Sadly, Mama Liberty will be unavailable this week. Imagine the nerve of her- she was busy making CLOTHES rather than writing articles for us!! We all look forward to reading her words of wisdom next week...........
I'd like to deal with a topic that some people just refuse to comprehend. Human rights. For some reason, "Human Rights Activists" constantly support disarming people. They NEVER think about the poor, the downtrodden, the victims. They constantly demand someone "do something" whenever a story about poor villagers being massacred, or poor blacks dying in Chicago from a gunshot, or Chinese peasants being killed by their government. Yet they ignore the most important part- the victims are ALWAYS unarmed by law. They are forced to be defenseless, BY LAW. So whether it is government thugs in China, narcotraficantes in Mexico, or gangbanger blacks in Chicago, the killers have weapons, their victims are unarmed. BY THE VERY PEOPLE WHO WERE SUPPOSED TO PROTECT THEM. DO you want to see human rights violations drop? REALLY drop? Start collecting guns and ammo (I'll donate a few) and ship them to the people in areas where firearms are prohibited and human rights are violated. Let's all start with those ladies in Mexico I mention down below. Remember, as L. Neil Smith says, "Every man, woman, and responsible child has a human, civil, and Constitutional right to own and carry, anytime, wherever they choose, any weapon, rifle, pistol, shotgun, machinegun, WHATEVER, without permission from anybody" (my paraphrase of The Atlanta Declaration) Let's stop genocides. Let's protect human rights, everywhere. Arm the poor, the tired, the huddles masses yearning to breathe free.
Before we get to the "Armed American Citizen" section, we shall remind people what "Gun Free Zone" means in criminal-speak. Defenseless victims, even outside the venue. Link.
Wake County Superior Court Judge Donald Stephens ruled earlier this month that allowing citizens to carry concealed firearms at the North Carolina State Fair would be “unwise and imprudent.” Gun owners across the state were angered by the ruling, but the real consequence was felt when three people at the fair were accosted by robbers, carrying pistols. As we’ve seen before, the law-abiding citizens follow gun control laws, but criminals don’t feel bound by the same constraints.
The armed robbers were likely emboldened to act once they knew citizens would be unarmed. They targeted people leaving the fair, walking to their cars. It is reported they fled in a beige Lincoln.
Second Amendment Activists had widely criticized the ruling. The Washington Times reported:
The same activists are now blaming N.C. officials after three people were robbed by two men armed with pistols while walking to their cars Saturday night.
“By announcing to violent predators that people attending the North Carolina state fair would be unable to protect themselves, the responsibility for this armed robbery of fair-goers lies squarely with Agriculture Commissioner Steve Troxler, who illegally banned concealed at the fair, and … Stephens, who willfully misinterpreted the law to impose his own worldview,” Paul Valone, president of Grass Roots North Carolina, told Guns.com.
Mr. Valone had argued the case in front of Judge Stephens that the state fair gun ban violated a law passed by the state legislature that expanded concealed carry rights, The Blaze reported.
Prior to issuing his ruling, Judge Stephens expressed fear allowing guns in the Fairgrounds “may chill crime, but may chill attendance.” He added, “This whole area of the law is an absolute quagmire.”
The State Fair increased the number of metal detectors at its gates this year, and installed 200 undercover and uniformed law enforcement officers on the grounds. The robbers, however, did their work outside the gates.
Metal detectors to go to the fair? I guess they lost MY business. I carry. Because I want to get home alive.
We open the "Armed American Citizen" with a really dumb criminal. Link. What idiot brings a toy gun to a real gunfight??
The entire incident unfolded over the weekend, when the unnamed suspected robber walked into Medicap Pharmacy in Cheyenne, Wyoming at around 9:45 in the morning. Once inside, the man allegedly demanded that the pharmacist hand over narcotics while “brandishing” a toy gun that looked alarmingly real.
“The pharmacist then pulled out a firearm – a handgun, a revolver – and shot the suspect once in the chest,” said Cheyenne Police Department Chief Brian Kozak to the Eagle Tribune.
Fortunately for the suspected robber, he survived the bullet and was taken to receive medical treatment.
Dude! This is WY-freaking-OMING!! Open carry is unlicensed, concealed carry is easy. It's just a shame the pharmacist missed anything vital..............
And the next part of this week's "Armed American Citizens". Unfortunately, they both survived. Link. Believe it or not, a neighboring business owner blamed the SHOPOWNER for shooting at armed criminals!!!!!
The video shows 74-year-old store owner Shirley Cornett drawing her .38 revolver and shooting one of the suspects in the arm before one of them shoots back. Cornett was hit but the bullet did not break the skin because it was deflected by a stack of books. The two then flee the pawn shop having stolen just a single bracelet.
