Handgun Defense

following no quarters

2006-12-12T12:56:00.000-08:00

No Quarters has a little thing on his blog about things he's done, it looked interesting so here is mine, bolded activities are what I've done.

01. Bought everyone in the bar a drinkI was the bartender, what can I say
02. Swam with wild dolphins
.03. Climbed a mountain
04. Taken a Ferrari for a test drive
05. Been inside the Great Pyramid
06. Held a tarantula
07. Taken a candlelit bath with someone
08. Said "I love you" and meant it
09. Hugged a treeit was that or fall out of it
10. Bungee jumped
11. Visited Paris
12. Watched a lightning storm at sea
13. Stayed up all night long and saw the sun rise
14. Seen the Northern Lights
15. Gone to a huge sports gameDaytona 500, Feb of 1980
16. Walked the stairs to the top of the leaning Tower of Pisa
17. Grown and eaten your own vegetables
18. Touched an iceberg
19. Slept under the stars
20. Changed a baby's diaper
21. Taken a trip in a hot air balloon
22. Watched a meteor shower
23. Gotten drunk on champagnesomething i'd like to take back
24. Given more than you can afford to charity
25. Looked up at the night sky through a telescope
26. Had an uncontrollable giggling fit at the worst possible moment
27. Had a food fight
28. Bet on a winning horse
29. Asked out a stranger
30. Had a snowball fight
31. Screamed as loudly as you possibly can
32. Held a lamb
33. Seen a total eclipse
34. Ridden a roller coaster
35. Hit a home run
36. Danced like a fool and not cared who was looking
37. Adopted an accent for an entire day
38. Actually felt happy about your life, even for just a moment
39. Had two hard drives for your computer
40. Visited all 50 states
41. Taken care of someone who was drunk
42. Had amazing friends
43. Danced with a stranger in a foreign country
44. Watched wild whales
45. Stolen a sign
46. Backpacked in Europe
47. Taken a road-trip
48. Gone rock climbing
49. Midnight walk on the beach
50. Gone sky diving
51. Visited Ireland
52. Been heartbroken longer than you were actually in love
53. In a restaurant, sat at a stranger's table and had a meal with them
54. Visited Japan
55. Milked a cow
56. Alphabetized your CDs
57. Pretended to be a superhero
58. Sung karaoke
59. Lounged around in bed all day
60. Played touch football
61. Gone scuba diving
62. Kissed in the rain
63. Played in the mud
64. Played in the rain
65. Gone to a drive-in theater
66. Visited the Great Wall of China
67. Started a business
68. Fallen in love and not had your heart broken
69. Toured ancient sites
70. Taken a martial arts class
71. Played D&D for more than 6 hours straight
72. Gotten married
73. Been in a movie
74. Crashed a party
75. Gotten divorced
76. Gone without food for 5 days
77. Made cookies from scratch all the time
78. Won first prize in a costume contest
79. Ridden a gondola in Venice
80. Gotten a tattoo
81. Rafted the Snake River
82. Been on television news programs as an "expert"
83. Got flowers for no reason
84. Performed on stage
85. Been to Las Vegas
86. Recorded music
87. Eaten shark
88. Kissed on the first date
89. Gone to Thailand
90. Bought a house
91. Been in a combat zone
92. Buried one/both of your parents
93. Been on a cruise ship
94. Spoken more than one language fluently
95. Performed in Rocky Horror
96. Raised children
97. Followed your favorite band/singer on tour
99. Taken an exotic bicycle tour in a foreign country
100. Picked up and moved to another city to just start over
101. Walked the Golden Gate Bridge
102. Sang loudly in the car, and didn't stop when you knew someone was looking
103. Had plastic surgery
104. Survived an accident that you shouldn't have survived
105. Wrote articles for a large publication
106. Lost over 100 pounds
107. Held someone while they were having a flashback
108. Piloted an airplane
109. Touched a stingray
110. Broken someone's heart
111. Helped an animal give birth
112. Won money on a T.V. game show
113. Broken a bone
114. Gone on an African photo safari
115. Had a facial part pierced other than your ears
116. Fired a rifle, shotgun, or pistol
117. Eaten mushrooms that were gathered in the wild
118. Ridden a horse and fell off once
119. Had major surgery
120. Had a snake as a pet
121. Hiked to the bottom of the Grand Canyon
122. Slept for more than 30 hours over the course of 48 hours
123. Visited more foreign countries than U.S. states
124. Visited all 7 continents
125. Taken a canoe trip that lasted more than 2 days
126. Eaten kangaroo meat
127. Eaten sushi
128. Had your picture in the newspaper
129. Changed someone's mind about something you care deeply about
130. Gone back to school
131. Parasailed
132. Touched a cockroach
133. Eaten fried green tomatoes
134. Read The Iliad - and the Odyssey
135. Selected one "important" author who you missed in school, and read
136. Killed and prepared an animal for eating
137. Skipped all your school reunions
138. Communicated with someone without sharing a common spoken language
139. Been elected to public office
140. Written your own computer language
141. Thought to yourself that you're living your dream
142. Had to put someone you love into hospice care
143. Built your own PC from parts
144. Sold your own artwork to someone who didn't know you (photography)
145. Had a booth at a street fair
146. Dyed your hair
147. Been a DJ
148. Shaved your head regularly
149. Caused a car accident
150. Saved someone's life

Here is a 'only ones' for the 'only ones' carnival

2006-10-31T10:02:00.000-08:00

We're the 'only ones' that can have our guns stolen from our home.

FORT WORTH, Texas -- The Denton County sheriff found out first hand that no one is immune to crime.

Someone broke into the home of Sheriff Benny Parkey on Thursday.

Thieves stole guns and a computer from his home.

Shame on them, don't they know they are supposed to go to virginia and new hampshire, where lax gun laws allow them to get easy firearms access?

Texas Citizens Defense League

2006-09-28T05:11:00.000-07:00

I'd like to take this small opportunity to announce the latest in the gun rights movement, the Texas Citizens Defense League. This is a grassroots organization, based loosely on the Virginia Citizens Defense League, mobilizing to further liberalize the gun laws in the state of Texas by pushing for open carry. Visit the website, become a member, and join in the furtherance of our natural right to keep and bear arms.

http://www.txcdl.org/

some hope for justice

2006-09-22T19:55:00.000-07:00

Radley Balko, who runs a blog called the agitator, has followed very closely a case that happened in Mississippi in Dec. of 2001. The Cory Maye case hasn't been followed as closely as it should have been by mainstream media, and that could be for alot of different reasons, but none of that truly matters if anyone were to look closely at the case.
Cory Maye shot and killed Prentiss police officer Ron Jones during a drug raid....that was supposed to be performed on Mayes neighboring duplex occupant, Jamie Smith. You can follow a lot of the Cory Maye case on Radleys site at the following link....http://www.theagitator.com/archives/cat_cory_maye.php

I'm glad that Judge Eubanks could come to a decent decision and hopefully this will be the start of clearing Cory Mayes name and getting him back to his daughter.

