|
|
AN AMERICAN WARNING
Because you should know!
July 2007 - Posts
-
|
Fresh from defeat at the hands of Congress, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is now grasping for straws. While his new publicity stunt is being praised by the anti-gun media, they aren't telling you that Bloomberg's campaign ignores existing tough federal laws against criminals with illegal guns. And unless you're famous or rich ... you're on Bloomberg's target list.
First, Bloomberg tried to get his hands on law enforcement records of firearm transactions. If he'd been successful, no gun dealer in America would've been safe from harassing lawsuits aimed at driving firearm dealers out of business.
Congress saw through this Bloomberg sham and reaffirmed legislation that keeps those records where they belong-in the hands of law enforcement officials.
Now, Bloomberg has launched a publicity campaign that rips off and weakens NRA crime-fighting policy more than a decade old. NRA members know it as Project Exile.
Project Exile began in Richmond, Virginia, a decade ago, when a tough federal prosecutor did what every prosecutor should do: He fully enforced existing laws that mandated a five-year prison sentence for every criminal caught in possession of a firearm.
Project Exile cut the murder rate in Richmond by more than 60 percent in just one year-by targeting violent criminals directly.
NRA supported that effort, while the anti-gun lobby mocked it. I personally stood with Richmond law enforcement, and NRA then worked with Congress to get that program implemented nationally.
Where was Michael Bloomberg then? Nowhere to be found.
But now New York City residents will soon see advertising posters telling them that an illegal gun could get them three years in jail, not five. All thanks to Bloomberg.
Not only is Bloomberg grandstanding like this existing federal program is his bright new idea, he's advertising a reduction in prison time for violent criminals with guns!
And unless you're famous or rich, Bloomberg's ad campaign says you should go to jail. Because in New York City, you can't own or possess a firearm without a permit. That requires a $170 non-refundable application fee, plus another $99 fee to be fingerprinted. And even if you can afford it, most average law-abiding citizens are flatly denied, and those fees are stashed in the city coffers.
But the media won't report that fact, because they're in love with their anti-gun crusader.
|
-
|
You've heard the saying, "What's good for the goose is good for the gander." Well, one Texas politician seems to think freedom is okay for him ... but not for you and me.
Earlier this year, Borris Miles was one of just a few Texas state representatives who voted against the Castle Doctrine. This new law, which takes effect in September, strengthens your right to meet force with force to protect yourself ... in your home, on the street, or anywhere else you're allowed to be.
Just last week, that same Texas lawmaker just might have saved his own life through the Right to Carry and the right to meet force with force.
Miles was at his new Houston home, which is still under construction, when he saw some thieves stealing copper from one of the neighboring houses.
He yelled at the thieves, and when one of them threw a pocketknife at him, Miles drew his pistol and shot the thief in the leg.
Now, you might think this was a wake-up call for the politician, and that he might call a press conference to reverse his position. But don't hold your breath.
Because Borris Miles already had a permit to carry. And he was more than willing to use it. So as far as he's concerned, it's "Don't do what I do- do what I say."
How's that for hypocrisy?
It's too bad that Miles doesn't take a lesson from Ohio State Representative Michael DeBose.
DeBose originally voted against the Right to Carry in Ohio. But after some armed thugs tried to attack him in Cleveland one night, DeBose changed his tune.
"I've changed my mind," DeBose said. "I never again want to be in the position where I'm approached by someone with a gun and I don't have one."
Now the ordained Baptist minister is somewhat of an evangelist for the Right to Carry.
Just last month, he, his wife, and 10 of his neighbors and parishioners went out and attended a firearms training course.
"There are too many people who are just evil and mean-spirited," DeBose said. "They will hurt you for no reason. If more people were packing guns, it might serve as a deterrent."
I'll say. And if more politicians were willing to admit their mistakes-like him-we all might be a lot safer.
|
-
|
Michael Cook of Tulsa, Oklahoma, was honored by the Tulsa Police earlier this week for being a good guy with a gun.
Cook defended his neighbor's life when the neighbor was attacked by a vicious dog. Marvin Battle was walking his two pets when a pit bull attacked, killing Marvin's Pomeranian, injuring his Chow, and then turning his attention to Marvin.
