Thursday, March 29, 2012

Sheep Wolves Sheepdogs

This is a great essay on why law-abiding citizens choose to carry firearms for defense. Definitely worth reading.
 
Honor never grows old, and honor rejoices the heart of age. It does so because honor is, finally, about defending those noble and worthy things that deserve defending, even if it comes at a high cost. In our time, that may mean social disapproval, public scorn, hardship, persecution, or as always, even death itself. The question remains:
What is worth defending?
What is worth dying for?
What is worth living for?
- William J. Bennett – in a lecture to the United States Naval Academy November 24, 1997

One Vietnam veteran, an old retired colonel, once said this to me:  "Most of the people in our society are sheep. They are kind, gentle, productive creatures who can only hurt one another by accident."

This is true. Remember, the murder rate is six per 100,000 per year, and the aggravated assault rate is four per 1,000 per year. What this means is that the vast majority of Americans are not inclined to hurt one another. Some estimates say that two million Americans are victims of violent crimes every year, a tragic, staggering number, perhaps an all-time record rate of violent crime. But there are almost 300 million Americans, which means that the odds of being a victim of violent crime is considerably less than one in a hundred on any given year. Furthermore, since many violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders, the actual number of violent citizens is considerably less than two million.

Thus there is a paradox, and we must grasp both ends of the situation: We may well be in the most violent times in history, but violence is still remarkably rare. This is because most citizens are kind, decent people who are not capable of hurting each other, except by accident or under extreme provocation.

They are sheep. I mean nothing negative by calling them sheep. To me, it is like the pretty, blue robin's egg. Inside it is soft and gooey but someday it will grow into something wonderful. But the egg cannot survive without its hard blue shell. Police officers, soldiers, and other warriors are like that shell, and someday the civilization they protect will grow into something wonderful. For now, though, they need warriors to protect them from the predators.

"Then there are the wolves," the old war veteran said, "and the wolves feed on the sheep without mercy." Do you believe there are wolves out there who will feed on the flock without mercy? You better believe it. There are evil men in this world and they are capable of evil deeds. The moment you forget that or pretend it is not so, you become a sheep.

There is no safety in denial.

"Then there are sheepdogs," he went on, "and I'm a sheepdog. I live to protect the flock and confront the wolf." If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen, a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath, a wolf. But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? What do you have then? A sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero's path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed.

Let me expand on this old soldier's excellent model of the sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs. We know that the sheep live in denial, that is what makes them sheep. They do not want to believe that there is evil in the world. They can accept the fact that fires can happen, which is why they want fire extinguishers, fire sprinklers, fire alarms and fire exits throughout their kids' schools. But many of them are outraged at the idea of putting an armed police officer in their kid's school. Our children are thousands of times more likely to be killed or seriously injured by school violence than fire, but the sheep's only response to the possibility of violence is denial. The idea of someone coming to kill or harm their child is just too hard, and so they chose the path of denial.

The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not, can not and will not ever harm the sheep. Any sheepdog who intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed. The world cannot work any other way, at least not in a representative democracy or a republic such as ours. Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that there are wolves in the land. They would prefer that he didn't tell them where to go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand at the ready in our airports, in camouflage fatigues, holding an M-16. The sheep would much rather have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go, "Baa." Until the wolf shows up.

Then the entire flock tries desperately to hide behind one lonely sheepdog.

The students, the victims, at Columbine High School were big, tough high school students, and under ordinary circumstances they would not have had the time of day for a police officer. They were not bad kids; they just had nothing to say to a cop. When the school was under attack, however, and SWAT teams were clearing the rooms and hallways, the officers had to physically peel those clinging, sobbing kids off of them.

This is how the little lambs feel about their sheepdog when the wolf is at the door.

Look at what happened after September 11, 2001 when the wolf pounded hard on the door. Remember how America, more than ever before, felt differently about their law enforcement officers and military personnel? Remember how many times you heard the word hero? Understand that there is nothing morally superior about being a sheepdog; it is just what you choose to be. Also understand that a sheepdog is a funny critter: He is always sniffing around out on the perimeter, checking the breeze, barking at things that go bump in the night, and yearning for a righteous battle. That is, the young sheepdogs yearn for a righteous battle.

