Hehehe!

Found at Alphecca

Senior Couple Saved by Gun

Cape Coral, Florida

From the Bonita Daily News of May 29, 2007

Cape Coral couple tries to cope after attack at their home

Jacob Seckler keeps a gun in his pocket when he mows the lawn. He keeps a gun in his pillowcase when he tries to sleep, but the shadows dancing across the bedroom walls keep him awake.

“I’m strictly against guns. I never wanted them in the house,” said Seckler. “Now I wouldn’t be in the house without a gun.”

Seckler’s stance on guns changed the morning of May 16. He was mowing his lawn when he turned around and saw two 20-year-old men standing behind him. Seckler said one of the men was pointing a gun at his head.

After Seckler, 50, raised his hands to the sky, the two men pushed him past the garage toward the front door of his home in northeast Cape Coral. They held him at gunpoint and said they were getting into his house no matter what.

A struggle ensued at the front door. Seckler refused to let the men inside and they beat him over the head with the pistol and their elbows and fists. One of the men bit Seckler’s back. Seckler’s fiancée, Elizabeth Kachnic, 37, said she heard screaming and the door slam repeatedly.

“I don’t know what happened to me,” said Seckler. “I was so scared. I’m not crazy like that, but I knew I had to do something.”

The gun was pressed against Seckler’s temple. He said he pushed the assailant’s hand down and the gun fell to the ground. Seckler said he screamed for Kachnic to call 911 as he and the two men scrambled for the weapon.

“I got the gun. I just turned around and shot,” said Seckler. “If they did not come here with a gun, they would be alive. It’s their fault.”

He fired every bullet in the clip. One of the men, John Patrick Moore Jr., was hit as he sprinted across Seckler’s driveway. He stumbled to the edge of the street and died.

Police say Moore’s accomplice, Damion Jordan Shearod, fled when they lost control of the gun. Seckler said Shearod was hiding in the garage or the side of his home and appeared after the gunfire ceased and ran to a car parked in the street outside Seckler’s residence.

Police say Moore’s 19-year-old girlfriend, Jazzmyne Carrol-Love, was waiting behind the wheel and the two sped away.

Seckler had just killed a man. He hadn’t held or fired a gun since he was 18 years old and serving in the German Army. Even then, he was only aiming at practice targets.

“I was crying, screaming and hurting,” said Seckler, a large man who became tearful while recounting the shooting. “If they would have gotten in they would have killed us both. Everybody says I did the right thing, but it feels so bad. I killed another person.”

(Much More)

Found at Civilian Gun Self Defense Blog

Anti-Gunner Advocates Murder

ISRA Press Release:
Chicago Priest Calls for Murder of Gun Shop Owner

SPRINGFIELD, Ill., May 29 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The following was released today by the Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA):

Nobody expected Saturday's Operation PUSH protest at Chuck's Gun Shop & Range to be anything other than a circus of the bizarre. However, nobody anticipated that an address by a Chicago priest would include a call for the murder of a suburban gun shop owner and legislators who oppose gun control.

During an address at an anti-gun rally in front of Chuck's, Rev. Michael Pfleger, pastor of St. Sabina's Church, exhorted the crowd to "drag" shop owner, John Riggio, from his shop "like a rat" and "snuff" him. Rev. Pfleger went on to tell the crowd that legislators that vote against gun control legislation should be "snuffed" as well. As many know, "snuff" is slang for especially violent murder.

The ISRA has a recording of Pfleger's remarks in MP3 format.

"Certainly Fr. Pfleger has offered Absolution to a murderer or two during his tenure as a priest," commented ISRA Executive Director, Richard Pearson. "That's why it's shocking to hear him actually advocate the murder of a gun shop owner who has never committed a crime in his life. He then compounds the problem by calling for the murder of legislators who disagree with his personal political views -- something I suspect is a felony in this state. Pfleger's comments were disgusting and dangerous. And, I seem to remember that the Fifth Commandment frowns on murdering one's neighbor." (Actually, it's the sixth, -Yuri)

"This week, I'll be penning a letter to the Archbishop, expressing my concerns over Rev. Pfleger's comments," continued Pearson. "I would hope that the Archbishop would reply with words of comfort for Mr. Riggio, his family, state legislators, and all others who were injured by Rev. Pfleger's thoughtless, inflammatory remarks."

The ISRA is the state's leading advocate of safe, lawful, and responsible firearms ownership. Since 1903, the ISRA has represented the interests of over 1.5 million law-abiding firearm Illinois firearm owners.

This press release is posted at PRnewswire.

...clicky...

Another Only One...

The one, the only, the classic...


Police Officer Accidentally Fires A Gun In A Classroom - The best bloopers are a click away

Update: Apparently he's suing the DEA. What a joke!

Only Cops Should Have Guns...

...because only they are properly trained in their use.

For the record, I didn't name this video. I have nothing against women being cops, if they so choose to be. And for the cop in this video, it's called trigger control. Keep your finger off the trigger until you're ready to shoot.

Anyway, here's the video.


Only Cops Should Have Guns... - More amazing videos are a click away

The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.

He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.

He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:

For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing taxes on us without our consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:

For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:

For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies:

For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:

For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.

We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

...clicky...

Man with Gun Saves Womans Life

"Woman claims double murder suspects broke into her home
May 23, 2007
By ERICA ESTEP 6 News Reporter

KNOXVILLE (WATE) -- There is a new twist in the January murders of Christopher Newsom and Channon Christian. An East Knoxville woman says the suspects in the case broke into her home just a day before the couple was carjacked.

The single mother is afraid for her safety, so 6 News is protecting her identity. She lives less than a mile from the crime scene of the gruesome double murder on Chipman Street.

Her home was invaded by armed men a day before Newsom and Christian were carjacked. She says they are connected.

"I heard a big boom...they kicked...they kicked the door in."

The scuff marks are still visible where her front door was kicked in. She couldn't believe what happened next.

"I ran back into the room and they start shooting my door down," the woman says.

She says the suspects tried to get inside her bedroom. The door to the room is now ripped at the bottom.

The young mother's 13-year-old son and two friends were just a couple rooms away.

"I was screaming... ya'll stay down," she says.

But there was someone else in the house. A male friend who had a gun of his own. He shot back and the suspects took off.

Knoxville police responded and took pictures of the damage. Two weeks passed and then she says police returned.

"They brushed it off. Until these people get killed, then they take stuff serious," the woman says.

