Whenever a tragic event occurs there is always a surge of emotional reaction that follows. We, as humans, are designed to learn from our experiences and surroundings and adapt. We can attribute it to our innate survival instinct. However, there seems to be a growing divide between the two most prevalent reactions. This is evidenced on a grand scale, through the media, each time one of these tragic events occur.
Take, for example, the horrific murder of nine law abiding church goers in Charleston, SC. As a nation this has struck an intense emotional chord with us. We are disgusted and outraged that a sick, demented, man broke law after law, taking innocent lives, in order to try and propel us into what he hoped would become a new civil war based solely on the level of melanin in our DNA.
Although we are all deeply disturbed by this senseless event, we have seen a vast chasm emerge in our emotional reaction and drive to adapt in order to better survive.
On the left we see demands for social accountability via introducing more gun laws. This group of people believe that the threat of breaking one more law would've been so overwhelming that it would've made this deranged murderer decide that perhaps carrying out his sadistic and evil plan, was just not worth the risk involved.
On the right however, we see demands for personal accountability. This is evidenced in both the blame falling squarely on the shoulders of the criminal, instead of flippantly blaming the instrument he chose to use, as well as questioning why in the world those innocent people were not afforded their basic right of self defense with the most effective tool available.
It is apparent that some people prefer to not personalize such a devastating tragedy. They would instead opt to make large sweeping generalizations and condemnations against an entire group of people, and their preferred tools of defense, instead of holding individuals accountable for their own choices. Whether that may be the choice the murderer made to take life, or the legal gun owners choice to defend life.
As we are all well aware, murder is illegal in all 50 states. That form of social accountability obviously was not an effective deterrent in this case. The facts show that adding more laws won't make it any more illegal than what it already is.
Although, when we use personal accountability, as in making it legal to defend oneself with the most efficient tool available, it seems to actually be an effective deterrent. Time and time again we bear witness to these horrific tragedies where the criminal's goal is to commit a crime and not be hurt or killed in the process. That is why we repeatedly see these events taking place in gun free zones.
So, what is it that we have learned from such tragedies? As a nation, while we process through the emotional reactions of these tragic events, one thing remains consistent. Social accountability can only say "If you choose to do these things you are breaking the law." It is only through the personal accountability of self defense that we can stand together and say, "I will no longer put my life in the hands of criminals who wish to do me harm. I am not a victim."
To say Judge Matsch didn’t hold back is about the same as saying that the Titanic took on a little water in her bilge back in 1915. I almost felt bad for the misguided activists of the Brady Bunch. Almost.
The reason I say almost is that they knew full well that the lawsuit was a no-win proposition. Anyone with two functional brain cells that manage to communicate with each other knows that lawsuits of this type are forbidden under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act which was passed in 2005. This law isn’t even a new one, it’s been around for 10 years. Just about every firearm owner in the country is familiar with it… doesn’t it stand to reason that the high powered, highly paid attorneys on the Brady payroll knew about it as well?
Of course they did, and they ignored the existence of this law in order to push their political agenda; using the grief and sorrow of mourning families to do so. They filed this lawsuit knowing full well it had zero chance of success. They filed this lawsuit knowing full well that their clients (Translation: People they fooled into this hare-brained scheme) would have to bear the brunt of the defendant’s legal fees. They filed this lawsuit knowing full well that the accrued legal fees would be into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. They knew that they would be piling a financial burden on top of the emotional burden these families already carry. They knew- but they didn’t care.
Senior Judge Matsch knew this as well. He wrote “It would be highly unlikely that the defendants would seek to emasculate their businesses to conform to an undefined standard of care that would have prevented a purchaser of their products from using them in a barbaric assault on innocent people in an entertainment venue.” In other words, the desired outcome of the Brady’s lawsuit (I am not going to call it the families’ lawsuit because there is no way this suit would have been brought if the people had their own attorneys looking out for their best interests) was literally impossible for the defendants to conform to. Not one thing the Brady attorneys wanted was within the realm of possibility.