Michael Cook heard Battle's cries for help and ran outside. Though he'd never shot at anything other than a target, he knew he had to help. When the attacking pit bull raised its head for a moment, Michael shot and killed the dog.
Marvin Battle is walking with a cane these days as a result of the injuries he suffered in the dog attack. But he's alive, and he says it's all because of his neighbor.
This week the Tulsa Police Department gave Michael Cook its Citizen Appreciation Award, but that's just icing on the cake. Armed citizens don't act because they want awards; they act because someone's in danger. Michael Cook is living proof of that ... and so is Marvin Battle.
|
-
|
I told you about the Christian Science Monitor recently publishing an editorial that blamed Mexico's drug wars on American gun owners.
They wrote, "Lax gun laws and lax enforcement in the United States have made it easy for Mexican gunrunners to buy and transport everything from AK-47s to Stinger anti-aircraft missiles."
Well, I've got news for the Christian Science Monitor. If Mexican drug gangs are getting anti-aircraft missiles and fully automatic firearms, they're not getting them from federally licensed firearms dealers or at southern California gun shows.
The paper goes on to say that if we expect Mexico to help curb illegal immigration, then we must do our part to make sure guns don't get to Mexico. From where I sit, it seems to me that means beefing up our own border security, not enacting more gun-control laws.
After all, it looks like Mexico's gun laws aren't doing a darn thing to stop crime. As of 2002, Mexico's murder rate was nearly three times that of the United States. That tells me we're looking at a Mexican crime problem, not an American gun law problem.
|
-
|
Let me say up front: I am not making this up.
There's a Boy Scout camp in Colorado where they've taught gun safety and target shooting for years. Well, when some newcomer neighbors complained about it, the county sheriff there likened the place to a "Hamas training camp."
Elbert County Sheriff William Frangis, who's testified in favor of gun bans in Denver on multiple occasions, now has the Boy Scouts in his sights.
So, what were the Scouts doing that caused all the commotion?
Shooting sporting clays during a two-day fundraiser.
Yeah, I know: So what?
The Peaceful Valley Scout Ranch has had a shooting range for rifles and pistols for years. No one ever complained about it before.
But as the anti-gun granola crowd has moved out of the cities to find trees to hug and people to boss around, the Boy Scouts of Peaceful Valley have found themselves under attack.
Instead of doing the neighborly thing and going directly to the Scouts with their complaint, these new busybody neighbors complained to the cops. And, being that Sheriff Frangis seems to hate the Second Amendment, he was only too happy to help.
So when the Scout camp tried to get a permit from the county commissioners to continue shooting on the range, Sheriff Frangis-and those nay-saying neighbors-were there to shut them down.
Frangis warned of lead shot. He spoke ominously of seeing people smoking cigarettes near so-called "stockpiles of ammunition."
One activist said, "It was like World War III had started."
Who are these people?
A county sheriff ought to know that, as far as environmental hazards go, the lead on a shooting range isn't much of a threat.
A county sheriff ought to know that shotgun shells won't suddenly explode in a fireball just because somebody is smoking a cigarette nearby.
A county sheriff ought to know that the Boy Scouts are an important organization that does a lot of good for our country and our kids.
And he shouldn't liken them to terrorists just to grab headlines for his own anti-gun agenda.
|
-
According to the Christian Science Monitor, the reason Mexico is so corrupt, violent and vicious is because of "weak gun laws in the U.S."
I kid you not.
In a recent editorial, the Monitor said, "Lax gun laws and lax enforcement in the United States have made it easy for Mexican gunrunners to buy and transport everything from AK-47s to Stinger anti-aircraft missiles ..."
Wait a minute!
If the Christian Science Monitor had done even the most rudimentary research, they'd know that Stinger anti-aircraft missiles have nothing to do with anti-gun laws in the U.S., that they're tightly controlled by the federal government, and that they're completely illegal for civilians to own.
But the truth doesn't matter to the Monitor.
