Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Showing posts with label Columbine. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Columbine. Show all posts

Monday, February 19, 2018

Shooting Survivors Believe In Doing Away With Gun Free Zones

Columbine Shooting Survivor Introduces Bill To Allow Teachers To Carry Guns In Schools

MARK LEFFINGWELL/AFP/Getty Images
While the media is pushing hard for gun control in the wake of the tragic mass shooting in Florida, using a small number of kids as political props, another survivor of a school shooting is pushing hard in the opposite direction.
Colorado House Minority Leader Patrick Neville, who survived the 1999 Columbine High School shooting in Colorado, has introduced legislation to remove restrictions on concealed carry in schools, The Washington Times reported.
Under current Colorado law, anyone who has a concealed carry permit "may bring firearms onto school property, but must keep them locked inside their vehicles."
Neville, though, believes that it is time to arm teachers so they can act during a school shooting.
“This act would allow every law-abiding citizens who holds a concealed carry permit, issued from their chief law-enforcement officer, the right to carry concealed in order to defend themselves and most importantly our children from the worst-case scenarios,” Neville wrote in a statement.
“As a former Columbine student who was a sophomore during the shootings on April 20, 1999, I will do everything in my power to prevent Colorado families from enduring the hardships my classmates and I faced that day,” the Republican lawmaker wrote. “Time and time again we point to the one common theme with mass shootings, they occur in gun-free zones.”

Saturday, December 2, 2017

Where Are The Answers To The Las Vegas Shooting?


WALSH: 58 People Were Killed In Las Vegas, We Still Don't Know Why Or How, And Nobody Cares

Photo by Denise Truscello/Getty Images

I am going to break the rules of the Internet Hot Take Industry and write about an old story that nobody cares about anymore. We have gone on to other topics, and then other topics, and then other topics, and other topics, etc. The news cycle moves at the speed of sound. Events from last week are a distant memory and news from October may as well have occurred during the Cretaceous Period.
Still, I can't help but recall, ever so faintly, that little thing known at the time as the worst mass shooting in American history. If memory serves, a wealthy 64-year-old gambler named Stephen Paddock murdered 58 people and injured hundreds from the window of his luxury hotel room. In the days after the slaughter, nobody could figure out why he did it, or how he managed to pull it off. So, we all kind of shrugged our shoulders and moved on. The questions were never answered.
It is now two months later and we know as much today as we knew six hours after the shooting. But nobody is talking about it anymore. It's as if it never happened.
There was a time when a mass shooting of this magnitude would dominate the news for weeks and weeks. Columbine — which paled in comparison to this — was the only thing anyone talked about for at least a month. Even more recent shootings — Charleston, Aurora, Orlando — were in the headlines for much longer than Las Vegas. Yet there were more people shot in Vegas than in Columbine, Charleston, Aurora, and Orlando combined. Twice as many, easily.
Well, I think.
I actually don't know how many people were shot. They tell us 527 people were injured, along with the 58 killed, but were all of those injuries from gunshots? Did the guy actually physically shoot 585 human beings? Or were some of the injuries from people getting knocked over and trampled in the melee? I would imagine the latter must be the case, but I don't know. It's been two months and we still don't even know how many people Paddock shot. Maybe that number is available somewhere but I couldn't find it. How is that possible? How could it be two months after the worst mass shooting in American history and we still don't have a precise and well-publicized casualty count?
And that's just one unanswered question.
There are many more, because, basically, none of the questions about Las Vegas have ever been answered. And they don't need to be answered because nobody is asking them. So the questions remain. Questions like:
Why did he do it? We were told it wasn't terrorism, even though ISIS claimed credit. Okay, then what was it? Was he crazy? But then how did a crazy person manage to orchestrate something like this? And why hasn't a single person from Paddock's personal life come forward and called him crazy? All we heard was that Paddock was a normal, rational guy. Dylann Roof was obviously disturbed. Adam Lanza had clear mental issues. James Holmes is a nutcase. The Orlando killer was a terrorist. Every single one of these guys fits into one of two categories: terrorist or lunatic. We're told Stephen Paddock was neither of those things. What was he? Why did he do it? And why isn't the media asking why he did it?
In fairness, some media outlets have sued the FBI to gain access to information about the shooting, but they could put more pressure on the Powers That Be if they actually reported on the story and asked this question publicly. Or this question:
How did he do it? We know he used a gun. Or guns. He had dozens of guns in the hotel room with him. How did he get them all in there? How did he set up a kill room in a major American hotel without anyone noticing? How did he manage to shoot hundreds of people from 500 yards away at night? Was he trained? Where did he train? Who trained him?
More questions:
Why did the timeline of the shooting change three times? What's the current version of the timeline? First they told us a "hero" security guard named Jesus Campos stopped the shooting while it was happening. Then they told us Campos himself was actually shot six minutes before Paddock opened fire on the crowd. Then the hotel told us Campos was shot 40 seconds before Paddock began his massacre. Which is it? None of these? And how could there ever have been any confusion about the timeline? There are video cameras everywhere. There were gun shots being fired in a crowded hotel. Shouldn't it have been immediately obvious exactly when all of this started?
And what exactly were the police doing? If Campos was shot six minutes before the massacre, and the massacre lasted 10 minutes, why didn't anyone intervene sometime during that 16-minute time span? Police didn't finally enter the hotel room until an hour after the shooting stopped. What took them so long? Where were they? In one of the last press conferences about the shooting, the Las Vegas sheriff confirmed that the police were in the hotel when the shooting started. It took them over an hour to get upstairs? Or were they just waiting by the door as Paddock executed 58 people?
And why did it take them a month to disclose that an officer did discharge his weapon inside Paddock's room? They insisted for weeks that no officer fired a shot. Did they really not know? Or were they withholding the information? Why? And why was a shot fired if Paddock was allegedly already dead when they entered?
And why did Paddock wire $100,000 to the Philippines before the shooting?
And what happened to his missing hard drive? Did they ever find it? And why did he get rid of it? What's on it?
We're told Paddock had an escape plan. How could he have ever imagined that he might be able to escape? Did he have some help? Or was he supposed to have help but it fell through?
Why did he stop shooting after ten minutes if he had so many guns and so much ammunition?
Why did he stop shooting yet make no attempt to escape?
And what's the deal with Jesus Campos? Why did he leave the country immediately after the attack? Why did he refuse to do interviews with any news outlets until suddenly appearing on Ellen, of all places?
And do we know for sure that Paddock was the only shooter? Multiple witnesses swore that there were shots coming from more than one location. Were they mistaken?
And here's a big one: Why haven't we seen any video footage of Stephen Paddock whatsoever? Paddock carried out his attack in one of the most monitored cities in the world. You can scarcely find a nook or cranny of Las Vegas that isn't under video surveillance. Yet not even one second of Paddock video has leaked? No video of him carrying the gun-laden bags into the hotel? No video of him checking in? No video of whatever went down between Paddock and Campos? Not even any video of Paddock at one of the many casinos he frequented? We're told Paddock spent a lot of time in Vegas. There must be literally hundreds of hours of footage of him spread out between dozens of hotels and casinos. None of it has leaked? All of it was confiscated immediately?
That doesn't make any sense.
None of this makes any sense.
And maybe it never will make sense, because nobody is paying attention anymore.

