VA-ALERT: VCDL Update 1/28/13

1. Several gun bills on agenda in Virginia 
2. Virginia PTA pledges to keep schools a 'defense-free' zone 
3. Gun control fan Terry McAuliffe is Virginia's newest gun owner 
4. Jeff Schapiro: Cuccinelli soft on gun rights? 
5. Tim Kaine on WTOP Live - January 12 [Audio] 
6. David Gregory will not be prosecuted for high-cap magazine 
7. Student opens fire at California high school, wounding one [Video] 
8. 'A means to protect': Ohio school board votes unanimously to allow custodial staff to carry handguns 
9. California testing limits of gun-control rules in wake of Newtown shooting 
10. Gun control: The political reality 
11. Henrico to have school safety hearing on 1/31/13 
12. Wyoming lawmakers propose bill to nullify new federal gun laws 
13. Gun control will see action, Biden vows 
14. Experts: New gun laws may increase crime, not prevent violence 
15. Man uses gun to protect two-month old son from armed robber 
16. Husband heard telling wife to shoot burglar on 911 call [Video] 
17. Futuristic rifle turns novice into sharpshooter [Video] 
18. 15-year old boy uses AR-15 to defend himself, sister against home invaders 
19. A warning on gun rights 
20. BBC: Would more guns save more American lives? [Video] 
21. What's the 'secret' gun provision In Obamacare? 
22. Bank of America froze account over online firearm sales, gun maker claims 
23. I will not be intimidated 
24. White House does damage control about NYT report 
25. Judge Napolitano: Guns and freedom 
26. Guns are designed to kill 
27. 'Bullet to the Head': Sly Stallone is a people (killing) person 
28. No action on Spotsylvania County firearm discharge ordinance 
29. Charity begins at home 
30. Times Dispatch holds gun-control town hall in a gun-free zone - duh. 


************************************************** 
1. Several gun bills on agenda in Virginia 
************************************************** 

Jay Minsky emailed me this: 

-- 

From NBC Washington: http://tinyurl.com/beaafg7 

By Julie Carey 
January 9, 2013 

Several new gun measures are on the legislative agenda in Virginia, including one that would allow teachers to have a gun in school. 

For years, gun owners with their guns at their side have been welcome on the Virginia Capitol grounds and inside its buildings. A bill to limit that practice is one of several measures being introduced by lawmakers who believe in the wake of the Newtown school shooting, there is fresh momentum for gun control. 

"We know we can't prevent every single tragedy, but we can limit the numbers that occur and limit the kind of mass casualties that we've seen in the past," said Delegate Patrick Hope, D-Arlington. 

Hope and fellow northern Virginia lawmaker Sen. Adam Ebbin are both pushing bills to place new restrictions and conduct more screening on those who want to bring guns into capitol buildings. Hope also has filed a bill requiring background checks on all Virginia gun sales -- even private ones between individuals. About 40 percent of all gun transactions in the commonwealth take place without a background check, Hope said. 

"If you want to get into the market of selling guns, which can be quite dangerous, then we want to know who you're selling those guns to," he said. 

A bill from Ebbin would require gun owners to report a stolen gun to police within 24 hours. 

Gun rights activists draw a different message from recent mass shootings. They say gun free zones, like schools, must be better protected. Prince William County Delegate Bob Marshall's bill would arm teachers, administrators and volunteers inside schools if they get special training. 

"I've got letters, emails from all around the state from public school administrators, principals, vice principals and teachers who want to do this," Marshall said. "They don't want to be like sheep led to a slaughter." 

Other gun rights supporters back him up. 

"I think it's time to take another look and say, 'You know what? Maybe we ought to stop having the schools be a gun free zone and make them a place where teachers can defend themselves and defend the children," said state Sen. Dick Black, R-Loudoun County. 


************************************************** 
2. Virginia PTA pledges to keep schools a 'defense-free' zone 
************************************************** 

The PTA should be ashamed of themselves for wanting children to be in an environment that encourages mass murders. We provide armed security to people of importance, but for children we want them in a gun-free zone? Stupid. 


From Virginia PTA: http://tinyurl.com/ah3nvn8 

By Anne L. Carson 
December 21, 2012 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 

Contact: Anne L. Carson, Virginia PTA President 
P:804-564-3430; F:804-264-4014 
president@vapta.org 

Richmond, VA (December 21, 2012) -- "The horrific event at Sandy Hook Elementary School last week brought home to parents across the Commonwealth the necessity for constructive conversations about gun safety and violence in our schools. As the largest parent advocacy group in Virginia the Virginia PTA is reiterating its long-held priority to promote safe, non-violent learning environments for our students. 

For decades, the Virginia PTA worked to enact legislation to create gun-free zones around our schools resulting in effective laws in1994. Members of the Virginia PTA have long advocated that guns and schools don't mix, no matter what the circumstances. 

As we all deal with this tragedy in individual ways, statements suggesting we even consider arming school personnel, are not appropriate. We are greatly concerned that Governor McDonnell would even consider discussing options where children would be exposed to an environment where teachers are armed. We join the Virginia Education Association in opposing this suggestion. We are encouraged by Governor McDonnell's plan to convene a Task Force on School Safety and will use the opportunity to reinforce our members' belief in gun-free schools and direct the focus to problems within the mental health system to provide individuals the help so desperately needed. Finally, we again call on the Governor and the General Assembly to close the gun show loophole. This is a problem long overdue to be fixed." 

The Virginia PTA is the largest parent and student advocacy group in the Commonwealth of Virginia with more than 295,000 members. 


************************************************** 
3. Gun control fan Terry McAuliffe is Virginia's newest gun owner 
************************************************** 

So Terry McAuliffe, who has his sights on being Virginia's next Governor, wants an "assault weapon" ban and wants a return of "one-handgun-a-month" is a "sportsman" with his new shotgun? Next we'll see him on a duck hunt with somebody from a gun club. John Kerry, anybody? 


From Washington Examiner: http://tinyurl.com/a9ko794 

By Paul Bedard 
January 8, 2013 

Just because Virginia Democratic gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe is pushing for an assault weapons ban and one-gun-a-month restriction in the Old Dominion doesn't mean he's opposed to slinging lead. 

In fact, the former Democratic Party chairman is one of Virginia's newest gun owners, the proud papa of a sleek Beretta over and under shotgun, the standard of excellence at the area's skeet ranges. 

Secrets first heard of his purchase over the weekend from shoppers at Dick's Sporting Goods in Bailey's Crossroads who saw the likely Democratic gubernatorial nominee shouldering one of the pricy long guns. 

His campaign confirmed the purchase and even gave us a reason. "It was a Beretta shotgun so he and his son, who is currently a second-year midshipman at the U.S. Naval Academy, can go skeet shooting together," said campaign spokesman Josh Schwerin. 

He didn't identify the model or gauge, but Dick's sells the over-and-under Beretta Silver Pigeon for $1,899.99. [PVC: Hopefully it doesn't have a folding stock or pistol grip which would make it an "assault" shotgun.] 

Whether he meant to or not, McAuliffe's purchase at Dick's made a statement related to the current push for national gun control in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings. That's because Dick's was among the first stores to suspend the sales of assault-style rifles from its inventory like the Bushmaster used in Newtown, Conn. 

After the shootings, McAuliffe issued a statement calling for a new assault-weapons ban, a rule to curb gun purchases by Virginians to one gun a month and a closer look at the mental health of gun buyers. "First, we must prioritize the diagnosis, treatment, and awareness of mental health issues by recognizing that individuals with psychological and emotional disorders need our help instead of stigmatization. Second, I've said in the past and I continue to believe that there are mainstream restrictions on dangerous weapons that we can agree on including: renewal of the Assault Weapons Ban, passage of bipartisan legislation to strengthen background checks, and re-implementation of Virginia's one-gun-a-month rule," he said. 