They want you to think that Mexican narco-terrorists sneak across the border, come into the United States, buy trainloads of weapons and military material, and spirit it back to Mexico on the backs of smuggler "mules."
It's as silly and absurd as the idea of Al Qaeda terrorists arming themselves at U.S. gun shows- another phony fable they tried to foist on a fearful public.
So let's set the record straight. There are people who buy guns, rockets, high explosives and military equipment on the international black market by the boatload.
There are people who produce narcotics, commission private armies, deal with global criminal organizations, and import drugs to the U.S. by the metric ton.
They don't line up to fill out forms and submit to background checks at American gun shows or sporting goods stores.
By blaming American gun laws, the Christian Science Monitor simply draws attention away from the real problem- corruption, illegal criminal activity, and it's vicious criminal underworld.
|
-
|
The city of San Francisco's trying to pull a fast one on its residents, telling them that more gun control is needed because of an increase in accidental shootings. The truth is, there's been no rise in accidents involving firearms. It's just the same old story—gang violence that the city politicians don't have the guts to deal with.
At a recent hearing in San Francisco, SFPD Sgt. Mikail Ali told supervisors, "Across the nation, children get access to firearms and inadvertently injure or kill another child, or themselves ... Even in our own community, children simply having access to those firearms leads to violence and death."
Is it just a coincidence that city leaders are pushing for more gun-control laws, including storage laws for handguns that would make it virtually impossible for them to be used for self-defense in your home? I don't think so.
After a city supervisor questioned Sgt. Ali's statement, he reversed course and told city leaders that they're seeing violent acts committed by people who are getting younger and younger. That's not the fault of legal gun owners. That's a failure by the city to get tough on crime. We need to look at increasing sentencing for violent criminals, and we need to get anti-gang programs in our schools at an early age. What we don't need are more meaningless laws that target the law-abiding.
|
-
|
Law enforcement won a big victory last week, but you'd never know it by listening to the mainstream media.
When the Tiahrt Amendment passed the House Appropriations Committee, it meant that law enforcement can continue to use ATF trace data to prosecute criminals, and people like Mike Bloomberg can't use it to try and harass law-abiding gun owners and gun sellers.
But the media told some real whoppers. The Associated Press story, for instance, said, "Pro-gun rights Democrats teamed with House Republicans on Thursday to block local governments and law enforcement agencies from gaining routine access to gun-purchasing data."
That's not just wrong, that's a whopper. Law enforcement agencies still have access to ATF trace data, and they can share that information with local governments. But Andrew Taylor, the AP reporter who wrote this, is either ignorant of the truth or chose to ignore it. Either way, it's a black eye for the AP.
Other news agencies were just as bad. A common theme of the coverage was that law enforcement supported repealing the Tiahrt Amendment, while the NRA supported keeping the language. Rarely did the media report that ATF, DOJ, the Fraternal Order of Police, and other law enforcement associations support the language of the Tiahrt Amendment. And the media never reported that the Tiahrt Amendment was put in place after Chicago Mayor Richard Daley sued to get access to the names of innocent gun owners, gun sellers, and even the names of undercover officers that are on ATF trace data. That lawsuit against the ATF several years ago led to Congress protecting that information. But the media seems more interested in carrying water for Bloomberg and his cronies than providing the truth to the American people.
|
-
|
Politicians in New Jersey are once again pushing a one-gun-a-month scheme. But it's already hard to get one-gun-a-year in that state!
The New Jersey Assembly recently passed a bill that would bar anyone in the state from buying more than one handgun in a month.
But the fact is, even without this law, if you want to buy a handgun in New Jersey, you'll have to jump through three to six months' worth of hoops as it is.
First, you've got to get a Firearms ID card. Then, you have to get a Pistol Purchasing Permit.
The Pistol Purchasing Permit is only good for 90 days, and it only entitles you to purchase one handgun.
If you don't use the permit before it expires, then you've got to start all over again.
You've got to be fingerprinted by your local police department, then your fingerprints are sent to the state police in Trenton and the FBI in Washington.
Then you've got to pass a background check.
Then you've got to supply the names and addresses of two personal references who get sent a ten-part questionnaire about your "stability" and fitness to own a firearm.
