Last week James Yeager made an argument against national concealed carry reciprocity based on “states’ rights.” That is, that federal legislation requiring states to give full faith and credit to licenses of other states violates states’ rights to self-determination.
I ran across a story talking about women who use guns to defend themselves, it was written by a woman. She seemed to be no big fan of the notion. Her complaints are that women are at greater risk from former partners and spouses than they are strangers. She feels gun rights groups only get the “Stand Your Ground” laws passed by emphasizing “strangers lurking in bushes”, and that since most of the attacks against women are from known people this is a false argument. She quotes Mary Ann Franks, the anti-gun law professor who wants you to take her karate classes instead, if this give you any idea about the author. She says guns are the weapons of choice for batterers, so she wants women armed with what? Hairspray? The website the story is on has helpfully placed a related story on the sidebar about “12 Facts That Show How Guns Make Domestic Violence Even Deadlier”. I’m thinking this web site reeks.
She does however, rightly point out that women have gone to prison for defending themselves against a violent attacker. I did an interview with one many years ago. It was when the case for Castle Doctrine was being heard in several states. One of the legislators said if anyone had ever gone to prison for defending themselves with a gun it was an “anomaly”. I heard this story from attorney and author Kevin Jamison who said he informed the legislator he called them “people”. This story got me to thinking about a case I had read about a woman who had gone to jail for defending herself with a gun. I wondered if I could find her, by now the Internet had come along. For some reason I remembered her name, and with some help and passed on messages got in touch with her. I won’t republish the whole interview but heres the Sheila’sNotes version, like Cliff’s Notes, only provided free here.
This was a woman who had a profession that was all about saving lives and intervening in a medical crisis. She attracted a stalker without even knowing it. He stalked her for a while before she even met him. He would break into her house, move things, move things in her yard, and she raised dogs. He killed twenty-one of them, twenty-one innocent dogs killed because this ass-wipe wanted to scare her. And he did. She did all the right things, called the sheriff, reported everything. They would come out and take pictures and that would be the end of it. One day he left her a note telling her he was coming that night. She called the Sheriff’s Department to let them know, to ask for help. They said they would have two deputies right up the street, so when he came, they could arrest him, or remove him. The stalker came, the deputies didn’t. He forced his way into her home, she RETREATED, she RETREATED the length of her house, 60 feet I believe she said. She RETREATED to the last room in her house, the bedroom, where she had an old shotgun. He followed her, he followed her the whole length, and when he had her corned in her bedroom, he pulled a knife on her. She had followed all the rules, she had called the Sheriff, she asked for help ahead of time, for a year and a half this man had been terrorizing her without consequences, and now he threatened her life. She was all alone. She grabbed an old shotgun and took aim, the first round was a misfire. He LAUGHED at her and advanced, he said “What are you going to do? Shoot me?” She tried again, at first she didn’t think the second shell was going to fire, but it did. She thought she missed him, he turned around and left, going toward the end of the hall, where he knelt down, and dropped the knife. Then he continued on out of the house, with her following at a distance. She was telling him to lay down & curl up in a ball. He finally collapsed and she immediately called the Sheriff’s Department and THEN the deputies came.
From there it’s a tale of corruption, evidence disappeared, people that knew what was going on wouldn’t talk. Why? Oh, did I forget to mention the stalker was the sheriff’s nephew? Sorry, is that germane? She went to prison, for six years. Six long years for a woman who had dedicated her life to saving lives. The author of the story would say this is a failure of stand your ground laws, and that women having guns isn’t helpful because she went to jail. I think it is too, because she should never have gone to jail, though perhaps the sheriff that covered for his nephew should have.
that a gun would be useless in her defense because “statistics are not on your side, even if you had a gun.” Senator Hudak tells Ms. Collins in so many words that there is nothing a female can do during a rape except be a victim. She even states that martial arts are a useless pursuit as a women are likely to be overpowered anyway.
So there Mary Ann Franks, your class is always useless as well. Katie Pavlich wrote about the victim, Amanda Collins who had a concealed carry license when she was raped. She of course wasn’t carrying when it happened because she was in a “gun free zone” a campus. She was within 50 feet of the campus police department. She had left with a large group of people, and was a second degree black belt and was in a “safe zone” whatever the heck that means. She was raped.