According to the woman, the police asked to come back and remove the bullets. She says they wanted to look for fingerprints and determine if the suspects were connected to the double murder.

She says police cut a panel from her wall and showed her photos of the double murder suspects. The victim says she recognized at least one of them as the man she saw that night.

"Actually at the door, I knew that big face. I knew one of the faces, the one that kicked the door in," she says.

While the victim says a detective told her the crimes were connected, Knoxville police will not confirm or deny that. They only say the investigation is still open.

When asked about national speculation that the double murders were racially motivated, the woman says, "I don't think it's a hate crime because I am a young, single black person, an African-American and they came after me."

No Living Person Left Behind

I haven't had time to Fisk their new 54 page treatise on "Guns Bad, Victims Good!" called "No Gun Left Behind", but I do have some comments on the website that accompanies it.

Some salient quotes:

"Armed students? Armed teachers? That is the response of the gun lobby to the horrible massacre at Virginia Tech. Let's give everyone a gun and start the crossfire. The gun lobby is pushing legislation modeled after a law in Utah that prohibits colleges and universities from barring possession or use of firearms on campus. As a result of the law, 18-year-old kids could carry handguns to class, and kids even younger than 18 could possess AK-47 assault rifles with high-capacity magazines on campus. The gun lobby also wants to arm K-12 teachers."

Okay, let's tone down the rhetoric here. As it stands currently, there is no crossfire. Teachers and students cannot defend themselves. They're DYING instead!

Yes, let's talk about Utah. How many mass shootings have taken place in a Utah school? Come on, I'm waiting... Times up!

I seriously doubt anyone at the NRA is suggesting that kids younger than 18 carry AK-47's to school. But even if they were, there was a time in this country when school kids did take their guns to school, put them in a locker, and then took them home with them after school was done. Tell me how many school shootings happened back then. I'll give you the answer, none.

I can think of a lot worse things than arming K-12 teachers. Like my kids dying because their teacher wasn't able to protect them.

Take a lesson from the Israeli's. After terrorists began targeting their schools, they armed their teachers and armed guards patrolled the perimeter. The terrorists soon learned that schools were no longer an easy target. And that is all a "Gun-Free Zone" is anyway, a target rich environment.

Sarah Brady, Paul Helmke, et, al. Pull your collective heads out of your butts and smell the coffee!

"Obviously, arming students and teachers is a bad idea.

Here are a few reasons why it would be insane to introduce guns into colleges and schools. The college age years — 18-24 — are the peak years for engaging in gun crimes, abusing drugs and alcohol, attempting suicide, and having other mental health problems. A binge-drinking, drug-using student is dangerous enough; let's not give him or her a gun."

Obvious to whom? But yet at the same time Sarah, you're perfectly fine with heavily arming the same age group to go fight, kill and die for this country. Given your logic, a large portion of the armed forces should be disarmed and given pepper spray and keys to defend themselves with against the terrorists.

Positioned right next to this argument is a disgusting cartoon which includes, Lee Harvey Oswald, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold and Seung-Hui Cho taking turns reciting parts of the second amendment. I will not post it on my blog on principal, but you can view it here. Any respect I may have had for these idiots evaporated on the spot. Sarah, which of the other rights should we make fun of and denigrate? How about free speech? How about freedom of the press? To peacefully assemble? How about the right against illegal search and seizure? You people disgust me!

"Do We Really Want Guns in K-12 Classrooms?

Even trained police officers, on average, hit their intended targets less than 20% of the time.

Arming teachers would likely make them the first targets in an attack, and could encourage attackers to increase their firepower or wear body armor.

More than 2,000 K-12 students are expelled each year for carrying guns to school. Do we really want armed teachers confronting them? What if a teacher shoots a student?"

Now they trot out the "Police officers are the only ones trained enough to handle a firearm safely and accurately" myth. Police officers are less likely to hit what they aim at simply because most of them only have to qualify once a year, with a limited number of rounds. The gun for them is just a part of the job and they take no interest in honing their skills further. Therefore, it is no surprise they can't hit what they aim at. I personally asked an officer in my town what kind of gun he had and all he knew was that it was a Glock (stamped on the side of the gun) and that the bullets were the kind that expanded and wouldn't pass through, hitting other people. From the small clues he awkwardly gave me, I deduced that it was a Glock in .45 ACP with hollowpoint bullets. I'm not trying to run down cops, merely demonstrating that holding them up as the paragon for weapons handling is goofy at best. I belong to a shooting range, and among the people I see there, 95% of them are very good with a handgun. The simple reason is, they practice. They practice many more times a year than most cops do.

Seriously, aren't teachers usually the first targets of an attack anyway? They're bigger and older and more able to resist than their children. This is a strawman and that's all I'm going to comment.

Well, what if a teacher shoots a student? What if a wack-job storms into the school with a 9mm and a .22lr pistol and kills 32 people? Is one better than the other? Are the victims more righteous if they can't or won't fight back? Would a teacher be better off confronting the attacker or cowering in fear beneath their desk?

As soon as I have the time and a large supply of antiacid, I'll peruse their little booklet and post the results.

Anyway, I've got some kids to feed...

Which is it Wayne?

Mr. LaPierre. Do you, or do you not support a CCW permit holder's right to carry a concealed weapon at their school; for theirs, and others protection?

Reference this quote from May 1st, 1999:

"First, we believe in absolutely gun-free, zero-tolerance, totally safe schools. That means no guns in America's schools, period ... with the rare exception of law enforcement officers or trained security personnel.

We believe America's schools should be as safe as America's airports. You can't talk about, much less take, bombs and guns onto airplanes.Such behavior in our schools should be prosecuted just as certainly as such behavior in our airports is prosecuted."

This quote, btw, is quoted verbatim on page 11 of the Brady Campaign's new propaganda "No Gun Left Behind."

Contrast that to this quote from May 11th, 2007:

"I agree that we need to look at steps the government can take to protect our kids, but let's be honest here. I mean, my gosh, Mr. Gonzales agrees there's no guarantee of complete security.

If that's the case (and we all know it is), then why shouldn't we also be having a discussion about trained adults legally carrying concealed firearms for their own protection and the protection of others? Texas Governor Rick Perry's willing to have that discussion. Why isn't the nation's attorney general?"

Recently I wrote a letter to the NRA voicing my concern with Wayne's previously stated policy:

"I am disturbed by Wayne LaPierre's support of "Gun-Free Zones" (http://www.nra.org/Speech.aspx?id=6043).

