Investigators are still puzzled as to how Frost knew the exact moment when the teller would have $90,000 sitting out for him to snatch. They said it was very likely Frost tried to fire his .38 caliber Derringer during the robbery, because when they examined the weapon, they saw the firing pin had been struck. Frost had loaded .380 ammunition into the weapon.
Please, God, don't make Dumb Crooks smart. The world would be a much less entertaining place to live without Dumb Crooks! I can hear Jeff Cooper laughing in his catacomb, all the way from Arizona. Or where-ever.
Sometimes when I write, I paint myself in a corner; and I don't know how to get out of it.
"Let me be the best of the worst, or the last of the first, but God save me from the Mediocre middle!" - me
Recently I made a remark which prompted an interesting response in the comments:
Trumps support for the 2nd Amendment is just a pose. He's not "for" the 2nd; he's "against Hillary".
Archer said...
Whatever position she takes, he takes the diametrically opposite political position.That's a dangerously risky (yes, I know that's redundant) way to run a campaign.It's very simple: By setting himself up to be the polar opposite of his opponent, The Donald is letting Hillary set his position on everything. Hillary's campaign could capitalize on that, if she or her advisers are clever enough.
May 31, 2016 4:37 PM
I must (reluctantly) agree
The Good Lord knows I hate politics, and I detest politicians; anyone who actively seeks public office is obviously unqualified. But there are times when you just have to do the best you can with your single vote. What do you do when you face the prospect of choosing between two extreme candidates, and you despise them both?
And has there ever been a more polarizing Presidential Election?
We are faced with choosing between the Queen of Lies, and the King of Kerfuffle. Neither is qualified, neither is appealing (except to radicals on both sides of the political spectrum), so what are those of us who are not willing to vote the Straight Party Ticket to do? We can vote our conscience, but my conscience dislikes both of them.
TRUMP: an obvious opportunist whose radical view on civil rights are suspect at best ... but 'claims' to support the Second amendment.
CLINTON: a radical liberal who is making political hay on her promise to impose radical Gun Control measures. Who do we believe?
I believe Clinton: Yes she DOES want to 'take our guns away".
Not by deleting the 2nd amendment, but by undermining constitutional affirmations such as the Heller decision (which affirms the right of simple firearms possession to Americans.).
No, I do not believe Trump's promise to protect the Second Amendment, because he's just another arrogant asshole who seeks office for personal aggrandizement. (Oh, aren't they all?)
We thinkhope that Trump is sincere in his support for the Constitution, and since Liberal Democrats (I'm pretty sure there are two or three of them in America) are against that particular Amendment, the choice seems to be a "no-brainer'.
If we are reduced to believing the promises of a Presidential Candidate, we are screwed.
Sometimes, it seems that the best vote we can register, is not to vote at all. This is true, at least, if we have no confidence in our candidates.
How about a nice game of chess?
LATER:
Politics is a game, but abdicating the responsibilities of citizenship is NOT the way to play it.
The best you can do is to vote your conscience. Win, lose or draw ... it's important that you make your voice heard. Refusing to vote is the very worst option in Politics.
It's better, to vote and let it be seen that your opinion may not agree with whatever the 'popular' vote, than to allow the perception that your opinion doesn't count even to yourself.
Remember the 2000 elections, and the "Hanging Chad".
I didn't understand then, and I don't understand now, what it was all about. All I know about that war is from watching M*A*S*H, and some reading of military History. No, I never understood the whole General Macarthur thing, either. Apparently, neither does wikipedia, although they put a lot of words to describe just how much they don't understand it.
But since we're just winding down from Memorial Day, the Korean War (at which 35, 000 Americans died) seems a reasonable subject for discussion.
Fortunately, Dennis Prager has some information about what has been called "The Forgotten War".
Here’s a must-watch video from Prager University, particularly given that we’re a day removed from Memorial Day and there are still a good many Korean War vets still living. Korea is something of a stepchild of a war according to popular history in this country; it cost the lives of 35,000 American servicemen, so you would think it would be worth paying attention to, but there are few movies made about it and little is made of it in the media outside of an occasional reference when the North Koreans act up.
