Red's Trading Post: Where does your Attorney General stand on the Second Amendment?

Red's Trading Post & Arms & the Law have a great idea - everyone should join in contacting your own State Attorney General to ask them to join in support of the the Texas AG brief that will be filed with the Supreme Court in support of the individual rights view of the 2nd Amendment. I've contacted the Arizona AG Terry Goddard to ask him to join the list of AG's who are in support of the individual rights view of the Second Amendment. We should all contact our State Attorney General to ask them to join the list.

Update: Idaho AG has joined the list of State AG's in support of the Texas AG brief.

Arizonans - don't forget about the Crossroads Gun Show

Just a reminder that this weekend (Fri Nov 30th through Sun Dec 2nd) is the Crossroads Gun Show at the Arizona State Fair Grounds on the corner of 19th Ave & McDowell in Phoenix Arizona. I plan to go this Saturday with my boys & drool over all the cool hardware there. I'll do my best not to drool on the actual guns so as not to cause any rust issues.

While you're there be sure to stop by the table of the Arizona Citizens Defense League (AzCDL) to learn about the club & possibly even sign up if you are not already a member. It's a great organization that does a lot every year to influence the Arizona State Legislature to protect our freedom to bear arms at the State level. One of their many recent accomplishments was working with the Arizona Legislature to remove the requirement to submit fingerprints on the CCW renewal process starting Jan 1st 2008. What a silly thing to include in the first place - what, was I going to change my fingerprints after I first applied? That revision alone will save a lot of time & money for both the Arizona CCW permit holders & Arizona tax payers in general.

I don't carry a gun . . .

I just found a great article written by Syd:

I don't carry a gun . . .

… to kill people. I carry a gun to keep from being killed.

I don’t carry a gun to scare people. I carry a gun because sometimes this world can be a scary place.

I don’t carry a gun because I’m paranoid. I carry a gun because there are real threats in the world.

I don’t carry a gun because I’m evil. I carry a gun because I have lived long enough to see the evil in the world.

I don’t carry a gun because I hate the government. I carry a gun because I understand the limitations of government.

I don’t carry a gun because I’m angry. I carry a gun so that I don’t have to spend the rest of my life hating myself for failing to be prepared.

I don’t carry a gun because my sex organs are too small. I carry a gun because I want to continue to use those sex organs for the purpose for which they were intended for a good long time to come.

I don’t carry a gun because I want to shoot someone. I carry a gun because I want to die at a ripe old age in my bed, and not on a sidewalk somewhere tomorrow afternoon.

I don’t carry a gun because I’m a cowboy. I carry a gun because, when I die and go to heaven, I want to be a cowboy.

I don’t carry a gun to make me feel like a man. I carry a gun because men know how to take care of themselves and the ones they love.

I don’t carry a gun because I feel inadequate. I carry a gun because unarmed and facing three armed thugs, I am inadequate.

I don’t carry a gun because I love it. I carry a gun because I love life and the people who make it meaningful to me.

Support your favorite gun rights organizations

Last Tuesday Nov 20th the Supreme Court decided to take up the 07-290 District of Columbia, ET AL. V. Heller, Dick A. gun rights case. Be sure to support your favorite gun rights organizations so that they can file an Amici Curiae Brief in support of the right of the people to keep & bear arms. You can find links to some of my favorite gun rights organizations on the right side of this web page under the title of "Gun Rights Sites"

CERTIORARI GRANTED

07-290 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ET AL. V. HELLER, DICK A.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to
the following question: Whether the following provisions, D.C.
Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02, violate the
Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated
with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns
and other firearms for private use in their homes?

I know that both the NRA & the SAF have already announced plans to participate via briefs in this most important gun rights case, I'm sure there are other gun rights groups who plan to participate as well. The below was an e-mail alert I received from the SAF:

Don't Let Anti-Gun Extremists Steal Our Victory
It is an important day for American gun owners! The Supreme Court of the United States has just agreed to hear the most important Gun Rights case in American history! In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court will decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right.

We have anti-gun extremists like the Brady gun grabbers on the run, but they are far from defeated. In fact, just minutes after the Supreme Court agreed to decide a case that could begin to dismantle the gun ban laws the Brady extremists support, they have asked anti-gunners for $50,000.00 to try and stop us from winning this important battle. I know you won’t let them win!

