Category Archives: Gun Rights

Garner Guns and Police Protection

Of course the Eric Garner situation has done nothing but add fuel to the racial embers burning in the black communities. While the vast majority of “white America” has been over the racial divide for last 10-20 years, the race hustlers continue to stir the pot. After all – it’s how they make their living.

Naturally, the debate rages on social media, so I figured I’d share one of my recent conversations. Calvin Lester decided to share Rep Hank Johnson (D-GA) ridiculous “I can’t breathe” speech from the House floor.

As a reminder, Rep Hank Johnson has already provided us with a wealth of comedy – he thinks Guam (the island territory) might actually tip over. Even The Young Turks can’t defend that one..



Screen Shot 2014-12-31 at 10.29.41 AMEnjoy.

@Jarvis – maybe you misunderstand. “We” don’t have guns because of a mistrust of the police at the all. “We” actually trust the police to do their job – which is NOT protecting “us”. That would require some sort of pre-crime analysis which isn’t possible with current technology. Protection also isn’t feasible since it would require 24/7 supervision for all of us. There simply aren’t enough cops.

The job of the police is law enforcement, hence their title as law enforcement officers. That enforcement happens AFTER the fact 95% of the time. Of course, that means a crime has to first happen before they can show up with the lights and guns and yellow tape.

“We” have guns (and other means) of protection because we believe that ultimately “we” are responsible for both our own actions and our safety.


In the case of Garner, I do agree with you that the actions by the cops were ridiculous. Whether they were on orders to increase the pressure on the local riff-raff doesn’t matter. Arrest for selling illegal cigarettes? Really?

In my opinion that should be a ticket and court appearance. If the local businesses complained (apparently) then give him the opportunity to vacate the area or face arrest.

I also don’t care if he had a record or not. This was an overstep of the local government – not of the police.

On the other hand, verbally resisting and complaining is not the same as physically resisting. Once he physically resisted, the outcome was never going to be in his favor. More cops will simply show up. Did he “fight” the cops? Not exactly – but as any parent knows, trying to drag or control or contain a child throwing a tantrum where you are fighting dead weight is difficult enough. Now imagine a 350lb man.

Ultimately, the cop(s) did NOT kill Garner. He killed himself by his actions that were precipitated by local overreach.

Pearl MS and Facebook

Pearl-45-StoppedWow. This weekend I created a meme and posted it on Facebook. With the recent murders in NewTown, CT, and the subsequent assault on our 2nd Amendment rights, I felt it prudent to point out what happened.

The facts, as they relate to gun rights, are simple. Assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieved his .45 from his car and stopped Luke Woodham (murdered 3 people – and wounded 7) at gun point.

 Myrick demanded “Why did you shoot my kids?” to which Woodham replied, “Life has wronged me, sir.”

Unfortunately, I made a typo in my original meme and listed “Pearl River”. I didn’t realize it until this morning, but it had already been shared out by then. Apparently it had been shared out a lot – and reached the community of Pearl.

I’ve received several emails today asking me to correct it. The problem is that I can’t correct the ones that have been copied and shared out. That genie is long out of the bottle.

The other problem is that several people have taken offense to not mentioning the victims in the graphic. I want to make a few things perfectly clear.

(1) The events at Pearl High School are part of history and public record. True enough, they are a sad part of history, and all of us have the deepest sympathies for the families, victims, and community of Pearl. That doesn’t change the fact that it is historical record.

(2) Right now – politicians are trying to exploit the CT shooting in an attempt to take away our God-given right to defend ourselves. By demonstrating that a quick thinking person, who is prepared and armed, can stop a murderer, maybe politicians will pay attention and realize that gun-free zones are just plain stupid.

(3) If you want to read more about the Pearl, MS, shooting and the victims then you can always google it or read Wikipedia’s article.

Let me close by saying there is no “disrespect” towards to the victims of the Pearl High School shooting. Posting a picture of the murderer helps show who this nut really is and what evil looks like. In this case, the evil was stopped by a quick thinking and heroic assistant principal – before it could spread further.

