and denies the American company that did the original research, the opportunity to bid on the contract. So the opportunity to create even more jobs is passed on to a foreign country with no incentive to perform above expectations
Mr Cantor, I hereby demand that you exert all the pressure Congress is able and defund this contract until American companies are given the opportunity to bid this contract. Foreign companies should not be building American ordanance.
Tonight, many gun control groups are holding candle lit vigils to honor the victims of "gun violence." As those of us in the reality based world know, one needs more than a candle for protection. And we refuse to become defenseless.
And so, we gun bloggers are also lighting candles...in honor of those damaged by violence, ANY VIOLENCE. "Gun violence" is a political canard. Guns protect innocent lives.
Section 18.2-283 of the Virginia Code provides that "[i]f any person carry any gun, pistol ... or other dangerous weapon, without good and sufficient reason, to a place of worship while a meeting for religious purposes is being held at such place he shall be guilty of a Class 4 misdemeanor."
Many in Virginia wish worshipers to be unarmed. Of course, they mean well.
When Del. Mark Cole's bill to clarify the phrase "good and sufficient reason" and codify the practice of carrying arms into houses of worship was killed in subcommittee, he asked Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli to clarify the meaning of the statute.
Accordingly, it is my opinion that carrying a weapon for personal protection constitutes a good and sufficient reason under the statute to carry a weapon into a place of worship while a meeting for religious purposes is being held there and it is further my opinion that places of worship can restrict or ban firearms from their premises.
The Times Dispatch quoted Del. McEachin of Henrico and Rabbi Romer of Congregation Or Ami in their protestation of the opinion.
Calling it "an extreme legal opinion," the group Virginians for Responsible Gun Laws blasted the opinion with statements from state Sen. A. Donald McEachin, D-Henrico and Rabbi Ben Romer of Congregation Or Ami.
"As a faith leader and retired United States Army chaplain, I am appalled at Attorney General Cuccinelli's reckless personal opinion that guns are allowed in houses of worship," said Romer.
"I never allowed them in my synagogue or while a military chaplain in any chapel, even when deployed to combat zones in Panama, Iraq, Bosnia and Kosovo. Our houses of worship are intentional spiritual places of sanctity and safety. Allowing weapons into a holy location devoted to wellness and healing is morally reprehensible."
McEachin, a lawyer and an ordained minister, said faith communities that don't want weapons in services will be forced to post signs and expend funds to ensure guns are not present.
"The assumption will be that guns can be there, even if they are contrary to the spirit of the religious service and the desires of the congregants."
What Del. McEachin and Rabbi Romer refuse to accept is that houses of worship, though they are supposed to be peaceful places, can still be scenes of violence. "...faith communities......will be forced to..... ensure that guns are not present."
Really? If that is so, why did the houses of worship not have to do that before the AG rendered his opinion? Does he think that those wishing to carry a weapon, having read the code, did not make their own interpretation? Nothing in that code PROHIBITS OUTRIGHT the carrying of a weapon.
And Rabbi? "Turning the other cheek" doesn't really fit your religion, does it? When most hate crimes are directed at Jews, do you truly want your congregation to be completely defenseless?Just because you qualified your answer with your military background, that background means nothing. The military is the most pro-gun control organization in the US. So, your attitude is understandable.
And now for the big question....What gives YOU the right to decide for the OTHER houses of worship? That is the truly extreme position.
One of the members of my church, who is in law enforcement, also acts as armed security while she is there. Please, other than the ability to arrest people and take them to jail, what difference is there between her and a law abiding armed citizen?
Robert M. Gates is on his farewell lap as secretary of defense and is making his final speeches to the service academies. He also seems to be debating himself in the process. He made the following remarks to Army cadets at West Point:
“And I must tell you, when it comes to predicting the nature and location of our next military engagements, since Vietnam, our record has been perfect. We have never once gotten it right, from the Mayaguez to Grenada, Panama, Somalia, the Balkans, Haiti, Kuwait, Iraq and more - we had no idea a year before any of these missions that we would be so engaged."
“The need for heavy armor and firepower to survive, close with and destroy the enemy will always be there, as veterans of Sadr City and Fallujah can no doubt attest.”
As Jimbo so eloquently states, "Thats common sense right there"
He [Gates] also said this:
“In my opinion, any future defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should ‘have his head examined,’ as Gen. MacArthur so delicately put it.”
So now we've eliminated two whole continents and the center of Islamic extremism.
Now Lets hear the SecDef at the Air Force Academy:
“That includes the requirement for more sophisticated, high-end capabilities. I’ve said before that it would be irresponsible to assume that a future adversary - given enough time, money and technological acumen - will not one day be able to directly threaten U.S. command of the skies.