The Second Amendment Foundation is on the front lines of the effort to defend and restore your firearms rights, and we need your help to stop the anti-freedom extremists now!

This case is a cornerstone of our work to dismantle extremist gun laws across the nation. While winning this case won’t restore all the rights the extremists have seized from us, it provides a rock-solid foundation for us to build on. And we need you to help us build this foundation, by contributing now to our “friend of the court” brief!

As I write this, the anti-freedom extremists are raising tens of thousands of dollars to us at the Supreme Court …maybe even more! We need your financial support today to ensure we have the resources to beat back anti-gunners who will stop at nothing to take away our right and ability to defend ourselves and our families.

Please give your most generous contribution today. Help me defend your individual right to bear arms in this important Supreme Court case, today!


Sincerely yours,

Alan M. Gottlieb
Founder, Second Amendment Foundation

P.S. Remember, the anti-gunners are raising tens of thousands of dollars to steal this victory from us--we need your support now to help stop them dead in their tracks!

Click Here to Contribute Now!

Below is an NRA-ILA alert:

U.S. Supreme Court to Hear First Second Amendment Case Since 1939

Tuesday, November 20, 2007

Fairfax, Va. - The United States Supreme Court today announced its decision to take up District of Columbia v. Heller-a case in which plaintiffs challenge the unconstitutional gun ban in the nation’s capital. The District of Columbia appealed a lower court’s ruling earlier this year affirming that the Second Amendment of the Constitution protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, and that the District’s bans on handguns, carrying firearms within the home, and possession of loaded or operable firearms for self-defense violate that right.

The NRA will participate in this case through briefs as a friend of the court. Oral arguments are likely to take place in early 2008.

In March, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that “[T]he phrase ‘the right of the people,’ when read intratextually and in light of Supreme Court precedent, leads us to conclude that the right in question is individual.” The D.C. Circuit also rejected the claim that the Second Amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia because D.C. is not a state.

The decision marks the first time a Second Amendment challenge to a firearm law has reached the Supreme Court since 1939.

--nra--

Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America’s oldest civil rights and sportsmen's group. Four million members strong, NRA continues its mission to uphold Second Amendment rights and advocates enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime. The Association remains the nation's leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the armed services.

Copyright 2007, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action.
This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.

Attempted burglery in my own "good neighborhood"

I've often heard people say that they don't need to worry about personal protection because they live in a "good neighborhood" with no crime that they're aware of. I lived in such a neighborhood until this past Friday night when the first attempted burglary that I'm aware of in my own "good neighborhood" happened in my own home.

Lucky for the burglar we were out of town for the Thanksgiving Holiday. At 11:49 PM Friday night my alarm was triggered by my garage side door being opened that is in our side yard behind our gate. At 12:14 AM Saturday morning the Police finished their search & found nobody was in our home, so they locked & closed the garage side door & left a note to let us know that when they arrived they had found the door open but did not locate any intruders during their search.

When we returned Saturday afternoon we did not find anything missing. My theory is that the attempted burglar decided to leave soon after he or she heard our alarm go off, but you certainly can't always count on that type of a reaction. I had already felt that being prepared for the unexpected is extremely important no matter where you live, but this event definitely drove home the point that there really is no such thing as a neighborhood that is "safe" from crime. Being prepared to defend yourself & your family is just as if not more important than having other safety devices such as a fire extinguisher. I don't expect to ever need my fire extinguisher in my home or in my car, but I have one in both locations just in case I ever do need one. If I ever run into a situation where I need a fire extinguisher, I will have a great need for it & I'll need it right there & then. There will not be time to go purchase one at the time of the need.

The same thing is true for self protection. Nobody is responsible for the protection of my family other than myself, which is why I have secured the best tools for the job & regularly train to hone my skills. If not for my guns & my training I would probably find it much more difficult to sleep at night after this event that happened in my own home in my own "good neighborhood." I still slept soundly the last couple of nights so I know that my guns & training are paying for themselves in a good nights sleep alone, not to mention the personal & family protection benefits.

