911 tells rape victim “no cops available”; if only she had a gun

oregonPicture this for a moment.  You are a woman alone in your house.  You have an ex-boyfriend who has sexually assaulted you before and left you hospitalized for several weeks.  That ex-boyfriend is now outside your house threatening to break in, and you immediately jump on the horn and call 911.  Sounds like a bad night already, but it’s about to get even worse.

You explain the situation to the 911 dispatcher, and the dispatcher proceeds to tell you that there are no police available to respond to the incident and suggests that if your ex-boyfriend does break into your house, simply ask him to go away.  Sound like a made-up fairy tale that could never happen in the United States of America?

Unfortunately, this is not a hypothetical situation.  Due to supposed budget cuts, this happened to a woman in the state of Oregon.

The woman was sexually assaulted and choked that night…again.  Oregon State Police arrested her boyfriend following the incident.  In the state of Oregon, you’re quite literally left to fend for yourself as our government, once again, falls down on the job.  The state blames a federal subsidy that they no longer get for the cutbacks that took 23 police officers off of the streets.

Our nation continues to spend hundreds of billions of dollars every year in so-called “humanitarian aid” missions overseas, engages in countless and never-ending wars, wastes money on feel-good social programs – only to leave our own citizens literally fighting for their lives as our government insists on taking absolutely no responsibility for the services that all Americans pay taxes to enjoy.

If there were ever a reason to increase the responsible ownership of firearms, this is it.  The police cannot, and apparently will not, protect you in many areas of our nation.  If people are left to fend for themselves, then the people need to take advantage of their second amendment right to keep and bear arms – while we still have it.  A simple 6-shooter revolver could have saved this particular woman from another hospital visit at the hands of a maniac, and sadly, this is not an isolated incident, and guns have an important place in our society.  Defensive gun use is becoming more and more critical.

Forget the rape whistle, as suggested by one particularly clueless Colorado lawmaker.  Get a firearm.  Learn how to effectively use the firearm.  Protect yourselves, because our government has made it painfully clear, once again, that they have no intention of doing their job.

On gun control, “common sense” is anything but common

Common sense is a wonderful thing.  The implication of “common” sense reforms implies that we’re discussing regulations so proper and so basic that people as a whole – the population – can easily see its virtues and support it.  In theory, these “common sense gun reforms” represent the most fundamental level of protection against another attack, and what American would oppose laws that are designed to prevent another attack?

The problem starts from ground zero – common sense is not pulled out of a hat.  Common sense is never the result of emotions.  Common sense results from experience and research, but unfortunately, neither of these two traits are present in these so-called common sense gun control laws floating around Congress.  How much confidence in these laws can the American people have when our elected leaders admit that their most recent failure – a bill requiring universal background checks - will not stop the next massacre, nor would it have prevented Sandy Hook, Columbine, or Virginia Tech?

To rely on background checks, one needs to assume two different things: First, we need to assume that criminals in our society would voluntarily submit to background checks.  Second, we need to necessarily assume that if a person were to fail a background check, they immediately stop trying to obtain a firearm.  Once they fail, that is it.  They go on about their lives as productive members of our society and simply forget about the cause of their aggression.  They instantly reform themselves, as if touched by an angel, and become law-abiding citizens of our great nation.

I do not know in what world that would be considered “common sense”, but it is not in this one.  Even our political class knows that universal background checks, while fed to the American people in an easily digestible “common sense” package, would do nothing to prevent the next attack.

It does not stop there.  Nobody wants to take away your guns, they say.  The problem?  They do.  Diane Feinstein, mother of the so-called assault weapons ban – a ban on the very type of weapons that are used in an extremely tiny fraction of crime in America – admitted in 1995 that if the votes were there, she would support a full and outright ban on weapons in this country, disarming the American people and keeping guns only in the hands of our trustworthy and sensible government.  What could go wrong?

So, let’s take a look at what one of the more prominent gun control activists in Congress supports.  At the very least, Feinstein wants a ban on weapons that are not used in the large majority of crime in America.  But truthfully, the goal is an outright ban on all weapons, essentially destroying the second amendment and leaving Americans, quite literally, as sitting ducks to those who would do us harm – including (and especially?) the government.

To believe in a gun ban, you must willingly forget the Battles of Lexington and Concord in 1775 that kicked off the Revolutionary War, when British “Red Coat” soldiers attempted to seize a large collection of arms from the colonists.  The alarm was sounded and the colonial militiamen quickly formed their armed resistance and pushed the British army back into retreat.  The moral of this story?  Disarmament was tried before, and the second amendment does not only exist to protect skeet shooting and hunting, as many would have you believe.  This is about freedom from tyranny.