At the hearing another Colorado Demoncrat, Rep. Joe Salazar’s helpfully commented about call boxes and rape whistles being sufficient self defense for women on campus, while another Demoncratic Rep. offered ballpoint pens should be used to defend against a attacker with a gun. The Colorado legislature passed four more gun control bills to disarm victims.
Amanda followed all the rules too.
So I was thinking about this story, and the women who have gone to jail for using a gun to defend themselves, legislators that condemn women to being defenseless victims, the media who lie regularly about self defense stories and writers who twist facts to suit their agenda and I’ve had a glorious idea. I had lunch with a good friend today and while we were talking she commented about someone having to walk a mile in someone else’s moccasins. BINGO.
I have an innovative plan to help sort these thorny issues out. For every legislator that wants to legislate women into defenselessness, for ever media moron, for ever prosecutor that dislikes guns and so goes after someone who uses one to defend herself, they get a minimum one hour virtual reality experience. At some point, they are taken to the best virtual reality technology center and given a one hour experience to allow them to experience what they have legislated others to, what they have presented to the public as truth, knowing it was a twisted lie. For ever celebrity that has sanctimoniously lectured how evil guns are while making money in action movies, virtual reality gets to slap them upside the head. Now if I was really evil? I would figure out a way to do it without them knowing they were dealing with virtual reality. Then the terror, the helplessness, the consequences really will have the impact on the elite decision makers and those that have paid protection. But that would be mean wouldn’t it? Almost as mean as telling women rape whistles, call boxes and telling your attacker you have a disease or are menstruating will keep you safe.
Oh, look. Another Johns Hopkins study examining the effects of recognizing human/civil rights.
Changes in state policies impact fatal and non-fatal assaults of law enforcement officers
The researchers looked at the relationship between assault data involving law enforcement officers and changes in three policies at the state level: three-strikes laws, which impose mandatory decades-long sentences when a criminal is convicted of a third crime; right-to-carry or concealed-carry laws, which reduce restrictions for individuals to carry concealed firearms in public; and permit-to-purchase measures, which require prospective handgun purchasers to obtain a permit or license after passing a background check.
And what did they find?
The authors found that three-strikes laws were associated with a 33 percent increase in the risk of fatal assaults of law enforcement officers and a 62 percent increase in fatal non-handgun assaults.
“In the case of three-strikes laws, it appears that chronic offenders may be killing officers to evade capture and possible life imprisonment,” Crifasi says.
Surprise, surprise. Back when I was a peace officer, we predicted exactly that.
What about right to carry/concealed carry?
Previous research has examined the link between right-to-carry or concealed-carry gun laws on fatal assaults in the general population. The Bloomberg School study is believed to be the first to examine the effects of these laws on both fatal and non-fatal assaults of law enforcement officers and found no associations between the laws and either type of assault against officers.
Probably because lawful carriers are usually the type…
“Many of those most likely to commit firearm violence are prohibited from possessing firearms and therefore unable to obtain a permit to carry a concealed handgun.”
Who’d a thunk it? People who go to all the trouble of background checks and licenses don’t attack cops.
And permits to purchase?
The number of officers who died in Missouri is too small to make any conclusions about fatal assaults.
[Connecticut’s] association was also not statistically significant due to the rarity of these deaths.
Again, the folks prone to shooting cops (see above re:three strikes) don’t bother with permits they couldn’t get anyway. Now, if they’d been honest and tried to correlate straw purchase prosecutions with officer attacks, they might’ve seen something. But probably “not statistically significant.”
For the anti-gun Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, even allowing for the spin, that’s an amazing admission. They can’t possibly leave it at that, right?
Although the rates of fatal assaults on law enforcement officers have declined over the past several decades, their homicide rates are consistently higher than that of the general population and higher compared with other public service occupations. Most of the fatal assaults against law enforcement officers are committed by firearm.
