Greatest Hits: How to Disarm an Armed Attacker


Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

How to Disarm an Armed Attacker:  I know there are fellow Conservatives that will ask, Why are you ever unarmed,” but let’s face it, you can’t carry everywhere…

I saw this video recently via a friend on Facebook, and thought I might share it here.  It is always possible that you might be attacked by an armed criminal, especially in a democratically controlled anti-gun area.  So, here is the video.

Of course, there are no guarantees, but this is better than having sudden onset inter-cranial lead poisoning.


RAW VIDEO Democrat Senator: “Slavery Was Right For The Time”


Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.


 photo Oregon20state20senator20Chuck20Riley20in20favor20of20gun20control_zpsfpvaf7uu.jpg
Oregon State Senator Chuck Riley, Democrat (of course, what else? he voted to for gun control)


Hat/Tip to

I’ve got to admit, when faced with his angry constituents, he really has that “deer caught in the headlights” look.

At a recent constituent coffee town hall, Oregon state Senator Chuck Riley took heat from pro gun folks who were upset with his vote for the “universal background check” bill. Riley attempted to defend this in numerous different ways, including referencing Supreme Court decisions. When one citizen asked him about the Supreme Court upholding slavery back in the 1800s, Riley said “They were right for the time”.

But that wasn’t the end of it. When asked how he or anyone would know if two people were breaking the new background check law by doing a transaction in their home, be it 2 legal citizens or 2 criminals, Riley said there would be no way to know that the law was being broken. One of his staffers, Melissa Walton Hendricks, chimes in and says that the seller would be responsible if the gun were used in a crime. But when asked how anyone know who the previous owner is, she had no answer. Another woman says we need registration and more gun control to stop things like the Clackamas shooting and Sandy Hook, but then says that registration and “universal background checks” wouldn’t have stopped those criminals from stealing guns and using them to kill people.

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

He continued to get hammered over and over, as fed up citizens let him have it, and he basically ignores all stats that show states with these laws have more homicide and violent crime than Oregon currently has. So why is Chuck Riley following the path of more dangerous states, such as California? Give him a call at (503) 986-1715 and ask him.

But here’s a hint.

Senator Riley previously served 2 terms as a state representative, lost a race for state senate in 2010 to Bruce Starr, then won the rematch in 2014. Riley was the beneficiary of $85,000 from the civil rights prohibitionist lobby, which included$75,000 from Bloomberg’s Everytown For Gun Safety and $10,000 from the Brady Campaign.





Families Of Sandy Hook Distance Themselves From The Fourth Dixie Chick’s (Tim McGraw’s) Fundraiser


The Fourth Dixie Chick


Hat/Tip to and AWR Hawkins at Breitbart.

Despite the fact that Sandy Hook Promise has among its goals the repeal of all concealed carry laws, and reducing all magazines to 10 rounds or less, Tim (Fourth Dixie Chick) McGraw is still going ahead with his Gun Control Benefit Concert.

On MSNBC he said about the concert, “I lead with my heart” in explaining why he was doing the show.

In other words, he’s just trying to help and he doesn’t want to be held responsible for what Sandy Hook Promise does with the tens of thousands he will raise for them.

Sorry Timmy, we’re not buying it and neither are almost a dozen families of the Sandy Hook tragedy, either.

On April 22 families of 11 Sandy Hook Elementary victims made clear that they are not affiliated with Sandy Hook Promise, the gun control group for whom Tim McGraw is raising money.

There have been attempts to explain away Sandy Hook Promise’s support of gun control since Breitbart News’ April 14 report on McGraw’s upcoming gun control fundraiser. Since that time, former Obama adviser David Axelrod has come out in support of McGraw’s “gutsy” stand for the gun control fundraiser, and McGraw explained that he is sticking to his commitment to support Sandy Hook Promise because he is leading with his heart.

Now, NBC Connecticut reports that families of 11 Sandy Hook victims want “to clarify the issue for donors who might believe they are directly supporting the victims’ families.” These families worry that Sandy Hook Promise “is at times wrongly assumed to speak for all 26 victims’ families.”

The families made sure to point out that their decision to issue the statement “isn’t related to a position on the gun debate or other issues surrounding the tragedy,” rather they simply wanted to clarify that they are not affiliated with the group behind the McGraw concert.