None of his gun control suggestions would have come into play in his purchase of the Beretta, which users have to physically load shells into both barrels. 

Shooting and hunting can often be a good image-boost for political candidates. Former President Clinton got applause for duck hunting. But in 2004, Sen. John Kerry flopped in a last-minute goose hunting photo-op. 


************************************************** 
4. Jeff Schapiro: Cuccinelli soft on gun rights? 
************************************************** 

EM Hal Macklin emailed me this: 

-- 

From Richmond Times-Dispatch: http://tinyurl.com/ao646kd 

By Jeff Schapiro 
January 9, 2013 

[SNIP] 

Cuccinelli, a large-bore advocate of the Second Amendment who tweets about the pleasure of squeezing off a few rounds, has been criticized for more than two years as soft on firearms rights by, of all people, Phil Van Cleave, head of the Virginia Citizens Defense League. Among Van Cleave's complaints with Cuccinelli: He has defended gun bans on Virginia college campuses. 


************************************************** 
5. Tim Kaine on WTOP Live - January 12 [Audio] 
************************************************** 

For those who have a weak stomach, be warned that our new Senator, Tim Kaine, is talking about gun control in this recording. There are strong doses of illogic, elitism, and double-talk. You've been warned. 

From WTOP: http://tinyurl.com/cnn76mm 


************************************************** 
6. David Gregory will not be prosecuted for high-cap magazine 
************************************************** 

The DC police and prosecutors show a double-standard, yet again. They need to stop enforcing their magazine ban NOW. They admit there is no benefit to public safety by enforcing the magazine ban when the person who possesses the magazine means no harm. 

Paul Henick emailed me this: 

-- 

Just released by D.C. Attorney General there will be no prosecution of David Gregory despite a finding that there was a clear violation of the law 

Well, aint that just speshul? [/Southern Lady voice] 

I'm just spitting and sputtering over this: 

"because under all of the circumstances here a prosecution would not promote public safety in the District of Columbia nor serve the best interests of the people of the District to whom this office owes its trust." 


From Legal Insurrection: http://tinyurl.com/a27zu88 

By William A. Jacobson 
January 11, 2013 

Just released by D.C. Attorney General there will be no prosecution of David Gregory despite a finding that there was a clear violation of the law (emphasis mine): 

Having carefully reviewed all of the facts and circumstances of this matter, as it does in every case involving firearms-related offenses or any other potential violation of D.C. law within our criminal jurisdiction, OAG has determined to exercise its prosecutorial discretion to decline to bring criminal charges against Mr. Gregory, who has no criminal record, or any other NBC employee based on the events associated with the December 23,2012 broadcast. OAG has made this determination, despite the clarity of the violation of this important law, because under all of the circumstances here a prosecution would not promote public safety in the District of Columbia nor serve the best interests of the people of the District to whom this office owes its trust. Influencing our judgment in this case, among other things, is our recognition that the intent of the temporary possession and short display of the magazine was to promote the First Amendment purpose of informing an ongoing public debate about firearms policy in the United States [PVC: So do you think promoting Second Amendment purposes would have also negated any prosecution?], especially while this subject was foremost in the minds of the public following the previously mentioned events in Connecticut and the President's speech to the nation about them. There were, however, other legal means available to demonstrate the point and to pursue this line of questioning with the guest that were suggested to NBC and that could have and should have been pursued. 

OAG also appreciates that the magazine was immediately returned to the source that NBC understood to be its lawful owner outside of the District and that the magazine in question, with NBC's assistance, has been surrendered to MPD. OAG also recognizes the cooperation NBC has provided in the investigation of this matter. 


************************************************** 
7. Student opens fire at California high school, wounding one [Video] 
************************************************** 

Another, yawn, gun-free school zone shooting. What a surprise [yawwwwn]. 

Rafael Pabon emailed me this: 

-- 

From Yahoo! News: http://tinyurl.com/aj8p38a 

By Dylan Stableford 
January 10, 2013 

At least one student was shot when a classmate opened fire at a high school in California on Thursday. 

The shooting occurred in the science building at Taft Union High School in Taft, Calif., at approximately 9 a.m. local time, a Kern County Sheriff's official told Yahoo News. 

The suspected shooter˘a 16-year-old male student at the school˘did not show up for the start of first period, police say. He entered the school with a 12-gauge shotgun and interrupted his first-period class, shooting one student police say he was targeting. 

The victim, also 16, was airlifted to Kern Medical Center in Bakersfield, Calif., with a shotgun wound to the upper right chest. He's in critical but stable condition. 

The gunman then called a second student's name in the 28-person class and fired again, but missed, Kern County Sheriff Donny Youngblood said. A teacher and a campus supervisor engaged the shooter in conversation inside the classroom, school officials said, and were able to persuade him to put down the shotgun. The shooter was then taken into police custody. 

The teacher was treated at the scene for a pellet wound to the head. (It's unclear whether the wound was from birdshot, Youngblood said.) Another student who was near the shotgun when it was fired was taken to a local hospital, where she was treated for hearing loss. 

During a press briefing outside the school on Thursday afternoon, reporters asked police whether the suspected shooter had been suspended from school last year for carrying what parents told them was a "hit list." Police would not confirm those reports. 

According to the school's website, "two campus supervisors and a Kern County Sheriff monitor the campus before, during, and after school." But officials said the armed officer who is normally on campus was "snowed in" and not on duty at the time of the shooting. About 1,000 students attend the high school. 

ABC's Kero-Bakersfield affiliate said it received calls from students who were hiding in closets inside the school, located about 120 miles north of Los Angeles. 

The school was evacuated while sheriff and fire personnel conducted room-to-room searches. One student told the network that he was in another building participating in an "active shooter drill" when the shooting occurred. 

The school was featured in the 1986 film "The Best of Times" starring Robin Williams and Kurt Russell. Friday's classes have been canceled. 

The shootings come less than a month after 26 people, including 20 children, were killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., in one of the worst school shootings in U.S. history. The massacre led to calls for reforms to the country's gun laws. 

On Thursday, Vice President Joe Biden, appointed to lead a task force to reduce U.S. gun violence, was scheduled to meet with members of the National Rifle Association in Washington to discuss gun control. 


************************************************** 
8. 'A means to protect': Ohio school board votes unanimously to allow custodial staff to carry handguns 
************************************************** 

Yes, this is how to lead the way. 

From The Blaze: http://tinyurl.com/ag6brwd 

By Jason Howerton 
January 11, 2013 

The Montpelier Exempted Village Schools Board of Education on Wednesday voted 5-0 to allow its custodial staff to carry handguns on school property. 

The affirmative vote will allow four custodians to take handgun training and carry handguns at the K-12 campus at Williams County School. The School board had been considering arming employees for nearly six months but first announced the plans during Wednesday's meeting. 

School officials say having armed personnel on campus will help prevent incidents like the tragic shooting in Newtown, Conn. in December. The school system is believed to be the first in Ohio to allow staff to be armed. 

The school district will reportedly pay for a two-day training class March for the employees. Instructors with the Tactical Defense Institute of West Union, Ohio, will give them a defense class on handgun use in Montpelier. 

"Sitting back and doing nothing and hoping it doesn't happen to you is just not good policy anymore," Superintendent Jamie Grime told The Toledo Blade. "There is a need for schools to beef up their security measures...Having guns in the hands of the right people are not a hindrance. They are a means to protect." 

School board President Larry Martin said the Sandy Hook massacre, in which 20 children and six staff were killed, expedited the school board's decision to arm its staff. 