UPDATE 12-18-2012:

Many of the commenters are suggesting that assistant principal Myrick’s actions did nothing to stop the shooter. This runs counter to most of the reports that actually mention Myrick’s actions. According to most reports, the killer still had ammo available. He had already murdered 3 and injured 7, including bludgeoning his mother. Do you honestly think he was going to just go grab some ice cream and call it a day?

The investigators and local media were convinced the killer and others were part of a satanic cult that had plans kill and then flee to Mexico. However, many of you think he was just going to stop because he couldn’t immediately get away? Right.

Also, the Federal Gun Free School Act (1990 & 1994 & 1995) prohibits firearms within 1000′ of a school. There are some exceptions now in various states, but at that point in time Myrick was in a huge gray area with the law.

“Alarmed at the sound of gunfire in the halls of his Pearl, Mississippi, high school, Assistant Principal Joel Myrick ran to his car to retrieve a pistol. The shooter was an armed student who marched through the school firing on his fellow classmates and teachers. The assailant’s efforts to escape the scene ground to a halt when another student used his own vehicle to force the suspect’s white car into the grass, where it spun to a stop. Myrick used the delay to catch up to the armed student and hold him for police. Pearl schools Superintendent Bill Dodson said of Myrick, “We think he’s a hero for keeping more lives from being lost. The young man with the gun still had rounds in the rifle and could have injured other people.” –The Clarion-Ledger, Jackson, MS, 10/2/97

Screen Shot 2012-12-17 at 7.52.39 PM

Obama’s Arms Trade Treaty and Gun Rights

heller dissent scotus 2nd amendment gun controlMany of you may be wondering about the Arms Trade Treaty. I’m sure a lot of you have read emails purporting that the UN (United Nations) would be able to completely circumvent the 2nd Amendment and take all of our guns away. So what is the truth about this possible treaty?

Well, first let’s do a little background looking. This particular type of treaty faced opposition from the Bush administration. Why? There are some provisions within the ATT that can lead to a backdoor around our 2nd Amendment rights.

However, the Obama Administration did a complete reversal of several longstanding Bush positions within the UN, including abortion funding and others. Why?  The Progressive movement is counter to most of our core beliefs, but Obama ran on Hope and Change and was elected. While he has publicly stated that he supports the 2nd Amendment, Obama has also made it well known that he is actually against an individual’s right to keep and bear arms.

FACT: As an Illinois Senator, Barack Obama opposed SB 2165. This law (passed 38 -20) – Public Act 093-1048 – allows an Illinois resident to use a weapon in self-defense even if there is a gun-ban in effect in the municipality.

Barack Obama opposed a bill/law that allows a person the right to self-defense.

The law stems from a case where Hale DeMar, a resident of Wilmette, was arrested for misdemeanor violations after shooting a burglar in the leg and shoulder – who had broken into his home twice. The prosecutors for Cook County dropped all charges. After the Illinois Senate passed the bill, Governor Blagojevich vetoed. The Illinois Senate voted 40-18 to override the veto, and again Obama voted against the bill. The Illinois House voted 85-30 to override the veto.

Now think about that for a second. Not only is any municipality’s ban on handguns counter to the 2nd Amendment and to both the Heller and McDonald cases, but it is counter to your right to self-defense. In Illinois, municipalities could actually ban handguns and effectively neuter your ability to defend yourself, your family, and your property…and Barack Obama supported the ability of the government to decide when you can defend yourself.

FACT: Both Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan stated during Senate confirmation hearings that they supported the 2nd Amendment. Kagan had difficulty answering questions about inalienable rights, and Sotomayor voted in dissent on the McDonald v Chicago case, which basically said that the 2nd Amendment applies to states.

Let’s start with Kagan. If you watch her response to Sen. Coburn, it is very telling. She skirts around the question of whether she believes in the 2nd Amendment.

…I very much appreciate how deeply important the right to bear arms is to millions of Americans, and I accept Heller…” — Elena Kagan

Kagan “appreciates” how important it is? She “accepts” Heller? The right to keep and bear arms is not something you appreciate. The God-given right to life and the right to defend oneself through arms is NOT something you just “appreciate”.