“So even as I’ve touted the need to incorporate the lessons of the current conflicts, I have also committed the Department of Defense - and this country - to the most advanced and expensive tactical fighter program in history - the $300 billion F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The department is programmed to buy 2,400 of these aircraft, and the first Air Force training aircraft will arrive at Eglin Air Force Base in just over two months. Having a robust, large quantity of fifth-generation tactical air fighters is something I view as a core requirement, and in this era of increasing budget constraints, my goal has been to ensure that core capabilities for all the services are protected. This has meant increasing development funding for the F-35, scaling back or cutting other programs that are not as essential and intervening directly to get the program back on track, on budget and on schedule.”
Tell me again why banning guns is a good idea? Please, tell me how keeping law abiding citizens from being armed will make everything soooo much better.
Recently, both 20/20 ABC and 60 Minutes have aired shows about gun ownership and self protection. To say the least, both shows were high on negativity and low on information. Neither show addressed the realistic concerns of Americans on the responsibilities of firearm ownership.
The access of weapons by children are an ongoing concern, not only with the gun control crowd, but with any parent whose children might come into contact with firearms. The media's presentation showed a class of children finding firearms in a toy box, and then, playing with them. The show did this to discredit the idea that watching the NRA's Eddie Eagle video will protect them. However, no further reinforcement of the lessons was available.
Self defense by adults was also shown in a bad light. In another presentation, students were given an artificial scenario, in which one student was supposed to use a weapon to defend against an "active shooter" in a class. In both cases the scenarios were designed to fail.
My daughter is growing up with access to firearms. She may also encounter firearms at the homes of others and in public places. One cannot "child proof" a gun without making it useless for its intended purpose. However, one can "gun proof" a child. Or an adult. Many adults would have no clue on the proper actions when encountering a firearm. Training is the only way to teach someone to safely handle a firearm. Watching a safety video is but the first step. Unless reinforced, its training will do nothing to safeguard anyone, especially children. My child would have known what to do when those kids pulled out the gun in the toy box as I have been reviewing the proper actions since she was three years old and she went to her first gun show.
STOP. DON'T TOUCH. LEAVE THE AREA. TELL AN ADULT.
For basic safety lessons, the NRA Eddie Eagle program cannot be surpassed. It does not promote NRA membership, nor does it make distinctions on whether guns are right or wrong. It focuses only on accident prevention. For more information, Women of Caliber has a four part series on the concerns of mixing firearms and childhood. Children and Guns I, II, III, and IV.
Once the prevention of accidents has been covered, the next step is to determine what your own level of exposure to firearms is to be. Do you want to be a "firearms enthusiast?" Do you want to carry a weapon? Do you only want a firearm in the home? Or do you just want to be able to safely handle a firearm when one is encountered?
The rules of handling firearms are simple but deadly important and can never be broken. Xavier at Xavier's Thoughts goes into greater detail on the thinking behind each Rule.
If you wish have a closer relationship with firearms and decide to carry, Xavier lists the rules of carrying a firearm and discusses in detail those rules at the link.
The Five Rules of Concealed Carry 1. Your concealed handgun is for protection of life only. 2. Know exactly when you can use your gun. 3. If you can run away -- RUN! 4. Display your gun, be prepared to go to jail. 5. Don't let your emotions get the best of you.
Many well-intentioned adults say that children and firearms don't mix. Then again, many adults state that women and firearms don't mix. Women and children are more vulnerable to violence then are men. Children, on the main, are too immature to carry firearms and will not be the one using them for defense. Women, however, are perfectly capable of using any firearm being employed today. Women of Caliber, Home on the Range, and Cornered Cat have very good sites, and are but a few of the blogs that concern guns from a woman's point of view, that explore self defense, firearms and the mindset necessary for survival. Cornered Cat has a great site:
"articles dealing with gun safety, kids, mindset, and much more. There are glossaries and step-by-step instructions on the shooting basics. If you've ever wondered about the legal or social or practical or ethical aspects of owning a gun or carrying it, or wonder if carrying a gun is right for you, you've come to the right place."
The NRA has a great program, Refuse to Be a Victim. It is taught throughout the country.
1. Be aware of yourself and your surroundings. Don't be concentrating on work, your love life or school. When you're on the street you need to be alert. Walk with head up. Walk strong. 2. If you feel afraid DO SOMETHING. Fear warns you. 3. When it is obvious that you are going to be attacked, take action at the first sign of threat. 4. If there is not time to flee, fight until you know you are safe. 5. If you carry a weapon. Know how to use it. Practice with it. Have it in easy reach.