"Our main goal is to offer safety for our students while they are in the classrooms and in the building," he said. "We have to do something and this seems like the most logical, reasonable course to go with." 

"Mr. Grime said their legal counsel advised that Ohio's gun law allows for school boards to authorize employees to possess weapons on school grounds if they pass the requirements of the concealed-carry law," The Blade reports. 


************************************************** 
9. California testing limits of gun-control rules in wake of Newtown shooting 
************************************************** 

California, long America's red-haired step-child, continues a melt-down with a feeding frenzy of gun control. While the state, for now, is physically attached to the rest of America, its government has fallen off into the Pacific Ocean and is sinking fast. 


From FOX News: http://tinyurl.com/apa8vs3 

By Claudia Cowan 
January 10, 2013 

California already has the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. Buying a handgun requires registration, a safety certificate, a 10-day waiting period and a rigorous background check. All direct person-to-person sales are banned and concealed-carry permits are rare. 

But now, in the wake of the Newtown tragedy, lawmakers in the Golden State have launched into a new legislative frenzy to restrict firearms further. And they're confident the measures will pass, given Democrats have a two-thirds "super majority" in both chambers -- which means they have the power to pass legislation and get constitutional amendments on the ballot without a single Republican vote. 

Political analysts say the political landscape puts California in the pole position to test gun-control limits. 

"Almost any idea that anybody in this country has, as to further regulate and limit access to weapons or ammunition, is probably going to get passed in California," said Democratic strategist and USC law professor Susan Estrich. 

Some politicians want to regulate all ammunition sales, requiring background checks and annual permits. 

One Republican lawmaker wants a lifetime ban on gun ownership for anyone who's ever been ruled a danger to others because of mental health issues -- even if they've been successfully treated. 

A bill being reintroduced by Democratic state Sen. Leland Yee seeks to ban bullet buttons, a feature that -- he argues -- makes some guns, like the AR-15 rifle, easier to reload. 

"What we're trying to do with our bill is to ban that particular weapon, because it is in fact a loophole in the assault weapon ban," said Yee, referring to the popular AR-15. 

California routinely redefines and bans so-called assault weapons, outlaws selling high-capacity magazines, limits the number firearms purchased, forbids open carry and has strict BB gun and toy gun regulations. 

Ever-evolving regulations stand a decent chance of passing because not only is the legislature controlled by Democrats but so are the state's top offices. Last fall, Gov. Jerry Brown outlawed the open carrying of long guns in California cities, while State Treasurer Bill Lockyer wants the state's public employee funds to stop investing in companies that make certain guns. 

California's big and powerful teacher's pension fund, CalSTRS, took the first step in that direction on Wednesday. 

Gun store owners worry about the economic impact of the kind of ban Yee is proposing, because it would outlaw some of their best-selling models. 

Bill Sharff, owner of STS Guns outside Sacramento, showed Fox News an AR-15 rifle deemed "California legal." He said: "If this gun were to be declared an assault weapon, it would in all likelihood put us out of business." 

Gun owners say lawmakers are chipping away at a constitutional right -- not to increase safety or reduce the risk of violence, but to assert power. 

"They know that as long as there is armed populace in the state, they will never control the people the way they want to," contends Sam Paredes, executive director of Gun Owners of California. 

Advocates for gun rights are vowing to lobby state lawmakers in Sacramento, rally citizens across the state, and take their fight to court if need be. Other states will be watching closely, to see how far California can bump up against the Second Amendment, and whether any new gun control laws actually make a difference. 


************************************************** 
10. Gun control: The political reality 
************************************************** 

Alan Rice, on the Board of the New Hampshire Firearms Coalition, emailed me this: 

-- 

See this article in today's (1/11) Wall Street Journal: 

From The Wall St. Journal: http://tinyurl.com/byq6q76 

This sort of lays it out that a vote for any gun control is a loser come Nov. We need to constantly remind politicians of that fact. Everything else is secondary, gun bans cost votes. Look a the numbers of Democrat Senators up for re-election in 2014: 

From HuffPo: http://tinyurl.com/atmasxg 

In 1994 the gun ban votes cost many Dems their elections, INCLUDING the Speaker of the House and the House Judiciary Committee Chairman. 


************************************************** 
11. Henrico to have school safety hearing on 1/31/13 
************************************************** 

** This is in a K-12 school, so please remember to leave your gun unloaded and in a closed container in your vehicle ** 

The Safety and Security Community Forum that was postponed due to inclement weather has been rescheduled for Thursday, January 31, at 6:00 p.m. at Hermitage High School. 

As a reminder, the forum is a local response to questions received following the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut. Henrico Police and school officials will be on hand to share safety practices and plans. Also, there will be breakout sessions during which participants can share their thoughts and concerns. 

Thank you for your support of Henrico County Public Schools. We look forward to seeing you on January 31st! 

Andy Jenks 

Director of Communications and Public Relations 


************************************************** 
12. Wyoming lawmakers propose bill to nullify new federal gun laws 
************************************************** 

This sends a nice statement to the federal government, but, unlike Delegate Bob Marshall's bill to prohibit state and local government employees from helping the feds enforce new gun control, this is probably unconstitutional. 

Perry Hecker emailed me this: 

-- 

From The Washington Examiner: http://tinyurl.com/bxglmev 

By Charlie Spiering 
January 10, 2013 

Wyoming lawmakers have proposed a new bill that, if passed, would nullify any federal restrictions on guns, threatening to jail federal agents attempting to confiscate guns, ammunition magazines or ammunition. 

The bill - HB0104 - states that "any federal law which attempts to ban a semi-automatic firearm or to limit the size of a magazine of a firearm or other limitation on firearms in this state shall be unenforceable in Wyoming." 

The bill is sponsored by eight Wyoming state representatives ad two state senators. If passed, the bill would declare any federal gun regulation created on or after January 1, 2013 to be unenforceable within the state. 

In addition, the bill states would charge federal officials attempting to enforce a federal gun law within the state with a felony - "subject to imprisonment for not more less than one (1) year and one (1) day or more than five (5) years, a fine of not more than two thousand dollars ($2,000.00) five thousand dollars ($5,000.00), or both." 

The bill also allows the Attorney General of Wyoming to defend a state citizen from any prosecution by the United States Government. 

One of the bill's co-sponsors, Wyoming State Senator Larry Hicks, told The Washington Examiner that this type of legislation sends a message to the federal government in Washington D.C. 

"It says that your one size fits all solution doesn't comport to what a vast majority of the state believes," Hicks explained in an interview. 

Citing the Tenth and the Second Amendments, Hicks asserted that the legislation was Constitutional, adding that he fully expected it to pass in the Wyoming state legislature. Hicks said that his Wyoming constituents were upset about the looming threat of gun control coming from Washington, particularly since Vice President Biden signaled yesterday that President Obama was willing to issue an executive order to tackle the gun issue. 

"They are very, very upset that we're going to see some level of federal takeover of our weapons and abuse of our rights given to us by the Second Amendment," Hicks stated. "Also that the federal government will bypass our legislative officials and confiscate our weapons through executive order. This gives citizens of the Western United States a great deal of concern." 

Rep. Kendell Kroeker, the lawmaker that spearheaded the bill, explained that he hoped that the federal government would recognize their constitutional rights based on the Tenth and Second Amendments. 

"I think that its necessary when the federal government violates our rights in the Constitution we have to act," he explained. 

The proposed legislation has recieved a overwhelmingly positive response from their constituents, according to the bill's sponsors, even from citizens of other states. 

Kroeker said that since he introduced the bill he has received up to 50 emails from constituents thanking him for standing up for their rights. 

"Most of the feedback that I have received is very encouraging," explained State Rep. Mark Baker, a fellow co-sponsor. "Many citizens from other states have contacted me stating that they are envious of our state's initiative." 

