USA Today is practicing journalistic fraud, and we've got to expose their deceit. They ran a front-page article claiming that police departments were having to upgrade their "firepower" because the Clinton Gun Ban has expired.
The paper quoted a spokesman for the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), who said his "informal survey" of 20 police departments reveals they've upgraded their firearms because the ban expired.
Since when is hearsay considered journalism? When money's talking.
The IACP has taken more than $500,000 from the anti-gun Joyce Foundation in the past year alone. The IACP's stated agenda includes renewal of the Clinton Gun Ban. The IACP is also on the record in support of a three-day waiting period before you can purchase a handgun. The IACP opposes national reciprocity for Right-to-Carry licenses. The IACP is hosting an anti-gun summit in April. But USA Today told readers none of this.
USA Today makes sure to bury any opposing view in the last paragraph of the story. There, a spokesman with Sigarms says some police are upgrading their firearms because of incidents like 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina - not because the Clinton Gun Ban expired.
There's a big difference between upgrading an arsenal because a gun ban expired, and since a gun ban expired. USA Today knows it, but blurs it.
The facts haven't changed: Those rifles were banned for purely cosmetic features. They're involved in less than 2 percent of all gun crime anyway. Twenty times more murders are committed with knives, clubs and hands than with the banned guns.
The fact also hasn't changed that USA Today despises your firearm freedoms. It's no coincidence they ran this non-story on the front page only days after Rep. Carolyn McCarthy introduced a new semi-auto gun ban in Congress.
If USA Today wants to editorialize for gun bans, fine. But it belongs on the editorial page, not the front page.
|
-
|
About a month ago, I told you about Willie Hancox-because the media wouldn't have. The 84-year-old Memphis resident is confined to a wheelchair, but that didn't stop him from defending himself when a robber tried to attack him in his home. Willie shot and wounded the attacker and saved his life in the process.
I thought about Willie the other day when I read the story of Linda Friday. Linda's ex-husband Christopher had racked up a history of violence against her. But when he tried to strangle her with an electrical cord, Linda knew she was in a fight for her life.
You might think Christopher Friday would have the upper hand, because he's younger than his ex-wife, and he's got full use of his limbs. Linda is a paraplegic, confined to a wheelchair. But Linda is also a gun owner, and as her ex-husband was choking the life from her, she managed to get her gun.
Christopher Friday was shot and killed in self-defense. Linda Friday is alive today because she owned a gun. As she said, "It was either my life or his; I had to choose, and I did." She didn't want to be forced to make that decision. Nobody does. But with no other choice, she chose to defend herself.
Being disabled doesn't mean you have to be a victim, and Linda Friday is living proof of that.
|
-
|
Richard Parker is a 55-year-old Englishman and gun collector with rifles and shotguns dating back to the Crimean War. He's also going to be going to jail for five years for having a replica "cowboy gun" in a holster by his bed. Parker says the gun was there for self-defense. The British government says that's not allowed. In fact, prosecutors used the phrase "nefarious act" to describe Parker's actions.
Here in the United States, the British press also reported on an American named Richard Parker. The 57-year-old Indiana man is a gun collector, with one of his prized possessions being a .50 caliber rifle. He just got back from Knob Creek Range in Kentucky, where he was free to shoot his rifle down range. The American government says that right is guaranteed. In fact, our Founding Fathers used the phrase "shall not be infringed" to describe Parker's rights.
In an amazing coincidence, two British papers over the weekend told the very different tales of the English and the American Richard Parkers. Same name, almost the same age, both gun owners. But one's going to jail for the crime of having a firearm for self-defense, while the other's celebrating his Right to Keep and Bear Arms by taking his rifle to the range.
Makes you glad to be an American, doesn't it?
|
-
|
Kenneth Hammond is a hero. He's the Ogden, Utah, police officer who stopped an attack on a Salt Lake City mall and saved countless lives ... because he had his firearm with him.
Hammond wasn't on duty the night a deranged killer decided to snuff out innocent lives at random. He was enjoying a quiet dinner with his wife at the Trolley Square Mall in Salt Lake City.
But when he heard the sound of gunfire, Hammond knew what he had to do. He told his wife to get down, and then went after the killer. Moments later the killer was dead, brought down by Hammond and the Salt Lake City police.
In a story in the Salt Lake Tribune, Hammond says he doesn't think it was a coincidence that he was there, or that he was armed. Maybe it wasn't. But you know, I don't think it was a coincidence that this killer chose the Trolley Square Mall. It's one of those places in Utah where men and women with their Right-to-Carry permit are told they can't carry. It's a victim disarmament zone, and the madman in the mall took advantage of that. He just didn't expect to run into an off-duty cop.
