I can't help it.

Here is what I cannot help. I cannot help myself when I find a story so good all I can think to do is copy it and post it here.

Lets cover the bases here. This has been taken without permission from the NRA ILA.
Copied on Friday, June 20th, 2008 at 10:47pm from URL http://www.nranews.com/article.aspx?article=88

-------------------------------------------------------
If you ever needed proof that the media ignore or suppress stories that dont fit their anti-gun agenda, here it is...

M E D I A B I A S

by Marshall Lewin

If you ever needed proof that the media ignore or suppress stories that don't fit their anti-gun agenda, here it is.

When the so-called "mainstream" media completely ignore an important firearm study by the FBI, there's got to be a good reason-doesn't there?

Forget the old New York Times slogan "All the News that's Fit to Print." When it comes to the conflict between your firearms, your freedom and the media's bias against both, their slogan ought to be "Only the News that Fits, We Print."

How else could the national establishment media outlets -- right down to the last one -- have completely ignored a recently released FBI report that demolishes many of the anti-gun articles of faith that they've printed and parroted without question or conscience for years?

The 176-page report is titled "Violent Encounters: A Study of Felonious Assaults on America's Law Enforcement Officers."

Although it was written by three of the FBI's most respected researchers -- recipients of the University of Virginia's Jefferson Award for Research -- and although it represents the culmination of more than 15 years of inquiry into violence against law enforcement officers, the report was received by the media with abject silence.

Why? Maybe because, among other things, the FBI report shows that many of the media's banal bromides regarding guns and crime are false:

• 
  Criminals do not get their guns through gun shows.
  
• Criminals do not find "loopholes" in the law through which they get their guns.
  
• Anti-gun laws do not stop criminals from getting guns; in fact, they don't even appear to slow criminals down.
  

15 Years of FBI Research ... Ignored

The FBI has collected data on law enforcement officers feloniously killed in the line of duty since 1945, and in recent decades has made increasing efforts to analyze the data and glean lessons from it.

To that end, in 1992 the FBI released "Killed in the Line of Duty," a three-year study of 51 cases in which 50 offenders killed 54 law enforcement officers.

In each case, investigators collected all kinds of information on the incident itself. They interviewed the fallen officers' colleagues, their supervisors and the homicide investigators assigned to their murders.

They interviewed the law officers' killers. And to make sure those interviews wouldn't be tainted, they limited the cases they selected for study to those in which the offenders had exhausted all appeals.

Although the 1992 study was well received by the law enforcement community -- indeed, one sheriff gave it credit for saving the life of one of his deputies -- many felt that it was lacking in one dimension: the point of view of the officers who were killed.

So the FBI opened a new line of inquiry, this time analyzing cases in which law officers had been seriously assaulted, but not killed.

In another three-year study, the researchers examined 40 incidents (out of 625 submitted for review) that involved 52 victim officers and 42 offenders (nine cases involved multiple victims, and three involved multiple offenders).

As in the previous study, to ensure the quality of the information obtained, investigators granted complete anonymity to the victim officers, their departments and the offenders. The resulting monograph, titled "In the Line of Fire," was released in 1997.

For the third and final research report, "Violent Encounters," the FBI analysts culled 40 incidents involving 43 offenders and 50 officers froma pool of approximately 800 case submitted for consideration by agencies across the country.

Again, the victim officers and offenders were interviewed in depth. Again, extensive information was collected from the crime scenes and case files for each incident. And again, anonymity was guaranteed to all parties.

In this study, however, researchers considered additional questions, including firearm use; marksmanship training and practice; the sources of criminals' firearms; the ages at which criminals began carrying firearms; when and how they carried; prior involvement in shootings; and so on.

The "Gun Show" Charade

You'd never know it to hear the so-called "mainstream" media tell the tale, but this new FBI report shows that what the media have been saying for years about gun shows, so-called "loopholes" and the sources of criminals' firearms has been false.

A few quotes from the report here are instructive:

"[T]he federal government has passed many laws to restrict and limit firearm purchases. The offenders in this research, however, stated that none of these laws or statutes deterred them."

"Of the 33 handguns used to assault the officers who participated in the current study, 32 (97 percent) were obtained illegally. Eighteen of these were purchased or traded from other [criminals]; six were obtained during burglaries; four were taken from the victim officers during the incidents of examination; two were stolen during larcenies; one was stolen during a homicide; and one was illegally purchased from a firearm dealer in a store (straw purchase by a female associate). "None of the rifles, shotguns or handguns connected with this study were obtained from gun shows or related activities."