As recent events at Virginia Tech demonstrate, "Gun-Free Zones" are an oxymoron at best, and a killer at worst. Criminals don't obey the law, period. Wayne should renounce his support of "Gun-Free Zones" and embrace the rights of students and teachers to be lawfully armed, or consider resigning his post. In addition, it is profoundly disturbing to me that he and the NRA are betraying their principals and the members by negotiating with the other side to further restrict our second amendment rights. I am speaking of the NICS enhancement bill.

Every time you compromise with evil, evil wins and you lose. Soon there will be nothing left of our rights and evil (Sarah Brady, et al.) will have won."

What I got back from the NRA was political doublespeak and avoidance:

"Hello and thank you for contacting NRA-ILA in regards to the Gun-Free Zones issues.

Let's always remember first and foremost that it is those deranged individuals who have committed horrific crimes with guns at schools that are themselves responsible for their acts. Clearly it is already illegal to bring a gun to school and use it to take the lives of others. In committing these criminal acts, numerous federal, state, and local existing laws are broken. You can't make such heinous behavior any more illegal than it already is.

Of course, in the aftermath of such tragedies, Americans ask "why" and seek solutions to prevent future tragedies from occurring. If we are truly to find solutions to preventing school shootings, a wide range of remedies must be on the table for consideration, including whether or not there should be a lawful, armed presence on our nation's campuses. However, at the top of the discussion list, should be trying to figure out what has gone so wrong in these instances that an individual(s) feels the need to take the lives of young students in what should be a safe environment. One thing that is certain, however, is that passing additional gun control laws should not be part of the discussion, as again, you can't make what these criminals do with guns at schools any more illegal than it already is.

Suzanne N. Anglewicz
National Rifle Association
Institute for Legislative Action
703-267-11741-800-392-8683 (VOTE)
sanglewicz@nrahq.org"

Suzzane, I don't really care why psychotic killers feel compelled to kill. I DO care about my ability to defend my life, and the lives of my loved ones. This includes malls, schools, churches...anywhere I might be, without fear of being labeled a criminal for exercising my 2nd amendment rights, and defending my right to life and liberty.

So now I am left with too very contradictory statements from Mr. LaPierre. Which is it sir, which one is your real position?

Wayne, you should take a hint from Tom Gresham who has come out very strongly in favor of abolishing (so called) Gun-Free Zones, which have done nothing to stop mass shootings, and only see the law abiding disarmed and defenseless.

I should point out that I am a member of The NRA, but on this topic (and some others) I don't agree with them. It would be nice to get a consistent answer from them too.

I'd write them again, but I don't have any faith that I'd get a real answer back this time either.

You Might Be A Terrorist...

...if:

You believe that Gun Control laws are unconstitutional.

You object to the governments behaviour at Waco/Ruby Ridge.

You fly a "Gadsden" flag and/or believe in the words "Don't Tread On Me."

You are or have been a member of an unorganized militia.

You believe Gun Control is a conspiracy to enslave us starting with the removal of our ability to either defend ourselves or forcefully change our government.

You believe the first ten amendments of The Constitution are God given and all others are temporary, invalid or outright fraudulent.

You believe all judicial authority resides with the people. The jury, not the Judge, directs trials and can nullify laws they do not approve of.

You believe that U.S. sovereignty is being surrendered to the U.N., World Court, and World Bank, with the U.S. becoming an economic region of this New World Order.

You believe that Federal and State governments do not have the legal authority to levy taxes or interfere with travel or private enterprise by requiring licenses or regulating activity or conduct.

This, according to http://www.pa-aware.org/who-are-terrorists/domestic-5.asp

Yep, it looks like I'm a terrorist, if being a terrorist is someone who loves their country to the death. If it is someone who believes in the principles that this country was founded on and believes that the government we have now is far from the government we should have. If it is someone who believes in the the whole bill of rights as written and owns several guns and knows how to use them.

Actually...doesn't that pretty much describe a Patriot?

Well, might as well make it complete and embrace my "terroristness". Here's my Gadsden flag:

Thanks to Blognomicon for the tip.

Another Reason NOT to Vote for Rudy

Rudy #1 With Gun Owners?

Rudy Giuliani, a supporter of gun control, still comes out on top with gun owners, a new survey has found.

The above ought to be all a gun owner concerned about his rights needs to see.

The Daily News and the Gallup organization are hardly reliable and unbiased source for gun rights-related information.

Poll results and methodology are here. Of the '2,013 adults, aged 18 and older' surveyed, the sample contained '670 gun owners.' Left unsaid is whether these were registered voters, if so, whether they were high propensity voters, whether the survey participants were a representative cross section, what questions were asked, and if the gun owners were highly motivated, indicative of a level of commitment. Also, gun ownership crosses party lines, and the report admits '[i]n the Democratic primaries, gun owners seem just as inclined as non-owners to support Clinton.'

I hardly hold myself out to be a polling expert, but this appears to be a case 'of sound and fury signifying nothing.' If anyone with credentials would like to weigh in and either confirm or challenge my assumptions, or if you just want to say your piece about this, well, that's why there's a 'Comments' section below.

From: The War on Guns

Another Reason to Carry a Gun

[courtesy of Oleg Volk]

This is one of my favorite pro-gun posters that he has made, although if I had to post all of them that I like, I'd fill up the blog with nothing but posters. Feel free to go check out the rest of his work at http://www.olegvolk.net/ and http://www.a-human-right.com/.

You wouldn't want to scare the Sheeple...

Found at The War on Guns

*shakes head in disgust*

"It turns out the Goshen man in his 20s, whom police didn’t identify, is on leave from the Army Rangers and was training for his physical fitness test. The “rifle” was made of rubber...

Before starting his cross-town jog, the man called Goshen Town Police and told them what he would be doing, Jakubczyk said. But once he crossed into Blooming Grove, the calls started coming in and police had no answers for frightened residents."

So the automatic assumption is the guy was up to no good. When did the mere sight of a gun in public start to send the sheeple into a panic and give them a case of the dry heaves? There was a time in this country where people saw guns everyday, and noone thought they were in any danger.

Could it be that the only time people see a gun anymore, is in a movie or on TV, and the person holding it is a criminal or a cop? Somehow, without it actually being declared so, in spirit, we've already disarmed the population.

After all, why would anyone want a gun, unless they were a criminal, a hunter or a cop? Right?