When Sotomayor voted against McDonald, she sided with the liberal side of the court.

In sum, the Framers did not write the Second Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self defense. There has been, and is, no consensus that the right is, or was, ‘fundamental.’ — Justice Stephen Breyer writing for the dissent

As a matter of fact, Sotomayor has stated that the 2nd Amendment applies only to federal government. By that standard, then freedom of speech in the 1st Amendment would not apply to states. Thus, we could be unreasonably restricted by a state government from speaking out publicly, or we could only protest on federal property? That simply doesn’t make sense – unless you are someone who is firmly against the 2nd Amendment.

“The Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right.” —OPINION OF THE COURT, INCLUDING JUDGE SOTOMAYOR, MALONEY V. CUOMO (2009)

“the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right.” — Sonia Sotomayor – U.S. v. Sanchez-Villar

“The majority’s decision threatens severely to limit the ability of more knowledgeable, democratically elected officials to deal with gun-related problems.” — retired justice David Souter, Heller Decision dissent

As many of you know, both the Heller and McDonald decisions were decided 5-4. That means we are potentially 1 vote away from losing our 2nd Amendment rights – or at least relegating them totally to federal control.

It is very telling to read the dissent in the Heller decision. In a few paragraphs, the entire liberal progressive view is spelled out – that individuals do not have the individual right to self-defense. Thus the state must protect us. Most of the dissent is dissecting the words of the 2nd Amendment, while oddly leaving out the context of known quotations from the founders.

Barack Obama does not need to introduce legislation to implement gun control. He has the United States Supreme Court.

FACT: The Obama Administration blocked the importation of M1 Garand and M1 Carbine rifles in 2010 as “…a threat to the public safety in the U.S.”

The ATF thinks they would be a threat to public safety even though every purchase would have to go through an ATF licensed dealer with the buyer subjected to an FBI instant background check? Huh?

If you are not familiar with this, the South Korean government had a stockpile of M1’s that were approved for sale and then subsequently denied by the Obama State Department. Why?

Apparently, the ATF is worried about an increase in imported firearms, ease of conversion to automatic, and the M1 Carbine fully automatic being used in crimes. None of that makes any sense. Who cares if there is an increase in legally imported firearms? The ATF states that the M1 Garands are unlikely to be used at crime scenes. They are big and bulky and only hold 8 rounds. They are NOT conducive to what most criminals want to use.

More to the point they publicly stated “…ATF is specifically prohibited from maintaining any form of registry.” So there you have it. The main problem is that they can’t figure out how to legally keep a registry on these imported firearms.

This is simply gun control without legislation. In other words, the Obama administration completely bypassed Congress and refused to allow the legal importation. I believe it was initially approved because the Obama administration thought they could somehow track these through a registry and then use them to somehow inflate crime statistics. After all, this took place around the same time frame as Fast & Furious.

You can read more about this over at  WND and David Codrea’s article.

 FACT: Obama supports (a) ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons (b) increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms

Per the 1998 National Political Awareness Test, Barack Obama wants to ban the vast majority of firearms and weapons, and he wants to increase the difficulty in possessing firearms. Now, one can argue that he has changed his mind since answering that legislative test. However, I don’t think so. When you combine his other actions, such as Sotomayor and Kagan nominations, plus his comments to Sarah Brady (of the former Handgun Control, Inc), he definitely has a deep-rooted progressive belief that individuals do not have a right to self-defense nor arms.

Obama claims “As a general principle, I believe the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms.” However, it’s important to read the words carefully. He believes the Constitution grants (confers) the right. This is another prime example of a progressive mincing words.

According to our founders beliefs and those of all conservatives, we have certain rights from God. Included first is LIFE and LIBERTY. We can’t have either without the right to defend ourselves from harm or submission. Harm and submission can not only come from other individuals but also from governments. In both cases, taking up arms in defense is a basic fundamental right.

FACT: During the 2008 Democratic Primary Debate in Philadelphia, Barack Obama said states or local governments can constrain the exercise of the right to bear arms.

Q: Is the D.C. law prohibiting ownership of handguns consistent with an individual’s right to bear arms?

