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 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Incarceration reduces crime rates...duh


The geniuses at the US Justice Department have recently discovered that putting criminals in prison and keeping them there for a long time, lowers
crime rates!


Article in the Washington Times.



Incarceration brings down crime

A new report from the Justice Department is welcome ammunition for the growing debate over lengthy prison sentences for career criminals. Last year, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, violent and property crimes fell to their lowest levels in thirty years. As a result, 21 million fewer Americans were victimized last year than in 1973, when 44 million of our fellow citizens were victims of violent or property crimes. The survey measures crimes committed against U.S. residents age twelve and up. The decrease applied in every region of the country, in suburbs and inner cities, at all income levels, and across all racial and ethnic groups.
In 2002, about 23 out of every 1,000 people fell victim to violent criminals. In 1993, 50 out of every 1,000 were victimized by violent attackers. Property crimes like auto theft and burglary also fell dramatically, to 159 victims out of every 1,000 compared to 319 victims out of every 1,000 in 1993. The only crime not included in the Justice Department survey was murder, which is separately reported by the FBI and for which final statistics for 2002 are not yet available.
Many criminologists, such as John Dilulio, had predicted a dramatic increase in crime, especially violent crime, in this first decade of the 21st century. That crime wave has not materialized because of what Indiana University law professor Frank Bowman in The New York Times called "incapacitation." Mr. Bowman says a small percentage of career criminals commit a disproportionate number of crimes, and that incarcerating them for lengthy mandatory sentences has the effect of incapacitating their ability to keep committing crimes.
Others credit the deterrent value of three-strikes laws and stiff mandatory sentences. University of Chicago economist Steven Levitt studied the results of California's 1982 increase in mandatory sentences for specific crimes and concluded that in the three years after the new sentences were imposed, crime rates dropped faster for those crimes than the overall rates. Criminals, it seems, pay attention to the correlation between crime and punishment.
That is more than can be said for Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, who recently inveighed against mandatory sentences as "unwise and unjust." What can be deemed unwise and unjust about sentencing laws which have spared an average of 20 million Americans a year from crime? If Justice Kennedy is unpersuaded by a 50 percent decrease in crime rates, what will convince him that our lawmakers are on the right track with mandatory sentences? How much more must crime drop — 75 percent, 100 percent — before Justice Kennedy admits the obvious? Scores of millions of Americans have a better quality of lifetoday because about 5.6 million criminals have been or are still incarcerated and thereby incapable of preying on the innocent.
Before mandatory sentencing, America used to be more dangerous than Europe. The reverse is now true. In 2001, Paris had 147 crimes per 1,000 people. Seventy percent involved violent attacks or weapons. If Justice Kennedy has forgotten what life was like before mandatory sentencing, perhaps he should visit France.

Posted on Sep 5, 2003, 4:48 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home

Imagine that


Hmm, keeping criminals behind bars stops them from committing crimes. Ok, not walking in front of a train avoids facial damage, and not sticking forks in sockets keeps me from getting a really jazzy feeling in my muscles. Hey! I get it!

Posted on Sep 6, 2003, 1:13 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home

(TN) Open carry in Tennessee store may deter robbers 09-03-03


(TN) Open carry in Tennessee store may deter robbers 09-03-03

Armed and ready
Vol Market owners carry handguns openly to deter crime
By JIM BALLOCH, balloch@knews.com
September 3, 2003

At the Vol Market No. 3 on Western Avenue, the person preparing your
food, cashing your check or ringing you up at the register likely will
be wearing a holstered handgun on their hip.
But unlike most Tennesseans who have a handgun carry permit, Vol Market
owners have decided that open display as a visual deterrent is
preferable to concealment as final protection.
The guns are an absolute last resort, said Alan Frye, 32, whose father,
"Stormin' " Norman Frye, started the Vol Market chain years ago and
operated the one on Cumberland Avenue for many years.

"This is a challenge to anybody," said Alan Frye. "We're just protecting
what we have worked long and hard for, and protecting our customers. We
don't want to shoot anybody. But we couldn't be in this business without
the pistols."

The state does not track how many business owners with carry permits who
openly display firearms. Authorities say there are probably not many.
But the Vol Market folks are not alone.
Knoxville Police Dept. Lt. Eddie Biggs said some pawn shop owners wear
handguns openly.

"The main problem I see is, if a police officer who is not familiar with
the owner rolls up on an adverse situation, it may pose a problem to
determine who is the good guy and who is the bad guy," Biggs said.

In addition to its thriving food and deli business, Vol Market has a
check-cashing service, which requires a lot of cash be on hand to cash
payroll checks for customers.

Store employees have been carrying guns openly after the 1996 carry
permit law went into effect. Since then, it has not been robbed but was
burglarized three times. And several persons who tried to cash stolen
checks were detained by employees until police arrived.

"We are not trying to be police officers, we just want to protect what
is ours," said Frye's co-owner, Rich Nichols, 32. "We've never had to
draw the guns."

At any given time, at least two armed people will be in the store, Frye
and Nichols said. Going armed is not mandatory, and some employees are
never armed.

About 75 to 80 percent of their business is from regular customers, and
none has expressed apprehension about the guns, the owners said.

"Some customers, after they've cashed a big check, will ask us to escort
them to their cars, and we are glad to do it," Nichols said.

The training course for a carry permit includes reminders that the gun
can be used only in the case of imminent threat to their lives or the
lives of another.

"So if someone wants to come in here and scuffle, we've still got
baseball bats and axe handles for that," Nichols said.

But in the case of a robbery, Frye said, he would surrender money before
risking a customer's life, but is willing to risk his own life.

"I will not surrender the money, I will die first," he said. "That's not
about money. This store is my life. We've sacrificed time, we've
sacrificed relationships, for it. So if it comes down to just Rich or
myself being the ones at risk, we are not going to just give up what
we've worked so hard for."

As for the value of guns as a deterrent, Biggs said, "A lot of that
ultimately depends on the mentality of the person who is contemplating
committing the offense. Are they high on drugs and don't care? Are they
willing to just go in and take out (the armed person) first?"

That is something that Frye and Nichols likely think about often. In
1990, Frye's uncle, Windham M. "Bill" Frye, 65, was killed by a shotgun
blast in the parking lot of his market in South Knoxville as he left
with receipts - and his .38-caliber handgun - after closing for
The bank bag with money in it was found by his body, along with the
handgun. It had been fired once. Investigators initially thought it was
a bungled robbery.

Six years later, two men were charged. They were 17 at the time of the
crime and had been in the store earlier. One maintained his innocence,
but was convicted and sentenced to life in prison. A charge of accessory
against the other was dropped. Since there was no confession by the
shooter, it remains uncertain exactly what happened.

It is possible that Bill Frye lost his life because he had the gun, that
a would-be-robber chose to take him out. But Alan Frye thinks that his
uncle was more likely shot for some other reason, possibly lingering
rage over his refusal earlier to sell the youths cigarettes.

Dave Neusel, owner of Big Ed's Pizza in Oak Ridge, carries a .45-caliber
handgun at work, sometimes more openly than at other times. On Dec. 13,
he thwarted a robbery attempt as he was leaving the store.

"Had I not had the firearm, at the very least I would have been held
up," he said. "I look at it as an ounce of prevention."

The robber fired several wild shots as he ran away, but Neusel did not
fire back, he said, because he was by then under safe cover and no
longer in danger.

"If this is their choice to deter robbery, then so be it," Rob Wilcox,
spokesman for the pro-gun control group Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun
Violence, said of business owners who wear guns. "But I have not seen
any statistical evidence that it would deter a robbery, or that it would
not deter robbery."

John Lott, a former economics and law professor at the University of
Chicago, is the author of "More Guns, Less Crime." He said states that
issue the most handgun carry permits generally have the biggest drop in
violent crime, but the value of carrying weapons in the open versus
concealing them not been thoroughly studied .

"My guess is that criminals are more likely to stay away from stores
that have (guns openly displayed)," or will just take out the armed
employee first, he said. But from among a group of people who may have
concealed guns, a criminal would have the disadvantage of not knowing
who might be armed and willing to defend themselves.

"Minnesota recently adopted a concealed carry law, and some businesses
put up signs proclaiming that they were 'gun free,' " Lott said.
"A couple of those stores have been robbed. So there has been a move
among some store owners to reconsider advertising the fact that they are
not armed."


Posted on Sep 5, 2003, 4:45 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home

(IN) Woman shoots home invader 09-04-01


(IN) Woman shoots home invader 09-04-01

Alleged home intruder shot, 'critical'
By Masaaki Harada
The Journal Gazette

A Fort Wayne man was in critical condition at an area hospital late
Tuesday after a woman shot him as he tried to force his way into her
house early Tuesday, city police said.

Brian M. Bloebaum, 36, of Fort Wayne, was shot about 12:30 a.m. Tuesday
at the front door of a house in the 1400 block of Kenwood Avenue by
Evangeline Becker, 47, who lives there, police said.

Becker went to the front entrance after she heard glass breaking. She
saw Bloebaum armed with a weapon and fired a gun, police said.

Becker told police she fired a weapon and might have hit the intruder.

Officers found Bloebaum just west of the house, suffering from a gunshot

Police did not specify the type of weapon Bloebaum was carrying. Neither
Bloebaum nor Becker was arrested.

Officer Robin Thompson, a police spokeswoman, said the case remains
under investigation by Fort Wayne police and the Allen County
Prosecutor's Office.

Posted on Sep 5, 2003, 4:43 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home

(OR) Rancher justified in killing fugitive intruder 09-03-03


(OR) Rancher justified in killing fugitive intruder 09-03-03


Jury says rancher justified in killing
published September 3, 2003

A Klamath County grand jury has decided that a Gilchrist man was
justified in killing an intruder.

The grand jury said David Crider "reasonably believed" the intruder was
about to use deadly force.

In the early morning of July 16, David Crider shot and killed Mark
Timothy Nelson, 26, of Vancouver, Wash.

Nelson had broken into the Criders' house, the grand jury said, and
David Crider "believed Mark Timothy Nelson was committing or attempting
to commit a burglary. ... Crider reasonably believed ... Nelson was
about to use deadly force against both Mr. Crider and his wife."

The night before the shooting, Deschutes County sheriff's deputies
attempted to pull Nelson over, but he fled south on U.S. 97 in a 2003
Chevrolet pickup with Washington plates. Speeds ranged from 55 mph to 85
mph, police said.

Police placed a spike strip on Highway 97 near milepost 179 in northern
Klamath County. After rolling over the strip, the suspect's vehicle
limped farther on the highway, then left the road and went down a
50-foot embankment at around midnight. Nelson fled on foot.

Oregon State Police contacted the Criders, whose residence is about half
a mile from where the pickup stopped, telling them there was a suspect
in the area.

At around 4 a.m. the Criders heard someone breaking into their house.
David Crider saw Nelson in his house who appeared to have a weapon in
his hand.

Crider told investigators he saw Nelson draw back his arm, and he
appeared to have something in his hand. Chief Deputy District Attorney
Dave Groff said investigators found a two-foot piece of PVC pipe near
Nelson's body.
Crider shot Nelson once with a .357-caliber rifle.

The Criders then called 911.

At the time, police believed the shooting was in self-defense and
justifiable. Authorities said they sent the case to the grand jury
because they wanted it to make a judgment about the facts.

In a letter, Nelson's father, Thomas Nelson, also of Vancouver, has said
that his son was hit on the head in a fight with another man. The blow
seemed to change the younger Nelson, his father said.

"The person who ran from the police and tried to enter a house wasn't
the son my wife and I loved," Nelson said, "or the man who had many
friends who loved him."

Crider and three investigators testified before the grand jury, whose
hearings are not public.

The grand jury made "the proper decision legally and from a common sense
perspective," said Ed Caleb, Klamath County district attorney. "He was
protecting himself and his family, which is allowed under the law.

"There was enough evidence presented to the grand jury for them to see
that the shooting was justified under the law."

Posted on Sep 5, 2003, 4:38 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home

(OH) Resident shoots one burglar, captures second 09-04-03


(OH) Resident shoots one burglar, captures second 09-04-03

Falls burglary victim shoots suspect, 19
He holds second at gunpoint until police arrive
By Ed Meyer
Beacon Journal staff writer

One man was shot and his alleged accomplice was held at gunpoint by a
burglary victim at the Studio City apartments in Cuyahoga Falls early
Tuesday, police said.

The victim, Louis E. Caporaletti, 43, was awakened during the burglary
attempt at 12:45 a.m. and confronted the two suspects, police said.

During a scuffle, police said Caporaletti produced a 9 mm handgun, fired
three times and wounded one of the suspects, 19-year-old Christopher D.

Police said Caporaletti held the second suspect, 20-year-old Christopher
H. Thrasher, at gunpoint until officers arrived at the 2299 Winter
Parkway apartment.

Walker was taken to Akron City Hospital, where he underwent surgery for
his wound, police said.

Police Lt. Tom Pozza said both suspects were charged with aggravated
burglary and robbery.

Thrasher, who gave police an address in Tuskegee, Ala., was being held
at the Summit County Jail in lieu of a $10,000 cash bond.

The condition of Walker, also listed by police as a Studio City
apartment resident, was not available.

Police had no other details, and Caporaletti did not return calls
seeking comment.

Posted on Sep 5, 2003, 4:39 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home

(MS) Homeowner rids the world of career criminal 09-04-03


once again, an Armed citizen did something the justice system failed to do

(MS) Homeowner rids the world of career criminal 09-04-03

Slain burglar had served 4 prison terms
Break-in provokes deadly response from homeowner
By Jeremy Hudson

Anthony Mayers lived the life of a criminal, in and out of jails and
prisons for more than a decade. On Wednesday, he died a criminal's
death, shot while breaking into a house in northwest Jackson.

Sinartha Bradfield, 31, of 1807 Linda Lane, fired a shotgun blast
through his bedroom window when he heard the glass in the window being
broken out, police said. Mayers, 31, of 304 Jennings St., was fatally
struck in the chest.

There was a small puddle of blood beneath the window Wednesday
afternoon; the center pane of the back bedroom window had been broken,
and a hole from the shotgun blast was left in the bottom-left pane.

It appeared the burglar bars on Bradfield's bedroom window had been
pulled off.

"I hate this happened, but if people continue to commit these kind of
crimes, it's bound to happen," said Jackson police Sgt. Joe Wade.

Mayers had been arrested 14 times since 1992, mostly on burglary
charges, and weathered four stays at the Mississippi State Penitentiary
in Parchman, state and county officials.

Jackson Police Department spokesman Robert Graham said no charges have
been filed against Bradfield.

Bradfield could not be reached for comment.

The case has been referred to the Hinds County district attorney's
office to decide whether grand jurors should hear it.

"It's going to be a tough sell to convict the homeowner, especially if
the facts are what they appear to be," said Matt Steffey, a law
professor at Mississippi College. "The jury will have to ask itself, 'Is
this what a reasonable person would have done to protect himself?'
Certainly waking up to shattering glass is a very frightening thing."

State law says a homicide can be considered justifiable if a person is
protecting himself from being killed or from becoming the victim of a

Prosecutors also may take into account Mayers' lengthy criminal history
in deciding whether to pursue the case, Steffey said.

Mayers had gotten out of Parchman on July 16, after serving more than
two years for grand larceny, said Claire Papizan, a spokeswoman for the
Mississippi Department of Corrections.

A warrant was issued for his arrest Aug. 13 after Mayers failed to
report to his probation field officer, Papizan said. "We were actively
looking for him," she said.

Mayers' mother, Dela Mayers, would not comment.

Bradfield's home is nestled in a quiet cul-de-sac off Northside Drive.
Each window at his home is protected by burglar bars, while only one of
his neighbors' homes has partial protection by burglar bars.

"This is a real quiet neighborhood," said Paulette Trimble. "But I did
hear something like a boom (Wednesday morning) but I didn't see what it
was. I can't believe that happened here."
Maranda Joyner, another neighbor, was awake Wednesday morning when she
heard a commotion outside. She said other houses in the area have been
burglarized in the past and doesn't think Mayers' shooting will deter

"It's not like this is the first time this has ever happened," Joyner
said. "People are still going to be greedy and are still going to do
these kind of things."

There have been 2,154 house burglaries in Jackson this year, according
to police statistics.
Mayers shooting death marked Jackson's 30th homicide of the year

Posted on Sep 5, 2003, 4:41 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home

(CT) Homeowner shoots intruder 09-04-03


(CT) Homeowner shoots intruder 09-04-03

??Self-defense eyed in incident's wake
Norwich Bulletin; gasmith@norwichbulletin.com
Rory Glaeseman/Norwich Bulletin
A man was shot during a alleged burglary at a home in Salem Turnpike in
Norwich Friday night.

NORWICH -- Police and Second Amendment experts await a decision by the
New London State's Attorney's Office on whether a 61-year-old Norwich
man had a legal right to shoot an intruder in his home.

On Friday night, George Blacker, of 433 Scotland Road, shot one of two
burglars who entered his house at 154 Salem Turnpike house.

The home, police said, was not Blacker's primary residence.

But, according to police, it was where William Derose, 43, and an
unnamed accomplice are suspected of forcing entry shortly after 10 p.m.
Police found evidence of a door being pried open.

Blacker, according to police, was inside waiting with a shotgun.

As of Wednesday, no warrant had been issued for his arrest. And Blacker
has been unavailable for comment.

Derose, of 61 Union St., Apt. 1, is being treated at The William W.
Backus Hospital in Norwich, where family members said he was undergoing
surgery Wednesday.

A woman who identified herself as Derose's wife said she has hired a
lawyer, but declined other comment Wednesday.

West Hartford lawyer Ralph Sherman, without knowing specifics of the
case, said absolutely a homeowner has a right to protect his own

"Your home is your castle," Sherman said. "If two guys want to take that
much risk to break into a place at night, what choice did he have?"

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution simply states: "A well
regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the
right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Sherman, who is also chairman of Gunsafe, a coalition of Connecticut
residents committed to preserving the Second Amendment rights, said
state law allows the use of deadly force if someone is forcibly entering
a home.

Norwich Police Detective Sgt. Stephany Bakoulis said arrest warrants
have been issued for Derose and his unnamed accomplice.
Bakoulis, without discussing specifics of the case, said police
discourage the use of deadly force. Someone should weigh the cost of
using a weapon against an unknown intruder, he said.

"The most important thing is your life," Bakoulis said. "To be able to
live would be the most important thing, I would think. Property is
replaceable. You can't replace your life."

Earlier this year, an elderly Norwich couple was bludgeoned to death by
a burglar who entered their Adelaide Road home.

A person is justified in using deadly force to defend himself "when he
has a reasonable belief that he is in eminent danger of bodily harm,"
Sherman said.

"What's the alternative?" Sherman added. "It's his place. Do people
expect he was going to wait for someone to bash his head with a pry

Gun right advocates, such as Michael Dane, president of the Connecticut
State Rifle and Revolver Association, believe that protecting your own
property is allowed under Connecticut law.

The group's primary focus is education and training in safe handling of

"I've been fortunate not to ever have to use a firearm in self-defense,"
Dane said. "I hope I never have to.

"My understanding of the law is you are legally entitled to defend your
possessions and your home," he added. "I think in general if it's a
clear case of home invasion ... the homeowner has a right to defend
himself. It may well be that police do not bring charges."

Norwich lawyer Frank Manfredi agreed, but said details of the case that
have yet to come to light could make the difference.

For instance, prosecutors will try to determine Blacker's state of mind,
whether he was lying in wait specifically for the purpose of surprising
intruders or whether he simply defended himself.

"In some circumstances you could use deadly force," Manfredi said. "It
doesn't mean someone won't be charged."

Posted on Sep 5, 2003, 4:42 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home

Laugh or Cry


Unless my friends in the NRA have been smokin a big one lately, the latest notch on the bed post of stupid is the idea by legislators to categorize all handguns as weapons of mass destruction and all gun owners as potential terrorists. Talk about failing to live up to my potential!

Now allowing for how mind blowingly rediculous this is, it makes me think before cracking up in laughter.

What these paranoid pinheads are saying is that I myself, with two kids, a motorcycle, a camp and movies on weekends kind of guy who has never harmed anything bigger than a rabbit, and my little puff o smoke black powder guns, oh let me remember my .357 and tiny nine mil, are to be classed as the same kind of people as some goon from a dictatorship who has been brainwashed all his life into the idea that his ultimate purpose is to crash a plane, detonate a bomb, or otherwise terrorize a bunch of innocent people. From what I've observed of these guys, they appear on an intellect level barely better than an acorn squash, but that is my personal opinion.

Hmm, I'll have remember that when I go this weekend to get supplies for my next reenactment that I need to go berzerk, and in the name of... (gee, I'll have to think about that part, since I'm not big on blaming God for a desire to kill) I suddenly have to turn my tiny gun loose on the folks at Wal Mart. Perhaps I'll have my desciple do it, while she comps the ads and maybe she can find a moment to use some fertilizer to whack about fifty people before checking eggs for cracks in the cold aisle.

Could these people be anymore desperate? They must be getting low on new ideas. Gene

Posted on Sep 3, 2003, 6:21 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home

(CT) Homeowner shoots one of two burglars 09-01-03

by Armed Citizens Help Deter Crime

(CT) Homeowner shoots one of two burglars 09-01-03

Alleged Burglar's Condition Upgraded After Being Shot
Homeowner Reportedly Protecting Home

The condition of a man whom a police representative said was shot in the
abdomen by a homeowner during an apparent burglary attempt has been
upgraded to good, a spokeswoman for The William W. Backus Hospital said.

Police had not charged William Derose, 43, of Norwich, as of Sunday
night. His condition was upgraded from stable to good. Investigators
continued working on the case Sunday, including looking for a second
suspect in Friday's incident. George Blacker, 61, of Norwich, told
police that he shot one of two men who entered his home on Salem
Turnpike at about 10 p.m. Friday, the Norwich Bulletin reported. Blacker
was not hurt. Derose was found at the scene with a shotgun wound to his
abdomen, police said.

Police said Derose and a second man apparently forced their way into the
house during a burglary attempt. State police joined the search for the
second suspect, who was not found.

Posted on Sep 2, 2003, 8:45 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home

(CA) Armed resident helps police capture bank robber 08-31-03

by Armed Citizen Help Deter Crime

(CA) Armed resident helps police capture bank robber 08-31-03

Bank robbery suspect is shot
By Elizabeth Hume -- Bee Staff Writer
Published 2:15 a.m. PDT Saturday, August 30, 2003

A Friday evening bank robbery ended in a Fair Oaks back yard with one
suspect shot after confronting an armed homeowner, another suspect
arrested and money floating in a swimming pool.

The incident began about 5 p.m. when the Wells Fargo branch at 2301 Watt
Ave., in the Country Club Center, was robbed.

Sacramento County sheriff's spokesman Sgt. Lou Fatur gave the following
description of the evening's events:

A brown Mazda that matched witnesses' descriptions was spotted by a
Sacramento police helicopter in the Fair Oaks neighborhood near Winding
Way and San Juan Avenue. A pursuit ensued until the Mazda hit a parked
car and crashed on the 4400 block of Plantation Drive.

"Officers see them jump out of the car and run in opposite directions,
possibly armed," Fatur said.

The driver was quickly tackled and arrested.

The passenger crossed the street and climbed a fence into a back yard.

When he broke into the house through the back door, he was confronted by
the 56-year-old homeowner, who had grabbed his pistol.

The intruder shot at the homeowner, who returned three shots before
dropping to the ground when he saw officers enter his back yard.

The robber then turned toward an oncoming Sacramento police officer. The
veteran of 3 1/2 years fired two shots, and the wounded suspect fell to
the ground.

It's unclear whether the suspect was hit by the homeowner, the police
officer, or both, Fatur said.

The homeowner, whose name was not released, was not shot but did injure
his shoulder when he fell to the ground. He was taken to an area

The commotion astonished residents of the normally quiet neighborhood.

Scott Yesitis was in his house when he heard a circling helicopter and
an announcement being broadcast over its loudspeaker. He went outside to
find his street filled with officers.

"Every cop from the California Highway Patrol to Sacramento police to
Sacramento County sheriff's to Citrus Heights police were on the
street," Yesitis said. "Then we heard a couple of pops and ran back into
the house."

Officers were at the scene late into the night, gathering thousands of
dollars from the swimming pool and across the yard.

The names of the two men arrested were not released pending confirmation
of their identities.

"I think that the citizens of Sacramento should be really pleased that
all their law enforcement officers coordinated together so well -- this
was really a team effort," said Sacramento interim Police Chief Albert

The wounded man is a suspect in at least seven bank robberies since July
24, Fatur said.

In most of the robberies, a man matching the suspect's description
walked into a bank wearing a motorcycle helmet. He typically vaulted
over the counter with a gun in his hand and demanded money from the
tellers, Fatur said.

In many cases he fled in a stolen Toyota.
In the past weeks numerous agencies have been searching for the robber,
and Friday night, they were ready for him, Najera said.

The man also may be a suspect in six earlier robberies between June 2001
and early 2002.
"We've been after this guy for a long time," Najera said.

Posted on Sep 2, 2003, 8:41 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home

* Violent Crime at 30-Year Low

by Nancy

Cato Daily Dispatch
August 25, 2003



"All the indicators, from the sagging economy to the increase in newly
released ex-cons on the street, had led many criminologists to predict the
crime rate would go up. But it's not - at least according to the National
Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), released Sunday by the Bureau of Justice
Statistics. It found that violent crime and property crime are at a low not
seen since 1973," reports the Christian Science Monitor (
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0825/p01s01-usju.html ).

"In 2002, there were 23 violent crimes per 1,000 people, compared with 25
victimizations per 1,000 people in 2001. A decade ago, the victimization
rate was twice as high, meaning there's been a 54 percent drop in violent
crime since 1993."

In "Fighting Back: Crime, Self-Defense, and the Right to Carry a Handgun", (
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-284.html ) attorney Jeffrey R. Snyder
writes that "shall-issue" concealed-carry gun laws may be one way of curbing
violent crime.

"Citizens have the right to defend themselves against criminal attack-–and
that the last thing government ought to be doing is stripping its citizens
of the most effective means by which they can defend themselves," says
Snyder. "Carrying a handgun in public may not be for everyone, but it is a
right that government ought to respect."

Posted on Sep 1, 2003, 5:14 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home


by Nancy


By Larry Pratt
September 1, 2003

The Bias Against Guns is the title of John Lott's latest book. It is well worth reading.

Lott, an economist, is a good researcher and writer. His account of the multiple murder at the Appalachian School of Law in Grundy, VA in January, 2002 is an eye-opener.

Lott did a search in the media database called Lexis-Nexis to find articles written about the shooting. The base contained 208 unique articles, and one of them by the Associated Press would have been picked up by literally thousands of newspapers. Other articles would have also had widespread distribution.