*sigh*

I suppose the only reason noone has called the cops on me yet is because they can't see my gun. I carry it concealed all the time. If I didn't I wonder how different the people I interact with everyday would react?

Unfortunately, I think I already know the answer.

The Merced, CA Pitchfork Murders

Presented without comment...

Deaths in Merced
The Mary Carpenter Letter


Mary Carpenter in her own words.
Part 1



Part 2

Will Pepper Spray Save Your Life?

More words of wisdom from Katey...

Microstamping Part Deux!

It seems that lawmakers are once again trying to revive the failed technology long trumpeted in California. Only this time, they're trying to do it at the national level. I had hoped it would have been dropped since it has been proven to be too costly and too easy to defeat, but that is not the case.

Criminals could defeat microstamping with simple hand tools, sand paper, replacement firing pins, revolvers, picking up their brass, reloading, collecting and then planting other peoples brass...if I've forgotten any, please let me know.

From the article:

"Rep. Xavier Becerra, D-Calif., arranged for Friday's demonstration in a basement firing range in the Rayburn House Office Building. He and Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., are crafting a microstamping bill that aides said has law enforcement support.

"A month ago we saw the reason we need to take action," Becerra said, referring to the Virginia Tech massacre April 16."

"There are ways we can reduce gun violence in America in a smart way, in an effective way and a way that doesn't infringe on anyone's personal ownership rights," he said."

...clicky...
So he's seriously stating that microstamping could have/would have somehow magically stopped Cho from killing 32 people? What kind of twisted logic is that?

What is this guy smoking, because I want some!

It doesn't help either that he has paired himself with "The Frogman Of The Chappaquiddick" in an attempt to get his failed technology/ignorant legislation rammed through congress. Why is it that most gun control legislation is written and/or cosponsored by people with a (D) after their names?

Let's hope this dies a quick and painful death.

Many thanks to Ride Fast and Shoot Straight

Why would anyone want to carry a gun inside a church?

Several Christian churches these days seek to restrict CCW inside their walls. After all, churches are places of sanctuary, and of peace and devotion. Why would anyone want or need to carry a concealed weapon inside a church?

I can come up with at least two reasons off the top of my head. Search the internet and I bet you'll find several more.

Sex Attack Inside Church Captured On Videotape
May 17, 2007 11:38 am US/Mountain

"(CBS) NEW YORK CITY - It's supposed to be a sanctuary, but instead a New York church became perhaps the most unexpected place for a sex attack.

Middletown, N.Y. police are looking for a man who sexually assaulted a woman inside a local church -- in an act that was captured on surveillance video.

The attack happened just after midnight on Wednesday. The victim, a female volunteer at St. Joseph's Catholic Church in Middletown, was volunteering during perpetual adoration when the church is kept open for paying respect over the Eucharist."

...clicky...

Church Fire Was Set to Kill, Police Say
SALEM, Ore., Oct. 28, 2006

"(AP) A man accused of sloshing fuel on pews and parishioners during a church service and starting fires intended to kill everyone in the building, investigators say.

Kam Shing Chan is charged with attempted aggravated murder, attempted assault, arson and reckless burning. A judge denied bail Friday, saying Chan would be a danger to the community.

Witnesses said Chan burst into the Peoples Church on Wednesday ranting about "the blood," sloshed fuel around and started fires. Two women were burned when their clothing caught fire. Members of the congregation caught him."

...clicky...

Even Jesus advocated armed self-defense. When preparing his disciples to go into the world and spread the gospel, he specifically instructed them to buy a short sword for defense against wild animals and robbers.

"Luke 22:36 (New International Version)

He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one."

Any questions?

The Phantom Menace

In an article found here, Bloomberg blasts the FOP as a "Fringe Organization" and tries to promote his illegal stings in other states. Below is a graphic from the story I found rather ironic.

Whether through just plain ignorance or genuine stupidity, they chose to illustrate "The Gun Menace" with a Beretta Tomcat chambered in .32 ACP. Now the Tomcat is one of the least threatening pocket pistols in existence, just slightly more threatening than anything in .25 ACP or .22LR. And it only holds seven rounds in the magazine, eight if you load one in the snout via the flip up barrel. Yeah, I'd hate to get shot with anything, and any gun is better than no gun, but a .32 ACP round has a better chance of pissing the Bad Guy off than stopping him. As with any bullet though, it's all about shot placement, but bigger is better.

-Yuri

Come again?

Does he seriously think we're stupid?

"CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) -- A police officer pleaded not guilty Wednesday to beating a female bartender, and to threatening to arrest bar employees in a failed attempt to suppress a video of the attack that has been viewed around the world.

In a brief hearing, Anthony Abbate's attorney entered not guilty pleas to all 15 felony counts of aggravated battery, official misconduct, intimidation, conspiracy and communicating with a witness.

"He's pleading not guilty because he is not guilty," Peter Hickey said after the hearing. "And we expect at the end, the conclusion of the trial, that that's what the outcome will be."

...clicky...

For those of you with short attention spans, here's the video of him not misbehaving.




...and these are the very same people the Brady Bunch would have us believe are the only ones who should have guns?

Yeah right...tell me another one Sarah!

-Yuri

Also found on The War on Guns.

One of the reasons I carry a Gun

The world, is not a safe place. Period. Consider the following excerpt:

"When they came back outside, Watson says he was confronted by Fennessee, who he believes was watching the house. The suspect reportedly accused him of having relations with his child's mother.

"Let me put my babies in the car," Watson said he told the man, before denying the claims.

When Watson turned toward his vehicle, he says Fennessee shot him in the back and he went down. It was then that he says Fennessee stood over him with the gun pointed at his head.

"Don't kill me in front of my babies," Watson said he pleaded with Fennessee.

Instead, he said the suspect yelled an obscenity and shot him again and again, in the head, back and chest.

"I thought I was going to die," he said. "I could hear my 3-year-old screaming, 'He shooting my daddy! My daddy dead!' "

Click here to read the whole article.

Thanks to Xavier Thoughts.

Run-in changes lawmaker's stance

Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Phillip Morris
Plain Dealer Columnist

It's funny how a gun can in stantly change your perspective on things, make you wish you could rewrite history.

State Rep. Michael DeBose, a southside Cleveland Democrat, discovered this lesson the night of May 1, when he thought he was going to die. That's the night he wished he had that gun vote back.

DeBose, who had just returned from Columbus, where he had spent the day in committee hearings, decided to take a short walk up Holly Hill, the street where he has lived with his wife for the past 27 years.