Kroeker said that he currently owns several handguns, rifles, shotguns and an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle - the model targeted by gun control proponents. 

"People in Washington tend to overreact," Kroeker said. "They try to place blame on gun owners punishing in the innocent to pay for the crimes of the guilty." 

Hicks explained that the model of the bill was taken from a bill passed in the State of Montana in 2009 adding that it wasn't much different from what he'd seen other states do. 

"I don't think this is controversial in Wyoming at all," he added. "I fully expect this bill to pass." 


************************************************** 
13. Gun control will see action, Biden vows 
************************************************** 

James Corbett emailed me this: 

-- 

From Roll Call: http://tinyurl.com/aam9eqo 

By Steven T. Dennis 
January 9, 2013 

Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. told gun control advocates Wednesday that President Barack Obama will act on guns - and he said that could include executive actions. 

"Every once in a while something raises the consciousness of the nation," Biden said at the start of his meeting with gun control advocates, per a pool report, referring to the massacre of children in Newtown, Conn., that prompted the new effort to curb gun violence. Biden said the problem requires immediate attention. 

"I want to make clear that we're not going to get caught up in the notion that, unless we can do everything, were going to do nothing. ... The president is going to act." 

Biden said the White House has determined that executive action can be taken on the issue, but he said it has not yet settled on what that action would be. 
Obama has already called on Congress to reinstate the assault weapons ban, require background checks for all gun purchases and ban high-capacity clips. 
Biden is set to meet with the National Rifle Association and other gun-rights groups Thursday. 


************************************************** 
14. Experts: New gun laws may increase crime, not prevent violence 
************************************************** 

Walter Jackson emailed me this: 

-- 

From Newsmax: http://tinyurl.com/bvcmwbs 

By Stephen Feller 
January 9, 2013 

As lawmakers debate a new version of the assault weapons ban, gun rights advocates and criminologists are pointing out that many statistics show gun ownership actually decreases instances of crime. 

Banning the type of assault weapons used in massacres similar to the one last December in Newtown, Conn., may cut down on the number of casualties in mass shootings but won't necessarily prevent them, according to Fox News. 

"The best empirical research on the matter finds that, where gun ownership levels are highest, in fact, homicide rates are far lower," said Tomislav Kovandzic, a criminologist at the University of Texas. 

A report by Mother Jones pointed out that in most of the mass shootings over the last several decades, an armed citizen was not able to stop the attack, though there are examples of it happening. 

"There is no evidence to support the argument that arming good guys is a good idea," Mother Jones reported. "We studied scores of these shootings and in the last 30 years, not a single shooting has been stopped by an armed citizen. Conversely, there's evidence it is a bad idea." [PVC: Boy, is this wrong! There are lots of cases of an armed citizen stopping mass shootings - from a Pearl, Mississippi school, to an Aurora, Colorado church, to an Oregon mall.] 

Kovandzic, who studies defensive gun use, said that while there are statistics which show the benefits of preventing crime that come from an armed citizenry, as well as the lack of prevention of mass murders, lawmakers must consider the full range of gun-related violence when enacting any new restrictions or laws. 

"Mass public shootings probably account for 1/10th of 1 percent of all murders and to focus on that 1/10th of 1 percent to understand the role of defensive gun use is really not the way you want to go about it, he said. 


************************************************** 
15. Man uses gun to protect two-month old son from armed robber 
************************************************** 

Walter Jackson emailed me this: 

-- 

From Breitbart.com: http://tinyurl.com/b2l7mmu 

By Mary Chastain 
January 9, 2013 

A man used his gun to protect himself and his two-month old son from a robber in Columbus, Ohio. 

Kelby Smith was in the driveway of his brother's house when a man approached him, put a pistol to his head, and demanded money. While Mr. Smith handed him money he also drew his own weapon. The robber grabbed the money and ran. 

But he turned around and pointed the gun at Mr. Smith and his baby. Mr. Smith quickly shot the robber while shielding his baby from the robber. 

The robber continued to run, but was found at a nearby hospital. He is now under police guard while he recovers. 

Mr. Smith does have a concealed carry permit. Authorities on the scene said they believe he was acting out of self-defense. The police are still investigating and will arrest the man if he is the robber. 

This is the second case in less than a week of a parent using a gun to protect their children. Last Friday a mother shot an intruder to protect herself and her twin sons. 

Breitbart News will update this story as more details come in. 


************************************************** 
16. Husband heard telling wife to shoot burglar on 911 call [Video] 
************************************************** 

Perry Hecker emailed me this: 

-- 

From USA Today: http://tinyurl.com/a99sxrx 


************************************************** 
17. Futuristic rifle turns novice into sharpshooter [Video] 
************************************************** 

Bill Albritton emailed me this: 

-- 

From NBC News: http://tinyurl.com/anlhhrx 

By Wilson Rothman 
January 10, 2013 

It all goes back to "Top Gun." In the heads-up display on Maverick's Tomcat, you can see a computer compensate for human aim with precision laser guidance and careful calculations. How long before that technology made its way to to a conventional hunting rifle? It's here now, with a price tag of $17,000 to $21,000. 

We came to Las Vegas the first week of January, the way we always do, for the Consumer Electronics Show. The vast trade show features over 3,300 exhibitors, and covers 1.9 million square feet. But there are no shooting ranges at CES. To check out TrackingPoint, we had to drive out to the hills outside of town. 

As someone who not only isn't a marksman but pretty much avoids guns altogether, I approached the TrackingPoint rifle a bit gingerly. However, when the company's president, Jason Schauble, walked me through it, I realized that as long as I paid attention (and observed the basic safety rules of firearms), I would be able to hit that target without trouble. Not 15 minutes later, I did at a distance of nearly seven football fields. 

How does it work? A laser rangefinder identifies the target, and tells the gun where to aim to hit it, given conditions such as humidity, wind, and the typical ballistic drop you'd expect from a bullet shot from a gun at such a distance. 

You pick your target by dropping a pin on it using the camcorder-like zoom lens. When you want to shoot that target, you line up crosshairs inside the scope with the pin you dropped. The weirdest thing is, when you squeeze the trigger, it doesn't fire. You have to squeeze the trigger and line up the crosshairs with your mark. When you do, the gun goes boom, and the target takes a bullet. 

No matter where you are on the gun debate, the technology used is an impressive system. The rifle will be available soon from TrackingPoint. Watch the video above for the whole story. 


************************************************** 
18. 15-year old boy uses AR-15 to defend himself, sister against home invaders 
************************************************** 

Walter Jackson emailed me this: 

-- 

From Breitbart.com: http://tinyurl.com/a8mqh7p 

By Mary Chastain 
January 10, 2013 

A 15-year old boy used his father's AR-15 to defend himself and his 12-year old sister against two burglars at their home just north of Houston, Texas. 

Their father is a Harris County Precinct 1 deputy constable, and the boy knew what he had to do to keep himself and his sister alive. Around 2:30 PM, two men tried to break in, with one going through the front door and the other in the back. 

The boy grabbed the AR-15 and shot at them. The two later showed up at a Tomball hospital. The adult was hit three times and was flown to Memorial Hermann hospital, while the juvenile was taken back to the crime scene. 
"We don't try to hide things from our children in law enforcement," Lt. Jeffrey Stauber said. "That young boy was protecting his sister. He was in fear for his life and her life." 

More stories are coming out about armed citizens defending their lives and property with legally owned firearms. In the span of a week, Breitbart News has reported how a mother used a .38 revolver against an intruder, a man used his weapon to protect his 2-month old son, and a Colorado man invoked the Make My Day law in Colorado in using lethal force to defend himself against three intruders. 