We can't expect every place that posts "no guns allowed" signs to be so lucky. The sign in Utah did absolutely nothing to stop a madman, but it might very well have prevented more law-abiding gun owners from acting with Officer Hammond. Those signs are one of those "feel-good" gun-control measures that can end up causing actual harm. Evil men won't be stopped by a sign, but the good guys will.
The gun-control advocates are already proposing and pushing for more anti-gun legislation in the wake of these killings. But they should remember that while a criminal with a gun started the violence ... it was a law-abiding man with a gun who stopped it.
|
-
I'm not a lawyer, but I wonder if the Brady Campaign hasn't opened itself up to a nice juicy libel lawsuit.
They recently sent out a press release calling gun dealers targeted by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg "lawbreakers." Last time I checked, the U.S. Justice Department had already determined that these gun dealers didn't break the law. I'd call that intentionally lying about what these dealers have done. And therefore it may be libel.
The Brady Campaign also misrepresents the National Shooting Sports Foundation's "Don't Lie for the Other Guy" program, saying that "as a direct result" of Bloomberg's little sting operation, the NSSF is encouraging dealers to take part. This program's been going on since long before Mike Bloomberg decided he wanted to be the next great gun banner, and it's wrong of the Bradys to say otherwise.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the Brady Campaign is going beyond spin and entering a world of lies. We've seen it before, and I imagine we'll see it again.
|
-
|
Here's an amazing story of gun owners and shooters in Massachusetts that the media will never tell you about. It involves college students and the shooting sports. But the media would have you believe that young people can't be trusted around guns.
Well, try telling that to the young men and women on MIT's rifle team. That's right, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has a rifle team, and they're pretty darn good. Last weekend the team even beat a service academy when they swept the Coast Guard in NCAA qualifying matches.
In addition to the rifle team, MIT also competes at the varsity level in pistol competition. A few weeks ago, they even defeated the Naval Academy!
MIT's pistol coach, Will Hart, has been a longtime competitor at NRA's Camp Perry in Ohio, and was named NRA's "Top Gun" in outdoor shooting back in 1995. In addition to his work with the MIT team, he also trains and certifies other coaches in international competition.
Jerry Mulloy, MIT's rifle coach, isn't just an NRA-certified firearms instructor. He's also an NRA member.
I'm proud to see that, in a state like Massachusetts that's so hostile to gun owners, NRA members are really making a difference.
|
-
|
Cook County, Illinois, has to be one of the most anti-gun places in America, so gun owners got a pleasant surprise last week when the county rejected a bullet tax.
That's right. One of the county commissioners actually proposed a tax of one dime per bullet under the guise of helping to reduce the county's budget deficit. Of course, the tax would have raised just $250,000, and the county's budget deficit is half a billion dollars.
That tells me this wasn't about cutting the deficit. This was about cutting the number of gun owners in Cook County. The commissioner who introduced the bill called the plan a "sin tax."
I agree with the Illinois State Rifle Association's Richard Pearson, who said that being a gun owner is no sin. Stopping people from being able to defend themselves is another story.
You don't have to be an accountant to realize the devastating effect such a tax would have on gun owners. How many folks would be forced to give up a gun for protection or sport because they couldn't afford to go to the range anymore? How many potential gun owners would never give sport shooting a try because it had been priced beyond their budget?
I'm glad the commissioners did the right thing, but it wasn't because they have any respect for the Second Amendment. It was because gun owners spoke up.
If they can get away with it, they'll try it again. We've got to be ready to once again defend our Right to Keep and Bear Arms from those who would demonize our Second Amendment rights.
|
-
|
I never thought I'd see the day when a Washington, D.C., politician proposed lifting the gun ban in that city, even temporarily. But that's exactly what city councilman and former Mayor Marion Barry seems to have done.
I've seen a lot of politicians try to change their stripes over the years, so I'm skeptical about Barry's plan. It would end D.C.'s handgun ban for a period of 90 days, allowing people to legally register their guns with the city.
But what happens on Day 91? Are the guns once again declared illegal? Will police, armed with lists of gun owners, be ordered to confiscate the firearms the city registered?
The news of Barry's plan came complete with sound bites about "epidemics of gun violence" and "getting guns off the streets." That type of anti-gun rhetoric should alarm gun owners as well. Pro-gun legislation doesn't come wrapped in an anti-gun package.
If Barry was really serious about acknowledging the failure of D.C.'s gun ban, he'd be moving to repeal it forever, not for just 90 days.
|
-
|
Most gun owners around the country know that Washington, D.C., banned gun ownership 30 years ago. And most gun owners know that violent crime in our nation's capitol is sky high. But there are still a few folks in D.C. who are willing to defend themselves against violent attackers, even when a firearm is tragically not among their options.
