How I feel about Anti-Gun Advocates
The truth is, liberals know full well gun control laws will have NO effect on Criminals having guns. That is not their intent, never was.... In the early 1900s, Thompson Sub Machine guns were sold to the general public through catalogs. People didn't run amok machine gunning everyone. But the Gangsters use of them in the 20s gave liberals the excuse to outlaw them claiming it would stop the gangland violence. The only ones disarmed were law abiding citizens, criminals, gangs and organized gangsters still use machine guns to this day.... So this leaves only one conclusion...
The REAL intent is not to disarm Criminalsbut to disarm the Law AbidingCitizen for no other reason than to minimize an armed rebellion against the Government.
For a Government to force its will on the people, first you make them dependent, Grow government to oversee the governed, take away rights, tax them heavily so they have little funds for travel or to be self reliant or financially support opposing groups. Gather personal information so that withdrawing or providing needed services to them will control their behavior...
Once enough control is established, Disarm them....
It is no different than any other disarming of citizens throughout history. Use the excuse that "Government provides all the protection a citizen needs therefore Citizens no longer need to be armed", then gather information on who has weapons, what kind, where they are located, then gather them up...
As for self protection, this is their view!: If someone else does not get there in time to save you or you can't talk your way out of it or you can't run or run fast enough, then you deserve to be a victim and YOU SHOULD HAVE NO RIGHT TO STOP THE ATTACK USING A GUN.
What polictical Party supports all of the above?
So are they really trying to protect anyone or are they just wanting to control others evenwhen their views are a minority? It's really all about controlling others...... And controllers are Dangerous People because their goal is to remove control from others, to strip them down, make them submissive and dependent, wait one second here, isn't that the same thing the criminal does?
And the scary thing is:
We're going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy. We're going to beat guns into submission.
United States Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY)
Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of Americans to feel safe.
United States Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
If someone is so fearful that, that they're going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, makes me very nervous that these people have these weapons at all!
Representative Henry A. Waxman (D-CA)
Can you believe these are Americans talking? Do these people truly believe the crap they are vomiting up? They actually think criminals and those who wish to get a gun will not be able to? Like they could not get booze during Prohibition days? And these peopletook an oath to uphold the constitution?
What American would not fight to protect their rights? We have lost to many patriots in defending these rights
to just give them away, these liberals just don't get it, do they?
These are the same people who are tying the hands of Judges in dealing with misbehaving adults ......
They are the same people who are tying the hands of Parents in dealing with misbehaving children.
They are the ones that worry more about the criminals rights than the victims rights.
They are the same minority that want to dictate to the majority through litigation when they loose in a vote.
God help US..
I see anti-gun advocates as criminals, attempting to steal from us the means to defend ones self from other criminals. Anti-gun advocates like all criminals lie and use deceptive means to get what they want, and right now that is the repeal of the 2nd amendment and finding that difficult, have resorted to pushing for unnecessary laws and red tape in all aspects of gun manufacture, distribution, sales, ownership and use. Hopefully to make gun ownership so regulated that they can still control others through litigation. Think about it, the "Mandatory Trigger Lock" laws now in force in many areas have effectively stopped a gun from being used in a self defense situation. The lie used to push this through is, "Children dying at alarming rate from playing with guns in the home".. Yes children have died because of playing with a gun, and that's tragic! It HAS NOT been happening at an alarming rate as they profess. Actually it is one of the least causes of child deaths. They don't tell you, far, far more children died playing football at school or choking on food. Is there a move to abolish football or puree all food given to children? They don't tell you the projected amount of adults and kids that will die because a gun could not be used to protect a family because of a trigger lock .. They don't want you to know how many times adults and children have survived attacks because a gun was used to stop an attack in the home.. The liberal media refuses to report the (MANY THOUSANDS) of times a civilian used a gun legally to stop attacks each year. Liberal media does not honor anyone in using a gun to save themselves or someone else by televising their brave effort. Liberal media does not want the public to know that civilians with guns have stopped far more crimes from being carried out than criminals have used guns in the commission of a crime.. In short guns are used more to stop crime than used to commit crime. Don't believe that? Well get off your duff and check it out for yourself, don't be lazy get educated. You will not find the facts on the liberal media! So much for fair and balanced reporting.... [line]
FACTS TO PONDER [line]
The award-winning criminologist Prof. Gary Kleck states that firearms are used defensively 2.5 million times a year. 48 percent of those incidents involve women defending themselves; most of the time a shot is not fired. The conclusion: women benefit from gun ownership. [line]
The number of physicians in the U.S. 700,000
Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year. 120,000
Accidental deaths per physician is. 0.171
[size=Statistics courtesy of U.S. Department of Health Human Services][/size]
Now think about this:
The number of gun owners in the U.S. is. 80,000,000
The number of accidental gun deaths per year,
all age groups is. 1,500
Note: The FBI does not count minors killed in drug related crimes and gang warsas accidental deaths from what I can tell... The deaths counted are totally Accidental...
