Search the Community

I have been suspicious of this tragedy That happened in Florida. It happened on Valentines day and it just happened to be on ash Wednesday. All of the big tragedy's regarding guns have been way different than what we see on TV. This is a very possible scenario.

Clothes dubbed a ‘blend of Type II body armor and school pride’ are humorous way of making a serious critique of rules allowing guns in dorms and classes Tom Dart in Houston Tuesday 18 April 2017 14.13 BST Students at a ***** Not Glocks protest in Austin, Texas on 24 August 2016. Photograph: Zuma Wire/Rex/Shutterstock https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/apr/18/bulletproof-t-shirt-gun-carry-laws-texas-universities-*****-not-glocks

Colorado Springs vs. Charleston: The Church Massacre That Ended DifferentlyKatie Pavlich | Jun 19, 2015 In 2007, former police officer Jeanne Assam was working as a plain clothed security guard at New Life Church in Colorado Springs. When a man showed up on Sunday armed to the teeth and ready to carry out a massacre, Assam drew her weapon and stopped him before he could kill anyone inside. A former police officer, Assam, 42, was on security duty Sunday morning at New Life Church here. Hours earlier, a 24-year-old who had been rejected from a missionary school in a Denver suburb had shot and killed two staffers there. Now he was spraying New Life's parking lot with gunfire and pushing through the doors to the sanctuary. Assam hid and inched toward the gunman, Matthew Murray, as dozens of terrified worshipers fled. She waited until he got close enough, revealed herself, aimed her pistol and fired. Murray dropped to the ground. He was carrying an assault rifle, two pistols and a backpack holding more than 1,000 rounds of ammunition. "I just prayed to the Holy Spirit to guide me," Assam said at a packed news conference Monday. "I give the credit to God. This has got to be God, because of the firepower he had versus what I have." Authorities on Monday said Assam saved untold lives. On Wednesday a racist man walked into Emanuel A.M.E. Church in Charleston, South Carolina, sat with black worshippers for and hour and then murdered nine of them. The difference? Assam had the opportunity to fight back and saved lives. The Emanuel A.M.E. Church prohibits congregation members from carrying firearms and there are no reports showing security guards were on the scene at the time of the murders. Could the church massacre in Charleston have been stopped? We'll never know, but we do know a similar tragedy was stopped somewhere else.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-08-21/congress-proposes-law-banning-body-armor-land-free Congress Proposes Law Banning Body Armor In The Land Of The Free on 08/21/2014 18:01 -0400 inShare Submitted by Simon Black via Sovereign Man blog, By the late 1920s, Joseph Stalin became the unchallenged leader of the Soviet Union after having eliminated his opposition. He topped it off in 1929 by serving a decisive blow to anyone that would dare to oppose him by outlawing private gun ownership in the country. From that year on until 1953 when Stalin died, it’s estimated that more than 20 million Soviet citizens that were seen as a threat to the country’s leadership. People were rounded up and either murdered outright, or sent to infamous gulag labor camps. Stalin is an extreme case. But history is ripe with examples of governments which disarm their citizens, only to engage in serious oppression afterwards. Communist China. Nazi Germany. Cambodia. Guatemala. Uganda. The list goes on and on. Pacification of the citizens is almost always a prerequisite to totalitarianism. There have been a lot of attempts to disarm, or at least partially disarm, people in the US throughout history as well. Each time there’s a major shooting somewhere, the chant to ban firearms grows louder. But the latest proposal is especially telling. H.R. 5344 is a bill currently going through Congress that would ban the purchase of body armor. Violation would carry CRIMINAL penalties, including up to ten years in prison. Many bullet-resistant items on the market now, such as bulletproof backpacks for school children, would be banned by this legislation. This is incredible given that the legislation is all about banning something that is purely defensive. Whatever your stance on firearms, I hope we can agree that it’s pretty damn difficult to hurt another human being with body armor. People buy body armor for protection. That’s the point. Duh. So why in the world would they want to ban it? The government claims that “criminals and rampaging madmen” can “wreak havoc” while wearing body armor, and it’s important to shield police from these nefarious individuals. Uh, wait a sec– you mean the same police that go around terrorizing ordinary citizens who aren’t breaking any laws whatsoever? The same police who beat homeless people to death? The same police who shoot and kill innocent animals in broad daylight in the middle of the street? The same police who scream “I will f***ing kill you!” with their weapons trained on crowds of protestors exercising their constitutional rights? Right. Those guys. This is such a disgusting, yet unfortunately predictable, turn of events in the Land of the Free. It’s enraging. It’s infuriating. And it’s so obvious: the country has become a giant police state. And the trend is not getting any better. It’s time to set aside emotion. It’s time to set aside a lifetime of propaganda and programming telling you that you live in a free country. It’s time to look at the objective evidence all around you. They spy. They steal. They wage illegal wars. They authorize military detention of civilians. They assassinate citizens. They intimidate. They terrorize. They torture. They suspend due process when it suits. They destroy anyone who challenges them. And now they want to take away a non-violent means of protecting yourself. This is our reality. And at a minimum, it’s time for rational, thinking people to come up with a Plan B. What’s yours? BILL AUTHOR AND CO-SPONSORS: LINK TO BILL: https://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/5344 LINK TO AUTHOR: https://beta.congress.gov/member/michael-honda/1634 CO-SPONSORS: Rep. Kelly, Robin L. [D-IL-2]* Rep. Hastings, Alcee L. [D-FL-20]* Rep. Pascrell, Bill, Jr. [D-NJ-9]*

