Category Archives: Gun-free Zones

Karl Rove: Liberal Mole

Posted on by

I have never been a Karl Rove fan, even when he was on Dubya’s election campaign. He’s always impressed me as being a weasel. My opinion was confirmed, not this week, but this week it was obvious to all who watched or read his latest interview on FOX News; Karl Rove is not, and has never been, a conservative nor a republican. He’s a liberal mole whose purpose is to disrupt any efforts for conservatives to be elected.

Karl Rove claims to a be a great election and political adviser. Truth be told, he’s never won an election for any client. His advice has been consistently leftward and has insured his clients lose their elections. In short, he’s a fraud.

His latest exposé was his statement that the 2nd Amendment was the cause of all the gun violence. He implied, although some reports say he didn’t actually say it, that the 2nd Amendment should be abolished.

Karl Rove: Only Way To Stop The Violence Is To Repeal Second Amendment

Christian Datoc, Reporter, 9:53 AM 06/21/2015

But Rove’s statement didn’t go unobserved. The American Thinker had this article this morning.

Karl Rove vs. the 2nd Amendment

By Daniel John Sobieski, June 22, 2015

Guns don’t kill people, the Constitution kills people, at least according to Karl Rove, Republican strategist and architect of George W. Bush’s election and reelection as president. Rove, speaking on Fox News Sunday, and in the wake of the South Carolina church massacre, embraced the liberal mantra that there are too many guns on the street and went a step further and a step too far, saying the way to avoid more such tragedies is to repeal the Second Amendment and its guarantee of our right to keep and bear arms:

Now maybe there’s some magic law that will keep us from having more of these. I mean basically the only way to guarantee that we will dramatically reduce acts of violence involving guns is to basically remove guns from society, and until somebody gets enough “oomph” to repeal the Second Amendment, that’s not going to happen.

Say what?  Rove displays an ignorance of our history and our Constitution and how we won our freedoms thanks to private citizens bearing arms. The Second Amendment, it has been said, was written to protect the other nine in the Bill of Rights, and was an acknowledgement of the threat from tyrants and other domestic enemies such as the criminals and the crazies that would otherwise roam unchallenged among us. As Thomas Jefferson said in a letter to James Madison, dated December 20, 1787:

“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.”

In addition to the threat posed by tyrannical governments, Thomas Jefferson was among the first to embrace the concept that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun:

“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”

The article continues at the website. It states that all of the mass shootings going back years and perhaps decades, have one thing in common—they all occurred in gun-free-zones—a fact that Rove and leftists ignore. That fact doesn’t support their agenda to disarm America. They know that can’t seize power in the country if each person is armed.

Facebook

Acts of Rebellion

Posted on by

There were two acts of rebellion this week. One occurred in Washington…state, that is. The other occurred in Boston—241 years ago. That second act of rebellion is known as the Boston Tea Party.

http://www.bostonteapartyship.com/wp-content/themes/btps/images/tea-thrown-by-patriots.jpg

The Boston Tea Party, December 16, 1773.

If you look at root causes, you’ll notice that both events were/are driven by the same motivation—rebellion against a corrupt and tyrannical state. In Boston, the root cause of the Tea Party was an act of economic warfare by the British East India company with the compliance of the British government against the growing competition of the American colonies, especially the ship owners of New England.

In Washington state, the rebellion is more wide-spread. It is the conservative gun-owners and law enforcement officials against the liberals in control of the Seattle/Tacoma area. The conservatives own the statehouse, less the Governor. Seattle/Tacoma has the larger population and controls the Governor. Bloomberg paid for the passage of Initiative 594 that imposed unrealistic regulations on the ownership and transfer of firearms.

The anniversary of the Boston Tea Party slipped by with little attention, if any, from the mainstream media. Their attention was focused on Washington state and the public rejection of I-594 by gun owners and law enforcement across the state.

The MSM was watching, but not reporting—unless the Seattle liberal machine tried to enforce their new law at a rally and it blew up in their face. But, the libs backed down and no confrontation, other than in local headlines, took place. Even less attention by the MSM was given to a press release by the Sheriff and Prosecutor of Lewis County, WA. They declared they would not enforce the new I-594 law.

‘I Will Not Comply’ rally draws gun-rights supporters to Olympia

Protesters rallied at the state Capitol in Olympia to denounce an expanded initiative on gun-purchase background checks that voters widely approved last month.

