I found an article about a Liberal reporter who actually tried to understand why over 3.5 million households own at least one AR-15. In trying to understand, he traveled to Philadelphia (first mistake) and asked a gun shop owner who's an expat from Europe about weapons and gun control in the United States (second mistake).

The Internet is ablaze with how this reporter thought an AR-15 was "It’s horrifying, menacing and very very loud." He also reported that:

The recoil bruised my shoulder. The brass shell casings disoriented me as they flew past my face. The smell of sulfur and destruction made me sick. The explosions — loud like a bomb — gave me a temporary form of PTSD. For at least an hour after firing the gun just a few times, I was anxious and irritable.

You would think I would be critical of the reporter for being a "girly man" because of his takeaway of the experience as many pro-Second-Amendment people were.

I would like to commend this reporter because he got way out of his comfort zone to do try and report objectively. Not everyone can leave their comfort zones. Not everyone likes the experience of shooting a weapon and you know what? That's okay.

Just as a side note, with the exception of the "explosion" of the rifle report and the shell casings, it sounds like he took his first drag on a cigarette.

I do blame the gun shop owner for probably making it rough on the reporter. It seems from the pictures that he shot the AR-15 in an indoor range. That alone will make a rifle report significantly louder (and the smell more intense), especially if it was only 5 or 6 lanes. If the reporter bruised his shoulder, that means that most likely he was not holding the butt of the weapon firmly against his shoulder or standing correctly. Either the owner didn't tell the reporter to hold the weapon firmly against his shoulder, or the reporter didn't listen, I don't know and the article does not elaborate. If the brass was flying across his face, he was either shooting a right-handed weapon left-handed or the brass was bouncing off the lane divider and back into his field of view. As a Patron member of the NRA and an avid firearm enthusiast for over 25 years, if my second experience firing a weapon (the reporter had fired a handgun before) had been as unpleasant as this, I might have been turned off by that kind of experience.

I also want to criticize all of the people who posted hateful comments to this reporter. He actively and with no pre-conceived notions tried to understand the attraction this weapon has on so many people. If we as Pro-Second Amendment activists had been supportive and instructive rather than critical, we might have ended up with one person in the Liberal-dominated media who might have been sympathetic to our side.

Remember, John Lott started out his seminal study on firearms as a member of the anti-gun camp. He started out with the intent to prove gun-control worked. After his study showed that firearms in law-abiding citizens prevented over a million crimes a year, that's when he switched sides and became pro-Second Amendment. We, you and I, had that chance here with this reporter and we blew it.

I am really, really getting sick of this shit.

Not even all of the victims are identified and already the line for more gun-control is out the door, down the street and around the corner.

This article by The Telegraph, Orlando gunman used AR-15 assault rifle to kill his victims - the weapon of choice for mass shooters is a bad mix of sensationalism and incomplete knowledge. And frankly, to have another country to lecture us about gun-control who requires by law a "proportional defense" and a "retreat if able" tone to their laws, plus now that there is almost total gun control there, now because of the 130,000+ annual knife attacks, they are going for knife control there, all I can say is, "Kettle, meet pot."

In England, the law requires you to retreat from the confrontation if you are able. You must retreat out of your own home if bad guys are beating on your door, as there is no "castle law" over there. For the "proportional defense," if you are accosted by a criminal with a knife, you can defend yourself with no more than a knife. The English laws stipulate the blade length may be no more than 3" in length, unless it is required for your work. If the assailant is unarmed, all you can have are your fists. If the assailant is a 25 year-old MMA fighter going after a 50 year-old regular bloke, that won't end well for the target. If you bring a gun to a knife fight, or a knife to a fist fight to defend and protect yourself, the target of the criminal will also be accosted by the police.

Now that you have an understanding of how they view self-defense, the article in question lists the AR-15 as an "Assault Weapon," which to anyone knowledgeable knows that's false on its face. "Assault weapon" means the weapon is capable of semi-automatic (one trigger pull = one bullet) AND fully automatic fire (one trigger pull = empty magazine).

The article talks about how there are 3,700,000 households with an AR-15. May such owners I know have more than one of them, but for the sake of argument we'll stick with 3,700,000 weapons. They then list FOUR mass shootings and a total of 61 people were killed where AR-15's were used. With Saturday's tragedy, that's five events and 91 casualties. I'm a generous guy and I don't want to devalue their numbers in any way, shape or form. Let's slip the decimal point two positions to the right and make that 500 mass shootings and 9,100 dead.