Somewhat unbelievably, Kal Gandhi, manager of the nearby Scottish Inn and Suites, blamed Cornett for the trouble, accusing her of unnecessarily firing her gun “in heavy traffic” despite the fact that the incident occurred inside the store. Presumably, Gandhi thinks that business owners in the area should just invite criminals in to rob them with zero resistance whatsoever.
“It is not right,” said Gandhi, adding that he was “really upset” about the fact that the owners shot back at the criminals.
I have nothing else to say............
AND THIS is why I say that a woman voting for a gun control agenda is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders. Link. Had the anti-Constitutionalists not spent years demonizing self defense with a gun, and fighting to pass laws restricting gun ownership and carry, she MIGHT be alive today.
Fernald had a restraining order placed on Torres before he killed her. A search of google news confirms that fact. This was mentioned as a reason to argue that the killer’s sentence was too light. He obviously had premeditated this attack because he had been threatening her before.
I think the restraining order shows something else: that every law and every media and cultural input that made it more difficult for Amber to acquire and carry a firearm collaborated with her killer.
What good is a restraining order? Instead of a restraining order, Amber should have been indefinitely loaned an appropriate sidearm. If we are supposed to get protection from the police, then they should have given her some training.
What was the point of giving her an unenforceable piece of paper?
People act like guns are the cause of crime but they aren’t considering the real facts. Every single story of a big man attacking a woman is a story about how the absence of a gun victimized a woman. Every single story about a knife-wielding attacker cutting an unarmed victim is the story of how the absence of a gun caused harm.
A culture without cheap, readily available firearms is a culture where the stronger get to attack the weaker with impunity. Every culture that discourages or discounts gun ownership is a culture where women are trained to be sacrificed to violent men.
It's a simple fact. No matter what feminists say, a 110 pound woman has little or no chance against a 220 pound man EVEN IF HE IS UNARMED. Unless, of course, she has 2 pounds of Hartford steel in her fist, and a few hours at the range with an instructor under her belt.
Passed along by Mama Liberty, I find this one Sehr interessant! Link. How dare these women defend themselves and their city from armed criminals!!!
This week, hundreds of women in the Mexican town of Xaltianguis formed their own community defense organization to protect their town from organized crime. The women belong to a group called the Union of Peoples and Organizations of Guerrero State, or UPOEG.
According to local community self-defense force commander Miguel Angel Jimenez, the women are spread out between various different teams that patrol the neighborhoods of Xaltianguis, which is a small town just outside of Acapulco.
Jimenez told reporters that the women are well trained in firearms, but unfortunately the group only has about 80 guns and they have to rotate the weapons and share them between members.
“I trust that the people, once they know that the women are participating, they will provide more weapons“, Jimenez said.
If I knew how to ship them to Mexico, I'd send along a few myself!!
What's the most common lie we hear from the anti-gunners when they want us to stop defending our rights? Yup, THAT'S the one! "No one is trying to take your guns. We just want 'common' sense controls on them!" Well, THIS reporter tells us what they really mean- and he should know, he's one of them! Link.
One part of the article claims people just don’t understand the true nature of the second amendment.
As the author wrote:
The Second Amendment has been misinterpreted. It says guns are permitted to a “well-regulated militia.” That means trained citizen soldiers called into action for emergencies — because in colonial times every able-bodied man was required to be a member of the militia.
It does not mean everyone with $50 and a driver’s license is entitled to own a gun.
And they even tried to quote a Supreme Court Justice as reason enough to ban firearms completely.
Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger said in 1990, when he called claims of Second Amendment protection of individual gun ownership, “a fraud on the American public.” Earlier this year, retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens called the Second Amendment one of the six great flaws with the U.S. Constitution. He called for it to be amended to say gun possession was only for state militias, not individuals.
The author even writes that he’s OK with criminals having guns.
He idiotically spews the babbling of a liberal detached from reality:
Gun freaks say if you take away their guns only outlaws will have guns. That’s a chance worth taking. Because if we ban guns, eventually the tide will turn. It might take 10 years or 20 years. Hell, it might take 50 years. But if we make it illegal to own a handgun, eventually there will be no handguns.
At the ever end the article he practically shouts out what the intentions of liberals truly are “One of the frequent refrains of gun freaks about President Obama is ‘He’s coming for our guns,’ Obama never said such a thing. But I will: We’re coming for your guns. And someday, we’ll take them.”
Yes, they are. And never forget that fact.
Isn't it funny that the Democrat stronghold of Shitcago has made it a felony to record police, DAs, and judges (with a higher penalty than doing so to civilians) even after being told by their own Supreme Court that a similar law was un-Constitutional? Link.
Illinois — In March of this year the Illinois Supreme Court struck down the state’s eavesdropping law, and rightfully so, as it was touted as the most unconstitutional law of its kind in the country.
The bill is back, and with a vengeance.
