About Me

Name: Bill of Rights
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

The day is coming!

Please watch this space for our commentary on the case before the US Supreme Court, District of Columbia v. Heller, the decision in which will be announced this week, 06/22-28/08.
 
My sources tell me we will be pleased with at least part of it.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Poignant, to say the least

I had it come to my attention today that Mr. Aaron Zelman, of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO), had written and sent this letter out. The date on it is 2002, but it strikes me as still timely. It's a little long, but posted in it's entireity, as required.
 
I think it's worth the read. What do you think?
 
Bill 

JEWS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF FIREARMS OWNERSHIP

America's Most Aggressive Defender of Firearms Ownership

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOTE: At the end of this article, you'll find a complete copy of the Bill of Rights with a modern-language explanation of each amendment. You'll also find a list of ways you can use this article to help win back American liberty.

Archived at http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/veterans.htm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An Open Letter to Our Fathers and Grandfathers

You Won the Battle But Lost the War

By Aaron Zelman

Executive Director of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership

Fleet Marine Force Medic, Third Marine Air Wing, Vietnam Veteran

To our fathers and grandfathers who fought in World War II:

America owes everything to you. You sacrificed your youth, you saw your buddies die before your eyes, you gave up life and family and love as you fought in Europe or the Pacific -- all to save the world from fascism.

We can't even measure how much we owe you -- you, and the staunch women who stood with you -- the WACs, the Waves, the nurses who treated the wounded under unthinkable conditions, and the Rosie-the-Riveters who kept the country going back home. Yet, in the decades since the end of the war, your victory has been stolen. From you, from your children, your grandchildren, and from all of us.

You won a long, hard, painful battle. But when you came home, you lost the war. You lost the Bill of Rights and freedom. And so we all lost.

America is becoming a lot like the countries you fought against.

The country you fought for was a land of self-reliant people, people proud to stand on their own two feet. It was a country of decency, of neighbors and neighborhoods, where people took care of each other, their families and themselves. It was a country where citizens had a say in what their government did, a country where the government respected private property, family life, the right to worship, the right to express opinions without fear, the right to own firearms, and the whole way of life those freedoms stood for.

It wasn't perfect, but it was America.

The countries you fought against were rule-ridden bureaucracies where citizens did what they were told -- or else. They were countries where people were supposed to hate whomever the government wanted them to hate, and to love and trust the government more than they loved and trusted themselves. In these countries, children belonged more to the rulers than to their mothers and fathers, and private property was subject to control by bureaucrats. In these countries people didn't dare do or say anything the politicians didn't approve of.

Today in the United States there are people who spit on the memory of your sacrifices -- people like Sen. Charles Schumer, who successfully pushes "gun control" laws that trash the Second Amendment, and Sen. John McCain, whose infamous "campaign finance" law made free speech a federal crime for independent advocacy groups. We shrink before officials who decree that unpopular opinions are "hate speech." We endure leaders who tell us that it's wrong to hate certain groups of people, but perfectly okay for those groups to hate and malign others. Today much of America is controlled by people who'll fine us or even put us in prison for doing perfectly harmless things to our own land and homes.

Free speech. The right to keep and bear arms. Property rights. The right to live your daily life free of interference from people who want to push you around. Weren't these rights the very things you were fighting for?

The steady downhill slide

This process of destruction isn't new. You no sooner came home than the government you fought for started handing over power to the governments you defeated -- and even worse governments. They did it by handing authority to the United Nations, an organization dominated by unfree countries who don't share, or even have minimal respect for, the values that gave us the Bill of Rights. All they want is to take what they can get from us.

The U.N. quickly dragged us into another war in Korea - where many of you also suffered and died. Since then its powers have expanded so much that the U.N. has gained control over some U.S. lands (in the name of "biosphere sites," "world heritage protection," and "anti-desertification" treaties). Now they've even got a world court -- run from our own New York City, even though the impotent U.S. voted against it. This court can try American citizens and soldiers without giving them any of the constitutional protections you fought so hard for.

And next they're talking about imposing global taxes. On you. On what Tom Brokaw rightly called The Greatest Generation. And on us, your sometimes-less courageous successors.

The downhill slide has been steady: inflationary spending, debasement of the currency, punitive taxes, propagandizing of schoolchildren so they can't think for themselves, restrictions on property rights. Politicians have maneuvered to prop up the dangerously broken Social Security system, which Ronald Reagan rightly called an "intergenerational Ponzi scheme." They've created giveaway programs that let everyone from drug addicts to billionaire businessmen live off the sweat of ordinary working people. The regulations of this Nanny State have us so wrapped in bureaucratic red tape we can hardly move. And often we dare not express our honest opinions for fear of being labeled -- sometimes even punished -- for being a "hater," a "gun nut," or an "extremist" (which sometimes means nothing more than being an independent thinker).

Your federal government even passed a "gun-control" law (the Gun Control Act of 1968) based directly on the Nazi law that Sen. Thomas Dodd had the Library of Congress translate for him. This Nazi law was then signed by "Mr. Great Society," President Lyndon Johnson1

Did you risk your life fighting Hitler so that American politicians - some of whom you voted for and contributed money to -- could impose Hitler's very own laws on you? But that's exactly what happened -- and that was only the camel's nose under the tent when it came to "gun control."

Who's to blame?

Good Americans were once spirited, individualistic, independent, and skeptical of government power. Now, good Americans are a lot like the stereotypical "good Germans" of Hitler's day, compliant, docile, and worshipful of government.

This is largely our fault -- we of the Baby Boom and Generation X. We let you down. We, who in many cases knew nothing but comfort and security, weren't willing to sacrifice for freedom, as you did. Fat, happy, and lazy, we believed our government when it said it would take care of us, so we could remain children forever. We believed the slickly smiling politicians when they told us that if we just handed them enough power and money, they would eliminate every danger and make us as eternally content as sleeping babies in a nursery.

We chose to ignore the fact that this is the path to an all-powerful police state. We chose not to remember the historic truth that Ronald Reagan and many others have expressed: A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take it all away. Already we see the government rationing heath care -- rationing care to the very people it falsely and grandly promised to protect! How long before the old, the chronically ill, the "unfit" are decreed to be, as the Nazis put it, "useless eaters"?

Maybe you won't live to see the all-powerful state at its most cold and brutal. Will your children or your grandchildren be the ones to suffer?

It's a crime and a shame. It's un-American in the truest sense.

