Terror for the Beckhams as masked raiders attempt to break in to their Cotswolds home | Daily Mail Online: David and Victoria Beckham have been left distraught after a group of balaclava-clad burglars attempted to break into their Cotswolds mansion. Police were called to the couple’s 6 million home in Great Tew, Oxfordshire, last Friday after their 24 hour security surveillance team noticed the intruders on the property’s CCTV. Guests at the nearby Soho Farmhouse, which is just a stone’s throw away and a favourite haunt of Meghan Markle and Prince Harry, spotted them too and ran to scare them off.
Actually, home invasions do occur to "Normal Folks", too.
(details deleted)
New police figures reveal that the U.K. is averaging at least 15 barbaric acid attacks a week.
The figures, first reported by The Mirror, show a total of 2,602 reported attacks from January 2015 to May of this year, averaging out to 15 per week. In comparison, there were only 100 total attacks reported from 2007 to 2011.
Stunningly, nearly 75% of such attacks have been carried out in London, a city often praised by the Left for its multiculturalism and tolerance.
The problemis that Some People are vicious, aggressive, and they just want to do the most harm possible to their fellow citizens.
I'm unconvinced that GUNS are the problem; ever look at your mix of immigrants? (You English are quite proud of that, aren't you? Funny how nobody has identified their attackers .. oh, but the victims are blind, aren't they? Darn, how inconvenient!)
I think it's society .. the people who walk past you every day on your way to work ... who are the problem! England, I'm talking to you. (And I hope and pray that this never comes to America!)
What's worse?
Is it worse to be permanently disfigured (blinded?) by having acid thrown in your face, and live with that? Or is it worse to be shot, and possibly die?
Tough to choose, isn't it?
Me? I'd rather be dead (and having had the choice whether to be armed to defend myself).
When you really, really need to shoot somebody, it ought to leave a mark for the NEXT G-friend to wonder WTF???
Police: Woman shot local man in the face as he choked her: During the investigation officers discovered Hampton and woman, who are in some sort of relationship or possibly related, were fighting when the man began to choke the woman, Waco police Sgt. Patrick Swanton said.
During the struggle, Hampton pulled out a gun, but the woman was able to point it toward him and shoot him, Swanton said.
He was taken to a local hospital.
We do not need AR-15s or any assault-style weapon to hunt game. That’s not to say some people won’t use them to hunt. But they are simply not necessary, and are actually not preferable for legitimate, fair-chase hunting.
We believe that simple, responsible reforms in firearm policy are an urgent necessity. Hunting and hunters should not be seen, or used, as a shield against constructive bipartisan solutions. We see the need and opportunity to frame compromise between the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms and the Fifth Amendment’s right to life and liberty.
Actually, the Second Amendment is not about hunting.
Nobody who is legitimately advocating for Second Amendment Rights is using "Hunting" as a justification for the Second Amendment. The argument presented here is not only facetious, but also misleading.
I have hunted, most of my life. I have also fought a war, where I used weapons which are not available to me in private life.
This article is not about Second Amendment Rights; it's about infringing upon Second Amendment Rights. The thrust of the article is that access to various ("non-sporting") types and models of firearms may not be "legitimate" because they are not commonly used in hunting. And that's just bizarre, because the Second Amendment is constitutionally protected to protect those Americans who may be called upon to defend their nation in time of war. (Originally, it assumed that civilians would have the same or similar firearms which were available to members of the Army.)
Personally, I'm not terribly concerned about firearms which are only appropriate for "hunting" (although some of them are particularly appropriate for Snipers).
We need to accept and legitimize that some firearms are appropriate for "non-hunting" purposes. For example, I have several pistols which are definitely not appropriate for hunting. Would the author of this article argue that they are not "legitimate"?
"Self-defense" is a different issue; but still, no less legitimate.
Tens of thousands of Spaniards took to the streets of Pamplona on Saturday to protest against the acquittal of five men accused of gang raping an 18-year-old woman at the city’s bull-running festival.
Demonstrators have filled streets across the country since the court ruling on Thursday, leading Spain’s conservative government to say it will consider changing rape laws.
The men were acquitted of sexual assault, which includes rape, and sentenced to nine years for the lesser offence of sexual abuse.