The Amendment to Senate Bill 1342 was introduced on Tuesday, Dec. 2, as an amendment to an existing bill on a completely different subject. The amendment removed all of the bill’s previous content and replaced it with the new ban on recording. The House passed it the following day, and the Senate passed it the day after that.
This bill passed both the Illinois House and Senate with overwhelming majority votes; 106-7 in the House on and 46-4-1 in the Senate. Democrats and Republicans alike slipped this bill by the citizens as they were debating on whether the General Assembly would raise the state’s minimum wage or make the 67% temporary income tax hike permanent, neither of which passed.
Of course, THE Supreme Court of the United States says it's our Constitutional right to do so. Hmmmmm.....
A list of 16 companies that we should not patronize for their craven caving to the anti-Constitutionalists (or for BEING anti-Constitutional in and of themselves). Link.
Chuck E. Cheese
California Pizza Kitchen
Buffalo Wild Wings
Or, of course, you can do as I do when I am forced to go to TGI Friday's for a birthday- I ignore their rules and go armed. Yeah, they have the right to ban it- and if they catch me, they can ban ME. But since I have family that holds parties there, I'm going to be armed there. That's the purpose of concealed carry, after all- NO ONE KNOWS YOU ARE CARRYING!!!!
Its' amazing how far idiots/"reporters" will go to lie about gun sales, or to try to twist a surge in gun sales into an increase in crime rates. Link.
Last week, Associated Press reporter Matt Stroud incorrectly implied that the recent increase in firearm-related background checks run through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) frequently results in violent criminals beating the system and acquiring guns.
Noting that in situations in which NICS cannot complete a check on a prospective gun buyer within three business days, a firearm dealer is allowed to transfer a firearm to the person, Stroud hyperbolically wrote, “More gun sales than ever are slipping through the federal background check system. . . . [S]omeone is killed with a firearm every 16 minutes. Mass shootings are happening every few weeks. . . . If three business days pass without a federal response, buyers can legally get their guns, whether or not the check was completed.”
What Stroud neglected to mention--besides the fact that gun ownership is at an all-time high and the nation’s murder rate has fallen to at least a 57-year low--is that the FBI continues running checks after the three-day period has elapsed and reports all ultimate denials to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) on a daily basis. Thereafter, BATFE personnel and local law enforcement officers can and do take action to separate prohibited persons from any firearms they may have acquired during the delay.
Stroud also implied, incorrectly, that every individual who is delayed is presumptively prohibited and would pose a danger if successful in obtaining a firearm. That is certainly not the case, as identities can be confused, arrests don’t necessarily lead to prosecutions or convictions, and later events (like reductions in or dropping of charges, restoration of rights, or reversals of convictions) are not always reflected in the records available to NICS. Indeed, the provisions of the Gun Control Act allowing (but not requiring) licensed dealers to release firearms to purchasers three days after a NICS check is initiated without a subsequent denial recognize that such events are a very real possibility and that people should not be denied their rights based on unsubstantiated or incomplete information.
Now, do not take my inclusion of this article as support for the NICS system, because it is totally un-Constitutional. But it's funny how people like this lie about the system in order to demand more laws, when the Justice Department has only prosecuted few hundred of the 56,000 denials that were not appealed. IF their goal was to keep criminals from owning guns (it isn't, but let's pretend it is) you'd THINK they'd be prosecuting every liar who was denied a firearm for lying on the Form 4473.
And now, the Quotes of the Week. Starting with 2 from Colonel Cooper.
"Already a couple of the faithful have sent in checks for a foundation memorial to the innocents who perished at the hands of the ninja at Waco ... I have been criticized by referring to our federal masked men as 'ninja' ... Let us reflect upon the fact that a man who covers his face shows reason to be ashamed of what he is doing. A man who takes it upon himself to shed blood while concealing his identity is a revolting perversion of the warrior ethic. It has long been my conviction that a masked man with a gun is a target. I see no reason to change that view."
"One bleeding-heart type asked me in a recent interview if I did not agree that 'violence begets violence.' I told him that it is my earnest endeavor to see that it does. I would like very much to ensure — and in some cases I have — that any man who offers violence to his fellow citizen begets a whole lot more in return than he can enjoy."
“I don’t believe people should to be able to own guns.”- Barack Obama (during conversation with economist and author John Lott Jr. at the University of Chicago Law School in the 1990s)
"I don't care if you want to hunt, I don't care if you think it's your right. I say 'Sorry.' it's 1999. We have had enough as a nation. You are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison." - Rosie O'Donnell (At about the time she said this, Rosie engaged the services of a bodyguard who applied for a gun permit.)
"Make your attacker advance through a wall of bullets. I may get killed with my own gun, but he's gonna have to beat me to death with it, cause it's gonna be empty." Clint Smith
That, my friends, is that for this week.