But when you cry, "Why are they doing this to my country?" at least part of the answer also has to be, "Well, where have you been all this time?"

Look in the mirror.

Your early life was tough, scarred by the hunger, insecurity, and national self-doubt of the Depression. You did your duty in a war that was longer and more brutal than anybody bargained for. When you came home, you were tired and just wanted -- perhaps for the first time since your childhood -- to live normally. And you deserved your peace.

But as Thomas Jefferson said, "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."

The dirty little secret is that freedom wasn't stolen from us entirely by other people. We lost freedom ourselves because we weren't vigilant. We didn't exercise our rights or responsibilities as citizens -- we of the Baby Boom and Gen X, but also you, our fathers and grandfathers of World War II..

We went on voting for politicians who lied to us. We obeyed -- or maybe even enforced -- unconstitutional regulations. We had our hands out when politicians bought our freedom in exchange for subsidies, grants, and "entitlements." We tolerated, sometimes even cheered, violations of the Bill of Rights, as long as they were committed against people or groups we didn't like, not realizing the Bill protected our rights, too.

When every president since Richard Nixon told us we had to fight another war, a War on Drugs, we paid our taxes and cheered as millions of our fellow Americans went to prison, as no-knock midnight raids became an American institution, and as police forces were corrupted by the lure of illegal drugs and black-market money, just as they had earlier been corrupted during Prohibition. None of this has saved our children from drugs or made American streets safe. On the contrary, it's been one of the biggest destroyers of the Bill of Rights, and one of the biggest factors in increasing violence and police-state power in the U.S.

Even those of us who called ourselves conservative or libertarian often demanded that "there ought to be a law" against every activity we disliked. We forgot the very essence of freedom: The essence of freedom is leaving our fellow citizens, and the citizens of other countries, alone as long as they're not using force or fraud against others.

It's a fact -- though sometimes not a simple one to live with: If you want freedom you have to accept that, every day, millions of people might be doing things you don't personally approve of. You have to recognize that it isn't your right to stop them. That was what people came to America for. We hate it when others try to keep us from living our lives as we wish. But how often have we demanded laws to keep others from going about their own peaceable business?

Look in the mirror. We have met the enemy. And as Pogo said, "He is us."

It's time now for True Americans to act.

You World War II veterans, you World War II nurses, and you Korean War veterans ... you all have one last job to do in the fight for freedom. My fellow Vietnam veterans, this goes for you, too -- and for the young soldiers who fought in the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan, the Balkans, and Somalia. It goes for you, also, Rosie the Riveter.

You must teach the coming generations about what freedom really means. You must teach them it's not just having a lot of consumer goodies and fancy electronic toys. You must remind them that those pleasures are the product, not the heart, of free individual choices - and that those choices are protected by the Bill of Rights. You must remind them of the real meaning of the things you fought for -- the freedom of peaceful individuals to speak, believe, and live as they wish, unfettered by government dictates and punishments -- and to respect the right of others to do the same.

In fact, each and every one of us must do this if we want to restore and maintain freedom.

We must all live our personal lives like free men and women while we fight to restore the values of freedom to our country and our culture.

We must fight ALL enemies, foreign and domestic -- as you pledged to do when you signed on to serve your country. We must recognize that some of our most ruthless, implacable enemies ARE domestic -- men and women who look like us and talk like us but whose values are as foreign to America as those of any Hitler, Mussolini, or Hirohito. We must not allow ourselves also to become domestic enemies of freedom by supporting their policies.

America today seems a fallen land -- politically and economically powerful, but empty inside. A land that has lost its heart, its passion for freedom.

But freedom doesn't have to be gone forever. Many times in the past enemies made the mistake of thinking that America was lazy and complacent, too well-fed and self-satisfied to put up a good fight. The Japanese believed it before World War II. The terrorists believed it before September 11.

Our enemies have always been wrong.

You can never underestimate the fighting spirit of the American people, once they know that a fight is necessary to preserve their own future and their children's. An awakened America is a powerful thing, and dangerous to all opponents. We put aside our petty political differences, our daily pleasures, and our selfishness and we fight like wildcats.

There's hope for freedom -- if we can unite behind the Bill of Rights, unite behind freedom and individual rights. We must remember what the Bill of Rights is. It is a list of things an honest government -- a government that is truly of, by, and for the people -- is forever forbidden to do. And we must never ask our government to do these forbidden things, or stand by silently when it tries to.

To unite behind the Bill of Rights is to unite against crushing, bloated, grasping government power. This time our fight may not have to be with guns and cartridges. This time our weapons can be ideas and ideals. This time our job is to fight against the apathy and ignorance of our own culture. This time our aim is to arouse other Americans so they'll neither want nor tolerate an un-American government whose false promises of security are used to enslave them

Let us make forever sure that our American dead have not died in vain, that they have truly died for freedom. Let us live -- and cherish -- that freedom every day of our lives.

Take a trip back to brave days. Click here to see posters of World War II.

-----

Ways you can use this article to help restore freedom:

1. Read it yourself and discuss it with others.

2. Download copies from the JPFO Web site.

3. Share the article with everyone you know who was in the armed forces, is thinking about enlisting, or has children who may enlist.

4. Reprint it in your organization's newsletter; encourage veterans magazines to reprint it. (It's free of charge; all we ask is that publications include our full copyright, contact information, and credits)

5. Reread, reprint, or re-circulate it on Patriots' Day (April 19), VE Day (May 8), Armed Forces Day (third Saturday in May), Memorial Day (May 30 or the last weekend in May), D-Day (June 6), Flag Day (June 14), Bunker Hill Day (June 17), Independence Day (July 4), the anniversary of the writing of "The Star-Spangled Banner" (September 14), Citizenship Day (September 17), the anniversary of the end of the Revolutionary War (October 19), Veterans Day (November 11), Pearl Harbor Day (December 7), or Bill of Rights Day (December 15). Or re-circulate it on a date that's as important as any of these -- August 1, the anniversary of the day in 1946 when newly returned veterans had to take up arms once again to rid themselves of corrupt politicians at the Battle of Athens, Tennessee (http://www.jpfo.org/athens.htm ).

6. If you belong to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the American Legion or any veterans group, circulate this article at meetings and social events.

7. Take copies of the article to the Rolling Thunder veterans rally on Memorial Day weekend in Washington, DC.

8. Leave copies at your local barber shop, gun store, book store, or other business that will welcome them.

9. Encourage others to download additional copies from the JPFO Web site.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Bill of Rights

With modern language explanations of each article

Amendment I - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Government can neither impose a state religion upon you nor punish you for exercising the religion of your choice. You may express your opinions, write and publish what you wish, gather peacefully with others, and formally ask government to correct injustices.