The old sheepdogs are a little older and wiser, but they move to the sound of the guns when needed, right along with the young ones.

Here is how the sheep and the sheepdog think differently. The sheep pretend the wolf will never come, but the sheepdog lives for that day. After the attacks on September 11, 2001, most of the sheep, that is, most citizens in America said, "Thank God I wasn't on one of those planes." The sheepdogs, the warriors, said, "Dear God, I wish I could have been on one of those planes. Maybe I could have made a difference." When you are truly transformed into a warrior and have truly invested yourself into "warriorhood", you want to be there. You want to be able to make a difference. There is nothing morally superior about the sheepdog, the warrior, but he does have one real advantage. Only one. And that is that he is able to survive and thrive in an environment that destroys 98 percent of the population.

There was research conducted a few years ago with individuals convicted of violent crimes. These cons were in prison for serious, predatory crimes of violence: assaults, murders and killing law enforcement officers. The vast majority said that they specifically targeted victims by body language: Slumped walk, passive behavior and lack of awareness. They chose their victims like big cats do in Africa, when they select one out of the herd that is least able to protect itself. Some people may be destined to be sheep and others might be genetically primed to be wolves or sheepdogs. But I believe that most people can choose which one they want to be, and I'm proud to say that more and more Americans are choosing to become sheepdogs.

Seven months after the attack on September 11, 2001, Todd Beamer was honored in his hometown of Cranbury, New Jersey. Todd, as you recall, was the man on Flight 93 over Pennsylvania who called on his cell phone to alert an operator from United Airlines about the hijacking. When he learned of the other three passenger planes that had been used as weapons, Todd dropped his phone and uttered the words, "Let's roll," which authorities believe was a signal to the other passengers to confront the terrorist hijackers. In one hour, a transformation occurred among the passengers – athletes, business people and parents. — from sheep to sheepdogs and together they fought the wolves, ultimately saving an unknown number of lives on the ground.

There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of evil men. – Edmund Burke

Tu ne cede malis...
 
Here is the point I like to emphasize, especially to the thousands of police officers and soldiers I speak to each year. In nature the sheep, real sheep, are born as sheep.

Sheepdogs are born that way, and so are wolves. They didn't have a choice.

But you are not a critter. As a human being, you can be whatever you want to be. It is a conscious, moral decision. If you want to be a sheep, then you can be a sheep and that is okay, but you must understand the price you pay. When the wolf comes, you and your loved ones are going to die if there is not a sheepdog there to protect you. If you want to be a wolf, you can be one, but the sheepdogs are going to hunt you down and you will never have rest, safety, trust or love. But if you want to be a sheepdog and walk the warrior's path, then you must make a conscious and moral decision every day to dedicate, equip and prepare yourself to thrive in that toxic, corrosive moment when the wolf comes knocking at the door.

For example, many police officers carry their weapons in church. They are well concealed in ankle holsters, shoulder holsters or inside-the-belt holsters tucked into the small of their backs. Anytime you go to some form of religious service, there is a very good chance that a police officer in your congregation is carrying a weapon. You will never know if there is such an individual in your place of worship, until the wolf appears to massacre you and your loved ones.

I was training a group of police officers in Texas, and during the break, one officer asked his friend if he carried his weapon in church. The other cop replied, "I will never be caught without my gun in church." I asked why he felt so strongly about this, and he told me about a cop he knew who was at a church massacre in Ft. Worth, Texas in 1999. In that incident, a mentally deranged individual came into the church and opened fire, gunning down fourteen people. He said that officer believed he could have saved every life that day if he had been carrying his gun. His own son was shot, and all he could do was throw himself on the boy's body and wait to die. That cop looked me in the eye and said, "Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself after that?"

Some individuals would be horrified if they knew this police officer was carrying a weapon in church. They might call him paranoid and would probably scorn him. Yet these same individuals would be enraged and would call for "heads to roll" if they found out that the airbags in their cars were defective, or that the fire extinguisher and fire sprinklers in their kids' school did not work. They can accept the fact that fires and traffic accidents can happen and that there must be safeguards against them. Their only response to the wolf, though, is denial, and all too often their response to the sheepdog is scorn and disdain. But the sheepdog quietly asks himself, "Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself if your loved ones were attacked and killed, and you had to stand there helplessly because you were unprepared for that day?"