It was late, but DeBose, 51, was restless. The ordained Baptist minister knew his Lee-Harvard neighborhood was changing, but he wasn't scared. The idle, young men who sometimes hang out on his and adjacent streets didn't threaten him.

He is a big man and, besides, he had run the same streets before he found Jesus - and a wife. That night, he just needed a walk.

The loud muffler on a car that slowly passed as he was finishing the walk caught his attention, though. When the car stopped directly in front of his house - three houses from where he stood - he knew there was going to be a problem.

"There was a tall one and a short one," DeBose said, sipping on a McDonald's milkshake and recounting the experience Friday.

"The tall one reached in his pocket and pulled out a silver gun. And they both started running towards me."

"At first I just backed up, but then I turned around and started running and screaming."

"When I started running, the short boy stopped chasing and went back to the car. But the tall boy with the gun kept following me. I ran to the corner house and started banging on Mrs. Jones' door."

It was at that point that the would-be robbers realized that their prey wasn't worth the trouble. Besides, Cheryl, DeBose's wife, and a daughter had heard his screams and had raced out to investigate. Other porch lights began to flicker on.

The loud muffler sped off, and DeBose started rethinking his gun vote.

DeBose twice voted against a measure to allow Ohioans to carry concealed weapons. It became law in 2004.

DeBose voted his conscience. He feared that CCW permits would lead to a massive influx of new guns in the streets and a jump in gun violence. He feared that Cleveland would become the O.K. Corral, patrolled by legions of freshly minted permit holders.

"I was wrong," he said Friday.

"I'm going to get a permit and so is my wife.

"I've changed my mind. You need a way to protect yourself and your family.

"I don't want to hurt anyone. But I never again want to be in the position where I'm approached by someone with a gun and I don't have one."

DeBose said he knows that a gun doesn't solve Cleveland's violence problem; it's merely a street equalizer.

"There are too many people who are just evil and mean-spirited. They will hurt you for no reason. If more people were packing guns, it might serve as a deterrent.

"But there obviously are far deeper problems that we need to address," he added, as he suddenly seemed to realize he sounded like a gun enthusiast.

They say the definition of a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged. DeBose's CCW application will bear some witness to that notion.

...clicky...

Lara Croft gets Busted!

...from the "Only in England" file.

[found at The War on Guns]

Armed police raid home after mistaking Lara Croft dummy for gunman
James Tozer
Last updated at 18:57pm on 15th May 2007

When police spotted a gun-wielding suspect lurking in the shadows of a suburban front room, their response was swift.

Armed officers burst into the house, shouted at the owner to lie on the floor, and ordered him to surrender his weapon.

But efficiency turned to embarrassment when the "gunman" turned out to be a life-sized model of the video game character Lara Croft, complete with trademark outsized pistols.

Computer shop owner David Williams, 42, had taken the dummy home to put it up for sale on the auction site eBay.

As the source of the confusion dawned on all concerned, it might have been the moment for an apology from the police.

Instead, however, Mr Williams was taken to the cells and held for more than 13 hours before being released.

He is now on bail for a suspected firearms offence, and Lara Croft remains impounded as evidence.

David Williams was arrested for having Lara Croft model in window "It would have been laughable if it hadn't been so terrifying," he said yesterday. "One of the police held a gun and yelled, 'Where's the weapon, where's the weapon?'

"I didn't have a clue what was going on, I assumed they'd got the wrong house. I couldn't believe it when I realised they'd mistaken a Lara Croft dummy for someone with a gun."

Father-of-two Mr Williams had phoned police after receiving nuisance phone calls, and officers arrived at his house in Dukinfield, near Ashton-under-Lyne, Greater Manchester, shortly before midnight.

He says he did not hear them arrive, but unknown to him one officer had seen the dummy's silhouette through the front window and called for armed back-up.

Soon afterwards, the street was cordoned off and a team of armed officers burst in through Mr Williams's back door.

A spokesman for Greater Manchester Police said officers peered inside after Mr Williams failed to answer his front door.

"They believed they saw a silhouette of a person pointing what appeared to be a firearm inside the house," she said.

They followed "correct procedure" by withdrawing to await armed officers, she added.

"Officers then went into the house and found a mannequin holding a toy weapon."

Mr Williams, who says he is speaking to lawyers about a possible claim for wrongful arrest, will hear whether he faces further action when he answers bail next month.

...clicky...

First there was "a rifle behind every blade of grass"...

...now there's a shotgun behind every stuffed animal!

A 10 month old Illinois toddler becomes a legal gun owner. Story and pithy commments from our good old friends the Brits. I'm sure that his dad will give him the proper guidance when he gets old enough to actually use it.

For the record, I think that "Bubba" is adorable, and his getting a FOID card only points out the stupidity of gun control and this particular gun control scheme. The only real crimes here are that he had to get a FOID to begin with and that his dad named him "Bubba."

Trigger nappy: 10-month-old baby given firearm's licence
By CLAIRE BATES
Last updated at 12:51pm on 16th May 2007

A baby called Bubba has proved even an 10-month-old child can own a gun in America.

The tot from Illinois received his Firearm Owner's Identification card - no question's asked- after his father filled in an online application form and paid just £2.50.

"My 10-month-old son has the cutest FOID card," Howard Ludwig wrote in a U.S newspaper.

"As an FOID card holder, baby Bubba can own a firearm, as well as ammunition, in Illionois."

The card lists the youngsters height, (2 ft, 3 inches) and his weight (20 pounds.)

"Since Bubba can't sign his name, I simply placed a pen in his hand. He made the scribble," Bubba's father added.

Mr Ludwig, a Daily Southtown columnist, said he applied for the tot's legal gun ownership after the baby's grandfather bought him a shotgun as a present.

"The Wife wasn't excited," Mr Ludwig said.

"Despite her Texas upbringing she's under the impression that books and pyjamas are somehow better baby gifts."

The loophole Mr Ludwig has found was that guns are only refused to convicted felons and those subject to an active order of protection. At 10-months-old Bubba hadn't broken any of these rules.

"It makes an adorable addition to his baby book," Mr Ludwig said.

...clicky...

Kaine Criticizes Weapons Giveaway

Raffle Being Held In Government Building in Fairfax

By Tim Craig
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 15, 2007

RICHMOND, May 14 -- Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D) on Monday questioned the judgment of a gun-rights group in deciding to raffle off weapons and ammunition this week inside a Fairfax County government building.

