Women Against Gun Control 2A Educational Forum

To EDUCATE re: Our Second Amendment RIGHT - Our basic fundamental human RIGHT to defend our lives, property AND Liberty, UNINFRINGED! The Second Amendment IS the Equal Rights Amendment! *************************************************************************** Dedicated to those who died 9-11-01 The Second Amendment IS Our Homeland Security! *************************************************************************** WOMEN AGAINST GUN CONTROL SUPPORTS OUR AMERICAN TROOPS!!!!!!!!!!!! GOD BLESS YOU ALL! STAY SAFE AND COME HOME SOON! OUR DEEPEST GRATITUDE FOR YOUR SERVICE AND SACRIFICES! ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Armed Citizens SAVE over 2 million lives a year ..and that INCLUDES those attackers who are ARMED with just their BARE HANDS AND FISTS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Columbine Co: Where innocent children and teachers could NOT do anything against a crazed student but hide under tables and pray that they wouldn't be next What Went Wrong with Columbine http://www.newswithviews.com/Pratt/larry.htm ------------- Pearl Miss: Where an armed administrator was able to save lives by retreiving his own weapon ---------- What school would YOU prefer YOUR children attend ?????????????????????? If it only SAVES one life........ DO IT FOR THE CHILDREN! +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Racist Origins of US Gun Control http://www.lizmichael.com/racistgc.htm http://www.mcsm.org/racist.html http://hematite.com/dragon/bans.html http://www.sightm1911.com/docs/whitelaw.htm http://www.potomac-inc.org/emercore.html ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The 2nd Amendment: Explained......Very good explanation of the meaning of the 2nd Amendment: http://www.sierratimes.com/03/08/07/greenslade.htm ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ "A gun is a TOOL ! NO better or no worse than any other tool, an axe, a knife a shovel or anything - YES~ even hands and fists! A gun is as good or as bad as the man using it. REMEMBER THAT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Cub Scout lauded for finding, reporting firearm

by Nancy

Cub Scout lauded for finding, reporting firearm
Date: Jul 4, 2006 2:07 PM
Vermont has the NRA Eddie Eagle GunSafe Program available,
through the Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs.
Click here: Eddie Eagle Lands in Vermont

FYI (copy below):
http://www.pahrumpvalleytimes.com/2006/06/28/news/scout.html
************************************************************
June 28, 2006

Cub Scout lauded for finding, reporting firearm

PHILLIP GOMEZ / PVT

Sheriff Tony DeMeo presented a certificate of appreciation
and good citizenship to a 7-year-old Pahrump boy Sunday, for
his clear thinking in immediately reporting a 9mm automatic
handgun he recently found lodged under a shed near the
bleachers at Honeysuckle Park.

The boy, Devon Dace, was chasing a lizard with a friend when
he discovered a bag of beef jerky with a heavy object in it
tucked under the utility shed behind the baseball dugout.

Dace said he at first thought the gun was a toy, but then
realized it was real because of its weight.

DeMeo congratulated Dace for his foresight and good sense in
knowing better than to handle the weapon.

Cub Scout Pack No. 748 applauded Dace as Jerry Magnuson,
assistant district commissioner of the Boy Scouts of
America, Las Vegas Council, presented him with a compass
"for doing the right thing."

Magnuson said the compass given to Dace was to "keep him on
the right track, and bring along all his friends."

Later in an interview with the Pahrump Valley Times, DeMeo
reflected on the recent shootings that took the lives of two
young people from the community.

"What we're emphasizing from the Sheriff's Office point of
view is responsible gun ownership," DeMeo said. "People
without training in handling guns can come into anyone's
house. We should be cognizant of that.

"I have guns at my house. When we have people come over,
those weapons are put out of reach. Other people should
take the responsibility of safeguarding their weapons so we
don't have another incident like we had Friday night.

"I've been in contact with the National Rifle Association,
and it is going to provide a program to the high school to
tell kids to leave weapons alone. The other thing is for
gun owners to take responsive action about locking their
guns. In both of these incidents, the teenager got
possession of a weapon.

"Two 6-year-olds showed responsible actions (in reporting
the gun found at Honeysuckle Park)," DeMeo said. "Maybe
it's just that teenagers lose that kind of message of
responsibility in treating every gun as if it is loaded.
These incidents are few and far between, given the amount of
firearms that people have in their homes."

The Sheriff's Office provides free gun locks to those
requesting them, he said.

Posted on Jul 6, 2006, 9:22 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home


Mauser UN Presentation (Excellent Presentation)

by Nancy

Mauser UN Presentation (Excellent Presentation)
Date: Jul 6, 2006 6:48 PM
FYI (copy below):
http://www.garymauser.net/MauserUN2006.html
AOL users click here

June 30, 2006
United Nations Small Arms Meeting -- New York
Mauser UN Presentation

United Nations Conference to Review Progress Made in the
Implementation of the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat
and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light
Weapons in All Its Aspects

Professor Mauser in New York at The UN Disarmament
Conference, made this presentation on June 30, 2006.

Mr President, distinguished delegates,

I am Professor Gary Mauser, Simon Fraser University, in
British Columbia, Canada. I am representing the National
Firearms Association. For 20 years, as part of my academic
program with SFU's Institute for Canadian Urban Research
Studies, I have studied Canadian firearms legislation. I
will briefly report on my findings.

Mr. President, Canada has gone through big changes in the
past 15 years. In the 1990s Canada introduced a program to
license firearms owners and register sporting rifles and
shotguns. Previous firearms legislation had primarily
focused on the criminal misuse of firearms as well as
controlling handguns and fully automatic firearms.

The former government insisted on introducing this costly
system despite contrary advice from the New Zealand
government and from experienced Canadian civil servants.
The new government, which has recently been elected after a
campaign where gun control was central, has now decided to
abandon the firearm registry.

"It has been demonstrated that the Canadian licensing and
registration system is not cost-effective and has not
reduced crime. Research shows that 71% of firearm licences
were found to have errors, and over 250,000 guns were
registered with the same serial numbers as stolen guns. The
Royal Canadian Mounted Police have said they have no faith
in the information: and barely more than half of the guns
(or gun owners) are included in the registry. The Auditor
General of Canada has estimated that the registry has cost
taxpayers more than one billion dollars, even though it was
originally budgeted to cost only two million dollars.
Reviewing the Canadian gun control program, she called it
the worst case of cost overrun she has ever seen.

A few statistics demonstrate the ineffectiveness of the
Canadian firearm registration system. Since 1998, when
firearms were required to be registered, the homicide rate
has increased by more than 3%. Despite the outrageous cost
of the registry, the percentage of gun homicides has
remained fixed at 27%. So with family homicides, where the
percentage involving firearms has remained at 23%. Nor did
the firearm registry change the proportion of homicide
victims who are female (32%) since 1998.

The firearm registry has not saved any lives. While gun
homicide numbers are indeed down, the proportion of domestic
homicides involving guns has not declined, nor has the
homicide rate declined. Instead it has increased. This
suggests that crime rates are driven by sociological factors
(such as the percentage of youth in the total population,
and social conditions) rather than availability of just one
method of murder.

Public opinion has reversed. In 1995, surveys showed large
majorities supporting the registry; current polls show
majorities (as high as 84%) wishing to abandon it as
ineffective.

Mr. President, the central question is whether this approach
to firearm regulation is defective in conception. To answer
this question, I examined the success of legislation in a
variety of English-speaking countries, some developed, some
semi-developed, some undeveloped - including the United
Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, the Republic of Ireland,
and Jamaica.

I could find no evidence that blanket gun regulations, even
firearm prohibitions, contributed to a reduction of criminal
violence in any of these countries. Firearm prohibitions
failed to reduce criminal violence in both Jamaica and the
Republic of Ireland. My results offer no support for those
who advocate blanket gun laws.

I conclude by asking the General Assembly to reject the
siren song of the anti-gun NGOs, Mr. President. The
campaign to impose blanket prohibitive gun regulations is
contrary to a growing body of research showing that in a
wide variety of countries, arms prohibition does not
contribute to lowering criminal violence.

There is a danger the UN will lose further trust and
credibility around the globe, and ultimately take part in
the prolongation of poverty, misery and the lack of prospect
of entire peoples, by mistakenly directing its attention
towards private gun ownership.

Posted on Jul 6, 2006, 9:20 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home


Bloomberg a ‘Blooming Idiot’ Over Support of Illegal Aliens, says CCRKBA

by Nancy




Bloomberg a ‘Blooming Idiot’ Over Support of Illegal Aliens, says CCRKBA
Date: Jul 6, 2006 12:57 PM




NEWS RELEASE
BLOOMBERG A ‘BLOOMING IDIOT’ OVER SUPPORT OF ILLEGAL ALIENS, SAYS CCRKBA
BELLEVUE, WA – New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg would rather see the country overrun by illegal aliens than he would give a break to a law-abiding American gun owner, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) said today.

CCRKBA was reacting to reports about Bloomberg’s statements to the Senate Judiciary Committee during a hearing today in Philadelphia, PA. In that hearing, Bloomberg admitted, “Although they broke the law by illegally crossing our borders…our city’s economy would be a shell of itself had they not, and it would collapse if they were deported.”

“While Bloomberg has launched a campaign to attack the rights of American gun owners,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, “it is obvious he is rather selective about whom he considers a criminal. He doesn’t seem at all alarmed that among the millions of illegal aliens sneaking into this country are criminals and possible terrorists. But evidently he thinks that scenario is far preferable to one in which law-abiding citizens can arm themselves against thugs, including ones that are here illegally.

“More than a year ago,” Gottlieb recalled, “CCRKBA launched a campaign calling on the Bush Administration to concentrate on border control, not gun control. We knew then, as we know today, that Americans are greatly concerned about illegal aliens. While many of those illegal immigrants are here to take jobs, others come here to commit crimes, ranging from drug trafficking to murder. Some of their victims have been police officers on duty. Yet there hasn’t been a whimper from Mayor Bloomberg about this, only about ratcheting down on firearms.

“New York City has suffered a recent rash of stabbings, some of which were apparently committed by illegal aliens,” he noted, “yet where is the mayor’s concern about that? It’s not the weapon, it’s the criminal.

“Mayor Bloomberg should be demanding tighter security along our borders instead of mounting dubious gun shop stings as a way to thwart crime,” Gottlieb said. “Instead of interfering with on-going criminal investigations to grab a headline, Bloomberg should devote his energies to making this country more secure, and that doesn’t require him to trample on anyone’s gun rights. He would rather harass American gun owners who have broken no laws, instead of going after illegal aliens who have broken our immigration laws by just being on our soil.”


-END-



Posted on Jul 6, 2006, 9:18 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home


John Lott Column: The U.N. shouldn't be so sure gun-control works

by Nancy

John Lott Column: The U.N. shouldn't be so sure gun-control works
Date: Jul 4, 2006 3:53 PM
No Safety Lock: The U.N. shouldn't be so sure gun-control works.
By John R. Lott, Jr.*
Published Monday, June 26, 2006, in National Review Online.

The United Nations' conference on small arms, which starts today, has an
admirable enough goal: to save lives. Some conference attendees claim
that guns used in armed conflicts cause 300,000 deaths world-wide every
year. The "international community's" solution? Prevent rebels from
getting guns with rules that include a registry of all small arms to
enable tracing them and to ensure that weapons sales can be limited to
governments.That is an understandable "solution" for governments that
don't trust their citizens. But it also represents a dangerous disregard
for their citizens' safety and freedom.
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/NROUnitedNationsGuns062606.html


Posted on Jul 6, 2006, 9:17 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home


Federalized Concealed Carry Reciprocity

by Nancy

Federalized Concealed Carry Reciprocity
Date: Jul 1, 2006 5:59 PM
Friends:

Following is an excellent expansion of my recent article
explaining why National Concealed Carry Reciprocity is a Trojan
Horse for taking our gun rights. It is by Mike McHugh of the
Virginia Gun Owners Coalition. As I stated before, I am very
proud to be standing with such good company in speaking against
this idea, and I am proud that JPFO has chosen to distribute our
message.

--Andy

P.S.: If you are receiving this after having earlier requested
removal from this or another mailing list, my apologies.
It was recently necessary to retrieve a "backup" list
that may have some addresses that were later removed
at the recipient's request. If you wish again to be
removed, just let me know.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Federalized Concealed Carry Reciprocity
A Right to Keep and Bear Arms Trojan Horse
by Andy Barniskis and Mike McHugh

Mr. Barniskis chairs the legislative committee of the Bucks
County Sportsmen's Coalition. He also is Legislative Chairman
for Falls Township Rifle and Pistol Association. In 1995, he
was the plaintiff in a suit successfully challenging the
authority of the Bucks County Sheriff to introduce new
requirements to the process of applying for a permit to carry a
concealed firearm. Mike McHugh is President of Virginia Gun
Owners Coalition.

If you have a concealed carry permit would you like to get
your name out of the massive government data base so that your
guns are not first on the list to be confiscated? Would you like
to one-day enjoy the right to carry concealed WITHOUT a permit
as Vermonters and Alaskans now do? If you don't have a permit,
do you want those who do to trade your hope of a restored 2nd
Amendment for the temporary carrot of national concealed carry
under ever increasing federal regulations and restrictions? If
so, then stop reading and do nothing to oppose Virginia Senator
George Allen's Trojan Horse Federal Government Power Grab. And
by all means don't tell George Allen to stop using your gun
rights as a gimmick to get elected President. Just sit still
while easier to win state gun grab efforts are shifted to a
distant, unresponsive federal bureaucracy. And by all means
forget the dream of armed self defense as a genuine
constitutional right, and inalienable right that should not be
subject to the prior constraint of licensing.

You see, there are presently in congress several pending bills
that would require all states to honor concealed carry permits
issued in any state of the union. At first glance it would seem
that passage of such legislation would be a major triumph,
expanding our right to keep and bear arms nationally. However,
the stakes are high and the consequences of involving the
federal government in carry permit matters will prove counter -
even detrimental - to both our gun rights and states rights.

Proponents of these bills maintain that the issue is simple;
carry permits should be treated no differently from state
drivers licenses or marriage licenses under the "full faith and
credit" provision of Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S.
Constitution. The first sentence of that section reads, "Full
Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public
Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State."
That sounds all good. But, the second sentence reads, "And the
Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such
Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect
thereof." In other words, the federal government may butt in to
dictate the proceedings of the states!

What will surely happen, if the federal government dictates
that states must accept concealed carry permits from other
states, is that anti-gun states will raise a cry that
"reasonable minimum standards" should be applied to the issuance
of carry permits. The result? Take my home state of
Pennsylvania, for example, which is arguably one of the less
restrictive "shall issue" concealed carry states. Currently, I
can carry in a restaurant that serves alcohol. And, all I need
to do to obtain a permit to carry is apply, have a clean record,
and pay $19 for a five-year permit, which must be issued to me
in less than 45 days. Will states that don't allow their own
citizens to carry firearms at all regard that as a reasonable
minimum standard? Don't bet your freedom on it - but do expect
congress in the very near future - if not immediately - to
impose fingerprinting, mug shots, mandatory training, high
administrative costs, and create numerous criminal "safe zones",
where only the criminals have guns. And, once the principle of
federally-dictated criminal safe zones and federally-dictated
standards for concealed carry is established, increasingly
restrictive standards will become a backdoor way for carry
permits to be de facto prohibited by federal regulation, without
congressional action.