Hillary Clinton is now running her Presidential Campaign on the bodies of young black men.
A recent article on the National Public Radio website exemplified why it is considered so demonstrably liberal that one wonders why it is publicly funded ... by our tax money.
Here's the story of a black woman whose son was shot down
Queen Brown has told the story for years now, and it shows.
But it doesn't sound rehearsed. It sounds lived in, thought over, played on repeat over and over again. The story of her son, Eviton Elijah Brown, killed nine years ago, shot by a man Eviton didn't even know.
Eviton had been a student at Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University, or FAMU, before he was shot. He took some time off from school, to work after his girlfriend got pregnant. He was staying at home with his mother. One day, after a long double shift driving trucks, Eviton came home, exhausted.
His mother made him one of his favorite meals: a fried egg, cooked medium, with garlic powder on top, and some bagels, toasted in the oven. Then Queen Brown stepped out to run an errand. She would never see her son alive again. That would be the last meal she'd ever make for him.
"My son was tired when he died," Brown said. "But I felt good, because he wasn't hungry."
That's touching. And so pertinent. Hillary thought so, too, so she invited "Queen Brown" to her "circle of mothers".
(Eviton Elijah Brown sounds like the salt of the earth, and he probably was a very good young man. Searching through the internet, it's almost impossible to find the details of his death; but the text you read above is copied word for word on almost every website found after a GOOGLE search of his name.)
Which has nothing to do either with Hillary's Election Campaign, or the song-and-dance Hillary is using him to orchestrate. (Does anyone think that Hillary just became BFF with his mom because they happened to meet at the same aerobics class and recognized that they had so much in common?)
The Circle of Mothers schedule includes not just seminars, but an aerobics class and even two hours of "glam time." "We do a lot of hugging," Queen Brown said of the event. "We do a lot of crying. We do a lot of back rubbing. We connect with ourselves." Clinton is trying to draw major distinctions between herself and Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, on guns. Trump was recently endorsed by the National Rifle Association, and when receiving that endorsement, he said the Second Amendment is "under attack" and "on the ballot in November."
Actually, what Hillary is 'trying' to do, is to present herself as a person who cares.
Which is kind of a difficult balancing act, as she recently tried to convince firearms owners that she cared about them, too.
That is amazing, since there are so many things she does NOT care about!
She doesn't care about The Law which as a U.S. Senator she has been sworn to protect and defend (eg: "The Email Scandals")'
She doesn't care about her husband (eg: "The Bill Clinton Bimbo Scandals")
She doesn't care about protecting American interests and personnel (eg: "The Bengazi Scandals")
She doesn't even care about National Security (eg: "The Email Scandals")
Actually, the The Most Important Thing That Hillary Cares About. is GETTING ELECTED!!!!!
Toward that end, she will do anything, say anything, espouse any public issue which makes her seem to be A Real person, even though she is not.
Getting back to the original premise of this story, National Public Radio (our tax money at work, remember?) is working hard to get Hillary elected. And with a clear conscience, since Hillary seems to imply that this is The Right Thing To Do.
Toward that end, they are willing to do anything, say anything, air anything which will support that purely political agenda.
Some hopefuls espouse the opinion that Donald Trump it the savior of the Second Amendment because he has said the things that we want to hear. Such as:
Opponents of gun rights try to come up with scary sounding phrases like “assault weapons,” “military-style weapons” and “high capacity magazines” to confuse people. What they’re really talking about are popular semi-automatic rifles and standard magazines that are owned by tens of millions of Americans. Law-abiding people should be allowed to own the firearm of their choice.
On Second Amendment rights... Trump slays Hillary.
axle357
on every issue Trump is miles ahead of hillary...anyone that would vote for any demarat is an anti american traitor...the dems want to destroy the country..Trump wants to save it.. ›
Wrong axle357
Trumps support for the 2nd Amendment is just a pose. He's not "for" the 2nd; he's "against Hillary".
Whatever position she takes, he takes the diametrically opposite political position. (Read History)
I call that "Bold Talk for a One-eyed Fat Man", but Donald Trump is no Rooster Cogburn.