Of the 208 articles about the law school shooter, only four mentioned that there had been a defensive gun use. Indeed, two students upon hearing the shots, ran to their vehicles and brought their guns within the 1,000 foot gun-free zone that has been unconstitutionally established by federal law. They encountered the murderer as he was finishing reloading. At the sight of their guns drawing down on him, he surrendered.

Only two articles mentioned that latter detail of the defensive guns actually being pointed at the thug. The Associated Press article was one that mentioned nothing of the defensive gun use. Lott contacted the author of the article who admitted that the defensive gun use should have been included. She apologized for the lack of space. One of the Associated Press executives, Jack Stokes, the AP media relations manager, said that he had been shocked upon learning that students carrying guns had subdued the gunman: "I thought, my God, they're putting into jeopardy even more people by bringing out these guns."

If Mr. Stokes could not get his mind past that fact that the two students had saved numerous other lives by "bringing out these guns," no wonder the media almost never reports on defensive gun uses.

While many such cases are never reported to anybody, Lott points out that there are 10 times more defensive gun uses each day than there are criminal uses of guns. Many do not get reported to the police because it would do no good - the bad guy fled when he saw the victim pull a gun. Sometimes no report is made of a defensive gun use because the good guy was carrying without the government's permission. And 95 percent of defensive gun uses occur without a shot ever being fired. Still, Lott found that defensive gun uses tend to get reported in a local paper, but not get picked up by the national media - unlike criminal uses of guns.

The recent Jason Blair scandal at the New York Times should have come as no surprise to John Lott. He had already exposed the tendentious claims and shoddy research of Times reporters Ford Fessenden and Fox Butterfield. Fessenden contributed to a series of articles purporting to show that the Brady Law had reduced rampage killings. But when Lott looked at their own data, he found that rampage killings increased after the passage of Brady. Butterfield simply took the word of anti-gun academics without checking to see if their information were correct. It was not. No academics who believe that gun control can lead to more crime were ever consulted.

In a similar vein, Lott explains how public opinion polling can promote support for more gun control. When questions are asked if more gun control is needed, or do we have enough, there is never an option given to respond that we have too much, or that gun control helps criminals and results in more crime. Lott has thus given us a very concise understanding of how polling is rigged to produce pro-gun control responses.

Lott examines the data regarding the impact of so-called "safe storage" laws and finds that they actually endanger people and result in more crime, not less. Of course, proponents of storage laws do not believe in self defense, so they see no problem with scaring people into locking up their safety.

Preventing accidental deaths is supposedly a major objective of the supporters of these laws. But it would be hard to reduce the accidental deaths from firearms in this country since they have been falling steadily over the last several decades. Locking up their safety actually results in getting people to depend less on themselves and a loaded gun they keep handy for self defense. They end up relying exclusively on calling 911 - a good way to get killed while waiting for the police.

My interview with John Lott can be found at http://gunowners.org/radio.htm. The Bias Against Guns is available at a 25 percent discount from the Gun Owners Foundation bookstore at http://gunowners.com/bookst.htm.

© 2003 Larry Pratt - All Rights Reserved

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts


Larry Pratt has been Executive Director of Gun Owners of America for 27 years. GOA is a national membership organization of 300,000 Americans dedicated to promoting their second amendment freedom to keep and bear arms.

GOA lobbies for the pro-gun position in Washington and is involved in firearm issues in the states. GOA's work includes providing legal assistance to those involved in lawsuits with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the federal firearms law enforcement agency.

Pratt has appeared on numerous national radio and TV programs such as NBC's Today Show, CBS' Good Morning America, CNN's Crossfire and Larry King Live, Fox's Hannity & Colmes, MSNBC's Phil Donahue show and many others. He has debated Congressmen James Traficant, Jr. (D-OH), Charles Rangel (D-NY), Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), and Vice President Al Gore, among others. His columns have appeared in newspapers across the country.

He published a book, Armed People Victorious, in 1990 and was editor of a book, Safeguarding Liberty: The Constitution & Militias, 1995. His latest book, On the Firing Line: Essays in the Defense of Liberty was published in 2001.

Pratt has held elective office in the state legislature of Virginia, serving in the House of Delegates. Pratt directs a number of other public interest organizations and serves as the Vice-Chairman of the American Institute for Cancer Research.

The GOA web site is: http://gunowners.org. Pratt's weekly talk show Live Fire is archived there at: http://www.gunowners.org/radio.htm E-Mail: ldpratt@gunowners.org

Posted on Sep 1, 2003, 4:46 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home


by Nancy

Fair use


By Larry Pratt
June 12, 2003

Brian Rohrbough is the father of one of the victims at Columbine. In an interview I conducted with him for my talk show Live Fire, my listeners were informed of the continuing lawsuits pursued by Rohrbough to pry the information from the authorities who have engaged in a massive cover-up.

The killers were well-known to the school and the police as very dangerous characters. After stealing equipment from a van, they were reported to have made death threats against a student. The Sheriff denied that any such report had been made, but unhappily for the Sheriff, the father had kept a copy of the report on the official form used for that purpose.

Rohrbough said that other death threats had been made, as well. The police had recovered from the killers pipe bombs which had been reported to them.

A year before Columbine, a search warrant was drawn up to search the house of the killers but was never executed. For two years the Sheriff's department denied that there had been a warrant. It has now been revealed in court that the cops were lying. Rohrbough suspects that one of the killers' parents was close to someone in the Sheriff's department.

One of the killers was being medicated on a psychotropic drug. There is a line at many of the county schools in the cafeteria where the drugs are handed out. The schools get $1000 per year from the federal government for handing out the drugs that the parents pay for.

The Sheriff's department covered up the records of the juvenile diversion program that the killers had attended. The parents had described in documents for the program that the kids were angry. One of the killers answered questions on a form saying that he wanted to kill someone, wanted to kill himself and hurt as many people as possible. They wrote essays in a creative writing class where they described the joys of murdering innocent people. The only negative comment by the teacher who graded the paper was that you should not swear at people before murdering them.

In a class they produced a video depicting the blowing up of the school. The killers had been on the internet bragging about the bombs they built. They even put their names on the bombs.

Other video tapes were made by the killers bragging that they wanted to kill as many people as possible. They had a hit list, but that has not been released yet -- although Rohrbough is trying to get it in produced in court.

The school authorities reported concerns about the killers to the Sheriff department's school resource officer. The officer denied that he was ever told that information. This is one of the many lies that Rohrbough has uncovered in the over 30,000 pages of documents he has gotten out of the clutches of the authorities.

Rohrbough accuses the police of having been cowards. Most of the officers he hastens to add wanted to go in, but the first officers on the scene became cowards. They had a gun fight with the killers and ran to hide behind their cars instead of running into the school. Their cowardice soon became the orders from above, ultimately from the Sheriff himself.

There was about seven minutes before the killers killed anyone inside the school (two had been killed outside, including Rohrbough's son). Obviously, if the officers had gone into the building immediately, there is a great likelihood that many lives could have been saved.

It is now known that the police waited for three hours after they knew the killers were dead before they finally entered the building. This was the time during which a teacher bled to death in plain sight of the world.

Rohrbough has alleged that the county lied about 28 material facts. When he presented this in a case against the county, the judge said that the government is immune from criminal penalties when it lies. The county's defense, when they were caught lying, was to hide behind the doctrine of sovereign immunity which protects bureaucrats from liability for their misdeeds. As a result, they actually argued in court that they were not responsible for protecting the victims or the dying teacher.

As a result, Rohrbough's litigation has focused on freedom of information suits to obtain the documents which have exposed the government's lies.

The Governor's commission to investigate Columbine was on the verge of issuing a report saying that everyone in authority had done all they could when Rohrbough dug up the non-executed search warrant. The commission never did hammer the police for allowing two killers to roam the halls while the cops cowered outside.

The commission recommended two improvements. One was to improve communication technology between police departments and the Sheriff's office in the county. But Rohrbough has learned that the difficulty was solved almost instantly. The other recommendation was that troubled students not go to their diversion programs in the same car. That was all the commission could come up with!

Rohrbough lamented that there were no teachers or other adults with a concealed firearm in the school. He pointed to the case of Israel where teachers have been encouraged to arm themselves. Certainly, if the police are going to insist that they have no responsibility to protect victims from criminals, then it is unconscionable for the police and politicians to oppose people protecting themselves, including legalizing firearms for self defense in schools.

Rohrbough is of the opinion that the killers' accomplice who legally bought the guns for the killers had advance knowledge of the crime. According to her, she told the killers when she gave them the guns, "You're not going to do anything stupid, are you?" She was not prosecuted for transferring firearms to persons ineligible to own them. Rohrbough suspects that she was not prosecuted because she played the politically correct game of testifying that if there had been a gun show background check she never would have bought the guns.

One good thing that has resulted from the revelations of official misconduct was the defeat of the Sheriff in the next election.

© 2003 Larry Pratt - All Rights Reserved


Larry Pratt has been Executive Director of Gun Owners of America for 27 years. GOA is a national membership organization of 300,000 Americans dedicated to promoting their second amendment freedom to keep and bear arms.

GOA lobbies for the pro-gun position in Washington and is involved in firearm issues in the states. GOA's work includes providing legal assistance to those involved in lawsuits with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the federal firearms law enforcement agency.

Pratt has appeared on numerous national radio and TV programs such as NBC's Today Show, CBS' Good Morning America, CNN's Crossfire and Larry King Live, Fox's Hannity & Colmes, MSNBC's Phil Donahue show and many others. He has debated Congressmen James Traficant, Jr. (D-OH), Charles Rangel (D-NY), Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), and Vice President Al Gore, among others. His columns have appeared in newspapers across the country.

He published a book, Armed People Victorious, in 1990 and was editor of a book, Safeguarding Liberty: The Constitution & Militias, 1995. His latest book, On the Firing Line: Essays in the Defense of Liberty was published in 2001.

Pratt has held elective office in the state legislature of Virginia, serving in the House of Delegates. Pratt directs a number of other public interest organizations and serves as the Vice-Chairman of the American Institute for Cancer Research.

The GOA web site is: http://gunowners.org. Pratt's weekly talk show Live Fire is archived there at: http://gunowners.org/radio.htm E-Mail: ldpratt@gunowners.org

Posted on Sep 1, 2003, 4:56 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home


by Nancy


By Larry Pratt
June 17, 2003

As columnist Paul Craig Roberts has put it, "Law, once a shield of the innocent, is now a weapon in the hands of government."

Roberts is referring to a long and dangerous trend to expand the concept of crime to actions and non-actions in which no individual is harmed or threatened with harm. In our time one can be convicted of a felony and put in jail for killing a turtle, chopping down a tree, draining a swamp, polluting a body of water, and generally not doing everything that some bureaucrat says you have to do.

When we study socialist countries - be they Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union or too many others - we find a concept in the law called "crimes against the state." These are also sometimes called crimes against the people. In earlier days, they might have been called crimes against the king's peace. Biblically and constitutionally, crimes are against individuals and should result in capital punishment, restitution or acquittal. Non-criminal damages should lead to restitution. In the 17th and 18th centuries, this was how the criminal justice system operated in America.

Add to these crimes against the state that of possessing a prohibited object, specifically a firearm. Several local jurisdictions in the U.S. have banned a wide range of guns, and the federal government has banned a bunch as well. One need not commit a crime to risk being sent to jail for possessing a combination of metal, wood, and plastic parts.

What our founders required by law - carrying guns - is now illegal in many jurisdictions. And in all but Vermont and Alaska, permission is needed to exercise the "right" to bear a concealed firearm.

To the extent that the United States has imposed gun controls on a population "protected" by our Bill of Rights, we have a measure of how socialist our country has become. Our government was founded on the idea that individuals have God-given rights that need to be protected from that same government. Furthermore, government was seen as having no rights, but only a few well-defined duties. Socialism requires the reversal of our founding premises.

In Joyce Lee Malcom's study of Guns and Violence: The English Experience we find the record of how gun control came to England. It began to get very restrictive following World War II. Now that most guns have been confiscated (all legal guns were registered long ago), England is roaring into the socialist pit.

(Listen to my interview with Professor Malcolm about her book on the GOA web page. Go to http://gunowners.org/radio.htm and click on Previous Episodes.)

Margaret Thatcher sold off many government-owned industries when she was Prime Minister, but as we can see in the U.S., socialism through regulation can be just as stultifying as socialism in which the government owns the productive sector. Regulatory socialism was the Nazi model, proving that nominal private ownership does not prevent control from the center.

England is moving to crush other personal freedoms now that gun ownership has been virtually eliminated. Prime Minister Tony Blair has proposed restricting jury trials, eliminating the prohibition on double jeopardy and most ominously, proposing that an anonymous complaint be enough to put somebody in jail because he is deemed a danger to himself or the community.

Worse still, self-defense - even without a gun - is penalized. Everything else is monopolized in socialist England, so it is no surprise that self-defense becomes a monopoly of the state.

At the core of the Christian common law, the people are understood to be the owners of the law. Socialism considers law (and everything else) to belong to the government or to be controlled by it. The police are under the control of whoever owns the law.

Consider who are the most ardent gun control advocates in America. Senators Charles Schumer, Hillary Clinton and Diane Finestein are among the most eager to ban guns, and they are among the most socialist of our national politicians.

In the House, a dedicated opponent of firearms ownership and self-defense is Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, an avowed socialist. This can be said because she is a member of the House Progressive Caucus, which is affiliated with the Democratic Socialists of America, which is affiliated with Socialist International.

Socialism is based on the arrogant assumption that there are a few (elected or in power by force) who are uniquely suited to decide all issues of life. Folks who think like that are hardly likely to make an exception for their subjects to take personal responsibility for their own defense.

As a rule, the more socialist the politicians, the more they want to restrict gun ownership to those who protect politicians - whether that be law enforcement agencies or private security guards (such as the NY City armed detective who travels as an armed guard for Sen. Schumer). Law enforcement is in place largely to tell the subjects of the socialists to obey the regulations of the regime or risk being put in jail.

Socialists do not like bad attitudes among their subjects, as we saw at Ruby Ridge and Waco, or as we saw in Chicago when Secret Service officers threatened a woman who expressed her disgust with Bill Clinton.

Socialists have an "us versus them" view of society. They are angry and feel threatened when they hear criticism of their policies. Did you see Sen. Clinton screaming at the top of her lungs when some of her subjects disagreed with her position on the Iraq war? As one wag quipped, he thought she was talking to Bill when she first heard her.

In any case, a government that sports a "bad attitude" combined with the belief that one is everyone else's Big Brother will result in a socialist crusade against guns.

Fight socialism. Buy a gun.

Posted on Sep 1, 2003, 5:02 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home

and yet....


And yet every time we hear of a crime being deterred by a private citizen, one cannot help but notice that they dont sit and plan strategy, dont wear body armor, and dont have fancy logos. They have a regular gun from ordinary sources, and the balls to use it. I have not heard yet of a robbery averted by a citizen as he hid behind his car, but as he or she faced the criminal at point blank range. Maybe we waste too much time training our highly qualified "protectors".

Posted on Sep 2, 2003, 9:05 AM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home



I drive for a living. 18 wheels, ten tons minimum at any given time. To speed up is painfully slow, and usually ticks people off behind me for having to wait. There is no flooring the pedal and burning out. Stopping? Forget the nonsense from the Jackie Chan movies. To stop requires thought and calculation. It requires space, lots of it.

So I try to think well ahead and avoid trouble, plus when in a construction zone or near a ramp I slow down and let some of the outsiders in.

I have had many experiences, being cut off, sped past, a long list. One thing has happened more than once and I still am speechless when I see it:

If I'm turned left under a bridge I take both left turn lanes to let people know I'm turning and keep them clear. But now and then someone is so sure they have to be FIRST, and get there now that they will swing outside in the far right, then cut a right angle, that's right, a perfect right angle, cutting under my hood within possibly three or four inches of being hit. I am moving toward them at the time, and if I struck them I would go over the top and crush them to death. The faster I'm going, the harder they try to beat me. They brush within a hand's length of death, then drive on as if nothing happened. If I honk my horn I'm ignored or get the finger.

These are ordinary citizens, not stunt men, stricken with the foulest of ills: major stupidity.

What is the point of the story? Every one of these people has two things: a driver's license and a car.

I am always hearing about the evils of guns, how people need to rely on the police and keep posters of Rosie O'Donnell for reverence. The irony that amazes me is that these paranoids never stop to realize that the six o'clock news is replete with stories of speeders, drunk drivers, and in the last two nights one set of teens who ate a guard rail at 120 mph, as well as a woman who weaved through warning arms and met a train.

These people use a weapon far more common than a gun, which requires a license for which we must qualify. My license was much harder to get. These people choose to abuse their licenses knowing full well what risks they run and with total disregard for anyone but themselves. There are far more of them than gunners, far more accidents because of them than because of gunners, and they do this with FULL INTENT, such as a gun owner who points toward his face to watch a muzzle flash.

One other thing comes to mind: If I as a gun owner was to act reclessly and injure someone, I'd face criminal charges, a lawsuit (maybe more than one), jail time, loss of my license and having my guns taken away, for starters.

In Texas, drunks can get up to 18, that's right, eighteen arrests and they can remain out of jail. They continue driving, and may or may not lose their licenses. Speeders rack up the tickets. Have you ever known a shooter to go to class and get his ticket written off and insurance reduced, plus a free meal?? Yet a car can kill do damage equal to a firearm, and accounts for much more abuse.

How often do people cry out for car bans, car control, or more sensible car laws? Do we have a coalition to take drivers off the road who are hazzards? Possibly we could arrange the Moms Against Reckless Drivers march. I wonder if Rosie's limo driver speeds or misbehaves when Rosie pie and her highly protected classified kids are late for a show.

amazing ironies. Gene

Posted on Aug 30, 2003, 11:57 AM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home

Resolving Internal Conflict Around Self Defense

by Women Against Gun Control

Resolving Internal Conflict Around Self Defense


by Boothe Gregory

In response to "The Painful Reality of Self Defense," by Razel Wolf http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=1716

Dear Ms. Wolf,

Thank you for opening your heart and mind to the rest of us. Although I am a 41 year old male who has owned, used and cherished firearms (as much for their art and beauty as anything else) most of my life, I can certainly relate to your internal conflict. Holding the power in your hands to take another person's life is a heavy responsibility with potentially dire consequences. But it is very important to realize that your Creator endowed you with a right to your life, a right to be secure in your person and even in your property (the fruits of your labor).

When another person, for whatever reason, decides to violate those rights, then he or she implicitly forfeits their own rights. The "baddy" is gambling that they can trespass on you with impunity. And if the "baddy" is bigger and meaner than you, the only logical recourse is an equalizer (the possession of which I commend you for). By taking on this awesome responsibility you project safety and peace into your community as well as for yourself.

As more Americans re-shoulder the responsibility for their own safety and security, their communities become less and less attractive to predators. When more people carry concealed weapons, the likelihood of predators meeting untimely ends increases -- and the predators know it. Therefore they are less likely to pursue their unwholesome professions.

So by arming yourself, not only do you contribute to the security of your community, but you also help forcibly reform many nominal criminals out of fear of you, the armed citizen. And the effect is synergistic, since the "baddies" will perceive the threat to them being more than what it probably is.

The catch phrases, "Peace through superior firepower," and, "An armed society is a polite society," are much more than propaganda. They are simple, logical truth rooted in human nature and the survival instinct. In other words, the fact that you have armed and trained yourself actually helps you accomplish your heart's desire: a kinder, more peaceful world. Keep up the good work!

[Editor's Note: In a second message to Razel, Boothe had the following words of wisdom and personal experience to share. Razel said these words resolved philosophical conflicts that she had struggled with for 20 years.]

Dear Razel,

Despite all our efforts at establishing equality between the sexes, I find certain truths to remain. Women tend to be more thoughtful, caring and compassionate than men (thank God!). Consequently, they will feel more for a another person, even if that person is a predator, and then weigh the decision to harm that person with their heart.

Men tend to look at a predator who is threatening person, family and property as nothing more than a silhouette target with fangs. Just basic, unfeeling logic (i.e. the same mindset that can't understand why "she" is so upset that I forgot our anniversary). I contend that without the tempering influence of female compassion in our lives, we men would constitute a thoughtless and uncivilized lot.

I think your deep rooted compassion for your fellow man is the source of your internal conflict. I doubt you will "get over it," and I would not want you to do so. If you did, you wouldn't be you. You can, however, rationalize your decision on the intellectual level, and accept that decision without hardening your heart.

And you can still train diligently to respond to a bad situation automatically. That will take over if the time comes for an armed confrontation (and I hope it never does).

Look at your firearms like you would a seatbelt or fire extinguisher: it's just a tool. You don't wear a seatbelt because you want to have a car accident any more than you keep a fire extinguisher around because you want to set fire to your dwelling. But they sure are nice to have if you need them! The same holds true for a gun.

Therefore, you don't keep a gun around because you want to do someone harm. Quite the contrary, by having a potent means of self defense, you may avert violence altogether if the time comes. A predator is more likely to back down and run than to stop a bullet. So the mere presence of the firearm may enable you to resolve a conflict without violence.

I have trained several women in the use of arms in self defense over the years. In 1987 a man broke into my home and attempted to rape my wife. He never touched her. She responded reflexively and shot him. He lived through it and went to prison for four years. It stopped the serial "towel rapes" that were going on in the Newport News, Virginia area at the time. Who knows how many other women she saved from the same fate, simply by being armed and trained to respond? So I speak from personal experience.

If you ever feel the need for support or encouragement, I would be happy to respond to you. Feel free to write any time. Just remember that you are doing the right thing by being responsible for your own life. May you have a long, healthy, safe and prosperous one.

In Liberty,

Boothe Gregory
West Plains, Missouri

Other "Women & Guns" Articles

Safety in Being Different by Trisha
A Mother's Take on an MMM Event by Rebecca Anderson
The Painful Reality of Self-Defense by Razel Wolf
The Day I Discovered That HCI Wants Me Dead
A Mother's Message in Support of the Right to Keep And Bear Arms
Last Words by A.F. Branco
Forgive me, for I have sinned.
Feminine Protection by Lynn Burke
Why Women Should Care about RKBA by Sunni Maravillosa
Rhetoric or Action. The Choice May Save Your Life. by Alicia Wadas
Have Gun, Will Not Fear Any More (Susan Gonzalez Story)
Refuse to Be A Victim Again by K. L. A. Alford
A mother sticks to her choice to keep a handgun handy by Stephanie Madison
Moms with Guns by Diane Alden
Millions Moms March Dangerous To Women And Kids by Liz Michael
Guns Empower Women -- The Considered Opinion by Ava Jones
So You Want To See Me Naked? by Linda Prussen-Razzano
Woman Who Once Thought Guns are Bad Kills Would-be Rapist
Immigration To Freedom by Francesca Adjapon-Yamoah
Echoes of Gideon by Deborah Horton
Second Amendment Is Freedom; Don't Compromise by Nancy Herrington
Mother Of Suicide Loss Chooses Pro-gun Stance by Brenda Bernard Flowers
Why Does A Jewish 'Defense Organization' Want To Put Jewish Lives At Risk? by Debbie Schlussel
An Open Letter to American Jews by Sarah Thompson, M.D.
Truth Or Consequences by Maureen Seilaff
My Views by Mrs. Clara Pilchak
My Transformation From Anti-Gun Feminist To Armed Feminist by Katherine von Tour
The Shotgun In The Closet by May L. Lenzer
Refuse to Be A Victim Again by K.L.A. Alford
Give These Women Guns by Vin Suprynowicz
Women's Self-Defense by Charles Heller
Listen to the Women by L. Neil Smith
Women & Guns, by Dr. Michael S. Brown

Posted on Aug 29, 2003, 9:25 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home

Woman Who Once Thought "Guns are Bad" Kills Would-be Rapist

by Women Against Gun Control

Woman Who Once Thought "Guns are Bad" Kills Would-be Rapist

Like most women in this country, I was raised to be a victim. When the existence of guns would come up in my family, I was always told that "guns are bad" and that "only bad people would want to own a gun." I believed it... and that simple mistake has changed my life forever.

When I was a junior in college, I was brutally raped. As I had always been taught by the so-called experts, I didn't resist very strenuously, believing that I would only be hurt worse for fighting back. And I was lucky. No one had ever mentioned that a large portion of rapists kill their victims. Perhaps my living was an oversight, since I have been told that I very nearly bled to death from the personal injuries from the rape. I was lucky to live through a very painful recovery, and being reminded of my violation almost every time I went to the bathroom. I was lucky, because I lived to have almost five years of almost nightly waking up screaming. I was lucky to live. Many women are not so lucky.

And of course, I spent much of those five years playing mind games with myself, wondering what I did to invite the attack, what I could have done to abate or even deter it. And the worst part of it... the very WORST part of all of it... the infuriating knowledge that I did NOTHING to stop it. My rapist most likely continued on to do similar to other women after me. And I didn't do a damn thing to stop it. To this day, I have a hard time facing that knowledge. I consulted with various counselors and psychologists for a while, trying to "work through my rape-related misplaced guilt." Reliably, every counselor assured me that "there was nothing you could have done..." and that anything the rapist did after my own rape "is not my fault." Again, I was being trained to play the victim.

After five years of continuing nightmares, and finding no comfort in being "reassured" that, effectively, I really was as helpless as I felt, I began on my own to look into what I could have done. I took several "women's self-defense" classes, in which the strongest countermeasure taught was a chorus-line kick to the groin. As one of the few things I had tried during my rape, I can speak from experience that it only seemed to make my own rapist more excited. I was beginning to think that maybe everyone was right; maybe there is nothing a woman can do to protect herself from predators. In many ways, I felt more helpless than ever.

About six months ago, a small sign appeared at the local gym offering a free "two day self-defense seminar." I had little faith, but being free of cost and myself being free the requisite Friday and Saturday, I called the number and signed up. After going through the standard "don't walk dark alleys, lock yours doors, etc." speeches, the seminar turned to presenting guns as a viable defense. Had I known at the onset that this seminar would present guns in a positive light, I honestly would have never signed up - after all, guns are bad! Mostly out of politeness, I decided to stay to the next break rather than walking out. By the time the break came, I no longer wanted to leave. Here, at last, was a REAL way that I could have made a difference, not only to myself, but to any victims after me.

Over the next week, most of my free thought was involved in doing the soul-searching advised in the seminar - Could I REALLY pull the trigger against another person? If you knew more of the details of my own ordeal, you would understand why I found myself filling out an application for concealed carry shortly after. I had joined the "evil gun owners." If nothing else, at least I could now go down fighting instead of pleading for my life. While still very bad when they occurred, my nightmares finally began to come less often. While they had previously been reenactments of my rape, they now had become not being able to get to my safely locked gun in time. I began to unlock my handgun each night before going to bed. Seemingly paranoid or not, I felt safer doing so, and feeling safe has not been a common thing for me in the past few years.