In fact, the civilian homicide rate for 2013 was 4.6 per 100K. The cops? 5.3 per 100K. As Reason notes, 3.3/100K if you exclude two accidental shootings. For 2014, the CDC says the overall homicide rate in the US was 5.19 per 100K. Frankly, any difference between civilian and LEO homicide rates is “not statistically significant.”
If Johns Hopkins was honest, that press release would have been titled,“Most changes in state policies DON’T impact fatal and non-fatal assaults of law enforcement officers.” But being Johns Hopkins, they had to lump in restrictions on honest folk to demonize gun owners by association.
The reaction from pro-rights advocates has been vicious, and in retaliation, the Virginia GOP has moved to defund Terry McAwful’s executive protection unit. Virginia state senator Bill Carrico proposed a budget amendment that could strip the anti-gun McAwful, who apparently has no problem working to disarm the very people who are the source of his power, and who has no problem using those same taxpayers’ money to protect his own worthless hide, of his protective detail. “If he’s so afraid of guns,”Carrico said, “then I’m not going to surround him with armed state policemen.”
Would it surprise anyone to know that both McAwful and Herring are beholden in no small part to former New York mayor and statist imbecile Michael Bloomberg? I didn’t think so.
Lo and behold the top donor to his campaign for Attorney General was none other than Independence USA PAC. They gave $1,292,417 of in-kind donations to his campaign. The money went for media production and advertising buys. To put this into perspective, the next two highest donors gave approximately half this amount each. The only candidate to get more money from that PAC was Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D-VA).
And would it surprise anyone to know that Independence USA PAC is Bloomberg’s personal vendetta against our Second Amendment rights, and is dedicated to helping to elect candidates who support stricter gun-control laws? It was founded in October 2012 by Michael Bloomberg, and, so far, has been entirely funded by the former New York City mayor, according to FactCheck.org.
When your politicians are paid for by nosy, authoritarian, meddling nanny statists this is what you can expect. Bloomberg bought himself Virginia’s governor and attorney general. Now all he needs to do is say the word, and they will bend over.
Meanwhile, criminals will continue to carry Glocks in their sagging pants, while law-abiding citizens from out of state will simply switch to open carry, as is legal all over the Commonwealth.
Mark Obenshain ran for Virginia’s Attorney General in 2013 and lost by a tiny, slim margin to a leftist, anti-Second Amendment authoritarian tool named Mark Herring, because apparently Virginia’s voters were somehow scared that their lady parts would be under the control of the EEEEVILLLL Republicans.
Attorney General Mark R. Herring (D) announced Tuesday that Virginia will no longer recognize concealed carry handgun permits from 25 states that have reciprocity agreements with the commonwealth.
Under the policy, Virginians with a history of stalking, drug dealing or inpatient mental-health treatment cannot obtain a permit in a state with comparatively lax laws and carry a handgun legally at home.
Herring said severing the out-of-state agreements can prevent people who may be dangerous or irresponsible from carrying a concealed handgun.
Note the severe amount of stupid in that last statement. Herring actually thinks (if it can be called that) criminals who don’t obey laws in other states will miraculously obey Virginia’s.
Thanks a lot, vagina voters! You’ve given us authoritarian swine, for whom this is likely only the beginning! If they have their way, Virginia will soon be getting an “A” from the Brady Center, and you will be defending your giblets from armed thug invasion using only a spork and a cell phone.
I guess out-of-staters will simply open carry, as is legal all over the state.
A university economics professor has apparently soiled himself at the thought that students at the University of Texas-Austin (UT) will be allowed to exercise their right to keep and bear arms by carrying concealed weapons on campus, so he has huffily submitted his resignation to the school.
“As much as I have loved the experience of teaching and introducing these students to economics at the university, I have decided not to continue,” economics professor Daniel Hamermesh said in a letter to university administrators this week. “With a huge group of students my perception is that the risk that a disgruntled student might bring a gun into the classroom and start shooting at me has been substantially enhanced by the concealed-carry law.”
What I find instructive about this sniveling missive is the fear for his own safety. He’s afraid his students would shoot him. Why is that? Is he that horrible of a teacher? Is he cruel? Is he unfair? Why would any student want to shoot him?