*emphasis added*
I'm not sure what 'sexual abuse" is, but I'm pretty sure the "RAPE" includes a "one women, five men", public assault ...
The men, aged 27 to 29, had been accused of raping the woman at the entrance to an apartment building in Pamplona on July 7, 2016, at the start of the week-long San Fermin festival, which draws tens of thousands of visitors.
The five, all from the southern city of Seville, filmed the incident with their smartphones and then bragged about it on a WhatsApp messaging group where they referred to themselves as "La Manada", or "The Pack" in English.
When a lone, defenseless woman suffers a sexual attack on the street, and is disallowed by her government to defend herself by force of arms, she is at the mercy of a merciless pack of jackals,
A government which cannot defend its citizens, and will not allow them to defend themselves, is not a government; it is a failed patriarchy.
REMEMBER: When seconds count, the police are ... just minutes awayno help at all . collecting evidence blaming you for being a victim ...
Let's get that out in the open; some gun owners just want to hurt people.
But the MAJORITY of gun owners don't fit that description
Shannon Watts is one of many writers who are delivering a tremendous amount of effort espousing her anti-gun violence message, and I agree that "Gun Violence" is an issue which needs to be addressed.
With her nonprofit Moms Demand Action, Shannon Watts has mobilized a women-led army of volunteers. This story is part of Health’s #RealLifeStrong series, where we are celebrating women who represent strength, resilience, and grace.
There are hundreds of thousands of people in America who ... through mental incapacity or felonious inclination ... should never be allowed to be near a firearm. These people need to be restricted.
ALSO ... there are millions of sane and responsible (but untrained) people who have never handled a firearm, but yet MAY chose to do so from ignorance or vanity because they think they are automatically "okay" to own and shoot firearms. Well, they have the right, but too often they do not have the skills or the trained expertise to do so safely.
And yet, there are millions of Americans who are sane, responsible people; trained and experienced in safe gun-handling practices, who can be reliably expected to be ALWAYS safe and ALWAYS responsible with a gun in their hands.
Ms. Watts focuses on those who are either incapable or untrained in her screeds against firearms ownership. She performs a valuable service in warning against firearms, but she lumps the untrained, the insane, and the competent together ... and in doing so, she does a disservice against the majority of firearms owners who ARE responsible, who ARE trained, who ARE experienced and competent.
Yes, everyone wants firearms to be used only by responsible owners. But most firearms owners are law-abiding, and understand that there is a responsibility implicit in possession of a gun. (Again, I do not include felons in this mix.)
Sometimes, new gun owners only need training and experience: the NRA(National Rifle Association) and other firearms oriented organizations often provide these training opportunities, and often at little or no cost to the students.
Those who denigrate the NRA generally ignore the fact that the NRA is one of the very few organized sources of firearms Safety TRAINING; usually, the detractors of the NRA consider it no better than a political wing of selfish profit-oriented firearms manufacturers. The NRA is not the Political wing of Gun makers .. it represents people who use guns for a variety of reasons, which include hunting, competition, training AND Political Representation of their 2nd Amendment rights on the National scale.
I'm not asking Ms Watts to "tone down her rhetoric"; we all need to be aware of the dreadful consequences of a gun in the wrong hands; and I think that most legal firearms owners are very aware of their EXTRA need to be thoughtful of the consequences of their actions.
However, when she lumps felons, mentally unbalanced people, and responsible firearms owners together in the same cauldron of mere "possession", she does a disservice to those who never (and would never) deliberately use a firearm in an illegal or unsafe manner.
In our discussion of responsible firearm ownership, we need to be careful to distinguish between the insane, the irresponsible, and the responsible American.
I've not read every opinion that Ms Watts has written (who could?!) so perhaps I am doing her a disservice by calling her to task.
But it would be a responsible action if she would acknowledge that there are a huge number of Americans who can (and do) use their legal firearms safely and responsibly ... and have never allowed their guns to shoot innocent people.
Gun owners are not typically violent people, by nature. But in dire straits, they sometimes are willing to use their firearms in defense of home, self, family and other innocents.
Those who do not readily accept that concept are those whom I choose refer to as "People Who Have Never Been Mugged".
I've never been mugged. But I've been "shot at", and so I can testify that in that circumstance, it's more of a comfort to have a gun than not to.