He went on to say that “Those who ignite a fire should be responsible for the cost of suppressing it before it becomes a conflagration…” and “the defendants should not have to bear the burden of defending themselves in this inappropriate forum…”.
During my decade as a law enforcement officer I have sat through hundreds upon hundreds of trials. Not once have I ever seen such a… for lack of a better term… epic smackdown of a legal team. This kind of language by a sitting Judge presiding over a major case, while not unprecedented, is extremely rare. Judge Matsch basically called the Brady’s legal team a bunch of idiots, said that the case should never have been brought, told the attorneys they should have known better and reprimanded them for wasting his time.
Not quite done with his breakdown of the Brady attorneys, Judge Matsch then delivered a coup de grace when he stated “Brady targeted the retailers to piggyback off of the high-profile incident and not because they were explicitly malicious or negligent.” He literally called their entire lawsuit a big steaming pile of fresh bovine scatological products. No mincing of words, no legalese, no pretense of civility… he just lit into them for placing their clients in such a precarious position and for using them as tools to advance their own political agenda.
Once Judge Matsch was finished lambasting the Brady attorneys for not acting in their client’s best interests, using them to push a personal political agenda, filing a lawsuit with zero merit and telling them they were all off their rockers… he determined that Brian Platt of BTP Arms will be awarded $31,969.89, the Sportsman’s Guide awarded $59,060.87, and Lucky Gunner awarded $111,971.10 in legal fees.
Then he summed up his ruling by saying “It may be presumed that whatever hardship is imposed on the individual plaintiffs by these awards against them may be ameliorated by the sponsors of this action in their name”- which in legalese is a set of instructions to the families who were used, abused & discarded by the Brady Center to seek relief through the courts for the legal fees they are now responsible for due to the incompetence and maliciousness of the Brady Center legal team. I’d say that it would be nice if the Brady Center stepped up and paid the bills these families are saddled with- but we all know that’s never going to happen.
I for one hope the outcome of that lawsuit comes down in their favor. These people have been through enough- having been victimized by the shooter, then once again at the hands of the Brady Bunch.
- Mr. Decker
It is sad and so regrettable that once again someone chose to inflict harm with a gun. But again, we must realize that the people that were slaughtered were innocent, unarmed, and unable to protect themselves because of the climate of surrealistic deniability of reality by the "anti-gun" crowd making gun and gun safety so taboo that more and more choose to make themselves the sheep for the wolves. What is even more lacking of integrity in this debate, as if there is any intelligent debate, is that the "anti-gun" folk use outright lies to further mislead and confuse people on what the issues are and what the root causes are. People then feel like they cannot or should not be armed, as though the evil people that commit these acts will not prey upon them, when the opposite is the reality.
This unethical and disingenuous paradigm of lies goes all the way to the President of the United States. I am sure we have all heard it by now, as President Obama clearly stated in the press conference after the recent shootings at the Charleston AME church, "At some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries." In fact, countries that have extremely stringent laws preventing average citizens from acquiring guns are scenes of senseless slaughter of the innocents regularly.
Just to name a few:
April 26, 2002 - GERMANY - In Erfurt, a 19-year-old gunman opened fire at a school, killing 12 teachers, a secretary, two students and a policeman before killing himself.
September 23, 2008 - FINLAND - A student opened fire in a vocational school in Kauhajoki in northwest Finland, killing nine students and one staff member, then killed himself.
March 11, 2009 - GERMANY - A 17-year-old gunman killed nine students, three teachers at a school near Stuttgart, and killed one other person at a nearby clinic.
June 2, 2010 - BRITAIN - A gunman opened fire on people in towns across the rural county of Cumbria. Twelve people were killed and 11 injured.
July 22, 2011 - NORWAY - A gunman blew up a government building in Oslo and then opened fire at a youth summer camp of Norway's ruling political party, on the holiday island of Utoeya, killing 77 people, and wounding over 200.