500 mass shootings divided by 3,700,000 weapons equals 0.0001351% of all AR-15's in civilian hands, or 99.99987% of AR-15's weren't used by crazy people in mass shootings.

As far as the 6,100 people killed in our horribly inflated numbers, which is still less than 1/3rd the number of people killed every year by falls. Of course, those mass shootings took place over the past 3 1/2 years, so you're comparing 6,100 against 105,728.

This phrase shows the author has zero idea how things work in the US:

In the state of Florida, anyone over the age of 18 can buy an AR-15 as no state permit is required. The same goes for pistols and shotguns.

I cannot say that statement is wholly factually correct. Anyone over 18 can legally buy a rifle or shotgun. You have to be 21 or older to legally purchase a handgun. And while there is no "state permit," all of us who have purchased a firearm knows that the Federal laws apply, meaning the dreaded BATFE Form 4473 must be used in all purchases of firearms from a licensed firearms dealer.

The real reason why there are mass shootings anywhere is not the weapon. It's the heart of the user. Getting rid of weapons won't stop killings and mass events. The bad guys will adapt.

With Liberals, the agenda always comes first. Everything and anything must be done to advance the agenda, no matter the cost. In this case, gun control.

Katie Couric and Director Stephanie Soechtig (figuratively) shoots themselves in the foot with this "documentary," Under the Gun. They are so intent on advancing the agenda they massively compromise their integrity by doing this:

That nine-second "pause" after her "question" was derived from what is called "B-roll footage" shot before the interview began. If you notice between the video above and audio below that the question Katie asks is slightly different, which certainly implies that the video question was dubbed in during post-production (when they were adding in the B-roll).

Kudos to Katie's pro-Second Amendment "targets," the Virginia Citizens Defense League, because they did not trust her and thus covertly recorded audio of the interview. Here is the salient part:

[audio src="http://www.theconservativezone.com/dlfiles/under-the-gun-raw-audio.mp3"]

So, the film implies that the people interviewed by Katie were left speechless and without an answer, while in reality the answers were prompt, concise, rational, thoughtful, realistic and totally against the documentary's agenda.

Director Stephanie Soechtig indicated that she, not Couric, had editorial control. She tried to justify the deception by releasing this statement:

"My intention was to provide a pause for the viewer to have a moment to consider this important question before presenting the facts on Americans' opinions on background checks."

To tell you the truth, I could have accepted Soechtig's statement, if the responses from the VCDL had been included after the "pause." But since they weren't, I have to conclude that the intent for the exclusion was deception because the responses didn't advance the agenda.

I especially like that phrase, "...the facts on Americans' opinions..." because opinions do not change facts. People's opinions can agree or disagree with the facts, depending on how knowledgeable they are on the subject. If opinions are derived from biased commentary by the media on the subject of background checks, it is the fault of the media providing biased (instead of balanced) commentary and the people listening for not performing their own due diligence on the subject before parroting the biased information.

I also do not accept Soechtig falling on her sword (figuratively) and accepting all of the blame. If Couric (who was the interviewer for the film and also the Executive Producer, who is the bankroller of the documentary) had any integrity towards the truth rather than advancing the agenda, she could have been critical of the documentary. Instead, Couric released this statement after Soechtig released the one above:

"I support Stephanie's statement and am very proud of the film."

I have also discovered that the makers of this "documentary" scheduled an hour to interview John Lott, author of More Guns, Less Crime. Mr. Lott was an anti-gunner who in the 90's performed a study to prove his side of the argument. What he discovered conducting that study caused him to switch sides in the debate. Again, they scheduled an hour to interview him and the interview ended up with four hours of tape. How much of that four hours made it into Under the Gun? Zip, zero, zilch, nada. Because nothing he said advanced the agenda.

Just in case you think that there might be a slight possibility that this could be a balanced documentary, please check out the partners of the film, I have the links below. Eleven pro gun-control groups, zero pro-Second Amendment groups. Kind of telling, eh?