Originally published December 13, 2014 at 7:00 PM | Page modified December 15, 2014 at 7:10 AM

By Joseph O’Sullivan, Seattle Times Olympia bureau

http://seattletimes.com/ABPub/2014/12/13/2025232642.jpg

Alan Berner / The Seattle Times. Above, Sam Wilson, carrying a rifle on his back, waits on the Capitol grounds to address the crowd.

OLYMPIA — Following a tradition going back to at least the Whiskey Rebellion of the early 1790s, demonstrators gathered here Saturday afternoon at the Capitol to protest the tyranny of what they consider unlawful American government.

But instead of decrying a tax on distilled liquor such as Pennsylvanians did just years after the U.S. Constitution was ratified, demonstrators here at the “I Will Not Comply” rally denounced a law expanding gun-purchase background checks that was approved last month by Washington voters.

Initiative 594, which voters passed by a 19-point margin, expands background checks to people buying firearms in private sales or exchanging them in a transfer.

…

Speaking to the crowd, rally organizer Gavin Seim blamed events like the 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting in Connecticut on people trying to regulate firearms.

“The people that are trying to take our guns are the ones that are causing events where children and families and people are lost,” said Seim, who ran unsuccessfully this year for U.S. Congress.

Washington State Patrol put the crowd at about 1,000 people; Seim estimated 1,500.

You can read the entire artlcle here at the Seattle Times.

The Washington state liberals and Bloomberg used the shooting at the Sandy Hook Elementary School as justification. This week, some of the families of the Sandy Hook victims filed suit against Bushmaster and others claiming the AR-15 is a military weapon and unsuitable for civilian use, therefore the sale of such a weapon should be banned.

I won’t post a portion of that article, it is just too stupid. You can follow the link and read it yourself. All I’ll say that New England, suffering under liberal oppression, is the only area such a suit has a chance of winning. Manufacturers cannot be held responsible for the use of their products. If that were so, no brewery would now exist in the United States, nor would alcohol be allowed to be imported.

The act of rebellion in Washington state was largely ignored outside of Seattle. The Connecticut lawsuit, however, could have wide-spread impact if the families win. Of course it would be too much to expect for them to sue the real culprits, the local school district who chose to allow those students and teachers to be unprotected, exposed and vulnerable to a mental defective and thief.

Facebook

Time’s up!

Posted on by

Yesterday, July 14th, was the deadline for Governor Nixon to veto, sign or ignore the pile of bills on his desk. One, SB 656, was one of those waiting for Nixon’s action. Late yesterday—at the very last minute, he vetoed SB 656.

What was SB 656? It was a bill that among other things, allowed teachers to protect their students after extensive training and certification by law enforcement, similar training, in fact, that LEOs undergo.

Nixon vetoed it saying it endangered the children. He prefers School Resource officers. So he said. Some school districts cannot afford hiring police to patrol their schools every day nor does every police department have extra officers to station them at every school.

Regardless of his motives, what Nixon has done was to leave schools open for more shootings. Our students must continue to be taught in free-fire zones.

Tuesday, July 15, 2014 4:49

http://www.guns.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Jay-Nixon-kmov.jpgMissouri Gov. Jay Nixon (D) vetoed legislation Monday that would have allowed vetted and trained teachers and school administrators to carry firearms on campus. The measure had passed the Republican-dominated state house by a strong 111-28 vote and the state senate in a 21-7 vote.

“I cannot condone putting firearms in the hands of educators,” Nixon said. “Arming teachers will not make our schools safer.”

Nixon said he supports the use of duly authorized law enforcement officers employed as school resource officers.

The bill, SB 656, was designed to allow school districts to cross-train faculty to a new “school protection officer” standard. These volunteer teachers and administrators would need a valid Missouri concealed-carry permit and complete a Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission certification course. Following these steps, they would be allowed to carry on school grounds if the district opted to allow armed personnel on campus.

Over the summer, no fewer than 10 school districts have sent selected teachers and staff through up to 75 hours of training in anticipation of the bill being signed by the governor. This required training ran at a cost of $17,500 for every two staff members.

Bloomberg surrogates, Moms Demand Action, are ecstatic that student remain endangered.

***

In another firearm related issue, Jackson County quietly passed an ordinance earlier this year prohibiting firing a firearm within the county. The way the law is written, if you have to shoot to protect yourself, you will be arrested, regardless of the merits of the act, for shooting within the county.

Kevin Jamison, one of the creator’s of Missouri’s CCW law and President of the Western Missouri Shooters Alliance, had this to say.