Amendment II - A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Individuals (the people) have the right to own and use weapons without interference from the government.

Amendment III - No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

The government cannot force you to house its agents.

Amendment IV - The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

You may not be arrested or detained arbitrarily. No agency of government may inspect or seize your property or possessions without first obtaining a warrant. To obtain a warrant, they must show specific cause for the search or seizure and swear under oath that they are telling the truth about these reasons. Furthermore, the warrant itself must state specifically and in detail the place, things, or people it covers. Warrants that are too general of vague are not valid; searches or seizures that exceed the terms of the warrant are not valid.

Amendment V - No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

No one outside the military may be tried for a serious crime without first being indicted by a grand jury (of citizens). Once found not guilty, a person may not be tried again for the same deed. You can't be forced to be a witness or provide evidence against yourself in a criminal case. You can't be sent to prison or have your assets seized without due process. The government can't take your property for public use without paying market value for it.

Amendment VI - In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Trials cannot be unreasonably postponed or held in secret. In any criminal case against you, you have a right to public trial by a jury of unbiased citizens (thus ensuring that the state can't use a "party-line" judge to railroad you). The trial must be held in the state or region where the crime was committed. You cannot be held without charges. You cannot be held on charges that are kept secret from you. You have a right to know who is making accusations against you and to confront those witnesses in court. You have the right to subpoena witnesses to testify in your favor and a right to the services of an attorney.

Amendment VII - In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

The right to trial by jury extends to civil, as well as criminal, cases. Once a jury has made its decision, no court can overturn or otherwise change that decision except via accepted legal processes (for instance, granting of a new trial when an appeals court determines that your rights were violated in the original proceeding).

Amendment VIII - Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Bail, fines, and punishments must all fit the crime and punishments must not be designed for cruelty.

Amendment IX - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

You have more rights than are specifically listed in the Bill of Rights.

Amendment X - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The U.S. federal government has only those specific powers granted to it by the Constitution. All other powers belong either to the states or to individuals.

The Ninth and Tenth Amendments, taken together, mean that the federal government has only the authority granted to it, while the people are presumed to have any right or power not specifically forbidden to them. The Bill of Rights as a whole is dedicated to describing certain key rights of the people that the government is categorically forbidden to remove, abridge, or infringe. The Bill of Rights clearly places the people in charge of their own lives, and places the government within strict limits - the very opposite of the situation we have allowed to develop today.

For an even more thorough, but extremely friendly explanation of the Bill of Rights, order and read copies of the booklet, "It's Common Sense to Use Our Bill of Rights" (Gran'pa Jack #3), by attorney Richard W. Stevens. (http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/gpjack3.htm )

-----

While everyone's busy fighting little skirmishes, the armored column of the police state is rolling down the middle of the highway, almost unnoticed. If you want to see the big picture of why America and other English-speaking countries are losing freedom, read The State vs. the People: The Rise of the American Police State, by Claire Wolfe and Aaron Zelman. Order The State vs the People for just $19.95 (shipping and handling included -- 10% more in Canada) and receive three "Gran'pa Jack" educational booklets: Gran'pa Jack #2: "Can you get a Fair Trial in America?," Gran'pa Jack #3: "It's Common Sense to Use Our Bill of Rights," and Gran'pa Jack #5: "The United Nations is Killing Your Freedoms!" (a total $10.00 value, free when you order The State vs the People today. (http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/tsvtp.htm)

If you want to understand the ultimate progression of "gun control," read Death by "Gun Control": The Human Cost of Victim Disarmament by Aaron Zelman and Richard W. Stevens. It begins with "reasonable measures" to control the unruly; it ends in the death of a thousand cuts - and millions of disarmed citizens. Order Death by "Gun Control" for just $16.95 (shipping and handling included -- 10% more in Canada) and receive Gran'pa Jack #6: "Will 'Gun Control' Make You Safer," and Gran'pa Jack #7:"Do Gun Prohibitionists Have a Mental Problem?" (a total $6.00 value, free when you order Death by "Gun Control" today. (http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm)

1 This is documented on the Web site of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership at http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/GCA_68.htm and in the book Gun Control: Gateway to Tyranny by Aaron Zelman.

© 2002 Aaron Zelman. Permission is granted to distribute this article in its entirety, so long as full copyright information and full contact information is given for JPFO. You may edit this article for publication as long as Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership is given approval of the final edited version and you provide full credit.

Published by:

Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Inc. P.O. Box 270143 Hartford, WI 53027

Phone (262) 673-9745 Fax: (262) 673-9746 http://www.jpfo.org

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[ JPFO Home > You Won the Battle But Lost the War ]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

© 2002 JPFO < webmaster@jpfo.org > 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mirror Site: JPFO.net

All Rights Reserved 2006 JPFO

P.O. Box 270143 | Hartford, WI 53027

Phone (262) 673-9745 | Fax (262) 673-9746 | jpfo@jpfo.org

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Updating

OK, ok, I know. If you're gonna have a blog and expect people to read it, you need to update a little more often than "every several months".
 
Well, now I have something on which to comment. We had our latest meeting today, and I think Diana and I are both correctly calling it a success. We met some new people, exchanged some information, corrected some misinformation, and in general did what we started the group to do, that being to improve our laws (which are already pretty good, but have some room for improvement) and educate people about those laws. I don't think anyone left without learning something new, and even if that's all that happened, that's a success in my book!
 
Upcoming months will see the planning of our banquet, raising money to make it happen and get our speaker, future legislative work, and hopefully more lobbying. Our Senators and Representatives that love freedom as we do can do much to our benefit, but they need us to tell them that they're on the right track. The Senators and Representatives who seem to want to crush freedom under the boot-heel of oppression, socialism, and statism also need us either to tell them that they're on the wrong track or that they need to find honest work in the private sector, too.  The fight's not over, Americans. We have six months before the next election, so I'll ask you what kind of government YOU want to have. I know my choice. Let's get to work.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Of Senators and empty promises

This story ran last night, 10 February, 2008, on WLFI TV 18:

State Senators Consider Gun Legislation

Updated: Feb 10, 2008 07:30 PM EST

State Legislators recently considered a bill that would have drastically changed where people could legally carry a gun. The Senate bill was one vote short of passing on to the House.