If you're a first-time applicant for a firearms ID card and pistol permit, you can count on it costing you roughly $75 and taking anywhere from six weeks to a year, depending on where you live.
Now, I'll admit I don't hang out with Tony Soprano. But it seems to me that not too many criminals are going to line up at the police station to give their fingerprints, apply for background checks, pay $75 and then wait six months to a year to buy a gun.
So Jersey's whole "one-gun-a-month" scheme is just another anti-gun gimmick.
And as far as fighting crime-well, you might as well just FUHGETABOUTIT.
|
-
July 17, 2007 Unknown Author Whether you agree or not, it's an interesting lesson in history and something to think about... In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, Read More...
|
-
|
I see Boston Mayor Tom Menino has declared "war" on guns, after a tragic shooting left a 7-year-old dead in Boston.
But I also can't help but notice that Mayor Menino would rather declare war on guns instead of negligent parenting.
Here's what we know: Cory Jefferson and his 7-year-old cousin were playing with a loaded gun on Sunday night when the gun went off, killing Jefferson. When police arrived, the family told police that the death was the result of a home invasion. In other words, they lied to the cops.
Do you think Tom Menino had any harsh words for the family? Of course not. Instead, he blamed the NRA for this tragedy.
Well, let me tell you and Mayor Menino something. Accidents involving firearms make me sick to my stomach. It's why the NRA's Eddie Eagle program exists, and so far it's taught millions of American children to "stop, don't touch, leave the area, and tell an adult" if they see a gun. Accidental fatalities involving children have plummeted since the Eddie Eagle program was instituted nearly 20 years ago. One is too many, but we're seeing record lows every year.
But at some point, you have to look at the individuals involved. What kind of parent lets a child treat a loaded gun like a toy? What type of family would rather lie to police than tell them the truth about this horrible tragedy?
I know it might be easier and more politically expedient to try and place blame elsewhere, but the bottom line is that this accident could have been avoided with better parenting, not more gun control.
|
-
|
Yesterday I told you about some of the things NRA does to support law enforcement, and talked about the fact that New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg has allowed lawbreaking mayors to remain a part of his anti-gun group while still insisting he cares more about cops than criminals.
Well, let's take a look at just how much Mike Bloomberg is doing for officers in New York City. For a guy who talks about supporting cops, his city sure doesn't show it. Do you know how much a rookie NYPD officer makes? $25,100 a year. That's shameful. In fact, it's so low that the police force in New York City is having a hard time filling jobs. The force has shrunk from 41,000 in 2000 to under 36,000 today. Fewer cops on the street means the volunteer police officers in New York City become more important every day. But Bloomberg still insists that those volunteer officers take to the streets without a firearm, for reasons known only to him.
Last time I checked, Bloomberg's still a billionaire. In fact, news stories have quoted associates as saying he's willing to spend a half-billion dollars on a possible presidential run. So here's a suggestion, Mike. That half-billion dollars could raise the starting salary for 5,000 rookie cops by ten thousand bucks for the next ten years. That would have a measurable impact on the number of cops on your streets, and frankly, you don't have a chance of becoming president anyway. This would be a much better use of your money.
And for less than two-and-a-half million dollars, you could buy a sidearm for every one of the 4,500 NYPD auxiliary officers that volunteer their time to protect and serve your city. I'll even make you a deal: You supply the guns, and the NRA will provide the training, free of charge. We've been training law enforcement for about 50 years now, and almost every cop on the streets of the United States has benefited from teaching by an NRA-certified firearms instructor.
So what do you say, Mike? Are you willing to drop the political rhetoric and actually prove to the NYPD that you do care more about cops than criminals? Or will you turn a blind eye to my offer, just like you've turned a blind eye to the criminals in your anti-gun group?
|
-
|
I've had enough of Mayor Mike Bloomberg, Mayor Tom Menino, and these other big-city mayors who are trying to say that they're the ones on the side of law enforcement, and it's the NRA who's not looking out for cops.
You want to know the truth? The truth is that every year, NRA-certified firearms instructors train tens of thousands of law enforcement officers, because we want to make sure that these cops come home at the end of their shifts.