There are numerous examples, but the point is, the president lied, and the "anti-gun" movement builds all their arguments on lies. Until we start dealing in facts, looking at the realities, telling the truth, and respecting each other's Rights we cannot frame a discussion on what in the hell is really wrong with our nation creating the atmosphere that is conducive tor such senseless violence. But, one thing I am sure of, more than anything in this world, is that disarming people does not prepare them for the day when they need to stop the Dylann Roof's of the world, whether they be in Germany, Britain, Norway, or the U.S.A. I don't need to be a historian or sociologist to figure that out. So, I know not what course others may choose from this point, but my family and I choose to continue defending ourselves, for Liberty, instead of death. And, as always, we are willing to discuss this with anyone that is willing to deal in facts, reality, and actual historical example.
-Bobby W Schmidt
By now we have all heard the story of Ms. Carol Bowne, a NJ resident who was stalked by an extremely violent ex-boyfriend with a long criminal history. Ms. Bowne did everything she was supposed to do in this situation. She installed exterior lighting on her house. She upgraded the locks on her doors. She installed CCTV surveillance cameras on her home. She notified the local police of her circumstances. She applied for, and received a restraining order. She applied for a permit to purchase a firearm.
She was brutally stabbed to death on her own property in full view of her surveillance cameras despite the restraining order by her ex-boyfriend. So how did this happen if she had a firearm?
She didn’t have a firearm. NJ politicians and her local police department ensured that she was disarmed and easy prey for her ex-boyfriend. Between the laws enacted by politicians to keep law abiding citizens unarmed and a police department that far exceeded the timeframe mandated by law to issue a permit to buy a firearm they wrote the final chapter in Ms. Bowne’s life.
Leading the charge to ensure that NJ criminals enjoy a safe work environment is NJ Senate President Steve Sweeney. Sweeney over the past year or so hasn’t seen a civilian disarmament law he doesn’t like. He has been a tireless advocate to keep firearms out of the hands of his subjects… sorry… constituents after lying his way into office (for what is likely his last term in office) as a pro individual rights candidate. From his campaign promise of ““As long as I am Senate President you can rest assured that not a single anti-gun Bill will reach the floor for debate” to today when he openly stated on Twitter that he would never support laws for concealed carry in NJ, he has done a complete 180 and has shown himself to be an ardent supporter of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, Moms Demand and others who seek to remove an individual’s best tool for self-defense.
What makes Sweeney’s stance on the carriage of firearms in NJ especially hypocritical, to the point that the concept of hypocrisy points to him and says “I want to be that guy when I grow up” is that he is one of only ~1,200 individuals out of the 9 million people residing in NJ to hold a concealed carry permit. The very item he arrogantly denied to a woman who was justifiably in fear for her life is something the political big-wig ensured he himself had, presumably because he thinks his life is worth a lot more than a beautiful young woman’s.
While the attitude of “Guns for me- not for thee” is quite prevalent amongst the gun control crowd like Shannon Watts and Mike Bloomberg who assert that good guys with guns never stop bad guys with guns while maintaining squads of heavily armed bodyguards with a penchant for shoving women around, to see a sitting Senate President openly state that he does not support people carrying firearms WHILE HE IS ACTUALLY CARRYING A FIREARM AT THE TIME brings it to a whole different level.
Now you’d think that this would be considered the height of arrogance. I mean does anyone really think it is possible to be more arrogant than Sweeney? I didn’t… until Ms. Bowne was stabbed to death while waiting weeks longer than the law mandates for permission from her betters to be able to defend her life against a clear and pressing threat to her life. You see Ms. Bowne’s family wanted to talk to Sweeney. Sweeney of course wanted nothing to do with the peasants who had the temerity to petition their government for the redress of grievances and walked straight by them, refusing even to LOOK at them.
Then he went a step further and decided turning on his sprinklers to soak the grieving family would be a good thing to do. Now I think just about every human being in the country with a nanogram of empathy can agree that doing this was heartless and cruel considering the family was trying to address a concern to an elected representative. Seriously who in their right minds turns on a sprinkler system to drive off family members who have had a loved one brutally murdered?
