I'd Druther Be Tasered

In Pittsburg, PA, the cops broke into a man's house without a warrant, and upon being informed this was his home and that he was not armed, hit him with a taser. Later they claimed he was guilty of several burglaries, but provided no proof. They took him to the hospital (after keeping him at police headquarters for a long time), but he got no medical help. After being released without charges (probably downtown, with no way home being offered) he went to another hospital, where he was treated for back and neck injuries, and nerve damage. "Allegheny County District Attorney Stephen Zappala Jr. determined that the officers did not commit a crime in their treatment of Hicks. The FBI also reviewed the case and determined Hicks' civil rights were not violated, a spokesman said." His civil rights were NOT violated? How do you NOT violate his civil rights when you invade his home and use a taser on him without cause, take him downtown and keep him in a cell for several hours, and not give him proper medical care while accusing him of all kinds of crimes without proof? I do agree, however, with the police chief when he said he's rather be "tasered" than shot. In the old days, they'd have just killed him out of hand and lied about it afterwards, as happens often in Denver, Colorado (I can count at least three instances in the last few years).(Observer-Reporter)

San Francisco Gun Ban Overturned

The courts earlier told SF they couldn't enforce their gun ban, but the mayor ignored it and continued on. This is where the mayor okayed same-sex marriages in opposition to the law, remember. He was overruled again, but his record suggests he will probably ignore this ruling, too. Maybe the mayor needs to be dealt with by the court. (NRAILA)

94-Year-Old Man Killed

"This poor man was supposed to die peacefully on a front porch swing, not like this," (Sheriff) Jarnigan said. Three young people, one of them female, two of whom were armed with a knife, could not rob this old man without killing him and cutting off his hand. Then they were stupid enough to keep the hand so it could be found in their car. If this man had been armed with a stun gun or pepper spray, would he be alive today? (Breitbart)

Gun Control Results

In Australia, guns are all but prohibited for everybody but policemen, government agents, and criminals. The reason criminals are on this list is because when gun control laws are tight, guns become much easier to obtain illegally "on the street." Meanwhile, criminals are wreaking havoc on "unarmed citizens" while the cops tell those citizens they have no responsibility to protect them, only to "write it up" and catch the "bad guy" after the fact. This is not acceptable to me. If the government will not allow us to be armed in self defense, then we must do something to stop these atrocities. One of the most effective ways to stop crooks in their tracks is the stun gun. You don't have to spend $200-$500 for an effective stun gun. You can buy a 350,000 volt stun gun for $40 from Personal Defense Consultants, or one up to 950,000 volts for $60. Or you can get one with an 80,000 volt charge for $22. I wouldn't be without one, even at home. I stopped a man from "beating up this old man" for shaking his head at his stupid driving by stunning him when he reached into my car window one time. All you need is something to surprise the "bad guy" and make him unable to think for a few seconds while you "get thee gone." These items will do it, and they are legal in almost every state. They'll tell you which states prohibit any kind of personal protection device. The Aussie blogger, "MK's Views," says this: "There is only one answer, allow the citizens their guns, once that is done, the responsibility falls to the citizens to learn to use them and use them when necessary. Until the citizens grow up and accept this reality, we will continue to be picked off one by one. The lesson must be learned, the only choice we have is to learn the hard way or the easy way." He's absolutely right. It's time everybody stopped allowing people elected or appointed to office to stop us from being able to defend ourselves without the police, who are the first to tell us they have no responsibility to protect us.

DC Anti-Gun Suit Loses

Many cities, including Washington, DC, have filed "junk lawsuits" in order to harass the LEGAL gun industry to bankruptcy. They failed in Washington, DC, and will fail in other cities, as well. But not without costing the gun makers a lot of money fighting these phony suits. They can't get around the Second Amendment, so they try "end-runs" around it by filing these phony suits. (Second Amendment Foundation, 1/10/08)