Senator Dianne Feinstein and others are trying to push through major gun control laws that would include banning the AR-15, the same gun used by the teenage boy. 


************************************************** 
19. A warning on gun rights 
************************************************** 

Bill Watkins emailed me this: 

-- 

From The Daily Caller: http://tinyurl.com/avtdkyb 

By Christian Whiton 
January 10, 2013 

There's a movie that shows what can happen when only the military and police have guns. It's called "Schindler's List." 

While our Founding Fathers could not have foreseen the murderous Nazi despotism about which that movie was made, they knew a great deal about tyranny and its historical prevalence. The steps the Founders took to prevent loss of freedom should loom large in the minds of Washington Republicans as they make decisions that will determine the future of the GOP. 

For starters, the Second Amendment, which contemplates a "well-regulated militia" and recognizes the unalienable right to keep and bear arms, has precisely nothing to do with hunting, recreation or even self-defense against criminals. It was intended as a political right and has subsequently been recognized as such by the Supreme Court. 

In 2010, the Court proclaimed gun rights anew, finding that: "It is clear that the Framers ... counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty." 

As one of the Founders, Tench Coxe, put it: "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? ... Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans." 

The implication is simple. While the ballot box combined with freedom of speech and press are often enough to preserve liberty in an established democracy, a further firewall of last resort is essential. That firewall is a citizenry with the realistic physical means to resist a political class if it turns on them. This capability is what Mr. Obama's Washington is now threatening - something an active minority of Americans grasp. 

Progressives today scoff at such antiquated notions. Pointing to the developed world, where most populations are disarmed, they think mankind has progressed beyond the risk of such tyranny - especially in America. Conservatives, who often seem better acquainted with history and the more indelible and unappealing facets of human nature, know better. Any study of the past reveals that tyranny is the norm for humanity - not the exception. And as recently as the last century, every major dictator, including Hitler, Stalin and Mao, took pains to restrict gun rights early in his tenure. 

Then there is the common sense of the matter. None of the anti-gun measures broached since the Newtown massacre could plausibly reduce crime or prevent such atrocities. Criminals and dangerous lunatics - the very people progressives have turned loose in every major American city since the 1960s - can always ignore laws and obtain the means of destruction. Only the law-abiding observe gun laws. 

Today's most violent and crime-infested cities have gun laws far more regressive than those currently being contemplated. In 2006, I was mugged by two pistol-wielding criminals in Washington, D.C., which then had a total handgun ban. Obama's hometown of Chicago has similarly tough gun laws and yet is America's most violent big city. Britain - often held up as the nirvana of gun opponents - actually has a higher violent crime rate than the United States. Gun control only disarms victims and doesn't work. 

What does work is gun deregulation. Supposedly gun-happy Texas actually banned the concealed carrying of guns until 1995, when then-Governor George W. Bush signed a law allowing concealed carry. Progressives predicted a bloodbath and vigilante justice. Instead, violent crime plummeted. The same pattern has been exhibited in more than a dozen other states that followed suit.

Noticeably absent from today's debate are congressional Republicans - who love to talk up the Constitution when it's convenient. Instead, defending gun rights has fallen to the NRA and a ragtag group of pundits and average citizens. 

Indeed, multiple sources on Capitol Hill have confirmed to me this week that congressional Republicans are prepared to cave on gun control. Presumably, the congressmen think that caving on gun rights is practical given the shrill media voices calling for restrictions. 

Practical and disappointing. 

What is in the offing is the third major Republican betrayal of conservatism. It is no solace that Rep. Paul Ryan can invoke the Federalist Papers if he voted for the bank and auto bailouts - which he did. It is no solace that Speaker John Boehner can talk about the difficulties faced by small businesses if he voted for higher taxes on them - which he did. Likewise, it is of little comfort to know congressional Republicans carry mini Constitutions in their breast pockets if they don't understand what they mean. 

What's most loathsome about the current crop of Beltway Republicans is not that they keep losing. It is that they are unpersuasive and hold their principles only when it is convenient and cost-free - making them what that other Founder, George Washington, called "Summer Patriots." 

There are exceptions. Ted Cruz, who has been a senator for only a week, has been more eloquent and active on gun rights and other conservative priorities than much of the GOP caucus. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie hasn't ruled out changes in gun laws, but has artfully shifted the conversation to include mental illness and violence in our culture. 

Beltway Republicans should follow their lead. Try being principled. Try being persuasive. Try doing politics. 


************************************************** 
20. BBC: Would more guns save more American lives? [Video] 
************************************************** 

Bill Hine emailed me this: 

-- 

From BBC News: http://tinyurl.com/byhoxl9 

By Charles Ledford 
January 8, 2013 

The mass shooting at a US school which left 20 children and six teachers dead has provoked a national conversation about guns. 

But in Illinois that debate was already under way. 

On 10 December - just days before the tragedy in Connecticut - a US federal court struck down the country's last remaining law banning concealed weapons. 

Lawmakers in Illinois were given six months to come up with an alternative piece of legislation. Now gun control advocates and gun rights activists are trying to shape that new law. 

Journalism professor Charles Ledford had been speaking to people on both sides of the debate before events at Sandy Hook Elementary School. He visited a local group called Guns Save Life, whose members are arguing for more permissive gun laws, as well as the mother of a victim of a previous mass shooting. 

His video provides an insight into the strongly held beliefs that influence discussion on this topic, as Vice-President Joe Biden prepares to deliver recommendations on how to prevent future massacres. 

The scale of the tragedy in Newtown has reinforced views. The BBC spoke to several members of Guns Save Life after the shooting in Newtown - and gathered email responses from many more. 

All insisted that the tragedy had strengthened their belief that the creation of "gun-free zones" - banning weapons from public areas including schools - had made the US more dangerous. 


************************************************** 
21. What's the 'secret' gun provision In Obamacare? 
************************************************** 

From The Blaze: http://tinyurl.com/bf8pac2 

By Billy Hallowell 
January 9, 2013 

[SNIP] 

There's a widely-unknown provision in the Affordable Care Act (also known as Obamacare) - legislative wording that is capturing attention in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Pushed by the National Rifle Association (NRA), a newly-noticed regulation that was placed deep within the bill back in 2010, among other things, bans doctors from documenting patients' answers to questions that focus upon guns. 

The Washington Post first reported on Dec. 30 about the presence of this controversial wording. Under a section with the headline "Protection of Second Amendment Gun Rights," the NRA-advocated wording is nestled deep within the law. The Post called the inclusion, "a largely overlooked but significant challenge to a movement in American medicine to treat firearms as a matter of public health." 

As the outlet also noted, it was in the final stretch of the debate over Obama's health care legislation that the NRA successfully pushed to insert this language. Below, see the portions of the Affordable Care Act that include mentions of firearms and the parameters through which doctors must operate in questioning patients (read the entire health care bill here): 


************************************************** 
22. Bank of America froze account over online firearm sales, gun maker claims 
************************************************** 

From Newsmax: http://tinyurl.com/aehp4b2 

By Michael Mullins 
January 8, 2013 

An American gun manufacturer claims Bank of America froze his account over objections to his company selling arms online. So far, it's a one-sided story on Facebook which quotes a bank manager saying, "We believe you should not be selling guns and parts on the Internet." 

According to a post by American Spirit Arms owner Joe Sirochman, because of a 500 percent surge in gun purchases his e-commerce website has been "processing larger deposits to Bank of America . . . So they decided to hold the deposits for further review." 

American Spirit Arms most likely benefitted as gun shops and gun shows across the U.S. saw a recent surge of people seeking ammunition and high-power assault weapons, triggered by fears that certain guns will be banned and ammunition heavily taxed in the wake of the school shooting in Newtown, Conn. 