Very sadly, about two months ago, I was awakened to the sound of something falling over in my apartment. I had almost gone back to sleep thinking it was the cat when I heard the door of my bedroom opening wider. As I had learned in the seminar, and subsequently drilled into my head, I was quickly propelled through my escalation sequence : I drew my handgun, and issued a single command to "freeze where you are." When the intruder not only continued to approach, but made a rude comment about what he was going to do to me, I double checked my aim squarely on his chest. As he crossed the "imminent threat distance," I was forced to pull the trigger. All told, it took two additional shots before he fully understood how seriously I was determined to stop him.

I have since been cleared of all charges (it WAS self defense, and perhaps surprisingly, the cops agreed). My nightmares have almost disappeared (I once dreamt of running out of ammo... but I still take this as a huge improvement!). While I have some guilt about having to shoot someone, I have never once regretted it. While this may seem vain or even sick to you, I will even admit to feeling something akin to pride for not only protecting myself, but also stopping one rapist permanently.

If you are a woman, please do not buy into the culture of learned helplessness, and please do NOT believe the lies about guns. They are the ONLY thing which empowers a woman sufficiently enough to protect herself against a violent attacker. If you think living with defensive homicide would be worse than being raped, you have clearly never had to walk that dark road - as someone who has, please learn from my own experiences before duplicating them.

If you are a man or a parent, please encourage the women in your life to seriously consider more serious protection than a cooking spice. Train yourself in the use of guns, and train any other members of your family and friends who are willing to accept responsibility. Remember, I would gladly replace my current "Never again" with "Never AT ALL" any day.

Please be safe, and God bless.

"Mary in VA"

Posted on Aug 29, 2003, 9:28 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home

Re: Woman Who Once Thought &quote;Guns are Bad&quote; Kills Would-be Rapist


very gripping, very sad, and in many ways, very triumphant. I will share this with my wife and sister, both of whom think "guns are bad". They both have been brainwashed by the prevalent gun bias that exists in the media. Anyone who would advocate denying a person the most effective means of self defense is truly despicable.

Posted on Sep 7, 2003, 2:07 AM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home

Forgive me, for I have sinned...An About Face After Being Saved by a Gun Owner

by Women Against Gun Control

Forgive me, for I have sinned.

An About Face After Being Saved by a Gun Owner

Sent in by Brian Clifford, from his Dear Friend

I am one of those people who you loathe. One of those invisible people who come into your living room without asking your permission. One of those people who follow you while you shop, and make it harder for you to make legal purchases. One of those people who try and tell you how to raise your children, as if you don't know how. One of those who gives ratings to stations that promote our demise as a free nation. I am your enemy. Or at least I was.

I followed it all, all of the propaganda, all of the hoopla. Believed it too. Believed that leaving my house was more dangerous than being in a war. At any given moment one of you evil gun owners would open fire on me. I saw the NRA stickers, the Gun owners of America stickers on the cars that passed, and I thought you were all fools. I did everything in my power financially to try and help more laws pass that would prevent you from owning guns. I wholeheartedly believed that only the Police, and Military should have guns. Every time I heard of a gang shooting, or other criminal act committed with a gun, I honestly believed that if we could curtail the legal sale of guns, we could make a difference.

Boy was I wrong.

I have children, three actually, and to me the only thing more important than raising them properly, was seeing that they aren't hurt in anyway. I wanted to ban guns, save my children, save all children. No child should have to be part of any kind of death, especially the kind that involves being shot. I gave money to all of the anti gun organizations I could think of, went to the "Million" Mom March, even looked at Rosie when she spoke, and actually admire her. Brought the kids as well, and even yelled some not so nice things to those other marchers. I'm sure some of you know who I refer to.

I was on my way back from the march, on my way back to Connecticut, when I stopped off of the highway at a rest stop by one of those McDonalds they have off I-95. By this time I had dropped off two of my kids with their father, and only had my little one with me. I went into the restroom with her, and on my way out noticed two men hanging out by my car. There were only two other cars in the lot at the time that were anywhere near my vehicle. I immediately felt threatened by their demeanor, but continued on to my car. The smaller of the two approached me with a knife as I was about to open the door to put my child in her car seat. He yelled at me to get in the back of the car, they were taking me for a little ride. I obviously told them to just take my keys, they could have the car, but they insisted I get in the back. I then heard a man yelling something I don't quite recall, and saw him running towards me with a gun in his hand. The two men vanished into their car, and sped away. I stood there frozen in time, and by the time the gentleman with the gun got to me I just broke down and cried.

To make a long story short, you were all right, and I'm sorry. This man with a gun saved me, and I just keep thinking if I had gotten my wish and guns were banned, there is no telling where I'd be, and what would've happened to my daughter. The only regret I have is not getting the man's phone number who saved my life. I thanked him over and over again, and told him that he saved me, but he calmly said to me something I'd never forget. He said "That's what people like me are here for Ms., and I'm happy to have been able to help."

"That's what people like me are here for," those words keep on running through my head everyday. Maybe this gentleman by some chance is part of your group, and will read my message. If he does I would just like to say something to him, and to everyone else reading this note.

Thank you for saving my life, and to the rest of you thank you for fighting for this man's right to protect me and my child. Tell him for me that I will no longer be part of the group who invades his home, and tries to tell him how to store his guns. Tell him I will never be part of any group who tries to make it impossible for him to buy his tool he used to save me. And tell him I will never again tell him how to raise his children properly, because obviously I was oblivious to the fact that responsible people such as him know how to raise their children better than I do. I did rectify that situation the other day; I bought a shotgun for home protection, and am in the process of getting my concealed permit. Next time I will be ready to defend myself, or others for that matter. Some of my friends think I'm crazy, but they try their best to understand. I just tell them that as soon as their child's life is put in jeopardy by some criminal with a weapon that they will understand, but until then don't tell me how to live my life. I've lost some friends, but surprisingly most of them understand. If not for this man I could very easily have been killed or raped, and my child could've been taken from me, so once more I need to say thanks for saving me, and with all sincerity to the rest of you, forgive me, for I have sinned.

Posted on Aug 29, 2003, 9:35 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home

Times Change, Gun Grabbers Remain the Same

by Nancy

Times Change, Gun Grabbers Remain the Same


If I could have a dollar for every time an anti-gun scum-sucking lie has been casually tossed into a news story and treated as reality, I wouldn't be sitting in this gray cubicle. No, I'd probably be lying on a sun-soaked beach somewhere well south, composing a story on a laptop when the urge infrequently struck, rather than my current write-or-starve motivation. I think there would be a frilly drink garnished with a purple umbrella in the sunny picture as well. Oh, and grilled lobster tails.

Haven't heard any lately? Sure you have. The lies have been spouted by sunny Katie on The Today Show, in AP wire stories under many names, and by Dan in the evening, repeated until they are accepted as truth. For example: 'Assault weapons are criminals' weapon of choice' (Less than 4 percent of homicides in 1997 involved any type of rifle.) Or how about 'One child is accidentally killed by a gun each day.' (True, but only if you count 18-24 year-old thugs as 'children.') The gun-grabbers use these lies to push public acceptance of a variety of useless gun control laws, such as the 'assault weapons' ban.

Outrageous, but ho-hum, nothing new here. Attempts to restrict the gun freedoms of Americans have been ongoing for centuries. In fact, a close look at the history of gun control in the United States reveals that removing guns from the hands of citizens has often been used as an underhanded method for elites to remove power from the people.

This is precisely what occurred in the state of Maryland in the 1700's and 1800's. What was different, however, was that the disarmament strategy of the wealthy planters in charge focused on a particular group of people, not all Americans. Within a few decades of the state's founding in 1631, the numerous tobacco plantations that sprung up required a lot of manpower to work them. Enter black slaves from Africa. As the nature of man dictates that he would prefer living in freedom rather than in leg irons, a nasty slave rebellion was always a possibility. And a nasty slave rebellion could grow far nastier if slaves had access to firearms. The wealthy planters in charge were aware of this, so the colonial assembly (consisting largely of slave owners) passed the first gun control law in Maryland that severely punished any black person who had a gun in his or her possession.

Chapter XLIV, Section XXXII of the Acts of 1715 stated:

"That no negro or other slave within this province shall be permitted to carry any gun, or any other offensive weapon, from off their master's land, without license from their said master; and if any negro or other slave shall presume to do so, he shall be liable to be carried before a justice of the peace, and be whipped, and his gun or other offensive weapon shall be forfeited to him that shall seize the same and carry such negro so offending before a justice of the peace."

Such efforts to disarm blacks continued after the Union victory in the Civil War. The Union's victory was due, in no small part, to the efforts of approximately 180,000 to 200,000 blacks who had served in the Union Army and comprised about 10 percent of the grand total. They were now free and trained in the use of arms. Former slave owners were a bit leery of running into one of their former slaves on the street, familiar with the use of arms and packing heat. Southern whites also realized that it would be far easier to discourage blacks from acting upon the "notions of a freeman" if they were unarmed and had no effective means to resist intimidation by their former masters.

Due to these unpleasant possibilities, Maryland adopted a new constitution after the war. A major sticking point during debate was the right to bear arms as it related to blacks. During the constitutional convention of 1867, the right to keep and bear arms was debated in the form of an amendment to what is now Article 28 to Maryland Declaration of Rights. Many delegates to that convention, who were either former slave owners or had served as officers in the Confederate army, were not about to guarantee the right of freed blacks to own guns. According to Debates of the Maryland Constitutional Convention of 1867, 150-51:
Article 28 was read as follows: "That a well regulated militia is the proper and natural defense of a free government."

Mr. Giddings moved to amend by adding after the word "government" the words, "and every citizen has the right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state."

Mr. Garey moved to amend the amendment by inserting the word "white" after the word "every".
Mr. Giddings' amendment failed, but it was white fear over free blacks owning guns was the critical factor in defeating the adoption of a right to keep and bear arms in Maryland's Constitution of 1867.

Of course, the above gun control examples of the past have nasty racist overtones that the current movement lacks. But say this for the gun grabbers back then: They were honest in their intentions. These folks were terrified of guns being in the 'wrong' hands (people of color), so they did all they could to prevent it.

In the 21st century, on the other hand, anti-gunners are extremely dishonest about their intentions. They use distortions and lies and shady policy to foist their agenda upon unsuspecting Americans under the guise of 'public safety' and 'national security.' Plus, they have much bigger aims than their ancestors - now they want to disarm not just blacks, but all law-abiding Americans. Well, at least that's one honest achievement for the Violence Policy Center and the Million Mom March - they've taken the racism out of gun confiscation.

How progressive of them.

Posted on Aug 29, 2003, 5:38 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home

Brothers in Arms

by Nancy

Brothers in Arms


I hunted once long ago - a most unsuccessful squirrel hunting expedition with Dad in 1986. While I enjoyed tromping in the woods with Dad's 12 gauge Remington and soaking in the blissful silence and quiet beauty of southern Ohio's rolling green hills, my passion for firearms today has little to do with long guns and hunting. I'm more interested in handguns, personal protection, and defending my family and me from those who would harm us.

Though I'm more into Kahr Arms than Bushmaster, utter the words 'assault weapons ban' around me and I go on full automatic invective. I vehemently oppose this silly busy-body legislative nonsense that does almost nothing to stop criminals and restricts the freedoms of law-abiding sportsmen and ordinary folks defending their property. With a little luck, this obscene legislation will die quietly next year when Congress does not reauthorize it. I may not have wielded a shot gun since I was an adolescent, but any attack on our 2nd Amendment rights is an attack on all of us. We're all in this fight for our rights together.

There go the wails and cries from the anti-gun bigots: "Aha! Another gun-hugging whack-job who opposes 'sensible and reasonable gun control laws!' These people are extremists! I bet they'd let anyone buy bazookas if they could! How can anyone oppose the ban of dangerous guns that thugs use to slaughter kids, Girl Scouts, and cute puppies?"

To paraphrase a particular former president, it all depends what the definition of 'sensible and reasonable' is. Gun grabbers tend to seize the 'sensible and reasonable' middle ground with their rhetoric, but the results are anything but to the millions of law-abiding gun owners in America. Quite a few supposed 'sensible and reasonable gun control laws,' including the 'assault weapons' ban, inevitably morphed into something other than sensible and reasonable - more like mindless, emotion-driven Trojan Horse dictates that do little to nothing to stop crime but run roughshod over our Constitutional rights.

The halls of Congress are littered with examples of freedom-choking anti-gun legislation that should never be allowed to become law. Take the misguided efforts regarding gun shows and background checks on private gun sales. Sen. John McCain really has his dress over his head on this one.

As most know, mandatory background checks have been in effect at gun shows for years on licensed dealers. This has done very little to stop crime - only about .7 (that's 7/10th of 1 percent) percent of criminal guns come from gun shows. Still, if it takes only a few minutes and I receive my gun then and there, I can deal with the background check.

That fight won, now the gun grabbers are pulling a classic bait-and-switch that would make the most odious used car salesman proud. Their latest holy grail is to close the mythical 'gun show loophole.' Their goal is to mandate background checks for Joe Six Pack who brings a gun from his collection to sell at the show. Calling this a loophole is disingenuous at best, and a lesser gentleman might call it a bald-faced, scum-sucking lie. Mr. Six Pack selling his 30.06 hunting rifle at a gun show is a private sale of a gun by a person who is not a gun dealer. Background checks don't apply to private sales, be it at a gun show, in my garage, basement arsenal, wheat field, or the nearest donut shop. Gun grabbers are quietly trying to use 'sensible' legislation passed for one stated purpose - requiring backgrounds checks at gun shows by licensed dealers - for an ominous, hidden purpose - restricting the private sale of guns between citizens. Outrageous! If the gun-grabbers succeed in regulating the private sale of firearms at gun shows, does anyone seriously believe they will saunter off into the sunset, fat and happy? Hardly. They will turn to the next target - regulating private firearm sales everywhere else.

Precisely the same scenario has played out with the 'assault weapons' ban. Anti-gunners foisted this seriously flawed legislation upon the public under the guise of public safety after a deranged killer opened fire on children at an elementary school in California in 1989 with a semi-automatic look-alike of an AK-47 fully-automatic assault rifle. The man had a long criminal record and a history of mental illness and should have been in jail. He killed 5 children and wounded 29 others in his psychotic killing spree.

In typical fashion, the gun control crowd unleashed its unholy fury - at the weapon the killer used. They also threw in a potent mix of deceit and deception by capitalizing both on the gun's military appearance and the public's lack of knowledge of firearms to create a new media boogeyman - the dreaded 'assault weapon.'

There was just one problem: The look-alike AK-47 semi-automatic in question, and other guns outlawed in the ban, aren't 'assault weapons.' These semi-automatic weapons are legitimate firearms used legally by millions of average citizens for hunting, home defense, and recreational shooting. True assault weapons are fully automatic and have been outlawed for purchase by the general public since 1938.
But goose-stepping gun grabbers never let facts interfere with their agenda. A new gun myth was born. 'Assault weapons,' which according to ignorant media mavens included many semi-automatic rifles that had a cosmetic militaristic appearance, were evil and had to be banned. And so they were. On September 13th, 1994, HR4296 a.k.a the Assault Weapons Ban, was enacted by Congress with the support of President Clinton.

As is typical with legislation passed in a fit of emotion, banning those guns had a minimal effect on crime. In fact, gun crimes committed with 'assault weapons' was hardly epidemic prior to 1994:

Over 100,000 police officers delivered a message to Congress in 1990 stating that only 2% to 3% of crimes are committed using a so-called "assault weapon."

The New York Times reported that, "Although New Jersey's pioneering ban on military-style assault rifles was sold to the state as a crime-fighting measure, its impact on violence in the state... has been negligible, both sides agree." Moreover, New Jersey police statistics show that less than 1 percent of all crimes involve "assault rifles."

The Bureau of Justice Statistics reported in 1995 that violent criminals only carry or use a "military-type gun" in about one percent of the crimes nationwide.

Less than four percent of all homicides in the United States involve any type of rifle. No more than .8% of homicides are perpetrated with rifles using military calibers. (And not all rifles using such calibers are usually considered "assault weapons.")

The effect on law-abiding citizens, however, has been more severe, because of the legislation's concentration on cosmetic appearances rather than on actual functionality. The law specifically outlawed 19 different firearms, plus any firearm that can accept a detachable magazine, and possesses two or more of the following features:
Folding or telescopic stock

Pistol grip protruding conspicuously beneath the stock

Bayonet mount

Flash suppressor or threaded barrel

Every item on the list at has some practical purpose. For example, a folding or telescopic stock allows the firearm to more easily be transported and stored, and would also be useful in a home defense situation where maneuverability is important. A flash suppressor reduces the visibility of the bright flash of light that is sometimes produced by firing in the dark. This would be very important for someone defending their family against an intruder in the middle of the night, as the flash would tend to temporarily hamper the shooter's vision.

The puny impact on crime rates and the brutal impact on citizens' rights reveal the true nature of all-too-much gun legislation today. Enacting 'reasonable and sensible gun laws' to 'reduce crime,' usually 'for the children,' is the false excuse used to foist yet more gun regulations on the only people who obey them - the law abiding. With more and more senseless gun legislation passing each year, peaceful gun owners are finding their firearm options more and more limited and expensive, which is precisely what the gun-grabbers are trying to accomplish.

Whether you are a hunter, target shooter, carry a gun for personal defense, or simply believe in The Bill of Rights as written and not how East and Left Coast intellectuals interpret it this week, opposing the renewal of the assault weapons ban legislation is the only sensible and reasonable action a 2nd Amendment-respecting citizen can take.

Posted on Aug 29, 2003, 5:40 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home

An NRA Conversion

by Nancy

New! An NRA Conversion

This article was published in The Washington Times on February 23, 2003, and also at the Gunowners of America Web site.

The bleeding man, stumbling and shouting in front of our Alexandria, Va. townhouse, awoke my wife and me late one Sunday night last autumn. He and another man had been arguing for about 10 minutes in the shadows of our dark cul-de-sac. After they ripped off each others' shirts, their argument escalated to blows and finally to a knife fight. Now one of them approached our door. My wife screamed. Was he armed and about to break in?

Already on the phone on hold for five minutes on the regular city police line, I hung up and dialed 911. The only gun in the house, Dad's old .22 bolt action Remington, sat useless in the closet with no shells. If this man wanted to harm us, there was literally nothing I could do, except throw lamps and use harsh language. And hope the law would save us.

As I waited for the police to arrive, fear clamped my heart, a nauseating, dead feeling of helplessness that comes with being at the complete mercy of unpleasant circumstances. But under that fear was a seething anger at myself for my current plight - a poor victim waiting for rescue.

In retrospect, it's somewhat surprising I was ever in such a helpless position. I grew up with firearms. When I was a boy some 20 years ago, Dad's .22 was as familiar as the web of veins on the back of my hand. It was with that gun behind Grandpa's house, tucked away between two fertile tobacco fields on a lonely kink in the Ohio River, that Dad taught me at age 8 to properly aim and fire at a target - usually an empty Pepsi bottle. The action was so worn I often cocked it 3-4 times to get off a shot. No mind, it seemed like the greatest gun in the world to me. When Dad allowed me to hunt for black birds alone when I turned 12, my chest swelled with pride.

As I grew up in the tranquil Ohio suburbs south of Cleveland, however, my interest in firearms waned. I went to college, married, had a son, bought a house in the city, the anti-gun rhetoric of the national press a persistent drumbeat on my subconscious. In my mind, firearms were just another tool, no different from an axe, rake, or shovel, certainly not worthy of any special, sacred status that the NRA assigned to them. And I couldn't understand the fanaticism of 'the gun lobby', whose members apparently wanted pistols adorning every hip in America. It's crazy, I thought, why would anyone be so obsessed about the right to own a firearm? Why do people get so fired up about the 2nd Amendment? What was the big deal?

My answer arrived in the form of a bleeding man at my doorstep. Fortunately, he hadn't meant us any harm, and the police soon arrived and hauled him away to the hospital. My wife and son went back to bed.

As I washed the pools of blood off my sidewalk with the garden hose and watched water tinged pink trickle into the gutter, I thought back to that moment of paralyzing fear when I held the phone in my icy hand, and my subsequent anger. Although everything had turned out fine, I had been completely powerless in the face of the unknown. The police were nowhere to be seen. For a moment, all the many protections and safety features of our modern society, in which some people place so much blind faith, were stripped away. At a potentially life-threatening moment, I was on my own. How many murder and rape victims have been in that situation, unarmed and waiting for the police to arrive?

For the first time, I thought about the naiveté of the gun control crowd, who steadfastly believe in their poor human ability to legislate evil criminal behavior out of existence by 'removing' guns from society. Washington, D.C., just on the other side of the Potomac River, has been a firm believer in this flawed thinking since 1976 when it banned gun ownership within its borders. In that time, murder rates have skyrocketed. In 1976, there were 702,000 citizens living in D.C. and 188 murders. In 1996, there were 543,000 citizens and 397 murders.* The city fathers were effective. Guns have disappeared in D.C. - from the hands of the law-abiding. There are more guns than ever in the hands of criminals, and they have a disarmed public to prey upon at their whim.

I also thought about the gun grabbers' complete reliance on law enforcement to protect us. As fine a job as police officers do, there aren't enough of them to prevent many serious crimes. It took the police more than five minutes to respond when I called 911. What could they have possibly done for us if that man had kicked in the door and blown gaping holes in my wife, son, and me with a .45, other than bag our cooling bodies for the leisurely drive to the morgue?

As I continued to hose the blood off the concrete, these thoughts were swept away by another - a deep new respect for the 2nd Amendment, one that penetrated down to my marrow. How wise The Founding Fathers were to recognize in The Bill of Rights our God-given right to self-defense. Our other constitutional rights don't matter a whit if we aren't around to enjoy them.

The next morning, sunlight shined bright through the bedroom window and when I glanced outside, the blood stains on the pavement were gone. I logged onto the NRA Web site later that day and paid the $35 membership fee to join four million other NRA members in defense of our Constitution.

In the weeks after, I obtained my concealed-carry permit in Virginia and purchased a Glock 19 as a means to defend my family from those who would do us harm.

Today I stand as another strong, proud convert to the side of America's 1st Freedom. And I am confident that 10 years hence, when my son is 18, America will have one more.

Posted on Aug 29, 2003, 5:45 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home

Listen up, people, I have an eye opener for you,(screaming voice directed at do-gooders...

by Nancy

From a friend who works inside jails.........
Listen to the inmates and LEARN! Gun Control IS NOT CRIME CONTROL!

Listen up, people, I have an eye opener for you,(screaming voice directed at do-gooders making self defense impossible for the law-abiding).
I recently asked an inmate doing life, who I know reasonably well, how long it would take him to get a gun if released tomorrow. He said, "All I got to do is call my people and tell them 'bring me one of those things', when they come pick me up." This means he would be in possession before leaving sight of Traffic Control!
My informal survey of inmates continues, but so far 100% said they would be in posession in less than 24 ours, most like this on in less than 24 MINUTES! This particular inamte, when asked, laughed so hard I thought he was going to fall over, and said, "Nope, gun control don't work!"


Posted on Aug 29, 2003, 3:12 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home

(TX) Homeowner kills violent invader 08-27-03


"the burglar was a convicted felon, just released from prison."

Why can't the morons in the anti self defense crowd fight to keep these people in jail where they belong, instead of wasting time and energy on blaming inanimate objects and while making unarmed victims outa law abiding citizens by attempting to pass gun "owner" control laws?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

..............as they say - it's the REPREAT offender, stupid!


Home Invasion With A Twist
LAST UPDATE: 8/27/2003 4:37:33 PM
Posted By: Julie Fike

A violent home invasion with a twist, a intruder is killed by the man
who lives there. The family speaks out to News 4 WOAI Wednesday.

"I was more scared than anything else. I was kinda hoping its not at my
house, it can't be," said Yvette Gomez, family shot by intruder.

It was 23-year old Gomez who was heading home from night school Tuesday
night when she saw cops in her front yard. She says that's when police
told her, an intruder shot her father and brother.

Police say 27-year old Richard Gomez Junior was sitting in the living
room watching television when he answered a knock at the door. Yvette
says that's when the intruder burst in and started firing. "My dad heard
the gunshot, he went and got his gun, he went out and as soon as he got
to the hallway, he noticed that they had the gun pointed to my brother's
head. He didn't hesitate, he just shot," said Gomez. That one shot
killed 37-year old James Adam Garcia instantly.

News 4 WOAI has learned the burglar was a convicted felon, just released
from prison.

Yvette says police told her that they believe that his was a random
invasion and that the intruder was just looking for some quick cash.
This random act of violence has police offering advice for any
homeowner. "That if they have a peep hole or if they have a nearby
window look through that before you open the door," said Sandy
Guiterrez, San Antonio Police Dept.

A hard lesson for Yvette and her family, "as far as it goes, I'm just
really happy nothing's going to happen to my dad," said Gomez.

The intruder busted into the Gomez house on Pletz street on the
southwest side Tuesday night. Yvette's father will not be charged for
shooting the intruder. Meantime, police are still searching for at least
two other suspects in connection with the home invasion.


Posted on Aug 28, 2003, 10:44 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home

(CA) Several cases of self-defense cited 08-26-03


Fearful residents lock, load
Published: August 26, 2003, 01:48:52 PM PDT

The recent rash of violent home invasion robberies frightens valley
residents, and rightfully so.

"It strikes pure panic for a good reason,"
Stanislaus County Sheriff Les Weidman said.
"Theft or a burglary -- that (makes you mad).
But it doesn't affect you like when someone comes into your home and
someone in your family is sexually assaulted. Or, you're dipped into a
hot tub until you give up information (where valuables are kept). It's a
violation of your family and your home. It's a living hell."

And it's what finally will drive some people to buy guns -- even
people who were once anti-gun.

But gun experts -- from arms dealers to gun safety instructors to law
enforcement officials -- share this opinion:

Unless you're absolutely sure you can kill an intruder, don't have a gun
in the house.

And no one -- no gun dealer, no psychologist -- really knows whether
you can do that until that moment of truth.

"I assume I could (shoot an intruder)," said Paul Mangelos, who manages
Barnwood Arms in Modesto. "But I don't know because I've never had to --
and I sell guns for a living."

"I can't tell that," said Rich Shubbert, owner of
On Target Firearms Instruction of Modesto. He teaches gun safety and
educates people who apply for concealed weapon permits. "It's up to each
individual's emotional makeup."

Too often, he said, gun owners believe a weapon alone will scare off
intruders. They don't think they'll actually need to pull the trigger.

"I tell them that's a bad philosophy," said Shubbert, who said he's had
many recent calls from women seeking gun training. "A gun is nothing you
bluff with. You pull it, be willing to use it."

Why? While a homeowner might grab a gun because he thinks someone could
be in the house, the intruder is a criminal with bad intentions.