Sweeney doesn’t stop there though. Since he is such an important person, and because his convenience takes precedence over a family distraught by the loss of a beautiful young woman, he has strong armed the town into introducing an ordinance that would bar people from protesting in groups of more than 10 persons and limiting the time to one hour every two weeks.
While 1MMAGC is obviously concerned primarily with the right to keep and bear arms, this needs to be mentioned. Sweeney not only thinks that the right of self-defense should not exist in public; he thinks that the right to free speech, the right to peaceably assemble and the right to petition government for the redress of grievances should not exist in public as well and is using his power as President of the NJ Senate to make it happen.
I have been a tireless advocate for the individual right to keep and bear arms for over 20 years now and with the rise of the head of Monsanto’s global PR division as the paid face of gun control and her arrogance of having armed men follow her into parks while advocating banning people with guns from parks; I never thought I would encounter someone who exhibited more blatant hypocrisy than Shannon Watts.
Sadly I was wrong.
There is a solution to Sweeney and his unbridled cruelty and arrogance however. A recall movement has been gaining steam in NJ thanks in large part to Sweeney himself. Pop on over to http://www.recallsweeney.com/ and help send the message that Sweeney’s hypocrisy will no longer be tolerated by the citizens he is supposed to serve- not soak.
- Mr. Decker
I wore the holster on my thigh, as well as under my arm, my hip, and my lower back. In all of the locations that I placed it, it was comfortable to wear and I had no issues concealing my firearm of choice in each place. I especially liked the fact that I had little to no issues with printing, regardless of which firearm I chose. I like the fact that this particular holster is so versatile and works for a variety of different body types. As stated in the initial review, I am not a thin person, rather, I consider myself to be an average mom, with post baby mom bod.
In wearing it on my thigh, I would definitely suggest a smaller framed gun or pocket pistol, like a .380. Mostly for comfort of it being on/between your leg(s). There were no issues with it slipping during wear. While the guns that I tried out were comfortable enough in the holster, it was a bit awkward adjusting my stride so as not to continuously be bumping it. However, I did like the fact that it is versatile enough of a holster that I am able to wear a skirt or dress if I so choose, and not lose the ability to carry. Which is great during the hot summer!
When worn under my arm, it was again comfortable and I was pleased that printing was not an issue. While the 1911 did print more than the other two this did not surprise me as it is a larger full frame gun. I had no issues with it slipping here either. The gun remained secure throughout the period of time that I wore. I would not recommend wearing a tighter fitting shirt if you choose to carry in this position, unless with a pocket pistol. I wore a looser shirt/sweatshirt while wearing it this way.
With hip carry it was great, and had no issues with it remaining in place or being in the way when using the restroom. Which was great and a definite positive aspect. When it came to back carrying once I had it situated, it was comfortable, even to the point that I barely felt it there. Which surprised me as I have never really carried a gun there, mostly due to the thought that it would be awkward/uncomfortable for sitting.
One of the things that I really liked about it is that despite repetitive use, the elasticity of it did not decrease like many things that have an elastic band in them do over time/repeat use. While it is not AS elastic/stretchy as when I first received it, it has still held its elasticity well over time.
I also liked that there were numerous occasions during the testing period, that I had it on and had asked my husband how it looked. He had a confused look on his face and asked me what I was talking about. It wasn't until I showed him that I was wearing it that he knew what I was talking about. There were even times that he was standing next to me with an arm around me and had no clue that I had it on. This is a HUGE plus in my opinion as that means that it does an effective job of concealing and not imprinting.
I will say the one downside that I found with this holster is that re-holstering it is as challenge. However, if you are going to be drawing your firearm for defensive use, you will not be re-holstering until your surroundings are once again safe. So, that a being said, it is up to each individual as to how much of a drawback this aspect is.
Throughout my period of testing, I preformed normal activities to see how it would withstand them, and it passed with flying colors. I had no issues with it slipping or becoming uncomfortable for the duration that I wore it. While I was skeptical at first that this holster would hold up to its claims, I am definitely a believer at this point.
