Welcome to The Real Gun Guys!
 Book for sale!"Nothing" chapters available here for $1 each (first one free) |
Click here to visit our CafePress shop!
Countdown until "The Obamanation" leaves Office
Visit DefeatTheDebt.com to learn more!
Book for sale!"Nothing" chapters available here for $1 each (first one free) |
Countdown until "The Obamanation" leaves Office
Visit DefeatTheDebt.com to learn more!
Posting tweet...
Powered by Twitter Tools
Here’s an excerpt from her recent column about the whole “assault weapon” brouhaha. It’s a great read, especially after reading Michael Savage’s drivel.
“The rash of recent shooting incidents has led people who wouldn’t know an AK-47 from a paintball gun to issue demands for more restrictions on guns. To be sure, it’s hard to find any factor in these shootings that could be responsible – other than the gun.
So far, this year’s public multiple shootings were committed by:
- Richard Poplawski, 23, product of a broken family, expelled from high school and dishonorably discharged from the Marines, who killed three policemen in Pittsburgh.
- Former crack addict Jiverly Wong, 41, who told co-workers “America sucks” yet somehow was not offered a job as a speechwriter for Barack Obama, who blockaded his victims in a civic center in Binghamton, N.Y., and shot as many people as he could, before killing himself.
- Robert Stewart, 45, a three-time divorcee and high-school dropout with “violent tendencies” – according to one of his ex-wives – who shot up the nursing home in Carthage, N.C., where his newly estranged wife worked.
- Lovelle Mixon, 26, a paroled felon, struggling to get his life back on track by pimping, who shot four cops in Oakland, Calif. – before eventually being shot himself.
- Twenty-eight-year-old Michael McLendon, child of divorce, living with his mother and boycotting family funerals because he hated his relatives, who killed 10 of those relatives and their neighbors in Samson, Ala.
It might make more sense to outlaw men than guns. Or divorce. Or crack. Or to prohibit felons from having guns. Except we already outlaw crack and felons owning guns and yet still, somehow, Wong got crack and Mixon got a gun.
Today on his site, Michael Savage advocated the banning of “assault weapons” whatever they are.
“Why are the police outgunned?
In the last two or three weeks, the United States has seen an unprecedented outcropping of violent shootings, much of it directed at the police. As a result, seven police officers are dead. Over a dozen civilians have been killed. Why is this happening now? Obviously this has nothing to do with race. The shooters run the racial gamut. A black shot the police in Oakland. A white shot the police in Pittsburgh. And a Vietnamese individual shot the civilians. But in both cases where police were killed, an assault rifle was used.
So why are our police outgunned? Is it because of the politically correct rules of engagement that have been imposed on them over the last 30 years? Or is it because there are too many assault weapons in the hands of criminals? If we decided we wanted to have real borders, maybe we could stop the flood of weapons that come from Mexico, Russia, China, and Eastern Europe. But now that they’re here, how can we allow our police to by the criminal and the insane. So I put the question to the Savage Nation. Is it time to ban assault rifles? What are they really needed for?
Of course, I can already hear callers telling me, “Well, Mike, if we’re armed with these weapons, the government can’t possibly take our rights away.” That is nonsense. If the government wants to take your rights away or imprison you for whatever reason, your owning an assault rifle is not going to stop it. So we have to ask: If the police are not allowed to have these types of weapons, then why is the public allowed have them. I want you, The Savage Nation to tell me why.”
This was sent to my by The Real Gun Brother-in-law and I found it funny, I hope you do too.
===============================================
A MORAL DILEMMA:
This test only has one question, but it’s a very important one. By giving an honest answer, you will discover where you stand morally. The test features an unlikely, completely fictional situation in which you will have to make a decision. Remember that your answer needs to be honest, yet spontaneous.
Please scroll down slowly and give due consideration to each line.
THE SITUATION:
You are in Florida, Miami to be specific. There is chaos all around you caused by a hurricane with severe flooding. This is a flood of
biblical proportions. You are a photojournalist working for a major newspaper, and you’re caught in the middle of this epic disaster. The situation is nearly hopeless. You’re trying to shoot career-making photos. There are houses and people swirling around you, some disappearing under the water. Nature is unleashing all of its destructive fury.
===============================================
THE TEST:
Suddenly you see a man and a woman in the water. They are fighting for their lives, trying not to be taken down with the debris. You
move closer.
Somehow they look familiar. You suddenly realise who they are. It’s Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi!
At the same time you notice that the raging waters are about to take them under forever. You have two options: You can save their lives or you can shoot a dramatic Pulitzer Prize winning photo, documenting the deaths of two of the world’s most powerful people.
===============================================
THE DILEMMA :
Here’s the question, and please give an honest answer….
Would you select high contrast color film, or would you go with the
classic simplicity of black and white?