I ask that you click on each link, so this blog shows up in their refer lists. I want them to follow the links back here and know I am against their agenda. They will open in individual windows so you don't have to keep clicking "back":

I found a video from the CBS affiliate in Miami. I can't post it because Joomla doesn't support that video player. The article I found about it is here. It relates how a teen was shot and killed after he burglarized a home. The video discussed several points that raised my suspicions about the shooting. Not knowing all of the circumstances of the event and Florida law, I am going to refrain from commenting on it.

What I am going to discuss is the comments made by the burglar's cousin:

"I don't care if she have her gun license or any of that. That is way beyond law... way beyond. He was not supposed to die like this. He had a future ahead of him. Trevon had goals... he was a funny guy, very big on education, loved learning.

You have to look at it from every child's point of view that was raised in the hood. You have to understand... how he gonna get his money to have clothes to go to school? You have to look at it from his point of view."

Umm, young lady, perhaps his parent(s) could purchase the clothes for him? How about he could get a legal job to earn the money?

This mindset that some people are entitled to the property of others (both in hoodlums and politicians) has to stop. If you engage in the actions of entering another persons space, be it their home or personal space, with the intent of depriving the other person of their possessions, you should fully expect to wind up seriously injured or dead. That should be the regular outcome, rather than the exception.

Before we had police, if you stole from another and got caught, you could fully expect a serious ass-whuppin' at a minimum. In Islamic cultures, they cut your hand off. While jail or prison today is by far from a pleasant place to be, for some people it's an upgrade in living standards. Punishment for violating the laws is supposed to be an incentive to not repeat those bad acts.

I don't know if Trevon was going to grow up to be a world-renowned surgeon, the CEO of a multi-billion dollar company, or even President of the United States. We will never know now that he has assumed ambient temperature. That being said, based on what caused his death (if he had survived) I think his most likely outcome would have been a life of crime, interspersed with stints in prison before dying in his 20's, either being killed by another criminal in a "deal-gone-bad" or by an armed citizen protecting their property.

Ronald Reagan said, "History teaches that wars begin when governments believe the price of aggression is cheap." This can be translated in this case to "History teaches criminals that they can commit crimes with impunity when the price of punishment is cheap." I don't know if Trevon had a police record, but I think it's a safe bet that was not his first burglary nor petty crime.

These Democrats either have some extremely large cojones or (this is what I'm leaning towards) they are extraordinarily stupid. They could be grandstanding or something else.

No matter what, 123 Democrat Congressmen, about 65% of the total Democrats in the House, are sponsors or co-sponsors of this bill, H.R. 4269.

Normally, these guys are a little obfuscatory in the name of the bill, either short or long. This time, they lay it right out.

The bold and italic is mine.

The short name is, "Assault Weapons Ban of 2015."

The long name is, "To regulate assault weapons, to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, and for other purposes."

I'm sorry, I don't see how these idiots can expect to pass this bill when they are a minority in both houses. This is why I think they are grandstanding, because if Senator Orrin Hatch (Senate Majority Leader) pulls a Harry Reid, the Senate bill will never be brought to the floor for a vote. And unless a large number of Republicans of both houses join in voting for this bill, it will never see the President's desk.

The core of this bill is the banning of private ownership (except for active and retired Law Enforcement, government agencies and other security personnel) of any "Assault Weapons." If you own one now, you can keep it. For the moment. However, you cannot transfer it to anyone. At your death, it has to go to the government or other authorized dealer.

This bill does not mean Assault Rifles, which can selectively fire a single shot, burst (3-5 rounds) or fully automatic. The term Assault Weapon has come to mean semi-automatic weapons.

The criteria of this bill is as follows:

(36) The term ‘semiautomatic assault weapon’ means any of the following, regardless of country of manufacture or caliber of ammunition accepted:

“(A) A semiautomatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any 1 of the following:

“(i) A pistol grip.

“(ii) A forward grip.

“(iii) A folding, telescoping, or detachable stock.

“(iv) A grenade launcher or rocket launcher.

“(v) A barrel shroud.

“(vi) A threaded barrel.

Also, this bill out-and-out bans possession of any magazine that holds more than 10 rounds that was made after the bill becomes law by any private citizen other than law enforcement.

Under the Clinton 1994 AW Ban a weapon needed to have two of their criteria to be outlawed. This time around if the weapon has any of the criteria, it is considered illegal.

And there is no sunset provision, so this one is forever until overturned.