A: As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right, in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it.

When asked if he still favors licensing and registration, he skirted the question with his “common sense approach” answer.

FACT: Obama believes that the firerarms listed in the AWB (Assault Weapons Ban) are only designed to kill people – per the Illinois Senate debate Oct. 21, 2004.

OBAMA: Let’s be honest. Mr. Keyes does not believe in common gun control measures like the assault weapons bill. Mr. Keyes does not believe in any limits from what I can tell with respect to the possession of guns, including assault weapons that have only one purpose, to kill people. I think it is a scandal that this president did not authorize a renewal of the assault weapons ban.

Of course, we all know that the assault weapons ban DID NOTHING to slow down crime. It was a red herring to test the waters and see if a gun ban would make it to the public. Fortunately, violent crime has continued to decrease while gun sales and possession continue to go up along with concealed carry permits.


So what does all of this have to do with the Arms Trade Treaty? Well, if you look at the pattern of Obama, he would much rather circumvent Congress whenever possible. In this case the treaty must be ratified by the Senate, and it might possibly get the votes to do it. After all, the Progressives still control the Senate.

Would the ATT mean an immediate surrender of our arms as individuals? Most likely not. There would be nothing short of a second Revolutionary War. However, it would be another small side step toward the goal of disarming the citizenry. Combine that with the potential changes to the Supreme Court in the next 4 years, and we are looking at a recipe for disaster with the 2nd Amendment.

I know a lot of people who are dismayed at Mitt Romney. I also know quite a few people who are lamenting the loss of Ron Paul as a candidate. You can count me in both camps. However, anyone…let me repeat: ANYONE who stays home this November or who votes for Obama is a complete moron.

However, anyone…let me repeat: ANYONE who stays home this November or who votes for Obama is a complete moron.

This presidential election is all about judicial picks – and our 2nd Amendment rights stand in the balance.

We have made great strides in our 2nd Amendment rights over the decade. We MUST keep that up.

Open Season My Ass

indiana shoot intruder law bloomberg open seasonGotta love Bloomberg’s take on this one. They even invoked the Martin-Zimmerman case.

Here is my take: Don’t abuse the no-knock warrants and get off the SWAT tactics. Get a damn warrant, clearly identify yourself, and do it the right way – even if that is inconvenient or means some criminals may have time to resist. Ever heard of the John Bad Elk case?

Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.

The Jose Guerea case was just the tip of the iceberg. It’s estimated that we have gone from 3,000 no-knocks in the 80’s to over 50,000 a year now. Has our population increased that much? No. Are there that many more of us who are criminals? No.

The increase stems from the drastic militarization of local law enforcement. It’s getting out of control, and of course there are the financial reasons. If the feds make the locals more dependent on them for resources, we are a few steps closer to actually becoming a police state. The only thing that stands between us law-abiding citizens and that cliff is the 2nd Amendment.

The police, who are supposed to maintain the peace, “are the citizens, and the citizens are the police,” according to Chief Walter A. McNeil of Quincy, Fla., the president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, citing the words of Sir Robert Peel, the father of modern-day policing.

As the NY Times published recently, NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg declared “I have my own army in the N.Y.P.D.” According to Timothy Lynch, director of the criminal justice project at the Cato Institute, it’s the “militaristic mind-set” that is more disturbing and how they deal with the public.

I couldn’t agree more.

The vast majority of cops that I know (some of them my friends) have an attitude that they are “special citizens.” No, they are not. They are paid to do a job that they chose to do. While I appreciate the job that police officers do (for the most part) and while I completely understand the type of people that cops typically encounter, this does not mean you have any more rights or privileges than the rest of us. Sure, you may have arrest powers and you may be granted certain leeway with respect to normal laws, that’s where it ends.

In short, let me publicly state my policy in regards to no knock warrant executions: IF you attempt to storm my home unannounced and with overwhelming force in a militaristic fashion, then expect the consequences when I get to my firearms. In the end, you may win by sheer force of numbers, but there will be a couple who don’t succeed. Take the chance, but don’t consider yourself a hero.