Norfolk Daily News quoted the 11 families saying: “We wish only to provide clarification for the many generous donors that believe they are directly supporting the families at the center of this tragedy by contributing to the Sandy Hook Promise [organization].”





How to Disarm an Armed Attacker


I saw this video recently via a friend on Facebook, and thought I might share it here.  It is always possible that you might be attacked by an armed criminal, especially in a democratically controlled anti-gun area.  So, here is the video.

Of course, there are no guarantees, but this is better than having sudden onset inter-cranial lead poisoning.


Chinese State Media Demands US Citizens Be Disarmed


Hat/Tip to Brandon Darby at Breitbart.

So the murderous regime that is the Chinese government is now seeing fit to lecture us on the 2nd Amendment.

The Chinese state-controlled media’s statement, titled “Innocent Blood Demands No Delay for US Gun Control,” is primarily focused on the Newtown tragedy in which 26 Americans were killed by a mad gunman. Twenty of the victims were young children.

The Chinese government stated, “Their blood and tears demand no delay for the U.S. gun control.”

It would seem that the Chinese powers that be feel that they need to engage in propaganda to subvert freedom. So they tell of tragic episodes when deranged people use a gun as their choice of weapon to slaughter innocent people, but they leave out the parts of the stories where lawful gun owners put an end to the shooters’ rampages.

In an apparent effort to restrict information to their populace, the Chinese government wrote of a number of US mass shootings but failed to mention they were either stopped by a citizen legally carrying a firearm or otherwise only occurred in the controversial gun-free zones that critics say make prime targets for madmen.

The Chinese government states:

The past six months have seen enough shooting rampages in the United States. Just three days ago, three people were shot dead at a shopping mall in Oregon. Two weeks ago, a football player shot his girlfriend dead and then committed suicide. Five months ago, 12 people were killed and 58 wounded in a shooting spree at a midnight screening of a Batman film in Colorado.

The government went on to express a strong dislike of the National Rifle Association while also attacking the Republican Party as somehow complicit in the violence. Conversely, the article heaps praise on the Democratic Party:

The Clinton government launched a series of gun control policies at the end of last century. And the Democrats lost the Congressional election in 1994 and the presidential election in 2000, with the shadow of the NRA present in both defeats.

Isn’t it ironic that a regime known for the slaughter and genocide of TENS OF MILLIONS of innocents is in favor of taking away the right to bear arms?

The current Chinese government, the communist People’s Republic of China, was established in a revolution led by Mao Zedong, who killed an estimated 40-70 million people with starvation, executions, and re-education camps.

Read the full story here.




America: $old Off to the Highest Bidder


 photo americaforsale_zpscf3ae101.jpg

America’s politicians have been selling their influence for votes and money since 1789, if not earlier.  Those elected by “The People” who have gone to Washington to manage America’s affairs in the interest of their electorate have been the exception and not the rule. Most enter politics for self interest rather than out of any noble sense of duty. So, we know who the influence peddlers are: the 536 people we so carelessly elect every few years to “represent” our interests, as well as, countless agenda driven bureaucrats.

It’s common knowledge who the buyers of the influence being peddled by the politicians are: the rich and powerful  _ be they individuals or large corporations or front organizations used to do their bidding; such as, well funded think tanks and foundations.

As a result, a large fraction of the laws and regulations on the books are there to aid the few at the expense of the many.

So far, we’ve talked only of the selling and buying of domestic policy. What about foreign policy? What about national sovereignty? Are they for sale too? If so, who are the buyers? Three reporters for the New York Times produced an excellent bit of investigative journalism on September 6, 2014, titled, Foreign Powers Buy Influence At Think Tanks. (Hat Tips to Bad Blue, Blazing Cat Fur, and Tablet) Unfortunately, this well done investigative report, which is rare in what passes for journalism today, has received little attention from the rest of the mass media. An earlier article the authors link started out:

Foreign governments are a major source of money for think tanks in Washington, making donations, in many cases, with a goal of trying to influence United States foreign policy. The think tanks offer the donor governments special access to United States government officials, at times in exchange for the financial support.