It is denial that turns people into sheep. Sheep are psychologically destroyed by combat because their only defense is denial, which is counterproductive and destructive, resulting in fear, helplessness and horror when the wolf shows up. Denial kills you twice. It kills you once, at your moment of truth when you are not physically prepared: you didn't bring your gun, you didn't train. Your only defense was wishful thinking. Hope is not a strategy. Denial kills you a second time because even if you do physically survive, you are psychologically shattered by your fear, helplessness and horror at your moment of truth.

Gavin de Becker puts it like this in "Fear Less", his superb post-9/11 book, which should be required reading for anyone trying to come to terms with our current world situation: "…denial can be seductive, but it has an insidious side effect. For all the peace of mind deniers think they get by saying it isn't so, the fall they take when faced with new violence is all the more unsettling." Denial is a save-now-pay-later scheme, a contract written entirely in small print, for in the long run, the denying person knows the truth on some level. And so the warrior must strive to confront denial in all aspects of his life, and prepare himself for the day when evil comes. If you are warrior who is legally authorized to carry a weapon and you step outside without that weapon, then you become a sheep, pretending that the bad man will not come today. No one can be "on" 24/7, for a lifetime. Everyone needs down time. But if you are authorized to carry a weapon, and you walk outside without it, just take a deep breath, and say this to yourself…"Baa."

This business of being a sheep or a sheepdog is not a yes-no dichotomy. It is not an all-or-nothing, either-or choice. It is a matter of degrees, a continuum. On one end is an abject, head-in-the-sand-sheep and on the other end is the ultimate warrior. Few people exist completely on one end or the other. Most of us live somewhere in between. Since 9-11 almost everyone in America took a step up that continuum, away from denial. The sheep took a few steps toward accepting and appreciating their warriors, and the warriors started taking their job more seriously. The degree to which you move up that continuum, away from "sheephood" and denial, is the degree to which you and your loved ones will survive, physically and psychologically at your moment of truth.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/29/on-sheep-wolves-and-sheepdogs/

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Spike Lee Accidentally Tweeted the Address of an Elderly Couple Thinking It Was Trayvon Martin's Shooter

Spike Lee, sometimes movie maker and recent Jeremy Lin jersey wearer, made a pretty big boo boo recently. He thought he had retweeted an address of George Zimmerman, the guy who shot Trayvon Martin, but actually retweeted an address of an elderly couple in their 70s to his 250,000 followers.

According to The Smoking Gun, the original tweet of the wrong address was sent to Spike Lee by Marcus Higgins, a 33-year-old who had sent the address to other celebrities too (LeBron James, 50 Cent, etc.). The original tweet came with a not so innocuous message that told followers to "feel free to reach out and touch him." Spike, thinking the address was the shooter, re-tweeted the message in full to his followers.

What's awful about this is that the address was wrong. It pointed to the home of 72-year-old David McClain and his 70-year-old wife Elaine. The mixup occurred because George W. Zimmerman (who has no relation to the shooter and is not the shooter) was mistaken for George Michael Zimmerman (the real shooter), George W. Zimmerman used to live at the house with his mother, Elaine, but hasn't been lived there for years. No one really knows how Higgins finagled that address but David and Elaine have been living in a hotel to avoid the mess at their home. Hopefully, nothing will happen to them. [The Smoking Gun]


http://gizmodo.com/5897150/spike-lee-accidentally-tweeted-the-address-of-an-elderly-couple-thinking-it-was-trayvon-martins-shooter

Despite the appearance of guilt by Zimmerman (and the media circus surrounding the situation), Spike Lee comes off as being as big of a hatemonger as Sharpton on this one. Unfortunately, this tragedy has become a circus of opinions and racial division rather than justice...

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

We're the Only Ones Refusing Enough

The Waterbury police department has been refusing permits against the clear intent of the state legislature. [More]

Well, yeah, but that's because if you're armed, Waterbury "Only Ones" wouldn't be able to do this to you.