And any man who thinks he can "John Wayne" himself into the white house is just an opportunistic liar.
You know, like all the other candidates for the past 50 years.
Bearing Arms has done a rather good job of summarizing the Couric "Shot Herself In The Foot" incident, and I won't attempt to gild the lily. This link is offered in case someone in the firearms community has been on vacation on a mountain top and needs to catch up on the controversy.
Reading the comments of the British Press, they wonder why President Obama can't just make it illegal to own guns in America, this solving the Crime Problem. The Brits are gleefully eager to point out the mayhem of Gun Violence in America, but their skirts are not so clean.
Brits are discovering that when guns are outlawed, only criminals will have guns. This is no longer just a passe "Ami" saying now. Even the average Limey is begging their own guv to "do something" in a society where it's illegal for them to resist home invasions with lethal force .... and privately wishing they had their own firearms instead of that ridiculous paring knife.
But the Bobbys are listening, and they've found a way to 'make things all better':
Scotland Yard is to offer cash rewards of up to 2,000 [pounds] to criminals in a bid to reduce the number of guns on the streets following a worrying rise in shootings over the past three months.
Informants who tell the police where illegal weapons are located will be able to collect the reward providing the information leads to an arrest and prosecution. Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police justified the scheme insisting “this is the about getting the guns off the streets”.
The initiative follows a spike in shootings across the capital since the beginning of the year with 122 weapons being discharged resulting in 62 people being injured and two killed.
Really? Sixty-Two Victims in five months in a single city?
Well, it's not Baltimore (or Chicago or Cleveland or Detroit or ....) but it's A Start.
And WHY won't the Brits allow their own citizens to be armed?
Because there would be MORE Brits shot!
That a lot of those Brits shot would be the vicious predators probably doesn't escape them,
But British leaders are well aware. that if they allowed honest people to own firearms, there would still be Dead Brits; and even though that would think the ranks of career criminals, it would be political suicide.
They, like politicians everywhere, would rather see honest citizens slaughtered than to be the politico who granted them the right to self defense.
Why British Citizens aren't railing at their leadership is beyond me.
Oh. Sorry, I forgot.
They're not Citizens ... they're "Subjects".
You know, like American Liberals want US to be.
(Oh, and BTW ... about the "Gun Buy-Back" schemes; They don't work.)
(Chicago City Leaders join) in honoring a woman who took a gun from an 11-year-old boy on a public street.. And well they should!.
The video which was recorded in Harvey, Illinois shows Ms. Stacie Davis confronting the 11-year-old boy on the sidewalk. Ms. Davis claims to have seen children behind a building where one of the young boys put a gun in his pants. After confronting the boy, Ms. Davis took the gun from the clearly agitated young boy.
At 11 years of age, your heroes don't include your mother; it takes years of maturity to learn that the person most familiar to you is your best mentor. Sometimes, even Hillary Clinton can be right: it does 'take a village'.
We've been writing for YEARS, here, about the need for Chicago citizens to take the lead in reducing violence in their neighborhoods.
And residents of other high-crime neighborhoods in major American cities.
Ms. Stacie Davis is the hero of the month for accepting the personal responsibility of teaching the youth of her neighborhood the lessons he may not be listening to at home. It's not that this little boy hasn't heard the lesson, it's just that sometimes you need to hear it from ... someone else.
This lady might have saved a few lives in these few minutes out of her busy day.
Maybe you rented a car. Or maybe your brain is just tired. Either way, every time you pull into a gas station, you hesitate as you ask: Wait, which side of the car is my gas tank on again? Here, a ridiculously easy way to get it right every time.
Your Gas Guage Will Tell You!
Whatever you do, don't change your voter registration to "Republican".
You didn't pass the test.
California: YOU can't buy a gun, but uninsured illegals can own and drive a car!
On "The One Hand":
California is doing everything it can to deny its citizen the means to exercise their Second Amendment rights.
On "The Other Hand".