And in fact, this is what happened to the free cantons (i.e.
states) in Switzerland in 1999 when the centralized federal
government of Switzerland required the anti-gun gun cantons to
allow carry of firearms where it had been prohibited. The
result? The anti-gun cantons muscled the central government
into a strangling array of regulations and restrictions that
destroyed the liberty of the formally free cantons.

Those who argue that the application of full national faith
and credit to drivers licenses is a good analogy for what they
seek for carry permits, may be raising a better example than
they realize. Here in Pennsylvania, over the years we have had
photo drivers licenses, auto emissions inspections, and "motor
voter" registration forced upon us by the federal government,
all over the futile resistance of our state legislature. In the
case of emission inspections, not only were emission standards
dictated, but also the levels of fines for non-compliance. The
experience of many other states has been similar, so why would
anyone not expect federal involvement in carry permits to result
in federal micro-management of issuing standards?

Firearms permit-to-carry reciprocity in neighboring states
is desirable, but will never be worth trading away our
fundamental rights to obtain, nor placing our fundamental rights
at risk. In fact, what advocates of federalized concealed carry
reciprocity seek, benefits only a minority of a minority - those
who have a carry permit at home, and also wish to carry in
another state. But, if obtaining reciprocity results in
increased restrictions in our home state, that affects every
single citizen, every single gun owner. We will be better off
continuing to fight for reciprocity at home, on a state-by-state
basis, never forgetting that licensing a right converts that
right to a privilege. Ultimately, if we accept this Trojan
Horse concealed carry federal government power grab, we will
have put a nail in the coffin of restoring the 2nd Amendment.


Posted on Jul 6, 2006, 7:21 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home


New Kopel study, "Human Rights Atrocities:The Consequences of United Nations Gun Confiscat

by Nancy

New Kopel study, "Human Rights Atrocities:The Consequences of United Nations Gun Confiscation in East Africa"
Date: Jun 30, 2006 5:53 PM
Today the Independence Institute released a new Issue Backgrounder, "Human Rights Atrocities:The Consequences of United Nations Gun Confiscation in East Africa."

Written by Dave Kopel, Paul Gallant, and Joanne Eisen, the paper details how U.N.-backed gun confiscation programs in Kenya and Uganda have led to murder, torture, and arson, and have turned tens of thousands of pastoral tribespeople into starving refugees.

The paper is available at:
www.davekopel.org/2a/foreign/kenya-uganda.pdf

Posted on Jun 30, 2006, 9:16 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home


U.N. v. Madison

by WAGC

U.N. v. Madison
Date: Jun 30, 2006 12:00 AM
http://www.nysun.com/article/35220


U.N. v. Madison

New York Sun Editorial
June 28, 2006




Call it the "Assault on the Founding Fathers and Defense of Tyranny" conference. This week, just in time for the Fourth of July, the United Nations is hosting a conference at Turtle Bay on small arms control. Apparently it wasn't enough for Secretary Annan's deputy to attack the American Congress (and the American public) earlier this month. Now the bureaucrats at Turtle Bay are attacking the Founding Fathers and the American way of life. It's the Second Amendment they have in their sights this time.

U.N. officials are claiming that the conference is discussing only the "illegal small arms trade" and that legal possession will be left to national governments to decide. Defenders of the Bill of Rights can see through this and are up, so to speak, in arms. At the last U.N. conference on this head, in 2001, American diplomats had to fight off attempts to limit civilian gun ownership. Anti-gun groups, such as the George Soros-funded International Action Network on Small Arms, are at this conference, too. Once again they're charging that the only way to stop illegal guns is to stop legal guns.

It's not only fringe groups who are targeting all guns. It's the U.N. itself. The conference's Web site features a prominent message that "Wherever arms flow, violence follows" from the "United Nations Messenger of Peace, Award Winning Actor and Producer Michael Douglas." Not "illegal arms." Just "arms." What Mr. Douglas's expertise on this subject might be - other than in some of the violent movies he stars in - is beyond us, but concerned Americans have been flooding Ambassador Bolton's office with pleas to defend the Constitution.

Which we're confident the ambassador will do as he did in 2001, despite criticisms from some quarters for making a fuss about this conference. The Economist recently noted that "The UN, whatever its evil aims, is hardly in a position to push Uncle Sam around. To disarm Americans, it would need Congress on its side, plus an American president willing to sign an anti-gun treaty and appoint Supreme Court justices willing to rule it constitutional." But Americans don't want to risk the Bill of Rights being abrogated now or in the future. And the growing willingness of activist judges to cite international law in rulings adds to the possibility of a future threat.

The threat inherent in the conference isn't just to Americans. While some foreigners like to portray the American defense of the right to keep and bear arms as a relic of the cowboy age, gun ownership is really one of the greatest defenses of liberty open to the ordinary citizen. The Founders enacted the Second Amendment to ensure the other nine Amendments were protected. As George Mason put it: "To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

Or as James Madison wrote in the Federalist No. 46, "the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation," along with "the existence of subordinate governments ... forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of." The Founders understood that those who seek gun control, wittingly or unwittingly, open the door for greater tyranny.

Greater tyrannical control is exactly what some of those behind the conference want. The "officers of the conference" include representatives from the communist regime in China, Iran, Belarus, and Egypt. A ban on arms would be great for them and fellow despotic regimes. A ban on arms ensures that these oppressive regimes have a complete monopoly on force. Those struggling for freedom in their totalitarian states will have no means to realize their dreams. The Chinese regime wants to defend its ability to conduct a massacre in Tiananmen Square without people being able to fight back.

The Founding Fathers saw the Second Amendment as a way to ensure Americans never faced the same tyranny that dominates the United Nations. A Second Amendment in other countries would be a gift to freedom seekers. As Madison noted in the same Federalist paper quoted above, if a people have arms and local governments "it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it." This conference instead seeks to solidify the thrones of today's tyrants.

Posted on Jun 30, 2006, 7:53 AM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home


Armed Seniors Fight Back

by Armed Seniors Fight Back

Armed Seniors Fight Back
Date: Jun 29, 2006 6:40 PM
FYI (copy below):
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stlouiscitycounty/story/F2CF3C2FF1400B94862571990018F62F?OpenDocument
In East St. Louis, golden years are lit by flashes of gunfire
By Todd C. Frankel and Denise Hollinshed
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
06/25/2006

EAST ST. LOUIS — After her 87-year-old next-door neighbor
fatally shot a burglar trying to come through the front
door, Eleanor Anderson - herself an older adult living alone
- began sleeping with two items under her pillow: a cell
phone and a gun.

The grandmother was intent on defending herself in a
neighborhood that has changed drastically since she was a
young girl. Anderson's small, light-green childhood home is
protected by security bars and an alarm system. She also
has her gun. And when Anderson, 61, heard gunshots one
recent night, she was ready. She called police and waited
with her snubnose .38.

"Us being seniors, criminals don't think we'd do anything,"
Anderson said, looking over her gold reading glasses and
standing in a room filled with pictures of her four
granddaughters. "We don't play anymore. We won't take this
lying down."

There is something jarring about the image of a gray-haired
grandma (or grandpa) packing a pistol. And there is
something laudable in the image of an old-timer turning the
tables on a criminal.

"People despise crime in general," said Illinois State
Police Master Sgt. James Morrisey, who investigated the
burglar shooting. "And elderly people are (thought) of as
easy prey for predators. I guess people like to see that
victims are not always victims."

Widespread attention followed February's shooting by
Anderson's octogenarian neighbor, including intense media
coverage - even a mention in the recent American Hunter
magazine - and public pleas for the prosecutor to overlook
her lack of a gun permit.

Then, earlier this month, 74-year-old city resident Willie
Brown shot and wounded an intruder standing at his bedroom
door. More attention, and plenty of praise, followed.

These shootings are not unique to East St. Louis. But this
dilapidated city of 31,000 - including 3,400 people over 65
- has struggled for years with a soaring crime rate. The
city also has a sizable group of seniors who, for a variety
of reasons, have opted to stay in their homes even as they
grow more vulnerable and the area around them grows more
dangerous.

The two shootings, plus another two years ago when an
87-year-old resident fired at a burglar, have heartened
seniors. At a morning Bible study class held at the Clyde
C. Jordan Senior Citizen Center, older adults expressed
pride about the self-defense shootings, mixed with sadness
that criminals were preying on the elderly.

"People are fighting back," said Robert Haines, 62.

"The philosophy of turning the other cheek is certainly
healthy. But not to the extent that you become a victim,"
said Willie Harris, 63.

A few blocks away, Henry McKinzie, 70, sat outside and
recalled how his former neighbor, Nina Sloan, shot at a man
trying to break into her kitchen on 88th Street in August
2004. She fired two shots through her kitchen door. The
burglar ran off. He was never caught.

McKinzie and his wife looked after the elderly woman for
years. She had no family and lived alone. She died in
March at age 89.

For McKinzie, the recent spate of seniors defending
themselves recalled Sloan's actions.

"We're proud of our elderly folk," he said.

'I'm in a foxhole'

Willie Brown also keeps his gun under his pillow.

On June 15, he was awakened by a knife-wielding burglar
outside his bedroom on Caseyville Avenue.

"I reached behind my back and whipped my gun from under my
pillow and said, 'Take this .38,' and I blasted him,"
recalled Brown, a retired Korean War veteran who keeps busy
mowing lawns.

The burglar fled but a suspect was arrested later by police.

Although Brown successfully defended himself, he was shaken
by the brazen crime.

"It seems like I'm in a foxhole in my own home," he said.
"That's pretty bad."

East St. Louis Police Capt. Lenzie Stewart praised the
seniors for fending off the intruders, but he worries that
another elderly person might be hurt by their use of a
handgun. He said the city needs to do a better job of
protecting its elderly citizens. But he understands why the
seniors stay, despite the threats around them.

"Most of the residents in this city," Stewart said, "they
don't want to give up where they live and were raised."

Jacksie Mae King rebuffed her daughter's attempts to get her
to move from her small cream-colored house on a dead-end
street next to a set of railroad tracks.

King, who celebrated her 88th birthday last weekend, had
endured three burglaries in the last four years, said her
daughter, Pamela Paulette-Clark. The family installed more
window bars and a better alarm system after the first two
incidents. But King, who uses a walker, suffered a large
black-and-blue bruise on her face after a burglar in
December beat her, her daughter said.

So Paulette-Clark gave her mom a .32-caliber Colt revolver.
She told her how to use it and explained that the bullets
would shoot through a door.

On Feb. 7, King heard someone smashing a window on her
house. It was a little after 2 a.m. She heard the intruder
trying to open the front door. She fired at least two shots
into the door, hoping to scare him off, police said.

Several hours later, Paulette-Clark entered through the
house's back door. She was coming to make her mom some
breakfast. Her mom was seated at the kitchen table. Next
to her was the gun.

Paulette-Clark recalled her mother saying, "We had guests
last night."

She thought her mom meant mice. She hoped her mom wasn't
trying to shoot at rodents.

But then she walked to the front door and looked outside.
There was a body.

Paulette-Clark said she walked back into the kitchen, called
police and told her mom, "Well, I have news for you - We
still have guests."

King had no idea that she had killed the intruder, police
said. In May, the state's attorney's office announced it
would not prosecute King for any crime, including not having
a gun permit.

King is remorseful about the shooting, said her neighbor
Anderson.

"But it was going to be he or she," said Anderson, who
sleeps better with her gun under the pillow.

Posted on Jun 29, 2006, 7:40 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home


hypocricy of the worst kind

by WAGC

Sarah Brady of HCI, quoted in the January 1992 issue of Crimebeat magazine:
"I am certainly not anti-gun by any means. I even enjoy shooting a gun myself. I believe that they can have value for certain things, such as self-defense..."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Joyce Brothers, the pop psychologist,has claimed that firearms ownership is indicative of male sexual inadequacy. Her husband has pistol permit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, publisher of the New York Times, has a NYC pistol permit. The Times has an editorial policy against private handgun ownership.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Hey, if your daughter is carved on while being raped it's OK, as long as a handgun isn't used. You've really captured the essence of what I was saying." -- Daniel William Roth (kato@leland.stanford.edu)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"But even if a ban [on handguns] is instituted I think that superior people such as myself should be allowed to have them." -- Daniel William Roth (kato@leland.stanford.edu)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ann Richards, Governor of Texas, who admits carrying concealed pistol, but recently vetoed a bill that would have allowed other women (and men) in Texas to have the same means of self protection.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anti-gun U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein -- who, while Mayor of San Francisco during a "handgun ban" PR stunt, ostentatiously turned in one handgun. And quietly kept her other one.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anti-gun U.S. Senator Carol Moseley-Braun, a lawyer, who "doesn't know" whether her .22 caliber pistol is registered in Chicago, as required. [BTW, that's a crime ...]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anti-gun columnist Carl Rowan, used an illegal handgun to shoot a skinny- dipping teenager. He obtained the illegal pistol from his son, an FBI agent.
--------------





    
This message has been edited by WAGCEVP on Jun 25, 2006 12:01 PM

Posted on Jun 25, 2006, 11:55 AM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home


We don't want your guns, honest...................

by WAGC

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them... "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in," I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here." --U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, CBS-TV's "60 Minutes," February 5, 1995, speaking about her authorship of the 1994 "assault weapons" ban**

"No, we're not looking at how to control criminals ... we're talking about banning the AK-47 and semi-automatic guns." -- Sen. Howard Metzenbaum

"Ban the damn things (guns). Ban them all. You want protection? Get a dog." --Molly Ivins, columnist, 7/19/94*****

"You need the will to disarm the civilian population. If we can do it in Somalia, we can do it here." --Mary McGrory, Arizona Daily Star columnist, 3/11/93**


"I honestly think — and I am not an expert on the amendments — I think the only people in this nation who should be allowed to own guns are police officers. I don't care if you want to hunt, I don't care if you think it's your right. I say, 'Sorry. It is 1999, we have had enough as a nation. You are not allowed to own a gun and if you do own a gun, I think you should go to prison.'" --Rosie O'Donnell, 4/21/99**


"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal." --U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno******

"The House passage of our bill is a victory for this country! Common sense wins out. I'm just so thrilled and excited. "The sale of guns must stop. Halfway measures are not enough."
...Sarah Brady, 1 July 1988


"We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily, given political realities, going to be very modest. Our ultimate goal, total control of handguns in the United States, is going to take time. The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered, and the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns, and all handgun ammunition illegal!"
-Nelson T. Shields of Hangun Control, Inc. as quoted in `New Yorker' magazine July 26, 1976. Page 53f

-----------The above sounds pretty familiar after reading the following? Let's NOT let history repeat itself !---------------------------------


"All military type firearms are to be handed in immediately ... The SS, SA and Stahlhelm give every respectable German man the opportunity of campaigning with them. Therefore anyone who does not belong to one of the above named organizations and who unjustifiably nevertheless keeps his weapon ... must be regarded as an enemy of the national government." - SA Oberfuhrer of Bad Tolz, March, 1933.