Overall, I think that the Lethal Lace holster is a feminine, versatile, and functional holster. I would recommend this holster to women who are looking for something that meets that criteria. The standard holster is one size fits all up to 43 inch waist size, but is available for custom order for those who have a larger waist. I love that it is basically 5 holsters in 1 and that as a woman you don't have to base your outfit on carrying your gun with this particular holster. According to their website, they will have men's holsters coming later this year.
For more information visit Lethal Lace's website at: www.lethallace.com
Father Pfleger is one heck of a showman with his speech, full of misplaced blame, and a lot of fluffy words. I giggled a little when I overheard a funny comment from a fellow audience member. I overheard one say, I wonder what accent he will have this evening. Apparently when speaking his voice has a way of changing accents quite a bit. Whatever accent he decided to use for the evening, however, his failure was apparent. He failed to address AS A SAID MAN OF GOD, the hate that is in the hearts of criminals, and the lack of value they place on lives. He also lacked blaming the court system here and the failure on their part to prosecute gun offenders to the highest extent of the law. He blamed a LOT of other things except the people who needed to be blamed. It was not until the Q&A session, where Pfleger ignored the 2 attorneys and 30 year veteran of the Chicago Police Department, did he say he would address the court issue. He said he will address that but not until after he had Chucks Gun Shop in Riverdale closed. He claims that 1500 guns from Chucks have been used in the commission of crimes. He calls for guns to be titled like cars. He calls for the original owners to carry the burden of guilt if something happens.
Basically if I bought a used car from someone else and end up hitting someone with it, the person who sold me the car would be liable. How is that not ridiculous thinking? Where is his legitimate proof of Chucks selling guns to criminals and straw purchases taking place there? He paraded a female who had “apparently” gone into Chucks and “apparently” overheard a male and a female talking with a Chucks employee and she supposedly witnessed the one customer with a FOID card buy a gun for a person without a FOID card. She said it was an AK with extended "clip" as she put it. She said they walked right out the door with it, no waiting period. However, she fails to give any REAL evidence of said instance. No date, time, names, etc... It is a he said she said argument, and Pfleger will continue to misguide people using her so called incident of a straw purchase. Here are a few of my questions. If that many guns from Chucks had been used in the commission of crimes, wouldn’t the ATF be banging down Chucks door? If he wants guns titled and traced and registered, because he doesn’t think paperwork exists now, how could he possibly know they all came from Chucks to begin with? As if criminals are going to create bills of sale or transfer a title. If my gun was stolen, you bet I would report it with or without titling it. Some may disagree with me, but I would file a police report for other items stolen so why not my gun. Do you think a criminal who loses a gun is going to file a police report? Wait, I have heard of druggies filing police reports when someone steals their stash, so I guess truth is stranger than fiction. No matter what laws you create to try and track guns will NEVER stop a criminal. Again, you can’t legislate morality.
I commiserate with those parents whose innocent children are taken from them by gang gun fire. I have shed tears for them because I put myself in their shoes. Father Pflager likes to say that gun owners/NRA have blood on their hands. I say he is ludicrous. NO FATHER PFLEGER, I do not go shooting innocent people, I don't go around killing kids over drugs, turf, money etc... I carry to protect myself from the trash committing those things. If he succeeded in closing Chucks down, what will be the next gun shop he goes to? The man doesn't listen to reason, he doesn't take other peoples law enforcement/legal law experience into account, and he likes to interject the race card where needed for effect. Funny thing, I overheard many parish members AFTER this rally say it is not about guns. They cheered Pfleger on of course, but they are not seeing necessarily the same issue. The man I got on camera who walked over to shut us up (over and over even when we were not talking) so he could here approached me at the end of the service. I had looked over at the parish members throughout the meeting who were booing us, and taking us to be the enemy and told them, they were missing the point, and not understanding. It isn't Chucks guns, the NRA, gun owners etc... It is a heart problem, and YOU CAN NOT LEGISLATE MORALITY. Well, this man came over to me and I thought he was going to tell us how rude we were or something, but instead he looked at me, smiled and told me ma'am you get it. We are on the same page. We chatted about the REAL issue. Not ONE law has ever stopped someone hell bent on killing someone else, and we need to change the court system.