Besides, we all know Connecticut cops in general are just plain more trustworthy than the rest of us.

I grow weary of statist power grabs to disarm the citizenry of the natural right to self defense and the Constitutional right of the People to keep and bear arms. Any restrictions placed on free men (pretty much anyone not incarcerated as a result of violent crimes of aggression) I find to be invalid and more about control by a select few than anything resembling promoting public safety. 


Original Page: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheWarOnGuns/~3/KecShpbQNe8/were-only-ones-refusing-enough.html

Odd Interpretation of Portland Gun Carry Ordinance

Last week's State v. Christian (Ore. Ct. App. Mar. 21, 2012) considered a Portland, Oregon that provides,

It is unlawful for any person to knowingly possess or carry a firearm, in or upon a public place, including while in a vehicle in a public place, recklessly having failed to remove all the ammunition from the firearm [with a bunch of exceptions, including for people with concealed carry licenses -- Oregon is a shall-issue state].

Jonathan Christian, who was prosecuted for violating the ordinance, challenged it on overbreadth grounds, arguing that it covered a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct. (Such challenges are apparently allowed in right to bear arms cases under the Oregon Constitution, much as they are allowed in First Amendment cases.) Oregon courts had in the past recognized that the right to bear arms including a right to carry weapons in public, though an Oregon Court of Appeals decision had upheld a ban on carrying loaded guns in public. And the 4-judge dissent viewed this as a dispute about the right to carry loaded guns in public, concluding that the Oregon Constitution does protect such a right. (Judge Edmonds' dissent, joined by Chief Judge Brewer, goes into this in great detail as a historical matter, concluding that this right was generally recognized in American law at the time the Oregon Constitution was adopted in 1859.)

But the 5-judge majority takes a different approach: The ordinance, the majority says, isn't a ban on loaded carry — it's a ban only on loaded carry that creates a known and substantial risk to the public beyond "a risk that would inhere in using the firearm for the kinds of self-defense, defense of others, or defense of premises that are statutorily justified." As I read this, it probably means that the ordinance doesn't ban most loaded carry at all, but just loaded carry for criminal purposes, or in unusually dangerous ways. And because it reads the ordinance so narrowly, the majority concludes that the ordinance is not unconstitutionally overbroad.

It does seem to me that unjustified carry of a loaded weapon with reckless intent is what the ordinance prohibits, and that the RKBA would provide the ability for law-abiding citizens to do so with defensive intent justified. 

The dispute is about the interpretation of the word "recklessly." The dissenters reason, in my view persuasively, that,

In context, the reference to a reckless failure to unload the firearm describes circumstances in which the person "is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk" [the general Oregon definition of "recklessly" -EV] that the firearm is loaded. In other words, the person carries the firearm notwithstanding a substantial risk that it is loaded and under circumstances in which the person's contrary belief is unjustified. So understood, the ordinance distinguishes between a gang member who carries a gun that another gang member has asked the person to carry to patrol the gang's purported territory and a person who carries a gun to a shooting range that the person's parent has said is unloaded.

[...] 

More: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/volokh/mainfeed/~3/xW00oxfMRmI/

Sunday, March 25, 2012

Do You Have Guns in the House?

I am passing this along…there are comments from two other people I have also been asked if we keep guns in the house. The nurse just kinda slipped it in along with all the other regular questions. I told her I refused to answer because it was against the law to ask. Everyone, whether you have guns or not, should give a neutral answer so they have no idea who does and who doesn’t.


My doctor asked me if I had guns in my house and also if any were loaded. I , of course, answered yes to both questions. Then he asked why I kept a loaded gun close to my bed. I answered that my son, who is a certified gun instructor and also works for Homeland Security, advised me that an unloaded, locked up gun is no protection against criminal attack. The Government now requires these questions be asked of people on Medicare, and probably everyone else.


Just passing this along for your information: I had to visit a doctor other than my regular doctor when my doctor was on vacation. One of the questions on the form I had to fill out was: Do you have any guns in your house?? My answer was None of your damn business!! So it is out there!


