Sunday, February 24, 2008
That's what the writer linked below thinks after Taser released their pink Taser. She thinks self-defense devices should not be pink because it "trivializes" them. I disagree. The whole idea of these devices is to surprise the hell out of the "bad guy" and give yourself time to "get gone" while he is still wondering what just happened to him. You don't parade around with a "weapon-looking" Taser and give him an opportunity to take it away from you before you can get it into action. You want him to not know you have "the difference" in your hand when he attacks you. Personal Defense Consultants has the Taser line, as well as hundreds of other disguised self-defense items. (The Wildcat Online)
The Second Amendment is a simple passage in the Constitution. It speaks to "the INDIVIDUAL'S "right to keep and bear arms. The Bush Administration agrees . . .they think. The Solicitor General filed a brief in the recent case, Heller v. District of Columbia, that said it agreed, but didn't. If the framers hadn't put in those unnecessary words about a "militia," which meant all the people, with no understanding that the government would start a government-controlled "militia" many years later, the anti-gun freaks couldn't use that "militia" sidebar to confuse the issue and allow gun-haters to make laws limiting or banning citizens from owning and carrying the means to self defense. People who want to run our lives and steal our money and property, whether they be "honest criminals" who don't pretend to be "doing it for our best interests" or the government itself, want to make sure when their thieves wearing badges come to steal our money and/or property they won't be met with a gun. (Human Events)
"Captain's Quarters tells the story of Tony Scheffler, a student at Hamline University that dared question the ban of concealed weapons on his campus after receiving an email from the school offering extra counseling and assistance for students coping with the VA Tech murders. The schools reaction? David Stern, reaching back to the grand tradition of the Soviet Union, decided that dissent had to involve some sort of psychological disturbance and bounced Scheffler out of Hamline. Rather than wait to the end of the semester and then invite Scheffler to continue his education elsewhere, though, Hamline treated him like a psychotic and barred him immediately from campus until he got psychological help. Thank you, Comrade Stern. Glad to see you're looking out for your students. Scheffler obeyed the campus ban and didn't go to class, but his classmate, Kenny Bucholz, told him a police officer was stationed outside the classroom. 'He had a gun and everything,' Bucholz says. Dean Julian Schuster appeared at the beginning of class to explain the presence of the cop, citing discipline problems with a student [a patent lie -RT] Although Schuster never mentioned Scheffler by name, it didn't take a scholar to see whose desk was empty." Talk about a "totalitarian regime!" To brand a good student as "a discipline problem and in need of "psychological help" because he disagreed with the school's "pronouncement" stinks to high Heaven." (Find the Boots)
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Again a crazed gunman has taken a gun into a "gun-free zone" at Northern Illinois University and killed a lot of people, including himself. The "gun-free zones" fallacy has claimed some more victims. This again proves my thesis that just ONE PERSON there who had his own gun and wasn't afraid to use it could have cut the death toll by putting a couple into his head before he could kill that many people. People such as this Sun-Times columnist are already trying to further limit the constitutional right of people to carry the means to self-defense. He says, "I've already been hearing from those who would use the NIU incident as a jumping-off point to either place more restrictions on gun ownership or to allow gun owners to carry their weapons in public. I'm anti-gun, so the conceal-and-carry crowd can save its breath for some other columnist. More guns is not the answer. I don't care what your study says." In other words, he doesn't care about the truth. More guns ARE the answer. I don't care what your gut tells you. The fact is, if this shooter had faced ONE GUN he didn't know about in advance, he would be history after killing fewer people. That's fact. He can't refute it with logic or reason. If someone had sneaked up behind him and hit him with a stun gun, he'd be in jail and many of his victims would be alive. THAT'S fact, and irrefutable with his kind of "reason." One gun in tha hands of a small lady at the church in Colorado Springs, Colorado made this kind of difference by shooting a man who had walked in and started shooting up the congregation. Only a few were killed, not the many he had planned on killing. The key here was that he did not know an armed person was there. And that armed person, in a CHURCH, fergawd'ssake, did not "go on a rampage" herself, just because she had a legal gun. Letting criminals and crazies loike this know a certain area with a lot of people in it KNOW there are no guns there is STUPID! It's like an INVITATION to someone like this shooter to "come on in and kill us." He IS right that something should be done to improve reporting on the "crazies" who live among us so guys like this shooter have a harder time getting their guns. Unfortunately, if he can't get it legally, he'll buy it out of the trunk of a car in "lower downtown" So that's not the answer. The only SURE answer is a legal gun there to meet him. His answer is to sell more NIU caps and make more money out of it or put in a "Peace Center." All of which are nice things to do, but do nothing to solve the problem.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizen's Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said, "Gun-free zones have given us nothing but body counts." But typically, those in the "anti-gun crazy" bunch aren't listening. They're already pushing for more and tighter "gun laws." I call them "criminal assistance laws." The more "gun-free zones" there are, the more people will die because such people as those who go onto a campus to kill KNOW full well there will be no one there to stop them by putting a bullet into their skulls. At the church shooting in Colorado Springs, Colorado, there was a woman there who had a gun and wasn't afraid to use it who stopped him from killing more people by "giving him her gun one bullet at a time." Soon he realized "all was lost" for him and he took his own life with several of her bullets in his body. There's no telling how many lives she saved by shooting this idiot. Soon after, there appeared stories in the news about how this heroic woman "left her earlier police job under a cloud." Anything to "cloud" the heroics of this amazing woman. This woman proved what I've been saying all along: there'd be a lot fewer "mass shootings" in "gun-free zones" if they weren't "gun-free." But you'll never convince the "anti-gun crazies" of this. They don't care how many people die, so long as innocent people don't have the means to self-defense. (Just common sense)