It would have allowed people with a permit to carry a gun on any public property except courtrooms, airports, and jails. One place guns would have been allowed, is universities. Republican Senators Brandt Hershman and Ron Alting are both strong supporters of the right to bear arms, but had different votes on this bill.

"Obviously I support the right to bear arms I've been endorsed by the NRA ever since I joined the senate but regardless of that there's no way I could support this bill. The second part of the bill would have allowed college students, obviously 18 years and older which is the majority, to carry guns into our universitie," said Alting.

"I voted in favor of the bill for a couple of reasons, one I'm a pretty strong believer in the second amendment and secondly the data I've seen in years past has indicated that there's almost no crime that is being committed by people that legally possess firearms," said Hershman.

Supporters of this bill say in cases such as a school shooting, if more people had guns perhaps the gunman could have been stopped. "There has been cases where people who legally possess a firearm have been able to interrupt the commission of a crime and certainly I think that is a possibility," said Hershman.

Alting said, "I'm one that just doesn't buy that. I think that carrying handguns in lockers and backpacks and for students in our universities to have the potential 35 thousand guns in West Lafayette is just not good public policy and not a safe one at that."

Hershman says he does not think this legislation would mean more guns in class because he doubts most students have a gun permit. Alting says he knows he helped kill a bill many Republicans supported, but says he voted as a parent who wouldn't want to see guns in school.

http://www.wlfi.com/global/story.asp?s=7850814

State Senator Ron Alting told us that he supported the Second Amendment and that he supported our bills. He later, after voting against SB 356 and when I gave him the opportunity to express his reasons for doing so, expressed objection to high school seniors (with Licenses to Carry) being able to do so in a K-12 school (he also expressed, possibly as an afterthought, a lesser concern about college students carrying) and told me that if I was a parent of a 16 year old who has 18 year old friends, and if I had the opportunity to sit in his chair and hear all the testimony, I might have a different opinion.

Well, see, now, there's the trouble, because I DO have a teenage daughter who has older friends (always has), and while I was not sitting in Sen. Alting's chair, I was sitting in MY chair and thanks to the Internet, I was listening to every single word of testimony at the third reading (and vote) on SB 356. I also heard (and gave) testimony in committee. Senator Alting was not present for this; I don't know if he was listening to it in his office. However, at the third reading, I heard Sen. Nugent clearly and repeatedly promise his colleagues that if that oversight was not amended, he would not return the bill to the Senate for a future consideration and vote.

So, since Mr. Alting originally explained that his objection and the reason for his failure to support what he said he would was based on high school students (who at 18 are adults) carrying firearms legally in K-12 schools, and since I refuted that as well as asked him what the difference was between a college student lawfully and peaceably carrying his or her firearm on campus versus that same student lawfully and peaceably carrying at any other location, such as a store or even walking down the street, I was quite surprised to still hear him using that excuse.

Guns require action by people to be used for either good or evil, just as alcohol must be combined with a person to create a state of intoxication. We have state laws forbidding alcohol in the possession of anyone under 21, so if those laws worked, we would see no use of alcohol anywhere in the state, let alone at Purdue campus, by anyone under 21.

How about this, Senator Alting: For the years 2006, 2007, and 2008, I'll pay you ten dollars for every violent crime (homicide, rape, arson, battery, or armed robbery) committed in the state of Indiana by a holder of a License to Carry after you pay me five dollars for every report of alcoholic beverage possession or consumption by someone under 21. Do we have a deal?

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Politics as usual

This legislative session is over, at least as far as new bills go. SB 29, 65, 66, 158, and HB 1043 never even got hearings. SB 356 did, and even made it to third reading, but after two Dem and two GOP senators spoke against it and it's author and two co-authors spoke for it, it failed to pass a Constitutional majority. (There are 50 total senators, and two are excused absent-I am uncertain, but I think I heard that both have cancer. My prayers are with them and their families.) Of the 48 senators present, 25 (all GOP) voted to pass it to the House and 23 (all Dems, plus 7 GOP) voted not to do so.

Senator Nugent introduced the bill and gave his fellow legislators his solemn promise, on his honor, to repair an oversight he'd made in the bill which would have allowed an 18 year old high school senior to carry his weapon legally in a k-12 school.

Senator Wyss, despite carrying a lifetime LTC himself, does not trust the public to be armed, worries about drunk college students who might carry, claims that the Capitol was made gun-free "for the people", worries about his ability and accuracy to shoot back at an attacker, claims that in some other state (Connecticut, if memory serves), 7% of domestic abusers hold CCW permits, and refers to the victims of the VA Tech killer as the "32 kids".

Senator Kenley expressed concerns to Sen. Nugent regarding the circumstance of a Presidential visit, such as in the 1980s, when Pres. Reagan visited Indiana, and also asked if the provision that buildings leased by the state not being able to be denied for carry was a usurption of private property rights

Senator Waltz asked Sen. Wyss what the difference was between people being legally armed while drinking at a frat party vs. people being legally armed and drinking in a bar. Wyss had no coherent answer.

Senator Lanane bemoaned the removal of the ability of local governments to control what happens in their areas and indirectly questioned Sen. Nugent's integrity, claiming that he promised to fix the bill, but "this is the bill we have to vote on _now_", insinuating that Senator Nugent would go back on his word.

Senator Deig gave a very emotional and poignant testimony of his good friend who was a school bus driver whose (ex?) husband boarded her bus after the last child was dropped off, riding back with her to the bus lot. Apparently, they argued and he shot her, then himself, and this was his reasoning for voting against LTC holders being able to carry on school property.

Senator Steele brought up several examples such as the other senators' staff members having to leave the State House late at night and being disarmed and helpless, discussed that certain dental students nearby were told they must have LTCs and must carry, because they were often robbed for the gold they carried for fillings, crowns, and the like. He discussed that the staff members are trusted with the minutiae of their senators' lives, but not trusted to defend their own, and supported Sen. Nugent, reporting that Johnny Nugent has never once broken his word to anyone in that chamber.

Lastly, Senator Long spoke to oppose the bill on the grounds that it allowed guns at K-12 schools.

Of note, Senator Long spoke to oppose, but still voted to pass the bill. Senators Waltz and Steele also voted to pass it.

The Dem votes against the bill were as follows:

Arnold

Breaux

Broden

Deig

Errington

Hume

Lanane

Lewis

Mrvan

Rogers

Simpson

Sipes

Skinner

Smith

Tallian

R.D. Young

The Republicans who did likewise were:

Alting

Becker

Kenley

Lawson

Lubbers

Merritt

Wyss

Any one of these people changing his or her vote to support our bill would have passed it to the House.