Members of the more important think tanks are often invited to testify before Senate and Congressional committees to share their “expertise” on policy issues under review. Also, those rich and powerful entities discussed above use their lobbyists to promote the same positions of these foreign powers where they are doing or want to do business.  From the NYT article:

More than a dozen prominent Washington research groups have received tens of millions of dollars from foreign governments in recent years while pushing United States government officials to adopt policies that often reflect the donors’ priorities, an investigation by The New York Times has found.

The money is increasingly transforming the once-staid think-tank world into a muscular arm of foreign governments’ lobbying in Washington. And it has set off troubling questions about intellectual freedom: Some scholars say they have been pressured to reach conclusions friendly to the government financing the research.

Norway, for example, has spent millions on think tanks to influence US policy on drilling for oil and gas in the Artic. Japan has likewise spent millions to spur the US to accelerate negotiations over a free-trade agreement known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Maybe most disturbing is the money spent by Middle East countries who, in my opinion, want to influence the US policy on the conflicts in Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, of course, with Israel.

The reporters are rightly concerned that these “intellectual/academic” think tanks are acting more like lobbyists. But, because they are not registered as lobbyists, they do not receive the same scrutiny and, therefore, it is hard to get accurate information on how much money they are receiving from foreign governments.

What little information the organizations volunteer about their donors, along with public records and lobbying reports filed with American officials by foreign representatives, indicates a minimum of $92 million in contributions or commitments from overseas government interests over the last four years. The total is certainly more.

That $92+ million was for the period since 2011.

But, selling out America’s foreign policy and sovereignty is not a new phenomena. In the opinion of this humble observer of the asylum we all have to live in, President Harry Truman and the rest of the political elites got the ball rolling they  pushed through the establishment of the United Nations. Over the years, presidents past and present have implemented treaty agreements which were never approved by the Senate, as required by that once important document known as our Constitution. Presidents past and present have tried to give away our territorials rights to the UN’s Law of the Sea and to negate our 2nd Amendment Right to the UN’s gun control laws.

Do you remember Zbigniew K. Brzezinski? He was an advisory to President Lyndon Johnson and he was National Security Advisor to that Marxist peanut farmer, President Carter, from 1977 to 1981. He was/is one of the original members of the Trilateral Commission. Mr. Brzezinski is very big on controlling the mass at home and abroad. He wrote a book in 1970. Below is an excerpt. If you click of the link in that excerpt, you will automatically get a pdf download. A scary read!

“The technotronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values … The capacity to assert social and political control over the individual will vastly increase … Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen.” — Zbigniew K. Brzezinski, former U.S. National Security Adviser, Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era (New York, NY: Viking Press, 1970)

In the late 1980’s and eary 1990’s,  the United States Army War College Strategic Studies Institute imbarked on an analysis on what the world might be like by 2010. The 134 page document was published in 1992. It was titled: A World 2010: A New Order of Nations. (That link automatically downloads the entire report) The following was taken from the Foreward:

This book is a description of a plausible future world
environment for the years around 2010. This environment
describes a world where the influence of one superpower of
the 20th century is diminished and where the government and
the nation of the other has collapsed and reorganized into
several new national entities. It also portrays a world where
20th century Third World nations achieve a new status in the
world’s family of nations. The author depicts in this book a world
where new international status and alignments lead to a new
world order of nations. The new order places the nations of the
world in 2010 in five groups according to their relationship to
modernization and industrialization.

Clearly, the New Order of Nations didn’t happen by 2010. But, it wasn’t for lack of trying by the powers that be in our government. So far, Americans have been successful in fending off efforts their government to disarm them; an important key for the new order to take place. Meanwhile, the sell outs in Washington keep looking for that one crisis that will scare enough Americans into demanding that the government disarm The People in total disregard for the constitution. On the other hand, the government has been very successful in expanding NATO, undermining the dollar, and more recently in reducing US influence in the world.

You can bet they will keep coming after your guns. You right to defend your rights is the only thing they haven’t been able to sell off…, so far.

Well, that’s what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?