This one will probably surprise you, especially the source of the opinion piece:
“Guns: carry on or checked?
G. Michael Thomas
There are two schools of thought concerning handguns on school campuses. One is to ban guns everywhere and everyone will be safe. The bill to allow handguns died in committee on April 1.
On ETSU’s campus, Jack Cotrel, director of Public Safety, said he believes that Knoxville Rep. Stacey Camfield’s proposal to allow qualified faculty and staff with a carry permit to carry weapons on campus is “a bad bill.”
Cotrel is quoted in the April 1 Johnson City Press, saying, “We simply don’t think it’s good for college campuses. Our objective is to eliminate a threat in a shooting situation, any shooting situation. And if we go into a situation and there’s five or six people with guns, you don’t have time to say, ‘Hey, do you work here?’”Really, that is his argument? When a law officer rolls up on a situation where there is gunfire are they really going to check and see if the citizens ready to defend themselves are faculty or staff? Is that their top priority in an emergency situation?
Let’s look at the results of two infamous university shootings.
January 16, 2002: A despondent student who had dropped out of the Appalachian School of Law in Grundy, Va., came onto the campus with a handgun. He shot and killed two faculty members and a student as well as wounding three others.
Nigerian Peter Odighizuwa was challenged and subdued within minutes by three students who were off-duty policemen. Two of these men went independently to their cars to retrieve their personal firearms, approached Odighizuwa and ordered him to drop his weapon. The third cop helped tackle and subdue Odighizuwa, having him in handcuffs before the first police car arrived.
April 16, 2007: After killing two students in West Ambler Johnson dormitory on the campus of Virginia Tech, Seung-Hui Cho, a South Korean student with a long history of mental problems, went into Norris Hall a few hours later and began a mass murder spree that claimed the lives of 30 more students and faculty and wounded 17.
In a mad rush of god-like power, he went from classroom to classroom unchallenged. He shot and killed several teachers and students through the doors they were desperately trying to barricade.The police were called but the outside doors were chained by Cho and they could not get in.
I understand the futility of the ‘what if’ argument, but allow me brief license to speculate. Virginia Tech had a handgun ban. Even if someone had the legal privilege of possessing a concealed weapon they could not legally carry it on campus.
If someone, faculty, staff or even a student in Norris Hall that morning was a legally registered and trained holder of a handgun carry permit and had shot or openly challenged Cho, how many lives could have been saved? If they had done nothing else but pop off a few rounds, would Cho have figured his brief moment of power was over and had shot himself sooner rather than waiting the agonizing minutes it took for the police to finally break in?
I understand Cotrel’s point of view. He and his officers have a job to do. He believes it is the sole responsibility of the campus police to protect and defend the students of ETSU, and anyone else with a firearm on campus is a potential wildcard.
What he fails to take into account is that people who go through the expense, extensive training and background check necessary to legally carry handguns are responsible, law-abiding citizens. Sure, there are exceptions, but crimes committed by permit holders are extremely low.
Let’s just say that a handgun ban is a good idea. Even an off-duty policeman or sheriff’s deputy working on a criminal justice degree would not be allowed to carry his service weapon on campus when guns are banned.
In a world growing increasingly more unpredictable, it is not only prudent but it is necessary to learn to defend yourself and your family. Instead of banning people from protecting themselves, why doesn’t ETSU initiate a course for students and faculty to be properly trained so they can apply for their own carry permit? Stop blaming the legal gun owner for ‘what if’ scenarios that don’t happen. Guns in the hands of responsible citizens are far safer than in the hands of criminals.“
From the Seattle Gun Rights Examiner:
Roberts: Under the Bush administration, you pretty much said the ball was in their court when it came to reinstating the ban. Now, it’s a Democratic President, a Democratic House. So, is the ball in your court where this is concerned?
Pelosi: Yes, it is. And we are just going to have to work together to come to some resolution because the court, in the meantime, in recent months, the Supreme Court has ruled in a very- in a direction that gives more opportunity for people to have guns. We never denied that right. We don’t want to take their guns away. We want them registered. We don’t want them crossing state lines…
Could it be any plainer? Eric Holder suggests we reintroduce the assault weapons ban, Hillary Clinton agrees, major news coverage of the phoney idea Mexican drug cartels are buying their full auto machine guns, mortars, grenades and RPG’s from American gun stores/shows, and now Nancy Pelosi states unequivocally she wants all guns registered. If anyone had a doubt that our current President and administration, let alone the Democratic Party is hostile to the second amendment, they haven’t been paying attention. I’d sooner believe the Iranian nutjob really doesn’t want to wipe Israel off the face of the map before I’d believe anything the gun banner in chief, and his minions would say about the subject.
I guess that makes me a bitter clinger then.
III