"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA - ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State." -- Heinrich Himmler


"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms, history shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own fall" -Adolph Hitler, Edict of March 18, 1938.


"The first thing you have to do is disarm the people. A disarmed public can't fight back" -- Adolf Hitler

Every good communist should know that political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. -- Mao Tse Tung

"Only an armed people can be the real bulwark of popular liberty." -- V. I.
Lenin

"The people of the various provinces are strictly forbidden to have in their possession any swords, bows, spears, firearms, or other types of arms. The possession of these elements make difficult the collection of taxes and dues, and tends to permit uprising. Therefore, the heads of provinces, official agents, and deputies are ordered to collect all the weapons mentioned above and turn them over to the government." -- Toyotomi Hideyoshi, Shogun 29 August 1558



    
This message has been edited by WAGCEVP on Jun 25, 2006 12:02 PM
This message has been edited by WAGCEVP on Jun 25, 2006 11:58 AM

Posted on Jun 25, 2006, 11:53 AM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home


Not all women are anti gun...................

by WAGC

Posted on Jun 25, 2006, 11:34 AM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home


"Whoever controls the firepower controls the state, ......

by Nancy

....... which is why the insistence of the various UN and liberal American globalists that average citizens surrender their guns."
--"Written in June, 2004, from Occupied America" by Dorothy Anne Seese

Posted on Jun 25, 2006, 11:26 AM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home


why am I NOT surprised?!?!?!?!?

by Nancy

Michael Douglas backs U.N. gun ban: TV commercial 'spotlights the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons
Worldnetdaily.com
May 28, 2006
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50407


"Actor Michael Douglas - who for many years has been designated by the United Nations as a "U.N. peace messenger" - is backing the global body's upcoming conference on small arms trafficking."

Posted on Jun 24, 2006, 9:52 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home


United Kingdom: Why all true citizens need their own guns

by Nancy

United Kingdom
Why all true citizens need their own guns
Dr. Sean Gabb
Birmingham Post (UK)
June 7, 2006
http://icbirmingham.icnetwork.co.uk/birminghampost/perspective/features/tm_objectid=17189805%26method=full%26siteid=50002-name_page.html


"If we want to do something about armed crime that has any chance of working, we need to rethink our entire approach. I would suggest that, instead of trying to remove weapons from society, the authorities should allow us to keep weapons for defence and to use them for defence."

Posted on Jun 24, 2006, 9:51 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home


Canada:Government takes action to eliminate the costly and ineffective long-gun registry

by

Government takes action to eliminate the costly and ineffective long-gun registry
Press Release
Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada
May 17, 2006
http://www.psepc-sppcc.gc.ca/media/nr/2006/nr20060517-en.asp


"The Honourable Stockwell Day, Minister of Public Safety, today announced the Government's plan to eliminate the long-gun registry and to better meet law enforcement needs while reducing burdens on law-abiding long-gun owners."

Posted on Jun 24, 2006, 9:50 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home


D-Day was almost a German holiday:

by Nancy

D-Day was almost a German holiday:
The Volokh Conspiracy
June 6, 2006
http://www.davekopel.com/NRO/2000/Why-D-Day-Mattered.htm
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2006_06_04-2006_06_10.shtml#1149614812


During World War II, the importance of an armed citizenry for defense against foreign tyranny was once again confirmed, as Dan Gifford and I suggested in a 1994 column for the D-Day anniversary. In another column, "Why D-Day Mattered," I examine the various hypotheticals about D-Day, such as the consequences of a defeat of the invasion, or of an invasion in 1943.

Posted on Jun 24, 2006, 9:50 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home


New by Kopel

by Nancy

New by Kopel
"The Gold Standard of Gun Control," Journal of Law, Economics & Policy. (2006, forthcoming). Book review of Joyce Malcolm's "Guns and Violence: The English Experience."
With Paul Gallant & Joanne D. Eisen.

http://www.davekopel.com/2A/Foreign/gold-standard-of-gun-control.pdf
PDF files require Adobe Acrobat Reader or similar software.
http://www.davekopel.com/2A/Foreign/The-Gold-Standard-of-Gun-Control.htm
http://www.gmu.edu/org/jlep/


Please see the PDF and HTML files noted above.

Posted on Jun 24, 2006, 9:50 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home


Campus Gun Clubs: Winning Hearts And Minds

by Nancy

Campus Gun Clubs: Winning Hearts And Minds
Date: Jun 20, 2006 4:24 PM
Rep. Stockman Helping GOA Start Gun Clubs On Campus
-- Do you know someone who can help win the hearts and minds of the
next generation?

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org

Tuesday, June 20, 2006


Do you know someone who is pro-gun, who likes working with college
age kids, and who is in need of a full-time job in the fall?

Well if so, former Rep. Steve Stockman (R) has a deal for him.

Stockman is the Director of the Campus Leadership Program (CLP) in
northern Virginia. The CLP is a project of the Leadership Institute,
which trains conservative activists and places them in key level
positions around the country -- both in government and the media.

The CLP project focuses specifically on college campuses, helping
conservative students start independent groups that are fighting to
reclaim the campus from decades of leftist abuses. The CLP has
started 722 conservative clubs in schools in all 50 states.

But they have very few gun clubs, which is something they would like
to change.

That's why this is a unique opportunity for someone who likes working
with college-aged kids. They can help the pro-gun cause in the fall
by starting a GOA gun club on campus or by working as a field
representative. Every field rep who starts a gun group will be paid
between $400-500. Kids can make as much as $1,000 a week.

But realize, it's not just about the money. It's about preserving
our Second Amendment rights.

It doesn't matter how many battles we win today. If we lose the
hearts and minds of the next generation, we will never win the
ultimate battle to regain our lost rights.

ACTION & CONTACT INFORMATION: If you know someone who is interested
in helping start a GOA gun club on campus, please send his contact
information to Steve Stockman at the Campus Leadership Program. You
can reach Steve Stockman at the Campus Leadership Program by using
one of the following methods:

E-mail: clp@leadershipinstitute.org
Phone: 800-827-5323
Internet: http://www.campusleadership.org


****************************

Support The Second Amendment Every Time You Call Long Distance

ACCXX Communications is a solid and dependable long distance company.
Now, they have agreed to donate an incredible 20% of your monthly
long distance bill to GOA!

What's more, they offer a great and competitive deal for the
consumer. Features include a low 4.9 cents per minute interstate
rate, six-second billing, no term contracts to sign, no monthly fees,
no minimum usage requirements, and no hidden charges or gimmicks.

Please consider stopping by http://www.gunowners.org/accxx.htm to
check out the offer and sign up today.



Posted on Jun 24, 2006, 9:48 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home


Letter: Register criminals, not guns

by Nancy

Letter: Register criminals, not guns
Date: Jun 20, 2006 7:59 AM
PUBLICATION: National Post
DATE: 2006.06.20
EDITION: All but Toronto
SECTION: Letters
PAGE: A13
BYLINE: Tom McAuley
SOURCE: National Post
WORD COUNT: 117
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------

Register criminals, not guns

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------

The gun registry is attempting to keep track of up to 15 million
firearms and their seven million owners, in the hope of stopping fewer
than half a million criminals (who aren't on the registry) from misusing
firearms. Wouldn't it be more efficient to simply track those half
million known criminals, the ones who we know cannot be trusted with
firearms, and check on them regularly to make sure they don't have
firearms? It seems to make more sense to keep track of criminals rather
than ordinary citizens, if your goal is to reduce crime.

Tom McAuley, Winnipeg.


Posted on Jun 24, 2006, 9:47 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home


Breitkreuz anxious to scrap registry

by Nancy

Breitkreuz anxious to scrap registry
Date: Jun 20, 2006 7:41 AM
PUBLICATION: The Leader-Post (Regina)
DATE: 2006.06.20
EDITION: Final
SECTION: City & Province
PAGE: B3
BYLINE: Erin Warner
SOURCE: The Leader-Post
WORD COUNT: 330

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------

Breitkreuz anxious to scrap registry

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------

For 12 years, Garry Breitkreuz has waited less than patiently for the
federal government to abandon the national firearms registry.

But on Monday, the Yorkton-Melville MP watched as his Conservative
government made good on its election promise by introducing legislation
to scrap mandatory registration of rifles and shotguns.

"I feel this is payday," Breitkreuz, an outspoken opponent of the
registry, said in an interview from his Ottawa office. "Now the job will
be to stickhandle this through Parliament one way or another."

The vote on the bill won't take place until the fall and, with a
minority government, the Conservatives need to gain support from other
parties for it to pass. Breitkreuz said he is optimistic that, given
this summer break, supporters from across Canada will have let their MPs
know they don't support the registry.

If the billion-dollar registry is abolished by the vote, Breitkreuz said
the only result will be an increase in funding to other areas.

"When you take your hand out of a pail of water, there's no hole," he
said. "You might remove the long-gun registry, but there's not going to
be many people noticing it's not there."

Like Breitkreuz, Greg Illerbrun has been opposing the long-gun registry
from the beginning.

"I've been in this battle for 11 years and when it first started I had
no idea it would be this long," said Illerbrun, the firearms chairman of
the Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation. "But it was a fight that we viewed
had to be won because losing meant an end to our tradition and our
culture and our way of life."

Where the firearms registry has done its greatest damage, Illerbrun
said, is to grandparents who mentored family members on hunting and
firearms for years, but gave up the tradition out of intimidation when
the registry was created in 1995.

Illerbrun is "cautiously optimistic" that the bill will pass, but said
he worries it doesn't have enough support in eastern Canada. Even if it
doesn't, Illerbrun plans to continue to champion the rights of what he
refers to as the "firearms community."

"The fight has to go on as long as it takes," he said. "So if it's
11
years or 20 years, it doesn't matter from our perspective."

------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------

GARRY BREITKREUZ'S 2006 ELECTION PROMISE: A WORK IN PROGRESS
http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publications/2006_new/57.htm


Posted on Jun 24, 2006, 9:47 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home


National Post Editorial: Good riddance to the gun registry

by

National Post Editorial: Good riddance to the gun registry
Date: Jun 20, 2006 8:06 AM
PUBLICATION: National Post
DATE: 2006.06.20
EDITION: All but Toronto
SECTION: Editorials
PAGE: A12
SOURCE: National Post
WORD COUNT: 673

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------

Good riddance to the gun registry

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------

At long last, the first legislative nails are being hammered into the
gun registry's coffin. On Monday, Stockwell Day, the Public Safety
Minister, introduced a bill in the House of Commons that would amend the
Firearms Act and Criminal Code so that law-abiding Canadian hunters,
farmers and sport shooters no longer have to register their "long guns"
(rifles and shotguns). All handguns would still have to be registered,
and all potential gun owners -- even long-gun owners -- would still have
to take government-set safety courses, submit to criminal background
checks and obtain licences before acquiring a firearm, because those
regulations may actually prevent some firearms crimes. But gone will be
the expensive, bureaucratic and useless demand that every duck gun, deer
rifle and skeet gun be entered in Ottawa's error-riddled database.

There will be many accusations by the registry's supporters that the
Conservatives' move will raise crime. No doubt gun control advocates
will point -- as they have done countless times over the past decade --
to support for the registry from Canada's police chiefs and even the
country's largest association of front-line officers. While we certainly
respect the opinion of police officers on matters of crime prevention,
their official support for the long-gun registry has always been
misguided. As the government pointed out on Monday, according to
Statistics Canada, "of 549 murders recorded in Canada in 2003, only two
were committed with long-guns known to be registered."

In theory, it may make sense that knowing the whereabouts of all guns
would help police solve or even prevent crimes, or increase officer
safety. But in the real world, there is no proof these theories work. No
smart policeman would ever enter a site confident there were no guns
inside based on the sketchy information in the registry. Nor, since its
inception more than a decade ago, has the long-gun registry helped
prevent a single murder or robbery. Indeed, with so few registered
long-guns used to commit crimes in Canada, it is hard to see how it ever
could.

Taxpayers, as well as gun owners, will be far better off when they see
the back of this debacle, which so far has cost more than $1-billion and
is still racking up charges of over $40-million per year.

To demonstrate that they are committed to real crime prevention, the
Tories have proposed to retain the Liberals' safe storage and
transportation rules (some of the strongest in the Western world), which
are aimed at cutting down on the theft of guns that are later sold to
criminals on the black market. And they will keep the requirement that a
valid gun licence must be shown before a gun or even ammunition can be
purchased. In addition, the Tories will add a new requirement that
private gun owners make sure anyone they are selling a gun to is
licensed and free of a criminal record, before they transfer ownership.

From the start, many experts inside and outside government warned the
Liberals their long-gun registry would turn out to be expensive yet
hollow symbolism. Still, the idea was a vote-winner with the Liberals'
central, urban and heavily female base, so even after those warnings
proved correct, the Liberals clung to the myth that, eventually,
registration would produce tangible results. They preserved it, after
two computer systems chewed through over a third of a billion dollars
and still produced unreliable information on gun owners nearly a quarter
of the time. They persevered, even after the Auditor-General pronounced
it to be one of the biggest messes she had ever seen from government.

Thankfully, the Conservatives have never harboured such delusions and
soon Canadians will be well rid of the registry.

------------------------------------------------------------------

BILL C-21 An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act
(non-registration of firearms that are neither prohibited nor
restricted) first reading, June 19, 2006
http://www.parl.gc.ca/39/1/parlbus/chambus/house/bills/government/C-21/C
-21_1/C-21_cover-E.html


NEWS RELEASE: PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS CANADA
Ottawa, June 19, 2006 -- Today in the House of Commons, the Honourable
Stockwell Day, Minister of Public Safety, tabled legislative amendments
to free Canadians from the requirement to register their non-restricted
firearms.
http://www.psepc-sppcc.gc.ca/media/nr/2006/nr20060619-en.asp


Posted on Jun 24, 2006, 9:46 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home


Globe and Mail Editorial: The long-gun registry is ripe for dismantling

by Nancy

Globe and Mail Editorial: The long-gun registry is ripe for dismantling
Date: Jun 20, 2006 8:10 AM
PUBLICATION: GLOBE AND MAIL
DATE: 2006.06.20
PAGE: A16
SECTION: Editorial
EDITION: Metro
WORD COUNT: 603

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------

The long-gun registry is ripe for dismantling

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------

Critics of the Conservatives' gun-registry bill claim the Tories are
removing a central plank in the country's gun-control regime. In fact,
they are removing a minor plank, and a rotten one at that.