Monday, June 26, 2017

Guns, Themselves, Did Not Cause Columbine.


Columbine Dad Rips into Gun Grabbers’ Blame Game


 Print

It seems as though every mass shooting is inevitably followed by demands for stricter regulations on firearms from gun grabbers. That was certainly the case in the wake of the tragic Columbine school shooting in 1999 that left 12 students and one teacher dead.
However, there was one individual personally affected by the tragic shooting that didn’t appeal to Congress for more gun laws. Instead, he used the opportunity to explain what he believed was actually necessary to prevent future school shooting massacres.
According to Snopes, Darrell Scott — the father of two student victims at Columbine, one of whom was killed — testified on May 27, 1999 before a subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee regarding pending gun control legislation.

“Since the dawn of creation there has been both good and evil in the hearts of men and women. We all contain the seeds of kindness or the seeds of violence,” Scott began. “The death of my wonderful daughter, Rachel Joy Scott, and the deaths of that heroic teacher and the other eleven children who died must not be in vain. Their blood cries out for answers.”
Scott then explained that it is evil intentions that are to blame for violence, not guns.
“The first recorded act of violence was when Cain slew his brother Abel out in the field,” Scott continued, citing the biblical account in Genesis. “The villain was not the club he used. Neither was it the NCA, the National Club Association. The true killer was Cain, and the reason for the murder could only be found in Cain’s heart.”
Scott noted his surprise at how quickly some people blamed the National Rifle Association as being responsible for the shooting that claimed his daughters life. He set them straight on what he believed was truly to blame.
“I am not a member of the NRA. I am not a hunter. I do not even own a gun,” Scott explained. “I am not here to represent or defend the NRA — because I don’t believe that they are responsible for my daughter’s death. Therefore I do not believe they need to be defended. If I believed they had anything to do with Rachel’s murder, I would be their strongest opponent.”
Instead, Scott said he believed the tragedy at the Columbine school served as a “spiritual event” that demonstrates how removing God and religious virtue from schools left a void that was inevitably filled with evil and violence.
Scott also shared a short poem he had written prior to finding out that he would be testifying before Congress. In it, he calls politicians to task for stripping God and morals from America’s schools:
Your laws ignore our deepest needs
Your words are empty air
You’ve stripped away our heritage
You’ve outlawed simple prayer
Now gunshots fill our classrooms
And precious children die
You seek for answers everywhere
And ask the question “Why”?
You regulate restrictive laws
Through legislative creed
And yet you fail to understand
That God is what we need
Scott pointed out that all individuals are comprised of three parts — body, soul and spirit — and that the refusal to recognize the third aspect, spirit, was to blame for the prevalence of “evil, prejudice and hatred” that has been witnessed in public schools.

