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

Here is our choice...

Regardless of what happens between Obama and Clinton, here is the only choice for 2nd Amendment Rights.

John McCain at the NRA Annual Meeting in Kentucky.

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/

Something I have noticed.....

I reread my tagline on the top of my blog. I see that I refer to my thughts as random, however, the more that I write here, the more I notice that I keep to the same themes again and again.

Right To Carry

This is one of my favorite rights bestowed upon all of us via the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights. When I was younger I thought the NRA was just a bunch of country bumpkins, but after living life and working very close to Law Enforcement, I see that the 2nd Amendment is the one which provides us the ability to Speak Freely under the 1st Amendment, also the right to practice our religions, and many other things. Notice the 2nd Amendment is towards the top, not the bottom.

I have spent time reading the words of our Founding Fathers and they all make it very clear that they feared and had seen through history that dictators and fascists can easily rise to power and take away all of our freedoms by whim and decree. Look to the post just prior to this one which shows what happens when the people are stripped of their arms.

If you do not think that an evil person can rise to power on the shoulders of a minority, look to Hitler. Only 30% of Germany supported him, and he took over the country.

If we look to the cities where guns are restricted or banned, look at the crime that is evident. What is the purpose of passing a law that only law abiding citizens will follow? Crime is not deterred by laws, but by punishment. If we lock up a criminal, can the commit crimes against society? NO. Look also to the Civil Rights violations which happen in these cities. The police operate above the law with blessing from those in power. If you disagree with them, you will be put down by threats, attacks, arrest, and lies. Does that sound like freedom?

What makes good people good? Is it ethics? Morals? Education? Religion? What is it that makes most people good people? Is it Laws? None of these holds power over all of these. It is people seeking freedom. Freedom from fear, freedom from crime, freedom from tyranny. When we all realize that no matter how many laws are passed, there will be crime and injustice.

In realizing that crime and injustice will always exist, we realize that we ourselves, or better said, we the people must defend each others ability to enjoy freedom. I may not agree with everyone, nor should I, but your freedoms are granted to all of us. You may argue this point, but that is a freedom you enjoy.

We are lucky to live here. We need the right to bear arms. Without that, we will lose our freedoms with no way to resist. This is completely summed up by the following question.

Is our government here to serve us, or are we here to serve the government?

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!

NRA Certified

In my quest to improve myself and help others, I recently became a Certified Basic Rifle Instructor with the NRA.
I am in the process of getting additional classes I can teach.
I will post each class I can teach here.

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.

Why do we not arm our teachers and school workers?

Arm and Protect our Schools!

If you have read my remarks here, you know I am a supporter of Self Defense and the 2nd Amendment. I believe what we can do to counter school shootings at all schools is to begin training and arming teachers. In Colleges, allow students whom have their Concealed Weapons Permits to carry their arms should they choose to.

We already believe in these people enough to trust them with our children 5 days a week. Do we have so little faith in these people to not allow them the option of protecting our children beyond locking the doors to their classrooms and turning off the lights?

I admit this shouldn't be a Cart Blanche arming of people. I have no problem having additional standards set to qualify a teacher or school staff. Maybe psychological evaluation, meeting a set period of time in the position, and extensive training.

We have schools all over the United States which train our Law Enforcement, Military, and Federal Agents which could quickly create a program to suit our schools.

Now, I know most people see all college students as being extras in the background of movies like Animal House. The truth of the matter is those students which go out to pursue a Concealed Weapons Permit are already outside of your norm. In many states, the age requirements already make it so only SOTA's (Students Older Than Average) are even able to get their permits. Many of these students are former military. Others have already been working in the real world and have shown they are not criminals. They have, if they found it necessary, experimented with whatever vices that most students are only now discovering.

We have to remember that a vigorous background check is performed on all applicants. Since I was 14, I have been having different background checks run on me. Many jobs I had when younger required passing the background check before an offer of employment could even be extended. Between many state agencies, the federal government, and private groups, my background has been checked regularly. I am sure that I am not alone in that. Many of my friends also have done this. Some even have such high levels of secret clearance that the DSS and Secret Service have done their backgrounds. Why would our Military and Government trust these people on such a protected level that a college would see them as untrustworthy?

The whole fact of the matter is that once you remove these Gun Free Zone laws, or as I refer to them, Murder Freely Zones, that knowledge alone will make a criminal shooter think twice before going to a school and attempting killings. Criminals seek easy targets. If this wasn't true, why do they seek out seniors to rob? If force wasn't a deterrent, Fort Knox would have been overrun and emptied years ago.