Great Gun Free Zone editorial by Alan Gottlieb and Dave Workman

A few of my favorite lines:

Remember the Tacoma Mall shooting of two years ago? How about Salt Lake City's Trolley Square shooting in February? Certainly nobody can claim ignorance of April's Virginia Tech massacre, or a string of public and private school shootings that dates back more than a dozen years. The common denominator in every one of these deplorable crimes is that all of them happened in gun-free zones . . . The misguided misanthropes who foster gun-free zones have a paranoid distrust of their fellow citizens that can only be a severe manifestation of social bigotry . . . all data to the contrary, these gun control fanatics hold fast to the perpetuation of gun-free zones as a symbol, when it is clear that such places are nothing more than risk-free environments for criminals and lunatics . . . The time to abolish gun-free zones is long overdue. Their only measurable result has been a body count of innocent victims; bloody statistics on the altar of political correctness.

Idaho - lots of guns, low murder rate, F+ Brady Rating

A recent Idaho Press Tribune article complained about "open gun laws" in Idaho & a well deserved F+ Brady rating. I say well deserved because when it comes to Brady ratings, the lower the grade, the better. It's like Golf - you actually WANT a low score. More on that later.

Fewer restrictions mean the Gem State earned an “F-plus” grade two years ago from the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence regarding state laws shielding families from gun violence. The national grassroots watchdog group noted Idaho has no child access prevention law, no requirements for gun safety locks and safer design standards and a lack of background checks on secondary private sales.

Since when is the Brady campaign to prevent gun ownership a "grass roots" organization (a more appropriate name borrowed from Say Uncle -thanks)? Grass roots to me means that it gets its funding & support primarily from small donations by MANY US citizens. The Brady campaign to prevent gun ownership doesn't even boast thousands of supporters, much less millions. Where does it get its money? Primarily from wealthy anti-gun individuals such as Billionaire George Soros who has donated Millions to anti-gun causes in the US & the World. George Soros & Rosie O'Donnel are fine with taking guns away from common citizens because they'll still have their teams of armed body guards to keep them safe.

It is interesting to note that the press is willing to call the Brady campaign to prevent gun ownership a "grass roots" organization, yet the same press almost always calls the NRA, GOA, SAF, & other gun rights organizations as a conglomerate "the gun lobby." This ignores the fact that the so-called "gun lobby" is run & supported by millions of common individual citizens who are voting members of the groups they've joined in order to contribute to the cause of protecting the 2nd Amendment & the freedoms that our Constitution protects in general. The NRA alone has more than 4 Million members, the Brady campaign to prevent gun ownership doesn't even have thousands of members.

Technically the Brady campaign won't even allow you to "join" their group or to have voting rights in their organization. But they will gladly accept your money - they even tell you on their Brady Center donations page that your contribution will be "tax deductible" since they don't provide you any goods or services. I couldn't agree more, accept that they forgot to mention that they do provide one service - they will do their best to infringe upon your 2nd Amendment rights.

The Brady campaign lists Idaho with an F+ because Idaho does not infringe on the 2nd Amendment as much as the Brady campaign would like it to. You'd think that would mean there was blood on every street corner in Idaho from gun slinging cowboys shooting each other if you believe the hoopla that Brady puts out. It turns out once again that the facts say otherwise.

According to the FBI crime data for 2006, Boise had a population of 198,212 people & only had 6 murders & non-negligent manslaughters. That is a murder rate of 3.03 per 100,000 people. Compare that with Washington DC where handguns are completely banned, and long guns must be kept disassembled or trigger locked making them useless for self defense. The Brady campaign rates DC with a B - they would get an A but they give one area an F because they believe Congress has the ability to repeal the very restrictive DC gun laws. Even with such stellar ratings from the Brady Campaign, in 2006 Washington DC had a population of 581,530 & had 169 murders & non-negligent manslaughters. That is a murder rate of 29.06 per 100,000 people. That is 9.6 TIMES the murder rate in Boise! Nearly 10 times the murder rate!