“And when something as terrible as Columbine’s tragedy occurs — politicians immediately look for a scapegoat such as the NRA,” Scott said. “They immediately seek to pass more restrictive laws that contribute to erode away our personal and private liberties.”
“We do not need more restrictive laws,” he continued, adding that the two shooters “would not have been stopped by metal detectors. No amount of gun laws can stop someone who spends months planning this type of massacre.”
“The real villain lies within our own hearts,” Scott insisted. “Political posturing and restrictive legislation are not the answers.”
Scott drew near the end of his message with a call for all young people to open their hearts to the spiritual awakening taking place across the country, to place their trust in God and to feel free to pray in school, despite what any politician may say to the contrary.
Then he set his sights on those demanding more gun control legislation in the wake of the tragedy: “To those of you who would point your finger at the NRA I give to you a sincere challenge. Dare to examine your own heart before casting the first stone!”
You can watch Darrell Scott deliver his heartfelt message to Congress courtesy of C-SPAN right here:
This man suffered a horrendous loss at the hands of deranged killers with evil in their hearts, but didn’t place the blame for their despicable murderous actions on the tool they used to commit the atrocity.
He instead blamed the evil and lack of spirituality in schools — due in large part to politics — and set the politicians straight on how misguided their own blame game really was.
His words are almost two decades old, but they still ring true today.
Please share this story on Facebook and Twitter if you agree with what this heartbroken father said to this congressional committee.
What do you think of what Darrell Scott said to Congress in his testimony about the Columbine shooting?

Thursday, June 12, 2014

Expect Obama To Administratively Institute Australian Type Gun Control Regardless To FBI And Pew Research Studies. He Doesn't Care!

Obama Doubles Down On Confiscation By Praising Australia’s Gun Laws

June 12, 2014 by  
 32 6
 
 0 114
Obama Doubles Down On Confiscation By Praising Australia’s Gun Laws

Not wishing to let a tragedy go to waste, President Barack Obama on Tuesday reacted to recent highly publicized shootings in California, Nevada and Oregon by telling an Internet audience the United States should emulate Australia’s infamous “assault weapons” ban.
Responding to a gun control question from a student at the University of California at Santa Barbara — the same school attended by former student Elliott Rodger before he gunned down six people and then killed himself last month — Obama told a Tumblr blog audience that a lack of Congressional action on gun control has been one of the biggest disappointments of his Administration.
“I’ve got two and a half years left,” began Obama. “My biggest frustration so far is the fact that this society has not been willing to take some basic steps to keep guns out of the hands of… of people who… can, can do just unbelievable damage.
“We’re the only developed country on Earth where this happens. It happens now once a week. And it’s a one-day story. There’s no place else like this.”
Then Obama brought up Australia, which instituted gun restrictions, a national registry and gun buy-back program following a 1996 massacre in Tasmania that claimed the lives of 35 people.
“Couple of decades ago, Australia had a mass shooting, similar to Columbine or Newtown. And Australia just said, ‘well, that’s it; we’re not doing — we’re not seeing that again,’ and basically imposed very severe, tough gun laws, and they haven’t had a mass shooting since,” said Obama. “I mean, our levels of gun violence are off the charts. There’s no advanced, developed country on Earth that would put up with this.
“Now, we have a different tradition — we have a 2nd Amendment. We have historically respected gun rights. I respect gun rights.”
Obama then went on to outline some of the Democratic Party’s gun control ideas that Congress has so far declined to pass.
It’s worth revisiting the President’s claim that “our levels of gun violence are off the charts.” They do have charts for these sorts of things, and the charts don’t reflect Obama’s claim.
Here’s one from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports for 2007-2011 that tracks the overall U.S. rate of violent crime:
VICRIME
And here’s another from the Pew Research Center that shows a general overall trend of decline in the rate of homicide deaths involving firearms since 1981:
PEW

Wednesday, December 18, 2013

Guns Do Save Lives And Arapahoe Shooting Proves This Once And For All! Had There Not Been An Armed Sheriff Deputy, It Would Have Been Significantly Worse.