Something fishy is going on here, because the chance of this bill becoming law is so small it can only be seen by an electron microscope. If it does become law, it won't pass Constitutional muster when SCOTUS hears it. There is a fix in here somewhere, or this is a smokescreen to distract us from something else.

With the several deaths that have ensued at police hands recently, people aren't listening to the other side. They basically agree on the major points, they just see things... differently. Here is a video story out of Phoenix that was about a Black Rights Activist going through a live use of force scenario.

When I had a CCW license, I trained constantly. Marksmanship, practical pistol competitions and specifically what are called "shoot/no-shoot" scenarios. I used an air-powered simulation pistol with a narrow light beam and sensor in the barrel, with a system similar to the NES's Duck Hunt. You then watched a short video using a wall projector to simulate the exercise. When you pulled the trigger, the air piston would rack the slide (thus giving the feeling of firing a round) and flash the light. The projection screen would for 1-2 frames go black, except for a white spot to represent a proper target, generally the center of mass of the person(s) on the screen. If the weapon was aimed at the white spot, the light would reflect off of it and back to the sensor in the weapon and tell the computer to register a kill. The computer would then play the appropriate video clip based on if you were justified in shooting and if you hit or missed. If the person(s) on the screen made an aggressive move (such as advancing toward you and/or pulling a weapon) and you shot and hit, the video would show the person dropping. If you missed, they would shoot you and declare you "dead."

Sometimes the person would throw up his hands and surrender or run off without pulling a weapon. If shot then, you lost because your use of force was unjustified. Police officers make split-second life-and-death decisions every day. "Armchair quarterbacks" who have days or months to analyze what happened will 99% of the time find something that the officer missed in the 0.72 seconds the officer had to decide in who lived and died. The armchair quarterbacks can also kibbutz about "Why didn't you shoot the gun out of his hand?" or "You should have shot him in the leg to stop him instead of the head" are blowing smoke out their ass.

Unless you have had to make those kind of split-second decisions, be quiet. You have no idea what you are talking about and "should haves" are bullshit.

SWATing, for those of you who don't know what it means, is to call the police and misrepresent a situation using words like "active shooter" so they respond with maximum force. It seems that some (about 5%) of commenters on places like the Facebook page for Moms Demand Action, or gunfreezone.net (no, I will not link to them) are actively advocating that you call the police and "misrepresent" (e.g. lie) about the actions of a person who is open carrying their firearm. Here is a nice example:

This is somewhat similar to what happened to John Crawford III, where a caller to 911 grossly misrepresented Mr. Crawford's actions, which lead the police to approach with a "shoot first and ask questions later" mindset. Mr. Crawford died as a result of these "mischaracterizations."

If you are thinking of calling 911 to report a visibly armed citizen, just to "ruin his day" and/or "get him what he deserves," all I can say is DON'T. This is one of those "sound good" ideas that isn't a "good, sound" idea. In Tennessee where I live, if you were to see an armed citizen (you honestly don't know if they are properly licensed or not) who is minding their own business and you call 911 and infer an "active shooter" situation where you state the armed citizen is brandishing his firearm in a reckless manner, or shooting other people, that is basically filing a false police report. At minimum, that is a class D felony, punishable by 2-12 years in prison. Under the right circumstances, it can be bumped up to a class C felony, which is 3-15 years in prison. It could also open you up to a personal liability lawsuit by either the person you called the police on, or their surviving family members, which is what looks like is going to happen in the Crawford incident.

So, if you get the urge to teach someone a lesson and you lie to the police, the end result is YOU end up in prison and with a hefty multi-million dollar lawsuit judgement against you that will be awarded to you after you finish your time in "the big house." Good luck with that.

Defensive Gun Uses occur over 2,000,000 times a year. Here is an example: Man opens fire on attempted armed robbers after work.

Kelly Royster, 21, a five-month employee of Nationwide Warehouse, said he and a female co-worker were leaving work around 8:15 p.m. when the two robbers approached them.

The pair went straight for the woman, who was carrying the night's deposit, and demanded the bank bag, Royster said...

"I just pulled it out and got to shooting at them," Royster said. "I was trying to keep track of how many I was firing, because I only had one clip." This was one of the less than 5% of the DGU's where shots are fired. Make no mistake about it, the only reason why it made the news was the fact that shots were fired.

All I can say is I hope I would have done as well as this man did. I would like to say I would have dropped both of them before they know what happened, but reality is different from imagination. It is also a lot messier.