The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is. .000188
[size=Statistics courtesy of FBI][/size]
So, statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners. [line]
Here is another thought, as a Policeman responds to a gun related call, he rolls into the scene not knowing who is victim and who is the perpetrator. So he has to, for his own protection, treat all involved the same. Is it possible in this situation to mistakenly shoot the wrong person who the police may see as a threat.Now let us look at a victim who is armed and absolutely knows who is presenting the threat to them, how likely is it that this victim if forced to shoot will shoot at the wrong person...
Is it possible that Police are more likely to shoot the wrong person than an Armed Victim who knows their attacker?
Check it out, it may surprise you... [line]
When the topic of Citizen retaining guns for the preservation of Freedom from a repressive Government:
Anti Gun Advocates finally ask their BIG ONE, Gleefully, "What can civilians do with pistols and hunting rifles against a repressive well armed government ?"
Good point, sense liberals have been the leaders in disarming citizens starting in the 1920s and 30s and have been stripping civilians of their gun ownership rights ever sense.. But the good news is a growing number of Police, Military government employees are pledging that, they will join any just uprising against a repressive government that has stepped out side its authority in the Constitution and Bill of Rights... And they will bring their equipment with them. A repressive governments first job will be to totally disarm the population. Not many soldiers and policewill want to kill their own families in supporting the disarming. And I believe the real fight for freedom will start when a move is made to totally disarm the population. See, the 2nd Amendment is NOT about hunting and skeet shooting, it is about keeping the Power in the hands of the People who grant permission for a Government to govern them. It is the ultimate balance of power that our forefathers built into our government. An Armed repressed citizenry has a chance to restore a representative Government.
Our schools have purposely dumbed down our kids for the last couple decades on Civics, Citizens rights and responsiblilties. They cannot even start to tell you about what is in the Constitution or the rights they hold under it.. Why has this been allowed to happen? Because Our schools and Colleges are becoming more and more under Liberal control... Some now believe that Rights are like privileges, meaning that they have to be rented, bought or earned in order to have them.
NOT SO.. RIGHTS are NOT earned, bought, rented, ALL CITIZENS enjoy them fully. The only way to loose a right is to abuse it. Yelling fire in a crowded building that causes injury or death will have consequences for the person who yelled.But the mis-use does not nor should not infringe on others free speech rights. The RIGHT to bear arms is no different. The only infringement should come to a citizen who abuses the right and no others...
Most current gun laws are infringements to 'the right to bear arms'. Any time you have to submit to having to go to class, pay a fee, apply for permission to 'bear arms' is an infringement forcing you to earn, rent or pay for a right you alread have.
Liberals want to greatly ad to the list of infringements to gun ownership, knowing full well it has NOTHING to do with criminals use of guns...[line]
"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."
The interpitation of the 2nd ammendment is argued. To me it says:
(A Governments [states] need to have an Army to protect its people does not take away the right of the people themselvesto be armed.)
My true feeling is that this is what the forefathers were saying. I can not see our forefathers NOT wanting to establish the right of gun ownership for self protection and for the ability of the population to restore a representative government if need be.
My interpretation has now been upheld by the resent US Supreme Court in its judgment that the 2nd amendment is about a citizens right not the States right...
Some more FACTS to ponder... In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated
China established gun control in 1935. >From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. >From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. >From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.
There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it. Honest Citizens are the ONLY ones hurt by gun control......
You won't see this data on the USevening news, orhear politicians disseminating this information.
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens. Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!
The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.
With guns, we are 'citizens'.Without them, we are 'subjects'.
[line] Before we use these tragedies as a excuse to further the anti-gun goals. Read this forwarded Email I received, author is unknown but what he says can be verified. Makes one think about our News Service and what their liberal goals are..
When mass killers meet armed resistance.