While most parents will not be training their children to this extent, this child is a perfect example of what children are capable of, with the proper training and supervision:
Mckensie has two other videos in this series, here and here. I'll be honest. She shoots better than I do. I'd like my daughter to be that proficient.
Training, however, is useless without the appropriate mindset. One should examine their motivations and any possible emotional, mental, or physical limitations or reservations. If you want to own a firearm for defense, you should understand what what that entails. Xavier's youngest daughter has figured it out for herself:
Ker-chunk Bam! ker-chunk Bam!
"Why do you have your target so close? Seven yards is too close. If you are going to pattern that gun....."
"I'm training to defend myself."
"You planning on shootin' somebody?"
"No, I'm planning to defend myself."
"From what?"
"Whatever I need to."
A firearm owner needs to also understand the local laws. Each locality will be different. Any competent firearms training school should educate about the local laws concerning firearm ownership and carry. In Virginia, the Virginia Citizen Defense League is a good resource and starting point for information about gun ownership. However, any questions should be addressed to local law enforcement.
Many still have questions about the proper role of firearms in the United States. However, this post is not to explore those questions except in the role of self defense.
If you are thinking about owning a firearm of any sort, I hope this post helps. Remember, guns are tools similar to fire extinguishers. If you need one RIGHT NOW, then nothing else will do. Please educate yourself and your children, even if you don't plan to own one. Not owning one will not prevent you are your children from encountering one.
"When her body was later found in the hospital parking lot, the whistle was still between her teeth. She had blown it until it filled up with blood as she died."
John Stossel has a post at RealClearPolitics that is a must read.
..." how many shootings at schools or malls will it take before we understand that people who intend to kill are not deterred by gun laws? Last I checked, murder is against the law everywhere. No one intent on murder will be stopped by the prospect of committing a lesser crime like illegal possession of a firearm. The intellectuals and politicians who make pious declarations about controlling guns should explain how their gunless utopia is to be realized.
While they search for -- excuse me -- their magic bullet, innocent people are dying defenseless.
The usual suspects keep calling for more gun control laws. But this idea that gun control is crime control is just a myth. The National Academy of Sciences reviewed dozens of studies and could not find a single gun regulation that clearly led to reduced violent crime or murder.
State laws prevent the carrying of a firearm onto school property, whether school is in session or not. Over at the Gunthing, there is a post of a teacher having an epiphany.
While her husband helps her move books in an otherwise empty school building, they hear a suspicious noise. The story ends.......
“Is anyone there?” Still no answer. Then she spotted some movement outside one of the hallway doors and laughed. “Skateboarders” she said. The kids like to use one of the low outside stair railings to practice on.
As we sat back down to continue lunch she commented, “That noise really rattled me at first!” Then she looked at me and asked “Are you carrying?”
I told her that in Georgia, like many other states, it is illegal for citizens to carry any firearms within 1000 ft. of a school building. She paused, stared at me and blurted out “Oh, that’s just f&$*ing stupid! How the hell are you supposed to protect me?”
The light bulb has come on.
For that matter, how is she supposed to protect herself?
I've seen this talked about on the web lately. It has even been put forth as bills in a few places. I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, so I will leave the details to experts.
The Gun Free Zone Liability Act: If you create a "gun free" zone, you are liable for the safety of the visitors.
That said, we can reverse it.
The CCW Protection Area: Business owners are not liable for damages caused by any CCW while using a weapon to protect himself or others.
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.
The above amendment states, in MY opinion, that the citizens of the United States have the right to bear arms. The purpose of the right is to provide for the security of their freedom. And since unorganized mobs tend to lose battles to organized forces, the citizens should form well trained militias. In fact, we HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY to form militias to secure our freedoms and those of our fellow citizens. With all rights come responsibilities. Since part of the the freedom that we enjoy includes the right of being safe in our homes and in our daily lives, carrying weapons for self defense is included.
The militia was always a volunteer force, expected to provide their own weapons,subject to being placed under government control voluntarily, subject to the ability to leave government service under certain conditions. While not as well supplied or trained as regular forces (hence the name "regular"), the LOCAL militia was still armed with the latest weapons affordable, including CREW SERVED WEAPONS. While, admittedly, such cannon were kept in central armories, they were kept there for efficiency, because there were no regulations or laws restricting ownership of cannon.
All this being said, the blogger atRicketyclickhas an interesting idea:
How about this: the people’s right to keep and bear arms includes their right to join a (loosely) organized militia. However, while owning a firearm would be a prerequisite to joining the militia, militia service would not be a prerequisite for owning a firearm. (Disabled folk especially must be allowed to arm themselves for self-defense.)