I can never bear arms legally again, so I hope I never have to face such a situation.

I found this article, Why more senior citizens are carrying guns and I thought it bears mentioning.

First of all, the sub-title on the piece is, "They're protecting themselves from what they see as a rise in violence, even if crime statistics say otherwise."

You may think this is a pro-gun article, but it's not. I'll admit that armed seniors suffering from Alzheimer's can pose a threat to those around them, but I don't think that it is as widespread that the article implies.

The article also infers that, "because crime is down, nobody needs to arm themselves." They are not looking at the fact that it is armed citizens who are lowering the crime rate. Crime rates have steadily dropped because now 45 of 50 states have concealed weapons licenses for ordinary citizens. Every state that licenses citizens to carry see a decrease in crime across the board.

A criminal will commit crimes until they are stopped, that's a fact. If they come up against an armed citizen, that's a pretty solid wall to run into. Seniors are the weakest amongst us with the exception of children and are easy pickings for an aggressive criminal. When you arm them, they become a wall against crime. Once a criminal faces down an armed citizen, they think twice about taking on their next victim.

In the end, "the best insurance seniors can have against violent crime is a well-armed citizenry," says Van Vibber, gripping his pistol. "Besides, it's a God-given right."

Amen.

John Lott has written another fine article, Why People Fear Guns. Read it. It's good.

... If these events [Defensive Gun Use] were really happening, wouldn't we hear about them on the news? Many people tell me that they have never heard of an incident of defensive gun use. There is a good reason for their confusion. In 2001, the three major television networks -- ABC, CBS, and NBC -- ran 190,000 words' worth of gun-crime stories on their morning and evening national news broadcasts. But they ran not a single story mentioning a private citizen using a gun to stop a crime.

There is an actual phobia for the abnormal, irrational fear of guns, Hoplophobia.

Guns are power over life and death. As with all such powers, they are a final and irrevocable power. A lot of people are not prepared to make those kind of choices. They haven't had the experience in their lives to even think about such a decision.

Even for those people who have done the work and resolved themselves to take a life that threatens them or their family, it isn't as easily shaken off as they do in the action movies. PTSD can occur. While that is the bad news, the good news is you're still alive.

Over 2,000,000 crimes are prevented every year by armed citizens. You don't hear about 99% of them because nobody got hurt. Bad guy threatens, good guy shows firearm, bad guy runs away. Not a very exciting news report. That's why you only hear of the ones where somebody (usually the criminal) gets killed. As they say in the newspaper business, "If it bleeds, it leads." And when they do get reported, it's usually a small blurb on the back of the A section of the newspaper.

Defensive gun use makes the TV news only when it crosses into the spectacular. Here in Memphis last summer, we had a burglar running rampant in the city. It led the evening news whenever a new burglary was reported. He had over 20 homes to his credit when he finally broke into the home of an armed citizen who shot him dead. That led the TV news, but only because it had already been making the news for a couple of weeks. If (and I mean if) the TV news carries a regular DGU, it's a 15 second blurb after the weather. While gun murders lead the news. Too bad it can't be the other way around.

The two publications of the NRA, American Rifleman and American Sportsman, Each present a page of "The Armed Citizen," filled with a dozen or so DGU's every month. Most of them are small blurbs of only a couple of sentences long.

Of course, the blatant Liberal bias against guns doesn't help either. The rank-and-file Liberal has a solid case of hoplophobia and thinks everybody should not have a gun. The leaders of the anti-gun movement just don't want you to have a gun. They have a socialist agenda and the first step in order to institute it is the disarming of America. The Second Amendment was put there specifically so the citizen has the power to resist an overbearing government. But I digress.

Defensive gun uses are prevalent, and for the vast majority of incidents, non-violent. That doesn't mean you can't be prepared to kill to defend your life and the lives of your family. It took me several months to answer that question before I applied for my CCW license. It wasn't easy, let me tell you.

If you decide to arm yourself in whatever way for self defense, make sure you can pull that trigger before you buy the gun. Otherwise it will be taken away from you, with all of the negative results possible.

This article, Cincinnati Mayor Wants Stun Guns is going to get a police officer killed.

Non-lethal options sound good on paper, but there are real-world circumstances that make NLO's dangerous to the police.