So tell me Father Pfleger, HOW are you going to end the violence Criminals commit against others? Shutting down Chucks, Shutting down the NRA and gun owners will never end that. To you and your supporters it would be a feel good maneuver. As a so called MAN OF GOD, you should understand wickedness and evil nature, and address that as a root to the problem. Address that, and the failed court system and you will be on the right track. He failed to do so here, and you can bet he will give the same speech again at the next rally void of real solutions to gun violence.
Recently, a man made waves by openly wearing his slung AR-15 in an airport in Atlanta. It appeared to be a form of political speech, though this author may be mistaken.
The man claimed to be harassed by the police several times, so this author decided to write a short list of suggestions to aid you in your future attempts at gun-related political speech.
1) Make signs/pamphlets. It should be clear to any Yolo McSwaggins when he looks up from his phone for the first time in an hour that you have a message and that the message is easily understood.
2) Protest in groups, the larger the better. This has been shown to be effective when protesting several different topics. For example, a certain gun control organization owned and funded by a certain New York moneybags has a history of anemic turnout to their events. This has shown that support for their cause is very weak. A larger group tells the casual observer that the topic being protested is worth the time and effort. A group also says "We're not here to cause problems."
3) If you're going to carry a long gun, consider carrying without a magazine and with a brightly colored chamber block inserted. This gives a reassurance that you aren't there to cause any trouble, especially if protesting in a group isn't an option for you.
4) Protest something worth protesting. If there is an anti gun law before the legislature, let people know they should oppose it. If you have a desire to expand carry privileges to more closely match the inalienable right of self preservation, like recently in Texas, then go for it. However, if your answer for any kind of political speech is "Because I can," you will immediately be dismissed as a kook.
5) Be polite.
6) Be polite.
7) Be polite.
The tragedy in Berlin Township, NJ where Carol Bowne, was stabbed to death by her ex boyfriend, and convicted felon, Michael Anthony Eitel, after securing a restraining order against him, could have, and should have been prevented. Bowne, in obvious concern for her personal safety, had already been granted a restraining order against Eitel who had, according to court records, previously been indicted in 2006 for aggravated assault with bodily injury and pleaded guilty in 2008 to a weapons offense. Then in 2009, was sentenced to a five-year term.
Bowne obviously understood that a restraining order is simply a piece of paper and cannot effectively stop someone who is determined to cause harm. She had installed an alarm system, security cameras around her residence, and promptly applied for New Jersey's permit to purchase a handgun on April 21 of this year.
The State of New Jersey, by law, is required to get back to those seeking a permit within 30 days. Records indicate that Bowne called to inquire about her petition on day 41. Yet, in a tragic and heart wrenching turn, she was stabbed to death two days later in her own driveway, as her request for her state government's permission to exercise her unalienable Second Amendment right of protecting herself with a firearm was still being processed. After a three-day manhunt, including a promised $5000 reward, Eitel who had already been charged with the first-degree murder of Carol Bowne, was found dead Saturday, June 6 2015. Camden County prosecutors said he had hanged himself in the West Berlin home of a different ex-girlfriend, who "had been out of the home for her own safety."
Carol Bowne had taken every legal step she could take in the state of New Jersey in order to protect herself. Her death, at the hands of a convicted felon, was a direct result of a state government which has purposely implemented a set of draconian gun laws which even when working efficiently, subjugates it's citizens to a minimum of 30 days before they can even purchase a firearm legal to own within their state. Not to mention that after her request to purchase a handgun, had she not been brutally murdered, she would have also had to apply for the right to carry that same firearm outside her residence. That in itself is more red tape which bound her from protecting her own life. Even if Bowne had applied for her concealed carry permit, New Jersey is a "May Issue" state, which means that every applicant not applying as a law enforcement officer must demonstrate justifiable need in order to obtain a permit.