I have dispatched emails to Senators Wyss, Deig, and Alting on this issue. At this writing, I have received no replies with the exception of an autoresponder from Sen. Deig's email box.

While we are disheartened that our bill was defeated, we take heart in the fact that HB 1260, which would have required "encoded ammunition" by mid-2009, was also defeated before it ever got a hearing. It's a small victory, but a victory nonetheless.

We will continue watching and will return to lobby next session. While the organization is not supporting any particular candidate, we can report voting records and in most cases, it's clear from those who will protect your right to protect yourself, and who wants you a helpless little pawn of the Nanny State. Be careful how you vote, for the rights you save may be your own.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Senate testimony and Gun Safety Classes

What a great couple of days! I wasn't able to post after the Indy trip where Diana and I met Sen. Nugent and Jim and Margie's group. (computer problems) but it was a very successful trip and I got my first taste of testifying before a Senate committee. I was very pleased to have everything work out so smoothly despite the abbreviated time available to us; my five minute speech was too long, apparently, and I had to cut it down to about a minute and a half, but we got heard and SB 356 is on it's way to the full Senate! After it passes there (thinking positively), it goes to the Democrat (sic)-controlled House, where we'll be in for a bigger fight, obviously. I'd really like to see the prohibition on courthouse carry that was added in committee be removed as well; after all, why should I, a law-abiding, peaceable citizen with a License To Carry, be forced to choose whether to obey the law or protect my life and safety, or that of my family in a courthouse or on the way across the street to or from a courthouse? The ideal solution, if the anti-rights crowd must have their way, would be to have gun lockers at the entrance to any place guns are forbidden-at least you'd have a way to get to your firearm if you had to do so. (admittedly, I'd prefer we went to Alaska-style carry, but one thing at a time)

Then, fast forward to today, we had our first gun safety workshop, courtesy of Flat Creek Range and IN Self Defense members Dick Foley and Bob Burr. We had five people show up for this class, two of them new shooters! It was a lively class, with almost constant discussion back and forth and I am putting it down in the books as a success. Thanks Dick and Bob, good work!

Our next meeting is on Tuesday the 29th at 6PM at the MCL cafeteria on Sagamore Parkway, West Lafayette. We look forward to seeing you there!

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The latest news

Hmm. Been a while since I posted. Things've been busy. Diana and I have been to the State House twice since I last posted; on the first visit, we met with several senators and representatives and not one expressed any negative thoughts about the bills we support, including the Democrats.

Now granted, we're not naive enough to believe that politicians always tell the truth, but most of the ones we talked to were openly supportive, and that's a good thing (they could have as easily just nodded or said something like, "I'll look those over.", but they chose instead to say that things sounded good. The least supportive thing we heard was "I don't see any problems there.", and to me, that doesn't sound like a vote against at all.

On our second trip, our primary concern was another matter, but we did meet briefly with Rep. Eric Koch <h65@in.gov>, who introduced HB 1043 to prevent Katrina-like gun confiscations in the aftermath of emergencies and/or disasters. At present, this bill is stalled and not slated to be heard in the Committee on Interstate and International Cooperation, chaired by Rep. Earl Harris <h2@in.gov>. I don't know at this writing if anyone else has done so, but I wrote to Rep. Harris (who, by the way, was one of the few who voted against Castle Doctrine in 2006) and urged him to hear this bill and pass it to the full House. I don't yet have a reply.

Conversely, however, Rep. Trent Van Haaften <h76@in.gov> has responded to many, many letters and calls and has refused to hear Rep. Bill Crawford's <h98@in.gov> HB 1260 which would have required "Encoded Ammunition" exclusively to be sold in Indiana after July of 2009, and is much like the useless and harmful "microstamping" bill California passed last year. This bill is going no further- not THIS session, anyway!

And the news keeps getting better! SB 356, proposed by a true friend of the Second Amendment, Sen. Johnny Nugent <s43@in.gov>, now has SEVEN co-authors, four of whom are on the Committee on Corrections, Criminal, and Civil Matters, chaired by (co-author) Sen. Brent Steele <s44@in.gov>. This bill will prohibit those of us who hold Licenses to Carry (LTCs) from being forbidden to carry in any building or on any property owned or administered by any state, city, county, township, or "municipal corporation"governmental entity with the exception of airport secure areas, penal facilities, and (obviously) federal property. The bill will be heard Tuesday the 22nd in room 233 , in a session beginning at 8:30 AM.

Sen. Jeff Drozda's <s21@in.gov> SB 29 also is to be heard the following day in the Senate Chamber at 1:00 PM. This bill will prevent local governments from closing down shooting ranges based on lot size and will also prevent them from defining where you can and can't shoot, so long as it's not land they administer or within 200 feet of a school. I don't know how much support there is for this bill, but I know that more can never hurt. Senator Lawson <s24@in.gov> is chairing the Committee on Local Government and Elections, and writing to her is probably a good idea to show support.

As you can tell from reading this, the fight's not over. We have some really great news, but we also have a lot of work ahead of us. If you've not written your representatives, please do so now. Please also consider writing to the committee members and chairs and let them know what you think, too. Protect your rights, because there are plenty of people out there who would love nothing more than to take them from you.

Please also don't forget our next meeting on the 29th at 6:00 PM at the MCL cafeteria in West Lafayette. See you there!

STAY UNITED - IN Self Defense!

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Thanks, Mrs. Germer.

OK, show of hands: How many of you remember diagramming sentences in grade school?

Hey, hey, settle down, it was just a question on the screen, c'mon! Shocked

Annnnd how many of you hated it and didn't know WHEN you were EVER going to use it? 2, 3, 4..... ok, it's unanimous. Laughing Well.... here's where:

http://www.geocities.com/gene_moutoux/diagramamend2.htm 
My friend Diana found this picture-you can go to the page to read the explanation given, or you can read my attempt to explain it, below.



The dependent clause, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" cannot stand on it's own and while it may support the independent clause, does not constitute a sentence in and of itself.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
"of the people" and each of "to keep arms" and "to bear arms" are all prepositional phrases; explanatory of whose right and which right is being referenced.
Thus distilled, we are left with "the right shall not be infringed." as the basic sentence, all the rest telling who, what, and why, but not changing the basic fact. The right shall not be infringed.