First of all, tasers can be defeated by clothing. In Cincinnati right now, it's colder than the devil's heart. People are wearing heavy jackets. You would have to get a successful hit in the legs to subdue a perp, but there's a high chance that at least one of the darts will miss the legs. Besides, police are trained to go after the center of mass.

Tasers work by overloading the nervous system. Talking with someone 15 feet away in a quiet room is easy. That's the normal operation of your nervous system. Trying to talk with the same friend the same distance away in the middle of a rock concert is impossible. That's what the Taser does. But if your nervous system is already at rock concert level due to drugs like meth or PCP, then the Taser isn't as effective. It may hurt the perp, but it won't disable him. Remember, people hopped up on PCP can lift cars. They will cause massive damage to themselves doing it, but they can do it and feel no pain.

I hope the police regarding NLO's are first option only with multiple officers on the scene. Because the lone officer who tries a Taser first against someone in this situation will be killed. He won't have time to use his firearm after he realizes that the NLO is ineffective.

When I carried my weapon, I had a 25 foot zone around me at all times. If someone with a weapon would have entered that zone, I trained myself to shoot first and tell them to drop it later. Why? Because if they were in that zone, they were in under my reaction time and could get me before I could get them. Even though I could draw and shoot twice in less than 3/4 of a second, someone with a drawn weapon could cross that 25 feet in the same amount of time and get me first. Even if I had my weapon drawn, normal response time to assess the situation, decide on the action and carry it out is still about 1/2 a second. Still plenty of time to get me.

I brought this up because I wanted to illustrate the kind of distance you need for safety. Police often work in contact with the perps, so they are way under response time. They have to read intentions over a second in advance so they can break contact and get far enough away to draw their weapon.

NLO's are a wonderful Liberal thing. It looks good on paper, nobody gets hurt, sometimes it works and when it doesn't the defecation really hits the rotary oscillator.

This was a preventable tragedy. Concealed Carry Permits Fire up Debate Over Workplace Shootings

Javelle distinguished himself that day by trying to delay and disarm the gunman, 42-year-old Michael McDermott, before being killed. But Javelle might have saved his own life and at least four others if the concealed handgun permit he held in New Hampshire had allowed him to carry a weapon on his job in neighboring Massachusetts, according to one of Javelle’s friends and numerous firearms policy experts.

If this citizen had been legally armed, the incident would have stopped, before as many people died as there was.

Let me say this again: this was preventable. If the shooter was confronted by a legally armed citizen ready to stop this rampaging madman, less people would have died. Either the madman would have laid down his weapons and surrendered, or he would have been shot by the legally armed citizen.

This is a classic case that 911 is a government sponsored Dial-A-Prayer. Don’t let this happen to you. If you are of the mind that you will do anything necessary to protect yourself and your family, I suggest you explore this option. It is better to have and not need than to need and not have.

There ain’t no such thing folks. Candidates Confused on Gun Ban show that the Democratic candidates are trying to blow smoke up your butt.

The bans have now been in effect for almost a decade, without any evidence of any benefits. Increased crime is not the biggest danger arising from not extending the law. Politicians who have claimed such dire consequence from these mislabeled “assault weapons” have put their reputations on the line. If the extension fails, a year after that voters will wonder what all the hysteria was about.

I have already brought this up here. But it’s time to go over it again.

The Assault Weapons law banned a specific list of “evil looking” weapons by manufacturer and model number, and any weapon that has certain cosmetic features, such as a separate handgrip or a bayonet lug. All manufacturers had to do is change one cosmetic feature and their weapons were legal again. When a law can be as easily circumvented as this one is, it is a classic example of bad lawmaking. This law was passed to make everybody look good for having passed such a law, but it really does nothing.

Stuff like this makes me sick.

This article, Dems Tout Second Amendment, but Voting Records Show Hostility shows the contempt Liberals have for citizens.

Here are a couple of facts for your consumption:

• There are bad people that want to do bad things to you and your family.
• The police have no obligation to protect you.
• Armed citizens prevent 2,500,000 crimes a year.

Now, the leaders of the anti-gun movement aren’t out to get rid of guns, they are just against you having guns. They have armed guards wherever they go. They are important enough to need firearms for protection, but you aren’t. Don’t you find that hypocritical?

