|
|
AN AMERICAN WARNING
Because you should know!
March 2009 - Posts
-
|
With brains like Phil Mendelson on the city council, it's no wonder D.C. acts like a third-world country. His March 22 Washington Post column slams congressmen who want to make D.C. a voting member if it will honor the Second Amendment.
Mendelson thinks D.C. residents deserve a vote in Congress, but not a firearm in their homes.
Why?
You're not going to believe this: because giving citizens the right to protect themselves would "disadvantage the right of individuals to be protected by the police ..."
I'll repeat that, so you can fully appreciate the lunacy that passes for policy in Washington. Councilman Phil Mendelson says the Second Amendment shouldn't apply to D.C. residents because it would "disadvantage the right of individuals to be protected by the police ..."
Mendelson says obeying the Supreme Court would hamper public safety. "It would be harder to arrest chronic criminals, because police would no longer be able to charge them with possessing unregistered weapons," Mendelson wrote.
That's nuts. Police can arrest any felon in possession of a gun- that's good for five to ten years in prison. And if they're "chronic criminals"- and believe me, D.C. is teeming with them- why not arrest them for the crimes they've chronically committed?
Why am I not surprised that this intellectual giant is now chair of the Council's "public safety" committee?
But while D.C.'s bureaucrats don't get it, the citizens do. Valencia Mohammed lost two sons to gun violence and now heads Mothers of Unsolved Murders, a D.C. advocacy group.
"I want representation in Congress," she said. "And I also want the right to bear arms ... I'm just looking at the history of my ancestors and what they went through ... Guns was one of those things that they could not have and a tool for other people that kept them enslaved. I'm saying no more of that. I want to enjoy all of those rights that they were denied. It's time."
It is time. It's time for the likes of Phil Mendelson to get out of freedom's way for Valencia Mohammed and all the citizens of D.C.
|
-
When General Wesley Clark was recently on Geraldo Rivera's Fox News show, he said that the United States needs to impose a new "assault weapons ban," and said that if Americans want machine guns, they should join the military.
I don’t know how many times it has to be said, but the so-called "assault weapons" that Attorney General Holder wants to ban aren't machine guns. They're the same semi-automatic firearms that have been around for more than 100 years. General Clark is deliberately misleading the American people.
Clark also said that the problem we have isn't sealing the border from south to north, but from north to south. The Los Angeles Times recently reported the opposite. The paper says military weapons, including machine guns, anti-tank rockets, RPGs, grenade launchers and grenades are the new weapons of choice for the drug cartels. Sorry, General, but they're not getting that kind of weaponry at a gun show in Arizona.
Geraldo Rivera should know better than to allow this kind of nonsense to go unchallenged. In fact, Geraldo agreed with Clark, and wondered why anyone would need an "AK-47 to go hunting." Sorry Geraldo, but the "A" in AK-47 stands for "automatic"... as in, fully automatic. As in "machine gun."
I'd like to issue a challenge to Geraldo Rivera. A few years ago I went on CNN and told the truth about their false reporting on this issue, and they corrected their story. Will Geraldo be enough of a real reporter to do the same?
|
-
What if a burglar decided you were his next target? What if you heard him trying to break in to your home, but 911 never answered?
What if you were defenseless? What would you do?
Ask Laverne Hockett what she did. Alone and unarmed in rural North Texas, Laverne's call to 911 for help just rang and rang. In desperation, she hung up and called her daughter and son-in-law, who arrived a few minutes later to find the intruder still at Hockett's residence. There they held the would-be burglar at gunpoint until 911 finally answered and police arrived.
Parker County Sheriff's Captain Mike Morgan said it can take up to 30 seconds for a 911 call to be answered. Records show that Hockett hung up before dispatchers could get to her. Of course, when a stranger is breaking through your door, 30 seconds seems like a lifetime—and could be the end of one. Factor in how long it will take for police to arrive once 911 does answer and dispatch the officers, and you understand why millions of Americans own a firearm for their own protection.
Calling 911 is a great tool to alert the authorities to an emergency. But for many who need self-protection, it's step #2-second to lawfully arming yourself.
|
-
|
The mainstream media wants us to believe that your Right-to-Carry license should be public information, printed and published online for all the world to see. The latest paper to do this is the Commercial-Appeal in Memphis, but they're not the first and I doubt they'll be the last. Why on earth reporters and editors want to do something so shameful, so irresponsible and so hateful is beyond me.
You know, normal people don't get up in the morning and say, "I wonder if my doctor has a Right-to-Carry license?" They don't wonder, "Is my accountant a Right-to-Carry holder?" They don't ask because they don't think about it. The point of legally carrying a concealed firearm is to conceal that. Not because we're ashamed or afraid, but because it's nobody's business.