You mileage may vary. Let me know the next time you wish you had a gun to defend yourself, your home, or your family. I'd really like to know how you defended yourself against gratuitous violence.
There's always a "very good opportunity" for gun grabbers to legislate against the Second Amendment. The Constitution has become, not the bulwark of freedom in our country, but a target for those who would undermine those freedoms for which men have fought and died for over 200 years.
We’ve seen a lot of shootings out there. We’ve seen what’s happened in Parkland, we’ve seen what happened in Las Vegas, we saw what happened in Orlando. And for me personally, it pains* to know that I went out there, willing to defend my country, willing to give everything, with almost the exact same weapon that’s used to go out there and, unfortunately, kill children here in Parkland. And I think there’s very real opportunity here for response and for action.
* ("I Feel Your Pain" ... not! It's just "Political rhetoric;" pay no attention.)
Firearms are not weapons; people are weapons. Guns are tools.
But .. They Know What Is Best For Us!
Evidently, the GOP thinks that civilians should be denied the most effective defensive weapons, because the same weapons are also available to "bad guys".
As if the Bad Guys can't get them; even though legally, sometimes you and I cannot.
And the reason why the Bad Guys want those weapons is the they are more effective than those which you and I may legally own. Advantage: Bad Guys.
MAD MEN
Not everybody is responsible for their own actions. Not everybody cares.
We have citizens who are full of hate and fury, and they abuse their rights when they predate on their neighbors. They don't care to be "responsible citizens"; they are driven to madness, and nothing you can do will 'fix' that.
The "reasonable" response is simple; defend yourself, defend your family. Call the police if you will, but they aren't always very good at that 'community defense' thingie and they are spread too thin.
Once again we must provide not only for our "common defense", but for our own personal defense.
911 Is Not Your Friend
Powerful political factions have decided that "the children" (you and I) are incompetent to provide for ourselves. Too often that is true, because Americans no longer teach their children to be responsible for their own actions, but are obliged to ask "The Government" to intervene. Parents teach their children that in an emergency, "Call 911!"
Unfortunately, the police are not responsible for your well-being. You are.
The police will respond to requests for help, and route the nearest patrol car to your address. If you can get to the phone. Sometimes they might even be of more assistance than taking crime-scene photos and interviewing survivors (if any). They will testify at the trial of your murderer.
As a consequence, now even the (previously "trusted") Republican Party has decided that we cannot even be" trusted" with the best means of personal defense.
Because of the "Mad Men"
"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain" we are advised in "The Wizard of Oz".
We have abdicated the responsibility of taking care of ourselves. We have slowly, but inevitably, yielded our rights to The State, and they are delighted to take responsibility for "Cradle to The Grave" care of us.
Because we are children to them; we don't understand how things are done today, and "They Know What Is Best For Us".
Still, takes longer for the police to respond to a 911 call than it takes you to call 911.
A gun in your nightstand is as close to your hand as is the cell phone on top of it. And far more immediately effective.
The best use of 911 is to call for someone to clean up the mess, and arrest the survivors.
You may be the only survivor, but it's still better to be arrested and go to trial, than to be murdered.
OPTIONS:
But if there are "options" .. you should be aware that your life is not always fatally threatened (for example) by a robber. There are few actions which are more personally terrible to contemplate than taking a life. Is the content of your wallet more valuable than the life of a teen-age mugger?
If you are responsible for the end of a life, you may spend the balance of your life suffering pangs of conscience which are much more awful than being robbed. (Or, you may be indicted, and prosecuted.)
If you are armed, you are responsible for your actions to a greater degree than if you are not armed. The courts may find you not guilty, but when you carry a weapon you have assumed a responsibility not only for your self, not only for the legality of your actions, but also for your morality.
It's a fine point, but one which you may rerun in your own mind for the rest of your life. "Did I HAVE to shoot?"
When I write these opinions, I put myself in the "same place" as my hypothetical victim. Every situation is different.
When you choose to arm yourself, you have assumed a responsibility which may be both moral and fatal. If you decide that you cannot accept the responsibility for taking a life, you should not arm yourself.
If you think that it would be morally justified to defend your pocket-book equally to defending your life, you should not go armed.
A mother's grief at the loss of a child is boundless, unendurable, and understandable.