Obviously, Bowne had justifiable need. The court acknowledged that need having granted her a restraining order against her attacker. Did this information help expedite the process of allowing Bowne to purchase a gun as to protect and defend her life? Sadly, the answer is no.
Sunday, June 7 a group known as New Jersey Second Amendment Society (NJ2AS) held a peaceful rally they dubbed, Senator Sweeney Protest -RIP Carol Bowne, at Sweeney's home. There they marched with signs and brought awareness to their belief that without these harmful and erroneous gun laws, Carol Bowne could be alive today.
Subsequently they are also holding a formal recall rally on June 27, 2015. For more information on how to get involved visit http://www.recallsweeney.com
Previously, Sweeney had this to say, "To lawful gun owners – who I have great deal of respect for – we’re not hurting one of them. For sportsmen, we’re not hurting one. And if it prevents one child or one person from losing their life, we should do it.” N.J. Senate President Stephen Sweeney (D., Gloucester), N.J. Democrats propose limiting capacity of gun magazines[via philly.com]
I beg to differ, Senator. Carol Bowne was left stripped of her fundamental right to protect her life with the most efficient tool available to her. She lost her life due to politicians like you, sir, who are bent on playing God with their constituents lives at stake. The constitution you swore to uphold and protect reads the same as every Americans, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." -Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. It only seems logical, based on your own words, that if removing the unconditional, anti second amendment, laws "prevents one child or one person from losing their life, we should do it.”
In closing, we must not forget, this is not simply a New Jersey issue. This is an American issue. This is about more than one life lost. When American citizens are prohibited and overlorded by state and local governments who determine who can and cannot exercise their Constitutional rights we, as a nation, need to take note and take a stand for freedom. Do not for a moment think, "at least I don't live there." The citizens of New Jersey are Americans just the same as the rest of us. They should be free to exercise their unalienable rights, just the same as any other American, regardless of location.
"Shall not be infringed" crosses every barrier. It applies to all American citizens regardless of class, creed, gender, race, disability, and location. It is all encompassing and it is in danger of extinction if we do not stand together to protect and preserve it as a nation.
Do not let Carol Bowne's savage murder turn into merely another statistic. Instead, honor her drive to protect herself. Let her story fuel your commitment to restoring American citizens the freedom to exercise their constitutionally protected rights. Education equals empowerment, and empowerment saves lives.
Geraldo Rivera, who rocketed to fame amongst the crowd I associate with when he drew a rather detailed map in the sand pointing out exactly where the unit he was embedded with was in relation to Baghdad, has managed to pull off another coup d’état of epic proportions. Granted, one could chalk up letting the Republican Guard know the position of US troops to sheer stupidity which is somewhat excusable. I lied about that- sorry. Everyone with boots on the ground wanted to sell him to the Feyadeen after that one… with the sole drawback to the plan being we all believed the Feyadeen would return him and demand their money back. Even still- it could have just been a rookie mistake.
His latest foray into dumbassery however puts him amongst such lofty company as Shannon Watts and Michael Bloomberg for the deliberate spewing of bovine scatology and rampant hypocrisy. How is this even possible you ask? How can a “reporter”, even one who has spun stories like MCs spin vinyl, wind up with those two professional liars and hypocrites? Sit back, grab some refreshment and allow Mr. Decker to lay it all out for you. This one is going to be a doozy.
We are all familiar with both Michael Bloomberg and Shannon Watts making statements on how good guys with guns NEVER stop bad guys with guns… which is why they surround themselves with guys with guns when they get scared of bad guys (real or imagined). Shannon even went so far as to sic her heavily armed squad on Dana Loesch of The Blaze who had the temerity and gall to ask Shannon to retract her lie about her. Geraldo, never one to let a good opportunity to pimp himself out to the cause du jour, jumped on the bandwagon himself in August of last year. He stated “Like I’ve always said, the Second Amendment, the provision that gives every American the right to keep and bear arms, is blind and stupid.”