It took place at a university in Virginia. A student with a grudge, an immigrant, pulled a gun and went on a shooting spree. It wasn't Virginia Tech at all. It was the Appalachian School of Law in Grundy, not far away. You can easily drive from the one school to the other, just take a trip down Route 460 through Tazewell.
It was January 16, 2002 when Peter Odighizuwa came to campus. He had been suspended due to failing grades. Odighizuwa was angry and waving a gun calling on students to "come get me". T he students, seeing the gun, ran. A shooting spree started almost immediately. In seconds Odighizuwa had killed the school dean, a professor and one student. Three other students were shot as well, one in the chest, one in the stomach and one in the throat.
Many students heard the shots. Two who did were Mikael Gross and Tracy Bridges. Mikael was outside the school having just returned to campus from lunch when he heard the shots. Tracy was inside attending class. Both immediately ran to their cars. Each had a handgun locked in the vehicle.
Bridges pulled a .357 Magnum pistol and he later said he was prepared to shoot to kill if necessary. He and Gross both approached Odighizuwa at the same time from different directions. Both were pointing their weapons at him. Bridges yelled for Odighizuwa to drop his weapon. When the shooter realized they had the drop on him he threw his weapon down. A third student, unarmed, Ted Besen, approached the killer and was
But Odighizuwa was now disarmed. The three students were able to restrain him and held him for the police. Odighizuwa is now in prison for the murders he committed. His killing spree ended when he faced two students with weapons. There would be no further victims that day, thanks to armed resistance. [size=Shotgun preteen vs illegal alien Home Invaders: ][/size][size=Butte, Montana November 5, 2007][/size]
You wouldn't know much about that though. Do you wonder why? The media, though it widely reported the attack left out the fact that Bridges and Gross were armed. Most simply reported that the gunman was jumped and subdued by other students. That two of those students were now armed didn't get a mention.
James Eaves-Johnson wrote about this fact one week later in The Daily Iowan. He wrote: "A Lexus-Nexis search revealed 88 stories on the topic, of which only two mentioned that either Bridges or Gross was armed." This 2002 article noted "This was a very public shooting with a lot of media coverage." But the media left out information showing how two students with firearms ended the killing spree.
He also mentioned a second incident. And while I had read many articles on this shooting for an article I wrote about school bullying not a single one mentioned the role that a firearm played in stopping it. Until today I didn't know the full story.
Luke Woodham was a troubled teen. He felt no one really liked him. In 1997 he murdered his mother and put on a trench coat. He filled the pockets with ammunition and took a handgun to the Pearl High School in Pearl, Mississippi. In rapid succession killed two students and wounded seven others.
He had the incident planned out. He would start shooting students and continue until he heard police sirens in the distance. That would allow him time to get in his car and leave campus. From there he intended to go to the nearby Pearl Junior High School and start shooting again. How it would end was not clear. Perhaps he would kill himself or perhaps the police would finally catch up with him and kill him. Either way a lot more people were going to get shot and die.
What Woodham hadn't planned for was the actions of Assistant Principal Joel Myrick . Myrick heard the gun shots. He couldn't have a handgun in the school. But he did keep one locked in his vehicle in the parking lot. He ran outside and retrieved the gun.
As Myrick headed back toward the school Woodham was in his vehicle headed for his next intended target. Myrick aimed his gun at the shooter. The teen crashed his car when he saw the gun. Myrick approached the car and held a gun to the killer who surrendered immediately. There would be no further victims that day, thanks to armed resistance.
So you didn't know about that. Neither did I until today. Eaves-Johnson wrote that there were "687 articles on the school shooting in Pearl, Miss. Of those, only 19 mentioned that" Myrick had used a gun to stop Woodham "four-and-a-half minutes before police arrived."
Many people probably forgot about the shooting in Edinboro, Pennsylvania. It was a school graduation dance that Andrew Wurst entered to take out his anger on the school. First he shot teacher John Gillette outside. He started shooting randomly inside the restaurant where the 240 students had gathered.
It was restaurant owner James Strand, armed with a shot gun, who captured the shooter and held him for police. There would be no further victims that day, thanks to armed resistance.
It was February 12th of this year that a young man entered the Trolley Square Shopping Mall, in Salt Lake City. The mall was a self-declared "gun free zone" forbidding patrons from carrying weapons. He wasn't worried. In fact he appreciated knowing that his victims couldn't defend themselves.