After her unimaginable loss, Fulton discovered some relief when she reached out to other moms who have lost children to gun violence. Now, she plans annual peace walks in her home state of Florida, works with legislators on gun violence laws and travels around the country speaking at colleges and churches about preventing senseless shootings.
Sybrina Fulton’s life as she knew it ended on February 26, 2012. That’s when her 17-year-old son, Trayvon Martin, who was unarmed, was fatally shot in Sanford, Florida, by a neighborhood-watch volunteer for his gated community.
Zimmerman testified he was flat on his back; Martin, straddling his supine body, beat him with closed fists.
So, George Zimmerman should have just laid there and taken the beating?
Flashback:
March 8, 2012 - Investigators receive a fax from the Altamonte Family Practice containing the medical records identifying the injuries sustained by Zimmerman on the night of the shooting: Open wound of scalp, without mention of complication; nasal bones, closed fracture; assault by other specified means. March 12, 2012 - Sanford Police Chief Bill Lee says that Zimmerman has not been charged because there are no grounds to disprove his story of the events.
We will never know the full truth of the story, but Zimmerman's wounds suggest that his version of the story has some validity; that he was helpless, under physical assault, and unable to overcome his assailant.
April 30, 2013 - George Zimmerman waives his right to a "stand your ground" pretrial immunity hearing. Zimmerman's attorneys decide they will instead try this as a self-defense case. If Zimmerman had had a pretrial immunity hearing, a judge would have ruled whether his actions were protected under the "stand your ground" law. If the judge had ruled in favor of Zimmerman, it would have meant that no criminal or civil trial could proceed.
Whether Zimmerman was justified in confronting Martin is a moot point. Whether Zimmerman was reacting to a deadly assault was ... not entirely deniable; some people refer to his wounds as evidence that he was in fear for his life.
Counting the story as an example of "Firearms Violence" is stretching the interpretation a bit.
The violence was initiated by Martin. He was in control of the situation, and chose to continue beating Zimmerman ... who was helpless to defend himself against the younger, stronger aggressor.
Democrats want longer waiting periods to buy a gun, a limit on gun magazines, a ban on “assault weapons” (though most have trouble describing them), a limit on the number of firearms you can own, etc. Second Amendment supporters staunchly oppose all of those things.
uh huh.
Like that's gonna happen!
Bunch of know-nothing libtards who are willing to give up ANY Constitutional Rights that they're not currently using. Wait until their FIRST Amendment Rights are infringed!
Blessed are the peace-makers?
More like "Damned if they do/Dammed if they don't"!
For the Liberal anti-gunners, Vegas is just another talking point. The rest of us damn the asshole with a gun all to hell. He killed good people and at the same time provided yet another excuse for "Gun Control" (hiss!)
As if laws are going to stop an outlaw.
The Second Amendment is, always has been, always will be the most tendentious/controversial part of the Constitution ... and for good reason.
People who own guns are for it; people who don't own guns are against it.
Both sides have their reasons, present their arguments (sometimes reasonably; more often emotionally) and "... never the twain shall meet".
People who are determined to kill innocents won't be deterred by any law; that's why they're called OUTLAWS!
------------------------------------ *the bulk of the article is below the fold* --------------
As reported by The New American, British subjects seeking advice about what are and are not permissible self-defense instruments found some recently on a police web site. It is sponsored by the British government's Police National Legal Database. Q589: Are there any legal self defence products that I can buy? The police answer: The only fully legal self defence product... is a rape alarm.
If a British subject picks up an object to defend against a violent intruder, that is a crime. Even if they only threaten, and don't actually USE it against their aggressor.
The only LEGAL alternative to a rape alarm (what the heck is a "Rape Alarm"?) would be a squirt bottle of dye which could be used to easily identify the intruder after he has had his way with you, your family, and your home.
But if you squirt it in his eyes, that also may be a criminal offense.
The intruder, if caught, will probably not be charged. The resident will most likely be charged.
Pick up a knife? You're toast, Baby!
Aren't you glad you're you?
Welcome to America ... Land of The Free and Home of the Saved!
I came home from a day at the range, opened my garage door with the remote in my car, and moved all my gun gear into the garage. When I had everything in the right place, I pushed the inside-the-garage mounted controller to close the garage door. Nothing happened.
