Politico Magazine: Idea of ‘Defensive Gun Ownership’ a ‘Tragic Myth
by AWR Hawkins 16 Jan 2015
On January 14, Politico Magazine (PM) ran a story suggesting the claim that guns are used for defense purposes more often than ill-intent is wrong, and the whole idea behind “defensive gun ownership” is a “tragic myth.”
PM defined the “tragic myth” as the belief “that millions of gun owners successfully use their firearms to defend themselves and their families from criminals.” They pointed to the dearth of academic support for defensive gun uses (DGUs) in “public health literature” and listed three instances in which a homeowner fired a gun in what they thought was a self-defense situation, but which later turned out otherwise. The gunshot wound was fatal in one of the three incidents.
PM also points to a 1992 study by Florida State University criminologists Gary Kleck and Mark Getz, the findings of which established an “estimate of between 1 million and 2.5 million DGUs per year.” PM says that study is no good—that it has been been debunked, is “utterly false,” and “gun owners are more likely” to end up shooting someone who wasn’t really a criminal in the first place.
Here’s the kicker: Even if we set Kleck and Getz’s work aside—and that’s not the same thing as accepting the claim that it’s been debunked—but even if we set it aside for the sake of argument, PM does not say anything about other polls/studies/surveys suggesting 760,000 defensive gun uses a year. Breitbart News previously reported that this figure—drawn from the LA Times, Gallup, and Peter Hart Research Associates—equals 14,615 DGUs a week and slightly more than 2,082 a day.
Moreover, by opening their argument against DGUs with anecdotal examples from three gun owners who allegedly made a mistake, PM passed over an untold number of anecdotal examples were having the gun was the only thing that saved the homeowner or individual’s life and/or the life of his/her family.
Here are some examples of DGU stories that PM missed just over the past 6 weeks:
(Nov. 30) A Washington state mother shot an alleged home invader to save her children.
(Dec. 8) A veteran confined to walker used a gun to stop home invasion.
(Dec. 9) Antioch, California, homeowner opened fire on two home invaders.
(Dec. 19) A 14-year-old shot and killed an intruder to save grandparents.
(Dec. 20) A man used a handgun in self-defense when confronted by an armed robber outside an Ohio mall. He killed the would-be robber, ending the attack.
(Dec. 26) A Good Samaritan witnessed domestic attack, pulled pistol, and held the man at gunpoint until police arrived.
(Dec. 27) A home invader put a gun to a woman’s neck in Memphis. The invader was shot and killed by the homeowner.
(Dec. 28) A Bucks County, Pennsylvania, resident shot an intruder who broke through the glass door on her apartment.
(Dec. 29) A home invader was shot and killed after a pregnant woman helped fight him off.
(Dec. 30) A pastor shot a man who attacked him inside the church.
(Dec. 30) A Texas fireworks stand owner used a gun to shoot and stop armed robbers.
(Jan. 9) Four armed robbers stormed a women’s gun store in Shawnee, Kansas, and the co-owner’s life was spared when her husband intervened by opening fire on the suspects.
(Jan. 10) A California homeowner survived an initial attack by a home invader, retrieved gun, and held the suspect at gunpoint until police arrived.
(Jan. 11) A man put a gun to a Papa John’s Pizza delivery woman’s head; she pulled her own gun and shot him in the face.
(Jan. 12) An armed robber in a Milwaukee barber shop was shot and killed by a patron with a concealed carry license/handgun.
(Jan. 13) An armed Taco Bell robber ordered would-be victim to drop his pants, but the victim pulled his gun instead and shot the robber dead.
these are but a fraction of the DGUs we could list from the last six weeks alone. These are all part of the “tragic myth” of gun owners “successfully using their firearms to defend themselves and their families from criminals.
National Rifle Association suing Pittsburgh and Philadelphia over gun laws
Pittsburg Post Gazette, January 14, 2015 11:29
NRA meetings handguns Pennsylvania has long barred its municipalities from approving ordinances that regulate the ownership, possession, transfer or transportation of guns or ammunition.
Let no one accuse the National Rifle Association of being slow on the draw: It is suing Pittsburgh, Philadelphia and Lancaster, just days after a new state law allowed it to challenge local gun ordinances in court.
“These municipalities have known for years that their ordinances were illegal, but there were no consequences,” said Jonathan Goldstein, a Chester County attorney representing the NRA. “Now it’s about to get expensive.”