Assinine comment of the week

2006-08-08T16:06:00.000-07:00

The New York Times printed an article on the 7th about their feelings on expanding the right to self defense. The assinine comment belongs to Paul A. Logli, president of the National District Attorneys Association.

“They’re basically giving citizens more rights to use deadly force than we give police officers, and with less review,”

Let's be real Paul. Officers use deadly force way more often and have so little review as to be nothing more than a write off by the powers that be. For proof of this, all you have to do is go to radley balko's web blog at theagitator.com.
Radley has written an article on the rising paramilitarization of police raids and how they result in needless violent deaths of suspect, officer, and, worst of all, innocent people. Read the article Here.

Radley has also put together a interactive map on almost 300 examples of botched police raids and their locations, circumstances, deaths/injuries, and aftermath of the raids. Go Here for that interactive map.

The bottom line is police officers, as a general rule, are held blameless when a suspect or innocent is shot during a raid, botched or not, making Mr. Loglis statement the assinine comment of the week.

Injustice in Arizona

2006-08-04T06:06:00.000-07:00

A grave injustice done to a man who legally defended himself now faces prison time for it.

Harold Fish, a retired Arizona high school teacher, was convicted on June 14 this year of Second Degree Murder in a convoluted case of self-defense and now faces a prison sentences of 10 to 20 years.

Fish was just completing a hike in the rugged and remote Mogollon Rim country of Eastern Arizona when several large and apparently vicious dogs approached him in an aggressive manner. Fish's response was to deploy his 10mm Kimber and fire a shot into the dirt between himself and the animals - a seemingly reasonable response to the threat posed.

Unfortunately, the dogs' owner, who was making his way toward the commotion, apparently thought Fish had actually shot one of the dogs and in a rage charged down the trail toward Fish screaming threats and obscenities.

Any reasonable person would react the same way in this situation. With an immediate threat to ones self, a reasonable person would shoot to stop the threat, which includes deadly and lethal force.

In a deadly altercation, that level of skill and training can mean the difference between walking away and being carried, but in this instance it could be that very training which has destroyed Harold Fish's life. Had Fish had less training he might have attempted to shoot his attacker in the leg or the shoulder like they do in the movies. Or he might have tried to use the gun as a club or dodged like a football player as the attacker charged down on him. Had he taken such action - contrary to his training - he might not be in this situation today - and he might very well be dead or crippled. Instead, Harold Fish did exactly what he had been trained to do; in that brief moment, gun in hand, vicious dogs in the area, with limited mobility on the steep trail, a heavy pack on his back, and a large enraged man screaming death threats charging down upon him, Harold Fish had few options; he faced his attacker, gave verbal warnings, and at the last possible moment, since the crazed man made no indication of second thought or hesitation as he charged directly toward the still smoking muzzle of Fish's Kimber, Fish obeyed his training and pulled the trigger.

What would standard police training require under the same scenario? One of these same dogs had previously threatened an officer to the point that the officer had drawn his gun; what would police training dictate if in the next moment Grant Kuenzli had violently charged at that officer? It would dictate that the officer do exactly what Harold Fish did; fire at the center-of-mass of the attacker to stop the attack.

The initial reports from the Sheriff's Office indicated that the shooting was clearly a matter of self-defense and that no charges would be filed, but news reports of an "unarmed man" being "gunned down," and a loud outcry from friends of Kuenzli started the wheels of injustice slowly turning. A charge of Second Degree Murder was presented to a Grand Jury and an indictment was handed down. A variety of possible scenarios, options, and alternatives were presented in court and the press with the bottom line being that Harold Fish didn't have to kill Grant Kuenzli. In the end, the jury agreed and Harold Fish was found guilty of Second Degree Murder and might well spend the rest of his life in prison because he obeyed his training.

Media bias and anti self defense 'experts' (read that as leftist groups like the brady campaign and handgun control groups) portrayed a simple case of self defense as cold blooded murder and may put a man behind bars for most of his life. This is the mentality we have to deal with squarely in order to perservere.

If Harold Fish is able to get a new trial, let's hope that his defense team (assisted by the NRA's Civil Rights Defense Fund) will call a number of expert witnesses and ask the simple question, "What would a police officer be expected to do in a situation like this?" and that the jury will respond accordingly.

We'll all hope and pray that Harold receives a new trial with an impartial jury this time, one that can understand what defending yourself is all about.

Thanks goes to Jeff Knox, of the Knox Report, and Wayne Smith, of ConcealCarry.org for bringing this to light.

democratic tyranny

2006-05-11T07:23:00.000-07:00

On May 17, 2001, AG John Ashcroft made a statement. That statement was that the Second Amendment was a right belonging to an individual and that is how the Department of Justice would now interpret it. Well, we all remember the uproar by anti-gun groups like the Brady Campaign and the Violence Policy Center, but one thing should stick out like a sore thumb or a wart on the nose. That one thing is that this was a major shift in supreme court precedent, historical precedence, and justice department policy that had gone back for over 65 years. It was actually 66 years, but I guess saying 'over 65 years' makes it sound better. Lets take a look at that date, 66 years ago from 2001.

It was 1934 and Franklin Delano Roosevelt has been president for 2 years. Along with FDR's 'new deal' administration, the government also passed the National Firearms Act of 1934. The National Firearm Act of 1934 was enacted as a reaction to the behaviors of gangsters of the era. It was passed as tax legislation to discourage ownership without an outright prohibition. Why no prohibition? Because it would be unconstitutional maybe?

It should also be pointed out that FDR was a New York State Senator when the Sullivan Act was passed. The Sullivan Act is a New York state law that requires a permit to carry or own any gun small enough to be concealed. Because the permit is issued by local law enforcement, it provides a great deal of local control on firearm availability. This act was later amended in 1931, when FDR was Governor, to require finger prints and photographs.