Even more nonsensical are limits to magazines – and New York (7-round max) currently leads the way in this truly reckless control mechanism.  10-rounds seem to be the most popular number to limit magazine capacities at, but only the most uninformed gun control proponent could possibly support such a limit given that the gunmen in one of the worst school tragedies in recent history, Columbine, used 10-round magazines.  Thirteen different 10-round magazines, in fact.  The Virginia Tech shooter used several 10-round magazines, along with some 15-round mags.  The point?  Magazine limits cannot prevent a crazy gunman from opening up a torrent of gun fire, and even the most rudimentary research effort would uncover this fact.

Tell me, ladies and gentlemen – what is common sense about any of this?  Is the destruction of the second amendment somehow “common”?  If so, we have a much larger problem on our hands.  Is passing a universal background check system, a proposition that our own government admits will not stop the next attack, common?  How can limiting magazine capacities to the precise number that gunmen in many of our school tragedies use be at all connected to “common” … or “sense”, for that matter?

The truth of the matter is violent crime in the United States of America is at an all time low according to recent statistics.  Why, then, do the majority of Americans believe that crime is on the rise?  The answer lies in our media’s attempt at creating a life-and-death situation out of thin air, exploiting tragedies like Sandy Hook and virtually every accidental shooting as grounds to prop up the fraud.  Sadly, our government could not be happier about it because it gives them an opportunity to further their own political agendas and strengthen our society of dependence on the federal government.  Worse, it reinforces in a largely uninformed population the notion that America has a “gun problem”, and that the government needs to fix it.

It is well known that in the immediate aftermath of well-publicized national tragedies, the American people tear down their defenses and let the government encroach into their lives in ways they probably never dreamed of (think TSA).  This time, our government narrowly missed the window of opportunity to cash in on the heightened emotional level of Americans and push through a piece of meaningless legislation that would treat every American as a potential criminal.

This media-concocted fraud plays an integral part in creating the illusion that gun control laws in Congress are “common sense”.  If Americans are scared for their lives, they are more likely to give up their freedom in order to obtain perceived safety.  Of course, it is only those who do not own guns, nor have much knowledge about them, that are most willing to give up their right to them.  You want an example of being selfish?  This is it.

There is nothing “common sense” about that.

Background checks nearly double under President Obama

I have said this before, and I will say it again – Barack Obama is the best gun salesman this nation has ever seen.  According to numbers released by the FBI, 70,291,049 background checks have been conducted since President Obama took office back in 2009.  Compare that number to George W. Bush’s presidency, and you get almost half, or 36,090,415.  Clearly, people are frightened that the current administration will continue banning weapons and making it tougher for law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms, a constitutionally-protected right of every lawful American.

 

American sheriffs unite to defy Obama’s gun grabbing laws

gunJoining a growing number of the nation’s law enforcement officials refusing to partake in unconstitutional actions ordered by the federal government, the sheriff of Linn County, Ore., sent a preemptive letter to Vice President Joe Biden stating he is prepared to refuse to enforce federal regulations “offending the constitutional rights of [Linn County] citizens.”

According to his letter to Biden, Sheriff Tim Mueller will also prohibit his department’s “enforcement of any unconstitutional regulations or orders by federal officers” within his jurisdiction.

Several states have passed law preventing local law enforcement officers from enforcing unconstitutional laws such as federal gun-control laws including Utah, South Dakota, Tennessee, Idaho and others. Recently Kentucky and Wyoming introduced similar legislation.

The Constitutional County Sheriff’s Association is in the process of publishing a list of the Constitutional County Sheriffs in individuals states who have taken an oath to seriously refuse to enforce laws that violate the Constitution such as gun laws being proposed by President Barack Obama and members of both houses of the U.S. Congress, according to Keith Broaders, the administrator for the CCSA, on Monday.

Every Sheriff is required by law to take an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. This is not just a suggestion, it is the duty of the Sheriff to enforce just laws and refuse to enforce laws that are not, according to Broaders.

For example, Maricopa County Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio told a local radio host the federal government is “going to have problem” if they expect him to confiscate guns from private citizens.

“I took [multiple] oaths of office, and they all say I will defend the Constitution of the United States,” Arpaio told Mike Broomhead of KFYI Radio in Phoenix.

“Now if they’re going to tell the sheriff that he’s going to go around picking up guns from everybody, they’re going to have a problem. I may not enforce that federal law,” Arpaio said according to World Net Daily.

“How can a County Sheriff honor his oath if he needs to obtain permission from the Supreme Court? The ultimate arbiter of the meaning of the Constitution is ‘We the People’ and the duly elected County Sheriff is elected by the people to represent the will of his constituents,” Broader added.

“As a County Sheriff you can serve only one master. Are you going to keep your oath and serve the people, or are you going to be the enforcer of unjust Federal rules, regulations, codes, ordinances and statutes?” said the CCSA founder.