"The homeowner thinks he's defending himself and his family, but the
people who do this (home invasions) have probably lived a life with
violence that your average citizen hasn't," sheriff's Lt. Jim Silva
said. "And (the crooks) feel like they're defending themselves against
the homeowner, if that makes any sense. But that's the way they think."

Homeowners have shot and killed intruders on numerous occasions in the
valley. A few examples:

In 1996, a Modesto resident killed two San Jose men during a home
invasion robbery.

On Thanksgiving 1997, a Modesto man foiled a burglary by killing one
intruder and wounding another.

Last year, a Modestan grabbed a shotgun and killed an intruder who held
him and his wife hostage.

But more often, the intruders are in control.
Residents have been shot, killed, beaten, sexually assaulted and
humiliated in various crimes over the years.

Home invaders brutalized a 93-year-old Empire woman in 1993, breaking
one of her kneecaps and stealing $2,000 in cash.

And in 1992, intruders stabbed Steven Somiri of Salida 20 times when he
tried to fight back.
They severed his spinal cord in two places.
Somiri, who was 16 years old when the attack occurred, needed five years
of physical therapy before he could walk again. Somiri, now 27, believes
that he could now kill to defend himself.

"I feel more strongly about it now," he said. "You have to have hate to
actually do that."

But he still doesn't own a gun. An aluminum baseball bat is his
defensive weapon of choice.

"After what happened to me -- being stabbed and left for dead -- I'm
more into having the person suffer," Somiri said. "And they're going to
suffer more if they're a vegetable in prison than if they're dead."

Shubbert and other gun safety experts recommend that citizens develop
good family safety plans in the home and get alarm systems that can't be
disabled when would-be crooks cut the telephone lines.

Still, many scared valley residents will opt for guns, Sheriff Weidman

They'll need to find the right kind of weapon, he said. They'll need to
get proper gun training.
They'll need to learn about the legalities of shooting someone in
self-defense. They'll need to keep the weapons out of the hands of

But before any of that, Weidman said, they should know whether they have
the resolve to use it.

"When you've made the decision that you're willing to kill somebody to
protect your family, then go ahead," he said.

Jeff Jardine's column appears Sundays, Tuesdays and Thursdays in Local

Posted on Aug 28, 2003, 10:47 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home

(DE) Service station attendant shoots robber 08-27-03


Grand jury to decide if service station attendant, alleged robber face
by Deborah Gates
Daily Times Staff Writer

SALISBURY -- Ernie Cordiero peers into the night for demons lurking in
the darkness. His memory of being ambushed outside Grant's Texaco keeps
him on edge.

Cordiero was a Prince George's County police officer for 14 years but
never shot anyone until July 2 in Salisbury. On that night, the
69-year-old gas station attendant pulled the trigger of a 32-caliber
Smith and Wesson and shot an alleged robber in the head.

"I remember it vividly. These things take time," Cordiero said this
week. "I'm looking in the shadows for any movement. It is a bit of a

Now, a grand jury convening in September must decide who should be
charged. Cordiero, an attendant on the night shift at the gas station on
Truitt Street, says he was attacked at closing time. His alleged
assailant, Wilford Lorenzo Leonard, a 28-year-old Wicomico County
resident who has had other scrapes with the law, is still recovering
from his wounds. Leonard has yet to speak with police.

"We've got a report for the September grand jury," Wicomico County
Assistant State's
Attorney Sam Vincent said Monday. Vincent said Leonard has a record of
previous convictions, but no warrant has been issued for his arrest in
connection with the gas station shooting. "He's been through the court
system," he said. "We need to wait and see his situation from a medical
standpoint. He's in the hospital and is no threat."

Cordiero's possession of a handgun also will be an issue for the grand
jury, Vincent said. "I didn't say he did not have a right to defend
himself, but there could be a possible handgun charge," he said. "I
can't see that he's cleared. I don't know all the facts."

Leonard was moved recently to a rehabilitation facility on the western
shore after spending nearly two months in critical condition at the
University of Maryland Shock Trauma Center in Baltimore, Salisbury
Police Capt. Mark Tyler said Monday.

An arrest warrant has not been issued for Leonard, who was in critical
condition and a coma, Tyler said. He would not comment Monday on
Leonard's current condition or where he is undergoing medical treatment.
Any charges will depend on the grand jury's review of evidence and
testimony from police and witnesses, he said. "The grand jury will
decide who is charged, if anyone," Tyler said. "With cases of this
magnitude, when there is a possible questionable shooting, they
generally go to the grand jury. We are ready to go forward."

Cordiero told police the suspect slammed him with a body block as he
closed the gas station at about 10:30 p.m. As Leonard rushed toward him
a second time, Cordiero said he took a gun from his pocket and fired. "I
always (said) as a police officer, I'm going home to my family,"
Cordiero said.

Posted on Aug 28, 2003, 10:48 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home

(NM) Resident shoots KNIFE-WEILDING home invader 08-21-03


Anti self defense crowd, please NOTE: NOT ALL BAD GUYS USE A FIREARM! Gun "owner" ontrol laws would have made this law abiding citizen an UNARMED VICTIM!


Albuquerque resident shoots, kills home intruder

Police say a man fatally shot an intruder entering his home near Wyoming
and Constitution NE.
Last Update: 08/21/2003 4:23:11 PM
By: Reed Upton

An Albuquerque resident shot and killed a man he says broke into his
home late Wednesday night.

Albuquerque police spokesman Detective Jeff Arbogast says a family
spotted the man in their backyard at Wyoming and Constitution NE around
11 p.m.

The man, later identified as 24-year-old Manuel Villa, broke a glass
window and entered the home, where Justin and Heather Doyle live with
their small child.

Upon hearing the noise, Heather Doyle called 911. That's when Justin
Doyle noticed the intruder was inside the house with a knife and fired
his gun.

"It appears the family was fearful of being harmed and took action,"
said APD's Arbogast.
Villa was pronounced dead at University of New Mexico Hospital.

Arbogast says Villa had some injuries unrelated to the gunshot wound.

"He appeared to have some injuries to his upper body," said Arbogast.

No one in the Doyle family was injured, according to Arbogast, but they
were shocked and scared by the experience.

Arbogast says the sound of the shooting was caught on tape by 911

Investigators will listen to the tapes, but it is unlikely the resident
will face any charges for shooting the intruder.

Posted on Aug 28, 2003, 10:51 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home

(IN) Robber fired first, then was killed by employee 08-27-03


Posted on Wed, Aug. 27, 2003
Robber was shot after firing first
Witness recounts liquor store holdup
By Carin Chappelow
The Journal Gazette

A liquor store employee who was not scheduled to work shot and killed a
would-be robber late Monday after the robber first fired a rifle, a
store employee who witnessed the shooting said.

Details of the holdup and shooting at Cap n' Cork remained sketchy
Tuesday, but Fort Wayne police confirmed it was an employee who shot the
robber, who died at a local hospital. Police recovered at least one
weapon from the store at 1031 Broadway, but had not confirmed how many
shots were fired or whether more than one weapon was discharged, said
officer Robin Thompson, department spokeswoman.

A store employee who was working Monday night said the robber fired a
rifle into the air and then the clerk fired back, using his own weapon.

The employee, who declined to be identified because of safety concerns,
said the clerk who shot the robber wasn't even supposed to be working
Monday. He came in to cover for someone else and the employee said he
credits the man for saving the lives of everyone inside the store.

Authorities did not release the identity of the clerk and had not been
been able to identify the robber as of Tuesday evening, Thompson said.

An autopsy was conducted on the man, but the Allen County Coroner's
Office did not release details Tuesday on the manner or cause of death.

A weapon was found near the man who was shot, but police could not
confirm whether he had been armed with it, Thompson said. The Fort Wayne
detective bureau declined to release additional details, citing the
ongoing investigation, but detectives were looking into whether the
employee had a personal gun permit, Thompson said.

The Cap n' Cork employee who witnessed the shooting said the clerk
carried a weapon for protection because he rode his bike to and from
work. He said the clerk was emotionally shaken and did not work Tuesday.

A second would-be robber escaped from the business after the shooting.
That man had not been found as of Tuesday evening, police said.

After detectives receive autopsy results and conclude their
investigation, the case will be presented to the Allen County
Prosecutor's Office, which will determine whether the shooting was
justifiable or whether charges should be filed, Thompson said.

Earlier this year, the prosecutor's office declined to file charges in a
robbery-shooting at a convenience store last November.

Patrick E. Byrd Jr., 26, was shot multiple times after he entered
Sunoco, 5133 Coldwater Road, pointed a gun at an employee and demanded
money, police said. Employee John W. Washington III, 27, pulled his own
gun and fired several shots. He then followed Byrd out the door and
fired more shots, police said. Byrd, who did not fire his weapon, died
at a local hospital.

The prosecutor's office ruled the shooting was justifiable because it
was in self-defense.
If the death of Monday's robber is declared a homicide, it will be Allen
County's 16th in 2003. All have occurred within Fort Wayne city limits.

Posted on Aug 28, 2003, 10:54 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home

(MI) Blind man shoots robber in the chest 08-28-03


Blind Man Shoots Robber In Chest
Suspect Listed In Critical Condition

A blind man reportedly shot at two men trying to rob him Tuesday night.

Police said a blind man who lives at the St. Clements Manor in Inkster,
an apartment complex for the disabled, opened fire on two men who were
trying to assault and rob him.

One of the suspects was shot in the chest, Local 4 reported. The two
suspected robbers then jumped through the apartment window, the station

The wounded suspect was listed in critical condition at the University
of Michigan Hospital.
The second man was taken into custody.



Posted on Aug 28, 2003, 10:57 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home

FL) Homeowner shoots intruder 08-29-03


FL) Homeowner shoots intruder 08-29-03
Originally created Friday, August 29, 2003
Man shot during burglary
From staff

A 25-year-old Jacksonville man was shot early today during what police
say was a domestic incident in Oceanway.

Gregory Allen Ferrell of the 400 block of Eric Avenue was laying in the
front yard of a residence in the 3400 block of Guernsey Court with
gunshot wounds when police arrived about 5:40 a.m. in response to a
burglary call, according to a Jacksonville Sheriff's Office incident

Sgt. Randy Justice said the homeowner, Stephen Lee Williams, 30, shot
Ferrell three times. Ferrell was taken to Shands Jacksonville hospital
where he was listed in fair condition this morning, according to a
hospital spokesman.

Justice said Ferrell went to the home about 5 a.m. and demanded to see a
woman who was staying there. The woman, Tammy Stanford, 26, and Ferrell
have two children together but are not married.

Ferrell was confronted by Williams and told to leave. Justice said
Ferrell was preparing to leave, then turned and began trying to get into
a bedroom window when he was shot.
Williams will not be charged in the shooting, Justice said.


Posted on Aug 30, 2003, 8:34 AM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home

Letter to editor from a canadian Member


----- Original Message -----
From: Earlene Hart
To: John
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 12:56 AM
Subject: Fw: Rebuttal to Frank Malone and Louis Desjardins Re: Al Muir and Firearms

----- Original Message -----
From: Earlene Hart
To: Letters@GlobeAndMail.ca
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 9:53 PM
Subject: Rebuttal to Frank Malone and Louis desjardins Re: Al Muir and Firearms

In response to: Frank Malone and Louis Desjardins

I do not own a gun but I do have a car and I do have a RIGHT to

drive my car.

If I do something with that car that hurts others I should be punished and

loose my right to drive it. If I got my license back then it would be a privilege.

In Kemptville in 1975 my brother-in-law was shot and died.

There was an accused and the trial ended with Not Guilty.That was the end of it.

Nobody served any time for this murder but he served his time ---LIFE.

The gun was upstairs minding its own business, someone went up and got it

and pulled the trigger. How would that piece of paper have prevented this happening?

The Police had the gun and the shell and the pellets that were in his lung.

I can proudly say that I stood beside Al Muir, Jim Turnbull, Ed Hudson, Jack Wilson,

Joe Gingrich and Bruce Montague on Parliament Hill on January 1, 2003 and again

in Shawinigan in March,and in Toronto and again in Ottawa this past July.

These people believe in and are fighting for every law abiding gun owner in this country.

They believe in Rights not the useless rules that this Liberal Government thinks

they and make and then step on us with.

Will it be your privilege to happen to get sick and look back and think

that maybe the $1 Billion that has been wasted on something that the

Government won't enforce would have been much better spent on Health care.

We have laws for Criminals in this country. Penalize the criminals and don't harass

law abiding citizens and leave my rights and freedoms alone.

Mrs. Earlene Hart

Burritts Rapids,


Posted on Aug 28, 2003, 9:52 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home

I have dedicated to exposing the truth behind Bowling.


----- Original Message -----
From: Richardland
To: wagc
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 10:59 AM
Subject: Bowling For Truth

My name is Richard Bushnell and I'm writing you hoping that you will help me spread the truth about ficticious film maker Michael Moore.

As I am sure you know, the far left wing, anti-gun, republican hating, Bush bashing film makers 'documentary' Bowling For Columbine is riddled with untruths, spin, distortion and demonization. What I found most apauling was the unjustified assault on NRA President Charlton Heston.

I don't know if you have seen the 'film' or not, but I do invite you to my brand new website I have dedicated to exposing the truth behind Bowling.

www.bowlingfortruth.com details scene by scene, in some cases shot for shot and line by line how Michael Moore pursuades his viewers by decieving them. The information on this site should be essential to every conservatives intelectual arsenal.

Although I have injected a lot of money into the building of this site, I have no advertising on it and it remains completely non-profit. I also have no budget for advertising, so am hoping that you will help spread the word and spread the truth.

Please don't hesitate to contact me for any questions or comments.

Richard Bushnell

Posted on Aug 28, 2003, 9:49 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home

WOW!! This guy put together a great website!!

by JAM

This guys is more dedicated that I am!

Right on!!

Posted on Sep 2, 2003, 5:41 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home

Program Teaches Women To Handle Guns

by Nancy

If this is the one I'm thinking it is, I've been there, it's a nice outdoor range!


Program Teaches Women To Handle Guns
When most women stare down the barrel of a gun at the Ben Avery Shooting
Facility outside Phoenix, they are totally fixated on the centers of paper
targets mounted on a large slab of cardboard. When Scottsdale resident Pat
Sylvester follows a routine similar to that of her peers, she, too, stands
before the same targets, hoping to hit the bull`s eye.

Posted on Aug 28, 2003, 9:47 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home



I just read a bumper sticker that read "They can have my guns when they pry them from my cold dead, paranoid, freaked out gun fanatic fingers".

It made me think. Somebody has something backwards. Paranoia as we all understand it is an irrational fear of something which more than likely is either not as bad as we envision or not there at all, and is often considered a sign of mental illness.

Tens of thousands of gun owners have licenses tucked in their pockets and carry everything from small .25 caliber guns up to, in my case, either a .357 Magnum or nine milimeter. There is enough firepower to kill one or more people with each gun. Those owners go into stores, malls, movies, etc. all through the day and night keeping their weapons with them because they feel better knowing they are that much safer. None of them want to USE their weapons, but most would if need be, to avoid a lethal threat. The interesting part is how many people they encounter who are never the wiser. The cashier, the attendant, the mother with kids, the old man in the wheel chair. They dont see, so they dont concern themselves with concealed guns. Without a search, they could not tell the unarmed from the armed. They are thinking of everything EXCEPT who around them has a gun.

Yet gun hating people through the country put up signs warning NO FIREARMS ALLOWED in the ludicrous hope that this will deter a criminal. They keep guns out of their homes because they fear that their angry family member might shoot someone (dont they call this emotionally disturbed?) They fear for their children, co workers, etc. So they desperately try to keep all the guns far away so nobody gets shot.

Gun licensees have to pass background checks looking for mental illness, depression, criminal behavior, drug abuse, so on it goes, and they must be free of these maladies. They do not fear their weapons, but most thugs tend to fear THEM. Yet again, the gun control crowd wants the guns put away.

The end point is, who is REALLY the paranoid, freaked out party? The one who fears every respectable citizen is suddenly going to become a terrorist, or start a wild west shoot out, or the guy who keeps his weapon quietly holstered, perhaps for years...just in case. Gene

Posted on Aug 28, 2003, 5:53 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home

'Top Ten' Report by Anti-Gun Group Shows Gun Laws Don't Work, Says Citizens Committee

by Women Against Gun Control

'Top Ten' Report by Anti-Gun Group Shows Gun Laws Don't Work, Says Citizens Committee

8/27/03 4:59:00 PM


To: National Desk

Contact: Joe Waldron of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, 425-454-4911

BELLEVUE, Wash., Aug. 27 /U.S. Newswire/ -- A recently published list of the "Top Ten States" that export guns used in crime was obviously meant to promote increased restrictions on gun sales, but an analysis of the states listed more clearly demonstrates that such laws don't work, said Joe Waldron, executive director of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

The anti-gun Americans for Gun Safety listed Virginia, Georgia, California, Florida, Texas, Mississippi, Ohio, Indiana, North Carolina and Alabama, in that order, as the worst ten states for "exporting" guns later found to be used in crimes.

But Waldron quickly noted that at least three of those states have in place the kind of restrictive gun laws promoted by anti-gun groups as framework legislation to keep guns out of criminal hands. Virginia-rated first on the Top Ten list-has had a one-gun-a-month law on the books for eight years. California, in third place, requires all gun sales to go through a licensed dealer, so there is a background check performed. In ninth place, North Carolina requires a permit, issued by a sheriff following a background check, for every handgun sale.

"Those laws, in combination, are intended to prevent gun trafficking or identify gun trafficking, and they haven't worked," Waldron noted. "If such laws don't work in those three states, why would anyone other than a snake oil salesman suggest they might work in the other seven on that 'Ten Worst' list, or for that matter, any of the 47 other states?

"Of course," Waldron continued, "anti-gunners overlook these nagging little details in their push for more restrictive gun laws. Their own list puts the lie to arguments that their panacea gun law proposals would stop or reduce gun crime, and prevent criminal access to firearms. All their proposed laws are really designed to do is further restrict the firearms rights of law-abiding citizens, and turn more legal gun owners into paperwork felons."

With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is one of the nation's premier gun rights organizations. As a non-profit organization, the Citizens Committee is dedicated to preserving firearms freedoms through active lobbying of elected officials and facilitating grass-roots organization of gun rights activists in local communities throughout the United States.

Posted on Aug 27, 2003, 8:53 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home

Only 23 Front Sight Trial Memberships Left


Only 23 Front Sight Trial Memberships Left

> August 26, 2003
> From: Dr. Ignatius Piazza
> Founder and Director
> Front Sight Resorts
> www.frontsight.com
> Only 23 Front Sight Trial Memberships Left!
> Dear Students and Friends of Front Sight,
> If you want to attend ANY course at Front Sight through the end
> of this year for a trial membership cost of $1000 and be able to
> apply the cost directly to upgrade into a Lifetime/ Refundable
> Membership, then you need to enroll immediately as we only
> have 23 Trial Memberships Left.
> Original e-mail that was sent 4 days ago is below.
> Enrollment form is at end of e-mail.
> Dear Friends and Students of Front Sight,
> The Charity Donation Certificate, Blue Certificate, and Hero
> Membership programs are all sold out. Congratulations to those
> who participated. If you have sent us the name of your charity,
> your certificates will be mailed today. If you have not yet sent
> in the name of your charity, please do so and we will mail your
> certificates upon receipt of the charity name.
> As the summer comes to a close and we resume our full compliment
> of courses for the fall season, the requests for a "Trial" First
> Family Membership continue to be heard.
> People have been asking for a "trial membership" at Front Sight
> for years. A membership that would give them a sampling of all
> our courses and then let them decide which Refundable/Lifetime
> Membership they would like to buy.
> I have been reluctant to offer such a "trial membership" for the
> simple reason that most students, after just their FIRST course,
> understand the huge value and benefit of a First Family
> Membership and want to enroll, if they can afford to do so.
> Offering a "trial membership" simply gives them repeated
> opportunities to take courses free of charge without committing
> to the purchase of a membership.
> Still, a "trial membership" will greatly benefit those of you on this
> list who have not yet taken your first course at Front Sight or
> have taken a course or two but need a little more time and
> experience with Front Sight before deciding which membership is
> best for you and your family.
> So, to satisfy your requests for a "trial membership" yet make
> sure that we are not giving away repeated free courses with no
> benefit on our end, I have designed the following First Family
> Trial Membership on a STRICTLY LIMITED, TEST BASIS.
> Here is how it works:
> As a Trial First Family Member, you can attend ANY course at
> Front Sight for the remainder of 2003. This includes ALL
> Firearms Courses; Martial Arts Courses; Rope, Rappel, and Climb
> Courses; Children and Youth Courses; etc. offered on our schedule
> in September, October, November, and December of this year, 2003.
> See the course schedule on our website at www.frontsight.com
> The cost of this four month, Trial First Family Membership that
> allows you attend any course in the remainder of 2003 is only
> $1000. That is less than the cost of a single four day course
> so the Trial Membership is almost free!
> Plus, AFTER YOUR FIRST COURSE on this trial membership, you can
> apply the $1000 toward the cost of any of our Refundable/Lifetime
> Memberships! This makes the Trial Membership and your First
> Course absolutely free!
> If you chose not convert to a Refundable/Lifetime Membership
> after your first course under the Trial Membership you will not
> receive the $1000 upgrade credit, but you can continue attending
> courses during the remainder of 2003 at no charge. Take as many
> as you like as many times as you like. You have nothing to lose
> and everything to gain. You can always enroll in a Refundable/
> Lifetime Membership at a later date at full price.
> How can we do this? It is simple. We are pretty darn confident
> that after your first course you will want to convert to a
> Refundable/Lifetime Membership and we are willing to offer this
> STRICTLY LIMITED, Trial First Family Membership as a test to
> prove it.
> At $1000 for all the courses you can take in the remainder 2003,
> I expect the limited number of Trial Memberships to be gobbled up
> within a week. If you want one, complete the enrollment form
> below and fax or e-mail it today. These will go fast.
> 2003 First Family Trial Membership Enrollment Form
> Name:
> Address:
> City:
> State:
> Zip Code:
> Home Phone:
> Work Phone:
> 2003 First Family Trial Membership cost: $1000
> Credit Card #
> Expiration Date:
> Signature:
> E-mail to info@frontsight.com or FAX to 831.684.2137
> If mailing, print out and mail immediately to Front Sight
> P.O. Box 2619, Aptos, CA 95001
> I look forward to seeing you at Front Sight this fall.
> Sincerely,
> Ignatius Piazza

Posted on Aug 27, 2003, 12:01 AM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home

(IN) Liquor store worker kills masked armed robber 08-26-03

by Armed Citizens deter crime

(IN) Liquor store worker kills masked armed robber 08-26-03


Fort Wayne liquor store worker fatally shoots robber The Associated
August 26, 2003 11:03 AM

WAYNE, IND. -- A liquor store worker fatally shot a man trying to rob
the business, police said.
men wearing masks, one of whom had a gun, entered the Cap n' Cork liquor
store in the city's downtown about 9 p.m. Monday, police said. One was
shot by a store employee near the store entrance.
other man escaped, and police officers were unable to find him despite
using a search dog to track him.
wounded man was pronounced dead soon after he was taken to Parkview
people were in the store at the time of the shooting, but no other
injuries were reported, police said.
on Tuesday were not releasing the name of the dead man or the name of
the store employee who fired the shot.
were not certain how many shots were fired during the robbery attempt or
whether the would-be robbers used their weapon. A tape from a store's
video camera also was being reviewed, police said.

Posted on Aug 26, 2003, 9:12 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home

(CO) Woman cleared in death of boyfriend 08-26-03

by Armed Women Save lives

(CO) Woman cleared in death of boyfriend 08-26-03

Woman cleared in Eagle death
Jury decides fur shop owner killed ex-boyfriend in self-defense

By Steve Lipsher, Denver Post Mountain Bureau
Tuesday, August 26, 2003 - 12:00:00 AM MST

The wealthy owner of Aspen and Vail fur shops was acquitted Monday
of murder in the slaying of an ex-boyfriend during the disintegration of
stormy love triangle. Kathleen Denson, 46, admitted killing Gerald
Boyd at her Draggin'-A quarter horse ranch last summer, but said the
shooting with an antique black- powder handgun was in self-defense from
cocaine-crazed, self-proclaimed hit man.

"I'm relieved. I'm not surprised," Denson said outside Eagle County
Court. "I expected a 'not guilty."'

The jury of nine men and three women returned its verdict at 7:15 p.m.
two hours of deliberation. The panel rejected charges of second-degree
murder and manslaughter. Prosecutors had argued that Denson shot Boyd in
jealous pique after he left her for one of her employees. "Cody Boyd
have a gun in his hands," Assistant District Attorney Phil Smith said in
closing arguments. "Rage took over."

But defense attorney Scott Robinson argued that the shooting was in
self-defense as Denson dumped Boyd, a renowned Texas ladies' man who had
become romantically involved with one of her employees. "Denson had
terminated the relationship, and Boyd knew it. The gravy train was
out, and he was no longer aboard," Robinson said.

Boyd, a collector of assault weapons who frequently bragged that he had
killed 32 people, had received $100,000 from Denson a month earlier and
threatened her into giving him more when he stormed uninvited into her
amped up on cocaine, Robinson said.

The "other woman," longtime fur-shop employee Monique Seebacher,
an awkward vacation to Cancun, Mexico, that the three took together on
Denson's tab, and testified that Denson bought Boyd a wedding ring just
weeks before the shooting.

Prosecutors suggested those were the desperate acts of a spurned lover
then fired the fatal shot with a .44-caliber handgun she bought as a
for Boyd. "He was crazy. I thought he'd kill me if I didn't shoot him,"
Denson said in testimony last week. Denson still faces a wrongful-death
lawsuit from Boyd's 11-year-old daughter, Callie, as well as a
wrongful-termination suit filed by Seebacher.

"It's been a long year. It's been a really long year," Denson said,
that she regrets the entire ordeal. "How could you not?" Denson had been
free on $600,000 bond secured by her ranch between Eagle and Gypsum.

In addition to Seebacher, witnesses included Boyd's mother, Mary Jo, who
testified that her son stretched the truth but was not violent. But his
former wife, Debra Griffith, testified that she had once sought a
restraining order against Boyd, 45, after their separation because she
feared he would turn violent.

The case seemed the stuff of sensational fiction, replete with tales of
greed, jealousy, and rage; investigators told of drug-and-booze binges
found video and photos of Denson and Boyd engaged in sexual acts. And it
even featured a little courtroom drama when Deputy District Attorney
Crittenden collapsed from exhaustion just before closing arguments,
originally scheduled for Friday.

Prosecutor Smith declined comment, other than to say he respects the
verdict. "Only two people were there that day," Smith said in closing
arguments of the June 27, 2001, slaying, "and one of 'em isn't talking."