He opened fire even before he got inside killing his first victims immediately outside the front door. As he walked down the mall hallway he fired in all directions. Several more people were shot inside a card store immediately inside the mall. The shooter moved on to the Pottery Barns Kids store.
What he didn't know is that one patron of the mall, Kenneth Hammond, had ignored the signs informing patrons they must be unarmed to enter. He was a police officer but he was not on duty and he was not a police officer for Salt Lake City. By all standards he was a civilian that day and probably should have left his firearm in his vehicle.
It's a good thing he didn't. He was sitting in the mall with his wife having dinner when he heard the shots. He told her to hide and to call 911 emergency services. He went to confront the gunman. T he killer found himself under gun fire much sooner than he anticipated. From this point on all his effort was to protect himself from Hammond, he had no time to kill anyone else. Hammond was able to pin down the shooter until police finally arrived and one of them shot the man to death. There would be no further victims that day, thanks to armed resistance.
In each of these cases a killer is stopped the moment he faces armed resistance. It is clear that in three of these cases the shooter intended to continue his killing spree. In the fourth case, Andrew Wurst, it is not immediately apparent whether he intended to keep shooting or not since he was apprehended by the restaurant owner leaving the scene.
Three of these cases involved armed resistance by students, faculty or civilians. In one case the armed resistance was from an off-duty police officer in a city where he had no legal authority and where he was carrying his weapon in violation of the mall's gun free policy.
What would have happened if these people waited for the police? In three cases the shooters were apprehended before the police arrived because of armed civilians. At Trolley Square the shooter was kept busy by Hammond until the police arrived. In all four cases the local police were the Johnny-come-latelys.
Shooting in Butte, Montana
[size=Two illegal aliens, Ralphel Resindez, 23, and Enrico Garza, 26, probably believed they would easily overpower home-alone 11 year old Patricia Harrington after her father had left their two-story home. ][/size][size=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. [/size][size=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. ][/size]
[size=Resindez was the first to get up to the second floor only to be the first to catch a near point blank blast of buckshot from the 11-year-old's knee crouch aim. He suffered fatal wounds to his abdomen and genitals. ][/size][size=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.][/size]
[size=It was found out later that Resindez was armed with a stolen 45 caliber handgun he took from another home invasion robbery. That victim, 50-year-old David Burien, was not so lucky. He died from stab wounds to the chest. ][/size]
[size=Ever wonder why good stuff never makes NBC, CBS, PBS, MSNBC, CNN, or ABC news........an 11 year old girl, properly trained, defended her home, and herself......against two murderous, illegal immigrants.......and she wins, she is still alive. ][/size]
[size=Now that is Gun Control !][/size]
Consider the horrific events at Virginia Tech. Again an armed man enters a "gun free zone". He kills two victims and walks away long before the police arrive. He spends two hours on campus, doing what is unknown. He then enters another building on campus and begins shooting. He never encounters a police officer during this. And all the students and faculty present had apparently complied with the "no gun" policy of the university. So no one stopped him. NO ONE STOPPED HIM! And when he finished his shooting spree 32 people were dead. It was the killer who ended the spree. He took his own life and when the police arrived all they dealt with were the dead.
[line] When will we learn that outlawing things does not prevent there use for illegal purposes, Only the law abiding citizens will follow such laws and ends up getting hurt by having rights restricted by such laws. The only sane laws should be increased consequences for those who use a "Thing", barstool, bat, hammer, club, toilet plunger, knife or gun as a weapon in the commission of a crime.. Period....
( Arich history of court decisions that found the police to have no constitutional obligation to protect individuals from private individuals.
In 1856, the U.S. Supreme Court (South v. Maryland) found that law enforcement officers had no affirmative duty to provide such protection.
In 1982 (Bowers v. DeVito), the Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit held, "...there is no Constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen." )
Anyway, I for one will protect myself, family, property and country by being ARMED, I refuse to put the responsibility for my safety on the Police alone. I know that they cannot be at my side to protect me, my family or my property and knowing by multiple court decisions, they have no mandate or responsibility to do so. I accept the responsibility of self protection and therefor retain my 2nd amendment rights to do so...
It is apparent that the more a population is disarmed and regulated, the more deaf and aloof the government becomes to the governed....
God Bless the USA and its forefathers who had the wisdom to set up a Government that is threatened enough by its Armed Population that it stays honest to the dictates of the governed. Knowing full well that a Government not threatened by its population WILL soon become Tyrannical and Suppressive!