So I went to the (exterior) frame-mounted, coded controller on the outside of the garage, entered my four-digit code, and waited. Nothing. Tried it four more times, being VERY careful to ensure that I used the correct code.
Nothing.
So I went back to my car, entered the four-digit code to unlock the car door (it worked), and used the same in-car remote to close the garage door ... you know, the one I had use to OPEN the door.
Nothing.
I got my landlord to come over. He couldn't get it to work with his remote, either.
Finally, we physically disengaged the garage door opener mechanism from the garage door, manually closed the garage door, manually pulled it down. And manually locked it.
That all occurred three weeks ago.
My landlord has been in touch with the GENIE people; this week they gave him instructions how to test the garage door opener. Everything they tried, doesn't work. Finally, they decided that the mother-board was fried. They promised to send a replacement. They're a little bit backed up, so it will take a couple of weeks to get one to him.
So the replacement mother-board for the garage door opener will be here late this month.
My landlord was careful to inform me that it won't actually be REPLACED, let alone tested, that soon.
I told him .. that's okay. I can move my gun gear from the driveway to the garage through the patio doors; it's not convenient, but I can get it 'off the street'. And I'm confident that nobody will be able to get into my garage in the meantime.
That's very comforting. Nobody can get at my stuff.
On the other hand .. neither can I, unless I go through a lot of physical 'stuff' that takes a lot of time and inconvenience.
Now: please tell me how the same technology that can't get my garage opener to operate in less than six weeks will help me to defend myself and my home if my firearms uses the same technology 'to protect me'?
Rep. Maloney Introduces Legislation to Reduce Gun Deaths, Make Guns Safer | Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney: May 8, 2017 Press Release WASHINGTON —In an effort to improve gun safety, Congresswoman Carolyn B. Maloney (D-NY) has reintroduced The Handgun Trigger Safety Act, forward-thinking legislation to use new and emerging technology to prevent gun deaths. The bill would promote the development of new “smart gun” technology that only allows an authorized user to fire a gun. It would also mandate that all newly manufactured handguns use this technology within five years, and that existing handguns be retrofitted with this technology within ten years. Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) will introduce a companion version in the Senate.
OH and by the way: I'm a widower.
I live alone. Nobody gets inside my home unless I let them in; my landlord and I have the only keys.
Tell me how it protects the children (there are none here) if I don't lock up my guns where I can't access them quickly. And how does any state mandate firearms maintenance laws when they don't apply to every home situation?
Oregon officials have banned state employees from carrying weapons in the workplace unless they're needed for their jobs. The move caused consternation Thursday among Republican leaders in the Legislature.
The Oregon Department of Administrative Services said it imposed the ban, which became effective on Jan. 6, in hopes of "providing a safe and secure environment for employees and visitors."
Banned are firearms, daggers, slingshots, and a host of other specified weapons. Oddly, even knobkerries were mentioned. Knobkerries are clubs used by indigenous people like the Zulus in southern Africa, and are probably unknown to most Oregonians.
You realize that this would not make for a "safe and secure environment", right?
But if I was still working for The State, I would be a criminal. Because what I did legally last month, would be illegal today.
For almost 20 years I carried a concealed Knobkerry at work, in a State Office, every day. Nobody knew because it was ... well ... concealed.
And I certainly wasn't going to mention it.
It was legal, because of state laws in effect in Oregon at the time, and I had a "CKL" (Concealed Knobkerry License". But the place where I worked had an administrative rule disallowing the possession of knobkerries ... either open or concealed carry. They could have fired me for wanting to exercise my God Given Right to Keep and Bear Knobkerries (RKBK).
But I would not have been subject to legal action; I was not breaking any laws.
My thinking was that Knobkerry Free Zones (such as schools) were a prime target of 'mischief makers', and if 'mischief' were to occur at my work place, I wanted to have options.
I always felt much more "safe and secure" knowing that I could pull out my trusty knobkerry and pound the living crap out of anyone who decided to use an illegal knobkerry to attack my workplace.
Well, that has all changed now. Because we are defenseless ... by legal fiat.
I am disgusted ... California Politics are creeping into Oregon.