To sum up, an A or a B from the Brady Campaign to prevent gun ownership is equal to a State with highly infringed or zero gun rights which results in only the criminals having guns. When they give your state an F then you can be sure your state is protecting your 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. In such Free States criminals know that there are armed citizens in their midst which makes them feel less safe to work their evil deeds. Why would criminals want to live in a Free State like Idaho when Washington DC has created such a target rich environment of defenseless victims for them to choose from? Makes it as easy for criminals as shooting fish in a barrel. I'm sure glad that I don't live in that barrel.

National Ammo Day Nov 19th

Next Monday Nov 19th is National Ammo Day. If another day of the week works better for you Saturday Nov 17th through Sunday Nov 25th is National Ammo Week. Support those who supply our ammunition - replenish your emergency stock & get some extra to shoot next week. What is more fun than taking the family out to shoot before &/or after eating a nice Thanksgiving meal? It's a nice way of giving thanks to the entire gun & ammo industry for putting up with all of the "stuff" that they have to put up with in an effort to stay in business.

The goal is for all participants to buy at least 100 rounds of ammo but why stop there? I can easily go through hundreds of rounds in a single day of fun for the whole family. It's a great cause in support of the industry that supplies our needs, and leads to lots of fun as an extra bonus.

Arizona Flag created for use at National Rifle Matches at Camp Perry

An interesting bit of trivia is that the Arizona State Flag was created at the request of the Arizona Rifle Team (representing the Arizona National Guard) when they noticed that they were the only team at the Camp Perry National Rifle Matches in 1910 that did not have a flag.

The captain of the Arizona Rifle Team, Arizona National Guard Colonel Charles Wilfred Harris, designed the flag with assistance from Carl Hayden. Carl Hayden's wife Nan D. Hayden, sewed the first flag together which was carried to the 1911 National Rifle Matches at Camp Perry by the Arizona Rifle Team.

The Liberty Blue bottom is the same Liberty Blue used in the US flag. The red rays of the sun are the same red used in the US flag. The 13 yellow & red sun rays represent the original 13 colonies as well as the spectacular sunsets that Arizona is famous for. The large rising Copper Star represents the fact that Arizona produced more copper than any other State in the Nation.

Arizona became a State in the Union on Feb 14th, 1912, and the official version of the Arizona State Flag was adopted by the Arizona State Legislature on Feb 17th, 1917. The Yellow & Blue in the flag became the official state colors.

Supreme court took no action today on gun case

Today was the earliest date we could have found out whether or not the Supreme Court would take up the gun case. They left it off their orders list that they released today which means the next time we might find out what they decide to do will be in about 2 weeks on Monday Nov 26th.

The Orders List contained no mention of either the District of Columbia’s appeal (07-290) or a cross-petition by challengers to the city’s flat ban on private possession of handguns (07-335). The next date for possible action on these cases is likely to be Nov. 26, following a pre-Thanksgiving Conference of the Justices set for Tuesday, Nov. 20.

Do you have the right to FEEL safe?

I often hear hoplophobe's state that they have the right to restrict or ban gun ownership because they have a "right" to "feel safe," & they don't feel safe knowing that other people around them might have guns.

Here is my answer to that over-used assertion. First & foremost, which constitutional amendment says "the right of the people to always feel safe & secure, shall not be infringed"? Secondly, how would they ever KNOW that nobody around them has guns even if they did ban them? So even after an all out ban they still would not achieve their desired dream of "feeling safe".

The wife of a friend of mine is deathly afraid of flying in planes because she doesn't feel safe while in the air. As a result, ALL of their travel takes place via automobile. She FEELS more safe in an automobile. Feelings & emotions do not always correlate with fact. The fact that she is more than 60 times more likely to die on any given trip in an automobile than on any given trip on an airplane will not make her FEEL safe while on an airplane.

She does not have a right to feel safe on an airplane, but she does have the freedom to choose whether or not she wants to fly in one. She just doesn't have the right to force me not to fly in an airplane just because she doesn't feel safe while my plane is in the air.

That is why I would never attempt to force anyone to own a gun as that would violate the freedom of citizens to choose for themselves whether or not to own a gun. Just don't try to take my guns away from me as long as I continue to be a law abiding citizen as that WOULD violate my 2nd Amendment PROTECTED but preexisting rights in addition to my freedom. Punish criminals who commit crime with any tool, it does not matter if the tool they choose is a baseball bat, knife, handgun, long gun, their own fists, or poison added to someone's drink. Don't punish either the gun or myself because some fool used a tool similar to the tool I use for personal defense as their weapon of aggression.