Posted on Aug 26, 2003, 9:11 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home

A Letter To My Christian Sisters,

by Nancy

A Letter To My Christian Sisters,


My dearest sister,

If this site offends you, please accept my apology. You are not the intended audience here but I am glad you visited. I am sure the word “gun” itself offends you. Every fiber in your highly educated, socially active, family oriented body wonders why on earth would a saved, Holy Ghost filled and appointed man of God even associate himself with the gun issue. If what I am doing doesn't offend you, I would be happy to be corrected. If the shoe fits however...

I understand why you feel as you do even if you do not. I have learned that black women that think like this are the reason I have survived. Racist gun laws started here when this country was yet a colony. Any black man found to have a gun was lynched, burned and or tortured to death. Every thirty years since then a new law has been created to further restrict gun ownership among some group of people. To protect your son or husband --you forbid them from bringing a “gun” in the house. These mothers whom you have descended from didn’t care about the US Constitution, the Second Amendment or the Bill of Rights. They were in survival mode. The survival of the black family. As time rolled on, this did not change. There was no one challenging the system, the negative stereotypes, or challenging the method of our security and protection.

You know a gun is just a mechanical device. They have been used to politically divide us for years. Aside from hunting, sport competition, collecting and self defense there are even more reasons to legally own a firearm. Don’t let the media and people use your tears to further enslave us. Remember the rifles and shotguns our grandparents had to bring in some food and keep the Klan off their our land.

Before I accepted my calling as a servant of God. I was a safety patrol, a boy scout, a lifeguard, a US Marine, a bodyguard, a federal police officer, an anti-terrorist specialist, and then a trainer of police.

To protect and serve. As a minister I am still protecting and serving.

We both want safer neighborhoods and a safe home to raise our children. I choose to go at it a different way. Our kids are not responding to forty-year-old tactics. Prohibition, punishment and preaching don’t work well by themselves. There must be practical application. The Black Man With A Gun is how I choose to attack the problem. I can get the attention of the video game generation. I can talk to the young hustler, the young ballers and street callers. This is not your grandfather’s way of doing things. It was not intended for you.

My calling is unique. When I am on the highway and get flagged down by a young brother who looks like a one of the rappers on the music video or I a contacted by email by a hunter, outdoorsman, or the adventurer type about what I am doing, I get a chance to witness to someone who might not necessary go to your church. I am working for the glory of God. When I am in the state legislature, or speaking at a rally, I am representing common sense, truth and justice. Forgive me if I offend you, my sister or brother in Christ. Forgive me if I don’t look like what an educated, family oriented Christian brother is supposed to look like. Then again, your salvation is not in question. I am not supposed to appeal to you.

My Jesus, sat with tax collectors, the publicans, and prostitutes. His people thought it was inappropriate for their rabbi too. He didn’t look like he was supposed to either. I am in good company.

The book I wrote is a good read for information about gun safety and personal responsibility. I don’t expect everyone to like it or me. It is just my attempt at changing four hundred years of lies.


Kenneth V. F. Blanchard


If you are one of the thousands of sisters, black, white, brown or yellow that do support the right of self defense, gun ownership and common sense, bless you. Please send me a note, I would love to hear from you.


Posted on Aug 26, 2003, 8:36 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home

So much for the "gun show loophole" and assault rifles being the "weapon on choice" for BG

by Nancy

"According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -

a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%

During the offense that brought them to prison, 15% of State inmates and 13% of Federal inmates carried a handgun, and about 2%, a military-style semiautomatic gun. "


Posted on Aug 24, 2003, 8:26 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home

Firearms in America: The Facts by Martin L. Fackler, MD

by Women Against Gun Control

From: NewsMax.com Feb 18,2001
Firearms in America: The Facts

Martin L. Fackler, MD Monday, Dec. 25, 2000

I must confess to being a member of a very dangerous group. I am a physician: We cause more than 100,000 deaths per year in the USA by mistakes and various degrees of carelessness in treating our patients. Why does society tolerate us?

Because we save far more patients than we kill. Firearms are entirely analogous. Although used in far fewer deaths* - they are used to prevent about 75 crimes for each death. Firearms, like physicians, prevent far more deaths than they cause. (Gary Kleck, "Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America," Hawthorne, N.Y., Aldine de Gruyter Publisher, 1991)

Consider the implications of the fact that firearms save many more lives than they take. That means decreasing the number of firearms would actually cause an increase in violentcrime and deaths from firearms.

This inverse relationship between the number of firearms in the hands of the public and the amount of violent crime has, in fact, been proven beyond any reasonable doubt. (John R. Lott Jr., "More Guns Less Crime," University of Chicago Press, 1998)

History supports the inverse firearm-crime relationship. In "Firearms Control -A Study of Armed Crime and Firearms Control" in England and Wales (London, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1972, p. 243), Chief Inspector Colin Greenwood found that:

No matter how one approaches the figures, one is forced to the rather startling conclusion that the use of firearms in crime was very much less when there were no controls of any sort. . Half a century of strict controls on pistols has ended, perversely, with a far greater use of this class of weapons in crime than ever before.

In Tasmania, Australia, on 28 April 1996, a lone gunman killed 35 and wounded 21 at the Port Arthur Historic Site. The Australian legislature reacted by outlawing self-loading rifles and pump as well as self-loading shotguns. One year after the massive confiscation of guns the effects of this action became clear. Every category of violent crime had increased; the most striking was a 300 percent increase in assaults against the elderly.

Those demented persons who have expressed their frustration by a shooting spree have apparently retained enough good sense to choose places where those shot would almost certainly be unarmed: a schoolyard in Stockton, Calif., the Columbine High School, a Jewish day care center in Los Angeles, a Long Island Rail Road car (due to the highly restrictive ban on handgun carry permits in New York).

The emotional reaction to these incidents, attempting to make certain places "gun free" zones, for example, revealed a striking lack of rational thought. Apparently those pushing for "gun free" zones failed to recognize that the perpetrators of these incidents chose their sites specifically because they were already essentially "gun free" areas - practically guaranteeing no armed resistance to foil their plans.

Such gun-restrictive proposals are a certain recipe for making the situation worse. Lott's studies have shown that such mass shootings essentially disappear in states that pass laws allowing qualified citizens to carry concealed handguns (The American Enterprise, July- August, 1998).

Consider the steadily decreasing rate of violent crime over the past eight years. An article in USA Today (K Johnson, 9 Oct 00, 3A) reported "Gun injuries in crimes fall 40% in 5 years." This stark decline has occurred concomitantly with a constant rise in the number of firearms in the hands of the American public.

This strongly supports the "more guns less crime" relationship verified by Kleck, Lott, history, and common sense. This steady decrease has brought the current percentage of gun violence in the USA to its lowest rate in the past three to four decades. One would expect the anti-gun groups to be pleased and to moderate their goals.

Instead, apparently rankled by the facts proving their theories dead wrong, they are promoting increasingly prohibitive gun laws with ever-increasing zeal. Could it be that the media attention bestowed upon their cause has become addictive? Certainly, legislators have found the free TV time given to their anti-gun tirades something they cannot live without.

I suggest that a reason for the decreasing crime rate, caused in part by the increasing number of guns, lies, perversely and ironically, in the counterproductive exaggerations and incessant repetitions, by the TV media, of each and every bloody shooting they can find.

This has frightened and misled the public into believing the threat from guns is ever increasing, rather than decreasing sharply, and has whetted their appetites for firearms to defend themselves. Thus the public has bought more firearms -which has further decreased the violence from firearms.

There is a perception among gun owners that they are being treated irrationally as legislators pander to the misinformed majority who are being swayed by emotional appeals that fly in the face of the studies cited above, history, and basic common sense. They feel that legislators should be obliged to soberly consider the facts and not have their votes dictated by blind, unthinking, and most often counterproductive, emotion.

Consider firearm registration: being increasingly promoted by nearly all anti-gun groups - and politicians. These promoters neglect to explain why or how they expect firearm registration to prevent future violence; especially since, historically, such restrictive laws have always proven ineffective or counterproductive - most often causing a marked increase in violent crime, as shown in the examples given above. We already know how honest, formerly law-abiding, citizens will react to irrational laws requiring them to register their firearms.

California has taught us. After Purdy's shooting spree on the Stockton schoolyard in 1989, the Californian legislature passed a law requiring the registration of all "assault rifles." In the emotional frenzy following that shooting incident, everybody expected legislators to pass such a restrictive law.

What happened? The price of "assault rifles" tripled in California. Many tens of thousands of these rifles poured into California before the law went into effect. Then came the time for registration. Very few "assault rifle" owners chose to obey the law.

It is uncertain how many criminals were created by this irrational law, but most estimate that fewer than 10 percent of the "assault rifles" in California were registered. If an estimated several hundred thousand "assault rifle" owners in California chose to become criminals rather than obey an irrational law, how many gun owners nationwide can we expect to do the same if required to register their guns?

Most of the facts explained above are unknown to the majority of the American public. The pro-gun political activists spend so much time harping on the Second Amendment that they tend to overlook the factual proof that decreasing the number of guns increases violence, and vice-versa.

Additionally, I believe that most Americans consider their right to protect themselves and their families a far more fundamental right than the Second Amendment.

Many honest gun owners are now frightened. They have every reason to be. Few of the facts outlined above have been revealed by a media that, instead, gives full play to the emotionally based appeals and flagrant exaggerations of the anti-gun groups.

These gun owners fear that they will be forced into a difficult moral decision: Do they obey a law requiring them to register their firearms, when they are fully aware of the irrationality and counterproductive nature of such a law? Or are they morally obligated to disobey such an unjust law -and thus become a criminal? Our forefathers faced a similar moral dilemma. Had most of them chosen to obey, we would still be a colony of England.

We must separate, dispassionately, the clearly established facts about firearms in the USA from emotionally based opinions, exaggerations, and falsehoods. No rational approach to any problem is possible until this is done.

I worry that irrational restrictive measures, such as mandated gun registration, will result in a massive backlash of civil disobedience - not by drug-dazed teenagers, but by sober, honest, and mature adults who are well-armed and proficient in the use of their weapons. That could tear this country apart.

*Footnote. When anti-gun activists list the number of deaths per year from firearms, they neglect to mention that 60 percent of the 30,000 figure they often use are suicides. They also fail to mention that at least three-quarters of the 12,000 homicides are criminals killing other criminals in disputes over illicit drugs, or police shooting criminals engaged in felonies. Subtracting those, we are left with no more than 3,000 deaths that I think most would consider truly lamentable.

Dr. Martin Fackler is America's most foremost forensic expert on ballistic injuries.

Posted on Aug 24, 2003, 8:16 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home

Educating an Armed Citizenry By Ambassador Alan Keyes

by Women Against Gun Control

Second Amendment, Guns & Ammo, March 2000


By Ambassador Alan Keyes

Educating an Armed Citizenry

We Have a Duty to Teach Firearms Safety in Our Schools

I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, as I know are the readers of Guns & Ammo. That's not enough. We must understand clearly the real nature of the right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment is still in the Constitution of the United States, contrary to what some elite would like us to believe. But if it is to be more than words on a parchment in Washington, we must keep alive in the hearts and minds of our fellow citizens an understanding of why the Founders put the Second Amendment into the Constitution and what it means.

Gun control advocates suggest that the right to bear arms is an archaic remnant of an earlier time. They seem to think that the issue is no more relevant to today's society than the muskets of 200 years ago are to the weaponry of a contemporary army. As a result, their respect for the constitutional status of the right is diminished not that the liberals need much encouragement to disrespect the Constitution and encroachments of law and administrative practice follow.

Sometimes I think we encourage this process by failing to make the best case for the Second Amendment. We need to make clearer that the Founders did not intend merely to allow us to intimidate burglars or hunt rabbits to our hearts content. This is not to deny that hunting for dinner or defending against personal dangers were anticipated uses for firearms, particularly on the frontier. Above all, the Founders added the Second Amendment so that when after a long train of government abuses upon our natural rights, we will have the means to protect and recover our rights. That is why the right to keep and bear arms was included in the Bill of Rights.

In fact, if we make judgments that our rights are being systematically violated, according to the Declaration of Independence, we have not merely the right, but the duty to alter or abolish the power responsible. That duty requires that we maintain the material capacity to resist tyranny, if necessary. That is hard to do if government has all the weapons. A strong case can be made that it is a fundamental duty of the free citizen to keep and bear arms.

Such is the logic of the Declaration of Independence, although in our time there are many people who find it most inconvenient. They make one argument, which in tortured logic pretends that the word "people" in the Second Amendment means something that it does not mean in any of the other nine amendments in the Bill of Rights. They say that the Founders had an odd lapse, and wrote "people" instead of "states." And so, they say, the Amendment refers to a right inherent in the state governments.

This position is incoherent and has been disproved by every piece of legitimate historical research. For example, Jefferson refers in his letters to the militia as "every able-bodied man in the state." The militia had little or nothing to do with state government. The words "well-regulated" had something to do with organizing that militia and drilling it in the style of the 18th century, but "militia" itself referred to able-bodied citizens of the state and commonwealth not to the entity of state government.

It would make no sense to restrict the right to keep and bear arms to the state governments, since the principle on which our nation is based, as articulated in the Declaration, recognizes that any government, at any level, can become oppressive of our rights. Accordingly, we must be prepared to defend ourselves against the abuses of government at any level.

The movement against the Second Amendment rights is not just a threat to our capacity to defend ourselves against physical tyranny. It is also a part of the much more general assault on the very notion that human beings are capable of moral responsibility. Consider the absurd assertion that certain weapons should be banned because "they have no purpose except to kill people." It is people that kill people, and they can use countless kinds of weapons or fertilizer or cars or pretty much anything that is handy but only if killing is in their hearts.

So let's get down to the real issue: Are we grown-ups or are we children? If we are grown-ups, then we have the capacity to control our will even in the face of passion and to be responsible in the exercise of our natural rights. If we are children, then all the dangerous toys must be controlled by the government. But this solution implies that we can trust the government with a monopoly on guns, even though we cannot trust ourselves with them. This is not a "solution" that I trust.

Advocates of banning guns substitute thing-control for self-control. This approach will not work. It is the human moral will that saves us from violence, not the presence or absence of weapons. We should reject utterly the absurd theory that weapons are the cause of violence.

Anyone who is serious about controlling violence must recognize that it can only be done by rooting violence out of the human heart. That's why I do not understand those who say they want to save us from guns even while they cling to the coldly violent doctrine that human life has no worth except what they "choose" to assign to it. If we want to end violence, we must warm our people's hearts with a renewed dedication to the God-given equality of all human beings. We must recapture the noble view of man as capable of moral responsibility and self-restraint. If we purify the hearts of our people, we will not have to worry that they will misuse their weapons.

As part of a renewal effort to meet our citizen duty and to treat our young people with the dignity they deserve as citizens of this great republic, I propose that we add a serious and mature formation in America's Second Amendment heritage to the basic civics education taught in high school. We must teach our children about the Constitution, its heritage and background and its ultimate dependence on the principles in the Declaration of Independence. But we should also, as an ordinary part of their education, teach them about the relationship of arms to liberty. We must teach our children that the preservation of liberty requires that a free people retain the moral and material means to discipline its own government should the temptation to tyranny take root. We must read the Founders' own explanation of the purposes of the Second Amendment and see the great care with which they discussed the basis on which the use of the militia against the government might be contemplated, much less determined upon. Indeed, any study of the Founders is a study of high prudence, and this is particularly true in their deliberations about whether to take up arms in defense of liberty.

Past generations of Americans were taught the relationship between Second Amendment rights and our liberty. While the popular culture will resist our returning to this sort of education, we can do it if we are willing to devote ourselves to the principles of our Founders.

If we want students to realize just how serious their civic responsibility is, we should give them the experience of feeling the weight of a gun in their hand. In addition to the theory part of Second Amendment civics classes, we should require in the senior year of high school a practical civics course in the basics of self-defense, including firearms familiarity and safety.

This practical side of the Second Amendment should not be optional. We cannot allow ourselves to become habitually afraid of the instruments used to defend ourselves and our country. The Second Amendment course I am proposing must include the proper safety handling and operation of firearms. We need to demythologize guns before the liberal attempt to create a basic fear of them succeeds. If the gun control mentality, promoting fear of guns, becomes the national mentality, we would be turning back the clock to the days when a warrior class ruled over people because only that class had the confidence and means to deploy the defense and coercion. The gun control agenda would turn us into a people too timid to defend themselves from our would-be masters. We need to make sure that these weapons are demystified, and that people understand their responsible use. Above all, we must instill in our young people a confidence in their own ability to handle firearms in a morally responsible and safe manner.

Such courses would be a primer for basic education in military activity. This was the Founders' intent for the role of a citizen militia. The universal preparation of our young people would be a return in the direction of the right concept of "militia." Just as the Founders intended that every able-bodied citizen be included in the militia, secondary school citizens trained in the safe effective use of firearms could comprise a part of our citizen defense reserve.

Also, sometimes when we defend the Second Amendment, we focus on the right to keep arms and neglect the right to bear arms. Students who complete such training should become eligible to bear arms (concealed carry) across state lines just as someone receiving a driver's license in any one state can drive in another.

The case for our Second Amendment rights is the assertion that we intend to control ourselves and submit to the moral order God intends for our lives. Proper education in our Second Amendment heritage, principles and practical instruction in safe firearm use can ensure that liberty will continue for generations to come.

Ambassador Alan Keyes, the 49-year-old candidate for President of the United States, received his B.A. and Ph.D. in Government Affairs from Harvard University and began work for the U.S. State Department where, in 1983, he was appointed Ambassador to the United Nations Economic and Social Council. Since then, he has been Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs, Republican nominee for senator from Maryland, president of the Citizens Against Government Waste, president of the Ronald Reagan Alumni Association and the host of the syndicated radio talk show The Alan Keyes Show: America's Wake Up Call. Ambassador Keyes is married, has three children and resides in the state of Maryland.

Posted on Aug 24, 2003, 8:19 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home

The 2nd Amendment; Explained.

by Nancy

The 2nd Amendment; Explained.
Very good explanation of the meaning of the 2nd Amendment:


Also, an interesting letter to the editor of the Florida-TImes Union:

Clifford Johnson, inmate at Florida State Prison:
"If guns are banned, then I as a criminal feel a lot safer. When a thief breaks into someone's house or property, the first thing to worry about is getting shot by the owner. But now, it seems we won't have to worry about that anymore.

"Most convicts in [my] prison hope the gun control law [is adopted here in Florida] for the reason stated above. It is fantasy that just because guns are outlawed, we, the crooks, can't get guns. The only people who can't are the ones we victimize...drugs are against the law. Does that stop us? It's also against the law to rob and steal. But does a law stop us?

"One more thing: I thank you, the public, for giving me this fine opportunity to further my criminal career." Letter to the Editor, Florida-Times Union, February 4, 1982, in response to the Morton Grove, Illinois handgun ban.

Posted on Aug 24, 2003, 8:28 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home

Here is the link

by JAM

Just wanted to add this for reference.


Posted on Aug 28, 2003, 9:34 AM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home

Thanks JAM,

by Nancy

I'm glad someone's watchin out for me

Posted on Aug 28, 2003, 9:46 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home

The REAL aim of gun control

by Women Against Gun Control

The Real Aim of Gun Control


by Doug Hagin
19 August 2003

As long as citizens are able to own and carry guns, they will never be completely dependent on government.

The debate over the right of the American people to own and carry guns has been fought and re-fought over and again. The emotionally charged arguments of those against guns have been heard and re-heard. And they have been proven dead wrong time after time by gun rights arguments.

Yet those who despise your gun will never cease their insidious campaign until they have stripped away your most essential personal liberty, the right to self-defense. In the end the sacred right to protect ourselves and each other is the target of the gun-grabbers like Sarah Brady and Senator Charles Schumer.

Yes, we all know they claim to be defending children when they talk gun control. We know they claim to be interested in reducing crime when they rant about sensible gun laws. We have heard all of these lies over and over and over again.

The fact is theirs is a very different agenda than they claim. Their stated goals fade in the face of the facts about guns and gun ownership. Seventy percent of the states in this nation have enacted laws allowing citizens to carry guns. And violent crime has dropped in those states. The predicted shootouts in the streets and rampaging citizens predicted by the gun control gang have never come to pass.

Yet gun control advocates continue to use this false campaign of fear and lies to try to persuade us of the need for their gun control ideals in America. They tell us that guns and children are a deadly mix. They tell us no parent should own a gun. They tell us of all the children killed by guns accidentally every year.

Yet when the truth is examined on these matters the lies of the gun grabbers become apparent. More children die every year in fires, falls, drownings, and from playing football than by accidental shootings. If the gun control gang is really concerned about saving kids, then why are they not campaigning against two-story homes, swimming pools and youth football? Why do they just target guns?

Simply put, guns and the right to own them is the key ingredient in a free society. If Americans are allowed to own and carry guns then they can feed themselves and defend themselves. In other words, gun-owning Americans are less dependent on government than Liberals prefer.

To any devoted Liberal, government is the one and only answer for everything. Self-defense and our inherent right to it are not conducive to being dependent on government. In the Liberal ideal, the average person is better off being more dependent on the government. Anything that lessens our dependence on government is the sworn enemy of liberalism.

The gun grabbers, of course, would vehemently deny this charge. But take a look at the countries that have taken away gun rights.

In England, gun rights have pretty much ceased to exist, and -- predictably -- violent crime has risen. The rate of “hot” burglaries -- burglaries where the residents are home -- is much higher than in America. Why? Well, as studies have shown, criminals do not know whether or not Americans are armed. They tend, therefore, to avoid invading homes where the resident is at home. England, with its gun control laws, has removed that fear from criminals.

Should the gun grabbers of America ever get their way, England's example would become our reality as well. And not only have gun rights been taken away in England, but the very right to protect oneself has taken a serious hit as well.
Citizens are not allowed to use the same deadly force in protecting themselves as Americans. People there have faced prosecution for defending themselves too vigorously against criminals. Again, this is where gun control eventually leads. The right to protect yourself, like the right to own a gun, makes us too free for Liberals. Imagine if this ideal were to be adopted here? Could defending your life and home land you in prison? If the gun control gang ever gets their desired goals, yes.

They want us to place our protection, as well as our other liberties, in their hands. In the world of Liberals violence is violence. If you kill in self-defense, you are just as bad as the criminal who sought to harm you. This is the dream of the Liberal elites. A nation where everyone depends on government, a government controlled by Liberals, for all our needs. Especially self-defense!

No matter how deluded this vision of Utopia is, rest assured the Liberal elites will never abandon it. To Liberals, you and I are not able to think or decide for ourselves how to live our lives. In their estimation we must be dependent on government for all our needs. This can never take place while we are able to own and carry guns. Remember this fact the next time a liberal talks about gun control.

Doug Hagin is a freelance writer.

Posted on Aug 24, 2003, 5:22 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home

The Racist Origins of US Gun Control

by Women Against Gun Control

Posted on Aug 24, 2003, 8:39 AM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home

Would Cops Storm Your House?


While checking out some sites on various subjects last night I ran accross a commentary by a police officer on the subject of whether or not cops would raid our homes for guns, if ordered to do so. My dad was also a cop and shared some views.

Police are people like us, and in all fairness it must be said that indeed some of them are against citizens having guns, and would march on our homes in organized fashion like soldiers of old. But many police recognize the value of armed citizens and the fact that we pose no threat to other people.

It was said that many resignations would be offered before these officers would invade private homes. Partly due to principal, but also due to the fact that attempting to invade the homes of armed and unwilling people ready and willing to revolt against tyranny would be an unimaginably dangerous thing to do.

Posted on Aug 23, 2003, 10:19 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home

Check out these Pro 2nd A Police

by Women Against Gun Control

Posted on Aug 24, 2003, 8:35 AM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home

History: All Guns to the People

by Nancy

History: All Guns to the People

Liberty Magazine
September/October 2003
Page 23


All Guns to the People
by William R. Tonso

Next year, the "assault gun" ban will sunset, and new
high-capacity magazines and scary-looking rifles will be
available once again. The Founding Fathers would applaud.

Imagine, if you will, what would have happened if last
fall's sniper rampage in the D.C. area had occurred with
Bill Clinton or Al Gore occupying the White House. Add a
House and Senate controlled by the Democrats. To put it
mildly, the mainstream-media-assisted drumbeat for more
draconian gun controls would have been loud and continuous,
and the controls likely would have been enacted. As it was,
even the push for keeping a fired slug and cartridge on
record as a "fingerprint" for each new gun as a means (that
wouldn't work) of tracing guns used in crimes didn't get
very far. Why?

The Bush administration has thus far been much more
supportive of the Second Amendment than any recent
administration and has given the media nothing to run with.
After the gun issue played a significant role in the
Republican takeover of both houses of Congress in 1994, and
because of Al Gore's loss of states, such as his own
Tennessee, that could have put him in the White House in
2000, many Democratic strategists see gun control as a
losing proposition. The Sept. 11 terrorist attack drove
home the point to many people that the government can't
necessarily be relied upon to protect them, and inclined
them not to support more restrictions on the acquisition of
guns with which they could protect themselves.

But the gun issue is now back in the news because in
September 2004 the bans passed in 1994 on "assault weapons"
and large-capacity magazines will sunset. That means that
the bans will expire unless Congress takes action to extend
them or make them permanent. And the usual suspects are
already back pushing for this to happen — Calif. Democratic
senator Dianne Feinstein, the Senate sponsor of the original
ban, and N. Y. Democratic senator Charles Schumer, who
sponsored the ban when he was a member of the House. But
they have apparently been joined by, of all people,
President George W. Bush. Whether Bush, whose attorney
general, John Ashcroft, has taken a strong pro-Second
Amendment stand, actually supports the ban or is simply
trying to keep the gun prohibitionists off of his back while
he depends on the Republican Congress to keep the ban
extension from getting to his desk, is not clear.

So here we go again! The same tired old arguments will be
trotted out and uncritically passed on to the public by the
mainstream media, entertainment as well as news, and they
will all be grounded in the enlightened conventional wisdom
on guns in establishment media, academic, and political
circles. This conventional wisdom assumes (1) that sporting
guns are less powerful than military firearms, and (2) that
while civilians may have legitimate reasons for owning the
former, they have none for owning the latter.

Conventional wisdom is wrong on both counts.

For most of our history, American civilians owned not only
military small arms, but also sporting and defensive guns
that were more powerful than the guns the military used at
the time. And they did so with the unquestioned full
blessing of the Second Amendment.

