MORE GUN VIOLENCE, give up your guns

By Floyd Bayne

Well, someone has to point it out, so I guess I'll do it.

We are all seeing the news reports about the latest gun-free zone shooting: The speeches, the memes, the posts on Facebook, the pols making their case for and against gun-control, etc., etc., etc.

I see many of my "conservative" friends making it quite clear that they will not stand for any infringement of their gun rights. They will not allow anyone to "take their guns." They point out that the 2nd Amendment and a persons right to self defense is quite clear and any attempt to take their guns will meet resistance. Fine, I get it, hell, I agree with those sentiments. But this raises two questions, one for my "liberal" friends, who oppose "gun violence" and one for my "conservative" friends, who love, revere, and worship their military/law-enforcement;

1) You say you oppose gun violence, but the very act of attempting to take guns from law-abiding citizens will lead to MORE gun violence, on both sides of the equation, the takers and the resisters. Are you then actually inciting and encouraging MORE GUN VIOLENCE? Is gun violence OK with you, as long as it advances your political opinion(s)? Just something you should consider.

2) You say that you will not "give up your guns," but you also acknowledge that the government, or at least factions within the government, wants to take your guns, is working toward that goal, and may, in fact, one day come for your guns. Otherwise, why all the pontificating and strongly worded posts about how "no one will get my guns?" Now, having made those statements and posted those memes, what will you do if the government does, in fact, "come for your guns?"

It won't be Obama or Michelle or any of your local pols knocking your door down. It will be your local police, your "heroes" or the U.S. military, your other heroes, coming to take them. You see, that's how it works. Your "heroes" are the enforcement arm of the government that you so despise. Your "heroes" will be the ones who come to take your guns. So, what will you do? Being the good, law-abiding citizen that you are will you just quietly hand them over and seek redress through the courts? Or, now get ready, because I am sure that you haven't considered this possibility, or will you resist and actually SHOOT at and attempt to kill those who would infringe on your rights?

WELL?! To all of you, regarding both questions, WHAT'S IT GONNA BE?!

Dave Brat Town Hall, Eric Cantor, Gun Control and Civil Debate

By Floyd Bayne

Went to the Dave Brat Town Hall meeting tonight at Midlothian H.S. Good for Brat for having more OPEN town hall meetings in less than two years than Eric Cantor had in over 12 years.

I like the fact that Dave does his own talking, unlike Cantor, who usually had his minions do most of the talking. After Dave gave the crowd an overview of what he has been dealing with since going to Washington, D.C. he opened the floor for questions. Now keep in mind this was an OPEN town hall meeting. That means that there were more than just Republicans in the room. As it should be.

After fielding a few questions, one from yours truly, he finally got one from a lady who asked a question that did not please most of the crowd, as if it should. She asked whether Dave would sign on to support some bill that has been presented to make gun purchases by "mentally unstable" people more difficult. Now I am not going to get into why this is a dumb bill, that is for another time and post. This woman was not screaming or being belligerent, she did not "butt in line," as Dave called on her in turn, and, I assume, she is a constituent and lives in the 7th district. She had every right to be there and every right to ask her question.

I thought that Dave handled it with aplomb and tact, but he made it clear that he was not going to jump on the gun-control band-wagon. Good for him. What really pissed me off was the way several people in the audience reacted and treated the lady. People tried to shout her down and told her to leave. One man even stood up, waved his hand at her to sit down and told her to shut up and leave.

Now these are Republicans, who tout themselves paragons of virtue and morality, defenders of free speech and the Constitution, people who complain vociferously about how rude and mean Democrats are to speakers whom they disagree with. A note: If you are going to set yourselves up as being more virtuous, even morally superior to "those people," it would help your credibility if you actually acted like it.

You may not have liked her question, you may think she is misguided or even dumb as a sack of hammers, but she was called on and asked her question in a respectful manner. Free speech works both ways, folks. If you expect yours to be respected then you damn well better respect that of others.

Just this mans opinion.

The danger of "Feel Good" laws (re-post of Pat Webb)

The danger of "Feel Good" laws:

In the rush by our Legislatures to "DO SOMETHING" to make us all *FEEL* safe, there has been much talk about universal background checks. Let us dissect this concept and apply the laws of unintended consequences. We are all aware of how these types of laws have, in the past, turned teenage girls with a dose of Midol in their purse while at school into "drug offenders", and more recently a second grader with an "L" shaped piece of paper into a "child with a gun at school". Here is the skinny on the universal background check.