Guns were not created "for killing" as many hoplophobe's assert. I would never shoot anyone with intent "to kill" - I only would "shoot to stop" - stop their attack, stop their advance on my family. That is why a gun can be used as a tool of self defense - 98% of the time when guns are used to stop a criminal attack, no shot even needs to be fired. Even in the 2% of the time that I would be forced to shoot to stop the attack, 80% of gunshot victims will still survive with treatment at a hospital. After their trip to the hospital they can go straight to jail which makes all citizens more safe.

The above self defense scenario makes things much easer for Police too. If instead I dial 911 & Police arrive "only minutes" after I called to find my dead body, they would then have to waste a lot of resources trying to figure out who the bad guy was. They would then have to track him down so that they can place him on trial in hopes that he can be placed in jail for a few years before they let him back out on parole, that is of course only if he doesn't plea bargain his way out of jail time in the first place. How else is he going to find his next victim if we don't let him out early on parole or even earlier via plea bargain? It wasn't his fault he became a criminal after all, it was all the violence he saw on the cartoon networks while he was growing up. That Coyote was one evil dude. Or perhaps it was all that evil dihydrogen monoxide that he consumed while growing up.

Petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide (H2O):

Carolyn McCarthy explaining what a barrel Shroud is

This is an oldie but goody - definitely very funny. I died laughing when I first saw it. Democrat Carolyn McCarthy doesn't know what a barrel shroud is even though guns with barrel shroud's would have been banned in legislation she sponsored this past Feb of 2007 called the "weapons ban & law enforcement protection act of 2007." When she was questioned about what a barrel shroud was or why it should be banned on an interview on NBC news she said:

I actually don't know what a barrel shroud is, I believe it's a shoulder thing that goes up.

Check it out for a good laugh:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U



What exactly does she have against a device that protects us from being burned? Does she own stock in some company that sells a burn relief cream or something?

A Texas gun rights Hero - Dr. Suzanna Gratia Hupp

One of my favorite gun rights quotes was coined by Dr. Suzanna Hupp - one of the great hero's of gun rights advocacy. Her efforts were a major force in getting the Texas legislature to pass their shall issue CCW law in 1995 that finally "allowed" it's citizens to keep & bear arms - prior to that Texas did not allow either concealed or open carry of handguns in public at all, unless you were part of a government agency. So in essence, Texas had previously quashed the right to bear arms. Currently it is only partially quashed, since you still can't openly carry a handgun in public there with or without a permit, and you can only conceal carry there with permission from the state in the form of a permit. But at least Texas is now a "shall issue" CCW state, so if you apply, take the required training course, pay the expensive fees, pass the required background checks, & meet the stated requirements, they have to issue you a permit.

You can watch Dr. Suzanna Gratia Hupp discuss the gun rights issue via the below video links:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=2ggg0LwhrH0
http://youtube.com/watch?v=jTainp2cY_w
http://youtube.com/watch?v=PhyuJzjOcQE

On to my favorite Dr. Suzanna Gratia Hupp quote:

How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual… as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of.

Gun control is not about guns - it's about control. Are we as law abiding US citizens to be "allowed" to have the right to keep & bear arms as protected by the 2nd Amendment, or are our Second Amendment rights to be infringed so that the government can lord over, control, supervise, and "take care" of us.

I believe we should all fight to keep our constitutional rights, and I will heavily oppose any politician who wishes to "lord over" me as evidenced by a record of voting in favor of adding new gun control laws. The last thing in the world I want is to wake up one morning to find Bill Clinton is the newest 1st Lady in the White House. Hillary Clinton has voted anti gun & anti 2nd Amendment in every single gun related vote that she has ever cast. No matter what, do NOT vote for Hillary Clinton or any of the other anti-gun candidates if you care one iota about our Bill of Rights & our freedoms that it protects.