The vision that I have is high schools offering a voluntary Militia class, along the same lines as Drivers’ Education. This would include:
A review of BOR law.
Instruction on how to comport yourself during a police stop. (”Keep your mouth shut and don’t consent to any search.”)
Instruction on how to comport yourself as a juror or a witness.
Expanded Citizens’ Emergency Response Team (CERT) training, including firefighting, search and rescue, and first aid through CPR. Extra credit for obtaining a ham license.
And the capstone: Firearms training with rifle and pistol, including self defense law, practical shooting exercises, and paintball battles.
All to be taught, per Heinlein, by combat vets.
While this is just a rough idea, the basic premise is sound. Concealed carry is already common. Most CCW's accept the responsibility of bearing arms in the defense of themselves AND OTHERS. Crime prevention can only be accomplished the citizenry. The police catch criminals after the crime is committed. Civil defense training would only improve the emergency response capabilities of communities.
Also, many citizens have seen the continued growth of government into our personal lives. I don't believe that the militia would be necessary to "fight" the government in any foreseeable future. But, I see that the existence of the militia would bring to the forefront of the citizenry the idea that the government is supposed to be limited and work FOR us. Decisions such as the Kelo decision or the seizure of Elian Gonzales, or other such over reaching would become rare. The militia's purpose is to provide security to the population and to protect the freedoms of the population.
If the local populace does not need to rely on a central government for safety or disaster relief; if such needs could be decentralized, the citizenry would be empowered.
Remember, we are a FREE people. Let us educate our children to be Free and independent.
And you still want to prevent adults from exercising the right to self defense..... My daughter will learn to shoot at an early age. via Jerry at From on High and Greg L at BVBL
The terrible tragedy at Virginia Tech is still fresh in our minds. Discussion of the "shoulda, coulda, woulda" questions will continue for years. These students don't want to wait for years. They are taking charge of the problem of being defenseless and organizing. Check them out.
The theories of gun control in Great Britain tend towards draconian and useless. Simply put, hand guns are bad, do not own one. And heaven forbid you use a weapon to defend yourself.
That said, this article was a nice suprise.
"There are lessons to be learned from the Virginia Tech massacre", says Alexander Cockburn. Arm teachers and students. There have been the usual howls from the anti-gun lobby, but it's all hot air. America is not about to dump the Second Amendment giving people the right to bear arms. A better idea would be for appropriately screened teachers and maybe student monitors to carry weapons. Ban anti-depressants. What should be banned from campuses are not weapons but prescriptions for anti-depressants. (The article describes how shooters at other schools were on anti-depressants) Cho Seung-hui was on a prescription drug. The likelihood of it being an anti-depressant is high, since campus doctors dispense prescriptions for them like confetti.
He has more. Definitely a different take, and no gun control/confiscation mentioned.
We grieve today for the victims at Virginia Tech. And today, we discuss what is to be done about such violence. Hue and outcry about guns will be heard and seen all over the news and web. A bill to prevent schools from expelling students that are lawfully carrying concealed weapons was defeated last year.
From Roanoke.com: House Bill 1572 didn't get through the House Committee on Militia, Police and Public Safety. It died Monday in the subcommittee stage, the first of several hurdles bills must overcome before becoming laws. The bill was proposed by Del. Todd Gilbert, R-Shenandoah County, on behalf of the Virginia Citizens Defense League. Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker was happy to hear the bill was defeated. "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."
Since persons that carry concealed are usually VERY law-abiding, certain students left home without their sidearm. Here is a letter from one such student that was involved in this tragedy. Read the whole thing.
Bradford B. Wiles, of New Castle, is a graduate student at Virginia Tech.... On Aug. 21 at about 9:20 a.m., my graduate-level class was evacuated from the Squires Student Center. We were interrupted in class and not informed of anything other than the following words: "You need to get out of the building."...
It was at this time that I realized that I had no viable means of protecting myself.
Please realize that I am licensed to carry a concealed handgun in the commonwealth of Virginia, and do so on a regular basis. However, because I am a Virginia Tech student, I am prohibited from carrying at school because of Virginia Tech's student policy, which makes possession of a handgun an expellable offense, but not a prosecutable crime. I had entrusted my safety, and the safety of others to the police. In light of this, there are a few things I wish to point out. First, I never want to have my safety fully in the hands of anyone else, including the police. Second, I considered bringing my gun with me to campus, but did not due to the obvious risk of losing my graduate career, which is ridiculous because had I been shot and killed, there would have been no graduate career for me anyway. Third, and most important, I am trained and able to carry a concealed handgun almost anywhere in Virginia and other states that have reciprocity with Virginia, but cannot carry where I spend more time than anywhere else because, somehow, I become a threat to others when I cross from the town of Blacksburg onto Virginia Tech's campus.