Do we need more shootings like Virgina Tech, Bailey Colorado, Red Lake Minnesota, and Columbine Colorado to learn this lesson?

Do the right thing. Arm our teachers. If you want a real time case study on this, look to Utah. They allow their teachers to carry, and on colleges, students with permits. When was the last time you heard of a school shooting there?

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

Glenn Beck on Guns

Things to know

Now if you can out do him, you need to go pro!

I wish I was in school, but my holster would have a gun

Because I would go directly to the jail or after a Bail Skip, I carried my gun with me to class all the time. I knew it was safer on me than in the car. I even got calls which I left class to go directly to where I would catch someone I was looking for and arrest them. These students have a point, they should be allowed to carry on campus.

Here is the story.
---------------------------
Students Strap On Empty Holsters to Protest Gun Restrictions on Campus
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
By Melissa Underwood
Fox News
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,304806,00.html


College students across the country have been strapping empty holsters around their waists this week to protest laws that prohibit concealed weapons on campus, citing concerns over campus shootings.

"People who would otherwise be able to defend themselves are left defenseless when on campus," said Ethan Bratt, a graduate student wearing an empty holster this week on the campus of Seattle Pacific University.

Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, a group of college students, parents and citizens who organized after the deadly shootings at Virginia Tech University in April, launched the protest.

A national debate over gun laws on campus began in the wake of those shootings, in which a deranged student killed 32 people in a classroom building before committing suicide. It was the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history.

Campuses are prime targets for people intent on harming others because laws prohibit concealed weapons there, Bratt said.

But others believe college is no place for firearms.

"You don't like the fact that you can't have a gun on your college campus? Drop out of school," said Peter Hamm, a spokesman for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

When someone pulls out a gun and starts firing in a crowded environment, it's more likely that additional victims will be harmed, Hamm said.

"Let's be grateful that those holsters are empty," he said.

• Click here to visit the Students for Concealed Carry on Campus Web site.
• Click here to visit the Brady Center's Web site.

A group of 12 students chose to wear empty holsters to class this week at the University of Idaho as part of the nationwide protest.

Aled Baker, a junior, said he loses his constitutional right to protect himself and others when he steps on campus.

"It's null and void when you go on campus," the mechanical engineering student said.
Baker, a sportsman and hunter, has a license to carry a concealed handgun and hopes the protest will get people talking about the issue.

University policies nationwide prohibit carrying concealed handguns on campuses.
"We do not allow weapons on campus for the safety and security of our student body and faculty," said Tracy Schario, spokeswoman for George Washington University in Washington, D.C.

Justin Turner, a senior in criminology and history at Florida State University, also wants the ability to carry a concealed handgun on campus.

"I'm hoping that people actually realize that this is something that college students are serious about moving forward and realize that it's not about taking the law into your own hands; it's about taking personal responsibility for yourself," said Turner, chairman of the Florida State chapter of Students for the Second Amendment.

Congress is considering legislation that would tighten background checks and give states funding to submit information to a national database that would prevent guns from being sold to dangerous buyers. House lawmakers passed the legislation, but it remains in the Senate.

"It fixes the problem that the states are not submitting the necessary records of people who have been found by a court to be dangerously mentally ill," Hamm said.

Family members and survivors of the Virginia Tech shootings recently visited members of Congress to urge lawmakers to pass the legislation they believe could help prevent future tragedies.
--------------------------------
Again, I carried in school, and I knew a few others that did too. What bugged us was the fact that we were able to get in trouble for doing such. Virginia Tech was not the first nor will it be the last (already has happened again) school shooting to happen. Allow permit holders to carry where they roam. It makes the world safer for all of us.

NICE

Why Guns Make the World Safer
Monday, October 22, 2007
By Greg Gutfeld
Fox News

In Alabama, a couple named Adrian and Tiffany McKinnon came home to find their house had been burgled. The thieves left piles of trash everywhere. After his wife left, Adrian went back into the house, walking right into one of the burglars, who was wearing Adrian's hat. Adrian not only held the man at gunpoint (or "fun-point," as I like to call it), he forced the thief to clean up the mess. When the police arrived, the thief complained about this, unaware that he had avoided another option: death.

As anyone who's been robbed knows, it's the mess left behind that's just as bad as being robbed. I wouldn't hate being robbed so much if the thieves would have a little common courtesy to put back the stuff they don't want. There's nothing worse than trying to retrieve a figurine from the toilet. At least, I hope that was a figurine.