It shows that liberals don’t trust you. The liberal reporters try to feed you your opinion by shaving news pieces. Liberal politicians don’t trust you to vote for them. Liberal anti-gunners don’t trust you with the power to protect yourself. And so on, ad nauseam. They try to sway you by appealing to your emotions and ignoring facts.

Conservatives, on the other hand, appeal to you by presenting you facts and then trust you to make the decision that fits you by yourself.

Who would you rather trust?

Lying Scholars Fuel Anti-gun Court Verdicts warns of a significant danger to your rights.

The Second Amendment was clearly meant for individuals to own arms for possible use against the Federal government. Reading the papers of our founding fathers makes that very clear. They had just fought a revolution against an oppressive government and they wanted the citizens to be able to do that again, if the day ever came.

The “collective right” about the National Guard is a fallacy. Get the anti-gunner to agree on the fact that the militia/NG is supposed to overthrow the federal government if necessary, then explain to them the president can federalize the NG with the stroke of a pen. Short of widespread revolt in the ranks, there isn’t anything anybody can do about it. That presents a rather thorny conflict of interest. How can you overthrow an oppressive government if you take your orders from it?

It has also been case law since 1856 that the police cannot be held liable for not protecting citizens. That’s not the job of the police. Personal protection has always rested on the person, and the best and the most effective way to do that is by force of arms. 2,500,000 crimes are prevented every year by armed citizens. in 98% of those cases, once the citizen shows he has a firearm, the bad guys run away. You never hear about this in the news because nothing newsworthy happened. Bad guy threatens, good guy pulls out his weapon, bad guy runs away. End of story.

Don’t expect the police to be there in time if someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night. The best the police can do is gather evidence and catch the criminals for the crimes committed. That will be little comfort to you if it includes your murder.

You do have a fire extinguisher in your kitchen, don’t you? How about in your car? Garage? If you do, then you’re my kind of person. You’re careful and thoughtful, keeping well aware of realistically possible emergencies.

Do you have a crime extinguisher? You know, a firearm. Are you familiar with its operation? Do you take it to the range often to keep yourself familiar with it? (you can also have fun with it at the same time) Do you get to carry it with you where ever you go? Gun Rights Advocates Take Aim at Concealed Carry Bans talks about the fight in the last holdout states that do not let law-abiding citizens carry concealed firearms.

Guns prevent crime. Gary Kleck did a careful study to prove that gun control works, and found out the exact opposite. Lawful defensive use of firearms results in the prevention of 2,500,000 crimes a year. In 97% of those incidents, all it takes is for the citizen to show the weapon and the criminals run away. Only in 1/2 of 1% is somebody actually shot or killed, and of course those are the only incidents that make the news.

Back in the 90’s, Florida (a concealed weapon state) had a rather serious crime wave in rapes. The police took action and the headlines sum it all up, “POLICE GIVE GUNS, TRAINING TO RAPE VICTIMS.” Don’t you know, the bottom fell out of that particular crime wave.

It has been documented in state after state that when the citizens are allowed to lawfully carry weapons, the crime rate goes down. When the criminals know the victims have a fair chance to shoot back, they change their habits.

I myself used to have a carry permit. I had a lot of self-imposed restrictions. I couldn’t yell at anybody, no matter how idiotic they were. I was very careful as to where I went. My family could not stand on my gun side. I was always alert to my surroundings. I trained constantly, and at my peak I could draw from cover and put two rounds in the center of a target up to 25 feet away in under 3/4 of a second, well under a defensive reaction time. But it was all worth it.

You can never know when violent crime will strike you and your family. All you can do is be prepared for it when it does happen. Are you ready for it?

I happened across this article, Google Accepts Porn Ads but Refuses Those for Guns.

I was doing the Happy Dance last night because my blog showed up if you searched “Conservative Zone” on Google.

Then this came along. Google is well within their rights to refuse to do business with anyone, but I think it shows their values if they can advertise porn sites, but not a firearms dealer.

I’m just waiting for whatever justification they try, because any justification shows their hypocrisy. “For the Children” would be lovely. “We’re against advertising guns because of gun violence, but we’re for advertising porn sites that treat women as nothing more than sex objects” and all that.

In case you didn’t know, guns are a hot button topic for me. Maybe I’ll write it at length in a future post.

Here is another classic piece of knee-jerk legislation. Lawmakers seek ban on sniper rifle. Maryland lawmakers want to add a specific model to their list of “bad” guns. They obviously don’t know anything about firearms because if they did, their aim would be better.

