Tag Archives: Gun Rights

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

The GOPers – Gun Stances

As most of you know, one of my first checks on a politician is their stance on gun control. Why? It relates directly to a politician’s stance on the 2nd Amendment – and that tells us how a candidate will treat other civil rights issues.

If a politician will abuse the 2nd Amendment, then he/she will certainly abuse others.

Just so I’m clear, I think the BATF should be disbanded and the NFA should be repealed. We already have plenty of draconian laws on the books to restrict honest citizens.

Let’s take a look at the main 2012 GOP candidates and their stance on gun rights and gun controls.

Ron Paul

“Those that wish to have guns, and disregard the law, will have guns. Gun control makes violence safer and more effective for the aggressive, whether the aggressor is a terrorist or a government.” — Ron Paul 2008

“Your safety has always, ultimately been your own responsibility, but never more so than now. People have a natural right to defend themselves. Governments that take that away from their people should be highly suspect.” — Ron Paul 2008

Ron Paul is only GOP candidate who firmly stands behind the 2nd Amendment.

  • Quoted on the home page of Gun Owners of America
  • A+ Rating from GOA
  • Introduced legislation to repeal the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban

Mitt Romney

“These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.” — Mitt Romney 2004

“We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them. I won’t chip away at them; I believe they protect us and provide for our safety.” — Mitt Romney 2002 Massachusetts Gubernatorial Debate

This is easy. He fails. Miserably.


 Newt Gingrich

“Right. I just think, you know, if you said to me would I feel comfortable if my next door neighbor had a 50 caliber machine gun, I would say no.” — Newt Gingrich 2007

Newt is kind of tricky. I don’t trust him.

He claims to be a staunch supporter of 2nd Amendment rights, but claims they are a “political right”. No Newt. You aren’t always the smartest guy in the room. The right to keep and bear arms is a God-given right.

By supporting gun-free zones in schools, he supports the rights of criminals to carry guns among unarmed citizens. If you understand Newt’s stance that the 2nd Amendment is a “political right” then you understand why he would support such legislation. A “political right” implies that you can keep arms to stand up to a tyrannical government. While that is true, it is only a part of a much deeper right.


To his credit he did vote against both the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban.


NAACP and Gun Rights

One thing to love about Facebook – the political debates. I’m fortunate to be in a group that thrives on it. Recently, one of the liberal progressives made a comment that the NAACP supported gun rights in response to a post I made concerning Martin Luther King, Jr’s, advocacy for gun rights based on his use of them for protection.
The NAACP supports gun rights. So do I. – BP, liberal on Facebook
Then this same liberal (whom I won’t name here since it is a private group) made the fatal mistake that most liberals do. He cited an article to try and support his claim. Oops. He forgot those pesky facts of the case – something that even the appeals court remembered. John White was NOT justified in his actions on that night. He met the threat at his driveway – not while defending his family from imminent danger. That was the wrong way to play that situation out if he truly felt his family were serious danger.
Taking the stand to testify in his own behalf, the defendant related incidents of racial discrimination he had endured as a child, and claimed that, according to his grandfather, two family members had been killed by the Ku Klux Klan in 1924.–People v White
The entire article that BP (the progressive from Facebook) cited was based soley on support for the individual in the case – John White. Where was the discussion of the NAACP’s outrage over NJ’s lack of castle doctrine or the onerous burdens NJ individuals to exercise their civil right that is protected (not given) by the 2nd Amendment?
Of course there is no argument for that. The NAACP, former Governor David Paterson, and everyone involved were looking out for a minority ‘wronged’ by the system. Why else would a governor rated “F” on gun rights commute a sentence?

“The right to defend one’s home, family and ultimately one’s self is at the heart of our history and law,” said the Rev. Roderick Pearson.

Now here is the kicker. What if we reversed the situation? What if a WHITE man had shot and killed an unarmed BLACK youth who was not an imminent threat? What if the white man had walked to the end of the drive and shot him (guns dont just magically shoot people).
rev jonathan mcpherson shotgun martin luther king jrDo you really think the NAACP would involve itself on the side of the shooter? Hell no – they like to sue gun manufacturers. They want blacks and persons of color to be without arms – just like the Democratic liberal progressives they now bow before.
Why are Progressives so shallow?

The Nat Thickens

click for larger image

The story about St. Helena parish Sheriff Nat Williams and his treatment of legally armed citizens as criminals – just got a little more interesting.

…after hearing more on the story (white people patrolling, complaints from black people about the patrol, then Sheriff Williams said what he said), he’s inclined to believe the reporter on this one. — Tom Gresham via Facebook

Let’s take a look at some background on this situation. According to the article “Residents on Patrol”, written by Faimon Roberts, the citizens are doing their duty to protect their property.

One Sixth Ward resident did just that when he saw people breaking into his cousin’s house.

“I went and got some help, and we held them until the cops got there,” said Alvin D. “Pee Wee” Thompson Jr.

Thompson said that he was not armed, but that one of the men with him was armed.

Apparently, after meeting with parish officials, the citizen patrols have had a positive impact. The group was warned by Chester Pritchett, St. Helena Parish chief criminal deputy, that you “can’t just arbitrarily shoot someone” and that “deadly force has to be warranted.”

If you can live with what you did, I think the law is going to protect you…But you’ve got to use some judgment in these cases.–Assistant District Attorney Richard McShan

From that situation, we jump forward to where apparently Sheriff Nat isn’t quite so comfortable with the parish citizens doing their job. The same reporter, Faimon Roberts, wrote the article with infamous quote which was picked up by Gresham on his radio program and on Facebook.

First, the NRA fired off this letter to him. Uh-oh.

Then, according to Tom Gresham via Facebook, the good sheriff called “furious”, stated that he never spoke to the reporter, and the story was made up. Then he apparently blathered something about his son in Afghanistan carrying assault weapons. Huh?

Sounds like someone trying some CYA to me – kind of like Shreveport Mayor Cedric Glover and suspending rights. When you get caught saying something moronic, try to deny your way out of it.

Now, Tom has spoken to the reporter from The Advocate, and based on Tom’s Facebook post – he’s sticking to his story.

So what say you now Sheriff Nat?