Jackson County has an ordinance which prohibits shooting in the “urban tier” of the country. There is a map of this urban tier but it takes some effort to get. It does not exempt self-defense. The ordinance was slipped through last December without public notice. It does allow for ranges but does not define them and no county permit for ranges exists. This complicates some of the CCW instructors who have a home range. There was a hearing on a repeal sponsored by County Legislator Greg Grounds. The hearing was continued to 28 July, 2014 at 2:30 in the Jackson County Independence courthouse, in the basement. There were a great number of people there today. That always gets a politician’s attention.

The Jackson County Sheriff’s office says that they did not request this ordinance.

Spread the word.

***

SJR 36, also known as Amendment 5 on the August 5th ballot continues to be under fire from gun control activists. An appellate hearing occurred yesterday before the Missouri Supreme Court. Ron Calzone, a gun-rights activist was present and made this report.

What do you think “unalienable right” means?

Today I went to the MO Supreme Court hearing over the ballot title for Amendment 5, the super strong gun rights amendment sponsored by Sen. Kurt Schaefer.

The lawyer for the anti-gun side said, (beginning at about 2:50 of the audio link): “The effect of the word ‘unalienable’ has no legal meaning, as we argued in our brief. Three states have, that I have found, have the phrase “inalienable right’ in their constitution. In all three of those states their Supreme Courts have said, specially, that the use of the word ‘inalienable’ does not trigger strict scrutiny standards and that they will review those under rational basis.

http://www.courts.mo.gov/SUP/index.nsf/fe8feff4659e0b7b8625699f0079eddf/46c3c6fb6b7bd9eb86257d0a00634fcf/$FILE/SC94293.mp3

This type of thinking is exactly why, in SJR 36, we advocated for the addition of a specific requirement that gun rights be protected by “strict scrutiny” standards in court.

For a 4 minute primer on Strict Scrutiny vs. the Rational Basis Test, see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzETeTvYDu4

You’ll see that the rational basis test the anti-gun lawyer argued allows government restriction on gun rights for about any reason. You can also see why it’s so important to pass Amendment 5!

Facebook

Protected, Part II

Posted on by

A few weeks ago I wrote a post titled, Protected. That post was a story about my grade school principal who drew his .45 when attacked by three adults at my school’s entrance.  There’s a similar episode in this morning’s news. This time it was in Atlanta where an armed guard disarmed a student shooting with a gun.  Those students were protected, too—all survived.

By KATE BRUMBACK, The Associated Press, First Published Jan 31 2013 12:58 pm

Atlanta • A student opened fire at his middle school Thursday afternoon, wounding a 14-year-old in the neck before an armed officer working at the school was able to get the gun away, police said.

…

The armed resource officer who took the gun away was off-duty and at the school, but police didn’t release details on him or whether he is regularly at Price. Since 20 children and six adults were shot to death at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut in December, calls for armed officers in every school have resonated across the country.

…

The wounded boy was taken “alert, conscious and breathing” to Grady Memorial Hospital, said police spokesman Carlos Campos. He was expected to be released Thursday night.

The wounded student was fortunate. His wounds were not severe. He was more fortunate there was an armed adult at the school who stopped the shooting spree quickly.

I heard about this episode on the radio yesterday. The MSM pushed the story all afternoon.  None of their reporting mentioned the presence of the armed guard nor his role in stopping the shootings. In fact, I can find no mention of the guard at all until this morning, first from the Salt Lake Tribune and later by others who picked up the Tribune story.

And, what is the MSM doing? They continue to push for the removal of weapons in schools. What have their policies created in our schools? Victim zones.

South Dakota has approved a bill in their House to allow teachers to be armed and carry at schools. I think they are the first state to reach this step.  My local state Rep. Rick Brattin, is a co-signer on a bill to do the same in Missouri.  That bill is still in committee. It is likely to pass the House but has uncertain prospects in Missouri’s Senate.

Our children used to be protected—until liberal education policies made them vulnerable and placed our children at risk. Locked doors and metal detectors fail.  There were both at the Atlanta shooting and the “authorities” still don’t know how the shooter was able to by-pass both. He was stopped only by that armed guard.

It’s time to return to those policies that worked. They worked before the days of Political Correctness and the so-called progressive educational policies. Those same policies that once protected our children can protect them again. All we need is the will to stand up against the NEA, the AFT, and the state and federal liberals who concoct such insane policies.

Facebook