While state law has barred local officials from passing their own gun laws since 1974, many municipalities have rules that, for example, ban firearms from public property. But last year’s passage of Act 192 gave the NRA new firepower in overturning such measures.
The law, which went into effect Jan. 5, allows any Pennsylvanian eligible to own a gun, or a group with such a person as a member, to challenge any local gun ordinance in the state. If the suit is successful, the municipality must pay the plaintiff’s legal fees.
Mr. Goldstein said the complaint names a handful of ordinances. One prohibits carrying firearms in a vehicle or in person without a state permit to do so. Another prohibits discharging a firearm except at target ranges, or in cases permitted by state law. A third requires gun owners to report the loss or theft of firearms.
In a statement Wednesday, the NRA said “a patchwork of local gun-control ordinances creates confusion” for citizens and police. But Act 192 is itself the subject of a legal challenge now in Commonwealth Court joined by Pittsburgh, Lancaster and Philadelphia — the three municipalities the NRA is suing.
“The NRA are bullies, and they don’t like to be challenged,” said Shira Goodman, executive director of gun-control advocacy group CeaseFirePA. The lawsuit “is a way to punish and strike back.”
“The largest cities [are] the ones that take these actions, and they are the ones who receive these actions,” responded Mr. Goldstein of Berwyn, Pa. “If we get these three municipalities to yield, it will convince others to do the right thing.”
It’s unclear how the NRA lawsuits would be affected by the challenge to the law that made them possible. Bruce Ledewitz, Duquesne University law professor, said a judge could put the NRA’s case on hold until Act 192’s validity is decided by a higher court. Optionally, he said, a judge might reason that “if the legislature gave people rights against the government, you should allow those rights to be exercised.”
While the city couldn’t comment directly on the lawsuit, Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto told reporters, “We will not be deterred, and we will keep our lawsuit going” against Act 192.
“We’re not taking away anyone’s right to own a gun,” he added. “What we’re saying is when a gun is lost or stolen, you’ve got to report it.”
Still, it’s unclear what impact such laws have had. The city has never charged anyone under the lost-and-stolen law. Spokesman Tim McNulty couldn’t provide information about whether anyone has been charged under the other ordinances at issue.
But Mr. Goldstein said that merely “the threat of being charged for exercising a lawful right is too much to take.”
Others seem to agree. Another gun-rights organization, U.S. Law Shield, sued the city of Harrisburg on Tuesday, while Kim Stolfer, founder of Firearm Owners Against Crime, said his group had sent letters warning other communities of potential legal action. He said 22 have responded either by saying they’d rescinded their ordinances or needed time to do so. But as many as 300 municipalities may have ordinances subject to challenge, he said.
“We don’t want to go to court,” Mr. Stolfer said. “We want them to do the right thing. But some of them aren’t.”
Mr. Goldstein also wouldn’t rule out future NRA suits against other Pennsylvania communities.
“I haven’t been given direction either way,” he said. “But it’s very tempting.” Anti-gun group will teach journalists how to report on gun violence
Michael Dorstewitz January 14, 2015
An anti-gun group, backed by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, is funding a workshop that purports to teach journalists how to report on guns and gun violence issues.
This is akin to Al Gore instructing meteorologists how they should report the weather.
The workshop, to be held in Phoenix on April 17-18, will be conducted by the Columbia Journalism School-affiliated Dart Center for Journalism and Trauma, according to its website.
“The workshop, funded by Everytown for Gun Safety, will offer independent expert briefings and specialized reporting skills training to enhance the practical ability of journalists to report on guns and gun violence knowledgeably, ethically and effectively,” the Dart Center’s website posted Thursday.
It’s difficult to fathom how a workshop funded by Everytown can offer “independent expert briefings” on the issue of firearms, an item Everytown was expressly founded to combat.
As for teaching the journalists “specialized reporting skills,” the only skills they need are research techniques designed to uncover the truth. That’s the job of a reporter; mouthing the agenda of an anti-gun group is not.
And what is Everytown’s agenda? The Washington Times reports:
Everytown for Gun Safety is headed by John Feinblatt, a former top aide to Mr. Bloomberg. The group claims to have 2.5 million supporters and over 40,000 donors, The Wall Street Journal reported Friday.
The Bloomberg-backed group bills itself as “a movement of Americans working together to end gun violence and build safer communities.” Its website states “For too long, change has been thwarted by the Washington gun lobby and by leaders who refuse to take common-sense steps that will save lives.