When Attorney General Ashcroft acknowledged that the Second
Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms, the
mainstream press treated his position as a conservative one,
when in fact, as David Kopel has noted, he was “simply
returning to a position held by United States attorneys
general before the administration of Lyndon Johnson.” And
the paper trail left by the Founders clearly indicates that
the militia of the Second Amendment was grounded in a
citizenry made up of individuals exercising what they
considered to be their pre-constitutional, natural right to
keep and bear arms. Richard Henry Lee wrote, “A militia,
when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, and
include all men capable of bearing arms.” And this from
George Mason: “Who are the militia? They consist now of
the whole people, except a few public Officers.” Patrick
Henry believed that “the great object is that every man be
armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.” The Militia
Act of 1792 considered all free white males of military age
to be militiamen, and required them to own militarily useful
firearms — a requirement not always met. It should be noted
that according to U.S. Code Title 10, section 311(a), all
able-bodied males between the ages of 17 and 45 who are
citizens or have declared that they intend to become
citizens are still members of the militia. The United
States Supreme Court acknowledged all of this about the
Founders’ conception of the militia in United States v.
Miller (1939), and stated “that ordinarily when called for
service these men were expected to appear bearing arms
supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the
time” (emphasis added).

And statements by prominent Americans from the founding
generation to the recent past make it clear why such a
militia has long been considered necessary. Tench Coxe, a
friend of Bill of Rights author James Madison, wrote: “As
civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before
them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces
which must be occasionally raised to defend our country,
might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow
citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in
their right to keep and bear their private arms” (emphasis
added). Richard Henry Lee agreed: “To preserve liberty it
is essential that the whole body of the people always
possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how
to use them.” So did Noah Webster: “Before a standing army
can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost
every Kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America
cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword because the whole
body of the people are armed.” Also Elbridge Gerry: “What,
sir, is the use of militia? It is to prevent the
establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.” And
Joseph Story, Associate Justice of the United States from
1811 to 1845: “The right of the citizens to keep and bear
arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the
liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral
check against usurpation and arbitrary power of the rulers;
and will generally, even if these are successful in the
first instance; enable the people to resist and triumph over
them.” Even the late Hubert H. Humphrey, the liberal
Democrat senator and vice president, issued the following
statement in 1959: “The right of citizens to bear arms is
just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one
more safe-guard against tyranny which now appears remote in
America, but which historically has proved to be always
possible.” And this from Judge Ronald M. Gould of the
ultra-liberal 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in his
recent rebuff of a fellow judge’s “December dicta remarks
about the meaning of the Second Amendment”: “[T]he Second
Amendment was designed by the Framers of our Constitution to
safeguard our Nation not only in times of good government,
such as we have enjoyed for generations, but also in the
event, however unlikely, that our government or leaders
would go bad. And it was designed to provide national
security not only when our country is strong but also if it
were to become weakened or otherwise subject to attack.”

Judge Gould’s comments are very timely, because the liberal
Left, particularly since the Oklahoma City terrorist bombing
and all the attention it brought to the militia movement,
has demagogued against this “insurrectionist” interpretation
of the amendment. How dare anyone suggest that American
citizens would ever have to take up arms against their own
government! And the American talk-radio Right, particularly
since the terrorism of Sept. 11, is so enamored of our
military and police forces that it apparently can’t conceive
of them ever being used to establish a tyranny. But as
Gould implies, the amendment’s purpose is to provide a means
for the citizenry to protect itself when things have gone
very wrong. While our government is not now tyrannical, is
it really less likely to become so at some future date than
it was in the early days of the republic? And can today’s
large professional military be trusted with advanced
firearms, while civilians can’t be trusted with them? What
reason would we have to answer “yes” to either of these
questions? The liberal establishment has long viewed the
Constitution as an obstacle to its social engineering
efforts. We now have exactly the kind of large professional
military the Founders feared, and no one knows what impact
the War on Terrorism will have on our civil liberties. In
fact, even to voice such concerns since 9/11 is to risk
earning the suspicion of the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task
Force which reportedly has been cautioning law enforcement
to look out for “defenders of the U.S. Constitution against
the federal government and the UN.” That’s scary!

Those opponents of widespread gun ownership who acknowledge
that the Founders did indeed intend that the citizenry be
armed respond that what was acceptable and needed in the
late 18th century is no longer acceptable or needed. The
rapid-fire guns of today, they claim, are capable of doing
far more damage than the single-shot muzzle-loading muskets,
rifles, and pistols used by both soldiers and civilians two
centuries ago. They claim that civilians can’t be trusted
with these advanced guns, but that the armed agents of the
government can be trusted with them. There are two glaring
problems with this argument. The first problem is that it
disregards the Founders’ desire that the citizenry be armed
as a check against the tyrannical tendencies of government
and standing military forces.

The second problem with the argument is that it is grounded
in phenomenal ignorance of the types of guns to which
American citizens had easy access until recently. It’s true
that when the Second Amendment was written, the guns
available to both soldiers and civilians were (with the
exceptions of a few multi-barreled guns and a few guns that
loaded from the breach) muzzle-loading single shots. But
even then, the Pennsylvania/Kentucky rifles favored by
civilian frontiersmen were far more accurate over far
greater ranges than were the smoothbore muskets used by the
military. Muskets, which could also be owned by civilians,
were cheaper to make and faster to load than rifles,
however, and better fitted the battle tactics of the day.
Those tactics had opposing armies march up to each other,
fire several volleys at each other at close range, and then
charge each other with bayonets. Rifles, however, were
quite useful to the guerrilla fighters, snipers, and
skirmishers who avoided head-on confrontations with troops
set up in battle formations.

But while the guns known to the Founders were slow-loading
devices, between the late 1830s and 1900, all of the
technologies making rapid fire possible had been invented
and made reasonably practical and convenient — revolvers,
self-contained metallic cartridges, lever actions, pump
actions, semiautomatics (one shot per trigger pull), and
automatics (machine guns, which fire as long as the trigger
is held back). Civilians who desired them and could afford
them had access to guns using these technologies from the
time their production began.

According to Wayne van Zwoll, of the 22,000 powerful
.44-caliber Dragoon model revolvers produced by Colt between
1847 and 1861, only 9,380 were purchased by the government.
From the late 1860s to the early 1890s, when most American
soldiers were issued cartridge-firing but single-shot
rifles, civilians had access not only to similar rifles but
to rapid-fire, lever-action rifles with magazine capacities
up to, in the case of the rare Evans, a staggering 34
rounds, though most capacities were in the middle teens.
Army officers on the frontier often purchased these civilian
“sporting” repeating rifles to carry on military campaigns.
By the turn of the century, civilians could purchase several
models of semiautomatic pistols manufactured by foreign and
domestic companies, but our military didn’t adopt a
semiautomatic pistol until 1911. And our military didn’t
adopt a semiautomatic rifle until some 30 years after
semiautomatic “sporting” rifles were introduced. Pump and
semiautomatic shotguns used by the police for riot control
and by the military for trench and jungle warfare are
adaptations of civilian sporting guns. The cartridges for
which practically all of our military rifles, shotguns, and
pistols have been chambered have also been favorites for
hunting, target shooting, and self defense, and none of them
even approach the power of the most powerful cartridges
available for hunting the largest and most dangerous game —
elephants, cape buffalo, lions, tigers, and grizzly bears,
among others.

After our major wars, from the Civil War through Korea, and
after our military’s adoption of new service firearms,
surplus military small arms have been sold off to the public
at bargain prices. In the late 1940s, 5-shot, bolt-action,
.30-06 1917 Enfields, our main battle rifle during World War
I, could be purchased through the Army’s Office of the
Director of Civilian Marksmanship (DCM) for about $7.00
each. As late as the middle 1960s, World War II
semiautomatic .30-caliber carbines, equipped with 15-round
magazines but capable of using the fully automatic M-2
carbine’s 30-round magazines, and semiautomatic .45-caliber
pistols could be purchased from the DCM for about $20.00
each. Until passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968, surplus
military rifles and pistols from around the world, even 20mm
semiautomatic anti-tank rifles, as well as sporting guns of
all types, could be purchased throughout most of America
with no background checks or age restrictions.

Americans have long had easy and even government-encouraged
access not only to modern military small arms, but to
civilian guns with as much power as, or more power than,
military firearms. In fact, until passage of the National
Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934, the only things that restricted
civilian access to machine guns were desire and cost. But
it was the 1934 Act, the constitutionality of which is
questionable since it restricts civilian access to guns with
obvious militia utility, that would eventually lead to
American infantrymen being issued guns with greater
firepower than American civilians are allowed to possess.
The NFA didn’t ban the civilian possession of machine guns
and other weapons (such as sawed-off rifles and shotguns)
covered by the act. It did require owners of such guns to
be cleared by local police chiefs or sheriffs after a
background check, registration of the guns, payment of a
$200 transfer tax to the federal government (a significant
sum to everyone but the rich in 1934), and so forth.

When the NFA was passed, ordinary infantrymen carried
5-shot, bolt-action, .30-06 rifles (1903 Springfields),
while officers and others carried 1911 .45-caliber
semiautomatic pistols. The 1911 .45 was sold to civilians,
who could also buy bolt action rifles comparable to the
military rifle as well as faster firing lever-action, pump,
and semiautomatic sporting rifles. Portable automatic
weapons, like the Thompson submachine gun and the Browning
Automatic Rifle (BAR), had been developed, but weren’t used
by the military in large numbers until World War II. Even
in that war, most American infantrymen were still issued
rifles, by then the semiautomatic 8-shot M-l Garand. So even
with the federal restrictions placed on the civilian
possession of fully automatic firearms, weaponry allowed the
citizenry and its militia was still comparable to that
issued to most individual infantrymen until 1957.

In 1957, our military adopted the 7.62x51mm M-14 rifle which
has a 20-round magazine and can be fired selectively —
automatically (as a machine gun) as well as
semiautomatically — though the automatic feature was blocked
on most M-14s because recoil made them difficult to control
when so fired. Another selective-fire rifle, the milder
recoiling 5.56x45mm M-16, which also uses a 20-round
magazine, was adopted by our services in 1963 and finally
replaced the M14 in 1970. Many of the semiautomatic M-1
rifles replaced in service by these selective-fire rifles
have been sold to civilians by the DCM or otherwise, as has
been common practice throughout our national history when
our military has adopted new guns. But surplus M-14s and
M-16s, once the latter rifle is replaced, won’t be sold to
the public, because some M-14s and all M-16s can be fired
not only semiautomatically but automatically, or in the case
of later M-16s, burst fire (three shots per trigger pull)..
Civilian acquisition of such guns, therefore, is restricted
not only by the 1934 NFA, but by 1986 federal legislation
that put a halt to machine guns legally entering civilian
circulation, and also by bans on the ownership of machine
guns that several states have enacted. The soon-to-sunset
1994 legislation even banned the further civilian
acquisition of civilian semiautomatic-only variations of
automatic military firearms and detachable box magazines
capable of holding more than ten rounds.

All of these restrictions, plus those on handgun ammunition
that can penetrate body armor worn by the police (but in
three decades has yet to kill a cop), fly in the face of the
Second Amendment and American tradition. All these
restrictions trust government over the citizenry. The paper
trail they left makes clear that the Founders considered
government to be a necessary evil, distrusted its armed
agents, and saw an armed citizenry as a check against its
tyrannical tendencies. During the 20th century alone,
governments around the world have massacred at least 170
million of their own people, not counting war casualties,
and the actions of our federal police at Ruby Ridge, Ida..
and Waco, Tex., though small scale, indicate that such
things can happen here. Yet in not only ignoring the
intentions of the Founders and our firearms tradition, but
denying their existence, the gun prohibitionists in
politics, academia, and the mainstream media would have us
believe that we can trust only government, not ourselves, to
protect us (whether from common criminals or terrorists),
that only its agents have a right to arms, and that the
citizenry has no need to possess the means of opposing
government’s armed agents or protecting itself from
criminals or terrorists. And note that not even talk-radio
conservatives, let alone conservatives in government, have
suggested that armed civilians, the real constitutional
militia, be properly trained, organized, and enlisted in the
war against terrorism as guards at bridges, water supplies,
the borders, etc. Ordinary Americans are encouraged to
fight terrorism by continuing to travel and consume — and to
stock up on duct tape and plastic sheeting.

So as the expirations of the bans on “assault weapons” and
detachable magazines holding more than ten rounds approach,
the gun prohibitionists will be out in full force using the
sniper rampage, the terrorist threat, and any other tragic,
gun-related event between now and then to push for making
the bans permanent, or even expanding their scope. Those
who support the expiration of the ban will be labeled
extremists and, if not terrorists themselves, enablers of
terrorists. The mainstream media, of course, will assist
this demonization of those who dare to point out that the
Second Amendment was intended to be the teeth of the Bill of
Rights — a defense against tyranny.

It remains to be seen whether the Bush administration and
the Republican-controlled Congress will continue to support
the Second Amendment or cave in as they did on the
“campaign-finance reform” that flew in the face of the First
Amendment. The administration has its share of anti-Second
Amendment types like Homeland Security head Tom Ridge (who
opposed the arming of airline pilots), and they surely will
oppose letting the bans expire. Even many who claim to
support the Second Amendment tend to qualify that support by
claiming that the amendment doesn’t preclude “reasonable
restrictions” on private gun ownership. Solicitor General
Theodore Olson has acknowledged the administration’s
recognition of the individual’s right to keep and bear arms,
even apart from militia membership, but claims that right is
“subject to ‘reasonable restrictions’ to prevent ‘unfit
persons’ from obtaining firearms and to limit the
possessions of some types of weapons that are ‘particularly
suited to criminal misuse “ (emphasis added).

Americans, until recent decades, commonly owned guns with as
much firepower as, or more firepower than, those issued to
soldiers. Because most people are unaware of this, it may
be easy to convince members of this administration and the
Republican-controlled Congress that the “assault weapon” and
magazine bans are reasonable. Even conservative talk
radio’s Second Amendment supporters are often ignorant
concerning guns. Rush Limbaugh once told a caller that
there’s no such thing as a semiautomatic — guns are either
automatic or they aren’t. So in order to, say, buy liberal
support for a Bush-nominated federal judge, it might seem
desirable to give in to an extension on these bans or make
them permanent. On the other hand, the bans expire just
before the 2004 election, and Democrats as well as
Republicans know that anti-gun positions have been hurting
politicians while pro-gun positions have been helping them.

William R. Tonso is a professor emeritus of sociology at the
University of Evansville, Indiana.

Posted on Aug 23, 2003, 3:06 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home

LETTER: In Praise Of New Shooter

by Women Against Gun Control

LETTER: In Praise Of New Shooter

Bill Caffrey wrote a letter in response to left-winger Loiuse
Rafkin taking up and enjoying pistol shooting, which was mentioned
in the GGNRA alert.

I've added his letter to my archive and copied it below. If you
have any letters you'd like to share, please send them to me and
I'll gladly add them.

Jeff C.


Here's my response to Rafkin's article.

>> The Times Are 'A Changing - San Francisco Chronicle Sunday Magazine Article

Gun Nut : What happens when an avowed anti-gun crusader picks up a revolver?


SF Chronicle Magazine, July 20, 2003


Congratulations Louise!

Now you know why tens of millions of your fellow citizens enjoy
target shooting and firearms. Quite simply, it can be a lot of
(dare I say it in California?) fun. Target shooting is a game of
skill even if you are shooting alone. You compete with yourself
to aim better, get closer to the bullseye and keep those shots
together. Hollywood fantasies aside, shooting a firearm of any
type accurately is not a simple task.

I note that you teach martial arts and you'll find that target
shooting has its own kind of Zen. The Zen comes from the pure
discipline and concentration that pushes everything else out of
your mind. While shooting, your concentration is (or should be)
focused on doing everything right to hit the target. Safety
rules, stance, grip, sights, inhale, cock the hammer, exhale
slowly halfway, squeeze. Adjust your aim, repeat. If done
properly, after firing you should feel relaxed, honestly
introspective (did I really flinch on the third shot?) and
slightly proud of the tight grouping. You should also feel some
humility when you realize there are people who are so good they
miss only 1 of 200 bullseyes.

Part of the fascination, I believe, is in harnessing a firearm to
do your bidding. Certainly it can be a deadly weapon, but so can
the darts your friend recommended. Or a bow used in archery. Or
a baseball bat. Though a firearm can be used to take a life, we
recognize that a firearm can also save a life in dire situations.
Like learning martial arts, it is what you do with your skill and
knowledge that counts.

Bill Caffrey,
San Jose, Ca.

Read some interesting information on gun control at my website at

Posted on Aug 23, 2003, 12:33 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home

Prof. Amitai Etzioni: Ignorance Is Bliss

by Nancy

Prof. Amitai Etzioni: Ignorance Is Bliss
Larry Pratt
Part IV -- Shockingly Ignorant About Guns Used By Millions In Self-Defense
Strange as it may sound, Prof. Amitai Etzioni, in our lengthy interview with him, seemed totally oblivious to the fact that millions of Americans have used guns in self-defense. Or so he tried to pretend by ridiculing this fact when we called it to his attention.

When we told Etzioni about millions of Americans having used guns in self-defense, he replied, mockingly: "I'm sorry. In which country are we talking about? .... What is this movie called? I haven't seen that movie. Where did you get that figure from?"

Well, for openers, we tell him about an article published during the Clinton Administration by the U.S. Department Of Justice, Office Of Justice Programs, National Institute Of Justice (NIJ). In the May, 1997, issue of Research In Brief, the lead article, by Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig, is titled Guns In America: National Survey On Private Ownership And Use Of Firearms. In this piece, it is noted that a 1994 telephone survey by Florida State University Professors Gary Kleck and Mark Gertz showed 2.5 million defensive gun uses in one year. Another 1994 telephone survey -- the National Survey Of Private Ownership Of Firearms -- is reported as putting this defensive gun use figure at 1.5 million in one year.

"Oh," says Etzioni, "I'm familiar with that study. I'm happy you [mention it]." He then viciously attacks these statistics as "one of the most notoriously fabricated pieces of mathematics in which people manipulated data in a shameless way." When asked if he's talking about Cook and Ludwig, he says: "That's exactly right. They not only favor guns. They favor carrying concealed guns."

Q: So, they fabricated this data?
Etzioni: There are no data as such. What you do with data is put them into tables and computers and start playing games with them.
Q: So, you're saying there is no data about how many guns are used in self-defense?
Etzioni: Not in that particular study. And surely not millions of people.
But, once again, Etzioni hasn't the slightest idea what he is talking about. He may "play games" with data but Kleck and Gertz do not. Indeed, one of the most Liberal, pro-gun control criminologists, Marvin E. Wolfgang, has declared the methodology of Kleck and Gertz to be solid. In a 1995 article in The Journal Of Criminal Law & Criminology (Volume 86, No. 1), titled A Tribute To A View I have Opposed, Wolfgang, who has read research on guns and violence for more than 25 years, said this:

[Kleck and Gertz] have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator... for now, I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed [in their research].... [it] impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well.
In addition, Etzioni's vicious personal attack on Cook and Ludwig is false and scurrilous. The data cited in their article was not compiled by them! They cite data compiled by other people. And, to add insult to injury (from their perspective), Cook and Ludwig do not "favor guns." Both of them are for gun control!

To further support our assertion that millions of Americans have used guns to defend themselves, we cite a Gallup Poll last year (May,2000) which asked the question, of adults 18-years-old and older: "Not including military combat, have you ever used a gun to defend yourself, either by firing it or threatening to fire it?" Seven percent said: "Yes." Since there are an estimated 204 million Americans 18-years-old and older, this means that 14.3 million of us have used guns in self-defense.

What is Etzioni's response to this Gallup Poll? All he says is that he would "really need to see" this survey and the question asked. But, no, he doesn't think George Gallup also fabricated and manipulated his data. However, he adds, when people are asked about things like this "they tend to be slightly boastful." How he knows this, he does not say.

Posted on Aug 21, 2003, 8:00 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home

Once Upon A Time in the USA


Mr. and Mrs. McFuddy were sitting in their house one evening watching television with their children and their little dog.

suddenly there was a knock on the door and Mr. McFuddy answered. Standing at the door were some handsomely dressed men in uniforms. "Mr. McFuddy" said a big strong official looking man, "we are from the Urban Citizen Security League. We are here to make certain that you are not harboring illegal weapons which could fall into the hands of criminals, be used against your family, or accidentlally harm someone."

Mr. McFuddy happily stepped aside, his heart warm with patriotic zeal as he watched these men charge into his home, raid cabinets, search under beds and in closets, bathrooms, children's rooms and underwear drawers.

The leader, with his fancy hat and badge asked Mr. McFuddy about any handguns, shotguns, rifles, air guns, paint ball guns, silicone guns, cap guns, or any other dangerous weapon, to which McFuddy responded with staunch "Absolutely not! We would never endanger our fellow man with such evils! We are fully aware that our home is much safer with no weapons at all than with any in it!"

Finally the search was through and with a handshake and thanks for his cooperation, the head officer led his men out of the home so that the McFuddy family could begin reconstructing their home, as they stood with patriotic smiles on their faces. The End

Please Join us for Barney's Birthday Special next time!

Posted on Aug 21, 2003, 7:33 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home

(CA) Business owner shoots intruder 08-20-03



Business owner fatally shoots intruder
This story appeared in the Antelope Valley Press on Wednesday, August
20, 2003.
Valley Press Staff Writer

LANCASTER - An intruder at a Lancaster business became the Valley's 26th
homicide victim this year.

The intruder's life came to a violent end early Tuesday morning when a
Lancaster business owner shot and killed him after the intruder
allegedly broke into the owner's comic book shop and was about to attack
the owner.

The intruder, whose identity has not been released, allegedly forced
open a back door of the Bases Cards and Comics about 3 a.m., only to
find the shop owner sleeping in the back room.

The owner told investigators he was sleeping in a back room because of
other recent burglaries at the business, sheriff's Sgt. Shaun McCarthy

"He heard the door being pried open so he went into the showroom and saw
the (intruder)," McCarthy said. "He said the (intruder) attempted to
strike him with the tool that he was holding, which was a tire iron."

Sheriff's officials did not release the shop owner's identity, but a
search of past Valley Press articles and sources indicate the store
owner is Rob Stephens.

Stephens, armed with a handgun, fired at the intruder, striking him once
in the upper body, sheriff's officials said. The intruder was dead at
the scene.

Stephens was questioned, but not arrested. Homicide detectives believe
the case is justifiable homicide, but the Los Angeles County District
Attorney's Office will make a final decision.

"Based on where our investigation is at this point, it's as clear cut a
case of justifiable homicide as I've ever handled," McCarthy said.
"Everything appears to be consistent with what we're being told."

The shop was open for business Tuesday afternoon, but Stephens could not
be reached for comment.

The incident is the latest in a string of seven killings that have
occurred in the Valley since the end of July. Two have involved Valley
business owners who were killed at their businesses.

On July 27, antique shop owner Victoria Gnerlich was found beaten to
death in her Littlerock shop. Detectives said robbery may have been a
motive in that killing.

Posted on Aug 21, 2003, 7:22 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home

Let's Have Child Care Control!!


This morning in Dalls Tx. a child in a child care facility was found unconscious in a hot van outside a daycare facility after being picked up, then forgotten (!!!) till later. Temperatures teh last few days have been over 100 degrees. He died of course. Not only is this really hard to believe, but it's not an only incident. The same thing happened to a little girl three months ago in another day care facility. Is not the Gun Control/ban motto "even one is one too many"?

Those interviewed said words could not express how sad this was. No doubt. Of course daycare popularity will take a nose dive, as it did last time. but I wonder if they will try and ban daycare places.

Posted on Aug 21, 2003, 2:47 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home

My Favorite Things ; Article in W&G

by Women Against Gun Control

Legally Speaking
My Favorite Things


By Karen L. MacNutt,
Contributing Editor

Hugging my knees with one hand, I grasped my older sister for protection with the other. The light on the kitchen table, which was 40 watts dim, created long, scary shadows across the kitchen wall. Beyond the table, two windows stood like dark holes that hid unknown monsters. We huddled together as close as mother's straight back wooden kitchen chairs would let us. Our eyes were transfixed on the small box sitting on the high shelf. Standing on the chair and stretching just as far as she could, my sister was able to reach the box. She turned its magic knob. A low crackle of static greeted us.

A trumpet flourish began, "Dump... Dedump ... Dedump Dedump de da ..."

A muffled voice reached across the air waves and the imagination of children all over the country, "Hi Yo Silver! Away."

"With his faithful Indian companion Tonto, the daring and resourceful masked rider of the plains led the fight for law and order in the early West. Return with us now to those thrilling days of yesteryear. The Lone Ranger rides again!"

Away we went on an imaginary horse with the speed of light, companions with that masked rider of long ago.

By the time I was three, TV had replaced radio. The Lone Ranger now rode across the screen. He was joined in our living room by Marshal Matt Dillon who began each story standing on Dodge City's Boot Hill, the place bad people ended up. Big Brother Bob Emery and Howdy Doody taught us to toast President Eisenhower. "I Remember Mama," reinforced family values. The Space Cadets and Jet Jackson raced across the sky to save the world. Lassie and Rin Tin Tin saved their masters, every week. Sky King fought bad guys from the air, and Roy Rogers with

Dale Evans did the same from horseback. Most of all, Hopalong Cassidy rode tall in the saddle, defending the weak and defeating the bad guys.

Each episode was a morality play. Good was good, bad was bad. Good people who stood up to bad people eventually won. I never envisioned myself as the helpless heroine, or the mindless sidekick. I always saw myself on the white horse. My first guns were just like Hoppy's, excepting of course, mine only fired caps. They were chromed with fake engraving and white plastic grips with a black plastic stag head. To carry them I had a black and white leather, double rig gun belt decorated with chrome disks and leather thongs. My friends and I had a ton of fun acting out the stories we had seen on TV.

Around the time I left grammar school, I wanted a BB gun, but my parents disapproved. "BB guns are not toys to be played with," Mother would say.

I was allowed to have an air gun that made a popping noise. It did not fire anything, or at least it was not supposed to fire anything. Sandwich bread wrappers were made from wax paper back then. My brother discovered that if you wadded a small piece of bread wrapper into the muzzle of our pop guns, the compressed air would cause the wrapper to travel about twenty feet. All summer long, as dusk fell, my brother, cousins, friends and I would troop out to the huge lawn across the street from grandma's house. There, the bread wrapper wars went into full swing. Hiding in the shadows, armed with bread wrapper corks, we played a variation of tag combined with hide and seek. We had a great time. No one ever gave a thought to the fact that the other building bordering that wonderful lawn was the police station.

My mother and father always visited antique shops when we went up country. Dad was an illustrator. He would look for old photographs or props to use for his paintings. My interest in the Old West had expanded to the American Civil War, then the American Revolution. Ultimately, I developed a great love for history. When I was about thirteen Dad let me buy an antique shotgun on one of those trips. It was probably made about 1830. I spent hours cleaning it and researching its history. What things that gun must have seen! It had been made by hand in Birmingham, England, for the Colonial trade. It had crossed the ocean in a sailing ship and then helped the first settlers support their families with food.