And we honorheroes: "My father blocked the doorway with his body and asked the students to flee," Joe Librescu said in a telephone interview from his home outside of Tel Aviv. "Students started opening windows and jumping out." Professor Liviu Librescu, 76, threw himself in front of the shooter when the man attempted to enter his classroom. The Israeli mechanics and engineering lecturer was shot to death, "but all the students lived - because of him," Virginia Tech student Asael Arad - also an Israeli - told Army Radio.
And Mrs. Du Toit decries the Politics as usual as only a mother with a daughter at college can respond: After receiving a quick email from my sister about the events unfolding at Virginia Tech, Kim and I turned on Fox News, just in time to hear a reporter at the White House Press Conference ask “Is the President reconsidering his opinions on gun control NOW?” And, as usual, the Press Secretary responded calmly and politely. That is not how I would have responded (which is why I’m not the White House Press Secretary). Here is how I would have responded: Listen, you heartless cow, you’re turning this into politics before the bodies have been identified and the next of kin notified. What kind of human being ARE YOU? Do you have ANY sense of compassion AT ALL? Can you turn off your agitate-for-all-things-stupid-machine EVER? OK, you want to talk the politics of gun control? We’ll talk about it then.
She ends, after exploring the cultures that have restrictive gun laws and the probable results of our adoption of gun confiscation with this:
Of course, the criminals won’t comply with the gun control confiscation laws. Criminals don’t obey the laws. That’s why they’re called criminals.
All fantasy thinking aside, what law, what additional laws could we pass to have prevented the hideous crime in Virginia from occurring? The laws, currently on the books, which make transporting guns across state lines or murder illegal didn’t seem to provide the magic shield of protection they were supposed to provide. So what law? What law could be written that would make all the bad and ugly things in the world disappear, like magic, and we’d become a nation where not a single crime of violence ever occurred again? Maybe the law we need to pass is that stupid people like you are not allowed near a microphone or near our children… That our children are raised with a proper dose of age-appropriate reality, taught to understand that there are bad people in the world. And while we don’t want them to live their lives in constant fear, barricading themselves behind fortress walls, we want them to know the truth: that guns do provide protection for the weak and the law-abiding, from the criminals and crazies of the world. Maybe that law would have the desired effect. I’m not so sure it would solve the world’s ills, but I know one thing, and one thing with absolutely certainty (with ALL the facts on my side): The crock of shit you’ve been selling is not working. It never has and never will. We have the death of 30 more to prove it and I am pissed about that. So I don’t want to hear how you want to have more gun control confiscation. I want to hear about rifle and pistol ranges going up at our colleges and universities. I want college girls to be packing heat as they walk the dark passages of college campuses at night or sleeping alone in their dorm rooms. I want those precious young people to be educated in reality, and taught to use the tools to defend themselves, because I want them to know that their lives are valuable, and no one has the right to try to hurt them or take their lives from them. But since there are bad people in the world, who will try to harm them, I want to empower them with all the tools and skills necessary to defend themselves. I want a truly liberated culture, one imbued with reality, common sense and MORE guns. I don’t want another group of young people to find themselves on their knees, begging for their lives, and dying as a result of your blood-covered, failed policies. You have the audacity to bring up gun control today, and try turn this tragedy it into a political discussion for gun disarmament? How many innocent people have to die before YOU get it?
Now, with all this said, we must remember that the right to bear arms is NOT about hunting, or self-defense. It is the right of a citizen to bear arms to restrict overbearing government from infringing on said rights. This right is valid whether or not our society has conditioned itself to allow governmental authority to usurp those rights. NO ONE has the right to take that away from you. Not the government or fellow citizens. It is the MISUSE of weapons that is the crime. If one wants to argue that the right "only applies to the militia", well, the militia is made up of free citizens. And under Virginia law, I believe, most of us belong to the "unorganized militia." Why are we unorganized? Because Americans have given away the authority and responsibility of the protection of society to others, believing that those others will protect your rights and safety.
That said, if the politics are too much for you, ask yourself this. If that killer was at the door of your class, trying to shoot you and six or seven of your friends, would you want a gun or not?
Faces of Coal Has Something You Need To See
FACES of Coal is an alliance of people from all walks of life who have joined forces to educate lawmakers and the public about the importance of coal to our local and national economies.
Join today at www.facesofcoal.org
|