Let me start by saying that no responsible, law-abiding person wants to facilitate guns falling into the hands of criminals. However, we must examine how criminals actually do get guns. Do they go to the store and buy them? No, they don't. Do they get them at gun shows? According to the FBI statistics, less than 2% of guns used in crimes come from gun shows. Do they steal them or buy them on the black market? Aha! I think we are on to something here! Will these universal background checks affect this type of acquisition? Um, no.

For the sake of argument, let's just say that we DO pass a universal background check law. How would this be enforced? How will the government know if you sell your gun to your cousin Larry? The ONLY way to keep tabs on the legal transfer of guns is if ALL GUNS ARE REGISTERED. This bears repeating...the only way for Uncle Sam to be able to implement a universal background check system is if he knows without a doubt every gun owned by every person in the nation. There are two problems with this. Do you think that Mr. Robber or Mr. Rapist is going to report their (illegally possessed) guns to The Man? Probably not. But even more disconcerting is the fact that in *every* case of gun registration throughout history, confiscation has followed. Once that happens, the only people with guns are criminals and the government...arguably synonymous in some cases.

We must refocus our attention on the real issue. Gun ownership, indeed citizenship, is not only a right but a responsibility. As gun owners we are responsible for keeping our firearms secure and using them in a safe manner. As citizens, we are responsible for our own safety and the security of our families, our homes, our communities. In fact, the courts have repeatedly upheld that Law Enforcement Officers do *NOT* have a duty to protect the individual. That, my friend, is up to you.

So when you contact your representatives (you DO contact your representatives, right?) tell them that you will not stand for gun registration under the guise of Universal Background Checks. Tell them that we, as law abiding American citizens will stand for nothing less than an unencumbered right to keep and bear arms. Tell that we are watching them and will not tolerate any more attacks on our Constitutional Rights.

Pat Webb
National_Coordinator@2ASisters.org
VA_Coordinator@2ASisters.org
www.2ASisters.org


This may be shared in its entirety with proper credit. Thanks to all for everything you do to protect our Freedoms and our way of life!

This is why even small encroachments must be resisted

This is why even small encroachments must be resisted. Once the gun-grabbers get one thing they want they will go for another, and another, and......
*************************************************************************

You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door.

Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers.

At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way.

With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun.

You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it...

In the darkness, you make out two shadows. One holds something that looks like a crowbar.

When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire.

The blast knocks both thugs to the floor.

One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside.

As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you're in trouble.

In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few that are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless..

Yours was never registered..

Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died.

They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm.

When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter.

"What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask.

"Only ten-to-twelve years," he replies, as if that's nothing.

"Behave yourself, and you'll be out in seven."

The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper.

Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choirboys.

Their friends and relatives can't find an unkind word to say about them..

Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both "victims" have been arrested numerous times.

But the next day's headline says it all: "Lovable Rogue Son Didn't Deserve to Die."

The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters..

As the days wear on, the story takes wings.

The national media picks it up, then the international media.

The surviving burglar has become a folk hero.

Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he'll probably win.

The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you've been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects.

After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time.

The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars.

A few months later, you go to trial.

The charges haven't been reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted.

When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you..

Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man.

It doesn't take long for the jury to convict you of all charges.

The judge sentences you to life in prison.

This case really happened.

On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk , England, killed one burglar and wounded a second.

In April, 2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term..

How did it become a crime to defend one's own life in the once great British Empire ?

It started with the Pistols Act of 1903.

This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license.

The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns..

Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns.

Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987.

Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the street shooting everyone he saw.

When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.

The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of "gun control", demanded even tougher restrictions.

(The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.)

Nine years later, at Dunblane, Scotland,

Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school.

For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable, or worse, criminals.

Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners.

Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns.

The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later, sealed the fate of the few sidearm's still owned by private citizens.

During the years in which the British government incrementally took away most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism.

Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun.

Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released.

Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying, "We cannot have people take the law into their own hands."

All of Tony Martin's neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had no fear of the consequences.

Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars.

When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given three months to turn them over to local authorities.

Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law.

The few who didn't were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn't comply.

Police later bragged that they'd taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens.

How did the authorities know who had handguns?

The guns had been registered and licensed.

Kind of like cars. Sound familiar?

WAKE UP AMERICA;

THIS IS WHY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS PUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN OUR CONSTITUTION.

"...It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless
minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."
--Samuel Adams

If you think this is important, please forward to everyone you know.

You had better wake up, because Obama is doing this very same thing,
over here, if he can get it done.

And there are stupid people in congress and on the street that
will go right along with him.