Illegal immigrants are easily granted a driver's license (no word on whether they must actually pass a test), but they don't have to carry insurance to drive a car:
"They" can keep track of Californians who exercise their constitutional rights, but "they" can't find a way to know if licensed drivers are insured?
In my home state, when I bought a car I had to show proof of insurance before the dealer could deliver the car. In fact, when I went to pick up the car my Insurance Agent was standing behind the sales agent's desk. I had to pay the insurance premium on my new car before I received the title.
When I registered the car, I provided proof of insurance; if I'm stopped by a traffic patrolman, I'm expected to show license, registration, and proof of insurance.
When did the American Way change so dramatically that citizens have to prove our "legitimacy" to exercise a constitutionally protected right, but illegal aliens are protected from the kind of oversight which we expect our state governments to exercise in the public interest?
Anyone who actively seeks political office is suspect: they (often) want it too much to be trusted with the honor.
Witness: Hillary Clinton.
She thinks that, by throwing a crumb toward the Gun Owners of America, she can coerce a few more votes toward her campaign. As if we believe The Wanna-Be Next Liar In Chief.
(As if we hadn't already learned from our Obama-Lesson!)
"I know how important gun ownership, and particularly hunting, is here in northeastern Pennsylvania," Clinton told supporters in Dunmore last month. Regarding her gun control agenda, she said, "responsible gun owners have to stand up and say, 'This has nothing to do with my guns, my hunting, my sport shooting, my collecting.'"
Self-defense is conspicuously absent from Clinton's list of legitimate things people do with guns. The Australian government, whose mass confiscations of firearms Clinton admires, takes a similar view. Australians must demonstrate a "genuine reason" for owning a gun, and personal protection does not count.
But Australia has no Second Amendment.
No, Hillary doesn't know anything at all about the importance of the Second Amendment.
Actually, Hillary is 'running' on the platform of "Let Bill Do It; He Knows What To Do!"
Are we suppose to cater to Hillary's attempt at an end-run on term limits for the Presidency? Are we suppose to re-elect BILLARY?
Hillary Clinton plans to put her husband in charge of rebooting the American economy – the top issue of her presidential campaign. 'My husband ... I'm going to put in charge of revitalizing the economy because you know, he knows how to do it,' Clinton told a crowd in Kentucky Sunday. 'And especially in places like coal country and inner cities and other parts of our country that have been really left out,' she added, the Washington Post reported.The comment is a reminder that Clinton's election could amount just as much to a 'third term' for her husband than it would for President Obama, who already started campaigning for Clinton in effect with a slashing attack on Donald Trump during a commencement speech at Rutgers University Sunday.
Frankly, I'm against putting Bill Clinton in charge of the economy ANYTHING!. I don't think he knows how to do it ... and I never trusted the sleeze-bag-in-chief anyway.
Bill Clinton is "4F" in my book. Him, and the horse he rode in on.
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.
A friend of mine subscribes to John Farnam's DTIQUIPS email list and forwards his daily notes to me. It's a way to get the word out, which is important to many of us.
The topics vary, but in the context of the NRA Annual Meeting the latest issue provided some content which I felt to be especially pertinent:
This afternoon, it was my honor to attend a sage and fiery lecture from mylong-time friend and colleague, Lt Col Dave Grossman. Lecture hall wasjammed. Standing-room only. Dave’s uncanny ability to capture the attentionof an audience is something the rest of us only dream about!Dave talked passionately, and with eminent authority, about the currentworld situation, and the news is not good, as you might imagine. Daveencouraged us all to go armed, as armed teachers, parents, cops, and other good guys is the only proven deterrent to terrorist attacks. Terrorists arecoming after our children, just as they do in Israel, and someone has to beconstantly in a position to skillfully and unconditionally protect them, withgunfire when necessary. Welcome to the 21st Century.And, you thought the 20 Century was bad!Conversely, HRCs recent pseudo-sanctimonious pronouncement that “... noproblem was ever solved with a gun” are the words of a naive clown, and anarrogant, self-serving twit.
(Grossman link added)
Concur.
And adding, in the words of The Colonel:
"There aren't many problems that you can't fix, with seven-hundred dollars and a thirty-ought six."