Single Mom of 2, Working Two Jobs Faces Prison for being Honest



Meet the honest 27 year old single mom from PA who faces 3 years in a New Jersey prison

Shaneen Allen is no dangerous criminal. She’s a single mom working 2 jobs who’s already been robbed twice while traveling alone at night in Philadelphia. Her family suggested that she carry a gun for protection. She took a gun safety course, applied for and was granted a concealed carry permit, and bought a gun.

Then she made the mistake of driving into New Jersey.

Now she’s going to prison.

Allen said that she didn’t know her permit didn’t apply to New Jersey so when she was stopped for a minor traffic offense she told the police about her gun and her permit to carry. In this case, being honest may have cost her.

“The judge tried to tell me that telling the truth messed me up, my life up and the cop said the same thing. Me opening my mouth and speaking out he said I’m one out of ten people that spoke up and was honest and that got me in trouble,” she said.

Allen was charged with unlawful possession of a weapon and possession of hallow-point bullets which were in the gun. Under New Jersey gun laws, the illegal possession of a gun is a second-degree felony which holds a minimum sentence of three-years in prison.

I hope all you moms demanding “gun sense” are happy. Because your draconian gun laws are working. They’re taking dangerous criminals like Shaneen Allen off the streets, and leaving her kids to fend for themselves.

Oh, but wait, elsewhere in New Jersey today…

Atlantic City: Shortly before noon a man was shot in the back at the corner of Connecticut and Drexel Avenues.

Camden: 2 people were shot this morning at the Regency House Apartment complex.

Winslow Township: A teen is recovering after a stray bullet hit her through a bedroom wall.

Paterson: A 19 year old man was arrested in the shooting death of 12 year old Genesis Rincon, who was killed while riding her scooter.

Newark: The homicide toll now stands at 44 after Edison Javier Vasquez Naranjo, 27, was found shot outside a home on the 200 block of 4th Street near the city’s Branch Brook Park.

Putting a 27 year old single mom in prison surely would have prevented all that, right?

Of course not. Only an idiot, or a member of Moms Demand Action (but I repeat myself), could think otherwise.

All the feel-good legislation in the world wouldn’t have stopped today’s (or any other) shootings. And locking up Shaneen Allen is a travesty. She’ll rot in jail just so preening soccer moms can pat themselves on the back.

Because that’s what our state calls “justice” these days.


Even Bloomberg’s lackey admits gun control doesn’t work

Michael Bloomberg & Mark Glaze
Michael Bloomberg & Mark Glaze

Hat/Tip to WeaselZippers.

Departing Leader of Nanny Bloomberg’s Anti-Gun Group Admits More Gun Control Laws Won’t Stop Mass Shootings…

Now in case you’re thinking that this Mark Glaze fellow is coming completely to his senses, hang on. He’s blaming ObamaCare for not being able to take away your 2nd Amendment rights…

Also claims the botched Obamacare rollout was the reason they failed to to pass gun control legislation.

Via WSJ:

Since the Newtown massacre, Mark Glaze has been the face of the gun-control movement. The executive director of former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns, Mr. Glaze led the futile 2013 fight for expanded background checks and has been regular on cable news after each successive mass shooting.

Now Mr. Glaze, 43 years old, has stepped away from the fight. Friday marked his last day working for Mr. Bloomberg’s organization, now called Everytown for Gun Safety, after three and a half years as executive director.

In an interview at his organization’s Washington office earlier this month, Mr. Glaze expounded on how President Barack Obama’s unrelated political problems – health care, Edward Snowden, congressional gridlock – damaged the gun-control cause.

And Mr. Glaze said the movement hasn’t solved one of its signature problems: Many mass shootings wouldn’t have been stopped by tighter regulations proposed by gun-control advocates, even if they might have prevented other gun crimes.

The Obama administration bungling its rollout of the Affordable Care Act website made any effort to enact gun control in the future even less likely.

“There’s an almost perfect overlap, I think, between the people who are the most active and radicalized gun voters and people who just don’t like and trust the government very much. When you take on the gun issue, you’re forced to take on by proxy a much bigger issue in this country, which is a deeply ingrained distrust of government that gets worse every time the government can’t get a healthcare website off the ground or can’t get it’s act together to pass a farm bill.”