And more importantly, if a student did want to shoot him, would a law banning concealed carry on campus stop him or her? Given the fact that guns were banned on the Virginia Tech campus when Seung-Hui Cho committed his atrocity, I doubt it.
Additionally, I would think that this particular pusillanimous weasel would prefer a legally armed student in his class to hide behind in case a disgruntled cretin does decide to take his impotent rage out on the professor. Even if he doesn’t have enough testicular fortitude to carry a tool of self defense and take responsibility for his own safety, one would think he would have enough common sense to rejoice at the thought that someone in his class could act in that capacity! But no…
Not this weasel.
I cannot believe that I am the only potential or current faculty member who is aware of and disturbed by this heightened risk. As I wrote on my blog several years ago, no doubt this law will make it more difficult to attract faculty, especially those who are willing and able to teach large groups of students.
You can’t believe that other educated, intelligent, rational adults wouldn’t project their own insecurities onto law-abiding adults, who choose to peaceably exercise their rights? You can’t believe that other faculty members don’t think so little of themselves, that they would publicize their paranoia about being shot by a student? You can’t believe that other educators respect their students as rational adults and law-abiding citizens, while you think so little of them and yourself that you would quit your job over a law that allows them to exercise their rights?
Luckily for his students and any future classes this pathetic coward may have taught, he’s moving to Australia to teach in a “gun-free” environment.
I woke up to some great news this morning. A Texas bill, restoring the fundamental right of faculty and students over the age of 21 with a concealed handgun permit to carry firearms inside classrooms on public and private college campuses, tentatively passed the Texas House the night before. It passed despite the sniveling objections of school administrators, although thanks to a last-minute amendment, schools are allowed to create “reasonable” regulations pertaining to the presence of firearms on school grounds.
What constitutes “reasonable,” is anyone’s guess.
The bill still has to be approved by the Texas state Senate before it’s signed into law by the governor, and you can be sure that the gun grabbers’ disinformation machine will kick into high gear before this happens.
The clueless, quivering bottom lip horde continue to bring up the specter of the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre as justification for disarming law-abiding, innocent adults on America’s campuses, likely hoping you will ignore the fact that Virginia Tech was a “gun free” campus to begin with… well, gun free other than the gunman!
This year, a survivor of that shooting and another from the Virginia Tech massacre testified in a committee hearing that arming students wouldn’t make campuses safer. William H. McRaven, chancellor of the University of Texas System and a four-star admiral who led the mission that killed Osama bin Laden, argued that the policy would endanger students and teachers.
Arming students wouldn’t make campuses safer? Do the words: Appalachian School of Law ring a bell? Yeah, that’s the one where armed students actually stopped a gunman.
Oh, did we hope no one would bring that up?
Frankly, I’m appalled that McRaven – a retired flag officer and special ops expert who oversaw the mission that ended up in the death of Bin Ladin – would forget how critical firearms are to safety and security and outright lie by claiming that concealed carry would somehow make campuses “less safe.”
Worse, the gun grabbers are using his rank to bolster his credibility on this particular issue, and he appears only too happy to allow them to do it. Using your military rank to lend credence to your political views is abhorrent to me as a veteran.
Anti-gun armedcampuses.org claims that “ gun-free policies have helped to make our post-secondary education institutions some of the safest places in the country.” McRaven must have been huffing their glue.
While homicides on college campuses are relatively rare, I would submit that has more to do with the fact that college students and professors tend to be a less violent, more law-abiding bunch writ large, so it’s doubtful that “gun free” policies have had anything to do with that, despite the disingenuous claims of the group. Additionally, the states that do allow concealed carry on its college campuses – Idaho, Utah, and Colorado – have not been made less safe by the passage of concealed carry laws.
“Our parents, students, faculty, administrators, and law enforcement all continue to express their concerns that the presence of concealed handguns on campus would contribute to a less-safe environment, not a safer one,” McRaven wrote in a letter to Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick and House Speaker Joe Straus.
The paranoid fantasies of cowards do not interest us. We’ve seen time and time again that disarming the law-abiding does nothing to protect them from violence, and we’ve seen near daily reports of armed citizens stopping criminals.