Also passed during FDR's presidency, and with democrat majorities in both houses, was the
Federal Firearms Act of 1938. FFA38 was based upon the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution. It was implemented in Title 15 of the US Code. Why did these two acts have to be passed under tax legislation and the commerce clause? Because the Second Amendment was still a constitutional right belonging to an individual!!!!

Now it should also be duly noted that these acts were passed with the intent to prevent crime and ensure that 'criminals' weren't able to obtain firearms. Sound like a familiar argument? It should since we hear it on a daily basis from the many anti-gun groups and most democrat politicians, as well as a few republicans. These were also considered 'common sense' gun laws.

The next major piece of 'Gun Control' legislation was The Gun Control Act of 1968. The GCA of 1968 was passed as a delayed reaction to the assassination of President Kennedy. Also known as the "Omnibus Crime Bill and Safe Streets Act of 1968", it repealed FFA38 but reenacted provisions thereof. In the process, gun law was moved from Title 15 to Title 18 of the US Code. Title 15 is 'commerce and trade', which is where the FFA resided for 30 years. As 'OriginalIntent.org tells it - 'Despite the law operating just fine for 30 years, someone deemed it no longer proper to have the law contained within Title 15. Want to guess why? That's right - the government's jurisdictional limits were far too easy to ascertain when the law was within the "Commerce and Trade" title. If it wasn't moving in interstate or foreign commerce, then the US didn't have jurisdiction over it! However, by moving the Act to Title 18, and thus disconnecting the Act from the Title of "Commerce and Trade", there are few clues left to the law's original intent and its Constitutional limitations.'
For a more thorough explanation of how the government was able to pull this off, visit Original Intent, Chapter 44.

All of the gun control legislation, so far, has been done by Democrat Presidents with Democrat Majorities in the legislature and as we will see, it only gets worse as time goes on. During these last few decades numerous court cases traveled through the judiciary process, alot of them with second amendment violations as the crux of the argument. This is where the 'collective right' theory of the second amendment being a 'right of states to form and maintain militias' and not an individual right started, in the courts. Remember, that since the 'new deal' of FDRs administration and a majority of democrats in congress, it was easy for democrats to fill judicial slots with judges aligned with democrat party ideology, such as gun control. It should be easy to see why we have so many decisions by circuit and appellate courts that have effectively conditioned a large portion of the population to believe such drivel.

In 1982, the US Senate put forth a report on the Second Amendment, which concluded that the Second Amendment is the right of an individual to keep and bear arms. This was done after an extensive study of historical documentation and analysis. Were any of these Gun Laws repealed or ruled unconstitutional? That answer would be no, but in 1986 there were some changes made.

FOPA, or the Firearm Owners Protection Act, also known as the McClure-Volkmer Act, significantly amended GCA68, providing gun owners some positives and some negatives. This removed several minor restrictions, mainly mail ordering long guns and discontinued record keeping for ammunition purchases, but it had some serious negative effects as well.

The Hughes Amendment

The restrictions on full-auto firearms are a result of the Hughes Amendment (99th Congress, H.AMDT.777). The amendment prohibited the general public from possessing fully-auto firearms manufactured after May 19, 1986. Rep. William Hughes (D-N.J.) proposed the amendment late in debate and at night when most of the members of the House were gone. Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), a long proponent of gun control, was presiding over the House at that time and a voice vote was taken. Despite the fact that the bill appeared to fail, Rep. Rangel declared the amendment approved and it was incorporated into House Bill 4332. Once passing the House, H.R.4332 was incorporated in its entirety into S.49. The Senate passed the final S.49 on April 10, 1986 by voice vote and it was signed by the President on May 19, 1986.

So, using questionable tactics, a handful of Democrats, AGAIN, undercut and infringed upon an individual right to keep and bear arms.

In 1994, the Assault Weapons Ban was signed in to law by President William Jefferson Clinton, a democrat. The AWB can be read about Here. Amazingly, after a 10 year sunset provision expired, we no longer have this as federal law, although several states have implemented their own.

So now that we understand fully why the brady bunch and VPC are upset about AG ashcrofts remarks, I have to wonder what the 'precedent was for the years PRIOR to 1934. But i'll save that for tomorrow.

The War on Guns: State Secrets

2006-05-10T12:18:00.000-07:00

The War on Guns: State Secrets

David points out some serious hypocrisy from the anti gun Saint Petersburg times.

Yet the Legislature overreacted to a single incident and passed legislation

overreacted? to one incident? how dare they? nobody, especially a legislature, should EVER overreact to just one incident.

Isn't that right Sarah Brady?

The rights that don't exist

2006-05-10T07:23:00.000-07:00

Alphecca has a blog entry about gun control being a right. Well, actually it's about a commentator for the Salt Lake Tribune spinning this right in to existence.

Saul Cornell, a writer for the History News Service, is a professor of history at Ohio State University and author of "A Well Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America."

Now, i've never read his book nor have I read any of the History News Service, to my recollection, but in reading his commentary, it leads me to believe that he studied history at Justice Stephen Reinhardt University. For those of you unfamiliar with that name, that is the justice of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals who has rewritten most of the US constitution and Bill of Rights with his political ideology based decisions instead of being based on the supreme law of the land.

In Mr. Cornells commentary he states,

They also staked out another right that has not been much talked about recently in this debate: a right to be free from the fear of gun violence.

and

The right to be free from the threat of gun violence deserves as much respect as the right to bear arms.

So, being a history professor, Mr. Cornell should be able to provide some sort of evidence that there actually exists a right 'to be free from the fear of gun violence' or a right 'to be free from the THREAT of gun violence' but he decides not to put forth this evidence. Since he did not, I took it upon myself to look for this right through all the history documents that I could find and was unsuccessful, however, I did find this little peach of an entry,

"There is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties; it tells the state to let the people alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order."

This comes from a 1982 7th circuit case 'Bowers v. Devito' which explicitly states that you have no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. Now, you DO have a right not to be murdered, but since there is a law prohibiting murder AND you are 'supposed' to have a right to defend your life, this is taken care of. It makes YOU responsible for protecting your right to life. One can only assume that if there is no right to be free from being murdered, then there is absolutely no right to be free from gun violence, or the threat thereof, only to use your own means to protect yourself from it, hence the right to keep and bear arms.