No matter which candidate in which party you are planning to vote for, make sure to find out where he or she stands on the gun rights issue, and don't just take their word for it. Look at their voting record to confirm what they say. Do they want to leave guns in our own control where it belongs, or do they wish to take the control away from law abiding citizens & hand it over to the government in an effort to lord over, control, supervise, and "take care" of us.

CNN lies & fakes the story once again!

I really wish I could just believe that CNN is full of incompetent reporters & editors. Unfortunately it is equally as likely that they are just a bunch of liars who wish to mislead their audience in order to support their own liberal dream of re-enacting the Clinton gun ban (commonly called the "assault weapon" ban by the gun grabbers) that already expired without renewal.

This is a repeat of the same lies & propaganda spewed by CBS news last month as reported in blog entries such as Days of our Trailers & Say Uncle, with new lies added in by CNN for extra putrid flavoring. Just one of the misleading statements CNN included:

"We're having more than one officer shot and killed a week. It's just outrageous that officers are being targeted," he said. "It's something I think all Americans should be outraged about."

He lays the blame squarely on lawmakers who allowed the assault weapons ban to expire in 2004.

What in the world does the rate of killings of Police Officers have to do with the expired Clinton gun ban? They make that statement as if they're saying all or even most of those officers were killed with weapons named on the banned list, which is an outright lie. Officers are killed by all kinds of criminals who use all kinds of weapons - handguns, shotguns, knives, cars, baseball bats, explosives, & normal semi-automatic rifles. Full auto assault rifles are not very common on the streets, and even if they were, it would not be caused by the lack of the so-called assault weapon ban which does NOT include a SINGLE ASSAULT RIFLE. Not one. Surprised? It's all part of the deception - the folks in favor of the Clinton gun ban want people to be confused so that they will support it.

In the CNN news story they keep going back & forth between the phrase "assault rifle" & "assault weapon" as if they both mean the same thing. They did at one time, because assault weapons officially only included assault rifles and weapons used by military forces for armed assaults on enemy forces, until the Brady folks & Clinton decided to cause mass confusion by defining normal semi automatic rifles that have 2 or more "evil looking" features such an "evil" pistol grip as being an "assault weapon" even if it was not an assault rifle. One example of the normal semi automatic guns that had been banned by the Clinton gun ban is the popular "Sport Utility" gun - the AR-15. Jack of all trades - works great for target practice, home defense, target matches, etc. Below is yet another example of the lies from CNN - first they said the Police Department is being armed with Assault rifle's:

Miami's police department also is in the process of arming every officer with an assault rifle.

Then later they said:

Palm Beach Sheriff's deputy Carl Martin bought his own AR-15 and passed the required training.

So apparently they want us to think an AR-15 is an assault rifle which is a big fat lie.

There are far more powerful rifles out there than the semi-automatic rifles that had been banned by the Clinton Gun ban. A .30-06 rifle comes to mind as a popular hunting rifle that is far more powerful than either the popular semi-auto AR-15 or the popular semi-auto version of the AK-47. Yet the article continued to blubber on & on about "high powered assault weapons"

"It's not nice we have to arm ourselves like the soldiers in Iraq," said Sgt. Laurie Pfeil, who supervises a sheriff's road patrol in Palm Beach County and is now certified to carry a semiautomatic AR-15 rifle on the job. It's the civilian version of the military's M-16 used by U.S. soldiers in Iraq.

Believe me when I tell you that our soldiers are not using AR-15 semi-automatic rifles - they NEVER have. They use "select fire" full automatic or burst mode assault rifles commonly known as the M-16. It has little to do with an AR-15 other than that they have a few common features such as a pistol grip & an accessory rail where you can attach utilities like a flashlight which works nicely for home defense purposes against criminal invaders.

So enough with the lies & propaganda. Let's call an AR-15 what it really is - a Sport Utility Rifle or SUR for short. It is not an "assault rifle" even if the media wishes us to believe that it is. The Clinton gun ban was not renewed because it was dumb legislation that did not do anything other than ban perfectly normal semi-automatic rifles in a blatant attempt to keep them out of the hands of law abiding citizens. The truth came out, and the legislation died a well deserved long overdue death, which is exactly where it should stay. Let the dead horse lie in its grave - a zombie horse is not a pretty picture, lets not attempt to raise this dead horse from the grave as the Brady folks are demanding.