Perhaps McRaven should spend a bit more time focusing on how better to educate America’s college students and a bit less time inventing excuses to render them defenseless.
I know you will be shocked, just SHOCKED, to find out that the New York Times editorial board is soiling itself over what it calls “Concealed Carry’s Body Count.” Apparently the editors at the Times decided to take on people who are legally permitted to carry firearms concealed.
In other words, they are quaking in their collective panties at the thought, and have decided to paint concealed carry permit holders as a group of murderous villains, using data from the Violence Policy Center, which they describe as a “gun safety group,” making me want to choke on my coffee.
There is no central tally of the effects, with states often barring release of concealed-carry data and Congress hewing to the gun lobby’s opposition to research on guns’ effects on public health. But a methodical gleaning of eight years of news accounts by the Violence Policy Center, a gun safety group, found that in research involving 722 deaths in 544 concealed-carry shootings in 36 states and the District of Columbia, only 16 cases were eventually ruled lawful self-defense — even though this has been a major gun rights selling point for the new laws.
In my old life, when I worked as a reporter, inflammatory words such as “horrifying,” “slain,” and “alarming” were discouraged. I was taught we were there to report the news, not tell people what to think. I realize the above-linked is an editorial, and therefore does not have to conform to those standards (I would submit that given the Grey Hag’s tendency to skew its reporting, it doesn’t abide by those standards anyway), but the outright absurdity of painting concealed carriers with the broad brush of violence and murder prompts me to take a look at the larger picture.
Enter the Crime Prevention Research Center’s study on concealed carry in America. It seems there are a few facts the NYT editorial staff either did not know, or did not bother to research.
They did not mention until the very bottom of the article (more as an afterthought), for example, that there are at least 11.1 million concealed carry permit holders in the United States. I say “at least,” because according to the CPRC, that number is likely much higher, given the fact that several states, such as New York, don’t report the number of their concealed carry permit holders. And several states have no permit requirements for concealed carry at all.
But let’s go with that 11.1 million people, which represents roughly 4.8 percent of the population.
According to the VPC, there were *GASP* 544 shootings involving concealed carry permit holders, 16 of which were ruled lawful self defense. That would leave 528 shootings between 2007 and 2014 (I’m assuming they are including 2014, as the editorial merely states there were that many shootings since 2007) or 75.4 per year.
In comparison, between 2007 and 2012 (the latest year for which the CDC has data), average of 548 people were stabbed to death per year, 425.6 were beaten to death, and 138.5 per year were strangled or suffocated.
Now let’s look at those 528 shootings. Let’s assume that these involve 528 separate concealed carry permit holders. Given that there are at the very least 11.1 million concealed carry holders currently residing in the United States, those 528 represent .048 percent of people with valid concealed carry permits. Not even a half a percent.
And this is what the NYT editorial staff chooses to hyperventilate about? These are the statistics they choose to report as some kind of horror involving those evil concealed carry holders?
So not only does the editorial staff cite a VPC report that apparently not only contains inaccuracies, such as double or triple counting cases that shouldn’t even be counted as crimes or problems with guns to begin with, but the numbers they use are so minuscule in comparison to the concealed carry population at large, that it hardly qualifies as “a problem.”
Additionally, if you look at the data, concealed carry permit holders, are a fairly law-abiding bunch.
Consider the two large states at the front of the current debate, Florida and Texas: Both states provide easy web access to detailed records of permit holders. During over two decades, from October 1, 1987 to May 31, 2014, Florida has issued permits to more than 2.64 million people, with the average person holding a permit for more than a decade. Few — 168 (about 0.006%) — have had their permits revoked for any type of firearms related violation, the most common being accidentally carrying a concealed handgun into a gun-free zone such as a school or an airport, not threats or acts of violence. It is an annual rate of 0.0002 percent.
The already low revocation rate has been declining over time. Over the last 77 months from January 2008 through May 2014, just 4 permits have been revoked for firearms-related violations. With an average of about 875,000 active permit holders per year during those years, the annual revocation rate for firearms related violations is 0.00007 percent – 7 one hundred thousandths of one percentage point.