The long-gun registry is only one small part of Canada's wide-reaching
system for controlling the use and ownership of firearms. If the
long-gun registry is abolished as the Conservative government proposes,
Canadians will still be required to register handguns, which remain so
tightly restricted that the previous government's proposal to ban them
was redundant. And they will still be required to get a licence for
whatever kind of gun they want to own -- pistol, rifle or shotgun. That
means they will have to go through a series of safety and background
checks designed to ensure guns don't end up in the hands of dangerous or
irresponsible people.

So the critics are wrong. The government isn't stripping the authorities
of their gun-control powers at the very time gun violence is on the
rise. Rather, it is getting rid of an effective, cumbersome, famously
costly measure that did little to enhance public safety.

As Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day noted yesterday when he
introduced his bill, it was always fanciful to think that tracking down,
describing and registering every duck rifle and gopher gun in the
country was going to make a dent in gun crime. The effect was to make
thousands of law-abiding gun owners feel like criminals while creating a
vast government bureaucracy that has already cost the public more than
$1-billion.

In her updated report on the matter last month, Auditor-General Sheila
Fraser said that while the Canada Firearms Centre had improved its
financial reporting since her bombshell report in 2001, there were still
lots of problems. The nifty new computer system that is supposed to
handle all the centre's data is behind schedule and over budget, with a
cost approaching $200-million. Accounting standards are still so
loosey-goosey that officials were able to shuffle $21.8-million in
spending from one fiscal year to another without telling Parliament.

Most tellingly, Ms. Fraser found that, despite years of effort, the
information in the centre's database is incomplete and often faulty. The
value of a duck-rifle database was always doubtful.

A faulty duck-rifle database is next to useless. If police cannot be
sure of the information they're getting when they run someone through
the firearms computer, how does it help them? Police chiefs say they
would like to keep the long-gun registry regardless. Lawmen don't like
to give up any implement in their tool box, and they say that police
officers routinely check the database when they are going into
potentially dangerous situations such as domestic disputes. But the
database never contained information about the illegal, unregistered
weapons that pose the greatest danger to police. And even without a
long-run registry, police would still be able to check whether a suspect
had a licence to carry a firearm.

Even if the registry were as useful as the police claim, its efficacy
would have to be weighed against its cost -- something the police don't
have to worry about. Wouldn't the millions being wasted trying to track
mostly law-abiding long-gun owners be better used to crack down on gun
smuggling or to help troubled youths in the big cities turn away from
crime? Ridiculously expensive, marginally useful, enormously infuriating
to many, the long-gun registry richly deserves the burial the Tories are
preparing for it.

--------------------------------------------------


BILL C-21 An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act
(non-registration of firearms that are neither prohibited nor
restricted) first reading, June 19, 2006
http://www.parl.gc.ca/39/1/parlbus/chambus/house/bills/government/C-21/C
-21_1/C-21_cover-E.html


NEWS RELEASE: PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS CANADA
Ottawa, June 19, 2006 -- Today in the House of Commons, the Honourable
Stockwell Day, Minister of Public Safety, tabled legislative amendments
to free Canadians from the requirement to register their non-restricted
firearms.
http://www.psepc-sppcc.gc.ca/media/nr/2006/nr20060619-en.asp


Posted on Jun 24, 2006, 9:45 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home


Are police fast enough? on 911 emergency calls

by Nancy

Are police fast enough? on 911 emergency calls
Date: Jun 24, 2006 11:42 AM
PUBLICATION: WINNIPEG FREE PRESS
DATE: 2006.06.24
PAGE: A6
BYLINE: Bruce Owen
SECTION: City
WORD COUNT: 1533

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------

Are police fast enough? Crunching the numbers on 911 emergency calls

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------

LAST Saturday, Pete Debungee encountered unspeakable cruelty on the
streets of Winnipeg.

The 45-year-old grandfather was "curb-stomped," his head forced on a
concrete street curb and trampled, after he tried to stop some men from
stealing his beer.

He died in hospital Tuesday.

Those close to the scene outside the Maryland Hotel say a hotel employee
phoned 911 twice in the 45 minutes before Debungee was attacked,
complaining about the disruptive behaviour of the gang outside the
hotel, but officers arrived only when it was too late.

Debungee's family and others say if police had responded to the earlier
calls, he'd still be alive.

Police say they did their best based on the information they had.

When they got the third 911 call -- the one that told them a man was
being attacked -- officers arrived within a minute.

Should police have responded sooner? It's a question that haunts
Debungee's family, the officers involved and the 911 operators who
assign priorities to each call they take.

Since 2004, Winnipeg police have used a new computer-aided dispatch
system to assign priorities to each call and then dispatch officers.

Priority 0 is the most grievous, a life-or-death situation, and Priority
9 is the least serious, like graffiti on a garage. Police respond much
faster to Priorities 0, 1 and 2, and in some cases can take several days
to respond to the lower priority calls.

The new system was designed to help 911 operators better manage an
ever-increasing number of calls. In 2005, police communication staff
handled about 600,000 calls and dispatched officers to 170,000
incidents, about 6,000 more than the year before, according to police
statistics.

Some officers blame the new dispatch system, and the new call-priority
grading system, for increasing response times to some important calls.

Winnipeg Police Association spokesman Loren Schinkel said in some
instances, the system focuses too much on managing calls, and not enough
on dispatching officers.

"I know that response times have gone up dramatically," Schinkel said,
blaming a shortage of officers and the sheer volume of calls.

"You can't be everything for everyone at all times," he said.

Some Winnipeggers have complained publicly about police showing up too
late, or not at all, to arrest car thieves, home invaders, shoplifters
or drunk drivers.

On June 4, residents at an Osborne Village-area apartment building
caught a man apparently breaking into vehicles. They had to hold him for
about an hour before police showed up. According to Schinkel, it can
take police four to five days to investigate some crimes, like
break-ins.

Police chief Jack Ewatski acknowledged there have been some growing
pains with the new system, even two years later.

But he said the police service is continually training 911 communication
staff to make sure they get the right information from callers to help
them priorize each call.

"It's only as good as the information you get," he said.

There were about 100 calls in the 911 queue last month when John
Vandusen was attacked and stabbed in his North End home.

It was a Saturday night, May 21.

Despite two frantic calls to 911 -- one by his girlfriend and another by
a neighbour -- police took about two hours to arrive.

"The initial call was of disorderly youths," police Sgt. Kelly Dennison
explained at the time. "It was assigned as a (low) priority five." That
911 call came in at 6:30 p.m..

The second 911 call came in at 8:58 p.m. when the confrontation
escalated and Vandusen was attacked in his house.

Dennison said the call was then upped to a priority three, but 911 staff
increased it to a priority two at 9:02 p.m.

Eight minutes later, a patrol car was dispatched, and arrived at
Vandusen's house at 9:17 p.m.

Total time elapsed? 19 minutes.

By then Vandusen, 49, had been beaten and stabbed. His attackers only
fled when his girlfriend released the couple's two Rottweilers from
their kennel.

"How we respond to serious crimes is very good," Ewatski said in a
recent interview on the 911 system. "The numbers tell me that
information is coming in very quickly and being dispatched quickly."
Here are those numbers: The average response time to high-priority
emergencies in 2005 was seven minutes and eight seconds. (Response time
is the time between when a 911 call is received and when the first
officer arrives on the scene.) That's more than two minutes longer than
it was in 2004.

Some people consider response times a top measure of police performance;
others say it only really matters to someone who's called 911.

"Everybody thinks what happens to them is of primal importance," says
University of Winnipeg criminology professor Michael Weinrath.

"What people don't realize is how few police cars there are in their
neighbourhood. There are only so many police around." Police response
times are generally getting longer as officer workload increases and the
number of calls for service goes up, not only in Winnipeg, but for
police in every major city in North America.

At 8:30 p.m. last Saturday, the night Debungee was attacked, for
example, there were 46 other calls requesting police in Winnipeg's
downtown alone.

Ewatski said average police response times from 1999 to 2003 (see chart)
were compiled under the old record-keeping system. The numbers for 2004
and last year are from the new computer system.

From 1999 to 2003, average response times rose to a high of almost 10
minutes in 2002 and then fell to about six minutes the following year.

More importantly, Ewatski said, the amount of time serious calls stay in
the queue -- the time between when a call is taken to when it is
dispatched -- was cut in half in 2003 from 2002, when it was more than
four minutes. The average queue time in 2005 was 1.97 minutes.

"Most high-priority calls do not sit in the queue long," Ewatski said.

In Winnipeg, police now treat all domestic calls as high priority, a
decision some say has officers run off their feet. The emphasis on
domestic calls flowed from the murders of sisters Doreen Leclair and
Corrine McKeown. They were stabbed to death Feb. 16, 2000, by McKeown's
boyfriend, Bill Dunlop, who is now serving a life sentence.

The women made five calls to police in the eight hours before they died,
but cars were only sent after the first and last calls.

What also influences police times is Winnipeg's use of two-man patrol
units to handle emergency calls instead of dispatching single officers,
critics say. (Winnipeg has a minimum of 27 two-man patrol cars on the
road at all times).

The Frontier Centre For Public Safety has said front-line patrol
coverage can be doubled by using two one-officer units instead of one
two-officer unit. Beat sizes can be cut in half, leading to faster
response times.

Calgary, for example, uses both two-officer and single-officer units
from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m., with single officers responding to minor calls.

Calgary police are currently reviewing that policy in the wake of an
inquiry into the October 2003 fatal police shooting of Sudanese
immigrant Deng Fermino Kuol. Const. Ira Macumber shot a drunken Kuol
twice in his neck after Kuol attacked him with a knife.

Calgary police are now looking at how they can better dispatch
two-officer units to situations where there is a potential for violence.


In Winnipeg, two-man units are entrenched in the union contract, and
said to be the best way to ensure officer safety.

Schinkel said response times could be improved with the hiring of more
officers. The current complement of officers is 1,254. In 1998, the year
Ewatski became chief, there were 1,206 officers.

Statistics Canada, in a report last December, said Winnipeg had more
police officers per capita than many Canadian cities, including Toronto.


As to recent complaints police have taken too long to respond to
complaints, Ewatski said he believes "those are few and far between."
What matters, he said, is how the public views overall how police are
doing their job. The service is in the middle of a telephone opinion
survey, done by eNRG Research. It was completed June 16.

Its findings will be released to the public at a later date.

How quickly do police show up in other cities? Average police response
times (minutes) to high- priority emergency calls (most recent
available): Winnipeg (2005) 7.08 Calgary (2004) 5.09 Montreal (2004)
6.03 Ottawa (2005) 8.9 Toronto (2003) 8.0 Hamilton (2004) 9.11 Target is
under 10.0 Response times depend on traffic conditions, weather
conditions, time of day, location of call and information provided to
911 dispatcher.

Putting a priority on calls Winnipeg police have a nine-priority 911
call system. Here are the top four: l Priority 0: Specifically
identified situations where a known crisis exists that threatens the
life of an individual.

l Priority 1: Situations where an imminent threat to personal safety
exists or the loss of or damage to property exists. Conditions at the
scene of the call are unstable.

l Priority 2: Situations where no immediate threat of harm exists at the
scene of the call. A timely response is very desirable but not
mandatory.

l Priority 3: Situations involving stable conditions at the scene of a
call, which may be handled at the convenience of available units as
competing demands permit for the dispatcher.

For more information, go to www.winnipeg.ca/police/ and follow the link
Reporting Emergencies on the right-side column.

What are police doing to speed up response times? l Computer-aided
dispatch: Started in 2004 along with new call priority management
system.

Allows 911 call-takers to quickly assign a priority to an emergency call
and dispatch a patrol car.

l False alarms: More than a year ago, police changed their alarm policy.
Alarm companies now have to verify an alarm before police are
dispatched.

The number of alarm calls to which police are dispatched has now fallen
about 80 per cent.

l 311: The city is also looking at a 311 city information line to cut
down the number of nuisance calls to the 911 operators, calls like,
"What day is my garbage day?" Operators get about 100 bogus calls a day.


Posted on Jun 24, 2006, 9:45 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home


Police officer guilty of neglect of duty in gun incident:

by Nancy

Police officer guilty of neglect of duty in gun incident:
Date: Jun 24, 2006 11:58 AM
PUBLICATION: The Ottawa Citizen
DATE: 2006.06.24
EDITION: Final
SECTION: City
PAGE: E3
BYLINE: Andrew Seymour
SOURCE: The Ottawa Citizen
ILLUSTRATION: Photo: Jana Chytilova, The Ottawa Citizen / A
policeprosecutor did not oppose Staff Sgt. Kevin McCaffery's (above)
lawyer's submission for a sentence at the 'lower end of the scale.'
WORD COUNT: 564

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------

Police officer guilty of neglect of duty in gun incident: Lawyer says
veteran reported incident quickly after youth fired single shot

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------

An Ottawa police staff sergeant pleaded guilty to neglect of duty after
a single shot from his police-issued handgun was fired into the basement
floor of his home four months ago.

Staff Sgt. Kevin McCaffery admitted to improperly securing his
.40-calibre pistol with a proper locking device, in accordance with
police policy, during the Police Services Act hearing held at Ottawa
police headquarters on Elgin Street yesterday.

A second charge of discreditable conduct was withdrawn.

The Police Services Act charges were laid against the veteran officer
after one of four youths, who were in the officer's home after he went
out on the evening of Feb. 25, fired the gun into a laminate wood floor
in a basement computer room. No one was injured in the incident.

One of the youths has since been criminally charged. His name cannot be
released under provisions of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

According to an agreed statement of facts, Staff Sgt. McCaffery had
returned from a community meeting at Ottawa City Hall at about 4 p.m.
that day and put his handgun, ammunition, magazines and pepper spray in
a banker's safe with a combination lock in the basement furnace room of
his home.

After removing the round from the chamber and depressing the trigger,
Staff Sgt. McCaffery placed his gun and ammunition inside the safe and
closed and locked the door. A short time later, Staff Sgt. McCaffery and
his wife returned to the safe and removed some travellers cheques before
relocking the safe and closing the door to the furnace room.

At about 10 p.m., while Staff Sgt. McCaffery was still out, one of four
young people who were at the house went into the furnace room and came
out with the pistol, according to the agreed statement of facts.

Standing near the door to the computer room with the pistol pointed
downward and away from two of the other young people, a shot was
"unintentionally" fired and passed through the laminate floor into the
concrete subfloor.

Immediately after learning about the shooting the following morning,
Staff Sgt. McCaffery called his brother, acting Insp. Pat McCaffery, who
visited the residence and interviewed the young people. Acting Insp.
McCaffery then contacted the duty inspector and advised him of the
incident.

A later consultation with the Crown attorney determined there was no
public interest in prosecuting the officer criminally and Staff Sgt.
McCaffery was charged under the Police Services Act.

Following the guilty plea, Staff Sgt. McCaffery's lawyer, Bill Carroll,
asked hearing officer Robert Fitches for a sentence at the "lower end of
the scale" that would dock the officer three days' pay and require him
to take additional training.