That Christmas brought an unexpected prize. It was a J.C. Higgins, bolt action .22 caliber rifle with a chromed bolt, a five-round magazine, and a pistol grip stock. It was beautiful. With the gun came safety instructions that I had to learn. Dad tested me to make sure I understood them. He showed my brother and I how the bullet would go through a thick plank of wood. This was not like TV. I realized how fake TV's portrayal of guns had been. Although the gun was mine, I could only put the bolt in the gun with Dad's permission. He kept the ammunition. I loved to shoot but there was never enough time to do as much shooting as I wanted to do.

While a freshman in college, I discovered that the athletic department sponsored a rifle and pistol team. "Boy," I thought, "That is what I would like to do."

"Boy" was the right word. There were no girls on the team. I could shoot with the boys using the equipment none of the men wanted. Girls, however, were not allowed on any collegiate marksmanship teams. The coach was a good man. Once the boys realized I really did want to shoot, everyone was very nice. I would go to the range between classes, draw my rifle and learn the art of self control. Each time I practiced, the drill was the same; shooting jacket on, target run down range, sling adjusted, scope positioned, body position set and checked. I would load the first round. The drill continued. My mind focused on concentric rings of target, front sight, rear sight. The world collapsed into a tunnel focused on a set of rings. My breathing slowed. My eyes became fixed. My breathing stopped as I gradually applied pressure with my finger, slowly backbackback-BANG!

"Call your shots!" the voice in my mind shouted. "Where did it go??" was the silent answer. Where did it go? It looked like a good shot to me. After a while I could fire ten rounds and get one hole with an irregular shape. With each session at the range, all the stress of school would disappear.

One day Coach made the observation that even though I could not shoot in collegiate matches, if I could get enough girls together, we could form an all girls team and shoot in the NRA postal matches. I tacked notices on the dormitory walls and within a week we had a girls team with more members than the boys had. We had a great time.
After graduating from college, I tried to join a gun club but found none would have me. "You can come with your boy friend or husband," I was told. I did not want to be someone's guest or a second class citizen. I wanted to belong on my own

It took a while, but I found a club that not only let me become a member, but encouraged me to join their pistol team. My revolver was not accurate enough for match shooting so I bought a target pistol. Team members gave me hours of their own time to teach me how to master the handgun. At first I was annoyed because I could not get a steady sight picture as I had been able to do with a rifle. A seasoned shooter let me in on a secret. No one can get a steady sight picture with a handgun. The trick is to keep the sights lined up and learn to shoot as you wobbled across the target. The team practiced on Tuesday nights and shot matches on Thursday. We all helped each other. The object was to keep bettering your own score. Everyone, no matter how poor a shot they were, fired in the match. New shooters did not have to worry about dragging the team score down because only the top five scores were used as the team score. The other scores were discarded. After shooting, the team would all go out to eat and talk about the scores we should have shot.

Very few women were shooting back then. Women were expected to not know anything about guns. Sometimes when we were at matches, a member of the other team would make that assumption about me. One day I had been practicing with a 45LC long barreled revolver. For some reason I tucked the unloaded gun in my belt for a few minutes. My jacket just covered the gun's grip so that it was not visible. A gentleman who was new to the club came in and started telling me I should get a small .25 Cal. semi-auto. He thought that it would be a good gun for a woman to shoot. He did not know much about guns or me. I was polite and let him go on for some time. My fellow team mates said nothing but turned away so as to not show their grinning faces. When he got through, I said, "Well, I don't know. I think the .25 is a little under powered. This is my favorite gun," I explained drawing forth my big "hawg leg," cowboy revolver. It was a much bigger gun than I would ever carry, but I implied that it was a customary accessory to my ensemble. The look on the gentleman's face was priceless.

After I joined the Massachusetts National Guard, I hunted up their high power rifle team. I spent most of the first day at their range "helping" with targets and watching the men shoot. They said they only had a limited amount of equipment. It was unlikely that there would be enough for me. Shortly before the team practice was to end, they let me shoot ten rounds off hand with an M14. I was disappointed with the score. It was only an 89 with 3x. I apologized saying that I had not shot a high power rifle before but I was sure I could do better. They were satisfied and issued me team equipment on the spot. I made some wonderful friends on that team. The high power matches were all over the East Coast and usually lasted two days. We traveled a lot. Frequently we spent Saturday nights in a motel or military housing. Sometimes we camped out on the firing ranges. Security of the guns was always a concern, especially if we had to stay overnight. The target rifles could not be left unattended in a hotel room nor could they be disassembled because it would affect their accuracy. We tried to keep them with us or in a designated vehicle when we went to a restaurant or if we went out in the evening after the match. We worked hard, but we had some good times.

There have been many positive changes since I started shooting. More women are involved with the shooting sports. Some have won major competitions. There is even a magazine dedicated to women gun owners. I no longer have trouble getting waited on in local sporting goods stores. I walk in and the clerk says, "Hi Karen."

On the down side, we have become a much more paranoid society. Today my bread wrapper wars would have landed me in juvenile court even though I was not bothering anyone. Many colleges have canceled their shooting programs. The "shoot 'em up" Westerns are considered too violent today even though the Lone Ranger is said to have never killed anyone on TV and those long ago TV heroes were models of good grammar and etiquette. Those programs have been replaced by programs that extol infidelity, selfishness, rude police officers and anti-heroes that "Die Hard" with a vengeance.

When people ask me why I like guns, I tell them there are three reasons.

1. I enjoy the history associated with firearms.
2. I enjoy the mental discipline of a sport which, if done correctly, leaves me totally relaxed.
3. In a world that is sometimes hostile to women, being able to own a gun gives me a feeling of security that is liberating.
I think my interest in guns started with Hopalong Cassidy. I now enjoy shooting just about any type of gun. I must admit, however, that my High Standard .22, my Ruger .45, my TC Hawkin .45, and my M1A, although they may not be thought to be politically correct by some people, are some of my favorite things.

Posted on Aug 20, 2003, 10:52 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home

Right on


My reasons for packin' heat are the same, with the additional enjoyment of firing off black powder guns, including the 1861 Springfield and the Brown Bess. The wife used to be anti gun, but very much supported my efforts to get a license after being attacked over a video movie, and she occassionally would even shoot if I insisted, preferring an 1858 Remmington bp revolver.

The .357 is kept by the bed on her side, but the one weapon I dont offer her to shoot is a Makarov 9/18 that kicks like a mule (worse than the .357) and has a wicked twist which bangs my wrist. This four inch monster would knock a bull over. I enjoy it once the pain goes away. Great for concealed carry. ~Gene

Posted on Aug 21, 2003, 3:02 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home

MOTHER defends her kids; shoots attacker

by Armed Moms are able to protect their kids

HER (law abiding citizen) gun was "legal", HIS (a convicted felon)
was STOLEN - perps do NOT obey gun laws!

Q: Why won't the antis recognize that?????????

A: Their agenda aint about safety, it's about obtaining unarmed subjects


Portsmouth Police Charge Man, Clear Woman, After Saturday Night Gun

Portsmouth police have cleared a woman, and charged a man, after a
gun battle Saturday night.

Police arrested 33-year old Emmitt M. Warren of the 1800 block of
Richmond Avenue after he was released from the hospital Wednesday
morning where he was being treated for gunshot wounds.

According to police, a 25-year old Portsmouth woman was driving home
Saturday night around 11:30pm with her two children when she noticed
a vehicle following her.

When she arrived at her residence on Georgia Court in the Peachtree
section of the city, the woman says she saw Warren exit the vehicle,
display a handgun, and start running towards her in a threatening

The woman, who was also armed, pulled her own gun and fired shots at
Warren, striking him in the leg.

Police say Warren dropped his own gun, got back in the vehicle, and

He was eventually located by police shortly after the incident, and
identified by the woman. Warren was then taken to the hospital for

The woman's two children were not hurt during the incident.

The woman's handgun was legally registered, and authorities have
determined she acted in self-defense.

Police say the gun used by Warren was stolen.

He is facing three charges, including attempt to kill, use of a
firearm in the commission of a felony, and possession of a firearm by
a convicted felon.

Posted on Aug 20, 2003, 9:50 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home

A lesson learned here, Ladies (and Gentlemen)

by Nancy

"According to police, a 25-year old Portsmouth woman was driving home Saturday night around 11:30pm with her two children WHEN SHE NOTICED A VEHICLE FOLLOWING HER."

.........ALWAYS be aware of your surroundings, it helps cut down on 'surprises'...........

Having noticed being followed, my hand would have been on the firearm prior to stepping out of the vehicle

Posted on Aug 20, 2003, 11:51 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home

CRIME: Keep 'em guessing

by nancy

CRIME: Keep 'em guessing

It's becoming easier to legally carry a concealed weapon in various states, which is bad news for thugs and thieves.

The Washington Times reports that 35 states now have laws that allow people to carry concealed weapons for protection under various conditions.

In 1987, the number of states totaled 10. About a quarter-million people have concealed weapons-carrying privileges in Florida.

Among the latest developments as reported by the newspaper:

A Colorado law took effect in May allowing competent people over 21 who have received firearms training to receive a concealed weapons permit.

Minnesota became the most recent state to permit concealed firearms in April, despite being historically hostile to the concept.

Missouri lawmakers are about to override a governor's veto and reaffirm a bill passed earlier this year allowing the right to carry concealed weapons.

Alaska's governor recently signed a bill enabling residents to carry concealed weapons without applying for a special permit. The new law also allows permit holders from other states to legally carry their weapons in Alaska.
Concealed weapons permits help keep crime rates down because they keep criminals guessing. Criminals are far less likely to attack those they believe can defend themselves, and those who attack someone with a gun can pay a heavy price.

Just last month in Pompano Beach, the son of a jewelry store owner was ready when four robbers burst into the store. He grabbed a handgun from under a counter, shot one man dead and scared away the others.

Recently, 74-year-old J.C. Adams was confronted by armed robbers in his Atlanta convenience store. As he did last year in another robbery, the Korean War veteran grabbed his 12-gauge shotgun and -- using one hand to steady himself on his walker -- fired, again with fatal results. This is what Adams had to say to other criminals: "Go to work and make your own money. Quit trying to take mine."

In his 1998 book More Guns, Less Crime, Chicago Professor John R. Lott Jr. said his research over a 17-year period concluded that crime went down in states that allowed the law-abiding to carry concealed firearms.

Yet, in practically every state that has passed a concealed-carry law, including Florida, opponents have argued such rights would result in bloodier streets and Wild West-style shootouts.

That hasn't happened.

What has happened is that more people are able to safeguard themselves against unscrupulous people who often have no regard for human life or the laws designed to protect innocent people.

Crime declined in Florida while prisons were being filled and victims were being armed.

It would be wonderful if society didn't need concealed weapons laws, but we live in the real world, not the idealized dream world some envision.

Posted on Aug 20, 2003, 8:52 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home

Fw: No criminal charges in shotgun home defense (SC)

by Self Defense IS a RIGHT!

Fw: No criminal charges in shotgun home defense (SC)

No criminal charges in shotgun home defense
--man thought gunshot had been fired in his direction

by GLENN SMITH Of The Post and Courier Staff
Story last updated at 7:32 a.m. Wednesday, August 20, 2003

Solicitor Ralph Hoisington said Tuesday he will not seek criminal charges
against a West Ashley homeowner who shot two men waging a shootout in his
front yard earlier this month.

Hoisington said he concluded that 67-year-old William Gates did nothing
illegal Aug. 1 when he stepped onto the porch of his Tripe Street home and
opened fire with a shotgun. "While I'm not necessarily encouraging this
of action, I do not intend to prosecute in this case," Hoisington said.
Gates thought a shot had been fired in his direction, and he was defending
himself and his home, he said.

Gates, a semi-retired brick mason, said he was pleased by the decision
"because I know darn well I didn't go on the other side of the law." "I'm
sorry it happened, but I feel I did the right thing," he said.

Hoisington's announcement came the same day Charleston police filed
and weapons charges against one of the men Gates shot. Christopher
22, is accused of wounding 27-year-old Kevin Hazel during the initial 4:40
a.m. shootout outside Gates' home. Police say Hampton shot Hazel in the
after the two argued. Hazel's brother, 24-year-old Montez Hazel, then
reportedly opened fire on Hampton, said Detective Sgt. Barry Goldstein.

The gunfire woke Gates, who grabbed his 12-gauge Browning automatic
stepped outside and fired three blasts at the men, wounding Hampton in the
abdomen and Montez Hazel in the torso, police said.

Hampton, who was released from the hospital last week, surrendered to
authorities Monday night at the Charleston County jail, Goldstein said. He
is charged with assault and battery with intent to kill and possessing a
firearm during a violent crime. Magistrate Jack Guedalia denied bail
on the assault count and set bail at $200,000 on the firearms violation.

The Hazel brothers remained hospitalized in fair condition while
from their wounds, Goldstein said.

Gates, an avid hunter and gun owner, said he only was trying to protect
wife and home. Angered by persistent illegal drug activity taking place on
his property and harassment by drug dealers, Gates said gunfire was the

Two of the three men have previous drug convictions, according to
County court records.Police confiscated Gates' shotgun and six other guns
inside his home, but he was not arrested. Charleston Police Chief Reuben
Greenberg said Gates merely was protecting himself and his home.

South Carolina case law historically has upheld the use of deadly force as
defense when a person's life and home are threatened. In 2001, former
attorney general Charlie Condon instituted a home-invasion policy that
protected citizens from prosecution for defending themselves against

Hoisington said the Tripe Street case caused him "a little concern"
Gates was outside his home when he fired on the men. The case would have
been more clear-cut if Gates had been threatened inside his home, he said.
"I think there is a fine line between defending your residence and
your property," he said.

Today's guns, however, have the ability to pierce walls, increasing the
threat to those inside a home, Hoisington said. Gates also was entitled to
go out to his porch to see what was happening, even if that might not have
been the prudent thing to do, he said. "When there is a perception that
are being fired upon, I think it's fairly clear you can return fire," he

Gates said police have returned all of his guns but the shotgun, and he
expects to get that back soon. He said no one has sought retribution
him for the shooting and that the drug dealers have stayed clear of his
property. "The place is clean since it happened," he said. "I just hope
be cool and stay away from my place with that stuff."

Gates said he has received more than 200 calls -- some from as far away as
Canada and Germany -- from people congratulating him for taking a stand.
"Every one of them has been supportive," he said.


Posted on Aug 20, 2003, 8:03 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home

CA: Burglar Fatally Shot by Card Shop Owner

by Armed citizens deter crime

Burglar Fatally Shot by Card Shop Owner
The Valley;

Burglar Fatally Shot by Card Shop Owner;
The proprietor of a Lancaster memorabilia store surprises the man during a 3 a.m. break-in.


Los Angeles Times

August 20, 2003 Wednesday Valley Edition

A Lancaster shop owner, sleeping overnight in his back office because he'd twice been victimized by thieves, shot and killed a burglar early Tuesday, sheriff's deputies said.

The owner of Bases, Cards and Comics, a sports memorabilia store, had been staying there "pretty much every night" for the last two months to thwart further theft, Sgt. Shawn McCarthy said.

Detectives preliminarily concluded that the fatal shooting of James Patrick Cassidy, 40, was justified, because the shopkeeper said Cassidy threatened him with a tire iron during the 3 a.m. break-in, McCarthy said. "I have no reason to doubt his story."

Cassidy, whose hometown had not been determined by coroner's investigators, died of a gunshot wound to the upper body.

McCarthy declined to identify the store owner, who told deputies he had been in business for about 10 years.

The shopkeeper was awakened by the back door being forced open, Deputy Scott Butler said. Arming himself with a handgun, the store owner crept down a hallway and encountered an intruder, who raised a tire iron as if to strike, investigators said. The owner fired once and struck Cassidy at close range, they said.

Paramedics pronounced Cassidy dead at the scene in the 1300 block of West J Street.

"It appears the owner was defending himself; that tire iron could have killed him," Butler said. The case will be presented to the district attorney's office for review, but no charges are expected to be filed, Los Angeles County sheriff's officials said.

The shop owner, whom McCarthy described as traumatized by the shooting, told deputies he had been burglarized two months ago. Homicide investigators were looking for that report and another filed about a year ago to verify the owner's statement that he had been a crime victim and was guarding his merchandise, the sergeant said.

"Some of those trading cards are worth a lot of money," McCarthy said. "He told us it would be easy to grab a couple of boxes off a shelf and have a couple hundred dollars worth of stuff."

Posted on Aug 20, 2003, 8:58 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home

(NC) Disabled man uses handgun to stop robbery 08-15-03

by Armed citizens deter crime

(NC) Disabled man uses handgun to stop robbery 08-15-03

Bystander shoots suspect during robbery at ATM By OREN DORELL, Staff
Friday, August 15, 2003 12:00AM EDT

William "Don" Strickland takes his small-caliber handgun wherever he
goes, just in case any criminals cross his path.

On Thursday, the former iron worker on permanent disability used it --
when he saw a young woman being robbed at an ATM and the robber trying
to get away.

First Strickland shot the tires of the getaway car; then he shot the man
inside once in the right leg.

The robber escaped, but soon Clayton police arrested Morris Levi Stith
of Clayton after Stith checked into Johnston Memorial Hospital with a
gunshot wound to the right leg. Stith was charged with robbery and
assault with a deadly weapon, Clayton police said. Strickland probably
will not be charged.

Stith complained about being shot as he hobbled into the magistrate's
office in downtown Clayton with a police escort Thursday afternoon.
"It's wrong, man," he said.

The incident occurred a few minutes before 9 a.m. in front of the Bank
of America branch at Clayton Corners Shopping Center in the western part
of town.

Rebecca Lynn Newton, 20, of Barber Mill Road in Clayton said she was
about to insert an envelope containing $400 from her paycheck into the
ATM slot when a man shoved her from behind and said, "I'll take that."
Newton spun and grabbed the unarmed man by the shirt, causing him to
fall, and she started screaming.

Strickland, 35, of Four Oaks was in his car waiting for the bank to
open. He said in an interview that he heard a woman scream -- "Help,
help, help, he's robbing me!" -- and sprang into action. He said he
"don't get around too good" because of an injury several years ago that
required four titanium rods to be inserted in his back. Still,
Strickland ran to a white Chevrolet Cavalier that was backed into a
parking spot.

The robber had jumped into the car, and Newton was struggling with him
by the car door. The car started moving, and Strickland hollered at the
robber to stop, his North American Arms .22-caliber Magnum revolver in
his hand. Then he fired twice at a rear tire.

"He still wouldn't stop," Strickland said. "I was standing beside the
car, and he tried to run me over. "I had my hand in the car" with the
gun in it, Strickland said, "and I asked him to stop again, and he
wouldn't do it, so I shot him in the leg."

When police arrived, Strickland told them he was sure he had shot the
man in the right leg, and police notified area hospitals to be on the
lookout for a patient with such a wound, said Lt. Bill Newsome of the
Clayton Police Department. Officers found $360 in cash on Stith, Newsome

Newsome said Strickland is unlikely to be charged because he is listed
as the victim of the assault. Tom Lock, the Johnston County district
attorney, said a person has a right to use deadly force to resist deadly
force. "If the suspect in this case was attempting to run over a person,
then that person could use deadly force to resist the assault," Lock

He added that intervening in a robbery involves some risk. "No one wants
to encourage vigilante justice, but I certainly can understand that a
person might feel compelled to intervene when he saw a crime being
committed. I might do the same thing under similar circumstances."

Strickland, who does not have a permit to carry a concealed weapon, said
the gun had been lying on the dash of his car. "I don't go to the
grocery store without something today, because of things like that," he

Newton, a gas station clerk who took the day off after the robbery, said
Strickland is her hero. Her fiance, David Little, 40, said he, too, was
grateful. "I'm going to call him over the weekend and ask him what kind
of steak he likes," said Little, who moved to Clayton with his fiance e
this summer from Atlanta. "I'm going to have him and his wife and kids
over for dinner."


Posted on Aug 15, 2003, 9:41 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home

'Silveira v. Lockyer' seen as potential landmark 2nd Amendment ruling

by Women Against Gun Control


NRA files brief in high-court gun case
'Silveira v. Lockyer' seen as potential landmark 2nd Amendment ruling

Posted: August 15, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Jon Dougherty
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

The National Rifle Association has filed a brief in support of what backers are calling a potential landmark gun-rights case now before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Sponsored primarily by KeepAndBearArms.com, or KABA, a pro-gun rights website and organization, the case challenges "the California semi-auto rifle ban on the basis of Second Amendment protection of our individual right to keep and bear arms," according to the group's website.

Semi-automatic versions of military weapons that have been banned in California are at the center of a case before the Supreme Court to define Second Amendment rights.

California lawmakers banned a number of rifles under the Assault Weapons Control Act in 1989, but a decade later, the state also restricted the sale, manufacture, or importation into the state of all semi-automatic rifles having combinations of arbitrarily selected features – such as detachable magazines, folding stocks, flash suppressors and pistol grips.

NRA support, say the suit's backers, was crucial not only to lend credibility but also as a way to boost fundraising for the effort, KABA officials said.

The 28-page NRA amicus brief, filed with the high court Aug. 7, argues that the Second Amendment supersedes state law.

The Second Amendment says, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

"The Second Amendment empowers individual citizens to defend themselves and their property against the acts of criminals, mob violence, and even state-sponsored oppression," says the brief. "Only individual possession of firearms allows for the effective exercise of self-defense against such threats."

Brian Puckett, a spokesman for KABA, told WorldNetDaily that Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, the Second Amendment Sisters, Women Against Gun Control, and even Pink Pistols – a homosexual gun-rights group – have filed amicus briefs with the Supreme Court in support of gun rights.

The NRA brief also quotes 19th Century Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, who observed that "the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary powers of rulers."

"We are at a critical stage on what may turn out to be the most important Second Amendment case ever filed," said KABA spokesman David Codrea.

Supporters appealed to the Supreme Court after the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled recently that Americans have no individual right to keep and bear arms.

KABA said the suit "seeks to address at least two specific aspects of the Second Amendment, namely: Does the Second Amendment apply to the states in the same way that the First, Fourth, and Fifth amendments apply, and does it guarantee an individual right, in the same manner as those other amendments to the Bill of Rights?"

The case is named after its primary plaintiff, Sean Silveira, and the California attorney general, Democrat Bill Lockyer.

Clinton administration Justice Department officials also held that the Second Amendment was a collective state right, not an individual right, a point laid out in an Aug. 22, 2000, letter by then-Solicitor General Seth Waxman.

However, Bush administration Attorney General John Ashcroft reversed course in a letter to the NRA shortly after taking office, telling the nation's largest gun-rights organization he believes the Constitution supports an individual's right to own firearms.


Jon E. Dougherty is a staff reporter and columnist for WorldNetDaily.

Posted on Aug 15, 2003, 4:40 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home

Teach the Children

by Women Against Gun Control

from a friend of WAGC's who is a lawyer in Utah:Subject: Teach the Children


I was asked to teach a class on gun safety at my church. I did
so last night. They acknowledged being fed "anti-gun" crap in school
although from their description, it is not nearly so bad in Utah as in
other states.
Now they want me to take them shooting, which I will. Once they
have had a chance to picture themselves protecting themselves and their
families with a firearm, the way our Founding Fathers envisioned it, it
will be hard for their high school teachers and college professors to
twist their minds.
Plus, I'm convinced, after handling several accidental shooting
cases, that the best way to prevent accidental shootings of youth is
(yes education, but better yet) to SATISFY THEIR CURIOSITY about guns.
Let them KNOW THEY DON'T HAVE TO SNEAK A PEEK at a gun, but rather just
ask a trusted adult to take them shooting (and better yet, rabbit
hunting so they can see what a bullet really does as opposed to what
they see on TV/Movies).
So do what Pancho says: "Preserve our freedom into the next
generation; take a kid shooting!" (But don't forget to use the "Parent
Consent Form" Appendix A in my book).

James D. "Mitch" Vilos

Practice Concentrating in Accidents and Personal Injury, Insurance Law,
Medical Malpractice, Defective Products, Workplace Injuries (not
Worker's Compensation), and Firearms Law (representation of gun owners
in criminal actions, expungements, and civil rights cases)

Posted on Aug 14, 2003, 8:08 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home

The Case for more guns

by Nancy

The Case for more guns
John Lott shows why liberals are simple-minded on gun control.

August 11, 2003

Conservatives, a new study says, are simple-minded, to which I say that's partly true; some of us sometimes are, but I would argue that the characterization applies to some liberal dispositions, such as the one on gun control.

It's not that there are no brainy liberals, but if you keep a close eye on this tribe, you can't ignore its constantly surfacing, unsophisticated supposition that good governmental intentions necessarily translate into good social results.

The gun-control issue is revealing in this respect. We're always been told that one more well-meaning law on top of the thousands in existence will somehow be the one that does the trick. The logic seems to be that the proposed law, whatever it is, will in fact shrink the number of guns that find their way into suicidal, irresponsible or criminal hands, and that the number of gun deaths will be reduced as well.

The truth, as John Lott has shown, is more nearly the opposite. Spread the guns around. Therein lies death reduction.

Lott, a tall, thin, intense-seeming man I visited with the other day, is an economist who has taught at prestige universities such as Yale and is now a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. To an extent few can have matched, he has amassed and analyzed data about gun use, and he has provided empirical evidence that the liberal formula is hokum.

His books - "More Guns, Less Crime" and "The Bias Against Guns" - use statistics to make the case that gun-control laws are ineffectual and worse. They do not reduce crime or killings. They have the opposite effect. After tough new gun laws were enacted in England, violent crime took off as if headed for the moon. According to Lott, a better way to address crime is through laws making it legal and easy for average citizens to carry weapons.

Counterintuitive? It may seem that way, Lott tells us in the book on gun bias, because media so seldom report on the endless incidents in which citizens avert crime by brandishing a gun and scaring off the bad guy. He makes the obvious point that those who obey gun-control laws are not criminals but people who abide by the law. Disarm the populace, and the armed criminals have fewer disincentives to do their damage. Make it easier for citizens to have guns, and the would-be robber or mugger has something to worry about. The upshot: Laws allowing concealed-weapons reduce crime.

Some liberals don't like it when you pop their balloons, and the attack on Lott has been as relentless as it has been mean-spirited. It has been implied that he used fake data for one assertion, when in truth he made it immediately clear to colleagues that some data had been lost after a computer crash, spelled out how it could be replicated and has since replicated it himself.

There also has been a responsible response to him and other social scientists whose research supports his, namely research arriving at a different conclusion about the consequences of concealed-weapons laws. But this conclusion, which Lott says is based on a flawed reading of the data, is not quite so different as Lott's opponents might hope. Even these researchers agree you cannot deduce from the data that the concealed-weapons laws lead to significant increases in crime.

Based on the evidence, the liberals are mistaken in their gun-control enthusiasms, and the same is the case with any number of their ideas about pressing governmental buttons here and getting desired outcomes over there.