Received the following from the Chairman of our County Republican Party. If true, Colorado may regret their recent decisions. OUTDOOR CHANNEL PULLS PRODUCTION FROM COLORADO DUE TO CO SENATE BETRAYING 2ND RIGHTS! From: Michael Bane Date: Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 4:09 PM Subject: OUTDOOR CHANNEL Pulls Productions from Colorado To: Steve King Dear Senator King; I met you yesterday after the so-called "public hearings" on the anti-gun bills; as I mentioned, I am an Executive Producer for OUTDOOR CHANNEL. I currently have four series in production, including GUN STORIES, the top show on OC, with several additional series in development. My series focus on guns, hunting, shooting and the outdoors. This morning I met with my three Producers, and we made the decision that if these anti-gun bills become law, we will be moving all of our production OUT of Colorado. We have already canceled a scheduled filming session for late this month. Obviously, part of this is due to our own commitment to the right to keep and bear arms, but it also reflects 3 lawyers' opinions that these laws are so poorly drafted and so designed to trap otherwise legal citizens into a crime (one of our attorneys referred to them as "flypaper laws") that it is simply too dangerous for us to film here. I can give you chapter and verse on the legal implications if you need, but suffice to say that the first legal opinion was so scary we went out and got two others. Al three attorneys agreed. We are relatively small potatoes in television, but our relocation of production will cost Colorado a little less than a million dollars in 2013. Secondly, we have proudly promoted Colorado in our productions (and have been moving more and more production into the state); now we will do exactly the opposite. What does this mean for Colorado? The community of television producers is a small one. Last week I had lunch with a major network producer who was looking to locate his new reality series in Colorado. That producer is also a shooter, and the new reality series will now be based out of Phoenix. That lunch cost Colorado over a million in economic impact. Thirdly, according to numbers I received from the National Shooting Sports Foundation (for whom I used to work) yesterday, hunting had an almost $800,000,000 impact on Colorado in 2012, driving as many as 8330 jobs. Next month I will be in Texas meeting with most of the top outdoor/hunting producers, and the Number One agenda item will be Colorado. Already, hunting organizations and statewide hunting clubs around the country are pulling out of Colorado, and we expect this trend to accelerate rapidly. The message we will take to our viewers and listeners is that these proposed laws are so dangerous to hunters and any other person, be she a fisherman or a skier who brings a handgun into the state for self-defense, that we cannot recommend hunting, fishing or visiting Colorado. We reach millions of people, and, quite frankly, we have a credibility that Colorado government officials can no longer match. Colorado Division of Wildlife is already running ads trying to bring more out-of-state hunters to Colorado...in light of the flood of negative publicity about these proposed laws, I can assure you those ads will fail. We estimate that as many as one-quarter to one-third of out-of-state hunters will desert Colorado in the next 18-24 months, which will quite frankly be a disaster for the hunting industry in Colorado and have a devastating effect on our western and northern communities (certainly cities like Grand Junction). This is not a "boycott" in the traditional sense of a centralized, organized operation; rather, it is more of a grassroots decision on where shooters, hunters and other sportsmen are willing to spend their money. Look at the collapse of the Eastern Sports and Outdoor Show in February. That venerable multimillion dollar trade show chose to ban modern sporting rifles and standard capacity magazines, and within three weeks it collapsed as all vendors and sponsors pulled out. Colorado is going to pay a huge price for laws that will do nothing. Thank you, sir, for your support. Best. Michael Bane OUTDOOR CHANNEL mbane@outdoorchannel.com

Police Poll: Armed Citizens, not Gun Control, Will Lower Violent Crime Email Article Print Article Send a Tip by AWR Hawkins 9 Apr 2013 160 post a comment View Discussion In a poll conducted by PoliceOne, a majority of law enforcement personnel said universal background checks, "assault weapons" bans, and "high capacity" magazine bans do not make police safer and will not lower violent crime. Armed citizens, on the other hand, do make a positive difference.In the poll of 15,000 law enforcement professionals, 71% of respondents said an "assault weapons" ban would have zero impact on violent crime. Of those surveyed, 95.7% said the same of a "high capacity" magazine ban, and 79.7% said the same in response to a question on universal background checks. Over 90% of these law enforcement professionals said "mandatory sentences with no plea bargains" for those who use a gun in perpetrating a crime would reduce violent crime. When asked if they supported concealed carry laws for citizens without a felony in their past, 91.3% of respondents answered "yes" on "without question and without further restrictions." Additionally, 80% of these law enforcement professionals also agreed that casualties at Sandy Hook Elementary would "have likely been reduced" if "legally-armed citizens" had been in the school. No Surrender No Retreat and No Compromise