In reflexive action, they want to add a specific, by brand name, rifle to a statewide and federal ban on non-existent “assault weapons.” If these lawmakers knew their ass from a hole in the ground, they should be trying to ban every kind of rifle. These attacks were all single shot attacks from relatively close range. Any rifle, bolt-action or semi-auto, of any rifle caliber would have been sufficient for the snipers.

Maybe they do know what they are doing. As in gun owners being nibbled to death by anti-gun ducks. When the law banning “assault weapons” was passed, it named 19 models specifically, by manufacturer and model. It also named a number of cosmetic features that had nothing to do with the functionality of the weapon itself. I myself at one time owned a post-ban MAK-90 rifle, a semi-automatic version of a real assault rifle, the AK-47. The only difference between mine and the pre-ban weapon was the stock was changed. Instead of a separate piece for the handle, they reformed the stock so it became a thumbhole stock. Nothing else was changed and because of that one modification, it became perfectly legal to sell. Bad lawmaking at it’s finest.

The article also mentions a list of “assault pistols.” This term was totally invented by the anti-gunners. There can be no such weapon system. To assault means to attack. Pistols are used as close-quarter defensive weapons. Even cops carry their sidearms for defensive purposes only. The cops who go looking for a fight (SWAT) use at least MP5’s, which are baby rifles that fire handgun ammunition. If there ever was a conception of an “assault pistol” the MP5 would be the closest fit. And you don’t Mexican Carry an MP5.

There is a difference, as the old saying goes, between good, sound ideas and ideas that sound good. I think this pretty much means the difference between Conservatives and Liberals. True Conservatives have definite, solid reasons and reasoning behind their positions on any subject they take a stand on. Liberals will, by and large, either default to “Because it’s the right thing to do.” or start spewing meaningless statistics from a left-wing group. These statistics rarely stand up to critical review.

Let’s take gun-control for an example. I have a clear bias, I am pro Second Amendment, I am a life member of the NRA, and before I got sick I had a Concealed Weapons License.

A Liberal will spew “10 children a day are killed by guns.” Of course, who wouldn’t want to save 10 children a day? That’s the emotional hook. But if you found out that most weren’t children, that they would probably die even if there weren’t any guns, would your position change then? Would that prompt you to determine the source of the problem, rather than treating a non-existent symptom? The bad news is they fail to define “children.” You are left to think 7 and 8 year-olds, while in fact, about 8.5 of those 10 are actually 15+ years old. And to round it up to 10, they had to include 18 and 19 year old ADULTS as well.

“…[T]here were just 20 fatal gun accidents among children under the age of 5 in 1998. Contrast this with phony claims you hear about “10 children a day killed by guns.” The greatest part of that factoid comes from gang-related homicides perpetrated by inner-city, 17-to-19-year-old male criminals.

(Excerpted from the article “Not-so Safe Storage Laws” by Dave Kopel, Dr. Paul Gallant & Dr. Joanne Eisen of the Independence Institute, published in National Review Online 10/18/00.)

Of course the death of a child is a tragedy. Even if the “child” is a member of a gang, capable of performing deadly violence on anybody who gets in his way. But it is by no means an accident. That young adult made a conscience choice to get involved with groups known for consistent and brutal violence. In some of these groups you actually have to commit a murder to be a member of the gang.

John Lott, in trying to show gun control actually works, decisively proved to peer review that 2.5 million (2,500,000) crimes are prevented every year by armed private citizens. Now for the sake of argument, let’s say that we were able to get rid of all guns in private hands. Would that cut down on the “10 children a day”? Probably not. They would use baseball bats, or knives, or whatever was on hand. Would that cause more crime? Absolutely. By at least 2.5 million a year.

Do you see the difference? I did a yahoo search and found a bunch of sites, more of which were promoting the “10 children a day” than were opposing it.

They are too fixated on the factiod to question it. Liberals don’t care that most of it is gang-related. If you take away the gang members, the rate drops to about 1.5 a day. Less than drowning. Less than poisoning. Liberals don’t like guns, they don’t like the common citizen having so much power and responsibility, so they are willing to quote any absurdity to justify their position. And the people who do it because “it sounds good” fall right in line behind them.

On any subject, which category do you fall under? Good, sound reasons or reasons that sound good?