She Left It Home

Willie Trimble, alleged rapist

Last year I gave a large pepper spray to a lady friend of mine (we're not "an item"). We worked together and I had one left over. She couldn't afford to buy one. Unfortunately, she didn't take it with her the other night when she went to her second job. On the way, she was attacked, raped, and left for dead. But she wasn't dead. She was found screaming in an alley and taken to the hospital, where she had a massive heart attack brought on, no doubt, by the rape. She died, but not before she told the police who raped her. He is now in jail, awaiting charges which, since the victim of his felony died, will include murder. It didn't have to happen that way if she had carried her pepper spray with her that night. (Denver Post, 12/21/07)

What Are They THINKING?

The liberals, including Hillary, believe that the best way to defend ourselves is to disarm ourselves (Ask Hillary, or any other anti-gun politician, what they'd do if attacked, and they can't tell you so they just "call you names"). But if you ask them how that facilitates self-defense, they tell you it "gets guns out of the hands of criminals." Unfortunately, it doesn't. It gets guns out of the hands of honest people, who are the only ones who obey laws. Politicians ignore the fact that when the Constitution was written, a "militia" was simply, "all the people." At the time there were no "organized, state-operated militias." So how could anybody with any degree of intelligence, think the Second Amendment, alone among constitutional amendments, refers to a "governmental right" instead of a "personal right." Do they really think American citizens can't understand the difference? The court is soon going to for the first time, decide whether or not the Constitution does refer to a "collective" or an individual right in the Second Amendment when it takes up the question of Washington DC's literal ban on the ownership of guns by citizens not cops or government employees or armed security. It may make the wrong decision, I don't know. But at least now it is talking about it. (Jed Babbin, in Human Events, 11/26/07)

Second Amendment Is An INDIVIDUAL Right!

"Our Founding Fathers insisted upon including the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights because they recognized the fundamental human right of self-defense, whether against government tyranny or individual criminal aggression. Those on the Left, however, conveniently deny the Second Amendment's terms while simultaneously concocting imaginary Constitutional 'rights' -- access by foreign enemy combatants to domestic federal courts comes immediately to mind -- and dismiss the right to keep and bear arms as a mere anachronism. To these left-wing activists, the notion that individual citizens might employ arms to protect against governmental or private aggression is a quaint remnant of a long-bygone era [Meanwhile, when push comes to shove, they're found to have their own guns. -RT]. In their perfect world, government would possess an absolute monopoly over firearms and use of force. Such ideologues ignore events as recent as the 1992 Los Angeles riots, when Korean shop owners defended themselves against rioting thugs bent on murder and mayhem amid the absence of police protection. During those riots, Reginald Denny could certainly have benefited from a firearm [Or at least a Taser. -RT] when he was instead savagely dragged from his truck and beaten nearly to death. Such activists also ignore the fact that law-abiding citizens defend themselves against home invasion on a daily basis, providing further illustration that the Second Amendment is still vital." But nooooo. They find "reasons" to deny guns for self-defense to honest and reliable people because those people might "go nuts" and shoot up a mall somewhere. But they completely ignore the fact that people who want to shoot up a mall or a church have no problem getting their guns, either legally or illegally while there are usually no guns on the scene in the hands of someone who could put a stop to the madness and kill the shooter as there was in the Colorado Springs church shooting. "Now, the tiny isolated town of Aguila, Arizona provides the latest evidence that the right to keep and bear arms remains critical. Even in today’s Internet age." The closest Sheriff's station was 25 miles away -- until they closed it. Now the closest one is 60 miles away. Of how much use do you think it would be if a bunch of thugs wanted to "take over" this little town? Does this tell you anything about how much your "authorities" care about your safety? The "authorities" will no doubt object. But when a 911 call results in a sheriff's visit 24 hours later, what can residents do except rely on what the liberals [Most of whom live within minutes of a 911 response. -RT] call "an outdated right." (CFIF, 12/12/07)

The Armed Citizen

"NRA member and county commissioner Greg 'Lumpy' Lambert is known for his pro-gun stance, but that was apparently news to an alleged robber. Police say the suspect approached Lambert, who was wearing his 'Friends of NRA' cap, and feigned interest in a car at Lambert's car dealership. Lambert went inside to retrieve the sales paperwork. When he returned, the man pulled a handgun from his jacket. Lambert countered by producing his .380 pistol. 'I told him to drop his weapon, and he said he didn't want any trouble,' said Lambert. The robber laid down his gun and fled, but left behind his driver's license which police used to locate and charge him. Chillingly, police linked the suspect to a murder committed 10 hours before Lambert disarmed him. (Knoxville News Sentinel, Knoxville, TN, 11/13/06) This is but one of many such stories of private citizens who confronted armed criminals with their own guns and routed them without a shot being fired, or killed them, saving their own livers, and possibly that of their families. Save this link and go back regularly. There's a new list every month of just a few of the MILLIONS of examples that happen each year. (Armed Citizen, 2/07)

Thank God She Was There!