(Interestingly, the clause referencing the necessity of a militia is no more grammatically related to the clause regarding the right not to be infringed than membership in such a militia is to the RKBA.)

Anyone want to expand on the unenumerated right below? Smile

"A well-educated Citizenry, being necessary to the growth of a free Nation, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."

By the way, for the curious, Mrs. Germer was my 4th grade teacher, from whom I learned diagramming. Long ago, I took back all the names I called her that year.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Our last chance

Americans,

I have just sent this letter to the President via Email. While I have little hope that he will ever see it, I am hopeful that if enough of us write to him in time to do so, perhaps we can stop this abomination of a bill from becoming law.

Of note, this is the bill that the House voted to "suspend the rules" and voice-vote into passage, and now the Senate has done likewise, voting it into passage "by unanimous consent", denying us the knowledge of which traitors in the Congress voted to disarm our veterans and who knows how many other Americans solely because they might have at some point had a reason to see a psychologist or psychiatrist. No unelected medical person should have the ability to prevent an honest citizen from purchasing the means by which he or she may save his or her own life.

Please write today-tomorrow may be too late.

Thank you.

Dear Mr. President,
 
Today, the US Senate passed a bill called the "NICS Improvement Act", HR 2640, by "unanimous consent". This bill has the possibility to be used to permanently disarm many of our veterans who have given years of their lives and in some cases, parts of their bodies to defend the rights our Founding Fathers fought to protect. Some, including the NRA, say that this bill is a good thing because it gives a remedy to those who have somehow found themselves mistakenly placed on a list forbidding them to lawfully purchase firearms because they had post-traumatic, but not necessarily permanent reactions to combat-related stress. Sir, no American citizen should have to prove him- or herself worthy of being allowed to defend him- or herself, least of all our military veterans.
 
It is for this reason that I urge you in the strongest possible terms to veto HR 2640.
 
Thank you very much for your consideration.
 
Most sincerely,

--
(name redacted)
Co-founder
IN Self Defense
Second Amendment Patriots of North Central Indiana
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Bill of Rights Day

Wow, what a first meeting!

IN Self Defense, Second Amendment Patriots of North Central Indiana had our first meeting yesterday at the Tippecanoe County Public Library in downtown Lafayette. After calling the meeting to order, Mr. Justin Garrett, of Gov. Mitch Daniels' office came up and read and presented a proclamation of statewide recognition of Bill of Rights Day,  which was followed by Diana starting to speak about Patrick Henry and the difference he, the Founder who insisted upon the Second Amendment's presence in the Bill of Rights, made, when lo and behold, in walked none other than Patrick Henry himself (played by a talented young man by name of Samuel Carr) Mr. Henry repeated his speech before the Congress of over 200 years ago, and while he did read it this time (It's been over 200 years since he last gave it, after all!), time has apparently taken no toll on the importance of liberty to him, as the speech certainly was heartfelt. We would like to thank Mr. Garrett and Mr. Henry for coming to our meeting.

Following Mr. Henry's speech, Diana resumed explaining how Mr. Henry is proof that one man can make a difference, and while today, that one man's voice is not enough alone, it is for this reason that we assemble about us those of like mind to raise our voices together to be heard and more importantly, to command not only hearing but attention to that which we have to say. I am pleased to say that during the course of our meeting, we had 45 people attending!

After the movie we showed on the importance of the Bill of Rights, I spoke a bit and explained about Sen. Jeff Drozda's SB 29, a bill being introduced to protect shooting ranges from government functionaries who are often are swayed by the emotional rhetoric from the anti-freedom lobby, a.k.a. the Brady bunch, et al., and who then use zoning powers and the like to close down ranges at which those of us who don't have 10 acres in the country or a badge on our chests go to practice our skill. I also spoke on SB 65 and SB 66, being introduced by Sen. Johnny Nugent, and detailed below. I reiterate-People, call your legislators on the phone. Drop them an email. Send them postal mail. Go visit them in person, but make sure they know it if you want these bills to pass and become law. We have a Republican state Senate. We have a gun-rights-friendly and freedom-minded governor.  On the other side, we also have an election this coming year in which we may be forced to choose between an anti-gun rights RINO and an anti-gun rights jackass for our nation's highest office. We also, before that happens, will have a decision from the Supreme Court on the Heller vs. District of Columbia case, which has the potential to improperly re-define the Second Amendment. In the (in my opinion, extremely unlikely) event that that happens, we must have favorable state laws in place. We ended our meeting with a short question-and answer session.

Diana and I spoke to both TV-18 and to Ms. Meranda Watling of the Journal and Courier. The former presented a report of our meeting placed during the newscast immediately following the sad story of a woman who was shot in her home by an as-yet-unknown person, but other than that, both stories were, I thought, rather positively reported. We would like to thank the videographer from TV 18, who I must admit I failed to ask for his name, Ms. Alyssa Rossomme and Ms. Watling who reported on our meeting, the staff at the library, Ms. Polly Roush in particular, for all their help, and Mr. Jim Tomes and his Second Amendment Patriots in Posey County, for all they've done so far. We look forward to working with all of you! I would personally like to thank Diana for speaking up and proposing to me an idea that had been knocking around in my head as well. We've talked a little about this, and neither of us would started this group alone.

Most of all, we would like to thank YOU, the people who will make this group into what we all want it to be.

We look forward to seeing you next month. Get in touch with your state representatives and senators, and if there's anything we can do to help you in the meantime, please contact us and ask!

Bill
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

State legislation

Oh.
My.
God.

I have just read the digests of two bills being introduced to the Indiana State Legislature for the 2008 regular session.

Senate Bill 0065

2008 Regular Session

 

 
DIGEST OF INTRODUCED BILL

Possession of handguns. Provides that a person who possesses a valid Indiana license to carry a handgun may not be prohibited from possessing a handgun on land or in buildings and other structures owned or leased by: (1) the state or a political subdivision of the state; or (2) a nonpublic elementary school, nonpublic secondary school, or nonpublic postsecondary educational institution. Provides exceptions for airports and penal facilities.

I've written to confirm this, but it's my understanding from reading the above that such places where we who have voluntarily chosen to submit our fingerprints and backgrounds to scrutiny would no longer be prohibited from carrying defensive firearms would include:

The State Capitol
County courthouses
State Fair
Shipping ports
Private schools at elementary, secondary, and collegiate levels
Public schools (as school corporations are political subdivisions) at the above levels.