A female security guard working at a Washington, D.C. grocery store was arrested Monday afternoon for physically escorting a man out of the women’s restroom after he refused to leave because he identifies as a woman.
The shopper — a young, African-American male who identified himself as Ebony Belcher to local news outlets — reportedly passed the security guard on his way into the women’s restroom at a Giant grocery store in Northeast D.C.
After seeing Belcher walk into the women’s restroom, the security guard followed him in and ordered the man to leave. When he refused, the security guard had to physically escort him out of the women’s restroom.
The evicted 'person' ("Ebony Belcher"?) called police, who arrested the guard.
Belcher said he was "hurt":
... “the woman had no reason to put her hands on me,” adding that he was emotionally traumatized by the incident. “I’m hurt by this. It’s terrible… I’m distraught,”
The genetic ladies in the ladies room were grateful to the guard.
“If you was born a man go to the men’s bathroom. You got a penis go to the men’s bathroom. If you are born a woman go to the woman’s bathroom. Period!”
1) "Political correctness" is just a fancy term for not telling the truth. 2) Obama says he wants "mandatory" voting, as it is in Australia. Voter ID is "unduly burdensome" -- but forcing people to vote is not?! 3) Obama says with "mandatory" voting, "You start getting 70-80 percent voting rates." Still not as high as the voting rates for dead people in Chicago! 4) Democrats, the "party of freedom," want mandatory health insurance, mandatory employer-paid leave, mandatory minimum wage and mandatory voting. 5) If illegals-turned-new-citizens would likely vote 80 percent GOP, instead of 80 percent Democrat, government would've sealed the borders tighter than a clam's behind. 6) Government freebies eventually anger both those who pay and those who demand, "Where's mine?"
There are more Conservative Comments, follow the link.
I use to listen to Larry Elder on the radio, but radio in Oregon is "iffy" at best and not terribly conservative at worse. Besides, I didn't like his debate style ... he wasn't as good "off the cuff" as he is when he has had time to think it through. (Which is why I offered the contents of this think piece.)
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".
"We are not going to give in to those demands to make it harder for law abiding gun owners to exercise their second amendment rights...we're gonna find the people that are using guns to commit crimes and lock them up. That's how you solve the gun violence problem,"
(Attorney General Brad Schimel said last weekend at the Republican Party of Wisconsin state convention.)
Funny, I knew that Wisconsin had men, but I didn't realize they clanged when they walked.
Democrats in the California Senate approved a wide-ranging series of gun control bills Thursday, reviving an effort to significantly tighten California's already strict gun laws in the wake of last year's terrorist attack in San Bernardino. Lawmakers voted to outlaw the sale of assault weapons with easily detachable magazines and to require that people turn in magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds. They also backed a variety of other measures aimed at restricting access to guns and ammunition or limiting the carnage they can inflict.
The US Department of Justice has been considering whether people should be prosecuted for the offense of climate change denial.
“This matter has been discussed. We have received information about it and have referred it to the FBI to consider whether or not it meets the criteria for which we could take action on,” said Attorney General Loretta Lynch, responding to a question from green activist Sen Sheldon Whitehouse at a Senate Judiciary Hearing.
[emphasis added]
In George Orwell's tortured masterpiece "1984", citizens of Oceania could be prosecuted for thinking 'wrong thoughts'. T
Today, in the era and the country where the First Amendment is first among our most treasured freedoms,, our government has been considering whether there are certain opinions which cannot be expressed. It's not a matter of grammar; it's a matter of Thought Crime.
It appears that Orwell's premonition is now verified. It just took a little longer (32 years) for it to come about in America.
Let's call the crime "BadSpeak", and make it a law. Which will require a Constitutional Amendment .. eventually.
(But no hurry, as long as another Democrat is elected to hold the highest office in the land.)
Judging by the words and threats of the Attorney General of the United States of America ... we have finally caught up with George Orwell.
The BBC article of October 4, 2015 *see below*, wonders why President Obama cannot, with a stroke of the pen and the support of Liberal congress-critters, impose "Common-Sense Gun Laws" to curb what they (the Brits and the American Liberals) assume would resolve all of the "Gun Violence" issues in America.