Bloomberg’s push for stringent gun control measures has assumed the aura of a sacred quest, with an intention to “punish those politicians who fail to support their agenda — even Democrats whose positions otherwise align with his own,” The New York Times reported in April.
“We’ve got to make them afraid of us,” he said of pro-Second Amendment lawmakers.
So much for objective journalism. Paris...A Lesson, But in What?
Shhooting Wire, January 13, 2015
Last week's terrorist attack on a magazine that specializes in insulting everyone, kicked off more pointless media pontification about the savagery of radical islam.
It was as if everyone was shocked at what happened. After all, this intellectual publication "only" insulted Islam's sacred leader. They'd already done far worse cartoons, multiple times, about Christians, too. Some of them represented the rankest form of blasphemy to even the most casual Christian.
What's my point? Our society's inability to differentiate a difference between the "appropriate responses" of two groups: the Islamic extremist and those of us who comprise the group those same groups of "saddened" journalists permit to be slandered as "desperate, bitter, gun-toting, Bible-clinging, right-wing extremist"-that group would be, of course, Christians.
Rather than sit at home and pounding out insults and idle threats under an internet pseudonym, the radical Islamics shaved, bathed and prayed (as they're apparently taught in martyr school), then rucked-up and headed out to hand-deliver their considered response.
In Christian circles, that's called putting "feet to their faith."
"Radical" islam, it seems, has considerably less difficulty spurring followers to action than "radical Christianity." And a very obvious difference in the definition of "appropriate response."
A similarity exists only in the fact that following their call makes them minorities. Failing to recognize their fundamental differences, especially when engaged in nearly incessant slander, can -and in this case, did- have fatal consequences.
Radical Christianity calls for giving yourself in the service and betterment of others.
Radical islam requires the willing sacrifice of self for the unconditional elimination or subjugation of all unbelievers.
That's not a religious call to action, that's an action plan for world domination. That's a gigantic difference.
One common belief for both true believers is that the best is yet to come. One group wants to serve while waiting; the other wants to serve you- and themselves if necessary- up in pieces as a sign of their dedication.
Their unshakable belief in that higher power encourages both to action -as unequal as their responses may be, they are inevitable.
Unfortunately, other members of society don't need anything except their unshakable belief that they're smarter than the rest of us. That's enough for them to work to impress their will on the rest of us.
Ultimately, that group includes many of our so-called "leaders" who feel (I intentionally didn't use the word "think") disarming everyone (everyone else, actually) removes danger for everyone.
Sound familiar? It should.
It's the faulty, but unshakable argument they use to create harvesting pens for the less-intelligent, but far more motivated killers in one of the other "extreme groups". The service-based "extremists" meanwhile, are barred from those "gun free zones" in a sign of religious "tolerance."
It's time someone recognizes that the people who champion "gun free zones" are driven by their ego, not their intelligence.
For years, I believed I could go shirtless in the summer sun with no consequence. Today, I know the consequence of my ignorance. But cancer wasn't the consequence of my ignorance- I was warned to wear sunscreen. It was belief that I knew better than everyone else what was best for me. In my case, ego caused cancer.
The world today isn't vastly different from the world since its beginning. There is no shortage of evil, nor of those who prey on the unaware.
Sure, some may be smart-mouthed mall rats or droopy-drawered "gangsters" who hang around in groups, insult shoppers and laugh at "mall security" but others are equally disenfranchised, but far more motivated terrorists, but they're everywhere.
If you believe your quiet little town with a "small" rather than a massive "mall" is any different, you're disconnected from reality.
Evil is. And it seeks the unaware.
As my friend Michael Bane wrote last week:
" THE LIKELIHOOD OF YOU BEING CAUGHT UP IN A TERRORIST ATTACK IS PRETTY MUCH THE SAME AS YOU BEING STRUCK BY LIGHTNING
And yet, people die from lightning strikes every year."
(read his entire post at: www.Michaelbane.blogspot.com).
The capability of evil to act beyond any measure of "reasonableness" by the rest of us is what surprises and shocks "civilized" leaders.
After all, the Charlie Hebdo drawings were insignificant when measured in "real" terms. Those dead cartoonists had drawn things far more insulting to others with no response beyond than an occasional "tsk-tsk" from equally "sophisticated" fellow Parisians.
The shock is at the response to something "normal" people had allowed to slide many times before.
The outrage is the equivalent of the cartoonists having shoot an air rifle and received .500 nitro recoil in return.
Or was it?