It is either an insurance issue or government intervention. Either way, it is out there and the second the government gets into your medical records (As they want to under Obamacare) it will become a major issue and will ultimately result in lock and load!!


[...]

Prepper Podcast Radio Network News

Wednesday, March 14, 2012

Not Ordinary People: Criminals Do Not Represent Concealed Carriers

OP fail in their argument in that ordinary people don't stalk and attack innocent people. Anti-gun/anti-rights groups like the Brady Campaign and CSGV jump on tragedies like this to promote a misguided campaign of misinformation in an attempt to pervert public opinion. 

March 14, 2012

"These a**holes always get away."

On February 26th, 17-year-old Trayvon Martin was an invited guest staying with his stepmother in a gated community in Sanford, Florida. During halftime of the NBA all-star game that evening, Martin walked to a local convenience store to get some snacks. Little did he know he was being followed by George Zimmerman, 28, the self-appointed "captain" of the neighborhood watch program.

How does calling out the shooter as white and the victim as black have any bearing? Gun control is historically racist, which supports the need to do away with restrictive policies to disarm minorities and allow rich white men to have a monopoly on the use of force. An armed society is indeed a polite one. 

Zimmerman, who is white, had been tailing the young African-American in his car because he felt Martin was "a suspicious person." At some point, Zimmerman called 911. During this conversation, he mentioned Martin's race and stated that he was going to detain the youth because "these a**holes always get away." The dispatcher told Zimmerman that a unit was being dispatched to the scene and asked Zimmerman to refrain from approaching Martin.

Zimmerman ignored this direction. He got out of his car and pursued Martin between two rows of townhouses. A fistfight broke out. When police arrived on the scene minutes later, they found Martin dying face down in the grass. In his hands were a bag of Skittles and a can of iced tea. He had been shot in the chest by Zimmerman, a concealed handgun permit holder who was armed that night, with a 9mm pistol.

Being a holder of a concealed carry permit does little to tout the danger of the permit system, but does imply that even criminals and unstable individuals can pervert the system that fails to promote public safety. 

If Zimmerman saw anything "suspicious" that night beyond an African-American walking through a gated community in a hooded sweatshirt, he never said. He was detained by the police, but after he claimed he acted in self-defense in killing the unarmed Martin (who he outweighed by 100 pounds), Zimmerman was released without charge. Martin's family and their attorney were told by Sanford Police Chief Bill Lee that Zimmerman avoided arrest because he had a "squeaky clean" criminal record.

Imagine that. He was released. It's alright of you're white!

That statement was fraudulent. It has since been revealed that Zimmerman was arrested in 2005 for resisting arrest with violence and battery on a law enforcement officer. The case was dismissed after Zimmerman attended a pre-trial diversion program and a deal was made with his attorney to get the case dropped. In addition, police have fielded complaints from members of Zimmerman's gated community about his aggressive conduct in the neighborhood. According to Martin family attorney Benjamin Crump, "[The Sanford Police Department] just lied to the family. They just couldn't see why [Zimmerman] would do anything wrong or be violent. But not only do you know the guy killed this kid, because he admitted to it, you knew that he has a propensity for violence because of his past record."

Martin, on the other hand, was squeaky clean. An avid sports fan and horseback rider, he dreamed of attending college and becoming an aviation mechanic. His family still recalls the boy's heroics at age nine, when he dragged his father from a burning kitchen. After the shooting, his father described his son as "a dear friend."

The reluctance of the Sanford Police Department to arrest Zimmerman probably has something to do with Florida's outrageous "Stand Your Ground" law.

The fallacy of this attack on the law is that it really doesn't apply to an act of aggression by Zimmerman. Martin was unarmed, Zimmerman was unprovoked and the aggressor. 

The law removes the duty of individuals to retreat from a confrontation and allows them to use deadly force if they reasonably believe that it is necessary to prevent death or "great bodily harm." "Stand Your Ground" legislation was enacted in 2005 after being championed in the Florida state legislature by National Rifle Association lobbyist Marion Hammer. In support of the law, Hammer said, "Through time, in this country, what I like to call bleeding heart criminal coddlers want you to give a criminal an even break, so that when you're attacked, you're supposed to turn around and run, rather than standing your ground and protecting yourself and your family and your property."