CNN & CBS news should start out every story with the following advisory: "Warning - you are about to be assaulted by left wing liberal bias, propaganda, and outright lies carefully crafted to confuse & mislead. Viewer discretion is advised. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile."

Too funny - criminal first attacks, then begs police to save him!

A criminal attacked a woman in a Home Depot parking lot in an apparent attempt to steal her purse. Luckily her husband was nearby who retrieved a loaded shotgun from their vehicle. He fired one shot & the criminal let her go to run away - he managed to find a police car which leads to the funny part:

"The suspect runs up to the police car saying, 'Let me in. They are shooting at me'."

Police took the suspect into custody.

Yet another criminal foiled by law abiding gun owning Americans who refuse to be willing victims. Keep up the great work my fellow Americans - when we fight back we increase the risk to benefit ratio of crime. As the risk to benefit ratio climbs for criminals, more & more of them will either seek a safer career, or move to New York or Washington DC where they know all of their victims have been disarmed by their local government.

The only thing criminals in New York or Washington DC fear is their armed competition - fellow thugs fighting over who gets the majority of the spoils from their disarmed victims.

Yet another gun buyback - what a waste!

Gun buybacks are purported by their sponsors to reduce crime, yet all studies on past gun buybacks have indicated that there was ZERO effect on crime. Zip, zilch, nada. So you'd think that politicians would learn their lesson & would stop wasting taxpayer money on such a ridiculous effort.

No such luck for the unfortunate citizens of Springfield, IL, which city is now on the hook for $52,600 from the $100 debit cards they owe or already gave out for the guns that they took in during their latest gun buyback event (526 guns taken in). That does not even take into account all of the wasted man hours of the Police who had to waste their time coordinating the gun buyback effort rather than watching the streets for criminals. Springfield Mayor Tim Davlin admitted that he had only expected the event to take in 100 guns, so they had to issue IOU cards to most of those who turned their guns in. He plans to submit an emergency ordinance to pay for the additional debit cards that they owe using funds currently earmarked for community development along with drug forfeiture money.

It is interesting to note that since US citizens own approximately 270 million of the world's 875 million known firearms, according to the 2007 Small Arms Survey by the Geneva-based Graduate Institute of International Studies, the wasted time & money had a HUGE impact on the number of guns in the US: a whopping 00.0000019% reduction in guns owned in the US primarily by law abiding citizens. Of course that small "gain" for Springfield was negated in just over an hour of the end of the event since the same Small Arms Survey also showed that US Citizens are currently purchasing an average of approximately 4.5 Million newly manufactured guns each year which translates to roughly 513 newly manufactured guns per hour. I bet the citizens of Springfield IL feel very good about this wise investment of their hard earned tax dollars to support yet another failed gun buyback program (strong sarcasm oozing here folks).

Clinton had established a Federal gun buyback program that wasted millions of tax dollars on failed gun buyback experiments. The program was later terminated because of the failure to produce any effect based on study results. Here are some quotes from the above mentioned termination notice listing the reasons why gun buyback programs don't have any effect on crime:

Studies show that lawbreakers rarely surrender their weapons to buyback programs and many people who sell their guns have other firearms at home, or soon purchase new ones . . . In general, the age and type of guns turned in as a part of buyback programs are older guns. For example, in 1999, more than half the 2,912 weapons bought by the District of Columbia police for $100 apiece were 15 (or more) years old.

Gun control does not work. Gun buybacks don't work. Lets spend our tax dollars on things that do work, like building more prisons so that we have enough room to place criminals in jail for the maximum time allowed rather than the minimum (due to overcrowded prisons), followed by less early release programs which are in effect experiments to see if the known criminals are going to return to crime or not. If they do return to crime, that experiment often ends in tragedy for one or more innocent victims, yet nobody seems to be demanding changes to the early release/probation system in our Country.

Let's make some changes that actually give results in reducing crime, not more of the same wasted effort in trying to think of new laws or efforts that do not even work to keep illegal guns out of the hands of criminals, much less to reduce crime. As Albert Einstein said - "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Let us NOT act like the insane.