But really, I love this story because it reveals the magical, healing powers of firearms. The fact is, if you want bad people to stop being bad, just point a loaded firearm at them — you can actually get them to clean your house. This is the only scientific proof you need that handguns — in the hands of good people — make the world a safer place.

And frankly, the thief was lucky. If it were up to me, I would have made him do my linens and clean the grout in between my bathroom tiles with his tongue. But first, I'd force him into a French maid costume. I have four of them in different sizes just in case the opportunity presents itself.

Dass ist mein Darmgefuehl!
---------------------------------------

Guns in Boulder CO.

Packing heat: Concealed-handgun permits on the rise
2003 law eases restrictions

By Heath Urie
Sunday, October 21, 2007
http://dailycamera.com/news/2007/oct/21/packing-heat-concealed-handgun-permits-on-the/?printer=1/

Whether tucked inside waistbands, slipped in jacket pockets or holstered around ankles, chances are most handguns being carried around Boulder County go unnoticed.

"You wouldn't know I'm carrying," said 46-year-old Longmont resident Rod Brandenburg, who occasionally packs a fully loaded .45-caliber Heckler & Koch pistol.

Brandenburg owns Grandpa's Pawn & Gun on Longmont's Main Street — the fourth-highest-volume gun dealer in Colorado — and is among the 1,462 people living in Boulder County who have a government permit to secretly arm themselves in public.

"When I take deposits to the bank — if it's a large deposit or a small deposit — I want to be able to protect it," Brandenburg said. "There's a reason our forefathers made the 'right to bear arms' the Second Amendment; it's very important."

In Boulder County, about one out of every 193 people have a permit to carry a concealed handgun, according to a report compiled by the Sheriff's Office. So far this year, 258 permits have been issued to Boulder County residents, already tying the highest number of permits issued by the sheriff since Colorado changed its concealed-carry laws four years ago.

Legislation passed in 2003 made Colorado a "shall-issue state," requir-ing county sheriff's offices to issue concealed-handgun permits to people who pass the necessary criminal background checks, pay a fee of $152.50, prove proficiency with a handgun through a safety class or prior experience and don't give authorities any reason to believe they might be a danger to themselves or to others.

Permits 'up
significantly' in Colo.

Susan Kitchen, a Colorado Bureau of Investigation agent in charge of the concealed-handgun background-check program, said she has seen interest in carrying concealed weapons spike in recent years.

"Based on the number of background checks we're performing, I would say they've gone up significantly," Kitchen said.

Permits per population

There is no requirement for the state to keep central records of the total number of active concealed-carry permits for each county. However, a Camera survey of several area counties found the following ratios of permit holders to population:

El Paso County: 1 in 71
Douglas County: 1 in 104
Larimer County: 1 in 106
Jefferson County: 1 in 117
Broomfield County: 1 in 150
Weld County: 1 in 189
Boulder County: 1 in 193
Denver County: 1 in 382

Statewide, a total of 27,370 concealed-handgun permits were issued to residents from 2003 to 2006, according to the County Sheriffs of Colorado, the organization tasked with tracking permit statistics for the state Legislature.

Of Colorado's 64 counties, Boulder County ranks 10th in the number of such permits issued from 2003 to 2006, with 966. However, the county is 55th in the ratio of permits issued over the four-year period to its total population of about 282,000 people.

Boulder County Sheriff Joe Pelle was instrumental in passing the 2003 legislation in his role as a member of the board of directors for the CBI Colorado Crime Information Center, just prior to being elected sheriff.

"We took a number of agency policies and sort of melded them together and started to negotiate (with the pro-gun lobby)," Pelle said. "It actually mirrors the old (Boulder) County policy in a lot of ways."

He said that, from a law-enforcement perspective, the current set of regulations is easier to manage than "inconsistent" former laws that varied across the state.

Some county sheriffs — prior to the 2003 laws, Pelle said — were charging "exorbitant" amounts of money to issue handgun permits to virtually anyone, while other agencies refused to hand out any permits at all.

"There were places that were permit mills," he said. "It was probably their main income. At least we've eliminated all of that, and it's a consistent set of rules statewide."

He said the majority of people who come to his office to apply for a permit say they're doing it "as an exercise of their Second Amendment rights — because they can."

