Gun Control, who's for it?

First of all, the students were the ones in the immediate kill zone, not law enforcement outside of the buildings. Second, I don’t sashay, and although I may not be a so called “professional search and rescue guy”. I have, on a number occasions over my life, risked my neck to save others, and third of all. I’d be happy to meet half way, along with my arm chair, so we can discuss it!

You are right JC. However, that is the general rule of SAR. We do practice it at the FD. The thinking is what good are you going to be if you are now a victim. At the same time, in my job I say just going into a burning building is risky enough. Wearing a badge in Law Enforcment is a big risk both on and off the job. In conclusion if I'm not in the rescue mode and my life is in danger by someone who wishes my harm, I pray to God i'll be armed. At the same time I hope and pray I'll never be in that situation. Cops aren't encouraged to risk their life unnecessarily as well as Firemen to save anyone. They all just want to go home to their loved ones.

Hi Nova, I have revised my earlier post, because we don’t want to start no fights here. (besides, I don’t have a second, at least not yet)
Anyway, I agree with you whole heartedly. But, I can’t help but think that there are times, when one just has to act and not discuss.
I can remember being in AIT (advanced infantry training), where we were taught to attack the direction from where the firing was coming from. Now I’m sure that some of the trainees didn’t know that, but for me, that has always been instinctive. (sort of like counter punching, you don’t think about it, you just react)
Thanks for your input,
JC

No problem JC. I do understand both sides of the coin when it comes to this subject. It is one that involves a seemingly endless discussion.

Just a little video from an old movie. Draw your own conclusions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=of-57Ivfwz8

The best Dem. for President as far as the 2nd ammendment is concerned is Bill Richardson in my opinion. He actually spoke via video at a recient convention.

A new video. Like I said before, draw your own conclusions. I agree with him on a lot of points he makes about American history. However between the victim being dead and the assailant being dead, I'd rather see neither dead but if one has to die or get hurt, yes I, and I'm sure every other sane person, would say the assailant. Here's the link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_QjEL0uUgo

Hi Nova, you know I can’t say that I disagree with Nugent, even if I am some what liberal minded. Although, I might be more inclined, to wear a six shooter on my hip, or even in one of those nice shoulder holster? (right out right out there where everyone can see it, instead of hiding it on my person) Like I’ve said before, (in some what different words) they can have my weapon, as long as it’s the last one out there. Until then I have to agree with you about the second amendment. Now, all you have to do is give-up the fantasy, and become either Agnostic, or an Atheist, and we could become fast friends. But rest assured. I’m not going to hold my breath on that one.
In spite of all our differences, I hope all is well with you and yours.
Later,
JC

Hi Nova, you know I can’t say that I disagree with Nugent, even if I am some what liberal minded. Although, I might be more inclined, to wear a six shooter on my hip, or even in one of those nice shoulder holster? (right out right out there where everyone can see it, instead of hiding it on my person) Like I’ve said before, (in some what different words) they can have my weapon, as long as it’s the last one out there. Until then I have to agree with you about the second amendment. Now, all you have to do is give-up the fantasy, and become either Agnostic, or an Atheist, and we could become fast friends. But rest assured. I’m not going to hold my breath on that one.
In spite of all our differences, I hope all is well with you and yours.
Later,
JC

Same to ya JC. Just because we have different beliefs doesn't mean we can't talk or have respect for one another.

Hi Nova, you know I can’t say that I disagree with Nugent, even if I am some what liberal minded. Although, I might be more inclined, to wear a six shooter on my hip, or even in one of those nice shoulder holster? (right out right out there where everyone can see it, instead of hiding it on my person) Like I’ve said before, (in some what different words) they can have my weapon, as long as it’s the last one out there. Until then I have to agree with you about the second amendment. Now, all you have to do is give-up the fantasy, and become either Agnostic, or an Atheist, and we could become fast friends. But rest assured. I’m not going to hold my breath on that one.
In spite of all our differences, I hope all is well with you and yours.
Later,
JC

Same to ya JC. Just because we have different beliefs doesn't mean we can't talk or have respect for one another.