Remembering the lessons of history

2006-04-28T13:44:00.000-07:00

April 29th, 1992, a day that started out like most other days in America. The one exception to this day would start in Los Angeles where a highly publicized trial was about to receive a verdict, and a whole nation watched with anticipation. That anticipation soon turned to disbelief and then horror as the city ignited in to rioting, looting, arson, and murder.

A man named Reginald Denny was violently yanked from his vehicle then severely beaten on the street by an angry mob of youths while news helicopters hovered overhead. I watched this entire vicious assault on an innocent man, live on television. I watched as these young thugs dropped a heavy cinderblock on Mr. Dennys head as he lay on the street unable to defend himself anymore. I remember thinking, hoping, and praying that the police would get there quickly and save this guys life. I’m sure that millions across the nation were hoping and praying for the same thing, that the police would rush to the rescue and save this man, who had done nothing, and get him to a hospital before he was killed.

Reginald Denny was finally rescued from several neighbors who, having seen this brutal attempted murder on the news, ran out in to the street, risking their own lives, to save the life of a stranger. We all had to be wondering ‘where were the police?’ The police, who are supposed to protect us not only hadn’t shown up, but they had been ordered out of the area, for their own safety.

Realizing that the police weren’t coming, the citizens of Los Angeles attempted to provide for their own protection by buying a gun. Imagine the shock and dismay when they were told that there was a 15 day waiting period. Now imagine the horror they felt when they realized that they would not be able to defend themselves adequately against a huge and violent mob of thousands. I’m told that an overwhelming amount of gun control advocates living in Los Angeles changed their minds that day. They no longer believed the lie they had been told, that the police are there to protect them.

50 to 60 people were killed during that week of lawlessness and violence, several small business’ and shops were burned to the ground, yet some shops survived, mostly intact, because those shopkeepers banded together with their own personal firearms and defended themselves and their property. They were forced to provide for their own defense because the police were more concerned about their own safety than that of the citizens who paid their salaries.

What kind of elected official tells his constituents that we don’t need guns to protect ourselves, that’s what the police are for, and then when things get too dangerous for the police, we are left to fend on our own? That kind of an elected official is one that does NOT have his constituents best interests at heart but is solely intent upon exercising his/her power to disarm the people in the city, to turn them in to victims.

The L.A. riots should stand out and remind every single one of us that we alone will end up being responsible for our own lives. The police cannot and should not be relied upon to ‘protect’ you. The United States Supreme Court has even ruled that the police are not liable, nor responsible to protect an individual, but only the public at large. It should remind us all that that is why we have the right to keep and bear arms and that we should no longer stand for anyone, especially our elected officials, to continue to legislate these rights away from us.

Stand up for your safety and protection. Stand up for your second amendment rights.

Mayor Bloomberg, stop shifting your responsibilities on us

2006-04-27T08:27:00.000-07:00

At the end of the mayors gun violence summit, Mayor Bloomberg had this to say,

" And those who vote against getting guns off the street really are the ones as much responsible as the shooter, because if the shooter didn't have a gun, that child would still be alive."

Mayor Bloomberg, every single mayor, governor, and state legislator are just as much responsible for every single violent crime that occurs in their city, state, and/or district for violating the second amendment of the constitution and illegally disarming your constituent victims. How many of THOSE innocent victims, now dead at the hands of a murdering thug, would be alive today had YOU not made it impossible for them to defend their own lives?

Mayors Bloomberg, Daley, and Menino, How many deaths are you responsible for in your city because you don't allow guns in the hands of law abiding people to protect themselves? How many rapes are you complicit in because the victims were not allowed to own or carry a gun because of your gun control laws? How many of those crimes were committed by people who weren't following your laws and had a gun anyway?

Your victim disarmament policy is the height of irresponsibility by keeping your city and its citizens vulnerable to every criminally minded person, people who don't follow your anti gun laws to begin with.

You are just as much responsible for every violent crime committed in your city because you refuse to let your constituents defend themselves with a gun.

The 2nd amendment is an individual right

2006-04-20T09:31:00.000-07:00

The anti 2nd amendment crowd uses a popular argument that the 'militia' referred to in the 2nd amendment is actually the national guard and not an individual right that exists for all american citizens, that the national guard handles security and protection of freedom for those in that particular state. If this were really the case and people had nothing to fear from their state 'militia, or national guard, then what happened on this 20th day of April in 1914 should give them all pause.

The Ludlow massacre was the death of about 20 people (mostly children) during an attack by the Colorado National Guard on a tent colony of 1,200 striking coal miners and their families, including women and children, at Ludlow, Colorado on April 20, 1914. This attack was the culmination of a day-long fight between strikers and the militia (national guard) in which 17 strikers or their family members, three Guardsmen and one bystander were killed.

The fighting raged for the entire day. The militia was reinforced by non-uniformed mine guards later in the afternoon. At dusk, a passing freight train stopped on the tracks in front of the Guards' machine gun placements, allowing many of the miners and their families to escape to an outcrop of hills to the east called the "Black Hills." By 7:00 pm, the camp was in flames, and the militia descended on it and began to search and loot the camp. Louis Tikas, the Ludlow camp's main organizer, had remained in the camp the entire day and was still there when the fire started. Tikas and two other men were captured by the militia. Tikas and Lt. Karl Linderfelt, commander of one of two Guard companies had confronted each other several times in the previous months. While 2 militiamen held Tikas, Linderfelt broke a rifle butt over his head. Tikas and the other two captured miners were later found shot dead. Their bodies lay along the Colorado and Southern tracks for three days in full view of passing trains. The militia officers refused to allow them to be moved until a local of a railway union demanded the bodies be taken away for burial.

During the battle, four women and eleven children had been hiding in a pit beneath one tent where they were trapped when the tent above them caught fire. Two of the women and all of the children suffocated. These deaths became a rallying cry for the UMWA, who called the incident the "Ludlow Massacre."

In addition to the fire victims, Louis Tikas and the other men shot dead, there were another half dozen strikers, three company guards, and one militiaman killed in that day's fighting.

When they got news of what happened at Ludlow, the other camps broke out into rioting. For the next seven days they destroyed mine property and attacked the towns and guards with killing on both sides. This conflict, called the Colorado Coalfield War, was the most violent labor conflict in US history, with the death toll ranging from 69, in the Colorado government report, to 199 in the investigation ordered by John D. Rockefeller Jr. Governor Ammons sent a plea to President Wilson, who dispatched federal troops to restore order. They disarmed both sides (displacing, and often arresting, the militia in the process) and reported directly to Washington.