How many cops have the anti-gun groups trained? Not one. That's true for the Brady Campaign, Stop Handgun Violence, the Violence Policy Center and every other gun control group.
That's just one of many things the NRA does to support law enforcement. But Mayor Bloomberg says we're "coddling criminals." The truth is, it's Mike Bloomberg who's doing that. Let me give you a couple of examples:
Jersey City Mayor Jeremiah Healey was recently convicted of resisting arrest. Has Bloomberg kicked his pal out of his "anti-criminal" organization? Of course not.
The mayor of Jackson, Mississippi, has pled guilty to illegally carrying a concealed weapon. Was that enough to get him booted from "Mayors Against Illegal Guns?" Nope. I guess Bloomberg thinks that if it's a mayor carrying a gun illegally, it's okay.
These two mayors I just mentioned are criminals who belong to Bloomberg's organization. If Bloomberg is really serious about putting cops ahead of criminals, maybe he should boot the lawbreakers out of "Mayors Against Illegal Guns."
|
-
|
Did you hear the news about England's violent crime rate on any of the mainstream news channels? Of course not. They don't want you to know that a new study shows England's violent crime rate is actually 82 percent higher than official estimates. And the reason for this is even more amazing.
Apparently in England, if you're the victim of more than 5 crimes in a year, that sixth crime isn't counted in official statistics. But when you add up all those uncounted crimes, you get a staggering look at just how crime-ridden England really is.
Burglary is 20 percent higher than officially reported. Assaults are 98 percent higher—almost twice as much as actually reported. Even robbery is 7 percent higher than the official numbers. In all, there are some two million violent crimes that go unreported because the victim has been victimized more than five times in a year.
This is a country with closed-circuit TV cameras on street corners to protect citizens. A country where civilian ownership of handguns was banned a decade ago. A country where self-defense isn't a right, just a concept. And yet the government still has to cook the books to make the crime statistics appear "reasonable."
No wonder the American media doesn't want you to hear this story. They love to pretend that England's such a peaceful place because of those gun laws and infringements on civil liberty.
Those policies haven't done anything to make England safer. It's just turned the country into a nation of victims, time and again.
|
-
|
You know, it's funny to me how the New York Times just seems to be for whatever gun owners are against. Take Mayor Michael Bloomberg's possible presidential run, for example. Most gun owners around the country know that Bloomberg's been going after their guns for over a year now, and wouldn't vote for him if you gave them a year's worth of free ammunition. But the New York Times loves the idea of Bloomberg running for the White House.
And campaign finance "reform?" We've been against it for years, because it silences gun owners in the weeks before an election. The New York Times LOVES campaign finance reform, because they can continue to say whatever they want to say about the NRA and gun owners, and they'll never be fined or sanctioned.
And to tie the two together, the Times would love to see Michael Bloomberg spend a half a billion dollars of his own money to promote an anti-gun presidential campaign. But the Times doesn't want the NRA to spend even a few dollars running ads with the truth in the weeks before Election Day.
It's pretty sad when the nation's most respected newspaper would prefer its readers to shut up so they can hear what the gun-grabbing politicians have to say. It's even more outrageous when you think about how many media outlets have the same philosophy.
|
-
|
Do mayors who're allied with Mike Bloomberg's anti-gun campaign have something to hide?
A California attorney named Chuck Michel, who's done lots of work for gun owners in the state, decided he wanted to see what's going on with the California mayors who've signed on to Bloomberg's gun-grabbing group. So he submitted Freedom of Information Act requests to their offices, seeking documents and communications between the left-coast mayors and Bloomberg.
Here's what some of the California mayors had to say.
The mayor of Sunnyvale says it's the first Freedom of Information Act request he's ever received, and that it has "disrupted the distribution of services to the community." A request for public information is enough to disrupt service to the community? What a joke. If you live in Sunnyvale, you'd better not call City Hall for any information. After all, you don't want to "disrupt public services."
The mayor of San Francisco also received the FOIA request. He recently stood side-by-side with Mayor Bloomberg and has called for gun-control laws that restrict access for legal gun owners. But Bloomberg still says he's not running a gun-control group. Gimme a break, Mayor Mike.