For all revocations, the annual rate in Florida is 0.012 percent.
And the numbers are similarly low in Texas, according to the same report.
So what is it that the Grey Hag’s editorial staff is hyperventilating about?
Well… their attempts to foist the gun grabbers’ agenda onto us for the most part has been a miserable failure, even with them screeching hysterically and dancing in the blood of innocent children after the Newtown massacre.
Americans overwhelmingly kicked gun grabbers in the giblets during the last election. And while we have experienced a few notable losses, overall, the tide is turning.
Major polling data confirms the same thing: Americans oppose new gun control legislation. They treasure their right to keep and bear arms. Less than half of Americans support additional infringements on our Second Amendment rights, according to Gallup. Rasmussen points to similar results. And Pew agrees, leaving the New York Times editorial staff mourning its cause.
So what do they have left? Their limited options are to drop this ridiculous crusade against our freedoms (good luck getting them to do that!) or find faulty reporting with a bunch of skewed statistics, and use it to attack a rather large group of law-abiding Americans.
We are beginning to see what I fear is the start of something that will evolve into something really, really ugly. The erosion of the “Thin Blue Line”. There are some people that support the law enforcement community no matter what. I am not one of those. I think people like the officer (Kevin Dupre) from Cleburne Texas that called these dogs over to him by making kissing noises and then killed them need to rot in hell. I truly hope there is a special place in hell for people like him. Just so I’m clear on how I feel about this piece of scum. I’ll be honest, I can’t watch the whole video.
Just in case you are livid as well, there is a petition to have him terminated since the police chief decided he did nothing wrong. They want 150,000 signatures by 14 February 2015, they already have 148,985.
By the same token, I think the officers that used an illegal choke hold on Eric Garner needed to face legal consequences. There are some nasty Law Enforcement types out there that crave power and abuse it.
That being said, the majority of the Law Enforcement Officers I’ve dealt with have been good people. Trying their best to carry out their calling. They have a genuine desire to protect the helpless, to stop crime, make their towns safer for good people. They are truly “Sheepdogs”.
The Thin Blue line refers to the line that police form between good people and predator thugs. It’s the same kind of mindset as the military, and to a lesser degree concealed carry holders. Speaking for myself, I did not get my concealed carry endorsement to protect society in general, but myself, and my family when I’m with them. The members of the Thin Blue Line willingly, on a daily basis, put themselves at risk in harms way to protect law abiding citizens, people they’ve never even met.
I know it well. A few hundred years ago I was a member of the “Thin White Line” meaning Emergency Medical Services, airborne variety. We did search and rescue, emergency transport and “scene flights”. Those are usually “high drama” as you are landing at the scene of whatever, car crash, shooting, stabbing, heart attack, sudden infant death, ________ tragedy. If it’s a scene flight, it wasn’t good. Often at these scenes you would have very upset people, they could be family members, friends or just bystanders. Before we would land, the LZ (landing zone) would be secured usually by the Fire Department and law enforcement. But for law enforcement the fun didn’t end there. Once we were on the ground, they also kept the crew and the helicopter safe. I’ve had upset family decide I was going to talk to them, RIGHT THEN, and unfortunately I was trying to stick a tube in an airway to ventilate the patient. Law enforcement peeled the guy off me and I finished my job, upset family member was very determined though and previous law enforcement hero repeated heroic act and got him off me as we were loading the patient in the helicopter. This was also during a time when one of the local gang initiations was to “pop” someone in a jacket. Which meant us, or the ambulance crews, fire or police. Securing a scene is not always easy I don’t suppose.
So through the years, most of my contact with law enforcement has been on the same team, apart from an odd ticket every 20 years or so. And I’m very supportive of our local law enforcement where I live, well, the Sheriff’s department anyway.