"As you could imagine this made me furious," Sirochman said in his Facebook post. "After countless hours on the phone with Bank of America I finally got a Manager in the right department that told me the reason that the deposits were on hold for further review, . . . Her exact words were 'We Believe you should not be selling guns and parts on the internet.'" 

Sirochman continued: "I flipped the f**k out and told them that they have no right to make up their own new rules and regs . . . We are a firearms manufacturer with all the proper licensing FFL (Federal Firearm license), and that we follow all Federal and All States' rules and regulations on shipping firearms and parts and that we are also Audited by ATF and Homeland." 

Following his heated response, Sirochman said a second manager joined the conversation and agreed to release some of the disputed funds. 

Bank of America has yet to release a statement about the controversy. 

Claiming to have been a Bank of America customer for 10 years, Sirochman says he is now looking for a new bank. 

This isn't the first time Bank of America has reportedly targeted a client in the firearms industry. 

According to a post by McMillan Group International on its official Facebook page, in April of 2012 Bank of America officials allegedly told the company, "We must finalize all of our accounts because we manufacture firearms." 

As with the claim by American Spirit Arms, Bank of America did not respond to the claim made by McMillan Group International. 


************************************************** 
23. I will not be intimidated 
************************************************** 

Bill Watkins emailed me this: 

-- 

From American Thinker: http://tinyurl.com/acan9d6 

By Steve McCann 

As a young boy I was shot by a man whose clear intent was to kill me as I had deliberately, by throwing broken bricks at him, interrupted his attempt to rape a young teen-aged girl, allowing her to escape. To this day I can still see the evil in his face and the sun glistening off the barrel of the pistol he aimed in my direction. As I turned and began to run away he fired hitting me in back. The bullet entering my chest felt as if someone had hit me with baseball bat followed immediately by an excruciating burning sensation as I fell to the ground from the impact. Perhaps it was the adrenaline, but I was able scramble to my feet and run as far as I could until finally passing out from the shock and loss of blood. Fortunately, someone came to my rescue and took me to a military hospital and the first step on my journey to the United States. 

According to the current incarnation of the American left, who traffic constantly in victimhood and noble intentions, I should be in the vanguard of the mandatory gun control and confiscation movement. That somehow it was the inanimate object this soldier was holding and not him that was responsible for the attempt on my life or to ignore the fact that his mindset was such he would have used any weapon at hand to accomplish the same goal. 

On the contrary, I own a handgun today because of the experience of coming face to face with the evil that permeates some men's souls. I and the girl I rescued were defenseless. There were no police or armed citizens around and the death of another homeless and unknown boy and girl, buried in an unmarked mass grave, would have been just another easily ignored casualty of the post-War period. I was determined that I would never again face a similar circumstance. I have had in my possession firearms for virtually my entire life, as I have been fortunate to live in the one nation on earth that has embedded in its founding document the right to bear arms. 

Today, I am, along with a vast majority of my fellow citizens, being made the scapegoat for the failed policies of the so-called progressives -- whether it is the inability of society to deal with extreme psychopaths or the mentally deranged, because the left insists they are entitled to the same rights as other citizens, or the never-ending attempt to rehabilitate criminals incapable of rehabilitation. Consistent with their inability to ever admit a mistake, the left and much of the Democratic Party instead focuses on symbolism over substance and the path of least resistance -- going after the law-abiding hard working people who are the backbone of America. 

But the motivation is more insidious than that. Those that self-identify as progressives, leftists, socialists or Marxists, have one overwhelming trait in common: they are narcissists who believe they are pre-ordained to rule the masses too ignorant to govern themselves. Over the past thirty years as these extremists fully infiltrated academia, the mainstream media, the entertainment industry and taken over the Democratic Party, the American people have lost many of their individual rights. They are now being told what they can eat, where they can live, who they must associate with, where and how their children must be educated, and soon what medical care they are allowed to access, as well as the type of car they can drive and the amount of energy they are permitted to use. 

The last bastion of freedom is unfettered gun ownership, so that too must go. That the left is willfully and egregiously exploiting the actions of a deranged psychopath in the tragic death of 26 people (20 children) in Newtown, Connecticut to achieve this end exposes their true motivation. 

I immigrated to the United States from a continent that had nearly destroyed itself in World War II. The War was the end-product of the ascension to power of various ego-maniacs, steeped in socialist/Marxist ideology, determined to amass all political power within their countries. Once elected to office, these despots began to centralize their power and eliminate all individual freedoms and democratic institutions. The people, as they lived in nations that did not allow unfettered gun ownership, were powerless to stop the inexorable seizure of power and many paid the ultimate price as nearly 40+ million were killed during the War. 

Many on the left and others will say I am trafficking in hyperbole, that nothing similar to that could ever happen in the United States -- perhaps not a massive and physically destructive war but the destruction of the nation as it was founded is well on its way. These same ideologues have reassured the American people over the past 40 years that they had no intention of ever: 

Telling the American people how to live; 
Limiting access to medical care; 
Attempting by fiat and legislation to dramatically limit gun ownership; 
Shifting near unlimited power to Washington D.C., by ignoring the concept of federalism; 
Deliberately bankrupting the country; 
Placing the private sector under the thumb of bureaucrats; 
Monitoring without search warrants American's private conversations and communications; 
Allowing unrestrained illegal immigration in order to affect the voting patterns in their favor. 

Yet in the America of 2013 all this, and more, has come to past and we are expected to believe the progressive cabal when they say their ultimate aim is not to effectively invalidate the second amendment by ever more stringent laws and regulations. 

The left's fundamental objective of transforming America is in sight, particularly with a fellow-traveler in the White House no longer facing re-election. Over the next four years, this faction will push their agenda more forcefully than ever as they will never allow a crisis, real or manufactured; to go to waste as they make certain an ever-increasing percentage of the population becomes indentured to the government. 

I have lived my entire life on borrowed time and now in the twilight of my years, I have but one thing to say to those determined to take away or limit my right to own a firearm and to transform and destroy the greatest nation in the history of mankind. I, and many like me, will not be intimidated and you will only accomplish your ultimate ends over our dead bodies. 


************************************************** 
24. White House does damage control about NYT report 
************************************************** 

Paul Henick emailed me this: 

-- 

When the White House has to do damage control over a NYT piece you start ducking even before looking for the flying pigs. 


From National Review: http://tinyurl.com/amftu54 

By Eliana Johnson 
January 11, 2013 

Someone tell Dianne Feinstein: For all the Democrats' talk about passing another assault-weapons ban, that now appears unlikely to happen. 

According to the New York Times, the administration's prospects of pushing an assault-weapons ban through Congress are slim and, as a result, the White House "is focusing on other measures it deems more politically achievable." The story suggests that the White House doesn't want to spend political capital on "a losing cause at the expense of other measures with more chances of success." Though the administration will recommend the passage of such a ban, it'll be a hollow recommendation. The White House is already defining success downward, "emphasizing other new gun rules that could conceivably win bipartisan support and reduce gun deaths," which would include universal background checks and research into the causes of gun violence. 

Now, the White House is in full damage-control mode, telling the Washington Post that "the report is false." According to a White House spokesman, "the president has been clear that Congress should reinstate the assault-weapons ban and that avoiding this issue just because it's been politically difficult in the past is not an option." 

That statement seems consistent with the Times' reporting, which indicates that, whatever the exhaustive research produced by Sheriff Joe's task force, the president will recommend an assault-weapons ban with empty words. 