ANTIOCH, Tenn. (WKRN) – An attempted carjacking victim scared off a group of people who tried to steal his car in Antioch early Thursday morning. It happened on Lori Drive around 1 a.m. Metro police told News 2 the man said he was in his car when three white men with bandanas over their faces approached him and attempted to open the car door. The man fired his legally-owned weapon in self-defense and the three men ran away, according to police. One of the suspects fired a shot as the group was fleeing the scene.
[emphasis added] Note that the news article reports that the driver 'received' return fire; the "suspects" were obviously armed. If you're assaulted by armed hooligans, and you are in fear for your life, trying to scare them away by 'firing a shot' only warns them that you are armed. They could as easily have shot the man.
In 2013, Dumb Joe suggested last year that people fire a gun "into the air" to frighten away attackers.
Bad idea.
It could get you arrested for 'firing a gun inside city limits'. And you need to be aware of where that bullet is going to end up.
(by Doctors For Responsible Gun Ownership [DRGO] member T. Wheeler) November 09, 2016
Inland Empire Doctors Treat a Civil Right as a Public Health Problem
Posted on by AmmolandDRGO Editor: Dr. Wheeler, a San Bernardino County Medical Society member for 35 years, received a member satisfaction survey. This letter to Society president Michael Sequeira, MD resulted.
Proposition 63 will turn a huge fraction of California’s 8 to 12 million gun owners into criminals with the stroke of a pen. Many who don’t follow politics closely will not even be aware of their new status as criminals, because most people quite reasonably believe that crime laws are intended to catch and punish real criminals—those who rob, rape, steal, and murder—and not everyday citizens merely exercising their civil right to own a firearm.
Proposition 63 will create several new crimes, including possession of firearms and even simply parts of firearms that have until now been deemed legal by our legislature. Millions of Californians have owned these firearms for years. Why does the San Bernardino County Medical Society believe they now deserve prison time, the destruction of their lives and the suffering of their families?
The good people that the San Bernardino County Medical Society wants to see prosecuted include people we work with every day—nurses, students, even our fellow physicians.
I wonder if the leaders of our Society grasp that they are supporting the criminalization of many of our patients who own firearms.
Our law enforcement leaders understand the injustice being done to millions of innocent Californians by out-of-control politicians in Sacramento.
No less than the sheriffs of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Orange Counties oppose further gun control laws, including specifically Proposition 63. The growing list of California law enforcement agencies opposing Proposition 63 includes the California State Sheriff’s Association, California Police Chiefs Association, Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs, and many others.
I can’t conceive of a San Bernardino County Medical Society that would support a law making it illegal for African Americans to vote. The notion that our Society would eagerly urge a statewide confiscation of Bibles from devout Christians under pain of prosecution is equally abhorrent. But what the San Bernardino County Medical Society has done with its support of Proposition 63 is precisely the same kind of oppression.
Dr. Timothy Wheeler has been writing about 2nd Amendment rights on the "Doctors for Preservation of Gun Rights (DRGO) website for several years. Many doctors protest 2nd amendment rights because, as they say; "we have to treat the victims of Firearms Violence".
(Which is a reasonable protest, but nobody mentions that many of the firearms victims they treat did not have the opportunity to defend themselves against violent felons because the victims were not armed.)
Dr. Wheeler is no less experienced, but he recognizes that firearms may also be used to protect the innocent ... which not all of his colleagues notice.
The DRGO website is one which I frequently visit, because it provides insights to firearms violence which are not commonly found ... well, any other place on the Internet.
________________________________________________
On this, the 15th Anniversary of America's most deadly attack on home soil, it has become increasingly obvious that our elected officials on any but the local level have not the resources, the determination, nor the will to protect Americans in our homeland. It falls upon us each and every one to "provide for our common defense" because the people who begged us to elect them to high office have thrown us to the wolves ... apparently on the basis of the "We Will Eat You Last" philosophy.
WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen. Chris Murphy on Thursday took a deep dive into the interwoven worlds of the gun-rights movement and gunmakers, saying anti-government “neo-anarchist’’ Republicans are aligned with a firearms industry desperate to sell more guns to a shrinking customer base.
Funny, there are so many NEW purchasers of firearms that the number of gun owners has become significantly skewed even MORE to the right. And although HE cannot protect us, he begrudges us the right to do the job that he can't won't do:
... Murphy said hostility to government has become a right-wing standard, especially since the election of the nation’s first black president, Barack Obama, in 2008. ... “In an era where anti-government positioning is a hallmark of the modern right, it shouldn’t surprise anyone that increasingly Republicans are absolutist in their views on the right of citizens to own guns,” Murphy said. “They want to preserve the right of revolution as a means of showing how much they truly hate the current government, administered by President Barack Obama.”