The UMWA finally ran out of money, and called off the strike on December 10, 1914.

In the end, the strikers failed to obtain their demands, the union did not obtain recognition, and many striking workers were replaced by new workers. Over 400 strikers were arrested, 332 of whom were indicted for murder. Only one man, John Lawson, leader of the strike, was convicted for murder, and that verdict was eventually overturned by the Colorado Supreme Court. Twenty-two National Guardsmen, including 10 officers, were court-martialed. Only Lt. Linderfelt was found guilty of assault for his attack on Louis Tikas, but was given only a light reprimand.

The founding fathers had reasons why they specifically mentioned that the right to bear arms belongs to all freemen and that this right is NOT to be infringed upon. The Ludlow Massacre is a prime example of why the 2nd amendment must remain uninhibited and fiercely protected by all individual americans.

Gov Blago and 'common sense', say what?

2006-04-04T03:45:00.000-07:00

There is an article in a rag called 'finalcall', written by Richard Muhammad where he continues to blather on about banning assault weapons while dancing in the blood of two dead little girls out of Englewood Illinois.

As a second mother prepared to bury a daughter hit by a stray bullet in the Englewood neighborhood, the mayor and governor repeated demands that assault weapons should be banned in the state.

Yeah, I forgot to add Blago's puppet master, Mayor Daley. He's the main one pulling the strings on this, but we already knew that. Last month, the mayor demanded that the 1.5 million down state illinoisans appear before him and explain to him why their weapons should not be banned. Well, some members of the Illinois coalition of responsible gun owners took mayor daley up on his demand, only to be turned away so apparently the mayor wasn't all that serious.

“It is difficult to explain, explicable to understand, how two young children going about their lives—one at a birthday party, the other about to go to school—in their homes, safe presumably, and then both be victims of gun violence,” said Governor Rod Blagojevich

Here is your first clue Governor, you are doing a lousy job of fighting crime and criminals. You've still got the inane notion that simply banning a tool will wipe out crime. Take a lesson from D.C. and your own chicago. Banning guns isn't working and neither is blaming 'lax' gun laws in Indiana.

It will be an uphill battle to pass a “common sense” law that would make assault weapons illegal, the governor complained. “These are weapons of mass destruction,” said Gov. Blagojevichwho blasted lawmakers that would “rather do the bidding of the gun lobby than protect neighborhoods like Englewood. No law-abiding citizen needs a semi-automatic assault weapon.”

Not only does it appear that Mayor Daley is delusional, but so is the governor. Making assault weapons (read that as 'scary looking') illegal is not going to stop crime in chicago nor does it even remotely sound like 'common sense'. An assault weapon is not a WMD, just ask President Bush. You say no law-abiding citizen needs a semi-automatic assault weapon but perhaps you've forgotten the Los Angelas riots and pictures of shop owners on top of their stores, defending their property from rioters and looters with assault weapons?

“There is no excuse, no excuse, for anyone to sell dope to any child in any community. There is no excuse for anyone to take a gun and point it at a child or at a home in any community,” said Mayor Richard Daley

I hate giving this guy any credit, but at least he got part of that right. There is no excuse, so long as that child isn't pointing a gun at you in the first place, which happens far too often in chicago. So what 'common sense' are you going to use to stop that one Mayor?

My guess is 'not much'. The Mayor and Governor are less interested in fighting the actual criminals than they are in making the people of Illinois defenseless little subjects. Time to make a change Illinois people, get rid of Mayor Daley and Governor Blagojevich....send them packing this election.

Nicole at the SeattleTimes, taking aim at gun laws.

2006-03-28T09:01:00.000-08:00

It was inevitable, the blame game for the tragedy in Seattle that is. So far at least people aren't holding Kyle Huff blameless for his actions, but the anti-gunners are still hammering away at the guns being the bigger blame for all these deaths.

What killed those people was a 28-year-old man named Kyle Huff, who took advantage of American gun laws and packed his pickup with an arsenal of weapons that no person should ever want or need: An assault rifle. A handgun. A shotgun. A machete. Hundreds of rounds of ammunition.

What Nicole needs to explain is how does one take advantage of restrictive gun laws?

But what confounds me is why anyone should have such weapons, and so many.

Nicole is either an obvious victim of the shoddy education system in this country or she is part of that system of 'de-americanization'. The process of dumbing down americans in to thinking that gun rights never existed in the first place.
Let me spell it out for you Nicole. S-E-C-O-N-D A-M-E-N-D-M-E-N-T

On Saturday, Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske walked through that house before the bodies were removed. Afterward, he called Huff's shotgun "not for hunting purposes, but for hunting people."

The chief is obviously a product of that education system I was referring to earlier. Guns were never classified as either hunting weapons or killing weapons. They just were weapons. Tools to preserve liberty and freedom. The birthright of every American.

Kerlikowske said Monday. "Reasonable, common-sense gun laws are going to be an issue for a while.

Watch that 'common-sense' term become as widely used as 'judicial activism' was the last few years. What I want to know is whats 'common-sense' about leaving millions of american citizens defenseless? There is no such thing as 'common-sense' gun laws that leave people at the mercy of homicidal maniacs.

John Rosenthal has a plan. Last year, the Boston real-estate manager founded the American Hunters & Shooters Association (www.huntersandshooters.org), a nonprofit seeking "common sense gun-safety measures."

Rosenthal wants to represent the millions of American gun owners who act responsibly and expect the government to do the same, like restricting access to military-style weapons, and requiring training and permits, and tightening rules for gun-show sales.

John Rosenthal does not represent millions of american gun owners who act responsibly and expect the government to do the same. Rosenthal is a tool of the gun control lobby whose sole purpose is to abolish the second amendment.

Rosenthal said. "National gun policy has been to allow unrestricted access to all firearms, including assault weapons, which had been banned until last September."

Rosenthal seems to be purposefully ignoring the numerous gun control acts that the government has legislated, like the NFA of 1934, the FFA of 1938, or the GCA of 1968.
All of which, by supreme law of the land, are unconstitutional to begin with. But don't let real facts get in the way of Rosenthals false rhetoric, shall we?

Why would someone want to buy an assault rifle?

Pay attention Nicole, I'm sure this was bypassed in your education, but civilian owned weapons (that includes assault weapons) are necessary to preserve freedom and liberty. Unless thats something you'd like to go ahead and do away with?