More and more states are cutting off the media's access to this information. Virginia sent a bill to Governor Kaine that would bar the media from getting access to the information from the State Police. Arkansas is doing the same thing. And I'm happy to report that Tennessee's legislature is also considering a bill that would prevent the Commercial-Appeal or any other paper from gaining access to the names of Right-to-Carry holders.
The newspaper standard used to be "all the news that's fit to print." Being a Right-to-Carry holder is no more newsworthy than having a driver's license. If the newspapers really wanted to perform a public service, they'd worry less about the law-abiding and start printing the full criminal record of every person arrested for a violent crime.
|
-
|
Everyone knows that Washington, D.C.'s City Council hates the Second Amendment. But now the stench of the Council's contempt is so intolerable it's time for ALL of us to act.
Here's why:
D.C. politicians have long campaigned for a voting member of Congress. But just as Congress was about to grant their wish, the D.C. Council killed the legislation on March 3rd.
Why? Because the bill also forced D.C. to recognize the Supreme Court's directive to abolish their gun ban!
The D.C. City Council is so arrogant, so pompous, so high and mighty, that it keeps its people voteless in Congress AND defenseless in the District!
It's time we ALL demand that OUR capital city's citizens' rights be honored, once and for all!
Urge them to honor the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling. Ask them to let citizens exercise their Second Amendment right of firearms ownership.
Because their intolerable arrogance must no longer reek across our nation.
|
-
|
In predictable, hypocritical fashion, the Washington Post haughtily hails legislation to allow D.C. residents a voting member of Congress, but continues to dismiss citizens' firearms freedom to protect themselves in their own homes.
In its March 3, 2009, editorial ("The D.C. Right on the Line"), the Post whined about the Senate's adoption of a D.C. voting measure that also includes a provision to force D.C. officials to honor the Second Amendment rights, as confirmed by the Supreme Court last year. Ever since the Court struck down D.C.'s ban on firearms ownership, city officials have done everything possible to prevent residents from exercising their individual right to own a gun in their home.
The Senate bill, in addition to providing the District with a voting member of Congress, also provides D.C. residents their individual Second Amendment rights.
Two rights in one bill!
But the Post called that second right an "extraneous" issue and derided the Senate action as "so extreme as to be reckless."
That's the Washington Post for you-calling an individual right, guaranteed by the Bill of Rights and reaffirmed by the United States Supreme Court-extraneous, extreme and reckless.
While armed thugs, drug dealers, robbers and rapists continue to plague D.C. neighborhoods because law-abiding citizens in our nation's capital are denied the basic freedom to own a firearm in their own homes for protection of self and family, the Washington Post continues to hypocritically dismiss its readers' Second Amendment rights.
|
-
|
Did you know that at one Connecticut college, simply advocating for extending the Right to Carry onto college campuses is enough to get students referred to the campus police?
It happened at Central Connecticut State University, after student John Wahlberg gave an assigned presentation on a "relevant issue in the media." Mr. Wahlberg wanted to speak about school violence, and during his presentation he discussed Right-to-Carry on campus. According to the Recorder newspaper, after he "made the point that if students were permitted to conceal carry guns [sic] on campus, the violence could have been stopped earlier in many of these cases," his professor lodged a complaint with the campus police.
Mr. Wahlberg received a "request" to come down to the campus police department, where officers proceeded to rattle off a list of firearms that he legally owns, and asked him where he kept the guns. All because he dared mention Right-to-Carry.
If the facts in the newspaper are accurate, this is outrageous. Expressing an opinion about Right-to-Carry on campus shouldn't lead to a police investigation. It should lead to a discussion and debate about the issue, but apparently that's too much to ask from the academics who hyperventilate at the thought of the Bill of Rights being enforced on college campuses.
|
-
|
Students in San Diego's public schools can still take part in the Junior ROTC program, but the days of competing in air rifle events are over, after a handful of students and teachers complained about the "message" that competitive shooting sends.
What "message" would that be? The shooting sports are a great way for people to learn responsibility, perseverance, dedication, safety, discipline and more. Then, of course, there are the college scholarships available to competitive shooters.
What's worse is that the school board members know all this, and it's their job to communicate this to the public. Instead of defending a valuable part of the JROTC program, the school board acted like cowards and caved in to pressure from a small contingent of misguided individuals who seem to think that an after-school activity like JROTC is comparable to a criminal gang.
In a town where the military means so much to the economy, the move by the school district is a slap in the face to the men and women of our armed services, not to mention a kick in the gut to competitive shooters everywhere. It's also another sign that our school districts are willing to teach fear instead of knowledge.
|
|
|
|