What the shooters did was cold-blooded, barbarism. That's by any standard except their own. But isn't it realistic today to expect that response by motivated extremists to what was the equivalent of intellectual taunting?
The cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo - safe to that point while using the camouflage of "wit" to insult others with impunity - appear to have underestimated the recoil of their pens.
Do some research on the magazine and you will find the ultimate consequences disproportionate, but really not considerably more shocking than a big kid finally slapping the crap out of a "smarter" kid who had been warned to stop his merciless taunting.
If it was a total shock to you after countless bombings, beheadings, executions and torture scenes, you may need to adjust your world view.
Mine adjusted -radically- after I found myself staring down the gun barrel of a home invader. I managed (largely through dumb luck) to survive. But "oblivious" stopped being my normal state of awareness. Fortunately, the experience didn't manage to transform me into a frightened victim or a knee-jerk reactionary.
In retrospect, it was the same kind eye-opening reality check I required as a kid; just amped up to an adult dosage.
Awareness is the same whether you're shopping, riding a horse, paddling a canoe or shooting on the range. It should be your constant state of mind -and it doesn't mean a gun-slinger's mentality. It means being aware of your surroundings.
Not sitting flat of your butt on the trail looking for your horse means you noticed the garter snake crossing in front of you and acted appropriately. Sitting in your canoe instead of floundering around under it after your passenger leaned over one side meant you notices and counter-balanced their movement.
In all situations, life requires awareness. Unless you want to find yourself standing in an open field during a lightning storm, at sea in a tropical storm, stranded on a mountainside at night or unarmed in a gunfight.
In all those situations, the correct answers are the same: if you're already not there-don't go. If you're there; leave.
Awareness may be conscious or subconscious (after enough training), but it had better be . Because unaware and dead exist, as they have since time began, in very close proximity. New York Vet Has Guns Confiscated by Police Because He Had Trouble Sleeping
Last Resistence, January 6, 2015 A man had his guns confiscated on a crazy pretext.
This is supposedly New York’s attempt at keeping guns out of the “wrong hands.” Under New York’s SAFE Act, medical professionals have to report to police if they believe one of their patients poses harm to himself or others. This particular guy U.S. Navy veteran and retired police officer Donald Montgomery saw his primary doctor voluntarily for insomnia. Not long after, the Suffolk County police were at his door, ready to take his firearms away. Now, he’s suing them. The Blaze reported:
It all started after Montgomery visited his primary care physician on May 6 and complained about trouble sleeping, the Daily Caller reported. He claimed to have been suffering from insomnia since moving from a different state. Montgomery then returned to the hospital again days later for the same problems, except this time he was diagnosed with “Depression; Insomnia” by hospital staff.
On May 23, Montgomery returned to the hospital yet again with the same symptoms. He reportedly stayed at the hospital for 48 hours voluntarily for treatment.
In the lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York earlier this month, Montgomery alleges that his visit was wrongly recorded as an involuntary stay.
Under New York’s SAFE Act, mental health professionals are required to report patients who are determined to be threats to themselves or others. Regardless, the lawsuit claims the veteran was cleared.
“Patient has no thoughts of hurting himself. Patient has no thoughts of hurting others. Patient is not having suicidal thoughts. Patient is not having homicidal thoughts,” the hospital notes from the visit allegedly said.
Montgomery was said to be “mildly depressed” by hospital officials, but they found “no evidence of any psychotic processes, mania, or OCD symptoms.” The notes also asserted, “Insight, judgment, and impulse control are good.”
Still, Montgomery’s records were forwarded to Mental Hygiene Legal Service for further review.
Four days after leaving the hospital that last time, the state police sent notice to the Suffolk County PD, telling them that Montgomery “has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution,” even though everything was voluntary, and having trouble sleeping hardly constitutes being a “mental defective.” But I’d guess they’d argue that’s “splitting hairs.” They’re only concerned with finding any excuse necessary to take a person’s guns away from him.
The next day, Montgomery received a call from the Suffolk County PD, informing him that his guns would have to be confiscated. And on May 30th, they showed up and took his weapons. The Daily Caller reported that his firearms included the following: a Colt .38 revolver, Derringer .38, Glock 26 9mm, and a Smith & Wesson Bodyguard 380. Kerry Lied: National Gun Registration Is Part of the UN Small Arms Treaty
Freedom Outpost, December 6. 2015
Ever since September 2013, the day Secretary of State John Kerry signed the United Nations Small Arms Treaty, I have been bothered by the complete disingenuous concern he presented and outright lies he told to those gathered to witness the signing, and the American people. Here's the video of the signing and his remarks.