Chicago Tribune editorial bloviating a pack of lies

2006-03-27T07:44:00.000-08:00

Knowing that the chicago trib is a complete liberal rag, I normally would pass over anything that comes out of it but this particular editorial sounds like a campaign agenda so I had to rip it apart.

It is not yet clear what weapon is to blame in the death of 10-year-old Siretha; investigators believe it may have been a pistol equipped with a large ammunition magazine.

Lets make sure everyone gets the 'large ammunition magazine' part. Isn't that in the list of things to ban for blagojevich?

These killings underscore the need to restrict assault weapons--and why such efforts are immensely frustrating. If Illinois were to impose a ban on the sale of such weapons, it wouldn't be hard to get around it. The gang member charged with killing Starkesia Reed bought an AK-47 in Indiana, which doesn't require a firearm owner's card. It's the same kind of weapon used in her murder, though that Indiana purchase has not yet been linked to the crime.

Well, the handgun ban has been a huge success for chicago so it only makes sense to ban assault weapons too, since hundreds every year are killed by them. At least they got one part right though, that it wouldn't be hard to get around a ban. It's just a lead in though for trying to sponsor another state to use firearm owners cards, which is completely irrelevant since they can be forged just as easy as state ID cards can be. It also turns out that the weapon that was purchased in Indiana hasn't officially been linked to any crime.

The use of semiautomatic weapons in crimes declined while there was a federal ban, but Congress made the callous decision to let that ban expire. So the effort to restrict these weapons has to proceed elsewhere.

So the 2003 murder capital of the world got its award by all those people dying of revolvers and knives? And lets hound congress some more about letting a bad law expire. It's like banging your head against a wall.

GunGuys.com blames NRA for lax law enforcement in california

2006-03-23T14:07:00.000-08:00

Mike Magnum, owner of GunGuys.com, put up an article today about the orange county register starting a series of articles concerning people who have had restraining orders filed against them but have still been able to retain their firearms. Now, it is california state law that domestic abusers, or anyone having a restraining order imposed upon them, are supposed to have all of their firearms confiscated but for some reason its not happening. Why? well, the article pretty much sums it up with this:

There are about 260,000 active restraining orders in California, according to the Department of Justice. But an Orange County Register investigation found that none of the state’s 58 counties has a mechanism for ensuring that weapons are surrendered within 24 hours, as required by law.

In addition, about 4,700 restraining orders listed in a statewide database last month did not include the mandatory firearms restriction.

So why is this happening?

Here, no one routinely confiscates the defendant's weapons, or checks the restrained person's name against the state database of registered gun owners. No one is charged with verifying that the weapons are surrendered as ordered.

Court and law-enforcement officials trace the inaction to a gap in the law, which doesn't designate which agency is responsible for enforcing the statute.

"I don't think the law specifies at all who's responsible," Riverside County Presiding Judge Sharon Waters said. "We view that as law enforcement's responsibility, but I don't know if they view that as their responsibility."

Judges say they cannot order blanket search warrants for all restrained persons without reasonable cause.

Law-enforcement officials say they can only confiscate weapons with a judge's directive, or if the restrained person has violated the restraining order.

So instead of patching a badly written law we have the many different branches of the justice department pointing fingers of blame.

Last year, Orange County made one of the few attempts to set up a mechanism for confiscating weapons with a pilot program run by the state Department of Justice and the county’s Domestic Violence Court.

Under the program, defendants arraigned in criminal domestic-violence cases and subject to mandatory gun prohibitions were given 24 hours to report to the local Department of Justice and make arrangements to surrender weapons.

At least Orange County made an attempt, but what happened?

But that program was suspended due to lack of funding.

So lets see if we understand this. People are dying because a badly written law isn't being fixed, nobody wants to take responsibility for its failure or for fixing it and nobody wants to spend any money to keep it going. that about right?

Nowhere in this entire article do I see the NRA mentioned. Not one single time. So whats Mike Magnum write?

Why did the program fail? Because the people who funded it succumbed yet again to the NRA’s rhetoric.

This is the problem in America– that the NRA has developed an entire culture that is confused about guns and the danger they represent. Even when the laws are in place, the NRA has given America a blind spot about gun violence. And it’s costing us American lives. The sooner we clear away the cloud the NRA has built up around guns, the sooner we’ll see clearly that they represent the gravest of threats.

Now, I've come across some beautiful spin in the last few years I've been interested in politics and gun rights, but this one is a doozy. To quote an article that doesn't even mention the NRA but certainly details the failures of the states justice department and to blame that entire failure on the NRA is just incredible.

Another fine example of how Mike Magnum resorts to misinformation, deception, inuendo, and outright lies to promote his anti gun agenda.

Kansas lawmakers override governers veto

2006-03-23T09:52:00.000-08:00

Congratulations to all kansans who will all have the ability to carry concealed weapons for their self defense. This law takes effect on Jan 1, 2007

gunguys can't stop the misinformation it seems

2006-03-22T17:36:00.000-08:00

This individual seems to be able to just spew lies out there like it was the absolute truth.
In reference to a story he posted earlier today, about ending gun crime in boston, the article talks about how the strictness of Mass. gun laws (like requiring background checks at gunshows for all sales) are a great step at reducing the number of guns on the street, but states like NH and Maine have very lax gun show laws that do not require background checks for gun sales are the major contributor to gun violence in Boston.

Massachusetts has strong gun laws, and requires background checks at gun shows, but because the other states don’t implement that, getting a gun is as easy as driving across the border.

Notice that he doesn't try to explain the actual circumstances regarding the background checks, like NH and Maine don't require STATE police to do a background check like Mass. does, but they ALL have to do a federal background check. Wait, they must be referring to the fact that they don't do background checks from private sales (which couldn't sell bulk because that would be commercial) I'm guessing that having the STATE police do a check is what got Mass. an A- by the brady campaign and should be all the explanation anyone needs as to why NH and Maine have a much lower crime rate than Mass.

Can 'GunGuys.com' explain why, if the gun laws are so lax in NH and Maine, why the gun violent criminals don't choose to stay in those states instead of going back to Mass.? I suppose it wouldn't have anything to do with lots of law abiding people being armed themselves, would it? I'm sure it couldn't be because these bad guys are afraid of getting shot by armed law abiding citizens, unlike the target rich environment in Mass. (read that as unarmed citizens)

Sebelius Vetoes Concealed Guns Bill

2006-03-21T16:40:00.000-08:00

Citing opposition from law enforcement and business leaders, Gov. Kathleen Sebelius as expected vetoed a bill Tuesday that would have allowed qualified Kansans to carry concealed guns.