“I want to know if you [as a law enforcement executive] plan to be a servant of the people or an administrative lap dog for the Federal agencies and bureaucrats?”

NYT Editorial: 9mm pistol is now considered an “assault weapon”

glock 19 handgunThe New York Times published an editorial today praising the Tucson, AZ City Council after their move to require background checks at gun shows before firearm purchases can be made.  The author went on to mention the 2011 Tucson shooting that killed 6 and injured Congresswoman Gabriel Giffords, referring to the gun that shooter Jared Loughner carried as an “assault weapon”.

Loughner carried a Glock 19 (pictured to the right), a mainstream, run of the mill 9mm semi-automatic pistol.  Our government and media have cleverly managed to make a segment of our populace believe that anything short of a revolutionary musket or 18th century Derringer (the weapon that John Wilkes Booth used to kill Lincoln) to be “assault weapons”, a term coined in the media to elicit thoughts of senseless violence and murder – a bloodbath.

A link to the entire editorial is below.  To those who believe I’m giving this author undue exposure by making light of this story, you’re exactly right.  I want people to recognize how dangerous this discussion has gotten, and how close we are to re-defining the term “assault weapon” to mean almost anything, giving the government ample opportunity to significantly expand their weapons bans.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/21/opinion/tucson-takes-on-the-gun-lobby.html

Arkansas residents fight back over martial law threat

BCM Carry Handle AR-15-3Citing concerns over an increase in violence, Mike Gaskill, the mayor of Paragould Arkansas, told residents to expect police armed with AR-15 semi-automatic rifles to stop everyone they see on the streets to demand identification.  Guilty until proven innocent, Gaskill implied it is the job of the residents to prove they are doing nothing wrong.

“I’ve got statistical reasons that say I’ve got a lot of crime right now, which gives me probable cause to ask what you’re doing out,” Gaskill told a group of residents at a town hall meeting to announce the plan.  “Then when I add that people are scared…then that gives us even more [reason] to ask why are you here and what are you doing in this area.”

“They may not be doing anything but walking their dog,” he said. “But they’re going to have to prove it.”

Following the frightening proclamation from the town’s mayor, two subsequent town hall meetings have been canceled due to “public safety concerns”, and to this point, no AR-15-armed police officers have been sighted on the streets harassing the town’s people.

Bank of America freezing gun manufacturer’s accounts

1357700211_8831_bank of americaYou might think that a professional outfit such as Bank of America operated based on stated policy and not caprice. But not according to owner of American Spirit Arms Joe Sirochman.

On his Facebook page, Sirochman tells of his adventures with the banking giant. Like other gun dealers and manufacturers, his business is booming currently — Internet orders are up 500 percent. This caused there to be an unusual number of deposits made to his business’ BoA account via his website’s e-commerce system, triggering an account freeze. This may not seem strange, as banks have security systems that temporarily freeze accounts when detecting anomalous activity. This happened to me once after using my debit card to make an unusual series of purchases; the freeze was irritating, but nothing a few minutes on the phone didn’t remedy. But this is where Sirochman’s story takes a bizarre turn. He writes (edited for style):

After countless hours on the phone with Bank of America, I finally got a manager in the right department who told me the reason that the deposits were on hold for further review. Her exact words were:

“We believe you should not be selling guns and parts on the Internet.”

Shocking.

Sirochman then told the manager that “they have no right to make up their own new rules and [regulations]” and that he is a licensed firearms manufacturer in conformity with all relevant laws. She said she understood and that the deposits would be released after they had a “[c]hance to review and clear them” (wink, nod?). Yet after two weeks of increased Internet business, reports Sirochman, only one third of the collected sales have been cleared. And this is a man who has been doing business with BoA for 10 years.

I support a company’s right to refuse to do business with whomever it pleases (freedom of association); although rejecting firearms manufacturers would make a bank boycott-worthy. But to accept someone’s business and then persecute him for political reasons — as appears the case here — is reprehensible. The funds will be released when the bank has a “chance to review and clear them”? As per my experience, your money is supposed to be cleared as soon as you inform the institution that anomalous charges aren’t the result of criminal activity.

And this isn’t the first time BoA has exhibited anti-Second Amendment tendencies. As CNSNews writes, “McMillan Group International was reportedly told that its business was no longer welcome after the company started manufacturing firearms — even after 12 years of doing business with the bank.”

Never fear, though, other types of business are still welcome. As an example, BoA is to some degree Sharia compliant, according to Sharia Finance Watch.

So gun manufacturers and owners aren’t BoA’s kind of people, but we know who is. Well, BoA, you’re not my kind of bank. I have gun and will travel with my funds to a different institution.