Mr. Carroll, who presented more than a dozen character reference letters
from Staff Sgt. McCaffery's colleagues, argued his client had "stepped
up to the plate" by immediately contacting the police about the incident
and fully co-operating with the investigation.

Mr. Carroll said Staff Sgt. McCaffery has shown "genuine remorse" for
what happened and the incident has taken a toll on him and his family.

While a "serious matter," police prosecutor Robert Houston did not
oppose Mr. Carroll's submission for a lower sentence, agreeing that
Staff Sgt. McCaffery had suffered as a result of the incident, had fully
co-operated with the police investigation and entered a guilty plea at
his first opportunity to do so.

"I will be treating this as it was recommended to me, at the lower end
of the scale," said Mr. Fitches. "Accidents happen. The consequences
could have been tragic."

Mr. Fitches is expected to make his ruling on the sentence July 21.


Posted on Jun 24, 2006, 9:44 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home


Gabe Suarez to teach Gunfighting Classes in SLC

by WAGC

Gabe Suarez to teach Gunfighting Classes in SLC
Date: Jun 24, 2006 3:33 AM
Attachments: Attachment information. SDS Logo small.png
Compatriots!


Self-Defense Solutions, LLC is proud to be
hosting Gabe Suarez next year for four
days of Gunfighting Instruction held May 3-6,
2007 in Salt Lake City, UT at the PMAA Range.


For several years you've heard me talk about
Gabe Suarez' knowledge and teaching style.
When I took his 5 day gunfighting course in
Los Angeles, he changed everything about my
perceptions of Self-Defense.


I've stayed in touch with Gabe through the years,
and have finally gotten him, busy as he is, to
schedule two outstanding courses to be taught
back-to-back for us right here in Salt Lake City.


He will be teaching his most sought after and
well attended courses offered to both Civilians
and Law Enforcement:


- Close Range Gunfighting, plus
Interactive Gunfighting
(Airsoft Force on Force)


These classes can be had for a 15% Discount if you
are a (FREE) subscriber to Gabes' Warrior Talk
Newsletter found at this URL:
http://suarezinternational.com/mwsubscribe/index.php?what=subscribe


Subscribe first and then go to the Members Only
address listed below to sign up for your class(s).
Be sure to register to use the shopping cart.
Remember to do this by next Friday before the
June 30th deadline to save 15% on tuition.


Your 15% Discount will not show up in your shopping
cart total, but will be applied later.


As you look at the Courses offered for this year, you will
notice that they fill up fast and become Closed or Full quickly.
That is because he limits the class size to a maximum of 16 -
24 students so that the Instructors have time to work with
each of us.


This is a chance to work with one the best in the business for
far less than the high priced ($1,600) 4 day courses that I
have attended, and stay right here in town for even more
savings.


Gabe's website has just activated the 2007
schedule online for the world to see, so act now
to receive your 15% discount.


This could be one of the best investments in Self-Defense
Training you'll ever make, and it may save your life or the
life of someone you love someday.


Please post this on your websites and pass this along to those
who are responsible gun owners with carry permits that have
always wanted to go to the next level in Self-Defense Training.
As a former SI student and Warrior Talk member I share the
following Discount notice from Suarez International for your
thoughtful consideration....

Posted on Jun 24, 2006, 9:42 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home


4-H Shooting Sports Jamboree Information

by WAGC

4-H Shooting Sports Jamboree Information
Date: Jun 24, 2006 3:26 PM
Attachments: clip_image002.jpg




2006 4-H Shooting Sports Jamboree
July 28-31, 2006
Burke Hollow, Vermont

Have you ever wondered what the kids in the 4-H Shooting Sports project do???? Here’s your opportunity to check it out!
Who: ANY Vermont 4-H member 8yrs. old & older (by 1/1/06)
Where: Northeast Kingdom Sheet Club, Bugbee Crossing Road, Burke Hollow, Vermont
What: Participate in the 2006 Shooting Sports project competition.
.22 Rifle, Air Pistol, Shot Gun, Muzzleloader, Archery, Hunting/Wildlife

Participation Requirements for non-shooting sports project members: You will need to participate in the Friday instruction at each discipline. After meeting the requirements at each area you will be given a punch card that will allow you to participate in the Saturday competition in the guest division.



More Information: Check out all the 2006 Jamboree Registration information on the UVM Extension website.
www.uvm.edu/extension - click on the 4-H Shooting Sports link under Events.

Please contact Lisa Muzzey (800)278-5471 or lisa.muzzey@uvm.edu if you have any questions.

Remember your hearing and eye protection for this activity.





Lisa J. Muzzey
UVM Extension
Windsor County 4-H Educator
212 Holiday Dr. Ste. 4
White River Jct., VT 05001-2037
(802)296-7630
lisa.muzzey@uvm.edu


Posted on Jun 24, 2006, 9:43 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home


JPFO ALERT: CCW Trojan Horse / Hitler Memorial

by WAGC

JPFO ALERT: CCW Trojan Horse / Hitler Memorial
Date: Jun 23, 2006 3:59 PM
ALERT FROM JEWS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF FIREARMS OWNERSHIP
America's Aggressive Civil Rights Organization

June 23, 2006

JPFO ALERT: CCW Trojan Horse / Hitler Memorial

Supporter Mark recently sent in a link to this blog
entry by Andy Barniskis, in which he makes a very
reasoned argument against a national conceal carry
law: http://tinyurl.com/m5aln

We already know that we all have a G-D given right to
defend our lives. We should NEVER trade it for a
revocable state-granted privilege for which you must:

- Pay
- Get registered
- Get photographed
- Get fingerprinted
- And are restricted in its use

History has shown repeatedly that government regulation
schemes and private gun ownership are not compatible.
Do you really want federal agents knowing you are a gun
owner?

OTHER NEWS

Earlier this month Ted Junker, a Wisconsin man who claims
to be a former Waffen-SS officer, announced that he was
planning to build a memorial shrine to Hitler
( http://tinyurl.com/oyapl ).

Local student groups, including the Campus Organization
for Israel, have not only condemned the plan but called
for Junker's prosecution. Not for his views, however.

States Jonathan Brostoff,president of COI, "The First
Amendment's protection of free speech ensures that Junker
can continue his hateful propagandizing, yet it does not
protect him from criminal investigation and prosecution
relating to potential crimes against humanity committed
during his days in the Waffen-SS."

We applaud these students not only for denouncing Junker's
plans, but also for their acknowledgement that the First
Amendment protects EVERYONE'S right to speak their opinion,
even opinions that are ignorant, bigoted, and detestable.

- The Liberty Crew


Posted on Jun 23, 2006, 6:29 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home


ALL THE WAY DOWN THE SLIPPERY SLOPE:

by WAGC

ALL THE WAY DOWN THE SLIPPERY SLOPE: GUN PROHIBITION IN ENGLAND AND SOME
LESSONS FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES IN AMERICA by Joseph E. Olson and David B.
Kopel http://www.guncite.com/journals/okslip.html


Posted on Jun 23, 2006, 6:28 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home


SAF, CCRKBA File Brief Supporting Right To Bear Arms Case in Washington, D.C.

by WAGC

SAF, CCRKBA File Brief Supporting Right To Bear Arms Case in Washington, D.C.
Date: Jun 23, 2006 5:01 PM




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


NEWS RELEASE
SAF, CCRKBA FILE BRIEF SUPPORTING RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS CASE IN WASHINGTON, D.C.
BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) have joined with the Madison Society and a dozen law professors from major universities in filing a Brandeis brief in a Washington, D.C. case that has significant implications on the individual right to keep and bear arms.

The case, Shelly Parker et al v. District of Columbia could result in a landmark ruling on the meaning and authority of the Second Amendment.

SAF founder and CCRKBA Chairman Alan M. Gottlieb said the Parker case has the potential of bringing the Second Amendment “clearly, and unmistakably into focus as an individual civil right.”

In their brief, SAF, CCRKBA and their partners noted that the Parker case challenges “the quasi-religious faith” that believes more firearms will result in more violent crime. Instead, they argue that there is ample research which shows “nations with more gun ownership generally have lower violent crime and murder rates than nations that forbid guns.”

The brief further notes that handgun prohibitions, like the one now in effect in the capitol, “invariably fail to reduce violence.” In the five years prior to enactment of the District’s handgun ban, the murder rate fell, but in the five years after the ban took effect, the murder rate went back up. In the ensuing decades, the District’s murder rate “has been the highest in America excepting the few years when it came in second or third.”

The brief cites two recent gun law surveys, by the National Academy of Sciences and by the Centers for Disease Control, which both admitted they could find no gun control measure that had reduced violent crime, gun accidents or suicides.

“The Parker case challenges the political correctness of a gun ban to its core,” Gottlieb stated. “We believe this case will demonstrate that a civil right is not subject to the political whim of any municipal government, and that the Bill of Rights may not be suspended at the city limits.”

Joining the Organization Amici were George Mason University law professors Lloyd Cohen, Michael Krauss and Dean Daniel Polsby; and Professors Nicholas Johnson, Fordham University; David Mayer, Capital University; Leonard Nelson, Samford University; Joseph Olson, Hamline University; Glenn Harlan Reynolds, University of Tennessee; William Schroeder, Southern Illinois University; Robert Turner, University of Virginia; and Andrew Morris and Dale Nance, Case Western Reserve University.


-END-



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
< Please e-mail, distribute, and circulate to friends and family >


Posted on Jun 23, 2006, 6:26 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home


Three Cheers for Canada

by Nancy


THE CONSERVATIVE VOICE
Three Cheers for Canada
by Larry Pratt - June 22, 2006 02:41 PM EST
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/15564.html


Posted on Jun 23, 2006, 6:26 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home


Canada: LETTER: International Coalition for Women in Shooting and Hunting (WiSH)

by WAGC

great letter, Ladies!

----------------------------------




LETTER: International Coalition for Women in Shooting and Hunting (WiSH)
Date: Jun 21, 2006 3:48 PM
PUBLICATION: The Calgary Sun
DATE: 2006.06.21
EDITION: Final
SECTION: Editorial/Opinion
PAGE: 14
COLUMN: Letter of the Day
WORD COUNT: 98

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------

LETTER OF THE DAY COLUMN

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------

THE HARPER government should be congratulated for understanding a
symbolic long-gun registry cannot address social ills. ("Gun registry
death tabled," June 20.)

The ideologically driven registry has not reduced rates of violent
crime, has not improved public safety, and has not prevented criminals
from illicitly obtaining firearms.

It has not protected women, who continue to be beaten, terrified, and
killed by abusive partners, while women's shelters remain underfunded.

Massive ongoing expenditure of public funds upon an ineffective system
achieves nothing more than the misdirection of resources away from where
they are urgently needed -- social services, education, health care and
policing.

Samara McPhedran, Chairwoman
International Coalition for Women in Shooting and Hunting (WiSH)


Posted on Jun 23, 2006, 12:41 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home


Rep Won't Let Customer Quit AOL

by WAGC


WAGC thinks everyone needs to quit, considering that AO-hell is not only anti gun , but very anti American !!!!!!!!!!!!
Find another ISP, please !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

-----------------------------------------------

Rep Won't Let Customer Quit AOL
Date: Jun 22, 2006 8:37 PM
On Tape: Rep Won't Let Customer Quit AOL

NBC | June 22 2006

An incredible video from CNBC shows an AOL customer trying to cancel his
account, but a phone rep won't let him do it. What customer Vincent Ferrari
got when he tried to cancel his account was a lot of frustration.

It took him 15 minutes waiting on the phone just to reach a real, live
person.

And, what happened next was recorded by Ferrari on audio and lasted about
four minutes:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2006/220606AOL.htm


Posted on Jun 23, 2006, 12:40 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home


History

by nancy

History
Here is a post from a California lawyer that seems to present the "Big Picture"" in just the right manner.. This is something all Americans should read!!

A California Lawyer's Perspective on Iraq War:

Sixty-three years ago, Nazi Germany had overrun almost all of Europe and hammered England to the verge of bankruptcy and defeat, and had sunk more than four hundred British ships in their convoys between England and America for food and war materials.

Bushido Japan had overrun most of Asia, beginning in 1928, killing millions of civilians throughout China, and impressing millions more as slave labor. The US was in an isolationist, pacifist, mood, and most Americans and Congress wanted nothing to do with the European war, or the Asian war.

Then along came Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 , and in outrage Congress unanimously declared war on Japan , and the following day on Germany, which had not attacked us. It was a dicey thing. We had few allies.

France was not an ally, the Vichy government of France aligned with its German occupiers. Germany was not an ally, it was an enemy, and Hitler intended to set up a Thousand Year Reich in Europe. Japan was not an ally, it was intent on owning and controlling all of Asia . Japan and Germany had long-term ideas of invading Canada and Mexico, and then the United States over the north and south borders, after they had settled control of Asia and Europe.

America's allies then were England, Ireland, Scotland, Canada, Australia, and Russia, and that was about it. There were no other countries of any size or military significance with the will and ability to contribute much or anything to the effort to defeat Hitler's Germany and Japan, and prevent the global dominance of Nazism. And we had to send millions of tons of arms, munitions, and war supplies to Russia, England, and the Canadians, Aussies, Irish, and Scots, because NONE of them could produce all they needed for themselves. All of Europe, from Norway to Italy, except Russia in the east, was already under the Nazi heel.

America was not prepared for war. America had stood down most of its military after WWI and throughout the depression, at the outbreak of WWII there were army units training with broomsticks over their shoulders because they didn't have guns, and cars with "tank" painted on the doors because they didn't have tanks. And a big chunk of our navy had just been sunk and damaged at Pearl Harbor .

Britain had already gone bankrupt, saved only by the donation of $600 million in gold bullion in the Bank of England that was the property of Belgium and was given by Belgium to England to carry on the war when Belgium was overrun by Hitler - actually, Belgium surrendered one day, because it was unable to oppose the German invasion, and the Germans bombed Brussels into rubble the next day anyway just to prove they could. Britain had been holding out for two years already in the face of staggering shipping loses and the near-decimation of its air force in the Battle of Britain, and was saved from being overrun by Germany only because Hitler made the mistake of thinking the Brits were a relatively minor threat that could be dealt with later and turning his attention to Russia, at a time when England was on the verge of collapse in the late summer of 1940.

Russia saved America's butt by putting up a desperate fight for two years until the US got geared up to begin hammering away at Germany. Russia lost something like 24 million people in the sieges of Stalingrad and Moscow, 90% of them from cold and starvation, mostly civilians, but also more than a million soldiers. More than a million.

Had Russia surrendered, then, Hitler would have been able to focus his entire campaign against the Brits, then America , and the Nazis would have won that war. Had Hitler not made that mistake and invaded England in 1940 or 1941, instead, there would have been no England for the US and the Brits to use as a staging ground to prepare an assault on Nazi Europe, England would not have been able to run its North African campaign to help take a little pressure off Russia while America geared up for battle, and today Europe would very probably be run by the Nazis, the Third Reich, and, isolated and without any allies (not even the Brits), the US would very probably have had to cede Asia to the Japanese, who were basically Nazis by another name then, and the world we live in today would be very different and much worse. I say this to illustrate that turning points in history are often dicey things. And we are at another one.