Actually, while Constitutionalists despise all attempts to undermine the Second Amendment, and they disdain the pathetic efforts of our current President to impose a socialist system of federal and economic systems ... the only gripe is that Obama has proved himself incompetent (or unwilling) to fulfill the duties of his office.
We just want a President who executes "The Rule Of Law" rather than "The Rule Of Fiat".
The gun industry, which already markets guns based on the need for self-defense at home, was only too happy to oblige, Murphy said. “Only one-third of Americans today are buying guns, as opposed to half of Americans 30 years ago, meaning that the industry is reliant on a smaller number of gun owners buying large caches of expensive weapons like the AR-15,” he said. “The number of buyers has shrunk, so the simple solution, the industry realized, is to just sell more weapons to this smaller-sized market.”
Um .. firearms sales are going up, in spite of the rapid increase of firearms ownership since the Democrats took office. President Obama has already been hailed as "The Best Salesman In History" for the Firearms industry. Every time the President speaks against the Second Amendment, more people rush out to buy guns for fear that He Who Will Be Obeyed might impose some arbitrary draconian edict which limits our Constitutional Rights.
Murphy thinks we're arming against Obama? He's no threat, except that he is quite earnest in undermining our Constitution. We're actually more concerned about the growing trend toward Domestic Terrorism, against which there IS no defense except that the common man be able to defend himself, his home, his family ...
The market is almost saturated now; most people who think they might want or need one have already "got theirs", and until those new owners learn that firearms are worth having for reasons other than home defense (hunting, competition), there should be a slump in sales. But it hasn't happened yet.
Another aspect of the anti-government marketing strategy, Murphy said, is convincing gun owners law enforcement cannot protect them against terrorist attacks.
If Americans ever had any faith that the Obama Administration might be effective in protecting Citizens against terrorist acts, that faith has been drowned in the blood of innocents since Obama took office.
Murphy's tirade against honest Americans is not due to the increased show of independence against Terrorists; it's due to the increased demonstration that we are not ALL willing to be obedient to the false claims of Government that they can protect us, when it is so painfully that they cannot do so, and they will not even try.
And if anything, it's worse than You may read here: The Los Angeles
Murphy is America's own "Baghdad Bob"
You remember him? He's the Iraqi leader ("Foreign Minister") who promised that Americans are not, and never will be, in Iraq:
Murphy is in the same state of denial. He is the joke, but nobody's laughing.
The politicians don't want us to own guns, even for the express purpose of defending ourselves, family, friends, community, even against the increasing terrorist attacks against which no government forces can or will stand between us and our self-declared enemies.
Ignore the Murphys who are not for us, but are against us.
It's your family, your community, your country at risk. Do whatever you think you have to do.
Guns are the greatest equalizer. On Friday night, the very night before a man with a gun took lives in a horrific mass shooting, a woman with a gun was safer because of having it.
It was after supper when the dogs in the back began barking. A car had come down my long private driveway and pulled to a stop. I live way down a long country road, and my driveway is the last one on the road. Uninvited visitors are extremely rare. We’re too far out there for the usual smattering of Jehovah’s Witness, little girls selling cookies, and neighborly drop-offs of homemade jam. I looked outside and saw that two men had gotten out and approached my daughter while one waited in the driver seat of the car. My daughter, 15, was doing some of the after dinner chores. I had a bad feeling immediately. I knew it, because I was adamantly told by that gut instinct that doesn’t hint something is wrong, but pounds your heart like a drum to get your attention, and screams it inside your head. I stopped for just long enough to grab my loaded Glock 19 and for the first time since purchasing it, I racked the slide and chambered a round for a reason other than target practice. For the first time, I did so because of another human being. I did so because there were 3 men out there with my child and they were bigger than both of us. They were undoubtedly stronger, and we were outnumbered, and I knew that there was the potential for something bad to happen. I stuffed the gun into the side pocket of my hoodie and hurried out. I asked the men brusquely, “Can I help you?” One was the talker. He was bearded, over ,,,
According to WRAL [link], 71-year-old homeowner Paul Morgan said he and his wife were asleep when they heard the sound of someone kicking their front door. He grabbed the gun he keeps by the bed and went to the door, where his wife believes multiple suspects were allegedly trying to kick the door down.