"I guess it's a free country, and people can make mistakes in judgment all the time," Kaine said. "When I read about a group doing this, it just makes me wonder what makes them tick."

The Virginia Citizens Defense League, a group influential with rural lawmakers, is holding a "Bloomberg Gun Giveaway" to protest New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg's efforts to crack down on illegal gun sales in Virginia.

The raffle Thursday night at the Mason District Government Center in Annandale has angered Fairfax County officials and heightened attention on Virginia's gun laws a month after a 23-year-old college student from Fairfax fatally shot 32 people and himself at Virginia Tech.

Although Kaine said the gun group showed poor judgment, Virginia's top elected Republican leaders defended the gun giveaway Monday, saying the group is defending the right to own firearms and sending a message that Bloomberg should stay out of the state's affairs.

"It is not the place for government to interfere with a private raffle," Attorney General Robert F. McDonnell (R) said through a spokesman.

House Majority Leader H. Morgan Griffith (R-Salem) said gun control advocates frequently use government property to hold gun buyback events.

"The same thing happens with groups on the left when they do programs to have guns turned in for prizes or rewards," Griffith said. In this case, he said, "you got law-abiding citizens holding a raffle or contest to give away a product that doesn't violate state or federal laws."

The defense league plans to give away a semiautomatic pistol, a hunting rifle, ammunition and other supplies, including a laser scope. Fairfax County officials said they don't want guns inside a county building, but they can't find a legal reason to deny the group a permit.

The raffle was spurred by New York's decision to file lawsuits against six Virginia gun shops that the city contends sold guns illegally to undercover agents. Bloomberg maintains that illegal guns sales in Virginia contribute to violent crime in New York.

The General Assembly and Kaine approved a law this spring that will make it a felony for New York to conduct future stings in the state without the supervision of Virginia or federal law enforcement officials.

Philip Van Cleave, president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, said more than 2,500 people were awarded tickets to Thursday night's drawing after they spent at least $100 at Bob Moates Sports Shop in Richmond and Old Dominion Gun and Tackle in Danville, the targets of Bloomberg's lawsuits.

Van Cleave said he doesn't understand why Kaine and Fairfax officials are upset.

"They are acting like we are giving guns to criminals. They talk as if anytime a gun is sold, it's going on the street," Van Cleave said. "These guns are going to law-abiding, decent people who won't hurt anyone with them."

In addition to McDonnell, Van Cleave has the backing of the state's other top elected Republican, Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling. Like McDonnell, Bolling is a possible candidate for governor in 2009.

"The VCDL is doing this as a form of protest against the actions taken by Mayor Bloomberg," Bolling said. "They have every right to lodge such a protest as long as they comply with the letter and the spirit of the law."

Fairfax Supervisor Penelope A. Gross (D-Mason) said she has received dozens of phone calls and e-mails from residents who are appalled that the raffle is taking place in a county building.

Fairfax has asked the General Assembly to allow it and other local governments to ban the possession of guns in public buildings, but lawmakers have refused. County officials can't deny a meeting permit simply for political reasons, Gross said.

"I agree with the governor. It is wrong, but help me find a way to put a stop to it," Gross said. "There is none. I tried."

...clicky...

OMG! Nobody panic now!

The War on Guns: Prosecute This Criminal Now!:

"Prosecute This Criminal Now!

The man was walking with a beagle along Flint Hill Road in Bedford County, carrying a bag of dog food and an unloaded .22-caliber rifle, when he stopped and sat in a ditch near school property, authorities said Monday.

If they determine he set one foot on school property, I know at least one guy who wants to see him prosecuted to the full extent of the law:

[W]e believe in absolutely gun-free, zero-tolerance, totally safe schools. That means no guns in America's schools, period ... with the rare exception of law enforcement officers or trained security personnel.

Isn't that right, Wayne?"

STOP! Hammer Time!

(The following is based on a real event, which I link to after, but it has been highly fictionalized and exaggerated to prove a point. -Yuri)

Beaverton, OR- A 56 year old woman was randomly attacked in the Beaverton, OR Fred Meyer store by a hammer wielding psychopath.

Beaverton Police Sergeant Paul Wandell confirmed that the attack happened around noon at the Fred Meyer store located at the Beaverton Town Square. Details are still sketchy, but the victim has been identified as Sharon Weil, and the hammerman as 65 year old Eric Osterholme.

Witnesses said the hammerman hit Weil in the head with a hammer and then threw it into the next isle before walking away. Police arrested him at the scene on attempted murder charges.

Police have recovered the hammer, a Stanley roofing model with a high grip capacity, texturized rubber handle and nail claw shroud.

Police have tracked the hammer to the hardware store where it was purchased by the suspect. They say that the hardware store did nothing wrong, and that Osterholme had passed a federally mandated background check at the time of purchase. While Osterholme does have mental health issues, apparently they were not entered into the system because he was being treated on an out patient basis.

Shortly after the incident, Governor Ted Kulongoski announced an executive order closing the "psycho-hammer" loophole. Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy appeared on nation wide television and stressed that the Assault Hammer Ban should not have been allowed to sunset, and that her new Assault Hammer Ban would have prevented this tragedy. Her new bill would ban Assault Hammers as well as "claw shrouds". When asked by the news commentator several times what a "claw shroud" was, she evaded the question, but was finally forced to admit she had no idea what they were. She made a feeble attempt to answer by saying "..the thing that goes up???" to which the commentator said simply "No, it's not."

Sarah Brady and The Brady Campaign wasted no time in milking the incident to try and raise a little cash. They immediately fired off a letter to their supporters asking how this senseless tragedy could have been averted. Their answer of course was to give them more money, to stem the flow of "hammer violence." Part of their email read, "Everyday in America, thousands of thumbs are painfully mashed, including many childrens. We can stop these painful and senseless 'accidents'. Remember, if it saves just one thumb..."

As the facts in this case continue to come to light, one thing is certain. The debate in this country over the average citizens right to keep and bear hammers will become even more heated. With the anti-hammer camp continuing to insist that hammers should only be available to licensed carpenters, and the pro side insisting that every American citizen has the God given right to own a hammer.

-Yuri Orlov, Reporting.

Here are the links as promised:

http://koin.com/Global/story.asp?S=6514690
http://blog.oregonlive.com/breakingnews/2007/05/suspect_in_hammer_attack_refus.html
http://www.nwcn.com/statenews/oregon/stories/NW_051207ORNhammerKS.62e019d5.html
http://blog.oregonlive.com/breakingnews/

Anti's With Guns

I present to you without further delay, Diane "Trigger Finger" Feinstein and Chuck "No Eyes" Schumer! Chuck sure seems to be having a great time, doesn't he?