There are two reasons:
First: America is not a "Democracy"; it's a Republic
Second: The Constitution of the United States acknowledges (and guarantees) the right of Americans to "Keep and Bear Arms".
October 04, 2015: Can't the states do their own thing?
In the Senate - which currently has 54 Republicans and 46 Democrats (or Democratic-supporting independents) - the individual state populations are the key. The votes of Senators John Barrasso and Mike Enzi in pro-gun Wyoming (population 584,153) have the same weight as gun-control-backing Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer in California (population 38.8 million).
Our "Democratic" president would dearly love to impose his bias upon free Americans. It's a source of irritation to our Dear Leader that he cannot arbitrarily impose draconian restrictions on our freedoms.
Don't think that a lot of Congressmen wouldn't back him in this raid on Constitutional Rights, but the folks who started this experiment in liberty were smarter than the Brits, and Obama combined. Which wasn't much of a challenge, as it turns out.
If you're not confused, you were not paying attention. The "Electoral College" concept is confusing to 99.9% of Americans (including me). But one would be surprised if an American President who is also self-identifying himself as a "Constitutional Professor" didn't understand it.
Obama cannot impose arbitrary restrictions on Firearms Ownership (or in other words " .. is powerless to reform gun laws ...") because he's not a King. He cannot rule by fiat. He needs the support of BOTH houses of legislature, and he can't get it because those senators and representatives are dependent upon the good will of their electorate to get themselves re-elected next year. Without the firm support of the Electorate (you and I),
And as Al Gore learned a few years ago, one of the EASIEST ways to lose an election is to infringe on the Constitutional Rights of the American Citizen.
Even if you're a Rabid Anti-gun Liberal, you don't want to seriously propose a Constitutional Amendment unless there is first a Constitutional Convention to support your ever-so-popular view. And even then, it's still not a good idea because then there are "other issues" which might come arise, and you are likely to lose more than you might have gained.
ONE OTHER QUESTION:
We understand why Americans would want to ask this question.
But why is the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) involving themselves in this "purely American" issue?
It may be a matter of Schadenfreude;
They're so gleeful about their firearms-ban that they cannot bear to let American Freedoms demonstrate that their 'Violence" issues haven't been resolved by their draconian Gun Control measures (which are, by the way, not working!).
So they are violently (excuse the expression, NSFW in Britain) opposed to any other country which might be willing to accept a degree of 'gun violence' in protection of "Personal Freedoms" .. thus allowing private citizens to defend themselves in their homes and in their persons. Because if they let THAT example go without criticism, they might find themselves defending the logic in exposing their citizens to violence without allowing' them the means to defend themselves, their property, and their family.
A Toronto-area pastor says there's a feeling of hopelessness and helplessness in the city's Rexdale neighbourhood and it's a problem for the entire city to fix. On Sunday, a 35-year-old pregnant woman was shot and killed in a drive-by shooting while riding in the back seat of a vehicle in the area.
What's this? People are still being shot in Canada?
That's impossible! Canada has many of the gun laws which American anti-gun groups have been trying to establish for years, and for the specific purpose of eliminating exactly the kind of tragedies described above!
Perhaps this announcement was premature. Gun Violence continues in Canada. Non-gun violence has peaked in countries where private citizens are not allowed to defend themselves with firearms against thug. See "yobs", below.
HOW AMERICAN GUN DEATHS AND GUN LAWS COMPARE TO CANADA'S
According to a StatsCan report from 2012 – the most recent year available – the U.S. suffered a total of 8,813 murders involving the use of firearms that year. Canada, in the same year, recorded just 172 firearms-related homicides.“When looking at firearm-related homicide rates in comparable countries, Canada’s rate is about seven times lower than that of the United States (3.5 per 100,000 population), although it is higher than several other peer countries. While Canada’s firearm-related homicide rate is similar to those in Ireland and Switzerland, it is significantly higher than the rates in Japan (0.01 per 100,000 population) and the United Kingdom (0.06 per 100,000 population),” states StatsCan’s findings, which do not include Quebec figures.