There is a very dangerous minority in Islam that either has, or wants and may soon have, the ability to deliver small nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, almost anywhere in the world, unless they are prevented from doing so. France, Germany, and Russia, have been selling them weapons technology at least as recently as 2002, as have North Korea, Syria, and Pakistan, paid for with billions of dollars Saddam Hussein skimmed from the "Oil For Food" program administered by the UN with the complicity of Kofi Annan and his son.

The Jihadis, the militant Muslims, are basically Nazis in Kaffiyahs - they believe that Islam, a radically conservative (definitely not liberal!) form of Wahhabi Islam, should own and control the Middle East first, then Europe, then the world, and that all who do not bow to Allah should be killed, enslaved, or subjugated. They want to finish the Holocaust, destroy Israel , purge the world of Jews. This is what they say.

There is also a civil war raging in the Middle East - for the most part not a hot war, but a war of ideas. Islam is having its Inquisition and its Reformation today, but it is not yet known which will win - the Inquisition, or the Reformation.

If the Inquisition wins, then the Wahhabis, the Jihadis, will control the Middle East, and the OPEC oil, and the US , European, and Asian economies, the techno-industrial economies, will be at the mercy of OPEC - not an OPEC dominated by the well-educated and rational Saudis of today, but an OPEC dominated by the Jihadis.

You want gas in your car? You want heating oil next winter? You want jobs? You want the dollar to be worth anything? You'd better hope the Jihad, the Muslim Inquisition, loses, and the Islamic Reformation wins.

If the Reformation movement wins, that is, the moderate Muslims who believe that Islam can respect and tolerate other religions, and live in peace with the rest of the world, and move out of the 10th century into the 21st, then the troubles in the Middle East will eventually fade away, and a moderate and prosperous Middle East will emerge.

We have to help the Reformation win, and to do that we have to fight the Inquisition, i.e., the Wahhabi movement, the Jihad, Al Qaeda, the Islamic terrorist movements. We have to do it somewhere. We cannot do it nowhere. And we cannot do it everywhere at once. We have created a focal point for the battle now at the time and place of our choosing, in Iraq.

Not in New York, not in London, or Paris, or Berlin, but in Iraq, where we did and are doing two very important things.

(1) We deposed Saddam Hussein. Whether Saddam Hussein was directly involved in 9/11 or not, it is undisputed that Saddam has been actively supporting the terrorist movement for decades. Saddam is a terrorist. Saddam is, or was, a weapon of mass destruction, who is responsible for the deaths of probably more than a million Iraqis and two million Iranians.

(2) We created a battle, a confrontation, a flash point, with Islamic terrorism in Iraq . We have focused the battle. We are killing bad guys there and the ones we get there we won't have to get here, or anywhere else. We also have a good shot at creating a democratic, peaceful Iraq , which will be a catalyst for democratic change in the rest of the Middle East, and an outpost for a stabilizing American military presence in the Middle East for as long as it is needed.

The European nations could have done this, but they didn't, and they won't. The so-called "Coalition Forces" are, in most cases, little more than a "Token Force" to keep face with the US . And once attacked, like the train bombing in Madrid , they pull their forces and run for home. We now know that rather than opposing the rise of the Jihad, the French, Germans, and Russians were selling them arms - we have found more than a million tons of weapons and munitions in Iraq . If Iraq was not a threat to anyone, why did Saddam need a million tons of weapons? And Iraq was paying for French, German, and Russian arms with money skimmed from the UN Oil For Food Program (supervised by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan and his son) that was supposed to pay for food, medicine, and education, for Iraqi children.

World War II, the war with the German and Japanese Nazis, really began with a "whimper" in 1928. It did not begin with Pearl Harbor . It began with the Japanese invasion of China . It was a war for fourteen years before America joined it. It officially ended in 1945 - a 17 year war - and was followed by another decade of US occupation in Germany and Japan to get those countries reconstructed and running on their own again .... a 27 year war.

World War II cost the United States an amount equal to approximately a full year's GDP - adjusted for inflation, equal to about $12 trillion dollars, WWII cost America more than 400,000 killed in action, and nearly 100,000 still missing in action.

[The Iraq war has, so far, cost the US about $180 billion, which is roughly what 9/11 cost New York. It has also cost over 2,300 American lives, which is roughly 2/3 of the lives that the Jihad snuffed on 9/11.] But the cost of not fighting and winning WWII would have been unimaginably greater - a world now dominated by German and Japanese Nazism.

Americans have a short attention span, now, conditioned I suppose by 1 hour TV shows and 2-hour movies in which everything comes out okay. The real world is not like that. It is messy, uncertain,and sometimes bloody and ugly. Always has been, and probably always will be.

If we do this thing in Iraq successfully, it is probable that the Reformation will ultimately prevail. Many Muslims in the Middle East hope it will. We will be there to support it. It has begun in some countries, Libya , for instance. And Dubai. And Saudi Arabia. If we fail, the Inquisition will probably prevail, and terrorism from Islam will be with us for all the foreseeable future, because the Inquisition, or Jihad, believes they are called by Allah to kill all the Infidels, and that death in Jihad is glorious.

The bottom line here is that we will have to deal with Islamic terrorism until we defeat it, whenever that is. It will not go away on its own. It will not go away if we ignore it.

If the US can create a reasonably democratic and stable Iraq , then we have an " England" in the Middle East , a platform, from which we can work to help modernize and moderate the Middle East . The history of the world is the clash between the forces of relative civility and civilization, and the barbarians clamoring at the gates. The Iraq war is merely another battle in this ancient and never-ending war. And now, for the first time ever, the barbarians are about to get nuclear weapons. Unless we prevent them. Or somebody does.

The Iraq war is expensive, and uncertain, yes. But the consequences of not fighting it and winning it will be horrifically greater. We have four options -

1. We can defeat the Jihad now, before it gets nuclear weapons.

2. We can fight the Jihad later, after it gets nuclear weapons (which may be as early as next year, if Iran's progress on nuclear weapons is what Iran claims it is).

3. We can surrender to the Jihad and accept its dominance in the Middle East, now, in Europe in the next few years or decades, and ultimately in America.

4. Or we can stand down now, and pick up the fight later when the Jihad is more widespread and better armed, perhaps after the Jihad has dominated France and Germany and maybe most of the rest of Europe . It will be more dangerous, more expensive, and much bloodier then.

Yes, the Jihadis say that they look forward to an Islamic America . If you oppose this war, I hope you like the idea that your children, or grandchildren, may live in an Islamic America under the Mullahs and the Sharia, an America that resembles Iran today.

We can be defeatist peace-activists as anti-war types seem to be, and concede, surrender, to the Jihad, or we can do whatever it takes to win this war against them.

The history of the world is the history of civilizational clashes, cultural clashes. All wars are about ideas, ideas about what society and civilization should be like, and the most determined always win.

Those who are willing to be the most ruthless always win. The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them.

In the 20th century, it was Western democracy vs. communism, and before that Western democracy vs. Nazism, and before that Western democracy vs. German Imperialism. Western democracy won, three times, but it wasn't cheap, fun, nice, easy, or quick. Indeed, the wars against German Imperialism (WWI), Nazi Imperialism (WWII), and communist imperialism (the 40-year Cold War that included the Vietnam Battle, commonly called the Vietnam War, but itself a major battle in a larger war) covered almost the entire century.

The first major war of the 21st Century is the war between Western Judeo/Christian Civilization and Wahhabi Islam. It may last a few more years, or most of this century. It will last until the Wahhabi branch of Islam fades away, or gives up its ambitions for regional and global dominance and Jihad, or until Western Civilization gives in to the Jihad.

Senator John Kerry, in the debates and almost daily, makes 3 scary claims:

1. We went to Iraq without enough troops.

We went with the troops the US military wanted. We went with the troop levels General Tommy Franks asked for. We deposed Saddam in 30 days with light casualties, much lighter than we expected.

The real problem in Iraq is that we are trying to be nice - we are trying to fight minority of the population that is Jihadi, and trying to avoid killing the large majority that is not. We could flatten Fallujah in minutes with a flight of B52s, or seconds with one nuclear cruise missile - but we don't. We're trying to do brain surgery, not amputate the patient's head. The Jihadis amputate heads.

2. We went to Iraq with too little planning.

This is a specious argument. It supposes that if we had just had "the right plan" the war would have been easy, cheap, quick, and clean.

That is not an option. It is a guerrilla war against a determined enemy, and no such war ever has been or ever will be easy, cheap, quick, and clean. This is not TV.

3. We proved ourselves incapable of governing and providing security.

This too is a specious argument. It was never our intention to govern and provide security. It was our intention from the beginning to do just enough to enable the Iraqis to develop a representative government and their own military and police forces to provide their own security, and that is happening. The US and the Brits and other countries there have trained over 100,000 Iraqi police and military, now, and will have trained more than 200,000 by the end of next year. We are in the process of transitioning operational control for security back to Iraq .

It will take time. It will not go with no hitches. This is not TV.

Remember, perspective is everything, and America's schools teach too little history for perspective to be clear, especially in the young American mind.

The Cold war lasted from about 1947 at least until the Berlin Wall came down in 1989. Forty-two years. Europe spent the first half of the 19th century fighting Napoleon, and from 1870 to 1945 fighting Germany .

World War II began in 1928, lasted 17 years, plus a ten year occupation, and the US still has troops in Germany and Japan. World War II resulted in the death of more than 50 million people, maybe more than 100 million people, depending on which estimates you accept.

The US has taken more than 2,000 KIA in Iraq in 3 years. The US took more than 4,000 Killed in action on the morning of June 6, 1944, the first day of the Normandy Invasion to rid Europe of Nazi Imperialism. In WWII the US averaged 2,000 KIA a week for four years. Most of the individual battles of WWII lost more Americans than the entire Iraq war has done so far.

But the stakes are at least as high . . . a world dominated by representative governments with civil rights, human rights, and personal freedoms, or a world dominated by a radical Islamic Wahhabi movement, by the Jihad, under the Mullahs and the Sharia (Islamic law).

I do not understand why the American Left does not grasp this. They favor human rights, civil rights, liberty and freedom, but evidently not for Iraqis. In America, absolutely, but nowhere else.

300,000 Iraqi bodies in mass graves in Iraq are not our problem. The US population is about twelve times that of Iraq , so let's multiply 300,000 by twelve. What would you think if there were 3,600,000 American bodies in mass graves in America because of George Bush? Would you hope for another country to help liberate America ?

"Peace Activists" always seem to demonstrate where it's safe, in America. Why don't we see Peace Activist demonstrating in Iran, Syria, Iraq, Sudan, North Korea, in the places in the world that really need peace activism the most?

The liberal mentality is supposed to favor human rights, civil rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc., but if the Jihad wins, wherever the Jihad wins, it is the end of civil rights, human rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc. Americans who oppose the liberation of Iraq are coming down on the side of their own worst enemy.

If the Jihad wins, it is the death of Liberalism. Everywhere the Jihad wins, it is the death of Liberalism. And American Liberals just don't get it.

Raymond S. Kraft is a writer and lawyer living in Northern California . Please consider passing along copies of this to students in high school, college and university as it contains information about the American past that is very meaningful TODAY - - history about America that very likely is completely unknown by them (and their instructors, too). By being denied the facts and truth of our history, they are at a decided disadvantage when it comes to reasoning and thinking through the issues of today. They are prime targets for misinformation campaigns beamed at enlisting them in causes and beliefs that are special interest agenda driven.



Posted on Jun 23, 2006, 12:37 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home


Letter: Dubious registry figure

by nancy

Letter: Dubious registry figure
Date: Jun 23, 2006 8:56 AM
PUBLICATION: GLOBE AND MAIL
DATE: 2006.06.23
PAGE: A20
BYLINE: WILLIAM E. HENRY
SECTION: Letter to the Edit
EDITION: Metro
DATELINE: Port Hope, Ont.
WORDS: 160

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dubious registry figure

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Frank J. O'Hara (Specious Gun Arguments -- letter, June 21) perpetuates the myth
that police officers check the gun registry 5,000 times a day. In doing so, he is
ensnared by a specious argument of his own making.

While it may be correct to say that the registry receives 5,000 hits a day, much
of that activity has nothing to do with direct police access and is, instead, generated
by an automated link between the Canadian Police Information Centre's system and
the gun registry.

Every time CPIC is accessed by the police, one or more hits are recorded against
the registry. Thus, a simple check for an outstanding warrant that has nothing to
do with firearms will result in firearm-registry activity.

Proponents of the long-gun registry continue to quote the specious 5,000 figure
as evidence of system utility. In doing so, they spread misinformation that clouds
thinking and distorts discussion on this contentious topic.

-----------------------------------------------------

AUDITOR GENERAL - 5,000 HITS A DAY: AN INDICATOR OF ACTIVITY - NOT EFFECTIVENESS

39th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION
Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security
Wednesday, May 31, 2006 - EVIDENCE

Ms. Sheila Fraser: I believe that the indicator of the 5,000 hits a day is more
of what we call an activity indicator than an indicator of effectiveness. So those
law enforcement people who use the registry would have to give an assessment as
to whether or not it was useful to them. There could be 5,000 hits, and they could
say yes, it was very helpful and helped me in this way; or they could say no, it
wasn't helpful because the information wasn't correct. It takes an additional degree
of interpretation or information to assess effectiveness. (Page 14)
http://cmte.parl.gc.ca/cmte/CommitteePublication.aspx?SourceId=146767

---------------------------------------------

Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security
EVIDENCE number 07, UNEDITED COPY - COPIE NON ÉDITÉE
Wednesday, June 7, 2006

*

MP Dave MacKenzie: All I'm trying to indicate to Canadians, though, is that there
are not 5,000 checks a day just for firearms registry. Those are automatic checks
done by police officers on the street for names and for a variety of things.

RCMP Commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli: They're automatic CPIC checks that they
automatically go over. I don't have the number of how many are direct checks.


Posted on Jun 23, 2006, 12:36 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home


Chicago's `Gang Book' Attacks Gun Rights as Tool Against Drug Gangs, Says CCRKBA

by WAGC

Chicago's `Gang Book' Attacks Gun Rights as Tool Against Drug Gangs, Says CCRKBA




NEWS RELEASE
CHICAGO’S ‘GANG BOOK’ ATTACKS GUN RIGHTS AS TOOL AGAINST DRUG GANGS, SAYS CCRKBA
BELLEVUE, WA – The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (C CRKBA) today accused the Chicago Crime Commission of exploiting the activities of drug gangs to attack gun rights.

The Commission’s new 272-page “Gang Book” details Chicago’s drug gangs and offers several recommended strategies to fight these criminals. Incredibly, at the top of the list, is a recommendation to limit handgun sales to one per month, and impose a ban on .50-caliber long range sport-utility rifles.