Had Martin been a concealed carrier, the law would have applied to an act of self defense, which the author attempts to twist and lead the reader into a false conclusion. 

But critics in Florida's legal community dubbed it the "Shoot First" law and said that it "encourages people to stand their ground ... when they could just as easily walk away." It has also been pointed out that the law "give[s] citizens more rights to use deadly force than we give police officers, and with less review." A report by the South Florida Sun Sentinel vindicated these complaints, concluding, "several...accused murderers have successfully used [Florida's] 2005 'Stand Your Ground' law to prove they were the real victims."

Citizens should never be considered to have fewer rights than law enforcement. That's a misnomer which should fade away, replaced with a view based on reality. 


Three things are obvious to everyone: 1) Trayvon Martin was not a criminal; 2) George Zimmerman was not protecting either his property or family on the evening of February 26th, and; 3) Not only could Zimmerman have walked away that night; he actively sought out this conflict when told not to do so by law enforcement. No civilian gun-toter has a right to stand above the rule of law and serve as another human being's judge, jury and executioner.

Again, Zimmerman is no more representative of the gun owning community than any criminal, with or without a permit. He was imbalances and aggressive toward others, he should have never been allowed to possess a permit or firearm, which is why the permit system is a failure. 

As of today, George Zimmerman remains a free man, with carte blanche to carry a loaded gun in public. Meanwhile, Trayvon's family continues to mourn. "That was my baby, my youngest son," his mother Sybrina Fulton told ABC News. "He meant a lot to me, I don't think the police department really understands that ... I need justice for my family, I just want justice for my son."

If you'd like to help the Martin family, please do so by signing this online petition that calls on Florida's 18th District State's Attorney to prosecute George Zimmerman for this murder.


Original Page: http://csgv3.blogspot.com/2012/03/these-aholes-always-get-away.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&m=1


Wrongful Death Trial in Tech Killings Goes to Jury - ABC News

Jurors began deliberating Wednesday over a lawsuit filed by the parents of two students slain in the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre claiming school officials botched their response when the first reports came in that a gunman was on campus.

Maybe now the university and public can start to think about the reality of gun-free zones...

Attorneys for the university have countered that there was no way to anticipate the man who committed those first two killings April 16 in a dormitory would carry out the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history. Police had initially concluded the first killings were isolated. Jurors will have to decide whether school officials could have reasonably foreseen that more carnage was going to occur.

And the best way to deal with the lack of ability to defend against that which is unable to be anticipated? Enable law-abiding citizens to practice their natural and Constitutional right to self defense. Of the American universities which allow concealed carry, how many have had shootings? None. Zero. 

Robert T. Hall, an attorney for the parents, said they are interested in holding school officials accountable, not money.

Evidence of the magnitude of the error, Hall said, "were the bodies of the young people on the floors of Norris Hall."

I'd rather those students not been denied the ability to defend themselves based on a baseless and emotional argument. They might still be alive today. 

One of the state's attorneys, Peter Messitt, said Tech officials could not be expected to anticipate the killing spree, calling the slaughter unprecedented "in the history of higher education."

This level of loss of life was partly responsible for the resurgence of concealed carry (Luby's Texas massacre), and has also shown the lack of substance in the restrictions of firearms arbitrarily imposed on college campuses. 

If these students are adults in all other regards, what sense does disarming the make? Concealed carry is regulated by states, so it's on the universities to defend the gun-free zones. 

A jury of seven in the civil trial will also consider damages for the families, but they have not been told the award is capped at $100,000 for each family under state law. The state is the lone defendant. Two alternates were dismissed before jurors began deliberations.

[...]

http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=15919872

Monday, March 12, 2012

Inside America's gun-carry culture

Leaning against a scrub pine as preschoolers scurry about at his feet, Shane Gazda, father of 3-year-old twins, recalls a conundrum he faced earlier that morning: whether to take his Smith & Wesson .40 caliber handgun to a Groundhog Day celebration in this town's White Deer Park.