Indeed, while anti-gun groups and the media wring their hands, complain about "lax laws" and claim that criminals obtain firearms by exploiting deficiencies in current law, the convicted criminals interviewed for this most recent study made it clear that:

a) At the time of the incident under investigation, they were already prohibited from purchasing firearms because of criminal convictions, illicit activity, underage status and other disqualifying factors; and

b) Those disqualifying conditions didn't make a bit of difference, since the criminals didn't, and wouldn't, attempt to obtain firearms through conventional sources.

Again, some passages from the most recent FBI report sum it up succinctly:

"Thirteen of the 43 offenders readily admitted membership in street gangs connected with drug trafficking. They stated that they freely exchanged firearms within the gang and viewed them as a necessary tool not only for their criminal activities, but also for protecting their territories. None of these particular gang members obtained their weapons legally. Generally, they obtained the firearms by illegal street purchase, trade, swapping on the street, or as the proceeds of theft, such as burglaries and larcenies. Four officers were assaulted with handguns taken from them."

One of the authors of the most recent study, Edward F. Davis of the FBI's Behavioral Science Unit, told the International Association of Chiefs of Police that not one of the criminals who attacked police officers was "hindered by any law-federal, state or local-that has ever been established to prevent gun ownership. They just laughed at gun laws."

Indeed, as one of the criminals interviewed for "Violent Encounters" explained:

"I never gave a [expletive] about the gun laws that are on the books ... I never went into a gun store or to a gun show or to a pawn shop or anyplace else where firearms are legally bought and sold and picked up a gun, ever. Because I'm a felon, I couldn't pass a background check ... That's just common sense, and I think most felons know that. I'm not going to pass a background check, and I'm not even going to try. Why? Because I can break into Joe Blow's house down the road here ... where it was relatively likely they were gonna have a piece and search the [expletive] from top to bottom until you found your gun."

When investigators asked this same offender how hard it would be to illegally buy a gun on the street, he replied:

"Sure, the black market, quote, unquote. You can get everything from a cheap little .22-caliber ... to a .50-caliber Desert Eagle that retails for twenty-two hundred bucks. You can find everything in between ... whatever you want to get ahold of."

Another offender told FBI investigators:

"No, we ain't going to no store to buy [guns]. I mean, you know, you got everybody out there doing their thing as far as being a criminal. You got guys out there that sell drugs. Guys out there that do burglaries and all that stuff. So, there is some gun sellers out there ... it's almost easy as being able to find drugs."

"Almost as easy as being able to find drugs."

Consider for a moment exactly what that means.

The drugs to which the criminal was referring are completely illegal. They're outlawed throughout the u.s. under numerous federal and state laws that impose stiff, mandatory sentences for distribution, and in many cases simple possession.

Thus, if anything, illegal drugs should be harder to obtain than firearms -- not easier. But they're not.

So even if firearms were one day outlawed completely -- as narcotics currently are -- criminals could still get them as easily as a dime bag.

By refusing to admit that, by refusing to publish the truth that FBI researchers spent 15 years to uncover, the national media don't just divert attention away from the real problems and allow them to grow worse.

They also diminish our liberty and dishonor the brave men and women in blue whose sacrifices served as the reason for this research-and who gave their lives to protect our families and our freedom.

That's a disgrace.

----------------------------------------------------------------

I invite everyone to Google "NRA NEWS" and look around. If you're on the fence regarding guns and their impact on society and crime read what is there. If you still are not convinced, check out a non-NRA related book(sp) by John Lott titled "More Guns, Less Crime".

Cheers

Boycott Toronto!!!!

OK everyone, it time to get the word out. Toronto needs to feel what happens when all gun owners ban travel to a city.

To learn more, go to http://www.torontothebad.com/ .

Here is what the Mayor of Toronto has to say about America Gun Owners.

• About American Firearms Owners
  
• The U.S. is exporting its problem of violence to the streets of Toronto,
  ... this should come as no surprise, there’s a complete lack of common sense in the US and its easier for a Canadian to drive down to a place like Ohio and go to a gun show and bring it back in.
  
• "It's a sign that the lack of gun laws in the U.S. is allowing guns to flood across the border that are literally being used to kill people in the streets of Toronto,"
  
• There’s a heck of a lot of Americans who believe in common sense gun control. Maybe they’ll wake up and discover that they’re exporting literal death to the streets of Toronto and other Canadian cities.
  