“If this proves anything,” observed CCRKBA Executive Director Joe Waldron, “it’s that the anti-gun obsession rampant in the office of Mayor Richard Daley is now infecting the Crime Commission. What’s next? Will the city’s public health experts decide that banning handguns and ugly rifles is one way to cure alcoholism or cancer?

“Illinois already has some of the strictest gun laws in the country,” Waldron noted, “and a virtual ban on handguns for law-abiding citizens in Chicago. Yet, drug gangs thrive in the Windy City and its suburbs, and common st reet criminals don’t have any trouble arming themselves. Heaping more restrictions on honest gun owners is not going to stop these thugs, and the people who dreamed up this proposal know it.”

CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb said the implication that restrictive gun laws might somehow curtail drug activity by street gangs is ludicrous.

“According to the Chicago Sun-Times,” Gottlieb observed, “highly sophisticated gangs have figured out ways to infiltrate government agencies and even police and sheriff’s departments. Surely they have already proven they can get around restrictive gun laws, which ultimately only penalize law-abiding citizens.”

“Show me one crime in Illinois that a ban on the .50-caliber rifle would have prevented,” he challenged. “Show me one crime in which a drug gang used such a rifle, anywhere in the country. Identify one gang that would be put out of business by limiting the ability of a competitive shooter to acquire just one handgun per month.

“If the Commission thinks this is such a smart strategy,” Gottlieb said, “maybe they should limit drug dealers to one ounce of cocaine each month. Perhaps they should ban possession of syringes, after telling people with diabetes and other serious medical problems that their health is less important than making a political statement.”


-END-


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


< Please e-mail, distribute, and circulate to friends and family >


Posted on Jun 23, 2006, 7:56 AM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home


U.N. Insult to Constitution a Good Reason to Halt U.S. Funding, Says SAF

by WAGC

U.N. Insult to Constitution a Good Reason to Halt U.S. Funding, Says SAF
Date: Jun 19, 2006 2:55 PM




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


NEWS RELEASE
U.N. INSULT TO CONSTITUTION A GOOD REASON TO HALT U.S. FUNDING, SAYS SAF
BELLEVUE, WA – In what can only be a carefully-timed, deliberate insult to the United States and its Constitution, the United Nations is hosting a conference on global gun control aimed directly at our Second Amendment, on dates that include our national holiday, July 4.

The U.N. Conference on Global Gun Control, scheduled June 24-July 7, poses a direct threat to our constitutionally-protected individual right to keep and bear arms, said Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF). Gottlieb will attend the conference, but he suggests that this may be an opportune time for Congress and the White House to reconsider this nation’s level of financial support for an international organization that now wants to write a treaty that specifically attacks a cornerstone of our federal constitution, and the lynchpin to our liberty.

“Had it not been for our tradition of private firearms ownership,” Gottlieb stated, “our citizens might still be subjects of the queen. Had it not been for America, all of Europe might be speaking German. Were America not the ‘great arsenal of democracy’ that President Franklin D. Roosevelt described in 1940, the world would be a far different place, and the sanctimonious bureaucrats at the U.N. might instead be working in labor camps.

“Not once, but twice in the past century, American citizens have risen to the challenge and quite literally saved the world,” Gottlieb recalled. “From our heartland have come heroes like Alvin York, Audie Murphy, Joe Foss and others who grew up in a land of freedom and knew what it took to defend that birthright.

“Yet, as we celebrate our 230th anniversary, global anti-gunners, under the guise of reviewing a U.N. program of action on small arms and light weapons, want to create a binding international agreement that could supersede our laws and constitution,” Gottlieb said. “We have done much for the U.N. and in return, the organization has hosted despots, tyrants and dictators whose record of human rights abuses, aggression and genocide speaks for itself. And now comes an attack on our constitution, on our national holiday.

“America has always answered the call to help our international friends and neighbors,” Gottlieb observed, “but when our very way of life is attacked, maybe it is time to find more worthy endeavors for our material and financial support.”


Posted on Jun 23, 2006, 8:01 AM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home


Gun ownership is a net benefit to society

by Nancy

Gun ownership is a net benefit to society

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------

The reason why the "concept of a gun registry has taken root across the
country" and many Canadians want "more gun control" is because they
have
been continuously lied to and bamboozled into thinking these measures
actually have any effect on reducing crime, by liberals, leftists and
anti-gun extremists.

They most assuredly do not!

On top of that, most such surveys ask incredibly simplistic questions of
a largely uninformed populace - is it any wonder you get simplistic
answers? That's why they are called "opinion polls", not "fact polls".

Prof. Gary Mauser conducted an in-depth study on the attitudes of
Canadians about "gun control" and found the vast majority had no idea
how strict the current gun laws already were, and didn't know what "more
gun control" actually entailed.

To them, it just sounded good.

Guns are used by Canadians to defend oneself, others, and private
property between 60,000 and 80,000 times each year. For every life lost
to guns, 40 are saved.

States in the U.S. that pass "Shall Issue" concealed carry licences to
law-abiding citizens for self-defence see a drop in confrontational
crime on an average of 24 per cent. Boys who are given guns by their
parents grow up to commit fewer crimes than those who get guns
illegally, and even those who get no guns at all. Gun ownership is a net
benefit to society.

There already are, and have been for centuries, laws that deal with the
criminal use of weapons, such as threatening someone with a gun,
assaulting someone with a gun, robbing someone with a gun, pointing a
gun at someone, shooting a gun at someone, and killing someone with a
gun.

If these laws were properly enforced, and those who committed them dealt
with effectively by the courts, there would be no need for "controlling"
guns.

The fact of the matter is that so-called "gun control" laws are costly,
useless, onerous, draconian, and only target law-abiding gun owners.

They simply do not achieve their stated goals - reducing crime - because
they do not deal effectively with real criminals who commit real crimes
against others.

"Gun control" is not "crime control". Canadians need to be informed
of
this fact, so they can make a rational response when contacted by
pollsters.

Bruce N. Mills Dundas, Ont.

Posted on Jun 22, 2006, 7:09 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home


Police blamed for failure to respond to 911 calls

by Nancy

don't blame the police, blame the victim for NOT having a self defense weapon !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

\=\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

Police blamed for failure to respond to 911 calls
Date: Jun 22, 2006 2:20 PM
PUBLICATION: WINNIPEG FREE PRESS
DATE: 2006.06.22
PAGE: A1
BYLINE: Bruce Owen
SECTION: City
WORD COUNT: 650

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------

'He lost his life for no reason' Police blamed for failure to respond to
911 calls

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------

A 45-year-old man allegedly beaten to death by a drunken mob would be
alive today if police responded to two earlier 911 calls, people close
to the incident said yesterday.

"He lost his life for no reason," Maryland Hotel owner Amarjeet Warraich
said, standing about two metres from where Peter Roy Debungee was beaten
Saturday evening.

"It could've been anybody -- anybody." He said Debungee lay face up in
the middle of McGee Street, near a playground where children watched in
disbelief, as his attackers took turns kicking him.

"They were jumping on his face and giving each other high-fives,"
Warraich said he was told by people who saw the attack.

"There were young kids watching. What are they supposed to learn?"
Debungee, formerly of Rainy River First Nation, Ont., was rushed to
hospital in critical condition.

Police said yesterday he died of his injuries Monday.

Six people, including a 16-year-old boy, are in custody charged with
manslaughter.

Warraich said his staff called 911 twice Saturday, once at about noon
and then about 4:30 p.m., to report a group of people was drinking in a
nearby parking lot and harassing and chasing hotel patrons.

He said a third 911 call was made from the hotel at 7: 45 p.m.

-- about 45 minutes before Debungee was attacked -- as the same group of
people tried to break down the doors of the hotel and attack staff,
who'd locked them out about eight hours earlier for drunken, rowdy
behavior.

Warraich and his general manager, who only gave his first name Fred,
said police responded only to the third call. They said police responded
about 8:30 p.m., and caused most of the attackers to scatter.

"I feel the whole death could've been prevented if we had the resources
to have more police here quicker," Fred said. "I'd pay an extra $10 a
month for more of these guys on the street." Police spokesperson Const.
Jacqueline Chaput said the service is examining how many calls came from
the Maryland Hotel and what priorities were assigned each call. Calls
that someone's life's in danger get a faster response.

This isn't the first allegation made by the public of no response, or
slow response, to a 911 call. On May 21, North End resident John
Vandusen said he was attacked in his home by several people and stabbed
despite his girlfriend and a neighbour calling 911. Police took about
two hours to arrive.

Debungee's older brother Elvis said the family was notified about the
attack on Peter early Sunday morning and told they should come to
Winnipeg as his situation was grave.

"We couldn't even recognize him," he said. "His head was all swollen
like a ball. There were massive injuries to his head." Warraich and
Elvis Debungee said they believed Debungee had just bought a case of
beer at the hotel vendor, but police could not confirm if he was beaten
for his beer.

On Saturday, when police arrived at the Maryland Hotel, five of the
suspects ran to an apartment block on McGee Street while a sixth,
unaware police were there, continued to throw rocks at the hotel,
Warraich said.

He also said police called for back-up before they went into the block
to look for suspects.

"But these guys changed their T-shirts and walked out to see if they
could get away. People pointed" at a group of men and arrests followed.

Warraich and Fred said they complained to police at the scene and at the
Public Safety Building immediately after the incident that officers
should have responded to the earlier two 911 calls to disperse the
crowd.

Fred said 911 call-takers asked him on the two earlier calls if anyone
was harmed. When he answered no, he assumed it was assigned a lower
priority.

On the first 911 call he was told to call the 986-6222 non-emergency
line as the group was only throwing the rocks, and he says he did.

He made the second 911 call five hours later after one of the attackers
threw sand in a female customer's face.

Police said the six suspects were first charged with aggravated assault,
but with Debungee's death the charges were upgraded to manslaughter.

Ernest Harper, 22, Waylon Harper, 25, Christopher Nattaway, 27, Alfred
Wood, 23, and Quentin Young, 18, remain in custody at the Winnipeg
Remand Centre. A 16-year-old boy is in custody at the Manitoba Youth
Centre.


Posted on Jun 22, 2006, 7:07 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home


Legal Gun Ownership Saves Lives

by Nancy

Legal Gun Ownership Saves Lives
John Barnes
Washington Policy Center
May 17, 2006
http://www.washingtonpolicy.org/GovtRegulations/OP_EDgunownershipmay2006.htm


"Research shows at least 2.5 million protective uses of guns each year in the U.S. Guns are used about three to five times as often for defensive purposes as for criminal purposes. Most often the mere sight of a gun prevents a crime from occurring or getting worse."

Posted on Jun 22, 2006, 7:04 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home


Concealed Carry Legislation: An Examination of the Facts

by Nancy

Concealed Carry Legislation: An Examination of the Facts
David Dodenhoff
Wisconsin Policy Institute Report, Volume 19 No. 4
May, 2006
http://www.wpri.org/Reports/Volume19/Vol19no4.pdf
PDF files require Adobe Acrobat Reader or similar software.


A lengthy, reasoned analysis of the justifications for 'shall issue' concealed carry permits.

Posted on Jun 22, 2006, 7:03 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home


Simplistic assault on guns doesn't target the bad guys

by Nancy

Simplistic assault on guns doesn't target the bad guys
Richard S. Davis
The Herald (Everett, WA)
May 10, 2006
http://www.heraldnet.com/stories/06/05/10/100opi_davis001.cfm


"The world's an unsafe place, not because of guns, but because of bad guys who must be stopped. Sometimes with a gun."

Posted on Jun 22, 2006, 7:02 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home


Gun backers had good year

by Nancy

Gun backers had good year
Jason Garcia
Orlando Sentinel (FL)
June 8, 2006
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/state/orl-guns0806jun08,0,112797.story?coll=orl-news-headlines-state


"Gov. Jeb Bush on Wednesday signed a package of six NRA-backed bills passed this spring by the Republican-controlled Legislature, including a measure (HB 687) that makes personal information about people who carry concealed weapons exempt from the state's public-records laws."

Posted on Jun 22, 2006, 7:02 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home


Michael Douglas backs U.N. gun ban: TV commercial 'spotlights the illicit trade in small a

by Nancy

Michael Douglas backs U.N. gun ban: TV commercial 'spotlights the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons
Worldnetdaily.com
May 28, 2006
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50407


"Actor Michael Douglas - who for many years has been designated by the United Nations as a "U.N. peace messenger" - is backing the global body's upcoming conference on small arms trafficking."

Posted on Jun 22, 2006, 7:01 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home


United Nations Anti-gun Conference

by Nancy

United Nations Anti-gun Conference
Conference Side Events
Schedule of the UN Conference to Review Progress Made in the Implementation of the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat, and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All its Aspects: New York, 27 June - 7 July 2006
June 19, 2006
http://www.un.org/events/smallarms2006/side-events.html


Seminar topics and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO's) involved in this effort to disarm civilians throughout the world can be found at this site.

Posted on Jun 22, 2006, 7:00 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home


Canada

by Nancy :)

Canada
Government takes action to eliminate the costly and ineffective long-gun registry
Press Release
Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada
May 17, 2006
http://www.psepc-sppcc.gc.ca/media/nr/2006/nr20060517-en.asp


"The Honourable Stockwell Day, Minister of Public Safety, today announced the Government's plan to eliminate the long-gun registry and to better meet law enforcement needs while reducing burdens on law-abiding long-gun owners."

Posted on Jun 22, 2006, 6:58 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home


Malaysia

by Nancy



    
This message has been edited by WAGCEVP on Jun 22, 2006 7:00 PM

Posted on Jun 22, 2006, 6:58 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home


United Kingdom

by Nancy

United Kingdom
Why all true citizens need their own guns
Dr. Sean Gabb
Birmingham Post (UK)
June 7, 2006
http://icbirmingham.icnetwork.co.uk/birminghampost/perspective/features/tm_objectid=17189805%26method=full%26siteid=50002-name_page.html


"If we want to do something about armed crime that has any chance of working, we need to rethink our entire approach. I would suggest that, instead of trying to remove weapons from society, the authorities should allow us to keep weapons for defence and to use them for defence."

Posted on Jun 22, 2006, 6:59 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home


The Gold Standard of Gun Control," Journal of Law, Economics & Policy. (2006, forthcoming)

by Nancy :)

The Gold Standard of Gun Control," Journal of Law, Economics & Policy. (2006, forthcoming). Book review of Joyce Malcolm's "Guns and Violence: The English Experience."
With Paul Gallant & Joanne D. Eisen.

http://www.davekopel.com/2A/Foreign/gold-standard-of-gun-control.pdf
PDF files require Adobe Acrobat Reader or similar software.
http://www.davekopel.com/2A/Foreign/The-Gold-Standard-of-Gun-Control.htm
http://www.gmu.edu/org/jlep/


Please see the PDF and HTML files noted above.