Note that Japan has the highest suicide rate in the world, even though guns are absolutely forbidden there. UK has even more draconian firearms-ownership regulations ... but the rate of non-gun violence is higher there than both Canada and America combined, because Brits are not allowed to arm themselves in protection against assault by YOBS.
SUMMARY:
Yes, it's possible to dramatically decrease the number of gun-related murders by highly restricting or even eliminating the private ownership of firearms.
That just means that the criminals do not fear lethal resistance from their victims.
The odd thing is, when anti-gun folks laud the 'improvements' in a society where guns are highly restricted, or totally banned, they see higher rates of robberies and burgularies (including 'occupied dwelling' incidents, muggings, other assaults and murders by knives, bludgeons, and fist-and-feet.
The quality of life dramatically decreases when the public is not allowed the tools to defend themselves against even casual assault and robbery.
Ask any Brit, for example, or Australian who feels defenseless against young hoodlums who feel confident that they will not be met with an effective defense in a home invasion.
The Gun Ban In Australia Caused Increase In Crime And Home Invasions
Two thousand angry Australians gather to demand their gun rights and justice. Ginny Simone reports that the people of Australia gathered at the feet of Parliament with signs and outraged chanting in protest of the country's gun bans. Interviewees from the crowd discuss the gun buyback that required citizens to surrender their weapons with the threat of jail, an event that resulted in the confiscation of over 6,000 guns. With millions of dollars spent and no reduction in crime and actual increases in crime including home invasions, from the gun bans, Australians demand the right to defend themselves and to feel safe in their homes.
Police chiefs are struggling to recruit enough officers willing to carry a gun to tackle a Paris-style terror attack, because they fear they will be treated as criminal suspects if they use their weapon in the line of duty ... potential recruits were being deterred because of fears they could spend years under investigation after a decision to fire on a suspect ...
THIS is what you get when your "litigious society" is more focused on criticizing the cops than stopping the bad guys.
Curiously, the Brits are quick to criticize America for being a "Litigious Society": and if you read both the lead article, and the article linked to in the preceding line ... ^ ...
... then you have just learned the meaning of 'IRONY'.
The usual Mantra of the "Leftist Liberal Gun-Grabbers" (but I repeat myself!) is that the NRA is the tool of the firearms manufacturers.
That would suggest that anything which widens the market for newly manufactured firearms would be a primary effort which the National Rifle Association would eagerly espouse to advance the fiscal well-being of their supposed "masters" .. the gun makers.
But what's this?
The NRA is backing laws to require LEOs to keep and resell confiscated firearms, rather than to destroy them? Even if it means that the market for new firearms may be undermined?
In the past eight years, 11 states have passed NRA-backed laws encouraging or requiring police to resell confiscated guns. The legislation is consistent with the guns-everywhere strategy the lobbying arm of the NRA has advanced at every level of government since the late 1990s—more guns in the hands of more people in more places. Dealers buy them in bulk from police departments and sell them to the public with no disclosure that such weapons were once used in robberies, assaults or homicides. In some notable cases, these guns are used to commit new crimes. Even so, efforts to expand these laws to other states are underway.
Either the NRA is the toady for the gun makers, or it's an advocate for the American Citizens who own (or want to own) guns. As this article illustrates, you can't have it both ways.
The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence had organized a conference call for Monday afternoon designed to call out Schumer — normally a reliable ally of gun-control groups — for not yet introducing the bill. In a statement announcing the call, the organization proclaimed: “Senator Schumer falls through on promise to Brady Campaign.”
Chuck was a little bit slow dancing to the Brady tune this week, so they called him to account for his intransigence. It required only a mild threat to get Chuck back on the gun-grabber bandwagon.
Under heavy pressure from an influential gun-control group, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Monday that he would introduce legislation expanding universal background checks — following through on a months-long pledge to bring forward the bill.
One wonders: is he beginning to feel just a little bit used and abused?
One hopes so.
That's the usual fate of "Useful Idiots" when they exceed their "Sell-By Date".