• The law must be changed and we have to continue to work with American mayors to stop the flow of guns across the border into Canada,
  
• There are two sources: They're from Canada and the United States. The Canadian guns sometimes are from registered gun owners, as we sadly saw last week, often are from guns stolen from so-called collectors. And it's time to close those loopholes. And we must be much more aggressive to stop the guns coming from the United States.
  
• We've got ongoing work with U.S. jurisdictions and that's important as something we can do. We've ask our legal department to explore every avenue of what we can do to get at the supply of guns and ammunition.
  
• We need to take a strong stand about it and make it a big issue between Canada and the US so the Americans choose to make a different choice about it.
  
• I’ve lived in the States, I went to university in the States and I don’t think there’s a place for guns there either...

This was so good, it needed to be added here...

In Webster's English
Stephen P. Halbrook
http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/commentary/wb/164311

Halbrook, an attorney and research fellow at The Independent Institute, Oakland, Calif., is author of "The Founders' Second Amendment: Origins of the Right to Bear Arms."

Anticipating the Supreme Court's expected late June decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which will decide the constitutionality of a D.C. law restricting gun-ownership rights, many analysts have turned to the Founders' writings in an effort to understand the Second Amendment. What analysts need to do -- recognizing that language and word usage change over time -- is turn to America's first dictionary.

The Second Amendment states simply, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The Supreme Court questioned whether the D.C. statute "violate[d] 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."

For the answer, turn to Noah Webster.

Known as the Father of American Scholarship and Education, Webster believed that popular sovereignty in government must be accompanied by popular usage in language. In "A Compendious Dictionary of the English Language," published in 1806, and "An American Dictionary of the English Language," published in 1828 and adopted by Congress as the American standard, Webster defined all the words in the Second Amendment.

"People" were "the commonality, as distinct from men of rank," and "Right" was "just claim; immunity; privilege." "All men have a right to secure enjoyment of life, personal safety, liberty and property," he wrote.

Thus in the language of Webster's time, "the people" meant individuals and individuals have "rights."

"Keep" was defined as "To hold; to retain one's power or possession; not to lose or part with ... To have in custody for security or preservation"; "Bear" as "to carry" or "to wear; name; to bear arms in a coat"; and "Arms" were defined as "weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body."

Only civilians would "bear arms in a coat" -- soldiers carried muskets in their hands, while officers carried pistols in holsters.

Thus the words "keep and bear arms" suggest a right to hand-held arms as a person could "bear," such as muskets, pistols and swords, but not cannon and heavy ordnance that a person could not carry.

"Infringe" was defined by Webster as " ... to violate, either positively by contravention, or negatively by non-fulfillment or neglect of performance."

"Militia" was defined as "able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades, with officers ... and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations" and "Regulated" as " ... subject to rules or restrictions." A well-regulated militia consisted of civilians, not soldiers.

What about the phrase "being necessary to the security of a free State?"

"Necessary" was defined as "that must be; that cannot be otherwise; indispensably requisite";

"Security" as "protection; effectual defense or safety from danger of any kind ... " and "Free" as "In government, not enslaved; not in a state of vassalage or dependence; subject only to fixed laws, made by consent, and to a regular administration of such laws; not subject to arbitrary will of a sovereign or lord."

"State" was defined as "A political body, or body politic; the whole body of people united under one government, whatever may be the form of government ... ." A free state, we must conclude, therefore, encompasses the entire body politic.

During most of our history an exhaustive analysis of the Second Amendment would never have been necessary. The meaning of each word would have been obvious to citizens of the time.

It was only in the late 20th century that an Orwellian view of the Second Amendment gained currency. Within this distorted language prism, "the people" would come to mean the states or state-conscripted militia; "right" would mean governmental power; "keep" would no longer entail custody for security or preservation; "bear" would not mean carry; "arms" would not include ordinary handguns and rifles, and "infringe" would not include prohibition.

The Founders worded the Second Amendment in an easy to understand manner. Individuals have a right to have arms in their houses and to carry them for protection, and the government may not violate that right.

Modern contortions of language can't change that meaning because we can still refer to Noah Webster.
----------------------------
Now that is something that I cannot see anyone argue, unless they change the definition of our words.

Second Amendment is not about weapons,

Second Amendment is not about weapons, but about basic right of self-defense
June 2, 2008
Larry Goodson

The letter in Wednesday's edition, "Restrict weapons," is yet another display of a well-intentioned person who has absolutely no knowledge of firearms or facts.