Ordinarily, you don't expect "armed security" in a church, but there was in this one, and it's a good thing Jeanne Assam was there when a shooter walked into a Colorado Springs, Colorado church and began shooting in all directions. Assam, a former police officer and licensed to "carry concealed," had been "co-opted" as "volunteer security staff" because of it. She had had to pull her gun many times as a cop, but had never had to fire at a human being. That ended that day, and the shooter was dead before he could kill the hundreds of innocent people he planned to shoot. This proves again my thesis that if there was just one "responsible person" there with a gun and the will to use it, such shootings would be minimized. I spoke to a convenience store clerk the other day and she said, "I'd hate to see some of the characters that come in here be allowed to carry a gun." I responded that if some crazy came in here, wouldn't you like to be able to defend yourself? The "operative word" is "responsible" person. I don't advocate allowing everybody to carry a concealed weapon. There should be measures in place to deny legal guns to violent felons and crazy people. But if "responsible people" were able to get licenses easier, and we did not put up signs to say "No gun zone. Come on in and kill us" on schools and other places, maybe we'd all be better off. the point is, if there were more licensed guns out there, such people as this killer would not be able to go into a crowded room and kill at will. (7 News Colorado, 12/10/07)

Shot Dead by a Local Attorney

"On March 6, 1915, businessman Monroe Phillips, who had lived in Brunswick, Ga., for 12 years, killed six people and wounded 32 before being shot dead by a local attorney. Phillips’ weapon: an automatic shotgun." He was busily killing people but was instantly stopped by another man who had a gun and wasn't afraid to use it. Back in 1915, the anti-gun freaks hadn't yet been able to take the guns away from everybody, so this attorney still had his, and stopped this mass killing. When are they going to learn that people who wish to kill a lot of people will get a gun, any way they can -- they don't care about legalities -- and the lack of guns in the hands of responsible people allows such crazies a "free hand" in killing others because there are no other guns in the area to use in stopping them. (Just common sense)

Is It The Gun Availability?

What's behind the recent spate of mass killings? Some blame the easy availability of guns. That's silly. If guns were not available, they'd use swords; or knives; or baseball bats; or anything else that would kill. The availability of the means to kill has nothing to do with the motivation to kill. What's behind these mass killings is the "shielding" of our children from failure, which does not allow them to learn how to deal with failure and they blame others for it. The urge to kill those they blame is not far away. Liberal gun-haters are already pushing for more useless anti-gun laws that do nothing but make it easier for such people to kill because there are no guns present except theirs (Every one of these shootings has taken place where guns are prohibited). If some responsible person (say, a teacher) had been armed during most of these mass killings, the death toll would have been lower. (Ray Thomas 101)

9 KIlled in Another "Gun-Free-Zone"

"BELLEVUE, WA – Eight more innocent Americans have been sacrificed on the altar of political correctness at Omaha’s Westroads Mall this week, and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today that the real outrage of this crime is that it happened in a “gun free zone” where law-abiding private citizens are disarmed by mall rules and state statute. 'In the wake of this horrible crime,' said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, 'gun control extremists are already demanding more useless gun control legislation. A prohibition on firearms at Westroads Mall did not stop Robert Hawkins, but it did give him a risk-free environment in which to unleash his rampage.' " When are these people going to learn that anti-gun laws do not stop people who are determined to kill? The "common denominator" in the major shootings in the United States is that they have happened in "gun-free-zones." What the hell do they think more anti-gun laws will accomplish? Do they think THIS shooter cared about how many laws he violated (beyond nine murders)? Did the shooter at Virginia Tech care about how many laws he broke (beyond 23 murders)? (Alan Gottlieb, 12/6/07)

Better Oversight?

How do activist judges get away with "finding" continuously FOR one side or another where their bias is so transparent it's obvious to all? The answer is simple. There is NO "oversight" on judges. They're "autonomous." The "chief judge" is supposed to keep track of the bias in judges under his/her sway, but they don't. It's so unheard of to call a judge to account for his decisions that most people don't even try. This case is so important, however, that the Second Amendment Foundation has demanded this judge "retire" and go home to "write his memoirs," and no more "gun cases" ever be sent to his court. I agree wholeheartedly. (Second Amendment Foundation, 12/4/07)