The first thing I thought of was that this is a former senator who is signing a three inch document, which I'm sure he has never read. This is the disingenuous part of what he is doing.
Second, in discussing what the treaty is not, he declares "This treaty will not diminish anyone's freedom. In fact, the treaty recognizes the freedom of both individuals and states to obtain, possess, and use arms for legitimate purposes. Make no mistake, we would never think about supporting a treaty that is inconsistent with the rights of Americans … to be able to exercise their guaranteed rights under our constitution."
I would have to ask him for the specific citation on the specific page for how he can claim these things. I'm sure he wouldn't be able to do it.
However, in January, William F. Jasper wrote at The New American:
The UN Arms Trade Treaty was written in secret by the Obama/Hillary Clinton State Department, along with Russia, China, France and Britain. Not exactly a lineup of champions of liberty. What does it actually say?
Article 2 defines the conventional arms covered, which include battle tanks, artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles — and "small arms and light weapons."
Article 3 of the treaty places UN prohibitions on "ammunition/munitions fired, launched or delivered by the conventional arms covered under Article 2."
Article 4 puts all "parts and components" of weapons within the scheme.
Several places in the treaty text, including Article 5, require all countries to "establish and maintain a national control system, including a national control list." Moreover, it declares, "Each State Party is encouraged to apply the provisions of this Treaty to the broadest range of conventional arms."
Article 5, Section 4 says each State Party "shall provide its national control list to the Secretariat, which shall make it available to other States Parties." Which means our federal government will provide the guns and ammo registration list to the UN, which will provide it to Russia, China, Cuba — any and every State Party that wants it.
Do you get that? There's a national control list. We might reference it as a national gun registration list. This will not only be provided to the federal government, something they have been given no authority over, but will also be provided to our enemies abroad, including the United Nations (Yes, friends, I do not consider the UN to be the friend of the United States).
Kerry has insisted that this treaty is about "keeping weapons out of the hands of terrorists and rogue actors."
"This is about reducing the risk of international transfers of conventional arms that will be used to carry out the world's worst crimes," Kerry added. "This is about keeping Americans safe and keeping America strong. And this is about promoting international peace and global security."
Ask yourself this question, "Do you believe John Kerry?" Furthermore, do you believe Barack Obama after all his lies? How about Hillary Clinton?
If you are among those who want to support the Obama administration at every turn, I ask you, if this is about keeping weapons out of the hands of terrorists and rogue actors, why has the Obama administration funneled money and weapons to our enemies abroad? Let me ask you an even more disturbing question, in the Obama administration, who is considered terrorists? Who are the rogue actors? Any answers will have to deal with the documentation that this administration has put out and the results are that the terrorists are patriotic Americans, which can only mean one thing: They are after your guns.
Finally, don't forget that the push is on for microstamping of ammunition (recall Article 3 above). Despite their claims, they are looking to control the flow of ammunition.
For more on what this has looked like in history, I highly recommend Stephen P. Halbrook's excellent work Gun Control in the Third Reich: Disarming the Jews and "Enemies of the State." Gun Control Group Targets Alan Jackson, Jeff Foxworthy For Agreeing To Speak At NRA Conference
Patriot Update, January 2, 2014
More people can fit in a telephone booth than are in ‘Mom’s Demand Action.
Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America is targeting country music star Alan Jackson and comedian Jeff Foxworthy for agreeing to appear at the 2015 NRA Annual Meetings & Exhibitions, April 11 in Nashville.
In response, Moms Demand Action posted an announcement to Facebook saying: “Alan Jackson and Jeff Foxworthy agreed to open [the 2015] NRA convention after the NRA pushed to arm convicted criminals, blocked federal gun violence research, and [their] board members promoted armed insurrection.”
They then called on gun control supporters to “educate these celebrities on the dangerous and irresponsible policies of the [NRA].”
Moms Demand Action attached a second page where gun control supporters can gather talking points to use against Jackson and Foxworthy. Among these are claims that the “NRA fights to arm terrorists,” the “NRA fights to arm criminals,” and suggestions that the NRA “[scares] people just to boost gun sales.”
Tickets for Jackson and Foxworthy go on sale January 15. Gun Rights Group Names 2014's Top 10 'Anti-Gunners'
Town Hall, Dec 29, 2014
From being an advocate of the United Nations’ Arms Trade Treaty to pouring money into Washington state’s victorious I-594 gun control campaign, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms has come up with a list of the top 10 ‘anti-gunners’ for 2014.