Todd’s letter to Obama, as posted on The Blaze, reads: Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/02/columbine-victim-asks-obama-whose-side-are-you-on/#ixzz2LggVcZJK Mr. President, As a student who was shot and wounded during the Columbine massacre, I have a few thoughts on the current gun debate. In regards to your gun control initiatives: Universal Background Checks First, a universal background check will have many devastating effects. It will arguably have the opposite impact of what you propose. If adopted, criminals will know that they can not pass a background check legally, so they will resort to other avenues. With the conditions being set by this initiative, it will create a large black market for weapons and will support more criminal activity and funnel additional money into the hands of thugs, criminals, and people who will do harm to American citizens. Second, universal background checks will create a huge bureaucracy that will cost an enormous amount of tax payers dollars and will straddle us with more debt. We cannot afford it now, let alone create another function of government that will have a huge monthly bill attached to it. Third, is a universal background check system possible without universal gun registration? If so, please define it for us. Universal registration can easily be used for universal confiscation. I am not at all implying that you, sir, would try such a measure, but we do need to think about our actions through the lens of time. It is not impossible to think that a tyrant, to the likes of Mao, Castro, Che, Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, and others, could possibly rise to power in America. It could be five, ten, twenty, or one hundred years from now — but future generations have the natural right to protect themselves from tyrannical government just as much as we currently do. It is safe to assume that this liberty that our forefathers secured has been a thorn in the side of would-be tyrants ever since the Second Amendment was adopted. Ban on Military-Style Assault Weapons The evidence is very clear pertaining to the inadequacies of the assault weapons ban. It had little to no effect when it was in place from 1994 until 2004. It was during this time that I personally witnessed two fellow students murder twelve of my classmates and one teacher. The assault weapons ban did not deter these two murderers, nor did the other thirty-something laws that they broke. Gun ownership is at an all time high. And although tragedies like Columbine and Newtown are exploited by ideologues and special-interest lobbying groups, crime is at an all time low. The people have spoken. Gun store shelves have been emptied. Gun shows are breaking attendance records. Gun manufacturers are sold out and back ordered. Shortages on ammo and firearms are countrywide. The American people have spoken and are telling you that our Second Amendment shall not be infringed. 10-Round Limit for Magazines Virginia Tech was the site of the deadliest school shooting in U.S. history. Seung-Hui Cho used two of the smallest caliber hand guns manufactured and a handful of ten round magazines. There are no substantial facts that prove that limited magazines would make any difference at all. Second, this is just another law that endangers law-abiding citizens. I’ve heard you ask, “why does someone need 30 bullets to kill a deer?” Let me ask you this: Why would you prefer criminals to have the ability to out-gun law-abiding citizens? Under this policy, criminals will still have their 30-round magazines, but the average American will not. Whose side are you on? Lastly, when did they government get into the business of regulating “needs?” This is yet another example of government overreaching and straying from its intended purpose. Selling to Criminals Mr. President, these are your words: “And finally, Congress needs to help, rather than hinder, law enforcement as it does its job. We should get tougher on people who buy guns with the express purpose of turning around and selling them to criminals. And we should severely punish anybody who helps them do this.” Why don’t we start with Eric Holder and thoroughly investigate the Fast and Furious program? Furthermore, the vast majority of these mass murderers bought their weapons legally and jumped through all the hoops — because they were determined to murder. Adding more hoops and red tape will not stop these types of people. It doesn’t now — so what makes you think it will in the future? Criminals who cannot buy guns legally just resort to the black market. Criminals and murderers will always find a way. Critical Examination Mr. President, in theory, your initiatives and proposals sound warm and fuzzy — but in reality they are far from what we need. Your initiatives seem to punish law-abiding American citizens and enable the murderers, thugs, and other lowlifes who wish to do harm to others. Let me be clear: These ideas are the worst possible initiatives if you seriously care about saving lives and also upholding your oath of office. There is no dictate, law, or regulation that will stop bad things from happening — and you know that. Yet you continue to push the rhetoric. Why? You said, “If we can save just one person it is worth it.” Well here are a few ideas that will save more that one individual: First, forget all of your current initiatives and 23 purposed executive orders. They will do nothing more than impede law-abiding citizens and breach the intent of the Constitution. Each initiative steals freedom, grants more power to an already-overreaching government, and empowers and enables criminals to run amok. Second, press Congress to repeal the “Gun Free Zone Act.” Don’t allow America’s teachers and students to be endangered one-day more. These parents and teachers have the natural right to defend themselves and not be looked at as criminals. There is no reason teachers must disarm themselves to perform their jobs. There is also no reason a parent or volunteer should be disarmed when they cross the school line. This is your chance to correct history and restore liberty. This simple act of restoring freedom will deter would-be murderers and for those who try, they will be met with resistance. Mr. President, do the right thing, restore freedom, and save lives. Show the American people that you stand with them and not with thugs and criminals. Respectfully, Severely Concerned Citizen, Evan M. Todd