Prohibitions would still apply to school buses, airports (sterile areas) and airplanes, and of course federal properties (I'm unsure if this would include Head Start) which are beyond the reach of state law, and newly added to the state statute would be penal facilities of all types.

This is absolutely huge, folks.

For those who oppose Second Amendment rights who may be reading, let me ease your fears.

We're not talking about kids carrying. We're not talking about criminals or crazies carrying (no law has yet stopped the latter two if they choose to do so). We're talking about your doctor, your banker, your next door neighbor, and the lady who sits next to you in church.
We're not talking about making it legal to shoot people in those places, just to make it possible to stop someone trying to do so. This is security for your kids. Metal detectors at the door only make the guy sitting next to them the first target. Twenty thousand prohibitive and unConstitutional laws don't stop criminals, they just make it possible to punish people (if they don't kill themselves first) who violate those laws. Wouldn't it be better to stop them before they kill thirty-plus people?


Senate Bill 0066

2008 Regular Session

 

 
DIGEST OF INTRODUCED BILL

Firearms in locked vehicles. Prohibits a person from adopting or enforcing a policy or rule that prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting an individual from legally possessing a firearm that is locked in the individual's vehicle while the vehicle is in or on the person's property. Excepts possession of a firearm: (1) on school property or a school bus; (2) on certain child care and shelter facility property; (3) on penal facility property; and (4) in violation of federal law. Provides that a person who, in compliance with the prohibition, does not adopt or enforce such a policy or rule is not liable for resulting injury or damage. Authorizes a civil action for damages, costs, attorney's fees, and injunctive relief to remedy a violation.


This one is almost as good as the first. It basically recognizes that while a property owner has a right to his or her property, so does the owner of a vehicle have the right to his or her own property as well, and the property owner has given permission for the vehicle to be on his lot; he cannot refuse the owner of the vehicle the right to his own property inside it.

Again, to the liberals, laws permitting a property owner to disallow certain items of your property from your vehicle on their land just don't make sense. Suppose you work for a Republican and he says that you cannot have anti-Bush propaganda in your car on his property. The only difference is that free speech and free press are protected by one amendment and a free society is protected by the other.

Ladies and gentlemen, please, begin writing to your state legislators today, right now. Tell them that you support SB 65 and SB 66 unequivocally, and you want to see these measures passed into state law this year. This is very important, citizens- we're winning back our rights. Let's keep it up!

To find your legislator, go to this link:
http://www.in.gov/apps/sos/legislator/search/
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Of justice and lives saved

Let's try this again. (I had this long post written a couple of days ago and I sent it only to have my connection choose just that moment to freeze. Next thing I know, I have a 404 screen and I can't back up to retrieve my work. Let us say that I was displeased.)

It did work out for the best though, because Miss Jeanne Assam's name is now known. Miss Assam was one of the "volunteer security guards" <wink wink, nudge nudge> at the church in Colorado Springs when the murderous criminal with a semi-automatic Kalashnikov-style rifle and a shotgun arrived and began shooting as he walked toward the church building. While I will never post a criminal mass-murderer's name on this blog, I'll happily praise Miss Assam's actions, which she credits to God, or those of any other law-abiding citizen who, by use of arms, effectively stops an attack and saves lives in the process.

While Colorado's statutes don't forbid carry of a firearm into a church, they do if it is a "seminary", among other  places, and while the first shooting in Arvada was at a "Missionary Training Center", I don't know if that would qualify. Similarly, I read that the church in Colorado Springs had in it a smaller "Missionary Training Center" (office, perhaps? I forget) and if the first qualified, the second would have also. Be that as it may, even if neither would qualify under state law as a place where one cannot legally carry a gun, the fact is that most people choose not to do so, to the point that the question is often heard when the point is brought up, "Why would you carry a gun to church?" The events in Colorado Springs are a stark answer.

What I don't understand is why the first report was that it was a parishoner (which is true), and almost immediately, the media picked up "security guard" (without uniform or pay), then "former police officer" (though she will not discuss at this writing any details of that service), and finally, they say that the murderer died not from her actions but by his own cowardice, when he turned his shotgun on himself. They make it sound as if he would have done this at this point anyway, when he arrived with more than 1000 rounds of ammo for the Kalashnikov and more than 100 shells for his shotgun, and an attitude of hatred toward Christians.

Can no one in the mass-media realize that Miss Assam is a private citizen, a heroine, and that she alone saved many of her friends and (church) family? Note that I don't disparage the actions of the other "members of the volunteer security force" (read: armed parishoners); it's just that they weren't the ones who took this slimeball out.

To borrow a quote from Mrs. Kathy Jackson's website, http://www.corneredcat.com (read it, she's GOOD!)

Sooner or later, every person new to concealed carry asks this question, sheepishly, of other people they know who carry. "Would you carry a gun to _______?" they ask. The blank can be filled by any number of things.
Would you carry a gun when you go camping? Would you carry to your mom's house? to work? to church? to the movies? to your kids' Little League games?

The question, earnest as it is, always bemuses me somewhat. You see, I don't usually carry a gun to anywhere in particular, but I do go places and do things. And I simply carry, wherever I might be.

What I'm getting at is that years ago I made a decision that my default setting would be to carry my gun wherever I went and whatever I was doing.  As a result, if I'm ever not carrying, it is because I made a deliberate decision not to do so right then, based upon some specific reason not to do so. So I don't have to look for reasons why I might want a gun wherever I'm going. I'm taking my gun with me unless I have a good reason not to.

In every situation where I haven't carried in the past couple of years, it's been either specifically illegal, or literally impossible to conceal. Others might have different standards for a good reason not to carry, but that's where my line is.

When I carry, it is never because I think whatever I'm doing is particularly dangerous. If I think something is particularly dangerous, I either don't do it at all, or I find a way to do it more safely -- such as going wherever it is during the day instead of at night, or traveling with a friend instead of alone.

...

People whose default setting is to leave the gun at home often believe that someone who would carry to ________ (fill in your own blank) must be paranoid. After all, there's no specific danger at ________. So why would anyone carry there?

The only answer I have for that is to ask another question: is there a good reason not to carry there?

(http://corneredcat.com/Social/carryto.aspx)

Maybe more places will begin to recognize that armed, law-abiding citizens save lives when those tools are needed, and will begin changing laws to allow for them to be present more often. After all, it's for the children!

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Great story (just not true)

Twice recently I've read this story, and frankly, it disappoints me:
[quote]
Two illegal aliens, Ralphel Resindez 23 and Enrico Garza 26, probably believed they would easily overpower a home alone 11 year old Patricia Harrington after her father had left their two story home.