So true, so true.

i like this one...


i think 20,000 useless laws is enough... no wait that is to many.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FI4LwjbEyg

That is a good question they ask. I'll have to think about that one. You know, I hear so many people comparing the US to the rest of the world when it comes to gun laws. I'm wondering, what was the crime like in Australia, England and Canada prior to banning most guns. Was their crime rate just as bad, worse, etc. In addition, just how much did their crime rate decrease afterward?

the crime rate skyrocketed in both Australia and England along with an INCREASE in gun crimes ... Canada although restrictive isn't as restrictive as Australia and England

*front site, press*

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." ~Thomas Jefferson, 1776

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe."
~Noah Webster, 1787

"To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

"What is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
~George Mason, 1788

"The said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." ~Samuel Adams, 1788

"The militia is our ultimate safety. We can have no security without it. The great object is that every man be armed."
~Patrick Henry

"Necessity is the plea of every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants, it is the creed of slaves."
~William Pitt, 1783


Now lets see what some of todays folks think


I don't believe that assault rifles ought to be sold in America." ~Senator John Kerry

"Assault weapons in the hands of civilians exist for no reason but to inspire fear and wreak deadly havoc on our streets" ~President Bill Clinton, 1997

"You want an assault rifle? Join the Army!"
~Rep. Carolyn McCarthy

"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe."
~Senator Diane Feinstein, 1993

"We're going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy! We're going to beat guns into submission!"
~Senator Charles Schumer, 1993

"Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected." ~ACLU policy statement #47, 1986

"If someone is so fearful that they are going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me very nervous that these people have weapons at all."
~Rep. Henry Waxman


I find this scary!

Wednesday, November 21, 2007


On November 20, the Supreme Court announced that it would hear the case of District of Columbia v. Heller. Finally, the Court will decide whether the Second Amendment secures to individual citizens the right to keep and bear their private firearms or whether it merely recongizes that an individual may use firearms for the collective purpose of participating in a state-sponsored militia.

This day has been a long time coming. The last time the Supreme Court directly addressed the meaning of the Second Amendment was almost 70 years ago in the case of U.S. v. Miller, which resulted in a controversial opinion that raised more questions than it answered. The case hinged on whether a short-barreled shotgun was the type of weapon used for military purposes and thus protected by the Second Amendment. The Court never heard evidence on this issue and before it could, Mr. Miller was killed and the case died with him.

As a board member and officer of NRA, I’ve been a vocal critic of gun bans and the D.C. gun ban in particular. It’s not just because such laws violate our Constitution but also because 25 years ago, before I became a gun owner, I was almost the victim of a home invasion. I learned first hand that the right of self-defense means nothing unless you also have the means of self-defense.

When this case challenging the D.C. gun ban was filed in 2003, it was called Parker v. District of Columbia. Shelly Parker lived in a high crime area of D.C. She and five other plaintiffs sued to overturn the D.C. law because it deprived them of their right to keep operable firearms in their homes for self-protection.

The D.C. law has been on the books since 1976 and makes it a serious crime to possess any handgun or a loaded, readily-usable shotgun or rifle even in your own home. A law that prevents a peaceable law-abiding person from possessing the one tool that she can use to defend herself at home against a criminal attack is just plain wrong.

Most people had never heard of the Parker case until last March when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit struck down the 30-year old gun ban saying it violated the Second Amendment. That made the news.

The Parker case has since been renamed Heller – Shelly Parker was not allowed to proceed with her case but plaintiff Dick Heller was. Now, the Supreme Court will decide what right is meant by the “right to keep and bear arms”. Is it an individual right that each of us has to own and possess our private firearms, without regard to any military service? Or is it a collective right that exists only to allow us to serve in the National Guard or a state-sponsored militia?

Specifically, the Court will decide whether the District’s ban on handguns not registered before 1976, its ban on the carrying of unlicensed handguns, and provisions requiring long guns (rifles & shotguns) to be made inoperable violate the Second Amendment right of “the people” (that’s you and me) to keep and bear our private arms.

Although the briefs filed by the District and by Heller contained statements of what each party wanted the Supreme Court to decide, the Supreme Court rewrote the question presented and it now reads: “Whether the [D.C. Code provisions] violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?”

The language of the question – the reference to “private use in their homes” – suggests that the case will be narrowly decided and limited to possession and carrying of firearms within the home. The Supreme Court frequently chooses to decide issues as narrowly as possible, thus leaving room for future interpretations. Either way the case will be important in that a citywide gun ban will either be upheld or struck down.