Not surprisingly, former NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg took the top spot this year for dumping millions into creating Everytown for Gun Safety and also helping to finance the I-594 effort in Washington.
The other nine are:
Paul Allen– The billionaire co-founder of Microsoft and principle owner of the Seattle Seahawks and Portland Trailblazers, he dumped a half-million dollars into the I-594 gun control campaign inWashington State.
Steve Ballmer– Another Microsoft alumni and owner of the L.A. Clippers who added more than$1 millionto the I-594 effort to criminalize perfectly legal activities in theEvergreen State.
Hillary Clinton– The former First Lady and Secretary of State suggested earlier this year that gun owners "terrorize" people by vigorously defending the Second Amendment. She also supported the unratified UN Arms Trade Treaty.
Andrew Cuomo– TheNew York governor who championed that state's Draconian SAFE (for Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement) Act, which is responsible for job losses in addition to penalizing every gun owner in the state.
Rahm Emanuel– The vehemently anti-gun mayor of Chicago whose administration has stubbornly resisted adoption of rational gun policies that would allow citizens to defend themselves against out-of-control violence in the Windy City.
Bill Gates– This billionaire Microsoft co-founder and his wife contributed more than$1 millionto the I-594 gun control effort, thus helping to pay for one of the most insidious political campaigns inthe United States.
Nick Hanauer– Another elitistSeattle-area billionaire who launched the I-594 gun control campaign and poured more than$1 millioninto the effort. His deplorable effort to exploit the Pilchuck High School tragedy by sarcastically suggesting that, "We need more school shootings" was an offensive new low in anti-gun politics.
Eric Holder– The outgoing U.S. attorney general fought to stall release of thousands of documents related to the Operation Fast and Furious scandal, final losing his battle in federal court this past fall.
Shannon Watts– As founder of the Bloomberg-supported Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, Watts has spread disinformation about gun crime and campaigned against laws that bolster personal protection outside the home.
And the ‘dishonorable mentions’ go to:
Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe for wanting to resurrect one-gun-a-month legislation in his state, Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy and Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, who both have pressed their gun control agendas, driving businesses and jobs out of their states; California Attorney General Kamala Harris, who has steadfastly defended arbitrary and discretionary concealed carry permits; former CNN commentator Piers Morgan for continuing his anti-gun
rhetoric even though it forced his program's cancellation. Also on the list, Gerald Ensley, the Tallahassee Democrat columnist who wrote in November that handguns and semiautomatic modern sporting rifles should be banned, and that the Second Amendment should be repealed; and former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote earlier this year that he would like to see the Second Amendment changed to confine the right to keep and bear arms to people serving in the military and state militia.
"The people on this list have worked very hard to undermine the civil rights of every American citizen who owns a firearm, or may one day want to, and they deserve vilification," CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb said in a statement. Homeowner Shoots Home Invader Holding Gun To Woman’s Neck
Conservatve byte, December 27, 2014
Great story! There is one part I didn’t like though. Check out the “cleared of wrong-doing” part of the story. I’m probably getting caught up in semantics here, but what happened to innocent until proven guilty? Being cleared makes it sound like you were guilty until proven innocent.
Check it out:
A suspect in an armed home invasion is dead after he was confronted by an armed homeowner.
Two men began knocking on the front door of a North Memphis, Tenn. home on Tuesday. When a woman answered, the men barged in, and one of them — identified as 22-year-old Nico Carlisle — held a gun to the woman’s neck.
A male homeowner also inside the house heard the commotion, retrieved his own handgun, and fired several shots at the two men, hitting and killing Carlisle.
Carlisle’s accomplice left the scene and has not been found. Police said Carlisle had an extensive rap sheet that includes charges for burglary and assault. Police also cleared the homeowner of wrong-doing.
GUN CONTROLLERS: They Promised Us Peace Clashdaily, by Rob Morse on December 26, 2014 They
promised us peace if we would accept a little regulation. We barely
paid attention, but we said “Sure, that sounds good. Where do I sign?”
The latest promise was that armed assault would stop in Washington State
if we only had “universal firearms background checks”. Unless you’re a
stupid Washington voter, it shouldn’t surprise you that armed robbery
didn’t stop. Crime continued as if the new law didn’t exist.
It was a Washington fantasy to think criminals would obey the next gun
law after they ignored the thousands of gun laws that came before. But,
it is easy to sell fantasies at the Washington ballot box when you have
tens of millions of dollars on your side. Are stupid Washington voters
surprised or embarrassed that criminals don’t obey the newest gun laws?