I'm very curious to see what kind of documents Chuck Michel ends up with, even though he's not doing this on behalf of the NRA. And if the mayors refuse to hand over the information, I say it's time to start asking, "What do they have to hide?"
|
-
CNN is up to its old anti-gun tricks again. Criminal profiler Pat Brown was recently on the network talking about the brutal murder of a mother and unborn child when she let loose with a rabid attack on gun owners. She said:
"But psychopaths are also fascinated by weapons. I mean, they like the power and control that come with weapons. So if you are hooking up with a guy who is really into a big gun collection or really into those ninja knives, it's a big red flag. He is not doing yoga, you know?"
"This is a guy who is not looking for the peaceful way out. He's looking for the power and control he gets. And, if he loses it with you and he loses it in his life, he may just eliminate you to get that power and control back."
So if you have a gun collection, you're a psychopath? Give me a break. And yet CNN host Paula Zahn was laughing with this woman, not confronting her for smearing gun owners.
Pat Brown is one of those "reasonable restrictions" people, but her idea of reasonable is to require gun owners to sign a legal document stating that they're responsible if the gun is ever used in a "violent act"-even if the firearm is stolen and later used in a crime. And she thinks gun owners are crazy? That's one of the nuttiest ideas I've ever heard.
CNN should be ashamed that they let that statement go unanswered. As for Pat Brown, she's now trying to defend herself, telling blogger Dr. Helen that she's a big fan of Right-to-Carry, that she's a gun owner, and that she was taken out of context.
Miss Brown, at the very least your statement on CNN was a poor choice of words. If you really want to show you're not an anti-gunner, why don't you mention your support for Right-to-Carry the next time Paula Zahn asks you how to defend yourself against a madman?
|
-
|
Just how worthless is Washington, D.C.'s gun ban? It's so bad in our nation's capitol that a deputy mayor was recently robbed at gunpoint.
Victor Reinoso is lucky to be alive today, but do you think he'll be speaking out about the pointlessness of D.C.'s gun ban? Not if he wants to keep his job, he won't.
Criminals don't care about gun laws ... anymore than they care about D.C.'s complete gun ban
Ultimately, Victor Reinoso's robbery probably won't mean much when it comes to public policy in Washington, D.C. After all, they've already stuck with the ban for 30 years- what's one more innocent victim?
|
-
|
The Fayetteville Observer got one thing right in a recent rambling about safety on college campuses. "No college can offer every student a guarantee of safety," the North Carolina newspaper noted in a June 19 editorial.
But what the newspaper failed to state, and what virtually no one in the news media is talking about, is that every law-abiding American—whether they're a college student or not—has a right to his or her own safety.
NRA members and gun owners know that's what the Second Amendment is all about—the freedom of personal protection. But anti-freedom politicians, and the anti-gun news media, won't talk about that when it comes to safety on campus, even in the wake of horrific tragedy.
Instead, the head-in-the-sand crowd—like the Fayetteville Observer—drone on about communication between government entities, crime-mapping software and dealing with students with mental health issues.
Not that there's anything wrong with that. School security is a multi-faceted issue. And anything that might help make students safer should be open for discussion.
But what they're not talking about is the most obvious fact of all: The surest way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun.
No deranged, homicidal, suicidal madman on a rampage will EVER be stopped by crime-mapping software.
But he can be stopped right in his tracks by a law-abiding Right-to-Carry permit holder who is trained and armed to protect himself.
That's a fact of life and death.
|
-
|
You've heard me say it before: We do a better job in this country of guarding our money than we do our schoolkids. What's worse, we advertise that our schools are "gun-free zones." We might as well stand outside the school yelling to all the nut-case maniacs, "COME 'N' GET 'EM!"
That's why I've said, over and over, what nobody else will. It's time to make our kids as safe as we make our air travelers and our gold bars. I mean, every good idea is on the table. And one of them ought to be an armed, professional presence.
That's where Tulsa, Oklahoma, may be leading the country. They take protecting their kids seriously. The Tulsa Public School Board just decided to invest two million dollars in federal grants to create its own campus police force.