Keep reading…


A Visit To A Gun Show Reveals Why Liberals Are Way Off When It Comes To Gun Control


gun show

When it comes to liberal talking points about gun control, you’ve heard it all before. Michael Bloomberg paid for a ad for McAuiliffe’s gubernatorial bid against Ken Cuccinelli in Virginia.

NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s $1.1 million anti-gun advertisement buy for Democratic Gubernatorial Candidate Terry McAuiliffe. Bloomberg funneled the money into Virginia through his PAC, USA Independence and advertisements have been running on radio and television since Tuesday. One television ad in particular targets the “gun show loophole” and states in a voiceover, “The gun show loophole. It means anyone can buy a gun without a background check.”

Read the full story at here.

And Time magazine tried to help perpetuate this myth as well.

Stoned faced and curt, the President used unusually pointed words to criticize the 45 Senators, including four Democrats, who successfully defeated the bill, which would have expanded mandatory background checks to gun shows and online sales.

“I’ve heard some say that blocking this step would be a victory. And my question is, a victory for who?” he continued. “All that happened today was the preservation of the loophole that lets dangerous criminals buy guns without a background check. That didn’t make our kids safer,” said President Obama.

Read the full story here.

But the odd thing is, well this just isn’t true as we find out thanks to MRC TV’s Dan Joseph. He heads inside a gun show to see how their gun sales operate.




Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens Wants To Take Your Guns


john paul stevensSupreme Court Justice Ret. John Paul Stevens has a book out and in it he proposes several major changes to the United States Constitution. Chief among them is his desire to take guns away from every individual United States citizen in the country. Why? Well, one look at his voting record and you can see his true liberal colors bleed through.

The 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights reads as follows:

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.

Stevens would insert six words into the 2nd Amendment, essentially rendering it null and void. His proposal would read:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, when serving in the militia, shall not be infringed.

In a recent interview with Stevens about his proposal to the 2nd Amendment, George Stephanopoulos asked, “Wouldn’t that take away any limits to what a legislature could do to the rights of gun owners?”

To which Stevens replied, “I think that’s probably right, but I think that’s what should be the rule; that it should be legislatures, rather than judges who draw the line on what is permissible.”

Stephanopoulos followed up: “But to be clear, if Congress passed a national ban on individual gun ownership, that would be constitutional under your amendment.”

“I think that’s right,” Stevens said.

What Stevens wants to do, is what every liberal wants – to increase government and decrease individual liberty. By giving the states the authority to grant or prohibit gun ownership, he is saying that the Bill of Rights be damned, we (the government) just don’t think you citizens can be trusted with guns. His stance on this is so laughably transparent as to be ridiculous. The Bill of Rights is and always has been a charter of individual liberties, NOT collective liberties. But given his way, Stevens’ revisionist history would switch that around.

And to think, in the beginning of this interview, Stevens categorized his proposals as “moderate.”

“I think every one of my proposals is a moderate proposal.”

The other changes he would make?

  1. The “Anti-Commandeering Rule” (Amend the Supremacy Clause of Article VI) This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges and other public officials. in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
  2. Political Gerrymandering – Districts represented by members of Congress, or by members of any state legislative body, shall be compact and composed of contiguous territory. The state shall have the burden of justifying any departures from this requirement by reference to neutral criteria such as natural, political, or historical boundaries or demographic changes. The interest in enhancing or preserving the political power of the party in control of the state government is not such a neutral criterion.
  3. Campaign Finance – Neither the First Amendment nor any other provision of this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit the Congress or any state from imposing reasonable limits on the amount of money that candidates for public office, or their supporters, may spend in election campaigns.
  4. Sovereign Immunity – Neither the Tenth Amendment, the Eleventh Amendment, nor any other provision of this Constitution, shall be construed to provide any state, state agency, or state officer with an immunity from liability for violating any act of Congress, or any provision of this Constitution.
  5. Death Penalty– (Amend the 8th Amendment) Excessive Bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments such as the death penalty inflicted.
  6. The Second Amendment – (Amend the 2nd Amendment) A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.

At least his radical ideas won’t be taken seriously anymore since he doesn’t have a vote on the court.


Huge Win for the 2nd Amendment Foundation


John W. Jackson is an Australian citizen, who legally resides in America, specifically in New Mexico. He applied for a concealed carry permit and was denied on the fact that he was not a citizen of the United States, even though he was a legal resident. He sued thccw badgee state of New Mexico, along with the Second Amendment Foundation for his right to obtain a concealed carry weapon permit.