She refers to the Second Amendment as giving guns to too many irresponsible people. I guess, and primarily due to the major media historically having an anti-gun agenda and choosing to not report on them, she is unaware of the 2.5 million times each year in our country that an average person stops a crime due to the mere presence of a gun, and in most cases not firing it.

Does she also suggest that too many people are abusing some of the other amendments, such as the right of free speech and religion because of all the hate mongers and race baiters we are exposed to daily?

The Second Amendment is not about hunting or target shooting. It is primarily about self-defense, which is a far greater right than even that bestowed by the First Amendment. Studies and statistics show that if more good people had guns, there would be far less crime.

If our society could effectively deal with such core issues as the glorification of violence in music, movies, the Internet and video games, a turnstile justice system that coddles criminals, an education system that no longer teaches values and respect, and the lack of parenting, there would no longer be a "gun problem," as there was none when I was growing up. I will fight for my constitutional right of self-defense.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/opinion/sfl-pbmail805pnjun02,0,360095.story

Wow, in the New York Times...

Normally major newspapers and media sources ignore news involving non-criminal use of handguns. Swap out the officer for any Concealed Weapons Permit holder, and you will understand my points made repeatedly here.
----------------------------

At His Door, Officer Kills Armed Man
By JENNIFER 8. LEE and JASON GRANT
Published: June 2, 2008
The NEW YORK TIMES
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/02/nyregion/02shooting.html?ref=nyregion

An off-duty police officer fatally shot a man who pulled a gun on the officer’s wife and 3-year-old daughter outside the door of their Bronx apartment, the police said on Sunday.

The confrontation began when the officer’s wife and daughter left the elevator to go to their third-floor apartment at 314 East 201st Street in Bedford Park just before midnight on Saturday.

A man who had been in the elevator with them followed them out and pointed a pistol at them, the police said. The woman’s screams alerted her husband, identified as Officer Luis Perez, who ran into the hall with a gun.

Shots were fired as the man, whom the police identified as Carlos Rios, 47, of Amsterdam Avenue in Upper Manhattan, ran down the stairs into the lobby, witnesses and the police said. He was hit in the shoulder, the police said.

According to a witness, Mr. Rios was found under a minivan outside the building and medics tried to revive him on the sidewalk. He was taken to Montefiore Medical Center, where he was declared dead at 12:26 a.m.

The police said that a silver automatic pistol was recovered and that Mr. Rios had an arrest record. They did not give details.

Peter Girvan, 42, an administrator at Fordham University who also lives on the third floor, said that shortly before midnight he heard a woman yelling for help in Spanish. He looked through the peephole of his apartment door and saw a woman in a black jogging suit giving “bloodcurdling” screams. “She was screaming ‘Ayudame! Ayudame!’” he said.

He said he then saw Mr. Rios dart past his door and run down the stairs. Mr. Girvan said he heard a single shot followed by a rapid sequence of five shots. After a minute or so, Mr. Girvan said, he walked into the hallway and saw Officer Perez, dressed only in boxer shorts, coming up the stairs with his gun.

The police said that the pistol the officer used was not his department-issued weapon.

Another neighbor, Ken Ferrara, 53, who teaches learning-disabled children and is a tai chi instructor, said he heard Mr. Perez identify himself as a police officer. He added, “I believe it was the perpetrator who fired the shot as he was running down the stairs, and then the officer returned fire.”

Jason Rodriguez, 23, who lives on the first floor, also said that he heard a single shot followed by five rapid shots. “I went to my hallway and all I saw was gun smoke,” he said. “It had just happened. I was devastated.”

Hours after the shooting, a trail of blood could be seen from the first floor out to the street.

The neighborhood is known as a place where many police officers live, residents said. Blanca Farmer, 52, the building’s superintendent, said that Officer Perez was an active and helpful neighbor. She said he had passed his business card to other tenants and told them: “If there is trouble in the building, call the 52nd Precinct. Don’t take the law into your own hands.”
-----------------------------------------
OK, I bolded one thing which is also usually omitted in a story regarding LAWFUL self defense shootings across this country. The criminal in this story, and almost all others like this, have a prior record.

I do disagree with one major part of this story. It is the final line of this story. "Don't take the law into your own hands."

Do a test where ever you may live. Have a stopwatch available. Call 911. Now, imagine how many shots can and could be fired by a criminal. Also, figure out how many shots you could fire to save you, your family, or others before the police arrive.