That still leaves honest gun owners as the victim of another insane
That was the plan all along. We were sold peace if only we would accept
one more firearms regulation. Criminals would stop using firearms if we
only had better firearms registration. There would be fewer victims of
violent crime if we had stricter licensing of firearms. We were promised
peace with every new law.
And now, 20 thousand gun laws later, there is no peace. Instead, it is
harder than ever to be an honest firearms owner. It is harder than ever
for the peaceable to protect themselves. Disarming honest men and women
only makes it easier for criminals. Even an idiot could understand
that.. if they try.
With 20 thousand gun laws in the books, it is easy for the police to say
a non-violent gun owner might have violated one of their many
regulations. Oh, the horror, he might have an unregistered empty shell
Most police don’t even know intricacies of firearms laws. Instead, the
cops take the easy way out. They perform a “no-knock” raid and then let
you sort the problem out with a judge.. if you survive the raid.. and
after you get out of jail.
Since the last 20 thousand gun laws have not brought us peace, then
let’s repeal a few thousand of these laws that criminalize non-violent
behavior. Let’s try a little more freedom before we pass another
gun-control law that is sure to fail. We really don’t need a gun owner
strangled because he had an unregistered shell casing.
Let’s be clear. Gun owners are extremely law abiding and moral. They
have never been the source of public violence. Anti-gun groups keep
selling the next gun law as if that law will stop crime.. and,
unfortunately, the casual voters believes it time after time. Our rights
of self-defense are being strangled. If you don’t believe me, try to
buy a gun and learn to shoot in Washington State. Just don’t touch a gun
as you do. Will Our Scofflaw President Try to Enforce an Unratified Arms Trade Treaty?
Eagle Rising, December 26, 2014
“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is
the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.” —William Pitt, the
House of Commons, November 18, 1783
On the One Hand . . .
Obama has sold guns to Central American gangs and Mexican drug
cartels—courtesy of Operation Fast & Furious—and has opened our
southern border to ingress by these very criminals as well as Muslim
terrorists and others. Obama also works daily to give the worst kinds of
weapons to the Muslim fanatics running the nation of Iran. Nuclear
On the Other Hand . . .
When it comes to the American people, Obama has signed executive orders
and presidential memoranda aimed at infringing the rights of the people
to keep and bear arms. Obama plans to use medical doctors as his
agents, under the aegis of Obamacare, to create a national registry of
gun owners. And he also plans to use medical reasons to disqualify
Americans, under un-Constitutional Obamacare rules, from gun ownership,
creating the conditions for an unprecedented federal gun-grab. (See my
article concerning this issue at
UN GunThe disturbing pattern that emerges, from Obama’s policies and
practices, indicates a president who wishes to empower those who break
US laws and constrain those who follow the laws and want others to
follow them as well. This goes for everything from immigration laws to
drug laws, and even extends to free-speech and self-defense rights under
the US Bill of Rights.
How Our Scofflaw President Might Attempt to Enforce an Unratified Treaty
The United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs has announced that the
Arms Trade Treaty, which regulates the international trade in
conventional weapons from small arms to aircraft carriers, officially
takes effect on December 24, 2014. Secretary of State John Kerry signed
the treaty on Obama’s behalf in September of 2013, but 54 US Senators
immediately released a statement at that time urging the Obama
Administration not to try implementing the treaty without first getting
Senate approval to do so. But the fact is that, while Obama has paid
lip-service to the Constitution on occasion, he has actually never let
the Constitution restrain him in practice.
Article Two of the UN treaty delineates the treaty’s prohibitions, which
includes a prohibition, to civilians, of the right to purchase, own,
sell, trade, or transfer every kind of weapon that could be utilized for
armed resistance—which means handguns, among other things. This would
leave all American citizens at the mercy of criminals and, potentially, a
Article Three puts the “ammunition/munitions fired, launched or
delivered by the conventional arms covered under Article Two” under the
auspices of the treaty, as well, allowing their importation and sales to
be regulated, or even banned.
Article Four places all “parts and components” of weapons under the same-style regulation of the state.