Typical Anti-Gun Crazy Response

A Virginia Tech Ambulance

In the days following the massacre at Virginia Tech, I predicted that anti-gun crazies would be falling all over themselves to use this tragedy to further their own agenda. "BELLEVUE, WA – Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine has fallen back on one of the oldest, and most shoddy, tactics in the gun grabber playbook by using the Virginia Tech tragedy to launch an attack on gun shows, when the crime had nothing to do with gun shows, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today. 'Neither of the guns used by Virginia Tech killer Seung-Hui Cho was purchased at a gun show,' noted CCRKBA Legislative Liaison Joe Waldron. 'Attacking some mythical gun show loophole will do nothing to prevent criminals from getting their hands on guns illegally, because it has been shown statistically that criminals rarely get firearms at such shows.” But Kaine, being a typical gun-hating politician, uses this tragedy to promote his own agenda, to make sure people like the victims at Virginia Tech never have their own guns to use to kill this madman before he can kill them. The whole point is, if just one of his victims had been armed and willing to use the gun in self-defense, the death toll at Va. Tech would have been a lot smaller. Even a stun gun might have helped in the right situation, especially if he didn't expect it. The point these people always miss is that criminals never have a problem getting their guns because they don't care about obeying the law. In this case, if anybody had cared to follow the law, he'd have been arrested when he tried to buy his first gun because he was known "head case" (But nobody bothered to put his name in the right database). Does this governor really think laws would have stopped this massacre? If he does, he's not smart enough to be a governor. (CCRKBA, 1/9/08)

Pushing Zappers

They're pushing zappers costing hundreds of dollars at the Electronics show with up to 425,000 volts of zap. But you don't need 425,000 volts to put a "bad guy" down for the few seconds necessary for you to disappear from his sight. The ones sold by Personal Defense Consultants start at $22.00 and produce from 80,000 volts upward. If you insist on buying one of the expensive ones, they have them, too. But they aren't necessary. My personal favorite in their line is the "Runt," which looks like a pager. It's only $40 and puts out from 350,000 up to 950,000 volts -- and the crook will have no idea you're so equipped until it's too late. I also like the ones that look like cell phones, but they're a little more expensive: from $60 to $70. Look them up. They won't "bite you." (PDC,)

Taser Parties

Debi McMahon, right, celebrates with her
Taser C2 at a Taser party in Mesa, Ariz.

Leave it to the women. Some recognize the efficacy of Tasers in self-defense, others do not. Apparently, those in Amnesty International don't agree. They think ANYTHING that has the POSSIBILITY of being used offensively should not be allowed to the "average person," lest they use it wrongly. I disagree strongly (Apparently, they're "anti-self-defense fanatics." I wonder what they'd do if confronted by an illegally-armed criminal.). The "average person" ought to be allowed to carry a gun, and carry it concealed, so that the criminals, who all are carrying ILLEGAL concealed weapons of some kind, and who "intend to use them wrongly," will not have plenty of "easy targets." They will have no way of knowing which are, and which are not "easy targets," and cannot find out the answer until it is too late (That's what makes "zappers" work for long enough for the intended victim to get away). As Robert Heinlein said, "An armed society is a polite society." I agree with that woman in the article. I'd rather be illegally Tasered by a criminal than shot. But there is no way I think that to be able to defend yourself, you should be DISarmed. Yes, there is a small danger that criminals might adopt these items as offensive weapons, just as they have done with guns. But that's no reason to deny them to honest people who will then have no means of self-defense. Yes, cops do sometimes overdo their use of Tasers, and some overdo their use of guns or even their fists or batons. Some people can overdo it with anything. There are "bad apples" anywhere. I think "Taser Parties" are a great idea. I may try it myself. There are many "zappers" selling for a lot less money than those. Some as low as $20. They're lower-powered, but with enough power (80,000 volts) to do the job without killing somebody. I can personally attest that they do the job, from personal experience. (Fox News, 1/6/08)

Cops Still Don't Know the Difference

The cops (mostly the police politicians with bars or stars on their shoulders) still don't know the difference between a "semi-automatic" weapon and a machine-gun, which is already heavily regulated and whose use in "street crime" is almost unheard of since the twenties. But they're still trying to make you think such weapons are "proliferating" on our streets, which they're not. Even if they were, they wouldn't be the cause of "excessive street crime." They would simply be a "weapon to use" in street crime, as the knife has been for criminals who can't get guns (too few). Back when there were no guns, everyone carried a sword or a knife of some kind and people were very polite to one another, lest they be "rent asunder." There were probably liberals even then pushing for "anti-sword" laws. Whatever the weapon of choice for "bad guys" is, some liberal, somewhere, will try and ban it, hoping people who want to rob, hurt, and kill people will stop doing it, just because their weapon of choice is not available. Unfortunately, wherever gun laws are tightest, guns are most easily available to people who don't obey the law. All they serve to do is disarm those who do and make them into "easy targets." (NRA-ILA, 1/4/08)