************************************************** 
25. Judge Napolitano: Guns and freedom 
************************************************** 

James Kiser emailed me this: 

-- 

From FOX News: http://tinyurl.com/aclrqa9 

By Judge Andrew P. Napolitano 
January 10, 2013 

The right of the people to keep and bear arms is an extension of the natural right to self-defense and a hallmark of personal sovereignty. It is specifically insulated from governmental interference by the Constitution and has historically been the linchpin of resistance to tyranny. And yet, the progressives in both political parties stand ready to use the coercive power of the government to interfere with the exercise of that right by law-abiding persons because of the gross abuse of that right by some crazies in our midst. 

When Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, he was marrying the nation at its birth to the ancient principles of the natural law that have animated the Judeo-Christian tradition in the West. Those principles have operated as a break on all governments that recognize them by enunciating the concept of natural rights. 

As we have been created in the image and likeness of God the Father, we are perfectly free just as He is. Thus, the natural law teaches that our freedoms are pre-political and come from our humanity and not from the government, and as our humanity is ultimately divine in origin, the government, even by majority vote, cannot morally take natural rights away from us. A natural right is an area of individual human behavior -- like thought, speech, worship, travel, self-defense, privacy, ownership and use of property, consensual personal intimacy -- immune from government interference and for the exercise of which we don't need the government's permission. 

The essence of humanity is freedom. Government -- whether voted in peacefully or thrust upon us by force -- is essentially the negation of freedom. Throughout the history of the world, people have achieved freedom when those in power have begrudgingly given it up. From the assassination of Julius Caesar to King John's forced signing of the Magna Carta, from the English Civil War to the triumph of the allies at the end of World War II, from the fall of Communism to the Arab Spring, governments have permitted so-called nobles and everyday folk to exercise more personal freedom as a result of their demands for it and their fighting for it. This constitutes power permitting liberty. 

The American experience was the opposite. Here, each human being is sovereign, as the colonists were after the Revolution. Here, the delegation to the government of some sovereignty -- the personal dominion over self -- by each American permitted the government to have limited power in order to safeguard the liberties we retained. Stated differently, Americans gave up some limited personal freedom to the new government so it could have the authority and resources to protect the freedoms we retained. Individuals are sovereign in America, not the government. This constitutes liberty permitting power. 

But we did not give up any natural rights; rather, we retained them. It is the choice of every individual whether to give them up. Neither our neighbors nor the government can make those choices for us, because we are all without the moral or legal authority to interfere with anyone else's natural rights. Since the government derives all of its powers from the consent of the governed, and since we each lack the power to interfere with the natural rights of another, how could the government lawfully have that power? It doesn't. Were this not so, our rights would not be natural; they would be subject to the government's whims. 

To assure that no government would infringe the natural rights of anyone here, the Founders incorporated Jefferson's thesis underlying the Declaration into the Constitution and, with respect to self-defense, into the Second Amendment. As recently as two years ago, the Supreme Court recognized this when it held that the right to keep and bear arms in one's home is a pre-political individual right that only sovereign Americans can surrender and that the government cannot take from us, absent our individual waiver. 

There have been practical historical reasons for the near universal historical acceptance of the individual possession of this right. The dictators and monsters of the 20th century -- from Stalin to Hitler, from Castro to Pol Pot, from Mao to Assad -- have disarmed their people, and only because some of those people resisted the disarming were all eventually enabled to fight the dictators for freedom. Sometimes they lost. Sometimes they won. 

The principal reason the colonists won the American Revolution is that they possessed weapons equivalent in power and precision to those of the British government. If the colonists had been limited to crossbows that they had registered with the king's government in London, while the British troops used gunpowder when they fought us here, George Washington and Jefferson would have been captured and hanged. 

We also defeated the king's soldiers because they didn't know who among us was armed, because there was no requirement of a permission slip from the government in order to exercise the right to self-defense. (Imagine the howls of protest if permission were required as a precondition to exercising the freedom of speech.) Today, the limitations on the power and precision of the guns we can lawfully own not only violate our natural right to self-defense and our personal sovereignties; they assure that a tyrant can more easily disarm and overcome us. 

The historical reality of the Second Amendment's protection of the right to keep and bear arms is not that it protects the right to shoot deer. It protects the right to shoot tyrants, and it protects the right to shoot at them effectively, thus, with the same instruments they would use upon us. If the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto had had the firepower and ammunition that the Nazis did, some of Poland might have stayed free and more persons would have survived the Holocaust. 

Most people in government reject natural rights and personal sovereignty. Most people in government believe that the exercise of everyone's rights is subject to the will of those in the government. Most people in government believe that they can write any law and regulate any behavior, not subject to the natural law, not subject to the sovereignty of individuals, not cognizant of history's tyrants, but subject only to what they can get away with. 

Did you empower the government to impair the freedom of us all because of the mania and terror of a few? 


************************************************** 
26. Guns are designed to kill 
************************************************** 

Bill Watkins emailed me this: 

-- 

From American Thinker: http://tinyurl.com/bkptp4y 

By Kenneth Bennight 
January 9, 2013 

Would-be gun controllers argue that guns are different from other dangerous commodities. Guns are uniquely designed to kill, they say, and therefore lack the utility of other dangerous things. Take automobiles, for instance: automobiles kill more people than guns, but automobiles' primary use is peaceful, and automobiles are not designed to kill. Why, gun controllers ask, should we tolerate guns, which are dangerous and have no material utility other than killing? 

Gun-rights defenders sometimes argue that guns have innocent uses such as hunting and target-shooting. Those uses, they argue, justify widespread gun ownership. But what other widespread toy is as potentially lethal as guns? It's poor argumentation to refuse to acknowledge the obvious: the function of guns is to kill. That is incontrovertible. Non-killing uses of guns are incidental. 

Does that make the gun controllers right? No. If we are to preserve our Second Amendment rights and our freedom generally, we must accept the possibility of legitimate killing in two circumstances: defense against violence and resistance to oppression. 

Self-defense is a natural right of all persons, one not limited to non-lethal force. If gun controllers concede that, they proceed to parse finely the degree of allowable lethal force. (No one needs more than a three-round magazine.) But any such calculation necessarily assumes unknowable things. 

Why is it that those who know the least about guns have the strongest opinions on how much lethality is legitimately necessary? And gun controllers would not impose those limits on the Secret Service or the bodyguards of other prominent people. What has become of America if the law holds that the lives of such people are more worthy than the lives of the rest of us? 

A line on lethality must be drawn somewhere. Most of us agree that it is short of individual nuclear warheads, but why should it be pushed all the way back to single-shot .22s? To reasonably locate the line of permissible defense, look to the sort of weapons that are most popular. That incorporates the wisdom of crowds and easily covers AR-15s and other semi-automatic weapons with large magazine capacity. 

No doubt the founders accepted the natural right of self-defense, but that was not why they proposed the Second Amendment. They had just prevailed in a war won largely with civilian-owned firearms. The shot heard round the world was fired to resist a British attempt to disarm Americans. The British army, accustomed to an unarmed British countryside, was surprised by an armed and largely hostile American populace. The founders wanted to protect Americans' ability to resist oppression. If we wish to retain our freedoms, we must retain that ability. 

This is the point where sophisticates roll their eyes. Armed resistance to oppression? Really? In the 21st century? Yes, really, in the 21st century. Most gun controllers, being of the left, cannot conceive of a threat to civil liberties from the present administration. But the same people claimed fear of "Darth" Chaney. On the other hand, they think that Obama's sidekick Bill Ayers, the former Weatherman, is merely colorful. 

We need not argue which side of the cultural divide poses the bigger threat to civil liberties. Both sides think the other is a threat. So both sides must accept the existence of threats to civil liberties. 

Next, gun controllers argue that no civilian militia could hope to stand up to a modern military. With no apparent irony, they make this argument right after arguing there is no justification for civilians owning semiautomatic weapons such as an AR-15 or any weapon with a magazine capable of holding more than ten rounds. 

