A Horrifying Reminder That Church Shootings Don't Happen...

...only in the United States. What else but people armed with firearms could have stopped such a methodical and ruthless attack?

Ordinary Citizens Stopping Mass Shootings with Guns

Yes, this really happens.  Here is an article by John Lott which lists ten incidents of ordinary citizens stopping mass shootings:

"Permit holders haven't just stopped public shootings.  They have stopped everything from public knife attacks to vehicle attacks.  

I haven't found a single case where gun control advocates' fears were borne out by the facts.  In not one of these cases did a permit holder accidentally shoot a bystander, or a police officer accidentally harm a permit holder."

They Really Do Want To Take Your Guns Away, Part 2

One of the favorite words the gun grabbers like to use is "compromise".  This is what one grabber calls a compromis:

"I’d love a compromise, where no one had (or felt they needed) handguns, and hunters and recreational shooters got to enjoy their registered and safely stored shotguns and old-fashioned repeating rifles."

So, ban handguns, ban semi-automatic rifles, register everything else, and that is a compromise? Wow.  And that is not even the most radical thing the author proposes.

Yes, they really do want to take your guns.

NJ Legislators are Douchebags

They are proposing a bill to exempt themselves from the "justifiable need" requirement, making concealed carry permits shall-issue to state legislators.

What douchebags!

     This bill provides that legislators, judges of the Superior Court, and municipal court judges will be issued permits to carry handguns in certain circumstances.

     Under current law, in order to be granted a permit to carry a handgun, an applicant is required to demonstrate “justifiable need.” Justifiable need is defined in the regulations, at N.J.A.C.13:54-2.4, as, “the urgent necessity for self-protection, as evidenced by specific threats or previous attacks which demonstrate a special danger to the applicant's life that cannot be avoided by means other than by issuance of a permit to carry a handgun.”

     This bill exempts legislators, judges of the Superior Court, and municipal court judges from the “justifiable need requirement.” Under the bill’s provisions, the permit to carry will be issued as long as the applicant is not subject to any disabilities set forth in current law and presents evidence of successful completion of at least eight hours of firearm safety training.

They Really Do Want To Take Your Guns Away, Part 1

Yes, they actually do want to confiscate your guns:


Ultimately, if gun-control advocates really want to stanch the blood, there’s no way around it: They’ll have to persuade more people of the need to confiscate millions of those firearms, as radical as that idea may now seem.

Feinstein Introduces a New Assault Weapon Ban

Will Feinsteins bill pass? No. At least not in this Congress, and Feinstein knows this. Here are few facts:

Republicans control the Senate.

Republicans control the House.

President Trump sits in the Oval Office.

This bill may pass one house in Congress, probably the Senate because the Republican'ts are getting squishy, but that will be its high water mark. There are some other facts to consider:

5,000,000: the number of AR-15 owners (estimated). Source:

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/13/owned-by-5-million-americans-ar-15-under-renewed-fire-after-orlando-massacre.html

14,500,000: the number of concealed carry permits in the United States (estimated). Source:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/05/22/demand-soars-for-concealed-carry-permits-data-shows.html

5,000,000: the number of NRA members (estimated) Source:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/10/15/most-gun-owners-dont-belong-to-the-nra-and-they-dont-agree-with-it-either/?utm_term=.ba91758437aa

81,000,000: the number of gun owners in the United States (estimated).

Granted, there is a lot of overlap between these sets of people, but my point is that there are a lot of people that do not want an entire class of rifles, shotguns, and pistols banned. Why does a smart legislator like Feinstein think it can pass? My guess is that she thinks it cannot, but she is going to use this as a campaign tactic to beat Republican'ts over the head during the mid-term elections.

So sad, but I think she will be disappointed, I do not think that this will be effective as a campaign issue. The numbers are bad for the Democrats on this issue. And I will do everything in my power to ensure that happens.

The members of the NRA, GOA, JPFO, and Second Amendment Foundation will be the tip of the spear, but this bill is the hill that we are going to die on, legislatively.

IT. WILL. NOT. PASS.

A Movement, or a Feel-Good Moment of Navel Gazing?

Now that the "Nasty Women" have had their march to protest Trump's presidency, it is time to reflect. What could have been accomplished by this stunt, other than helping the ladies feel empowered?  Is it the beginning of a movement, or just a fleeting moment of feel-good navel gazing?

Time will tell, but the recent past is not an encouraging sign. The Occupy "movement" has dried up and blown away on the populist winds, and BLM is in the process of descending into idiocy.

An looking at some of the signs carried by the marchers, does anyone think that these will change the minds of the millions of women who voted for Trump?   Movements convince people to take up their cause, and I have yet to see any proof that the match was anything more than an outing of a Progressive club.

Misleading Article About Stand Your Ground Law

The article in question is here.  In the article a study is described which blames Florida's stand your ground law with an increase in homicides.  I'll leave the validity of the study for other to comment about. I want to focus on this passage:

"Florida's Stand Your Ground law allows people to stand and fight, including fire a gun, if they feel threatened, without having to be attacked first."

This comment is incorrect and misleading.  To explain why, I must explain the five elements that must be present for one to legally claim self defense, weather deadly force is used or not.  These elements are:

1. Imminence. The threat must be immediate and proximate to your person.
2. Innocence. One must not have initiated the incident.
3. Proportionality. One must respond with similar levels of force with which one is confronted.
4. Reasonableness. One actions must be those that a reasonable person perform.
5. Avoidance. In some states, one must make an attempt to retreat or avoid the incident.

All stand your ground laws do is remove the requirement to retreat.  All four of the other elements must be present for a person to claim self defense in an incident.  It is not enough to "feel threatened" to justify using a firearm to defend oneself.  Doing so would likely land one in prison.

I hate the fact that so many journalists are so ignorant of the law.