A 15-year-old boy fires an assault rifle at human-shaped targets while walking through a desert shooting range. Whipping a pistol from a holster, another teen shoots rapidly at man-shaped targets that pop from behind barrels.
Oh, darn.
I don't know anybody who shoots at man-shaped targets. Do you?
The mainstream media had sought to protect Hillary Clinton from revelations about Guccifer’s role in the hacking of her private e-mail server as long as it could. For example, NBC News reporter Cynthia McFadden had interviewed Guccifer from a Bucharest prison and elicited Guccifer’s first-hand account that Hillary’s server was “not safe at all.” NBC sat on this interview for more than a month. Only after Guccifer was extradited to the U.S. and appeared to be of interest to the FBI did NBC have to acknowledge the potential importance of what Guccifer had to say regarding Hillary’s unsafe server.
“Armed in America” is theme for “Peace Officer,” “Armor of Light”
Network says it is not taking an editorial stand on issue
On Monday and Tuesday, PBS will devote most of its prime-time schedule to a two-night event built around the theme “Armed in America” as part the service’s ongoing coverage of gun violence. Two films under the “Independent Lens” banner will air, followed by town hall discussions moderated by former ABC News correspondent Michel Martin (now weekend anchor of NPR’s “All Things Considered”). (Both town halls were taped April 27 at Northland Church in Longwood, Florida.
PBS swears that it's not going to take an 'anti-gun' stance during these presentations.
I don't have television, or I would watch this just to hoot at their 'balanced presentation'.
But SOMEBODY ought to watch it!
When they call it "gun violence", you can assume it will be talking about "Bad Guns!" and not about "Bad Social Violence".
And little time will be spent talking about the sociological aspects of violence; instead, they WILL be talking about Gun Control.
Because I gave up my television 20 years ago, if someone can find an online version of this 'series', I would be interested in watching what PBS has to say.
Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump echoed conservative media and the National Rifle Association by baselessly claiming that Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton wants to “abolish the Second Amendment” and “take your guns away.” In fact, Clinton says that Second Amendment rights can be "protected" while the government also implements"common-sense" measures like universal background checks to keep guns from dangerous people.
As usual, the Left Wing Media torques the rhetoric to make their "presumptive candidate" look good ;; at least, as good as she can be made, considering that she is (a) a politician, and (b) a DEMOCRATIC politician, and (c) ergo, a liar.
In point of fact, Hillary actually said:
You know, Australia’s a good example, Canada’s a good example, [and] the UK’s a good example. Why? Because each of them had mass killings, Australia had a huge mass killing about 20 or 25 years ago. Canada did as well, so did the UK. In reaction, they passed much stricter gun laws. In the Australian example, as I recall, that was a buyback program. The Australian government as part of trying to clamp down on the availability of…weapons offered a good price for buying hundreds of thousands of guns and basically clamped down going forward, in terms of having more of a background check approach–more of a permitting approach ...
The Australian "Gun Buyback Program" wasn't presented as an option: it was mandatory.
Australians complied because they were required to, by law. They didn't do this because it was their choice! And receiving $500 for a firearms which might have cost you thousands of dollars was not appreciated as "a good price".
As a result, concluded one academic assessment, "Suicide rates did not fall, though there was a shift toward less use of guns, continuing a very long-term decline. Homicides continued a modest decline; taking into account the one-time effect of the Port Arthur massacre itself, the share of murders committed with firearms declined sharply. Other violent crime, such as armed robbery, continued to increase, but again with fewer incidents that involved firearms."
The thing which DID decrease in Australia was that fewer (as in "NONE") of Australia's honest law-abiding citizens had the means to protect themselves against' violent felons .. felons who had NO problems acquiring firearms!
Hillary Clinton, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nominee, wants "to take your bullets away." He made the remarks during a May 7 rally in Washington state, according to CNN. From the CNN report:
Julie Alderman called that "a lie" by Donald Trump.
But is it?
Not if you accept that Hillary was sincere when she embraced the Australian Example..
Let's go back to Australia, whose firearms laws are so cherished by The Hillary::