A few days ago Gary Peterson and his wife had just finished dinner when they heard a commotion outside. Opening the back door, Gary saw dozens of police officers. Then he saw an intruder run into his backyard. Gary shouted at the police, but the intruder entered Gary's home. Gary didn't realize it at the time, but the intruder was wanted for armed robbery and for shooting at police. All Gary knew is that the police wanted someone who had just entered his home.
If Gary lived in almost any other city in America, he might have had a gun for protection. Instead, he had a frying pan. A frying pan! That's what Gary used to hit the bad guy in the head. As you can imagine, it didn't quite work out the way Gary had hoped. The bad guy didn't get knocked out. Instead, he fled into Gary's basement and held law enforcement officers at bay for almost three hours.
Commander Diane Groomes of the Metropolitan Police Department rightly called Mr. Peterson a hero, but she said something else that I just can't understand. She said, "We liked his choice of weapon." What kind of cop would prefer that citizens face armed criminals with only a frying pan? She (and Mr. Peterson) are lucky this criminal isn't facing a murder charge. I remember a murder in D.C. a couple of years ago where the victim tried to defend herself with a kitchen knife against a home invader. She ended up dead, just another homicide victim in a city where the criminals have the upper hand.
The residents of D.C. would be better off if they could defend themselves with the tool of their choice, rather than having to craft a tool from the kitchen cabinets.
|
-
|
Trial lawyer Jeremy Burnside says that guns should be abolished in our society. He says his ancestor, General Ambrose Burnside, would be appalled at what the National Rifle Association has turned into. Actually, I think General Burnside would be appalled at how his descendants have turned out.
This isn't the first time Jeremy Burnside's called for a complete ban on civilian ownership of firearms. Back in 2003 he called for the same thing, after a monster of a man shot and killed three people at the Appalachian School of Law in Virginia.
Then, as now, Burnside blamed the gun-instead of the person-for the crime. And like the media that reported the story, he ignored the fact that an armed citizen named Tracy Bridges stopped the attack on the law school. When the shooting began, Bridges ran to his car and grabbed his revolver, then held the attacker at gunpoint until police arrived. Burnside didn't care that an armed citizen saved the day. He still called for an end to civilian gun ownership.
In his most recent op/ed, Burnside mourns the recent death of a friend, but says, "Regardless of who pulled the trigger, I blame the gun." By that rationale, we could do away with our criminal justice system entirely! Of course our crime rate would skyrocket, and more innocent Americans would be hurt, but people like Jeremy Burnside don't think that way.
I'm sorry for Mr. Burnside's loss, but there was a person responsible for the death of his friend. Blaming the inanimate object won't bring his friend back, and it allows the guilty to escape responsibility.
|
-
|
Shame on the New York Daily News editorial page. After Mayor Michael Bloomberg was read the riot act by the U.S. Department of Justice, the paper came to Bloomberg's defense.
But how do you defend the indefensible? By going after someone else.
In this case, the Daily News went after the Justice Department. In its editorial, the paper wrote:
Justice is highly miffed. Justice sniffs about "legal liabilities" and risks to "well-intentioned" people from those "without proper law enforcement authority." Justice should know that none of that has any effect on the civil litigation the city has pursued successfully and will continue to pursue while Justice is shamefully busy writing "we appreciate your interest" letters and salving the wounds of the NRA and its pals in Congress.
What a crock. Bloomberg is lucky the Justice Department let NYC off with a warning. If the mayor continues to act like a vigilante, I think his good fortune will end.
The New York Sun, on the other hand, gets it exactly right. They wrote:
One would think that such a warning would be met with at least some sense of humility on the part of city officials. But then, why would a city blanch at a letter from a mere Justice Department when it proceeds without regard to the authors of the Second Amendment?
Bloomberg will learn his lesson one way or the other. Time will tell if a letter suffices, or if that lesson must be learned in a court of law.
|
-
Another mayor's dropped out of New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg's anti-gun coalition.
Anchorage, Alaska, Mayor Mark Begich says he signed on because he's concerned about guns in the hands of criminals. But Begich says he's dropping out because he doesn't think Bloomberg's been honest about his agenda.
Begich said, "I am concerned the coalition is working on issues that conflict with the beliefs we share in Alaska about legal gun ownership, and I'm also concerned gun ownership advocates are not part of the full discussion within the coalition."
I'm proud of Mayor Begich taking a stand, and I congratulate him on realizing that you can go after criminals without targeting legal gun owners.