And as to what the outcome might be, I will not presume to know how nine of the greatest legal minds in America will answer this question. The Court is closely-divided, with four conservatives, four liberals, and one moderate (Justice Anthony Kennedy) generally as the swing vote. Although the subject of firearms and the Second Amendment is controversial, the narrow concept that people ought to be able to defend themselves in their own homes against criminal attack and that a gun is an effective way to do it is not.

How long do we have to wait? The District of Columbia’s brief is due shortly after the first of the year. The Heller brief is due 30 days after that. There will undoubtedly be numerous amicus (friend of the court) briefs filed by groups on both sides of the issue. Barring any unusual delays, the Court should hear oral argument in March and issue its decision in June.

And the timing of the case is significant for other reasons. With the briefing schedule and argument taking place right in the middle of a hotly contested presidential campaign season, it will be impossible for any candidate to ignore the Second Amendment.

American history is full of cases that have changed the course of that history. Some of those names are known mostly to lawyers. Others are cases that have had such a clear impact that non-lawyers are familiar with them as well, such as Roe v. Wade, Marbury v. Madison, Dred Scott v. Sanford, Brown v. Board of Education, Miranda v. Arizona and Bush v. Gore.

D.C. v. Heller is destined to become such an historic case. And we have a front row seat to watch history in the making.

INSANE!!!!!!!


Friday, December 14, 2007 See video at the bottom.

This week’s outrage comes courtesy of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” show co-host Mika Brzezinski, who apparently has a very hard time laying aside her anti-gun sentiments, even when confronted with the truth.

We all know that firearms are used as many as two and a half million times a year for self-defense. And, as we recently saw graphically demonstrated in the senseless shootings at the New Life Church in Colorado, a law-abiding, armed citizen can make a difference.

In the tragic New Life Church incident, Jeanne Assam, who, according to media reports, had a permit to carry a concealed firearm and was volunteering as a “security person” at her church, shot a heavily armed, homicidal madman as he began attacking innocent parishioners. New Life’s Senior Pastor Brady Boyd hailed Jeanne as “a real hero,” because the gunman she shot “had enough ammunition on him to cause a lot of damage.” There is no question that this brave citizen’s decisive action with her personal firearm saved many lives.

But, facts be damned. Brzezinski, who wasn’t in the church, but who appears daily as a co-host on the MSNBC morning program doesn’t agree.

When discussing the murderous rampage, Brzezinski responded to host Joe Scarborough’s assertion that “One person with a gun can make a big difference,” by blurting, “Oh gosh, no! No, no, no. No, no, no, no, no.” Scarborough then reiterated his assertion, “One person with a gun in the right place can make a big difference.” At this point, Brzezinski had clearly had enough of the truth and, putting an exclamation point on her unabashed anti-gun sentiments, said, “You know, that is the most inane statement I have ever heard.”

Ms. Brzezinski obviously can’t be bothered with undeniable evidence, nor restrained by a code of unbiased reporting. She can’t look at a crystal-clear example of evil being countered by an armed, law-abiding citizen and have the integrity and intellectual honesty to draw the correct conclusion. That’s outrageous.

To see a video clip of the exchange, please click here: http://www.nraila.org//news/read/InTheNews...s.aspx?ID=10366.

So. Let's just pretend for a moment, Brezainski, that this church volunteer wasn't armed? How many more folks would be dead or seriously injured. She looked to me that she was avoiding the truth and or denying it.


http://www.nraila.org//news/read/InTheNews...s.aspx?ID=10366

Nova, there absolutely no doubt that armed law biding citizens can save innocent lives, (it’s a fact Jack) and once again this incident proves it. The only problem is your closing, you forgot to say: “The defense rests”!

Here is a poster child if there ever was one. Does he believe in gun control now? Yes! He definitely realizes he has to have better control of his gun. He is, however, halfway to a blissfully birth-control-free existence, so there is some compensation for the embarrassment:

Tue Jan 15, 9:42 PM ET
KOKOMO, Ind. - Police say a man accidentally shot himself in the groin as he was robbing a convenience store. A clerk told police a man carrying a semiautomatic handgun entered the Village Pantry Tuesday morning demanding cash and a pack of cigarettes.


The clerk put the cash in a bag and as she turned to get the cigarettes, she heard the gun discharge.

Police say surveillance video shows the man shooting himself as he placed the gun in the waistband of his pants. The clerk wasn't injured.

A short time later, police found Derrick Kosch, 25, at a home with a gunshot wound to his right testicle and lower left leg. He was expected to have surgery at a hospital.

Police plan to charge him with armed robbery.