And this is where I differ from the “peaceful protesters” we’re seeing such a plethora of lately. For them, it doesn’t matter if the innocent child (read 300+ lb charging water buffalo) was committing a crime as Michael Brown was, on top of a “white hispanic” like Trayvon Martin pummeling the snot out of George Zimmerman or walking away as Eric Garner was, if the person that died was black, and the narrative can be exploited, get ready cause it’s going to be. Not far from Ferguson another young black man named Antionio Martin had made the choice more than once to commit armed robbery, assault and armed criminal action. Quite the list of accomplishments since he was 17. It ended badly as it often will when police who had been called about the theft have a gun pointed at them. They shot him. So far the Chief of that officer is standing behind him pointing out the choices Mr. Martin made had everything to do with the outcome of the situation.
I haven’t heard when the race pimps will arrive in town to foment it being burned to the ground yet.
The execution of Officers Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos I think is the beginning of a response to the attacks by politicians such as Warren Wilhelm (aka Bill diBlasio) Barry Sotero (aka Barak Obama), non-Govorner Jay Nixon, Eric Holder and flotsam and jetsam Sharpton and Jackson. Also getting into the act are the schools of higher “education” (chuckle, guffaw) colleges. Like the charming editorial in the CUNY by the editor in chief calling for armed war against the police. I think there is already plenty of hostility toward the LEO community. While I didn’t hear it in the American press, in an Israeli newspaper ran an article that the gun man that killed Liu and Ramos had invited bystanders to come, follow him and watch what he was going to do. Yet in that community it apparently didn’t even prompt a phone call from any of the people in the hood to the police to say something might be afoot.
For campus firebrands it must be quite a chore deciding who to hate more on any particular day.
If it’s Monday it must be the Jews and if it’s Tuesday it must be the cops. Is that how it works?
This we know about the darlings who have turned our universities into gulags against free thought and free speech. They want to boycott Israel and they want to divest from law and order and they want to sanction anyone who makes them feel “uncomfortable.”
Quite a good column that, worth the read. You can find out the direction the future of our country is being steered by the hallowed halls of higher education.
So what’s the endgame? I don’t know, I can’t find my crystal ball at the moment, but a conversation with a couple of co-workers one day was pretty interesting. One of them opined that the police would soon become afraid to intervene in anything involving one of the protected by politician class of people. I could well see how that could be possible. And since this protected class largely appears to be the criminal element this won’t go well for law abiding citizens. And since our law-breaker in chief doesn’t seem to think local police forces are up to the job of “fairly” applying the law, perhaps it is time for him to begin to implement the plan he first put forth in July 2008, of a “Civilian National Security Force” that would be “just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded as the US Military.” You can read about how helpful this type of security force has been in history, and how he has gone about starting to create it. Don’t remember him saying it?
And the idiots applaud on, never questioning “What the heck does THAT mean?” nor did the media jump on it.
But as Ronn Torossian points out, Hitler hired PR firms, the terrorists of today hire PR firms (which by the way ofter refuse Israeli business) but Obama and his left wing ideologues? They don’t need to hire PR firms, the media does it for free for him.
The current regime has done everything it can to divide this country, by race, economic class, religion and now law-abiding and LEO community vs. gangs that are becoming ever more violent in response to the encouragement.
Where does it all end, I don’t know. But I’d fasten my seatbelt, cause it’s going to be a bumpy ride.
Additional thoughts, what will happen to a town when firefighters can’t fight the fires because they are taking incoming fire, from the “peaceful protesters for social justice?” As they did in Ferguson and had to pull back. When EMS, Emergency Medical Services can’t get in to help the injured for the same reason?
Another aspect that is coming into play. I found out today a large area mall was shut down the day after Christmas during the large shopping day due to fights breaking out in the mall. It was one of several malls across the country so attacked. Not spontaneous, planned. In the story one Mother says she TOOK her teenage daughters to the mall at a certain time due to a message the girls received on social media telling them what time to be there. WHO does that? I mean, really, did the Mother not know what was going to happen? Did she not ask her kids? Yesh! The economic impact of things like this is going to be awful. Whole shopping centers shut down because the police can’t protect them, even when calling in mutual aid.
Bumpy ride? Societal norms under attack? In the past, what has followed attacks on a culture? Yeah, buckle up.
Jews. Guns. No compromise. No surrender.
Please enter your e-mail address. You will receive a new password via e-mail.