Something else that appears simple-minded is the study that portrayed conservatives as simple-minded. It also called conservatives rigid, intolerant of just about everything but inequality, fear-ridden, angry, pessimistic and, well, you might not want your daughter marrying one of them.

I haven't laid my hands on the report yet, but I know from articles on it that the authors define conservatism in such a way as to allow them to lump President Ronald Reagan with Adolf Hitler, and that while the authors must see themselves as capable of rational observation, they think those with different outlooks are captives of non-rational psychological forces. Sounds ad hominem to me. Sounds simplistic.

I wonder how these guys stand on gun control.

Jay Ambrose is director of editorial policy for Scripps Howard Newspapers.

Posted on Aug 13, 2003, 9:14 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home

(SC) Club owner kills intruder who was on parole 08-08-03


(SC) Club owner kills intruder who was on parole 08-08-03

Another one where the perp was "on Parole" from previous crimes.... :mad3:


The Beaufort Gazette: Intruder killed by Columbia club owner
Published Fri, Aug 8, 2003

COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) - A club owner shot and killed an intruder who broke
into his business, authorities say.

Harold Thomas Weed, 21, was shot in the face early Thursday morning
inside The Foxhole club, authorities said.

Club owner Leslie G. Snider, 58, told Richland County deputies he was
getting ready to close the club when he heard someone kick in a side
door, sheriff's spokesman Sgt. Chris Cowan said.

Snider told deputies he never spoke to Weed before firing one shot,
Cowan said.

Weed was on parole for two aggravated assault convictions in September
2002, prosecutor John Meadors said.

Deputies don't plan to charge Snider. Meadors said prosecutors will
review the case to determine whether Snider acted reasonably.

The club previously had been burglarized three times in the last year,
including separate incidents last month and in June, Cowan said.

Posted on Aug 8, 2003, 5:08 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home

: (IL) Serial burglar out on bond shot by homeowner 08-09-03


: (IL) Serial burglar out on bond shot by homeowner 08-09-03


(IL) Serial burglar out on bond shot by homeowner 08-09-03

Another SERIAL BG "out on bond"............. and they wander WHY
the heck crime is so bad????? It's the repeat criminals stupid!

Once again an armed citizen does what our justice system failed to

Saturday, August 9, 2003
Homeowner shoots man
Apparent burglary attempt stopped near Heyworth By Kevin Simpson
Pantagraph staff

HEYWORTH -- A homeowner's shotgun blast wounded a Bloomington man and
foiled what officials believe was a burglary attempt Friday afternoon
rural Heyworth.

The burglary suspect, Shad Hammond, 24, of Bloomington, was being
treated Friday afternoon for a shotgun wound at BroMenn Regional
Center, Normal. Hospital officials declined to release information on
his condition Friday night.

McLean County sheriff's police said his injuries were not

"What it boils down to is the intruder was shot by the homeowner,"
McLean County Sheriff Dave Owens said. "The intruder was taken to the
hospital with a gunshot wound."

Authorities are investigating if Hammond is tied to a series of area
burglaries, including an attempted burglary near Funks Grove that
startled a teenage girl Friday morning. Hammond has a criminal

The rural Heyworth resident, Terry Hilton, was taken to the McLean
County Sheriff's
Department for questioning following the 1:30 p.m. shooting at the
on U.S. 136 three miles west of Heyworth, Sheriff Dave Owens said.
Hilton was released without criminal charges.

Hilton's fiancee, Susan Kemper, said Hilton was too shaken by the
incident to comment.

Hilton called 911 after shooting Hammond, who was found on the ground
outside a rear door of the residence when police arrived, Owens said.
Criminal charges are pending against Hammond, Owens said.

Authorities reserved comment on whether the shooting was justified
the investigation is completed. A report will be forwarded to the
state's attorney's office.

"There are a lot of questions to answer and a lot of work left to do,"
said Lt. Bonnie Serone of the sheriff's department.

Authorities declined to release additional information about the
of Hammond's wounds or other details.

It is unclear whether Hammond was shot inside or outside the home. A
parked behind the residence was towed so it could be searched for
potential evidence.

Hammond also is a suspect in a Friday morning burglary attempt near
Funks Grove. The suspect in that case startled a teenage girl at the
residence before fleeing around 10:40 a.m. Sheriff's deputies searched
the area for more than an hour without success.

Authorities also are checking if Hammond was involved to a string of
rural burglaries in McLean, DeWitt and Tazewell counties.

Hammond was sentenced in 1996 to four years in state prison for
burglarizing three Normal residences. He is currently out on $750 bond
on a charge that says he tried to steal anhydrous ammonia -- a
methamphetamine component -- near Hudson in the spring. The Funks
Grove-area home is about five miles northwest of where the shooting

Homes in that part of southwest McLean County are fairly isolated
because of surrounding farm fields. A nearby neighbor wasn't aware of
the shooting until notified by a Pantagraph reporter.

"That really makes me nervous," said Heidi Spaulding, 24. "I've always
locked my doors and windows, but now I'll be checking them a lot

Posted on Aug 9, 2003, 1:51 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home

Only 93 Blue Certificates Left

by Women Against Gun Control

Please send to all on your e-mail lists

August 8, 2003

From: Dr. Ignatius Piazza
Founder and Director
Front Sight Resorts

Dear Friends and Students of Front Sight,

Our "Exchange in Abundance" program to give you a coveted Front
Sight "Blue Certificate" and raise money for your favorite
churches and charities is down to the LAST 93 Certificates.

Remember, 400 gets you 2000 plus 1000 to your favorite charity
or church. Get yours before they are gone!

Here are a few more of the numerous responses we have received on
this offer:

From David Mackett:

"This is an outstanding deal! I've confirmed with my accountant
that the tax deduction works exactly as Mike Lee states below...
making it an almost free opportunity!"

From Mike Lee:

"Great idea! I spend $400 for the Blue Certificate and get to
attend any Front Sight course on it while you send a $1000
certificate to a Charity (in my name) that nets me $400+ in tax
benefit. Sounds like free class to me, while good for the Charity
and great PR for Front Sight. I'll take ten certificates please!"

From Patrick Srail:

"Since I'm not that smart, just tell me if my interpretation
is right or wrong:
1. I pay $400 and nothing else.
2. I can take the really cool 5-day Armed Citizens Corps course.
3. A charity of my choice gets a $1000 certificate for training.
4. All I paid for all this is $400.
Correct? If so, COOL!!!"

From Heidi Berenbrok:

"First I want to tell you that I think this is a great idea!
I am curious to know if the $1,000 certificates for the
charities have an expiration date? (no) I didn't see mention
of that in your e-mail.

Also, although I'm active in a charitable organization
(animal rescue) I'm still in the process of checking with the
Board members to find out if they want to be the recipient of
these certificates. Is it possible for me to purchase two of
the Blue Certificates now and then provide you with the
information on which charity I want the certificates to go
to within the next couple of weeks? (yes)

If so, please put me down for two certificates."

So if you would like to secure a Blue Certificate for only $400
that is good for any course we offer at Front Sight
($2,000 value) and you would like us to donate a $1000
certificate on Front Sight Resort letterhead in your name to
your favorite charity or church, then read the original e-mail
that follows and secure your Blue Certificates before the number
we allocated for this program are gone. As you can see from the
students we shared with you above, the certificates are going

Original e-mail dated August 4 follows:

Front Sight to Launch Charitable Foundation
What is Your Favorite Charity?

Dear Friends and Students of Front Sight,

While watching television a few weeks ago, I was informed by my
local public education station, that due to viewer donations
being down 40% from last year, they had slashed their expenses
over $400,000 and were still lacking funds to keep their
programming in place.

That got me to thinking and doing some further research.

I found that most charities and churches are down considerably
from last year and many urgently need more help than they are
currently receiving. There are some very fine organizations on
the verge of collapse.

In contrast, Front Sight has grown every year a minimum of 40%
and we continue to expand (watch for detailed announcements on
Front Sight North coming soon).

Since we have grown through the dot.com crash, 9-11, war in Iraq,
SARS, the recession, any every other "doom and gloom" forecast
the news media loves to focus on, I thought it would only be
right that we should do something to help America's churches and
charitable organizations.

It is only when the strong don't take responsibility to help that
we have government, with their costly bureaucracy and often
misguided policies, taking over. (A good recent example of this
is the TSA. So far, their training of just 48 armed pilots has
cost taxpayers over $800,000!)

I also found that YOU, our students, support a wide range of
charities and churches. With this encouragement from you, I have
decided to launch a unique Charitable Foundation. I know that
Front Sight's students are some of the finest people in the
world. So I have specifically designed our Foundation to support
our students' favorite churches and charities.

Here is what I have in mind:

I would like to provide you with one or more of our coveted "Blue
Certificates." These certificates are good for ANY course we
offer, have No Expiration Date, and is Not Restricted to a
student's first course. So it can be used by anyone, for any
course, any time the course is offered. Based on our current
course offerings, the "Blue Certificate" has a minimum value of
$1200 to $2000.

I would also like to provide your church and/or the charities of
your choice with a special $1000 CERTIFICATE good toward the cost
of Any Course at Front Sight Resort. This $1000 Certificate
would be provided to the church or charity of your choice IN YOUR
NAME so they know it was your good intentions that brought them
this initial donation. They can then sell it, raffle it, trade
it, or use it in any manner they wish to raise money for their

By participating in this program, you will also ensure that your
church or charity will be given priority placement in all the
"no-cost-to-the-charity" programs the Front Sight Foundation will
offer in the near future.

How are we funding the Front Sight Charitable Foundation? By
giving everyone who wants to help their church or favorite
charity Front Sight's famous "Exchange in Abundance."

Here is how it works:

The cost for your $2000-value Blue Certificate that is good for
anyone, for any course, any time the course is offered, is only
$400. This is the greatest value ever offered on special Blue
Certificates-- certificates that we rarely ever offer to anyone.

Your church or the charity of your choice gets a special $1000
Certificate good toward the cost of any course donated in your
name that they can raffle, sell, trade, or use in any manner they
wish to raise money for their organization.

And the money Front Sight receives from your purchase of the Blue
Certificate helps us fund the Charitable Foundation so we can
offer joint venture programs with other businesses to raise
hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of dollars for your
churches and favorite charitable organizations.

As you can see, this program is a win-win-win for all involved.

If you would like to help us help your church and favorite
charities, please fill out the form below and e-mail it to us (or
fax to 831.684.2137) today.

Blue Certificate Purchase / Charity Donation






Home Phone:

Work Phone:

Number of Blue Certificates Purchased at $400 each:
(You may purchase as many as you wish until sold out)

Total Amount of Purchase:

Credit Card #:
(VISA, Mastercard, Discover American Express)

Expiration Date:


Church or Charity to Receive $1000 Certificate in Your Name
(You may add additional recipients for each Blue Certificate
you purchase.)

Name of Church or Charity:





Phone Number:

Complete form and e-mail to info@frontsight.com (or fax to
831.684.2137) or mail to PO Box 2619, Aptos CA 95001.

Please note I have not placed a deadline on this program, but it
is a first-come-first-served offer, as I have set aside a very
specific number of Blue Certificates for your purchase at $400
each and an equal number of $1000 Certificates to give the
churches and charities of your choice.

I have found that people in general fall into two categories:
Those who want to help others and those who don't.

I strongly believe that most people associated with Front Sight
are people who want to help others. If I am right about you,
then the specific number of Blue Certificates I have set aside
will go quickly and hundreds of churches and charities will
receive thousands of dollars in benefit.

Please fill out the purchase form and e-mail to
info@frontsight.com or fax it to 831.684.2137 TODAY to make sure
your church and favorite charity is included before the Blue
Certificates are sold out.


Ignatius Piazza

Posted on Aug 7, 2003, 8:58 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home

the Freedom Pledge ( JPFO)

by Nancy

I pledge my honor to the Bill of Rights, our precious national treasure.

As the Bill is a fortress against tyranny, I will battle all tyrants.

As the Bill protects liberty, I will live free.

As the Bill guards rights born within all humanity, I will defend the freedoms of future generations.

With my life, my words, and my daily deeds, with a vision of what can be, I honor all of the Bill of Rights for all mankind.


"The Freedom Pledge was created by Aaron Zelman and Claire Wolfe for Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. To learn more about how you can defend the Bill of Rights, go to http://www.jpfo.org."

Published by:

Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Inc. P.O. Box 270143 Hartford, WI 53027

Phone (262) 673-9745 Fax: (262) 673-9746 http://www.jpfo.org

Posted on Aug 7, 2003, 8:15 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home

Tha Racist Roots Of Gun Control

by Nancy

Posted on Aug 7, 2003, 8:21 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home

Fraudulent 'Ask John Lott' Website Now Claims to Be Parody

by Nancy

Posted on Aug 7, 2003, 8:10 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home

WAGC Files amicus curiae Brief - Lockyer Vs Silvera


WAGC news Bulletin: WAGC S VS L AB


Women Against Gun Control is honored to submit an Amicus Curiae Brief urging
the U.S. Supreme Court to hear an appeal from the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of
Appeals' decision that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual
right. That case was Silveira vs. Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2003).

Howard J. Fezell, Esq. of Frederick, Maryland (a former NRA Board Member)
graciously volunteered his time to write this amicus brief. It is very
concise, clear, and poignant in detailing reasons why women, in particular,
should have access to firearms for self-defense. The data he cites from the
FBI and Bureau of Justice Statistics show how restrictions on gun ownership
have a disparate effect on women.

WAGC's brief was filed on Wednesday, July 30, 2003. This amicus brief is of
the HIGHEST caliber. That's why Women Against Gun Control wanted to share it
with you. Please feel free to circulate it to as many people as possible. It
is in PDF Format.

On Friday, August 1, 2003 we were informed that the NRA has decided to file
a brief in support of Silveira's Petition For Writ Of Certiorari. The Court
will rule on the cert petition in or around October.

Best regards,

Women Against Gun Control
"The Second Amendment IS the Equal Rights Amendment"

P.S. A 21-gun salute to Keep and Bear Arms, www.keepandbeararms.com and the
other organizations who have spearheaded this effort and are contributing
their time, money, and talents. Also, to Gary Gorski, the lead attorney in
Silveira vs. Lockyer.

P.P.S. If you'd like to help defray the printing costs for WAGC, please send
a check or money order made payable to:
Women Against Gun Control
P.O. Box 95357
So. Jordan, UT

The amicus brief can also be found at: www.wagc.com

Posted on Aug 7, 2003, 8:00 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home

Pink Pistols File Amicus Curiae Brief - Lockyer VS Silvera


It's time for me to do something I've sworn I'd never do. Ask for money. There is a court case that has gone through the Appelate courts -- the Silveracase that is going to go in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. The Pink Pistolsare filing a Cert brief on this case, urging the US Supreme Court to hear it.This case is about the assault weapons ban in California. Before the Supremescan rule on this issue they will need to rule on a number of other basic pointsincluding: Does the 2nd Amendment apply to individuals? Does the 14thAmendment apply to the 2nd Amendment? (IE: Can states legally restrict whatyou can own? Are the 2nd Amendment rights part of the 14th's protectedprotectcted privileges and immunities of citizens?) In short, such a rulinghas the potential to eliminate most of the harassment, fines, criminal charges,imprisonment, and killing of citizens that we have too long endured under theguise of “reasonable gun control”.We already have a lawyer who will be filing for us. What we need the money foris to cover the costs of printing, binding, and mailing of 40 copies of thisdocument to the SCOTUS. Right now, the expected cost is $500. If we succeedand the SCOTUS hears this case, there will be another filing costing us another$500.Citizens of America <http://www.citizensofamerica.org>>; has agreed to handle thefinances for us. This means we don't need to change our legal structure -- nopaperwork for any of us to file with the FEC, IRS, or anyone else.But to do this, we do need your support. Please donate $100 if you can. Or$50. Even a donation of just $20 will bring us closer to our goal. Any funds raised in surplus of the $500 goal will be saved for future legal costs of thiscase. If we are fortunate enough to raise more than $1000, surplus funds will be used to pay for other legal fees as needed.Additional information on this court case is available at:<http://www.keepandbeararms.com/Silveira/scotus.asp>When> you donate, we need to flag the monies for the Pink Pistols. So fill outthe amount and your address information as you normally would. On the secondscreen, there will be a place to enter "Customer Shipping Information (ifdifferent from above)". In this field, please enter "Pink Pistols". That waywe will know which funds are to be used for this project.To donate, please go to: <http://www.citizensofamerica.org/donatemain.htm>And> remember, this is a case that could overturn many, if not most, of theunconstitutional firearm restrictions that are currently on the books. Yourdonations are needed, so that we can file on this case to help convince theSCOTUS that this is an issue that needs to be addressed.Thank you.Doug Krickfounder, Pink Pistols

Posted on Aug 7, 2003, 8:01 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home

(UT) Police credit armed neighbor with help in arrests 08-04-03

by Armed Citizens save lives and deter crime

(UT) Police credit armed neighbor with help in arrests 08-04-03


Orem Neighbor Comes to Rescue
Aug. 4, 2003
Sam Penrod Reporting

An Orem man came to the rescue of his neighbors who were the victims of
a home invasion robbery.

When the man heard a disturbance in his neighborhood early Saturday
morning, he went outside to see what was going on. But the man quickly
found himself in the middle of a melee. His wife called 911 as the
suspects tried assaulting him.

The motive for this home invasion robbery is still unclear. While
investigators sort that out they have four people in jail thanks to an
Orem man who came to his neighbor's rescue.

Just after midnight on Saturday morning, Russell Selman saw people
standing on his porch. When he opened the door to see what they were
doing, five people all wearing ski masks pushed their way inside.

Russell Selman, Robbery Victim: "Right here you can see the door. They
roughed up my door pretty bad. They came in and tipped over my
entertainment center, came through, ransacked through the house, tore
everything apart."

The commotion caused one of the victim's neighbors to come outside to
see what was going on. He saw the people wearing ski masks running away,
but one of them tried to hit him, which turned out to be a bad idea.

Clawson, Victim's Neighbor: "The guy on the ground, when I first had him
down, got all scared and said, 'You've got the wrong person,
I didn't do anything." Yet he has a ski mask on and gloves on and he's
telling me with a ski mask after he's yelled and swore at me and
threatened to kill me that I've got the wrong person."

While his wife called police, Clawson asked her to get his gun. That's
when the other suspects came back to help their partner in crime.

Clawson: "Even though they saw me with a sidearm and even after I racked
it in front of them, they just tried getting closer and sneaking around
behind me."

Several police officers arrived shortly thereafter and arrested the
suspects. Police credit the neighbor for helping to keep crime off his
Lt. Doug Edwards, Orem Police Dept.: "We don't encourage people to get
involved and try to make arrests with handguns as he did, but I think
under the circumstances he was backed into that situation and did a very
good job."

Police arrested 18-year old Casey Ortega, 22-year old Jamie Potter,
19-year old Tony Doyle and 19-year old Radience Whigham.
One juvenile was also arrested and one suspect is still on the loose.
All face aggravated burglary charges.

Posted on Aug 7, 2003, 7:19 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home

(SC) Self-defense at issue in front yard shooting 08-06-03

by Armed Citizens save lives and deter crime

(SC) Self-defense at issue in front yard shooting 08-06-03

> Self-defense at issue in frontyard shooting BY STEVE REEVES
> The Post and Courier Staff
> http://www.charleston.net/stories/080603/loc_06defense.shtml
> Is William Gates a man who did what he had to do to defend himself and
> his home, or did he take the law into his own hands by gunning down two
> men in front of his house? That's up to Charleston County prosecutors to
> decide and Solicitor Ralph Hoisington hasn't announced his decision yet.
> But many criminal-law experts say that what Gates did was arguably
> within legal bounds.
> Trey Walker, a spokesman for South Carolina Attorney General Henry
> McMaster, said the state attorney general's office had no comment on
> this case and that it would be solely up to Hoisington whether Gates
> faces charges. "Ultimately, he is the legal authority in that case,"
> Walker said.
> Charlie Condon, the former state attorney general, said the 67-year-old
> Gates appeared to have been well within his legal rights when he shot at
> three men Gates said were drug dealers engaged in a shootout in his
> front yard. "Generally speaking, you do have the right to defend
> yourself from danger," Condon said. "I think a self-defense case has
> been made."
> Gates, who lives on Tripe Street near the West Ashley subdivision of
> Ashleyville, said he and his wife were awakened at about 4:30 a.m.
> Friday by the sound of gunfire just outside their house. Already angered
> by what he said has been constant illegal drug activity taking place on
> his property and harassment by drug dealers, Gates said the gunfire was
> the last straw.
> Gates, an avid hunter and gun owner, stepped out onto his front porch
> and fired three blasts from a 12-gauge shotgun, sending two men to the
> hospital. A third man was also shot, but police believe he was wounded
> in the initial shootout.
> Police confiscated Gates' shotgun and six other guns inside his home,
> but he was not arrested.
> Charleston Police Chief Reuben Greenberg, who caused controversy earlier
> this year when he encouraged merchants to arm themselves as protection
> against robberies, said Gates did not take the law into his own hands
> but was merely protecting himself and his home. Greenberg declined
> further comment.
> Condon, who as attorney general in 2001 instituted a home-invasion
> policy that protected citizens from prosecution for defending against
> intruders, said he hopes Gates won't face charges. "My sympathies are
> with the gentleman," he said. "I really do admire him for sticking it
> out and not letting the criminals run him out of his home."
> Vance Cowden, a law professor at the University of South Carolina, said
> state laws provide for self-defense and defense of property. "Use of
> deadly force is usually only proper when protecting life and not merely
> when property rights are at stake," he said.
> "You have to believe you are in eminent danger of losing your life and
> it has to be a belief that an ordinary, prudent person would entertain."
> Cowden said whether Gates faces charges will likely come down to whether
> prosecutors believe Gates rightfully feared for his life, a decision
> that could be swayed by the fact that the neighborhood is known for drug
> activity and someone had previously shot into his house.
> Prosecutors could also decide that Gates escalated the situation by his
> actions. Cowden said responses to physical threats have to be
> "proportional." "If someone throws a snowball at you and you shoot them,
> that's not proportional," he said.
> North Charleston defense attorney Michael
> O'Neal said Gates might have pushed the boundaries of self-defense laws,
> but did not go over them, by shooting at the men in his front yard. He
> said people, when confronted by physical threats, are required by law to
> retreat whenever possible -- everywhere except on their own property. "A
> man's house is his castle, that's what it essentially boils down to,"
> O'Neal said. "The men weren't exactly attacking him, but they were
> exhibiting violence on his property."
> Charleston defense attorney Mike Coleman agreed that the Gates case will
> come down to whether he was actually in imminent danger of being hurt.
> "Each case depends on the actual facts and the individual variables that
> go along with that case," he said. "If you have a drug dealer in your
> front yard and you've called the police and they haven't done anything,
> that still doesn't give you the right to use deadly force. If he's
> trying to hurt you, that's a different story."
> Regardless, Gates is a hero to many people.
> Dwight Arrington, a Columbia resident whose daughter is a student at
> Medical University of South Carolina, said he would help establish a
> legal-defense fund for Gates if he is charged in the shooting. "I'm just
> glad the guy had the backbone to do what he did," Arrington said. "I was
> thinking to myself when I read about it, 'Good for him, I would have
> done the same thing.' "
> -- Steve Reeves can be contacted at:
> sreeves@postandcourier.com or 843-745-5856
> http://www.robertwaters.net

Posted on Aug 7, 2003, 7:18 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home

(NV) Intruder killed by resident was a convicted murderer 08-06-03

by Armed Citizens save lives and deter crime

(NV) Intruder killed by resident was a convicted murderer 08-06-03

August 06, 2003
Gardnerville intruder who was killed was convicted murderer

GARDNERVILLE, Nev. (AP) - The violent intruder who was shot and killed
when he broke into a Gardnerville home over the weekend was a convicted
murderer who spent about 10 years in California mental hospitals,
authorities said Wednesday.

Walter Hetrick, 40, Antioch, Calif., was declared legally insane at one
point and had been arrested on drug charges as recently as January but
was released from state supervision in California about three months
ago, Douglas County Sheriff Ron Pierini said.

Hetrick was found guilty in the shooting death of his best friend in
Antioch in October 1984 and sentenced in March 1985 to 27 years to life
incarceration, Pierini said in a statement Wednesday.

He initially was sentenced to Atascadero State Hospital but also spent
time over a 10-year period at state hospitals in Patton and Napa, "where
he had been placed under a California Penal Code deeming him insane,"
the sheriff said.

Hetrick had been in and out of the institutions from time to time on
different supervised programs. It was not immediately clear at exactly
what point he was declared insane, whether he served time in state
prison or under what circumstances he was released, a sheriff's
spokesman said.

Charles Cryderman, 52, shot Hetrick three times after Hetrick threw
rocks through windows and got into Cryderman's home Saturday night.

Hetrick, 6-1, 230 pounds, was taken to a nearby medical center, where he
died of a severed artery.

"He didn't have a weapon, but this man's size was very large, and
apparently the rage in his voice and in his face terrified the
homeowner," Pierini said.

"We still have no idea why he picked that house or why he was even in
this area. Right now we're looking at his emotional stability," the
sheriff said.

Cryderman told investigators that he and his family were asleep when he
heard something at the front door.

"It wasn't a knock. It was like someone rattling the door knob," Pierini

"He went to the door, opened it and said, 'What do you want?' but the
person was irrational and violent so he told the man, 'Look, there's no
one here by that name, and I don't even know anyone by that name,'"
Pierini said.

The sheriff said Hetrick threatened to go into the house, so Cryderman
locked the door and moved his wife and kids into another room.

"The man then became more enraged and more violent," Pierini said,
adding that Cryderman "felt he was in obvious danger." "He dialed 911. I
listened to that tape," Pierini said.

On the tape, Cryderman said the man was throwing bricks through the
window and told dispatchers he was going to grab his gun. Pierini said
it appears Hetrick went to a side door, entered the home and came at
Cryderman, who then shot him.

The 911 call came in at 11:24 p.m. About one minute later, Cryderman
fired five shots at Hetrick with a .357-caliber revolver, hitting him
three times: in the left leg, left hip and left shoulder, authorities

When officers arrived, they found Hetrick lying inside at a side
entrance. He was taken by ambulance to Carson Valley Medical Center
where he was pronounced dead at 12:23 a.m. Sunday.

An autopsy listed the cause of death as the bullet wound to his hip,
which severed his femoral artery.

Pierini said the investigation is expected to be completed and submitted
to the district attorney's office for review by the end of the week.

No charges have been filed.

Posted on Aug 7, 2003, 7:16 PM

Respond to this message   

Goto Forum Home

Create your own forum at Network54
 Copyright © 1999-2014 Network54. All rights reserved.   Terms of Use   Privacy Statement