Morgan said he yelled for the alleged intruders to stop, but they allegedly continued trying to break the door open, so he opened fire. Police arrived to find one suspect lying dead on the sidewalk.
I absolutely do NOT condone shooting through a door. Yes, it sounds like a home invasion, but it also sounds like a drunk at the wrong door, and several other possible scenarios.
We don't know how violent this 'attack' was, we have only one side of the story and that's all we ever will have.
Assuming the validity of the home-owner statements, four things seem evident from this account:
somebody beat the heck out of the door trying to get in
somebody didn't stop the assault when warned by the home-owner
somebody is dead
The home-owner and his family are alive.
It will be interesting to follow this story, assuming we can. I'm sure there is more to it than what we have already been told.
Cecil-Hinds, interim executive director of the Kentucky Council of Churches, said many NRA members “are Christian people who believe that what they are doing is right”.
“If we speak out against them without praying for them, then we do an injustice to God’s work in the world,” she said. “God calls us to be one body and love one another. Jesus said, ‘Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.’ That’s why I do it.”
Hmmm ... so, NRA members are their "enemies"? Legal, law-abiding firearms owners are their "enemies"? People who are responsible gun owners are their "enemies" simply because they possess firearms?
If this group had been referring to criminals who use firearms for nefarious purposes, I would have understood. But they are specifically targeting NRA members.
It hurts my feelings. I may weep.
Please, spare me your sanctimonious self-righteous hypocrisy. Whatever God you are praying to, it's not the father of He who said, in Luke 22:36: ''
"... the one without a sword should sell his cloak and buy one".
If y'all are that religious that you think you ought to pray for armed total strangers, maybe you ought to consider buying a gun; because "Don't Bring A Sword To A Gun Fight".
An off-duty Baltimore policeman on Saturday shot and killed a man he says appeared to be holding him at gunpoint in the suburbs of Linthicum Heights. But when Anne Arudnel County detectives surveyed the crime scene, they realized the would-be robber was wielding a toy gun. Amid national debate over US gun laws, some think banning fake guns is a no-brainer. By Story Hinckley, Staff DECEMBER 21, 2015
I agree, I think banning fake guns is is a no-brainer.
As in: anyone who thinks banning fake guns has no brain cells worth preserving.
Don't blame the "gun"; blame the actors who precipitate the tragedy. (Often the person who gave a kid a realistic-looking toy gun. See below.)
We read a couple of stories a year about someone getting shot (usually by a police officer) because they are brandishing a toy gun. Sometimes that is a tool which a person is using to commit a crime, as in this case.
Sometimes it is a toy which a child waves at a policeman, thinking it a harmless joke; it never is.
It's too often a tragedy:
In the child's case, they needed to be taught by their parent, guardian, responsible adult or that weird 'uncle' who shows up to talk to mamma .... that it is never a good idea to threaten someone with a toy, even as a joke. That's Lesson Number One in Responsible Gun Ownership (and if you don't think kids learn how to be responsible when they get their first toy gun, you are part of the problem.)
In the case of a hold-up, life is like a box of chawk-uh-lahts; you never know what you're going to get when you're trying to strong-arm an armed cop ... or citizen.
Why would a hold-up man (or boy) try to rob a stranger using a toy gun?
Because:
he's very new to the game and can't afford a real gun;
or because he keeps buying dope with the money he's stolen before and forgets to buy a gun;
or because he's trying to avoid being charged with Armed Robbery in case he gets busted;
or because he is desperate;
or because he doesn't REALLY want to shoot someone, and figures the worst that can happen is he gets the crap beat out of him:
or because he is stupid. (Well, that much is reliably assumable, right from the get-go!)
He probablydoesn't expect to get shot.
(Which right there, in four words, is the best argument for Concealed Carry Laws As An Aid To Social Respect.)
The thing is, the cop doesn't know it's a toy. He has to assume it's a real gun, and he's about to get shot. It's that thing about decision-making, judgement, confusion, Situational Awareness and Rule Number One (see below).