Concealed-carry handgun permit restrictions

As a general rule, a concealed-handgun permit allows the carrier to wear the weapon in all areas of the state that are public, with a few specific restrictions as follows:

A permit does not authorize a person to carry a concealed handgun into a place where the carrying of firearms is prohibited by federal law, such as on commercial airplanes.

A permit does not authorize a person to carry a concealed handgun onto the property of a public elementary, middle, junior high or high school. However, a permit holder may have a handgun on the property of the public school so long as the handgun remains in a vehicle and, if the permit holder is not in the vehicle, the handgun is in a compartment within the vehicle and the vehicle is locked.

A permit does not authorize a person to carry a concealed handgun into a public building at which: security personnel and electronic weapons screening devices are permanently in place at each entrance to the building; security personnel electronically screen each person who enters the building to determine whether the person is carrying a weapon of any kind; and security personnel require each person who is carrying a weapon of any kind to leave the weapon in possession of security personnel while the person is in the building.

Any private business can restrict weapons from being carried on private property.
The University of Colorado has banned all weapons from the campus. The Colorado Attorney General's Office has written an opinion that the CU regents can exercise that authority, despite the campus being a public facility.

Source: Colorado Revised Statutes

"We get very few people who come to us saying they need a permit for self-protection, that they're in fear," he said.

'It's the ones you don't
know about'

The people who receive permits and decide to use them, Pelle said, are usually not a concern to officers.

"Generally, people who take the time to go to class, learn the legalities and practical aspects of handling a gun, and who go to the trouble and expense to get a permit are law-abiding people who do not concern us," Pelle said. "There's a lot of people out there carrying guns, and believe me, they're not applying for permits. It's the ones you don't know about that are a bigger concern."

The number of crime victims who successfully use firearms to defend themselves is small, according to the FBI. In 2006, out of 14,990 Americans who died by gunfire, 195 were shot in justifiable homicides by private citizens with firearms, the FBI reported.

Ken Jones, a 41-year-old Longmont resident shopping for a gun at Grandpa's Pawn & Gun earlier this month, said he's glad to see more people applying for concealed-carry permits each year.

"I think people are responsible for their own safety," Jones said. "The people that are carrying concealed weapons are law-abiding citizens. They'd have to be; otherwise they wouldn't go out of their way to be scrutinized. The criminals are also aware of increased concealed-carry permits."

Ann Coakley, whose daughter was killed by an errant bullet in 1996 in Boulder, has worked to strengthen gun laws.

"People carrying guns do not make me feel any safer," Coakley said. "The man who killed my daughter had a concealed-carry permit. The man also taught gun safety. It didn't save my daughter's life."

Tom Mauser, whose son Daniel was killed in the Columbine High School shooting rampage in 1999, spoke out against the 2003 concealed-weapon law because he said it took "discretion" away from local sheriffs.

"I think (the issue of carrying concealed handguns is) going to be one of those things like a lot of issues in America — until there is an outright crisis, something that really gets attention, it's tough to bring about change," Mauser said.

Database lands sheriff
on 'hate-mail list'

The Boulder County sheriff successfully lobbied state lawmakers last year to extend a database accessible to sheriffs to input the names of permit holders. The database helps officers in the field identify those who carry handguns legally, he said, and helps him determine if someone needs to have a permit revoked or denied.

"Because I enter my (concealed-weapon) permit holders into the database, I have been notified on at least a dozen occasions of permit holders who have gone crazy and been taken to mental hospitals, taken to alcohol or addiction recovery centers and who have been arrested by the police," he said.

Applying for a concealed-handgun permit in Boulder County
Concealed-carry applications are available online at www.co.boulder.co.us/sheriff or at the Boulder County Sheriff's Office, 1777 Sixth St., or mailed applications can be requested by phone at 303-441-3994.

All completed applications must be turned in and signed at the Sheriff's Office in person. An appointment will then be scheduled to have a photograph and set of prints taken.
Permits are good for five years and can be renewed.

Also required:

$152.50 in fees to pay for local, state and national criminal history checks, fingerprinting services and other costs.
Proof of residency
Documentation demonstrating competence with a handgun, such as a copy of a training certificate proving completion of a handgun-safety class

To qualify, applicants:

Must be 21 or older, or at least 18 for a temporary, emergency permit
Must be eligible to possess a firearm under federal law
Must not have been convicted of perjury
Must not chronically and habitually use alcohol or be addicted to a controlled substance
Must not be subject to any restraining order

Source: Boulder County Sheriff's Office

Brian Malte, state legislative director for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence in Washington, D.C., agreed that the database is important.