Well, I guess that Gov. Sebelius has forgotten who it is she serves in Kansas, since she's vetoed on law enforcement and business leaders opposition.

"While every law-abiding Kansan has a right to keep and bear arms, hidden weapons make it harder for law enforcement to do it job, and they make Kansas' workplaces less safe," Sebelius said in her veto message.

Law enforcement has to deal with the possibility of criminals having concealed weapons everyday. Criminals who aren't following the law anyway. So, basically the governor is telling the people of kansas that they are just as bad as the criminals and can't be trusted to carry concealed weapons. Lets hope the people of kansas remember this come election day.

Gunguys.com spewing lies again

2006-03-21T15:16:00.000-08:00

GunGuys.com is again throwing out to the world that guns are the sole cause of violence. He's got an article with the reverend Lennox S. Yearwood preaching about how gang prevalence and poverty were factors in the violence terrorizing our country, but the real blame falls on the shoulders of one indutry: the one that manufactures and sells weapons of death.

While gang prevalence and poverty are undeniable factors in the rate of gun violence nationwide, gun manufacturers shoulder the bulk of responsibility,

Isn't it amazing how the gun industry is largely responsible for violence on the streets today, unlike what it was years ago when there was still gang violence and poverty without all the guns.

“I’ve been all over this nation, and I have yet to come across a (neighborhood) that has a gun factory in it. I hold the gun manufacturers accountable,” Yearwood said. “It’s time for a reconstruction of gun laws here in America.”

I guess this moron forgot that Smith & Wesson has a base in springfield. I'm also sure that by 'reconstruction', he means abolish all weapons.
Of course, 'Mike Magnum' has to continue to throw out more BS by saying -

While violence claims thousands of American lives every year, gun manufacturers just keep churning out the bullets and firearms that make it possible. So much so that they practically encourage a black market– they churn out more weapons than a legal market can handle.

I'm sure that all that violence would just dry up and blow away if all guns were removed. Wonder what utopia he's living in because it sure isn't the real world.

We’re past due in passing legislation that will get a handle on the gun industry and their products. Americans are dying in the streets every day, and it’s time to make the gun industry answer for that.

I guess it would be too much to ask to make the criminals pay for their violence instead of blaming it on the tool they use to commit it, huh?

It's idiots like this that continue to persuade the ignorant about the causes of, and the cures of, violence on the street.

Patriot Act Abuse?

2006-03-21T08:04:00.000-08:00

Nicki, over at the liberty zone, has a startling article about how the american government is using the Patriot Act for things OTHER than terrorism.

Letters, 3/16: Torn on concealed carry

2006-03-20T03:20:00.000-08:00

Interesting opinion letter in Nebraskas 'JournalStar last week.

I generally lean toward liberal positions, especially as regards social issues. But in the ongoing debate over Nebraska’s proposed concealed carry law, I find myself torn, perhaps because I’m dealing with it from a painful perspective that forces me to reconsider my own liberal outlook.

My 24-year-old daughter, Rachel, was murdered on May 28 of last year. The man who climbed in through a bedroom window and killed her and two other young people (and seriously wounded a fourth) had a criminal record; he should not have had — and indeed was technically not allowed to have — a weapon. But he did have one, and he used it to take from me the thing I loved most in the world.

If any of the victims had been carrying a weapon, the outcome of that tragic confrontation would almost certainly have been better; it could hardly have been any worse. Perhaps my daughter would still be alive. At least she would have had a chance. But she had no chance; no one there was armed except for the killer, who shot each victim (one of them three times) and then simply walked away.

Frankly, I do not really wish to carry (or even own) a weapon, and I would have no problem living in a society in which I was not allowed to own one. Just as long as the government could guarantee that no one else will own one, either.

Rod Scher, Lincoln

My heartfelt condolences to Mr. Scher for his loss. Sadly, it almost always takes events like these to show someone who is against guns and gun ownership that guns are a necessity in this world. His last sentence should be bolded, italicized, underlined, and put on every street corner. The government will never be able to guarantee that no one else would ever be able to own a gun. Not only would it be a grievious violation of the second amendment of the US Constitution, but it's not even remotely feasible if we still consider america to be free. The government is not responsible for your safety from the criminal element, only you are.

Concealed-carry backers insist on secrecy terms

2006-03-20T03:11:00.000-08:00

Madison - If a concealed-weapons bill makes its way into law in Wisconsin, people likely won't be able to find out if their neighbors, co-workers or ex-spouses are packing guns.

The two most recent versions of the bill that have made it through the Legislature had secrecy provisions. Both those bills cleared the Republican-led Legislature, but were vetoed by Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle. Lawmakers have pledged to push a new version forward after the November elections - with the secrecy measure intact.

"When you're talking about something that has the potential to kill another human being, that absolutely should be public," said Rep. Jon Richards (D-Milwaukee), an opponent of the bill.

"If we're going to have concealed weapons as a society, I think we should be able to track who has them."

News flash to Rep. Jon Richards....criminals already carry concealed weapons but you don't make those names available to the public. When you can do that, maybe we could consider having law abiding people who carry concealed available to the public, however, when newspapers freely publish the names of people who followed the law in obtaining a concealed weapons permit, they end up being targets like Bill Singleton in Ohio.

Less than a week after the Cleveland Plain Dealer published Bill Singleton's name among a list of people who have chosen to obtain a license to bear arms for self-defense, Mr. Singleton is dead.

When three robbers came to Singleton's business Tuesday morning - they allegedly shot before Singleton had time to react to their demands.

In an exchange of gunfire, Singleton and a 17-year-old assailant were shot in the parking lot outside the United Check Cashing store on Lake Shore Boulevard near East 156th Street. Both later died at Huron Hospital.

A publishing that they appear to have deleted from their archives now that Mr. Singleton is dead. Thank you, Cleveland Plain Dealer for assisting the criminal element.

Daley, Blagojevich on the anti-gun crusade

2006-03-20T03:03:00.000-08:00

Mayor Richard Daley and Gov. Rod Blagojevich led an anti-violence march Saturday in Englewood, calling on legislators to ban assault-style weapons in Illinois.

So Daley and the Gov are still dancing in the blood of young kids to promote a policy which has done nothing to lower the crime rate in chicago for 8 years....

One of two children killed this month in the South Side neighborhood was struck in the head by bullet from an AK-47-style rifle converted to fully automatic use.