NRA-ILA has a complete list of Bloomberg's allies available online. Check it out, and if your mayor's on the list, ask them why they're going after the law-abiding instead of the bad guys.
|
-
|
Wisconsin gun owners have fought tirelessly for Right-to-Carry legislation over the past few years. But a few turncoat legislators, plus anti-gun Governor Jim Doyle, have made sure that the state remains one of a few without Right to Carry.
Governor Doyle should be ashamed of himself, because his anti-gun policies are going to put someone in jail-for the crime of defending himself against armed robbers.
Forty-six-year-old Andres Vegas is a pizza delivery driver in Wisconsin. About a month ago, Vegas was robbed at gunpoint as he stepped out of his car. Vegas was able to reach inside the car, retrieve his firearm and shoot and disarm the robber, then he remained at the scene waiting for police to arrive. Police investigated and found that Vegas had acted in self defense, but prosecutors say that Vegas' firearm was "concealed." Now Vegas faces a possible jail sentence.
I suppose prosecutors and Governor Doyle would prefer delivery drivers be more like Joseph Munz. Munz was a delivery driver in Milwaukee who was killed by an armed robber. The suspect prosecutors have charged was out on parole at the time of the murder. Mr. Munz tried to fight back, but he was unarmed. He didn't stand a chance.
Wisconsin's upside-down story gets even worse.
Even though Wisconsin doesn't have a Right-to-Carry law, its state Supreme Court ruled a few years ago that business owners and homeowners have a right to carry in their place of business or at home.
Presumably if Mr. Vegas owned the pizza parlor, he wouldn't be facing criminal charges. But because he's an employee, prosecutors want to put him away.
Jail time or a funeral. That's the choice these delivery drivers face, because that's the choice Governor Doyle has given them.
|
-
|
I saw a story recently about the rising number of Oklahomans who are exercising their Right to Carry. It was pretty good, as far as these stories go, but the reporter felt obliged to find someone who disagrees with people exercising that right.
Sixty-six-year-old Phil Ratliff, a Southern Baptist minister, says he doesn't like the idea of Right-to-Carry laws. He also says he's "very conservative, according to the scriptures. But I guess the NRA would probably call me a liberal."
Well, I wouldn't call him a liberal. I'd probably call him a naive soul who's bought into the anti-gun arguments put forth by people like Sarah Brady and Paul Helmke.
But here are some statistics for Phil. Since 1996, when shall-issue Right-to-Carry went into effect, the violent crime rate in Oklahoma has dropped, the murder rate has dropped and the robbery rate has dropped. In fact, in every category the crime rate has dropped since Right-to-Carry went into effect.
Enough with the paranoia, Phil. Take a deep breath, look at the statistics, and the next time you meet a fellow Oklahoman who has his or her RTC license, say thanks. They're making Oklahoma safer for everyone, including you.
|
-
|
Blogger and Second Amendment scholar Dave Hardy's done it again. He's found an inspector general's report detailing discipline problems within the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
The report shows that many problems are never reported. In a group of 58 cases that should have been reported to the inspector general, only 11 were actually reported. In other cases, agents were demoted or fired on paper, but no evidence exists that the disciplinary action actually happened.
This report comes on the heels of another investigation into the ATF's spending habits, which showed the previous director wasted hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars on things that had nothing to do with enforcement of our nation's gun laws. I'm talking things like hardwood floors for his office, and a wood paneling that would have cost almost a quarter million! All this while the agency was cutting funding for Kevlar vests and agency vehicles.
Sounds to me like the agency has some internal policing to do in addition to enforcing the law.
|
-
A local television station in South Bend, Indiana, recently reported a story about parents upset over hunting and gun safety being taught in a P.E. class in nearby Plymouth. But in a classic case of media bias, the reporter uses the words of one or two parents to claim there's a groundswell of opposition.
Here's a handy tip for you: If a story says "some people" or "some parents" feel one way, but only quote one parent, the reporter's only found one or two parents who are complaining. That's not enough to justify a news story, but if an anti-gun reporter wants to make sure the story airs, he or she will inflate the numbers.
This particular story quotes one parent and one grandparent, and they don't like the idea of their kids being taught gun safety or hunting in schools. In fact, they say if the course continues they'll take their kids out of school.
Why on earth would you want to keep your child ignorant? Even if you're not a hunter yourself, what's wrong with your child learning about an activity that millions of Americans enjoy? And even if you're not a gun owner, wouldn't you want your child to know the basic rules of gun safety in case they ever came across a firearm?
I think it's great that the junior high in Plymouth wants to educate kids. It's just a shame that there are parents out there who want to keep their kids in the dark.
|
|
|
|