"We feel very strongly that law enforcement not only needs access to those who have been issued concealed-handgun permits, but it needs to be readily available," Malte said. "There needs to be a swift and rapid system to revoke a license of someone who's fallen into a prohibited category."

For his legislative efforts, Pelle said he's been placed on a "hate-mail list" by pro-gun groups, including Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, the largest Colorado gun lobby.

Dudley Brown, executive director of the group, is critical of Pelle for his use of the permit database.

"We believe it's entering law-abiding citizens into a criminal database that makes them at grave risk to overzealous law enforcement, and it puts them in a very precarious situation," Brown said. "We'll be fighting for its repeal."

Brown, who said his organization believes "More guns means less crime," said Colorado is "in the middle of the pack" when it comes to gun legislation. He said carrying a concealed weapon is the "accepted means" of self-defense in the United States.

He said he thinks more and more people are getting concealed-carry permits in Colorado because it's now easier and more streamlined for people to do so.

"Clearly, the decade-long debate that ended in 2003 let a lot of people know that a concealed-weapon permit was an option, and a lot of people chose it," Brown said. "I believe the reason you see these kinds of numbers from Boulder County is that even liberals are starting to understand it's a civil right to be able to defend yourself."

Guns and students can
be 'a dangerous mix'

Brown and his pro-gun lobby also are critical of the University of Colorado regents, who have banned the carrying of firearms on the CU campus with the exception of police storage areas for students living in residence halls.

"We have challenged the regents to overturn that ban, not only for students but for visitors on campus," Brown said. "We think it's morally and ethically outrageous that they would deny a 23-year-old nursing student the right to defend herself when she gets out of a late-night class."

CU's policy prohibits the possession of any "dangerous or illegal weapon that could be an instrument of offensive or defensive combat; anything used or designed to be used in destroying, defeating or injuring a person; an instrument designed or likely to produce bodily harm; or an instrument by the use of which a fatal wound could be given."

CU police Cmdr. Brad Wiesley said he couldn't recall an incident in at least the past four years in which a person was caught carrying a concealed handgun on campus property.

Guns, by the numbers

1,462 Total number of active concealed-handgun permits in Boulder County.

258 Number of concealed-carry permits issued in Boulder County so far this year, and the most issued here during the past four years.

27,370 Total number of concealed permits issued in Colorado from 2003 to 2006.

10th Where Boulder County ranks statewide in the number of concealed-carry permits issued from 2003 to 2006. Per capita, Boulder County ranks 55th in permits issued during the same time period.

In August, however, 19-year-old CU student Matthew Furnish received one year of probation and was suspended from the university for two years after pleading guilty to unlawful conduct on public property in connection with a cache of weapons and ammunition police found in his dorm room.

Wiesley said students generally make good use of the police gun lockers that offer 24-hour access.

"If people want to engage in legal firearms-related activities, and they happen to live on campus, we want to be able to allow them to pursue their hobbies," Wiesley said. "We just don't want those weapons spread around campus in the residence halls or family housing."

All this week beginning Monday, college students from more than 110 campuses, including CU, plan to show up to classes wearing empty handgun holsters in protest of state laws and campus rules prohibiting the carrying of a concealed handgun on school grounds.

"Individuals who are licensed by their state to carry concealed handguns in places like movie theaters, office buildings, shopping malls and pretty much everywhere else should be afforded that same privilege on college campuses," said Scott Lewis, spokesman for Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, the national nonprofit group organizing the protest. "The practical point of the protest is to start a dialogue with people who may not be aware that concealed-carry laws exist, or that the laws are different on campus than they are elsewhere."

CU Regent Stephen Ludwig — an Aurora Democrat who, during his campaign for office last year, was critical of an endorsement given by the Pikes Peak Firearms Coalition to his Republican opponent, Brian Davidson — defended CU's gun policy as being "wise."

"Allowing concealed permits on campus invites a lot of problems," Ludwig said. "I think when you mix young people who are experimenting with alcohol, living in tight quarters, and firearms — I think that's a dangerous mix."

© 2006 Daily Camera and Boulder Publishing, LLC
--------------------------------------------------------

2nd Amendment at Hamline

College Admins: If You Favor Second Amendment Rights, You Must Be Crazy
By Jon Sanders
Wednesday, October 17, 2007

A Minnesota college student was suspended and ordered to undergo "mental health evaluation" for his response to campuswide e-mails from school officials concerning the Virginia Tech massacre.