Undercover Operations May "Sting" Bloomberg

Friday, May 11, 2007

In an effort to end the illegal, covert "Simulated Straw Purchase" stings that anti-gun New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (R) has been misguidedly promoting of late, Virginia Attorney General Robert McDonnell (R) recently sent a letter to Bloomberg reminding him that Virginia’s House Bill 2653 - which prohibits gun dealer entrapment schemes such as those orchestrated by the Mayor - will go into effect this summer.

With the new law going into effect in July, Bloomberg and his agents could face legal action and be charged with a felony if they do not cease their dubious "sting" operations.

"While I understand that you are attempting to take steps that you believe may enhance the public safety of the citizens of New York City, such laws are Virginia's duty to enforce," said McDonnell in his letter to the Mayor. "This new law strikes the proper balance between ensuring effective law enforcement and protecting the rights of law-abiding firearms dealers and those of Virginia citizens under the Second Amendment."

In a May 10, Washington Times article, Tucker Martin, a spokesman for Mr. McDonnell’s office, said, "Law-abiding Virginia gun dealers certainly do not deserve to be targeted by private agents intentionally misleading them as to their intentions and motives. This is a courtesy to the mayor. Prior actions of his are now felony offenses in the commonwealth, and he knows this."

Virginia’s state House and Senate overwhelmingly approved the measure, which was signed into law by Virginia Governor Tim Kaine (D) on March 23, 2007.

Armed with the Truth

By Fred Thompson
Friday, May 11, 2007

If you care about Constitutional law, and everybody should, the big news is that it looks as if the Supreme Court is going to hear a Second Amendment case some time next year. The event that sparked this legal fuse was a case brought by six D.C. residents who simply wanted functional firearms in their homes for self-defense. In response, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit struck down the District's 31-year-old gun ban -- one of the strictest in the nation.

Our individual right to keep and bear arms, as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, may finally be confirmed by the high court; but this means that we're going to see increasing pressure on the Supreme Court from anti-gun rights activists who want the Constitution reinterpreted to fit their prejudices. The New York Times has already fired the first broadside.

A few days ago, the Gray Lady published a fascinating account of the case -- fascinating but fundamentally flawed. In it, the central argument about the Second Amendment is pretty accurately described. Specifically, it is between those who see it as an individual right versus those who see it as a collective states' right having more to do with the National Guard than the people.

Unfortunately, the article falsely portrays the individual right argument as some new interpretation held only by a few fringe theorists. The truth is very different, as civil rights attorney and gun law expert Don Kates has pointed out recently.

From the enactment of the Bill of Rights in 1791 until the 20th Century, no one seriously argued that the Second Amendment dealt with anything but an individual right -- along with all other nine original amendments. Kates writes that not one court or commentator denied it was a right of individual gun owners until the last century. Judges and commentators in the 18th and 19th century routinely described the Second Amendment as a right of individuals. And they expressly compared it to the other rights such as speech, religion, and jury trial.

The Times has simply replayed theories invented by the 20th century gun control movement. Their painting of the individual right interpretation as a minority view is equally fanciful.

Kates writes that, "Over 120 law review articles have addressed the Second Amendment since 1980. The overwhelming majority affirm that it guarantees a right of individual gun owners. That is why the individual right view is called the 'standard model' view by supporters and opponents alike. With virtually no exceptions, the few articles to the contrary have been written by gun control advocates, mostly by people in the pay of the anti-gun lobby."

Kates goes further, writing that "a very substantial proportion" of the articles supporting individual gun rights are by scholars who would have been happy to find evidence that guns could be banned. When guns were outlawed in D.C., crime and murder rates skyrocketed. Still, the sentiment exists and must be countered with facts. All of this highlights why it is so important to appoint judges who understand that their job is to interpret the law, as enacted by will of the people, rather than make it up as they go along.


Fred Thompson is an actor and former Senator. His radio commentary airs on the ABC Radio Network and be blogs on The Fred Thompson Report.

...clicky...

Convicted School (murderer) Shooter Loves Gun Control

(Yeah, I wonder why... -Yuri)

Fifteen years ago, Wayne Lo went on a killing spree at his Massachusetts campus. Here's his take on Virginia Tech.

By Samantha Henig
Newsweek
Updated: 2:00 p.m. PT May 2, 2007
May 2, 2007 - Before Virginia Tech, before Columbine, there was Simon’s Rock.

Late on the evening of Dec. 14, 1992, Wayne Lo, an 18-year-old student at Simon’s Rock College of Bard in Great Barrington, Mass., approached a security-guard shack on the campus and began shooting, as he says now, “at anything that moved.” Lo fired at least nine rounds during the following 20 minutes, killing another student and a Spanish professor and wounding four others.

A gifted violinist who had moved with his family from Taiwan to Billings, Mont., at age 12, Lo had bought his weapon, an SKS carbine rifle, that very afternoon at a sporting-goods store in nearby Pittsfield, Mass. His Montana driver’s license was the only documentation the purchase required. The cab driver who took him to the store would later describe Lo to the press as “a real gentleman.” That same morning he had received a package containing 200 rounds of ammunition, purchased the previous day from a mail-order company using his mother’s credit card.

Shortly after the shooting, Lo surrendered to police. When he appeared in court the next day, he was wearing a sweatshirt emblazoned with the words SICK OF IT ALL, the name of a rock band he liked. His lawyer would later use an insanity defense, but Lo never testified and has subsequently said he doesn’t believe he was insane. On Feb. 4, 1994, Lo was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison without parole.

This week, almost 15 years since that murderous night and two weeks after an even bloodier morning at Virginia Tech, Lo met with NEWSWEEK’s Samantha Henig in a conference room at MCI-Norfolk, the Massachusetts medium-security prison. Wearing a black T shirt tucked into the elastic waistband of his gray pants, Lo looked more like a young professional on casual Friday than a campus killer. He spoke candidly about his murderous tear at Simon’s Rock and shared his insights into the Virginia Tech shooting, which he said he had been following closely so that he could be ready with his opinion “if anybody wants to listen.” Yet his tone was oddly similar to that of most people when confronted by the tragedy—bewilderment at how such a thing could happen.