The crux of the state’s defense was that it is impossible to do a full background check on citizens of other countries, even though they reside legally here in the US. However, the judge didn’t see it that way. Chief Judge M. Christina Armijo issued her ruling which said that the New Mexico statute “violates the Equal Protection Clause” in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. In her order, she said that there isn’t any evidence that green card holders, or legal permanent residents, pose any more of a threat or greater danger when carrying concealed fireamrs than do American citizens.

Attorneys for the state of New Mexico unsuccessfully argued that it wasn’t discrimination to treat legal immigrants differently from US citizens – and even if it was, it was necessary because of the inability to conduct full background checks on the legal immigrants. They said that the background checks on the legal immigrants cannot discover any disqualifying midemeanor crimes committedin foreign countries.

But the judge didn’t buy it. Judge Armijo said that the same is true for US citizens who might have travelled to other countries and possibly committed crimes while abroad, and it was wrong to differentiate between legal immigrants and citizens for that reason.

“United States citizens who have traveled or lived abroad are not denied such licenses due to defendant’s inability to run a complete and thorough background check,” Judge Armijo wrote. “Therefore, the court concludes that the citizenship requirement is not narrowly tailored to serve the government’s compelling interest in public safety.”

Alan Gottlieb, Executive Vice President of the Second Amendment Foundation
Alan Gottlieb, Executive Vice President of the Second Amendment Foundation

Alan M. Gottlieb is the Executive Vice President of the Second Amendment

Foundation and co-plaintiff said that the ruling makes it increasingly harder for gun control activists to chip away at gun rights.

“It helps build case law,” he said. “If legal aliens have rights, citizens obviously do, too. This is a victory not only for our plaintiff, John W. Jackson, but for all permanent legal resident aliens who are otherwise qualified to obtain a concealed handgun license,” said Gottlieb.
He further went on to say, “One of the more significant notations in the ruling is that the court found New Mexico’s statute discriminates on the basis of alienage, and as a result, was subject to strict scrutiny.”

Now this ruling doesn’t destroy New Mexico’s concealed carry law, nor declare it unconstitutional in its entirety, but it does say that the fix for violating the equal protection clause is to simply sever the citizenship requirement from the state’s statute. The judge said it can be down, “without impairing the remainder” of the state’s ccw law.

To read the actual court filing by Mr. St. John on this case, click here.

This follows a 2009 ruling which saw a federal judge rule that police officers could not detain people for openly carrying guns.

It seems that a theater manager called the police because a patron named Matthew St. John was openly carrying his gun. It was holstered and he wopen carryas seated in the theater, bothering no one and trying to enjoy the movie he paid to see. The police entered the theater, physically seized Mr. St. John from his seat, took him outside, disarmed him, searched him, and obtained personally identifiable information from his person. Then they only allowed him to re-enter the theater after making him secure his gun in his vehicle. He never caused a scene and the police had no reason to suspect him of a crime and they, of course issued no summons for violating any law.

All this occurred even though nobody from the theater asked him to leave, or take his gun off premises. The police in this case, went too far and violated Mr. St. John’s constitutional rights.

US District Judge Bruce D Black ruled that as a matter of law the police violated Mr. St. John’s 4th Amendment Constitutional Rights because they seized and disarmed even when there wasn’t “any reason to believe that a crime was afoot.”

These victories are important building blocks for Americans who wish to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights, as they give us legal precedence, or stepping stones that make it harder and harder for the gun control activists to take away those Constitutionally protected rights.


9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals threw out California’s concealed weapons rules


I’m doing lately what I don’t usually do … find a story and simply link to it. But this one is too good to pass up. I know it’s difficult to believe but the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals threw out California’s concealed weapons rules.

Via: Yahoo News

The AP
Court tosses California’s concealed weapons rules
Federal appeals courts strikes down California’s concealed weapons permit rules

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A divided federal appeals court has struck down California’s concealed weapons rules, saying they violate the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Thursday that California is wrong to require applicants to show good cause to receive a permit to carry a concealed weapon. The court ruled that all law-abiding citizens are entitled to carry concealed weapons outside the home for self-defense purposes.