It seems the two crooks never learned two things, they were in Montana and Patricia had been a clay shooting champion since she was nine. Patricia was in her upstairs room when the two men broke through the front door of the house. She quickly ran to her father's room and grabbed his 12 gauge Mossberg 500 shotgun.

Resindez was the first to get up to the second floor only to be the first to catch a near point blank blast of buck shot from the 11 year olds knee crouch aim. He suffered fatal wounds to his abdomen and genitals. When Garza ran to the foot of the stairs, he took a blast to the left shoulder and staggered out into the street where he bled to death before medical help could arrive.

It was found out later that Resindez was armed with a stolen 45 caliber handgun he took from another home invasion robbery. The victim, 50 year old David Burien, was not so lucky as he died from stab wounds to the chest.
[/quote]

Now, here's a Snopes link, if you want, but I'm going to expand on this a little myself, too. http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/homeinvasion.asp

Why does this story disappoint me?

The short answer is "Because it's not true."

One of the names in the story is close enough to that of a convicted serial killer and "illegal alien" (aka foreign-born criminal trespasser) to be a simple misspelling of questionable intent. The other is reportedly a musician.
The young lady apparently does not exist, except as an adult writer of children's mystery books. There were no stories in Montana around this time (or since) about these events, and I am of the opinion that they would be newsworthy enough, anti-gun bias notwithstanding, to at least draw comment. (The media is anti-conservatively biased as well, but they still report the facts, even if they slant them.)

I would very much like this story to be proven true, but it just ain't so. The part that disappoints me most is that while the Brady Bunch, the VPC, and many other anti-rights people lie, mislead, and "confuse" (I'm being generous) the facts to make people want to give up their guns, those of us who read the intent of the US Constitution for what it is, a clear statement that "...the right...shall not be infringed", have never needed to do so to support our thoughts, opinions, and beliefs. Lies need other lies to support them; the truth stands on it's own.

So, why do I post this clearly false story (when did you ever see a news story name a child if there was any sort of crime involved, even if s/he didn't commit it?) on a site that unabashedly supports the rights protected by our Second Amendment?

Simple. I want the story to be broadcast. I want it to receive lots of attention. I want people to see that while a liar in the Brady camp is quietly encouraged, praised, and lauded, lies coming from "our side", if in fact that was the source of this, are loudly and soundly denounced and  pointed out for what they are, and if/when repeated, perhaps by people on "our side" who've not read the correction, those people are quickly corrected.

I will do so privately, if possible. I don't want to embarrass anyone, nor do I want to see someone's credibility diminished because of an error.

There are no emergencies you can run from and prevent the damage they cause. A fire will still burn, a heart attack still kills heart muscle and a violent crime still takes something-property, dignity, or life (theft, rape, or homicide, respectively)-that does not belong to the taker.
A fire extinguisher will stop a fire, CPR can preserve muscle temporarily, and a well-employed pistol can stop a crime. None of these are replacements for a fire department, an ambulance/emergency department, or police services/criminal justice system, but they help us make do 'til the professionals arrive.

Thanks for reading, and have a great day.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Omaha

The dust has settled. The Westroads mall, site of the latest mass-murder, is now famous, right up there with Columbine, Kent State, and that one-room Amish schoolhouse in Pennsylvania.

Fear not, you will not find the murderer's name on my posts.The cry is loud for "gun control", as usual. The Brady Bunch are already screaming, wringing their hands, gnashing their teeth, and wetting themselves for more laws, more regulations, more control.... which is what it's all about: Control.

This was a 19 year old chronological adult. He had been treated for mental problems. He had, we are told, "shown signs". Ultimately, he wrote a note, stole a semi-automatic Kalashnikov rifle, stuffed it into his clothing, and went off to the mall.

Let's break this down:
The mass-murder happened in Nebraska, a state with laws mandating that CCW is restricted to those 21 and older.
Nebraska does not recognize any CCW permit except their own, which is not obtainable by anyone who does not live in Nebraska.
Nebraska allows private businesses to, with force of law, restrict even those who hold a NE CCW from carrying therein.
Westroads mall is one such business that so restricts carry.
There were reportedly several permit-holders in the mall and located such that they could have stopped this crime very early, had they been permitted by local law to have their tools of self-defense with them.


The murderer was not of legal age to hold a carry permit, even without the mental problems. He wrote a suicide note, then took the stolen rifle (note: NOT "assault rifle", which would have meant it was not only capable of select-fire (automatic vs. semi-automatic), it would also have cost several thousand dollars, rather than a couple hundred.) No, this stolen rifle was capable of only semi-automatic fire, meaning one shot for each pull of the trigger, and the action of firing reloads the chamber for the next shot, much like a hunting rifle. One pull, one shot.
The murdering criminal also "smuggled" the gun into the mall.

So, the homicidal/suicidal monster is willing to violate not one but two of our strictest societal taboos, the first of which stayed the trigger finger of many soldiers in WWII who could not bring themselves to fire on other living people and the other to end one's own life.

Given that willingness, the laws about underage CCW, theft, and his hiding his stolen gun until it was too late for anyone to stop him from beginning to use it, would any written law have stopped him?

Further, given the seemingly intentional disarming of anyone and everyone who could have stopped him (one man said he was close enough at one point to see the shell casings ejecting!) there was nothing anyone could legally do to end this threat.

Many times it's been pointed out that the "gun free zones" only tell the criminal that no one there will be able to oppose him or her.

Of the greatest importance, however, in stopping these monsters, is to never again publish their names, thus removing the incentive of "I'm gonna be ****** famous!"

Not if I have anything to say about it  you won't, you little slime.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Frustration

OK, so who knew it was so hard to get a press release published? I sent in a notice on the 30th to be published the 1st... See nothing the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th, so I call on the 5th and speak to a personable young lady who was unable to find anything I'd submitted. Very well, so I get her address and email it to her personally, then answer a couple of other emails, only to find that my press release bounced back as undeliverable! (sigh)

It turns out that I'd misunderstood her spelling of her last name by one letter (I heard an F, she said an S). I'll check back in a minute. She did tell me that the deadline for the Calendar is Tuesday, but she'd try to get it in. All in all, not a bad contact, but frustrating that the bloody thing got lost in the first place.

(looks back up) OK, not TOO much angst and just a little b!tc#ing... I think I'm getting the hang of 'blogging.    
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12Next »