NEWSWEEK: What was your reaction when you heard about the Virginia Tech shooting?
Wayne Lo: When they said it was a perpetrator who was Asian, that really shocked me. The stereotype is that Asians don’t do these things. The Secret Service came and interviewed me for a report on school shooters that they put out in 2002, and even they said Asians don’t really do this.

Did you relate to Seung-Hui Cho because you’re both Asian?
At first I thought it was just a coincidence, but as more details came out, there were just too many eerie similarities to me. He was an immigrant, like myself. The events leading up to the shooting, the warning signs he gave out really reminded me of what happened at Simon’s Rock. They said he had mental-health issues. I don’t really think I had mental-health issues, but I did give out those warning signs. He harassed women, and I also had an incident where I was accused of stalking a female classmate. He went and purchased a gun at a store 40 minutes out of town; so did I. He wrote papers that got people’s attention; I did that, too.

What was the paper that you wrote?
It was for my sophomore English class. The assignment was to come up with a 10-step program for anything, so being the smart ass that I am, I wrote a paper on how to eliminate AIDS, and at the end it was calling for the extermination of all people with AIDS—you know, tongue-in-cheek satire. But that’s not how the class interpreted it.

Do you think that Cho’s writings should have been more of a red flag than they were?
It’s ludicrous that they didn’t stop this guy with all the warning signs. I mean, come on, I did this 15 years ago. I was one of the first school shooters. The question is, how don’t we learn from it? They’ve done studies; they know the typical warning signs now. How could they not see this coming?

What should be done when teachers or parents spot these warning signs?
Drastic measures should be taken. You should kick the kid out of school.

But did either of you really do anything that warranted kicking you out?
No. I certainly didn’t. But for him, in 2007, with all these precedents, there should be different standards.

Do you believe that stricter gun control would help prevent such tragedies?
The people who do these things are people who don’t want contact. They wouldn’t be capable of going out there and stabbing people to death. But there’s such a disconnect when you’re using a gun. You don’t even feel like you’re killing anybody. The fact that I was able to buy a rifle in 15 minutes, that’s absurd. I was 18. I couldn’t have rented a car to drive home from school, yet I could purchase a rifle.

You were from Montana, and a member of the NRA. Had guns and hunting been a part of your life?
That night was the first time I fired a gun. Why should a person who has never touched a gun be able to buy one and the first time he fires it, be able to kill people? You wouldn’t be able to drive a car without a license.

What sort of gun control do you propose, then?
Ideally, guns should be eliminated, but I know that won’t happen. There should be stricter checks. Obviously a waiting period would be great. Personally, I only had five days left of school before winter break: school got out on Friday, and I did that on a Monday. If I had a two-week waiting period for the gun, I wouldn’t have done it.

You’ve talked about "warning signs." One of the common ones is social isolation. Is that something you experienced?
Most people at Simon’s Rock choose to leave high school because they felt isolated there. [Simon’s Rock College is designed for gifted students who want to pursue a college degree without having completed high school.] So the outcasts basically become the majority. For me, it wasn’t that I felt isolated at high school—I just wanted to get away from my parents. I was basically your typical normal kid. I wasn’t an outcast in high school. I was the kind of kid who made them feel isolated.

So did that make you an outsider there?
They didn’t like me. I felt defensive toward them, like, "If you don’t like me then I don’t like you." But I did have a close group of friends at Simon’s Rock.

You also mentioned relating to Cho because you are both immigrants.
The issue of mental health and stuff like that is not talked about in the Asian community, even within families. It puts a lot of pressure on you as a young person. As it builds up and builds up and builds up, [Cho] acted out just like I did. Asians tend to be passive aggressive: we don’t get in fights, so it doesn’t come out in little bits; it all comes out in one big act.

...clicky...

Pro-Gun cartoons!

SAF SAYS D.C. CIRCUIT DENIAL ON RE-HEARING OF PARKER CASE WAS RIGHT

BELLEVUE, WA – This morning’s decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to deny a petition from the District of Columbia for a hearing of Parker v. District of Columbia before the full court was “right and proper,” said Alan M. Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation.


“This is a strong signal that the D.C. Court of Appeals, which is the second most powerful court in the country, feels the original ruling by Senior Judge Laurence H. Silberman is solid,” Gottlieb stated. “It is now up to the district to accept the ruling and begin the process of licensing handguns to be kept legally in district residences, or to appeal the case to the Supreme Court.”


The Parker case has become the most significant Second Amendment case in the nation’s history, because for the first time, a gun control law was struck down on the grounds that it violated the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Judge Silberman’s ruling found that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms that goes beyond service in a militia.


“The time is long past due for the Supreme Court to hear a case that has such gravity in terms of the Second Amendment and its true meaning,” Gottlieb observed. “For almost 70 years, a state of confusion has existed over whether the Second Amendment protects an individual civil right, as we are certain it does, rather than affirming some convoluted ‘collective right’ of the states to form militias. That interpretation has been carefully fabricated over the years by anti-gun zealots whose ultimate goal is to strip American citizens of their firearms rights.


“We think this question must be answered,” he continued, “to forever silence those gun control extremists who have been misinterpreting – we believe deliberately – the 1939 U.S. v Miller case in an on-going effort to destroy the cornerstone of the Bill of Rights, and the foundation for liberty in this country. This appears to be the right case, and this is certainly the right time.”


The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nations oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 600,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and an amicus brief and fund for the Emerson case holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.

...clicky...

Why I'm not voting for Rudy Giuliani

I get the most interesting visitors...

Looking through my logs today, I discovered that I had received a visit from WAVE (Wisconsin Anti Violence Effort). What were they looking for exactly? This is it, which makes sense if you look at their site. They list links from them on their home page. It's kind of sad actually. Why don't they choose a more reputable news source to put on their Internet site? After all, aren't we judged by the company we keep.

Visits from anti-gun groups are nothing new to me (the Brady's, et.al.), but so far I've just let it slide.

Guys, if it's education you're after, just let me know. I'm not saying you anti's are ignorant, or even lacking general education or knowledge about firearms, but if past experience is any indicator, y'all need some help.

For instance: A Clip is what feeds ammunition into a magazine. A Magazine is what holds the ammunition. And a "Barrel Shroud" is a SAFETY feature which prevents second and third degree burns.

If y'all made an effort to educate yourselves, you wouldn't come across as ignorant as you do. It doesn't help either when one of your elected mouthpieces in Congress reveals on national television that she has no clue what a barrel shroud is, even though her own bill expressly bans it.

That is all...

-Yuri