The divided three-judge panel disagreed with two other federal appeals courts that have upheld permit rules similar to California’s.

The U.S. Supreme Court often takes cases when federal appeals courts issue conflicting rulings.

The Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that law-abiding citizens can keep handguns in the home for self-defense purposes, but didn’t address whether that right extends outside the home.

I have to tell you though, the best part of this story is in the comments section. Scroll down after you click on the link and read some awesome comments by ordinary citizens.

Original Post:  Cry and Howl


Man Saves Father From Armed Criminal with a Gun, Media Silent



Apparently, shootings are only newsworthy when a redneck tea party conservative crazed liberal kills a slew of people.  However, when a common citizen uses a gun to save themselves or others, it’s a snoozefest from the media talking heads.  The latest example appears below, via The Minority Report…, Longview, Jacksonville, Texas | ETX News

As I usually state, leftists would prefer that both of these men be dead. If they achieved their goals, the son would have no gun. The criminal, who isn’t following the law anyway, would possess a gun and would have easily killed both men, and gotten away.

And, in the aftermath of such crimes, the leftists would propose even more laws to correct the problems caused by their last set of laws. Then, rinse and repeat.


New Jersey’s New Gun Laws Result in Higher Murder Rate



According to Wyblog, New Jersey  reacted to the Sandy Hook massacre by passing some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country.  And, like other states or cities that have passed strict gun laws, the murder rate went up…

In 2013 NJ enacted the stricted gun laws in the nation, and the murder rate soared

Last year our knee-jerk liberal fascists reacted predictably to the Newtown, CT school shooting by enacting some of the strictest gun control legislation in the nation.

Also last year the murder rate in our fine state soared to a seven-year high.

Coincidence? I mean really, how can criminals so easily acquire guns when New Jersey makes it so hard to buy and own them?

Oh, right, criminals don’t follow the law.

So naturally the solution is more gun control legislation!

[Newark Police Director Samuel] DeMaio said .45-caliber handguns — far more powerful than the 9 mm weapons once common in Newark — and the proliferation of assault weapons led to the city’s increased number of killings.

“If the federal government is really serious about gun control and the violence that’s taking place, not just in Newark, but in every city throughout this country, they will get strict and do the right thing with the gun laws,” he said. “Make them consistent. … Take the guns out of the criminals’ hands.”

As usual, gun grabbers fail to realize that criminals do not follow laws, so when you restrict guns, the only people restricted are people that follow the law.  Criminals, I would imagine, who will still be armed, see the newly disarmed populace in terms similar to “easy meat.”


Karl Pierson, Liberal School Shooter, Once Wore USSR Shirt, Targeted Librarian?


We have an update on the story of Karl Pierson, the socialist high school student who committed the school shooting last week, before taking his own life.apparently,Karl Pierson was upset with the librarian, who is also the debate coach, for kicking him off the the debate team. The Other McCain has more.

Because he got kicked off the debate team:

Tracy Murphy worked as the librarian at Arapahoe High School in Centennial, Colorado but it was his role as the adult adviser for the speech and debate team that led to him being the target of gunman Karl Pierson’s rage.
Mr Murphy allegedly demoted Pierson or kicked him off the team earlier this week.
Pierson’s friend and fellow debate team member has said that he was upset about being demoted and his anger resulted in an even more serious suspension from the team.

from the reports that real reading, the self-avowed socialist, Karl Pierson, had the sense of entitlement that is consistent with his liberalism. It is theorized that once he was removed from the debating, this sense of entitlement led to the rage because to shooting. The Other McCain has more.

What kind of miserable punk would commit such an atrocity?

 As students were returning to the school to retrieve their vehicles on Saturday, one described Mr. Pierson, a senior, as an outspoken proponent of political views that were unpopular with others at the school. Chris Davis, an 18-year-old senior, recalled Mr. Pierson once wore a shirt emblazoned with the letters U.S.S.R. and described himself as a communist. “People definitely disagreed with a lot of that and gave him a hard time,” said Mr. Davis, adding that he didn’t think the criticism amounted to bullying.

