Recently Browsing 0 members
No registered users viewing this page.
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
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
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.
OUTDOOR CHANNEL email@example.com
Police Poll: Armed Citizens, not Gun Control, Will Lower Violent Crime
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