I would note that by federal law, converting a weapon to be fully automatic is illegal, so it appears that the shooters weren't following the law anyway. How is banning yet another type of weapon going to make them take notice this time?

"It is a very sad comment that we bury another child today," Daley said, about two hours before 10-year-old Siretha White was buried in Mount Hope Cemetery.

Blagojevich said he would again speak to lawmakers who voted against a bill that would ban ownership of assault-style weapons in Illinois.

"These are the weapons of mass destruction and all you have to do is come to Englewood to understand that," Blagojevich said.

Now, having been a US Marine for 6 years, I know that Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical weapons are considered Weapons of Mass Destruction but automatic or semi-automatic firearms are most certainly not unless the laws of reality are different in Illinois.

Illinois is in trouble and the people of chicago had better wake up and see that Daley and Blagojevich are not serving the peoples interests by leaving them defenseless to people who have no intention of following the law, but rather serving their own selfish interests of a no-gun policy which is taking its toll on the people.

Laying the blame on others

2006-03-20T02:40:00.000-08:00

Members of the Million Mom March and CeasefireNJ will hold a rally in Trenton on Saturday, the third anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. The antigun advocates' mission: to point out that while New Jersey has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation, shooting deaths in its major cities surged last year.

No mention of whether the people who are dead were unarmed victims or other gangbangers on the street doing shootouts. My guess is that it would be a mix of both, not that it would matter to the million moms and ceasefire, because 'self-defense' obviously isn't in their dictionary.

Activists say many of the weapons come here from out of state, including from across the Delaware River in Pennsylvania. The rally will end with a march across the "Trenton Makes, The World Takes" bridge to Morrisville, Pa.
"We think that it's entirely appropriate that this rally and march will be across a bridge between Pennsylvania and New Jersey, because it's across such bridges that guns come into our state that devastate our communities," said Bryan Miller, director of CeasefireNJ. "It's an easy trip across the river."

So making it harder to buy a handgun in Pennsylvania has forced criminals, who aren't obeying the gun laws anyway, to go out of state to get their instruments of violence. Thats what happens when you ignore the root causes of violence and instead try to cut off access to the tools that they use. All you've done is make it easier for the criminals to victimize the law abiding citizen.

A related bill by Assemblyman Richard Merkt, R-Randolph, cites ATF figures from 1992 to 1998 indicating that 80 percent of guns confiscated in crimes in the Garden State had been smuggled in from other states.

Prosecutors in Camden County said of the 252 guns used in crimes there in 2003-2004 that could be traced to their original point of sale, 36 percent came from Pennsylvania. About 14 percent came from the Garden State, with the balance coming from the Carolinas, Florida, Virginia and Georgia.

"The federal government has abdicated its responsibility in guns coming up through the border," Gusciora said Thursday. "New Jersey should at least track to find out which states these guns are coming from."

so now we're going to add the federal government to your list of bodies for New Jersey's failure to stop gun crime? I'm not one to usually go for the liberal/conservative aspect of stories, but this one certainly looks like it's straight out of the liberal handbook of blame laying.

Andrew Arulanandam, a spokesman with the National Rifle Association, said while he hasn't seen Gusciora's legislation, efforts to focus on legal gun purchases are misplaced.

"A vast majority of firearms used in crime are obtained in the black market," Arulanandam said. "The key is to strictly prosecute anyone who breaks the law, especially firearms law. If there's anyone involved in illegal gun trade, prosecute them."

While not a huge fan of the NRA myself, at least this guy has it right. Too bad the anti-gun folks don't want to hear something like that. I guess that makes too much sense for them to comprehend.

But Attorney General Zulima Farber's office says tracing gun origins is an important public policy effort. To that end, in an interview earlier this week Farber said state police have begun an initiative in Irvington and Camden to intensify investigations at crime scenes where a gun has been used.

Tracing gun origins is only an important policy effort if you are still trying to find ways to be able to sue the manufacturer and dealer for your incompetence at stopping the criminal. This is what governments at all levels do when they can't get unethical legislation passed, they try to regulate and legislate a business out of the market.

3rd Dennys restaraunt shooting in 3 days

2006-03-17T07:40:00.000-08:00

Man Shot Dead at Calif. Denny's Restaurant

A gunman opened fire early Friday at a Denny's restaurant, killing one man and seriously wounding another, police said. It was the third fatal shooting at the restaurant chain in Southern California this week.

The 2:45 a.m. shooting happened after a fight between two large groups inside the restaurant, said Sgt. Rick Martinez of the Anaheim Police Department.

One victim re-entered the restaurant after being shot and died inside, Martinez said. The other victim was taken to a hospital and was expected to survive.

The gunman was being sought by authorities. The shooting did not appear to be gang-related, Martinez said.

So, my question to the gun grabber groups (mainly the brady bunch) is that since this obviously shows denny restaraunts to be dangerous (aside from the food that is) are they going to start handing out grades or hounding legislators to ban denny restaraunts?

How GunGuys.com lies to you

2006-03-17T04:43:00.000-08:00

This particular individual apparently has no problem spinning fraudulent tales to support his anti spin.

In the shooting of a young girl in Englewood Illinois, The GunGuys site owner spins a tale of how the assault weapons ban in Illinois actually works, since the shooter had to buy the weapon in Indiana. If the law really worked, the weapon should never have made it in to the chicago area, don't you think?

The weapon was also purchased by using a fake ID. I can only assume that was how the background check passed, because his own identity would have failed him. The GunGuy grabber would have you believe that this is what makes it so easy for criminals to obtain weapons, in other words, a loophole. One that he would like to see plugged. I would too, but there is no way to have a gun dealer be able to determine that an ID is fake, the holder is really who he says he is, and confirm with the federal government that he/she has done all this without giving the gun dealer access to the same resources as the federal government doing the check. But they don't want you to know this, just take their word that it should be done.

I'll be checking on this guy daily and pointing out all the crap that he's permeating to promote his agenda.

Armed Pair Robs Discount Store, Assaults Manager

2006-03-17T04:15:00.000-08:00

So, here we have a 99 cent store clerk who was robbed, not by criminals with easy handguns, but thugs carrying shotguns. On top of that, even though he handed the money over and complied with the criminals demand like the gun control lobby/law enforcement groups tell the sheeple to do, he was still assaulted by the armed thugs.

I'm sure the gun control lobby is still proud of him though, for taking it on the chin so to speak.