Posted on Jun 22, 2006, 6:57 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home


Rule One declares "All guns are always loaded". Are they?

by Nancy :)

Rule One declares "All guns are always loaded". Are they?
Date: Jun 21, 2006 7:18 PM
FYI (copy below):
http://xavierthoughts.blogspot.com/2006/06/rule-one.html
************************************************************
Monday, June 19, 2006
Rule One
Rule One declares "All guns are always loaded".
Are they?

For some, the thought that they may not be is heresy. For
others, the thought that all guns are always loaded is
ludicrous.

Is a pistol loaded with the magazine out and the slide
locked back? Most ranges stipulate a pistol laying on a
table in such a fashion, where the Range Officer can see an
empty chamber, is the only one safe enough to venture down
range from. Likewise, a revolver with the cylinder swung
out is considered to be a safe weapon. When the Range
Officer is able to see daylight through all six chambers of
a revolver, is it loaded? Is a pistol that is field
stripped with the slide sent off to Novaks for new sights
loaded? These are extremes, but Rule One does state that
All guns are always loaded.

Jeff CooperHere is what Jeff Cooper had to say about Rule
One.

"There are no exceptions. Do not pretend that this
is true. Some people and organizations take this
rule and weaken it; e.g. "Treat all guns as if
they were loaded." Unfortunately, the "as if"
compromises the directness of the statement by
implying that they are unloaded, but we will treat
them as though they are loaded. No good! Safety
rules must be worded forcefully so that they are
never treated lightly or reduced to partial
compliance.

All guns are always loaded. Period!

This must be your mindset. If someone hands you a
firearm and says, "Don't worry, it's not loaded,"
you do not dare believe him. You need not be
impolite, but check it yourself. Remember, there
are no accidents, only negligent acts. Check it.
Do not let yourself fall prey to a situation where
you might feel compelled to squeal, "I didn't know
it was loaded!"


Yet even Colonel Cooper, the founder of Gunsite and the
modern technique of combat handgunnery allowed himself to be
photographed violating multiple rules, of which he is the
author! He later expressed regret for allowing a reporter
to take that photo, and said it gave him a queasy feeling
each time he saw it.

So at what point do you agree that a gun is unloaded? Do
you constantly check your guns again and again like an
obsessive compulsive checking his zipper? Do you get upset
if the mailman leaves a package containing a new Kart 1911
barrel with the muzzle pointing in the wrong direction?
Everyone who is going to be around guns has to reach a point
where they can agree that a gun is safe.

I recall a time when I was newly married. Several friends
and I were sitting around a table discussing a friend's new
pistol. Each time one of us picked up the pistol, we press
checked it, talked a bit while maintaining muzzle
discipline, and put it back down. The conversation remained
cheerful until my wife decided to clear the table to prepare
for dinner. She had recently been taught by me to always
check that chamber. She picked up that pistol, pulled back
the slide, and was horrified to see a live round pop out.
"It's loaded!" she shrieked. "Yeah honey, it's been loaded
all day." I replied. Everyone at the table knew the pistol
was loaded. Everyone had checked it for themselves as soon
as they laid a hand on it. Nobody was surprised because we
all expected it to be loaded. Only my wife was surprised,
because she assumed it must not have been loaded after so
many people had checked it. Thankfully, she checked it
herself.

So, here is my way. I consider all guns to be loaded until
I, myself, have personally checked them. If that gun leaves
my hand, I check it again when I pick it up. If I have been
holding the gun and became distracted, I check it again. If
that gun has been sitting locked in my safe, I check it
again when I pick it up. If that gun has been in my holster
all day, I check it again when I put it away.

The proper way to check a pistol is to drop the magazine,
lock back the slide, and look into the chamber. Some
people, including myself, will even place a finger into that
empty chamber, as the tactile sense helps cement the memory
of an empty chamber in the mind. For a hand ejector type
revolver, the cylinder must be swung out and each chamber
inspected. On a single action revolver, the gate must be
opened and the cylinder spun around. A break top revolver
must have the top opened. A shotgun requires that the
chamber be opened and the chamber and the magazine checked.
A bolt action rifle requires the bolt to be open. An
automatic rifle requires the magazine removed and the bolt
to be locked back. If I am handed a weapon that I do not
know how to make safe, I do not accept it, unless the person
handing it to me knows nothing about the safe handling of
firearms. In those circumstances, and they do occur, I
figure the gun is safer in my hands than theirs.

If I have just checked a gun's chamber, verified it to be
empty, and it has not left my hands, I consider it safe.
Notice.....Not unloaded, but safe. Not safe to point at
anything and everything, but safe enough to dry fire. Safe
enough to check the bore. Safe enough to carry out the many
tasks a gun owner must sometimes perform that violate the
four rules.

In the end, like Colonel Cooper says, what the gun handler
wants is to never have to say "I didn't know it was loaded."
To prevent that from occuring, you must know what you are
holding. To know what you are holding, you must check the
chamber yourself. Failure to do so could alter your life
forever.

Posted on Jun 22, 2006, 6:47 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home


>SAN FRANCISCO SUPERIOR COURT REJECTS GUN BAN --

by WAGC

>SAN FRANCISCO SUPERIOR COURT REJECTS GUN BAN --
>SECOND AMENDMENT UPHELD!
>
>This week, San Francisco Superior Court Judge James Warren struck down
>the San Francisco handgun ban, asserting that under California law,
>local officials do not have the authority to ban firearms from
>law-abiding citizens. NRA-ILA opposed the ban from its inception, both
>at the ballot box and in court.
>
>NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre stated, "This ruling is a
>major victory for freedom and for the National Rifle Association.
>Proposition H was an ill-conceived gun ban scheme that would have
>violated the rights of only the law-abiding in San Francisco. We fought
>this outrageous attack on the constitutional rights of the good guys and
>we prevailed. We are determined not to see this gross injustice happen
>again and will fight any effort by politicians to resurrect this faulty
>proposal."
>
>The San Francisco gun ban would have prohibited law-abiding city
>residents from purchasing firearms - rifles, shotguns and handguns - for
>any lawful reason, whether for self-defense, hunting or recreational
>shooting. In addition, current law-abiding gun owners would have to
>surrender their registered handguns to the police.
>
>NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox stated, "We are pleased with the
>decision of Judge James Warren of the California Superior Court. In
>today's ruling, Judge Warren ruled California law prohibits a city or
>county from banning handgun possession by law-abiding adults. This
>ruling supports the premise of NRA's argument. The NRA filed it's
>lawsuit soon after Proposition H passed arguing that the proposition was
>in violation of California preemption laws that say firearm laws are
>regulated by the state."
>
>The San Francisco Police Officers Association also opposed the ban,
>stating that the new law nullified "the personal choice of city
>residents to lawfully possess a handgun for self-defense purposes."
>
>Cox continued, "It seems evident that the authors of this measure either
>intentionally misled voters during the election or authored this
>proposed measure with gross disregard of California law. Regrettably,
>the biggest losers were the voters in this municipality who had to bear
>the considerable financial burden to satisfy the careless political whim
>of their elected officials."

Posted on Jun 18, 2006, 7:14 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home


U.N., Swiss call small-arms meet, U.S. not invited

by

U.N., Swiss call small-arms meet, U.S. not invited
Date: Jun 16, 2006 3:23 PM
U.N., Swiss call small-arms meet, U.S. not invited
Wed 31 May 2006 10:53 AM ET
GENEVA, May 31 (Reuters) - The United Nations and the Swiss government
said on Wednesday they were calling a high-level international meeting
next week on armed violence and development -- but the United States was
not invited.
http://today.reuters.com/News/CrisesArticle.aspx?storyId=L31200866


Posted on Jun 16, 2006, 6:39 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home


We`re From The U.N.: We Want Your Guns

by WAGC

We`re From The U.N.: We Want Your Guns
- Townhall.com
The U.N. will gather in New York City this July for the 2006 Small Arms Review Conference. Doesn`t the name alone make you nervous? The U.N. is "reviewing" guns. If you don`t own one, doesn`t it make you want to go out and buy one just so you can be ready for whatever Kofi`s got planned?
Read More

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/MaryKatharineHam/2006/06/16/201493.html


NRA Warns Of U.N. Gun Control
- World Net Daily
An American delegation will participate in a controversial United Nations small-arms conference criticized by Second Amendment advocates as a threat to U.S. gun ownership.
Read More
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50671


Posted on Jun 16, 2006, 9:44 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home


Letter: Condoms keep guns safe :)

by Nancy :)

Letter: Condoms keep guns safe
Date: Jun 14, 2006 2:18 PM
PUBLICATION: The Ottawa Citizen
DATE: 2006.06.14
EDITION: Final
SECTION: News
PNAME: Letters
PAGE: A15
BYLINE: Doug Perrault
SOURCE: The Ottawa Citizen
WORD COUNT: 108

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Condoms keep guns safe

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------

Re: It's 'don't ask, don't tell' as troops' condom use soars, June 12.

This story can leave the wrong impression. Being ex-military myself, I
would like to suggest to the public and to the wives and girlfriends of
those on the mission in Afghanistan that the reason for the soaring use
of condoms is probably the climate and environment of that country. It
is a common practice for soldiers to cover the end of a rifle barrel
with a condom to keep it clean, especially in dusty, dirty or wet and
snowy conditions.

Doug Perrault,
Nepean


Posted on Jun 14, 2006, 6:28 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home


A Victory In The Courts

by Nancy :)

A Victory In The Courts
Date: Jun 13, 2006 7:05 PM
GOA wins battle in San Francisco courts!
-- Thanks contributors to the Foundation for making battles like this
possible

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org

Tuesday, June 13, 2006


Good news out of California!

Yesterday, San Francisco Superior Court Judge James Warren overturned
voter-approved Measure H, a city ordinance that banned the private
possession of handguns and the sale of all firearms in the city.

Gun Owners of America -- and Gun Owners Foundation along with Gun
Owners of California -- underwrote the costs of filing a friend of
the court (amicus) brief by the founder of Gun Owners, California
state Sen. H.L. Richardson (ret.).

Sen. Richardson's amicus brief was important in this case because,
while in his service in the California Senate, he sponsored the law
that prohibits what the voters of San Francisco recently did.
California state law preempts, thanks to Richardson, any local
measures banning or registering firearms.

Gun Owners is thankful that the courts did not disregard the
preemption law Richardson enacted. We all know that courts
frequently have a problem following the law and seeking guidance from
the record of those who made the law.

Richardson's preemption law has been upheld in previous cases, so
with the obvious meaning of the law and the history of judicial
rulings supporting it, prospects for overturning the plebiscite
looked good.

Victory in court now frees the 42 percent of San Franciscans who
voted against violating a constitutional right to own a handgun in
the city. Unhappily it is for practical purposes impossible to get a
concealed carry permit there, so, lots of luck when venturing forth
from one's San Francisco dwelling. Unless, that is, you are someone
important such as Mrs. Gun Ban, a.k.a. Sen. Diane Feinstein.

The city has already announced it will appeal the ruling, even though
S.F. Mayor Gavin Newsome has reportedly said that this effort was
contrary to state law. Interestingly, the San Francisco Police
Officers Association opposed the ban, saying the law nullified "the
personal choice of city residents to possess a handgun for
self-defense purposes."

GOA would like to thank all of those who have contributed to Gun
Owners Foundation, which makes lawsuits like this possible. Gun
Owners Foundation is part of the Combined Federal Campaign -- Agency
Number 1054.



Posted on Jun 14, 2006, 6:26 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home


STABBINGS IN NEW YORK: IT'S THE CRIMINALS, STUPID, CCRKBA TELLS BLOOMBE

by

STABBINGS IN NEW YORK: ‘IT’S THE CRIMINALS, STUPID,’ CCRKBA TELLS BLOOMBERG
Date: Jun 14, 2006 4:06 PM


+++++++++++
AND THIS IS FOR ALL OF YOU OTHER ANTI GUN MORONS WHO THINK THAT GUNS DISAPPEARING WILL AUTOMATICALLY MAKE THIS A SAFER WORLD TO LIVE IN............ WROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG! GUNS ARE TOOLS JUST LIKE KNIFES AND BASEBALL BATS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!
++++++++++++++++++++

NEWS RELEASE
STABBINGS IN NEW YORK: ‘IT’S THE CRIMINALS, STUPID,’ CCRKBA TELLS BLOOMBERG
BELLEVUE, WA – Four high-profile stabbings within 24 hours in New York City prompted the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) to predict that rabidly anti-gun Mayor Michael Bloomberg will now start campaigning for knife control laws.

The victims included two women tourists who were together in Times Square, a Texas man who was attacked on a subway, and a local resident who was also stabbed on a subway, according to the Reuters news agency.

“I fully expect the mayor to start ranting about ‘crime knives’ and how the nation needs a law to stop ‘illegal blades’ from being smuggled in from other states with lax cutlery laws,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “I say to Bloomberg, ‘It’s not guns, or knives, it’s the criminals, stupid!’

“While New Yorkers and tourists are bleeding from knife wounds,” he added, “Bloomberg is obsessed about guns. He’s mounted legally-questionable ‘sting’ operations in other states with private investigators and apparently interfered with on-going serious criminal investigations by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.”

Bloomberg’s focus on guns may be diverting important law enforcement resources away from combating all violent crime, Gottlieb suggested.

“What this demonstrates beyond any doubt is that criminals will harm victims with whatever weapon they have at their disposal,” Gottlieb stressed. “Even if Bloomberg were able to disarm every law abiding gun owner in this country, which seems to be his goal, criminals will still be out there committing violent crimes with knives, clubs, bricks, or guns they take from cops. You don’t stop criminals by disarming their victims.

“If New York had a sensible concealed carry law like those now in effect in some 40 states where average citizens have a right to carry for their personal protection,” Gottlieb insisted, “this kind of thing would not be happening in broad daylight in downtown New York City. Instead of harping about guns, Bloomberg should be campaigning to overturn generations of restrictive, regressive and discriminatory New York gun laws to enable his constituents to fight back. Until he does that, he’s not part of the solution, he’s part of the problem.”


-END-


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


< Please e-mail, distribute, and circulate to friends and family >
Copyright © 2006 Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, All Rights Reserved.

Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
James Madison Building
12500 N.E. Tenth Place
Bellevue, WA 98005 Voice: 425-454-4911
Toll Free: 800-426-4302
FAX: 425-451-3959
email: InformationRequest@ccrkba.org


To stop receiving these alerts, send an email to cc_alerts@liberty.seanet.com with remove in the subject line. This email was sent to sw357mag@mindspring.com. To ensure removal, please include this address in your reply.
To ensure your alerts are delivered to your inbox (and not inadvertently diverted to a bulk or junk email folder by spam filters), be sure to add cc_alerts@liberty.seanet.com to your email address book or contact list.





    
This message has been edited by WAGCEVP on Jun 14, 2006 6:25 PM
This message has been edited by WAGCEVP on Jun 14, 2006 6:25 PM

Posted on Jun 14, 2006, 6:24 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home

Create your own forum at Network54
 Copyright © 1999-2009 Network54. All rights reserved.   Terms of Use   Privacy Statement