After all, what was once against the law in North Carolina – carrying a concealed gun in a town park, square, or greenway – is now, as of Dec. 1, 2011, very much allowed. To Mr. Gazda, who likes to shoot targets in his backyard, an event as innocent as paying homage to a rodent could turn dangerous if the wrong person shows up.

"Part of it is being ready for cataclysm every day," says Gazda, a hospital maintenance engineer. "And to be honest, I started carrying precisely to protect not just myself, but my family, and anyone around me who needs help."

The anti-gun/anti-rights lobby is now fighting an uphill battle, as there is more legislation promoting gun rights introduced and approved than against, nearly three times as much. 

In the end, Gazda left the gun at home. But his internal debate is emblematic of one a growing number of Americans are having almost daily. Thirty years after a powerful gun-control movement swept the country, Americans are embracing the idea of owning and carrying firearms with a zeal rarely seen since the days of muskets and militias.

With now millions of concealed carry permit holders in the States, and more states becoming shall-issue, the gun rights movement represents the idea that liberty is necessary in a free nation, and the natural right to bear arms is a necessary liberty. 

A combination of favorable court rulings, grass-roots activism, traditional fears of crime, and modern anxieties about government has led to what may be a tipping point on an issue that just a few years ago was one of America's most contentious. Gun rights have now expanded to the point where the fundamental question seems not to be "should we be able to carry guns," but instead is "where can't we carry them?"

[...]


Friday, March 9, 2012

CZ P-07 Duty 9MM


CZ Model Duty Model 75 P-07 Action Semi-automatic Type Double Action Size Full Caliber 9MM Barrel Length 3.8 Frame/Material Polymer Finish/Color Black Capacity 16Rd Accessories 2 Mags Sights Fixed Sights...

I really dig the CZ 9mm pistols like this and the SP-01. 


Original Page: http://www.gunsamerica.com/939238842/Guns/Pistols/CZ/CZ_P_07_DUTY_9MM_3_8_BLK_POLY_16RD.htm

Wednesday, March 7, 2012

Washington Ceasefire Anti-Gun Bus Ad Full of Fail


Washington Ceasefire Anti-Gun Bus Ad Full of Fail | The Truth About Guns:
Just in case Bruce Krafft decides to deconstruct the 22 percent stat touted by Ceasefire Washington’s new bus ads, I’ll restrict myself to a one-word response: fail. But in a nice way. The gun grabbers usually resort to emotional appeals that short-circuit rational thought. You know: crying mothers, bewildered toddlers. This ad invites debate (which gun control advocates inevitably lose) and encourages indifference. A two-fer! But I do like Ralph Fascitelli’s advice for home owners concerned about self-defense: “Get a baseball bat or get a knife.” Yeah, that’ll resonate. Especially with older people. [h/t to David Brown]

Failure of logic and truth, for starters. On to the peanut gallery!

mikeb302000 says: 
 
22 times likely to use the gun on a family member than on an intruder. Wow, even if that a wild exaggeration, you’d have to be pretty stupid or stubborn to have a gun in the home.

Mike B has no problem acting like everything coming out of the anti-rights/anti-gun lobby is fact. Doesn't seem to consider that any of it may be opinion or misinformation. Screw logic and critical thinking! Think of the children!

How long has he been trolling here anyway? I must have missed him jumping in. I'm more used to the vitriol on the anti sites. It still creeps me out how excited they get when a tragedy comes along. We mourn death, they shoot their wad trying to find a way to justify an illogical position.

Tuesday, March 6, 2012

Pro-Hunting Bills Clear Senate Judiciary Committee

Yesterday, the Senate Judiciary Committee passed two NRA-backed pro-hunting bills.  By a 6 to 2 vote, the committee gave "do pass" recommendations to both House Bill 2728, hunting with suppressors legislation, and House Bill 2640, legislation to eliminate magazine capacity restrictions when hunting. 

Both good measures, to be sure, though these restrictions have no real purpose in my mind in the first place. 


Original Page: http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2012/03/arizona-two-pro-hunting-bills-clear-senate-judiciary-committee.aspx

Monday, March 5, 2012