The college, Hamline University, a private, liberal-arts institution affiliated with the Methodist Church, has a policy on "Freedom of Expression and Inquiry" that guarantees that Hamline students will be "free to examine and discuss all questions of interest to them and to express opinions publicly or privately."

With such a strong guarantee on students' "freedom from censorship and control" by the university, student Troy Scheffler's e-mail must have been horrifically bad to warrant such a crackdown. Right?

Wrong. What Scheffler did was make a gun-rights case for concealed-carry permits on campus to help ward off potential Cho Seung-Huis before they strike Hamline. This was no monstrous act; in fact, it was in line with public debate across the nation following Cho's rampage, not to mention an issue of perennial debate in America. Many researchers, most notably John R. Lott Jr., have shown conclusively that gun ownership itself wards off crime while laws banning guns lead to increases in crimes. Criminals are less likely to strike if they have reason to believe their prospective victims could be armed.

Scheffler had written in his April 17 e-mail reply to David Stern, Hamline vice president of student affairs, that "Considering this university also pushes 'diversity' initiatives like VA Tech, maybe its 'leadership' will reconsider [Hamline's] ban on conceal carry law abiding gun owners... Ironically, according to a few VA Tech forums, there are plenty of students complaining that this wouldnt have happened if the school wouldnt have banned their permits a few months ago."
He added, "I just dont understand why leftists dont understand that criminals dont care about laws; that is why they’re criminals... Maybe this school will reconsider its repression of law abiding citizens rights."

Two days later, Hamline President Linda Hanson e-mailed the campus about Virginia Tech. Scheffler replied to that e-mail also, expanding upon his comments to Stern.

In both messages, Scheffler made it clear to all but the most hysterically inclined person that his advocacy of concealed-carry permits was to protect the students from criminals. Scheffler recognized that this protection would be afforded primarily by predators' foreknowledge that any one of the students at Hamline could shoot back, but also – given that the administrators had both brought up the VT massacre – by students being able to stop a killing rampage before it got started.

In short, what Scheffler wrote was no preamble to a blood-lusty explosion of violence. At worst it was crude criticism of the university administration combined with a stark assessment of the true risk of a concealed-carry society like Virginia Tech's: total defenselessness against a Columbine-inspired mass murderer. Regardless, it should have been protected by the university's stated policy guaranteeing free expression.

Nevertheless, on April 23 Scheffler received a hand-delivered letter from Dean of Students Alan Sickbert that informed him his e-mails were "deemed to be threatening and thus an alleged violation of the Hamline University Judicial Code" and that he was placed on "interim suspension" to be lifted only after he agreed to a psychological evaluation by a licensed mental health professional.

Scheffler contacted the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, whose service in the cause of liberty in opposition to the petty tyrants populating American academe is invaluable. The history of the case, including the offending e-mails, are viewable on the FIRE's web site (www.thefire.org). Hamline officials say they moved to suspend after Scheffler failed to meet with university officials over his e-mails (he was given less than one full business day to do so) and that he is also the subject of "critical input from various members of the Hamline community" (which was news to Scheffler, nor has he been told of their identities nor given a chance to defend himself against their allegations, whatever they are – if those people exist at all).

The Soviet Union was notorious for psychiatric abuse, the use of psychiatric hospitals for the incarceration of political dissidents. Human Rights Watch accuses the government of China of psychiatric abuse of political activists, whistleblowers, various individuals and especially members of Falun Gong. Declaring dissidence a sign of mental instability is one of the lesser-known tools of the despot.

Psychiatric abuse is not something one expects in America, but it happens. For example, in June, the assistant director of the North Carolina Division of Motor Vehicles, Joey Gardner, was suspended without pay and ordered to undergo a psychological evaluation after blowing the whistle on DMV Commissioner George Tatum for allegedly seeking help to get his friend a vintage vehicle title for a replica (Tatum later resigned). In 2001, a Temple University student, Michael Marcavage, was involuntarily committed by his university for protesting a campus production of "Corpus Christi," a play that depicts Jesus Christ as a homosexual having carnal relations with his disciples.

In his April 19 e-mail, Scheffler wrote pessimistically, "Im sure this plea of common sense will fall on deaf ears." While the fault wasn't with the ears, as he had predicted, Scheffler's plea did indeed fall on disabled faculties.

Jon Sanders is a policy analyst and research editor at the John Locke Foundation in Raleigh, N.C.

Nice Picture