. . .And Again

Families Gather at Victims' Funeral

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.

"Gun-Free Zone Body Counts"

Assam and the Pastor

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)

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)

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)