Irony aside, we need not expect a civilian militia to stand up to a modern military in a pitched battle. As we know from Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as from Vietnam, not all resistance is in pitched battles. Take, for example, the Warsaw Ghetto. With few arms, the Jewish resistance greatly complicated the task of the Nazis. Of course, the episode ended badly for the Jews, but how likely is it that the American military or even police departments would be complicit in an extermination program? And shouldn't we be sorry that the Warsaw Jews had only as many weapons as they did? If only they had had many more. 

If any level of government attempts to use the military or the police as an instrument of oppression, the results will be horrific. But have enough confidence in our military and police to believe that many will refuse outright to participate, and many others will be conflicted about following their orders. If enforcing oppression can be made sufficiently difficult, many more enforcers may reverse sides, and the enterprise may break down. In the end, even Soviet soldiers would not fire on the Soviet people. I am not suggesting that it would be painless or bloodless, but the more arms the protectors of liberty have, the more likely they are to be successful. 

The ability to kill is itself the social utility of guns. Killing is a legitimate activity in the right circumstances. If we can't make that argument, we won't preserve our freedoms. Thomas Jefferson warned that retaining liberty may sometimes require spilling "the blood of patriots and tyrants." That is one of the unpleasant truths about human nature. Gun controllers would prevent us from preserving our freedoms. 


************************************************** 
27. 'Bullet to the Head': Sly Stallone is a people (killing) person 
************************************************** 

EM Robert Sadtler emailed me this: 

-- 

I just saw a commercial I don't believe. We all know that Stallone is the biggest hypocrite in Hollywood. He is responsible for more reckless acts with a firearm than Hamas, Hezbollah, and Al Qaeda combined, yet he makes statements to rival Diane Feinstein. 

His new movie, out soon, is a revenge pic, called "BULLET TO THE HEAD"! Hopefully Virginian gun owners will take a pass on that movie. 


************************************************** 
28. No action on Spotsylvania County firearm discharge ordinance 
************************************************** 

Robert Herron emailed me this: 

-- 

The public hearing was OK. One supervisor was absent and, because "this is too important to act on without the full board," they tabled the vote until the next meeting (Jan 22). The absent supervisor was a TEA party candidate so, in the theory, he's pro-gun gun. 

There were about equal numbers of people for and against the proposed ordinance. There was some interesting spill over from a zoning change hearing -- I forgot how local politics and affairs can be. 

High points: 

- Multiple people, including one supervisor, were upset that the ordinance restricted discharge on 5 acres and less. 

- Several people against the ordinance don't understand state law and felt, with the new ordinance, I could start shooting at them or their house, shoot across highways, etc. 

- One person mentioned how the definition of firearm in the proposed ordinance could be a arrow or even baseball. 

- The supervisors will send their thoughts, questions, suggested revisions to the county attorney for review, inclusion, and determination whether the changes require another public hearing. 

-- 

From Fredericksburg.com: http://tinyurl.com/aubcwyj 

By Jeff Branscome 
January 8, 2013 

Spotsylvania County residents can't shoot guns in subdivisions just yet. 

The Board of Supervisors on Tuesday night tabled its planned vote on a proposal that would allow the firing of guns in subdivisions on lots of more than 5 acres. 

Board members asked for more information-such as whether the county could require shooters to have backstops-to be presented at their Jan. 22 meeting and may make a decision then. 

It's currently illegal to fire guns in any subdivision in Spotsylvania regardless of lot sizes. 

Eight of the 13 residents who spoke at a public hearing on the issue were against the proposed code changes as written. They had safety and noise concerns, and some wondered how the new ordinance would be enforced. 

"If you supervisors have decided that there are no safety issues I can only conclude that you have managed to invoke some sort of magic spell that will cause a bullet to stop all forward motion when it reaches the property line of a 5-acre lot and just fall to the ground," resident Victor Szabo said. 

Ann Melle, another speaker at the public hearing, said she owns 6 acres, but her lot is only 200 feet wide. The county, she said, needs to restrict shooting within a set number of feet or yards from homes and other structures. 

"Five acres is far too small," she said. "At the very least, you should be considering 10 acres." 

Spotsylvania resident Robert Herron told the board that maybe the county could add language to the ordinance that would address the issue of bullets flying over property lines. But overall, he said, he's supportive of the proposed changes. 

"We have a fundamental right to enjoy our property," said Herron, speaking on behalf of the Virginia Citizens Defense League. 

County Attorney Jacob Stroman said state law gives local governments "very limited authority" to regulate firearms. So he's not sure if the county can mandate berms or other shooting backstops, but said he would report back to the board at its next meeting. 

Commonwealth's Attorney William Neely, who also spoke at the meeting, said state law prohibits people from shooting bullets across highways or into homes. And he told The Free Lance-Star that he's prosecuted people for reckless handling of firearms, another state law, when they've shot bullets across property lines. 

"This is just another arrow in the quiver," he said of the proposed ordinance. 

Stroman said Neely and Sheriff Roger Harris have indicated the proposed ordinance is enforceable. 

Board members have been discussing the issue for about one year. They originally voted to consider an ordinance that would allow residents of subdivisions to shoot on their property if they live on lots of more than 1 acre. A lot of residents had safety concerns with that proposal, so supervisors increased the proposed minimum lot size to more than 5 acres. 

Stroman said the issue surfaced when his office learned that the current ordinance may be vulnerable in court because it doesn't define a subdivision. The proposed ordinance says a subdivision is any housing development that has a plat on file with the Circuit Court. That wouldn't include a lot that has been subdivided by a property owner to sell or give to an immediate family member. 

The proposal doesn't include pneumatic weapons-such as BB and paint ball guns-in its definition of a firearm. The county has another ordinance for those guns, which are not banned in subdivisions. 


************************************************** 
29. Charity begins at home 
************************************************** 

Greg Richards emailed me this: 

-- 

Mr. Van Cleave: 

I will no longer be making monetary contributions to charitable organizations. Henceforth, I will direct all funds previously contributed to such organizations to A) The National Rifle Association, B) The National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action, C) The Second Amendment Foundation and D) The Virginia Citizens Defense League. 

This change is possible only through the outstanding leadership of our elected leaders. Having just secured the dual accomplishments of collecting $46 in revenues for every $1 in spending cuts and, secondly, enacting tax rates which finally have the wealthy "paying their fair share" (as opposed to their previous practice of selfishly only paying what tax law stipulated), my charitable dollars are clearly not needed any longer. Washington is now free to redistribute wealth in a manner of THEIR choosing. 

Hurray! 

I selected the entities listed above as future recipients of my cash because I have heard esteemed leaders like Senator Feinstein, Governor Cuomo, Senator Schumer, President Obama and others say, essentially, that gun rights organizations need to change. I take them at their word. Hopefully, my dollars will help facilitate that change. I can and will still contribute my time and energy to worthy local endeavors. Volunteerism is a wonderful way to make a positive change. But, my dollars are going elsewhere in the future. 

I urge others to consider the same course of action. As my grandmother always told me; "charity begins at home." Maybe there is merit to a "nanny state" after all. 


************************************************** 
30. Times Dispatch holds gun-control town hall in a gun-free zone - duh. 
************************************************** 

Tomorrow, Monday, January 29, the Richmond Times-Dispatch is holding a town hall meeting on gun control in their GUN-FREE ZONE office building. 

In their advertisement for the event, they underline that guns are not welcome on their property. They claim they want both sides to participate, while telling gun owners to take a hike right off the bat. 

No, thanks. 

Next time they do something like this, they need to either suspend that rule or hold it somewhere that respects the rights of Americans.