Article Five has a “General Implementation” section that orders all
countries signing onto the treaty to “establish and maintain a national
control system, including a national control list.” This registry would
exist to “apply the provisions of this Treaty to the broadest range of
Article Twelve of the treaty adds the record-keeping requirement that
the list indicate “the quantity, value, model/type, authorized
international transfers of conventional arms,” as well as the names of
their ultimate recipients, referred to as “end users.”
hands off gunAnd, ultimately, the treaty demands that national
governments enact “appropriate measures” to enforce the treaty,
including civilian disarmament. If these countries cannot get this done
on their own, however, Article Sixteen of the treaty provides for UN
assistance, specifically including help with the enforcement of
“stockpile management, disarmament, demobilization and reintegration
programmes.” UN peacekeeping forces could help signatories of the
treaty to disarm their citizenry.
A Possible Role for INTERPOL
Although the US Senate has not ratified the treaty, President Obama has
signed Executive Order 13524 to give INTERPOL full authority to conduct
law enforcement activities inside the United States with full immunity
from US laws and with complete independence from American oversight.
This means that INTERPOL is to be allowed to enforce international law
(possibly to include UN treaties, with INTERPOL agents deputized as UN
peacekeepers) on US soil, without any check on its activities by US
authorities who have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution of the
United States. This is a possible work-around in President Obama’s
efforts to enforce an illegal treaty through the use of a
cleverly-designed executive order that will certainly require court
rulings to overturn. The order was issued by President Obama on
December 16, 2009, as an amendment to Executive Order 12425.
Obama’s use of this executive order in this fashion would create a
Constitutional crisis. This would be a clear violation of the
Constitution, but, while the American people wait for the courts to
clarify it as such, they could easily be subjected to a process of mass
gun confiscation in the meantime. The loss of self-protection
capabilities, due to the victim-disarmament that would ensue, would
certainly result in significant losses of life to criminal elements,
during the time that all of this is playing out on the national level.
And the upshot of all this could well be that many Americans will never
see the return of their self-defense weapons, due to overhasty
destruction of them by the state, actual loss or theft of the weapons
while in custody of the state, or even corrupt pushback from state
authorities claiming that they never took the weapons in the first
Chipping Away at Freedom
In the end, Obama will have created more instability and increased the
incentives for Americans to divest themselves of self-defense weapons.
This would achieve Obama’s goal of increasing the dependence of
Americans on the state for everything from relief money to police help
(even though police help from a 9-1-1 call has less than a one-in-twenty
chance of saving the life of the victim). A gain in dependency and a
loss in self-sufficiency among members of the citizenry would be
To prevent Obama from fully exercising his propensity for executive
overreach, the Senate and the House of Representatives should hold
hearings, once the new Congress is called into session, to make it clear
that this UN treaty will have no effect on US policy, domestically or
internationally, unless the treaty is properly ratified by a 2/3 vote of
the US Senate. Unfortunately, Barack Obama is becoming perhaps the
greatest teacher to Americans of a very important life-lesson: For the
US Constitution to work properly, the president and Congressional
leaders must act with integrity, according to the rule of law; the
election of a fully-vetted chief executive is required, and he must have
a reputation for trustworthiness. Gun Control PSA Encourages Kids to Steal Guns
Last Resistence, December 23, 2014
A controversial gun control PSA depicts a glum-faced child stealing his
parents’ hand-gun, taking it to school, and slamming it down on his
teacher’s desk crying, “Can you take this away? I don’t feel safe with a
gun in my house!”
As you might expect, this gun control PSA has not been lightly received
on either side of the gun control debate. Numerous laws are being broken
in the video, as one commenter pointed out:
Weapons theft, unlawful possession of a weapon by a minor, illegal
concealed carry of a weapon, carrying a weapon onto school property,
assault, and brandishing.
It’s hard to determine what the gun control PSA is actually lobbying
for. Surely it doesn’t want all children to steal guns from parents and
bring them to school? That would be madness. And it has the faint flavor
of an Orwellian call to children to rat out their parents for “crimes”
against the State.
The anti-gun lobby has lost its mind if this is the best they can come
up with. The production company that produced the gun control PSA is
trying its best to pick up the pieces after the intense backlash against
the video. The video’s director is still telling people to share the
video, even implying that it is cowardly not to. I fail to see why it is
brave to share the video. Gun control is in itself rather
cowardly—refusing to take responsibility for your own safety and
cowering behind the skirt tails of an increasingly ineffective and
tyrannical law enforcement bureacracy.
No thanks. Those of us who still retain our sanity will do what we have
been doing. Protecting ourselves by exercising our 2nd Amendment rights,
teaching our children how to view and use guns responsibly, and
denouncing the idiocy of gun control propaganda.