For the record I am perfectly fine with someone making that statement and holding that belief. My oaths that I took, both for the military and as a police officer, include defending the rights of moonbats to make asinine statements. I vehemently disagree with him, would debate him any time he chose on the subject, will tell him he is flat out wrong, but I would never advocate for him not being allowed to express his (for lack of a better word) opinion. No matter how extreme- anyone can hold whatever views they wish. It is like me being able to understand a parent who lost a child at Sandy Hook saying that people shouldn’t be allowed to own a firearm. I can understand them distancing themselves from firearms and those who own them. Their grief needs an outlet, they are emotionally devastated, they are vulnerable, and gun control groups were to hand to steer them onto national news to vilify a piece of metal as the cause of their child’s death. They needed an outlet for their grief along with a need to have their loved one’s death “mean something”, to give them a legacy. I vehemently disagree but I understand.
Then you have people like Geraldo. I understand him and to be honest he disgusts me.
Geraldo of course believes the Second Amendment is blind and stupid… except for where he is concerned. When Geraldo goes somewhere, he has guys with guns to protect him, like when he covered the unrest in Baltimore. He had someone exercising their Second Amendment rights along for the ride because HIS life is important (unlike ours). How do we know this?
That one is easy my gentle readers. His bodyguard, who was carrying not one but two guns, was arrested because he was not licensed to carry firearms in Maryland. Not only does Geraldo believe the Second Amendment should only apply to him & his elitist pals via heavily armed bodyguards, he believes that because they are HIS bodyguards, the laws of the State of Maryland shouldn’t apply. He thinks he is a special little snowflake and only his life is worth armed defense. Well what if you’re a poor person living in the inner city surrounded by violent crime 24 hours a day, days a week? Too bad- no 2nd Amendment rights for you. Those rights are only for TV personalities who are under no real threat so they can feel important. That’s why our Founding Fathers penned the phrase “the right of bodyguards working for C list reporters shall not be infringed”… or something like that.
At the base of all of this is the same intense arrogance displayed by gun control’s paymaster and his botoxed spokeswoman. Bloomberg says only the police should have guns (while traveling with heavily armed private security). Shannon Watts says no guns should be carried in public and if you disagree you’re a misogynist while sending her armed goon squad to rough up a female reporter on a public sidewalk. Now we have Geraldo saying the 2nd Amendment needs to be done away with while employing people exercising their 2nd Amendment rights to protect him in violation of State law.
When all is said and done however I’m not even mildly annoyed at Geraldo for his blatant hypocrisy. He’s actually done the supporters of individual rights & freedoms a huge favor. He has singlehandedly shown that no matter how many gun laws are on the books, someone determined to possess, carry and use a firearm will possess, carry and use a firearm even if doing so means a prison sentence… just like his own bodyguard did. I actually think we owe him a round of applause for finally doing something beneficial and contributing to the overall improvement of society by setting such a bad example.
- Mr. Decker
Sure enough, he was right. There was a gentleman, of probably mid 50's, puffing like a coal engine, lighting a new cigarette off of his last, comfortably leaned back onto a large No Smoking sign right in front of the building.
As I was evaluating the question and formulating a poignant response, his 12 year old big brother interjects, "Because signs are just suggestions. They can't really stop you from doing something. All they do is tell you that you could get into trouble if you're caught. They can't do the catching."
I wholeheartedly agreed and we proceeded to climb out of the van and walk up to the door of the business. As we approached I noticed a Gun Free Zone sticker was affixed to the glass door. I began to point it out in order to continue the discussion when my middle son loudly exclaims, "There's another one if those worthless signs, Mom! I mean really, how's a piece of sticky plastic supposed to protect people from bad guys?"
Needless to say, I am one proud 1MMAGC Mom!
Now, could someone kindly explain, if children can understand that more signs don't equal less crimes, why is it so difficult for the anti second amendment crowd to understand that?
Blog posts are original content written by 1MMAGC moms and dads.