Taking your own life and the self defense of such into your own hands in most states is actually protected by law. Did you know that? There are laws in place to protect those whom have had to defend themselves or others. SO, taking the law into your own hands is not only something I advise, but support. If we could not do this, why do they have Citizens Arrest powers also in the laws?

In addition to all of this, you must realize and understand that the Supreme Court of the United States of America ruled that the police DO NOT HAVE A DUTY TO PROTECT YOU!!!!!! Bet most of you did not know that one.

Cheers,

Packing.org died, but now....

If you want to learn more about Concealed Carry, you can now go to USA CARRY!
http://www.usacarry.com/

Gun Bans in History

1911, Turkey establishes gun control.
Between 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
--------------------------------------------------------
1929, the Soviet Union establishes gun control.
20 million plus dissidents (a governments term for someone who does not think along party lines) unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
--------------------------------------------------------
1935 China establishes gun control.
Between 1935 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves,were rounded up and exterminated.
-------------------------------------------------------
1938 Germany establishes gun control.
13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
--------------------------------------------------------
1956 Cambodia established gun control.
One million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
--------------------------------------------------------
1964 Guatemala established gun control.
100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
--------------------------------------------------------
1970 Uganda established gun control.
300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
--------------------------------------------------------
The number of defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control.................56 million. And that's only the one we have records for!

Control Criminals NOT Guns

By Walter E. Williams
Wednesday, May 21, 2008

Every time there's a highly publicized shooting, out go the cries for stricter gun control laws, and it was no different with the recent murder of Philadelphia Police Sgt. Stephen Liczbinski.

Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell and Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter, in a letter to the state congressional delegation demanding reenactment of the federal assault weapon ban, said, "Passing this legislation will go a long way to protecting those who put their lives on the line every day for us. … There is no excuse to do otherwise."

Gun control laws will not protect us from murderers. We need protection from the criminal justice system politicians have created. Let's look at it.

According to former Philly cop Michael P. Tremoglie's article "Who freed the cop-killers?" for the Philadelphia Daily News (5/8/08), all three murder suspects had extensive criminal records. Levon Warner was sentenced in 1997 to seven and a half to 15 years for robbery, one to five years for possessing an instrument of crime and five to 10 for criminal conspiracy. Howard Cain was convicted in 1996 on four counts of robbery and sentenced to five to 10 years on each count. Eric Floyd was sentenced to five to 10 years in 1995 for robbery, rearrested in 1999 for parole violation and later convicted in 2001 for two robberies. If these criminals had not been released from prison, long before they served out their sentences, officer Liczbinski would be alive today. So what's responsible for his death: guns or a prison and parole system that released these three criminals? Tremoglie cites other examples of criminals, with convictions for violent crimes ranging from robbery and assault to murder, who were paroled and later murdered police officers.

A New York Times study (4/28/06) of the city's 1,662 murders in 2003-2005 found that 90 percent of the murderers had criminal records. A Massachusetts study reported that on average, homicide offenders had been arraigned for nine prior offenses. John Lott's book, "More Guns, Less Crime," reports that in 1988 in the 75 largest counties in the U.S., over 89 percent of adult murderers had a criminal record as an adult.

A few days after the murder of Liczbinski, Governor Rendell told a news conference, attended by state elected officials and top law enforcement officials, "The time has come for politicians to decide. You have to decide whether you're on their side -- the men and women who wear blue -- or whether you're on the side of the gun lobby." Instead of saying "whether you're on the side of the gun lobby," Rendell should have said "whether you're on the side of the criminal and the courts, prosecutors, prisons and parole boards that cut soft deals with criminals and release them to prey upon police officers and law-abiding citizens."

If there is one clear basic function of government, it's to protect citizens from criminals. When government failure becomes so apparent, as it is in the murder of a police officer, officials seek scapegoats and very often it's the National Rifle Association and others who seek to protect our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. We hear calls for stricter gun control laws when what is really needed is more control over criminals.

There are many third-party liability laws. I think they ought to be applied to members of parole boards who release criminals who turn around and commit violent crimes. As it stands now, people on parole boards who release criminals bear no cost of their decisions. I bet that if members of parole boards were held liable or forced to serve the balance of the sentence of a parolee who goes out and commits more crime, they would pay more attention to the welfare of the community rather than the welfare of a criminal. You say, "Williams, under those conditions, who'd serve on a parole board?" There's something to be said about that.

Presidential Candidates on the 2nd Amendment

Who is truly supporting your right to bear arms?

Check out this report! Presidential Candidates on the 2nd Amendment