Commies: Randomly shooting girls in the head, for the proletariat.

how ironic is it, that a socialist, who typically are for gun control, engages in a school shooting? Then again, the same socialists only one you disarmed – only they, or their agents in government, get guidance. They are to be armed – you are to be helpless.

Get it?


The Psychology of Gun Control Revisited



This past February, I saw a picture that shows the psychology of gun control perfectly.  Here’s the pic…

psychology gun control

The real psychology of gun control is far more subtle than the public debate would imply.  It is also far more powerful.  The state always wants order, and power.  While order is desirable, the state’s means of enforcing it is shown by the man with the whip.  It is based on fear, threats, and injustice.  It is not just, it is violence.  As for the people?  Most of them bowed.   But when one stood up, others were emboldened to stand as well, and even thought the state continued using it’s whip, he was eventually broken when all the people stood up.  I believe this lead to the demise of the former Soviet bloc, as the citizens started standing up, in open defiance of the state.

To look at this further, we have to turn it around, and realize that many people are being conditioned to be compliant, even to their own detriment.  To get there, we need to look at learned helplessness.  It’s a psychological state in which a person does not try to help themselves.  It is, in fact, so pervasive that people do not think to help themselves, because they do not believe that anything can be done for them.  To illustrate, let’s use an old analogy.  I don’t know how factually true it is, but it does capture this quite well.

When a baby elephant was born in the circus or zoo.  A rope would be tied to one leg, and secured with a stake in the ground.  Try as it might, the baby elephant could not escape.  Eventually, it would quit trying, and accept it’s captivity.  As the elephant grew into adulthood, it would continue to be restrained in the exact same way, even though it could easily pull the rope and stake right out of the ground.  Based on it’s learning and conditioning, it no longer contemplates its escape, and passively accepts it’s captivity.  It has learned to be helpless.

That state of passive captivity is exactly where the state wants all of us.  And, the political left attempt to create this by use of the Alinsky Method.  People that dissent, believe in freedom, and such are singled out and destroyed.  They are harassed in public, and in their own homes.  Their children and tracked and harassed.  They receive death threats, false lawsuits are filed.  Basically, the target is relentlessly isolated and attacked until they submit.  They want the target to submit and be passive, and they want to people witnessing it to not get any bright ideas about having independent thoughts of their own.  Also, when children are singled out for punishment in school for being Christian, or c0llege students are threatened with failing grades for not embracing the “tolerance” of the regressives. we see the isolation and attack mode that seeks to create passive sheeple, and punish those that stand up.

How this applies to gun control is simple.  A firearm provides a sense of security and confidence.  As the old saying goes, “God made man, but Samuel  Colt made them equal.”  Meaning, that it became very difficult to intimidate and subjugate a man that is armed.  It is a catalyst for independence, as when a human can defend themselves, they will stand up to the state, community organizers, or union goons.  It’s the “emboldening agent” that could be applied to the picture.  It’s the great equalizer of our Republic. It is the counterbalance to tyranny; the gun owner is confident, and the one(s) that would attack him are wary.  It doesn’t matter that the gun owner cannot impose his will on others, as others cannot impose their will on him.  There is a certain reciprocity there, as all sides are potentially “equal” in terms of their power to protect themselves.

If you will notice, we see stories about union attacks, and community organizers intimidating people far more in urban areas.  Why is this?  I think most of you will understand why.  In the cities, there are more gun control laws, so these thugs have less of a chance of being confronted by an armed citizen.  In the suburbs, and especially in rural areas, the thug’s shenanigans would be confronted with the sound on dozens of “metallic clicks.”  It’s hard to intimidate someone that can fight back, even if he or she is outnumbered (or, unless the government limits the amount of bullets that go in magazines).

Obviously, the gun owner  can’t stand against the military, nor can he wreck the state single-handedly, nor does he have to.  However, he and a million so of his close friends, could make the country ungovernable.   And when he does that, even more will stand with him.   In that scenario, I wouldn’t want to be the man bearing the whip. Again, it’s about being confident, and not psychologically helpless, that wins the day.  It’s a psychological balance of power that is at stake.  And, that’s exactly why the state wants to take the guns-they seek compliant sheeple, and emboldened free citizens with fire arms prevent that.