That'll buy professional officers, plus their cars, radios, dispatchers, everything ... adding to the 70 security guards already on staff. And why not—with 40,000 students, the Tulsa Public School District is larger than many Oklahoma towns.
Now you tell me: Where would you want your kids going to public school—in a come-one, come-all "gun-free zone" ... or in a patrolled and protected Tulsa classroom?
I say, Tulsa's got it right.
|
-
|
Another newspaper has gone and invaded the privacy of its readers. This time it's the Register in Sandusky, Ohio. They've decided it's their "right to know" the names of every Right-to-Carry permit holder in five Ohio counties. Well, I think their “right to know” ends at my right to privacy.
When other papers around the country have done this, legislators have answered by putting the names of Right-to-Carry holders off limits to the media. It makes sense for the Ohio legislature to do the same.
When newspapers do stupid things like this, they put everybody at risk. One of the benefits of Right-to-Carry is that the bad guys don't know who's armed. Now they do. Congratulations, Sandusky Register. You've just made it that much easier for the bad guys to know exactly who to target, and for what purpose.
It's time to end the media's access to Right-to-Carry permit holder information. They've shown they can't be trusted to serve the public with that knowledge.
|
-
|
As colleges across the country discuss ways to keep students safe on campus, most media continue to ignore one reality: The surest way to stop a bad guy with a gun ... is with a good guy with a gun.
Instead, the media talk about mental health treatment, communication between government agencies, rapid notification of students in the event of a tragedy, security cameras, deadbolts and more ... preferring to "arm" security guards with mace instead of firearms.
Now, all of those should be considerations in a local school's protection plan. But to totally rule out the option of an armed presence—in surrender to political correctness—can be a mindless invitation to tragedy.
You haven't heard the media talk much about a recent decision of the Nevada Board of Regents … a decision that could truly prevent a calamity on Nevada college campuses.
The board recently endorsed a plan to allow some faculty and staff members to carry concealed firearms on public college campuses in Nevada. As a direct response to the April tragedy at Virginia Tech, Nevada officials have taken a hard line against potential maniacal killers—a position that clearly recognizes the value of an armed defense to protect students.
As board member Stavros S. Anthony said, "If an active-shooter situation occurs, they're in a position to kill the bad guy."
I should note that Mr. Anthony is actually Captain Anthony, with the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department. It's still more proof that law enforcement understands and supports the right of law-abiding citizens to carry a firearm for protection. That includes the right of protection on our college campuses.
Under the measure, faculty and staff interested in carrying would undergo background screenings and would receive 21 weeks of police training.
The plan does have its critics, who suggested that more lighting and closed-circuit televisions might be better ways to beef up campus security.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not opposed to lighting or television monitors. But a few more lights and cameras can never deter or stop a deranged, homicidal, suicidal maniac bent on violence.
But an armed citizen can. And the Nevada Board of Regents knows it, even if most media ignore it.
|
-
|
Rev. Jesse Jackson continues his war on legal gun owners by targeting gun stores in northern Illinois. Outside of Chuck's Gun Shop last weekend, he told the press he doesn't see why anybody would want or need a semi-automatic firearm. Well Jesse, I'd like to introduce you to Pastor Charles Donnelly.
Pastor Donnelly is the youth pastor at the Wagoner (Okla.) Church of God. His youth group runs a fireworks stand in nearby Muskogee, and a few nights ago, he and one of the members of his youth group were staying the night at the stand to make sure no one stole any of the merchandise.
Sure enough, at about 3 a.m. a group of young thugs showed up at the stand. They attacked the youth group member, who began screaming for help. When Pastor Donnelly tried to come to his aid, he too was attacked.
But Pastor Donnelly understands exactly why someone would want a semi-automatic firearm. He drew his legally-owned .40 caliber pistol and defended both himself and the teen under his care. Because of his actions, both are safe today, and police have five suspects in custody.
See, Jesse? Not every man of the cloth is anti-gun. Some of them actually understand that, when it comes to self-defense, God helps those who help themselves.
|
|
|
|