Ever since Columbine, we have heard that schools should be sanctuaries for our children and events like the school shootings should lead us to disarming the entire population save the police. Additionally, the anti-gunners believe that the way to prevent these senseless crimes is to declare "gun free zones" as if that declaration would prevent anyone from bringing a gun into such an area.  


Of course, both of these edicts, from those much smarter than any of us (gag me with a spoon), only means that criminals will have guns and they will use them in gun free zones as they know that there is no one there to confront them!  Such warped thinking the anti- gunners have!

Wayne LaPierre of the NRA was laughed out of polite leftist society with his suggestion that every school should have an armed person. He believed and still believes that the "only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."  Fortunately for Arapahoe, this is what happened.  Unfortunately, one young lady was shot and seriously wounded before the miscreant took his own life. 

We have said it a number of times before, a gun is only a tool which can be used for good or ill by the person using that instrument. Any tool can be misused. You would not use a hammer to drive a screw any more than would a normally functioning individual use a gun to kill. It is the "nut" on the end of the gun that is the problem!

An armed person in a school, in a movie theatre, at a shopping mall or any other "gun free zone" is the answer to the problem and Arapahoe provides the evidence we need. There are always going to be those who will want to harm others and if we insist that there are areas where citizens cannot be armed, those areas must be patrolled by armed personnel. Otherwise, we will have incidents like the movie theatre in Arvada and the school at Sandy Hook, where innocent lives are wiped out by deranged individuals. We don't want that and will continue our fight to prevent any further deaths.

Armed individuals create a safe environment and not the opposite!

Conservative Tom



Armed individual at Colorado School May Have Prevented Mass Shooting
DECEMBER 15 2013
BY DAN CANNON
Share This Post
  
 submit to reddit       
Stock - gun in handIt was the beginning of this year when anti-gunners were saying how ridiculous of an idea it was to have more armed good guys in schools in order to prevent shootings.
However, on Friday, in Centennial, CO, just a 15 minute drive from both Columbine and Aurora (what the hell is going on in that tiny area of the country anyway?!), a good guy with a gun did just what the anti-gunners said was impossible.
According to the most recent reports about the attempted Arapahoe High School shooting, an armed resource officer at the school most likely caused Karl Pierson to take his own life before he could take anyone else’s.
According to CNN,
The rampage might have resulted in many more casualties had it not been for the quick response of a deputy sheriff who was working as a school resource officer at the school, Robinson said.
Once he learned of the threat, he ran — accompanied by an unarmed school security officer and two administrators — from the cafeteria to the library, Robinson said. “It’s a fairly long hallway, but the deputy sheriff got there very quickly.”
The deputy was yelling for people to get down and identified himself as a county deputy sheriff, Robinson said. “We know for a fact that the shooter knew that the deputy was in the immediate area and, while the deputy was containing the shooter, the shooter took his own life.”
He praised the deputy’s response as “a critical element to the shooter’s decision” to kill himself, and lauded his response to hearing gunshots. “He went to the thunder,” he said. “He heard the noise of gunshot and, when many would run away from it, he ran toward it to make other people safe.”
There you go. The only reason that this didn’t turn into a mass shooting was the presence of a good guy with a gun on the scene when the incident started.
Claire Esther Davis, a 17 year old senior, was the lone victim of the shooting. She remains in critical condition at an area hospital suffering from a gunshot wound to the head.

Friday, December 13, 2013

Wild Bill Comes Up With An Analysis Of Shooters. Should We Follow His Diagnosis?

Wild Bill diagnoses the issue of guns and gun related deaths. If he is right, then we should remove guns from all liberals. Maybe we should start with the President and all liberal senators and representatives!  Of course, Michael Moore, The Bradys (of Brady gun law fame), all Hollywood gun grabbers, Mayor Bloomberg and all the Chiefs of Police who want guns seized should be next!

Isn't it funny that all the major killers using guns are liberal?

Conservative Tom

The link to the video:
http://www.youtube.com/embed/FeTCkoXslsE?rel=0

Monday, June 17, 2013

Are You On Obama's Enemies List? If You Are Patriotic, Hardworking, Gun Owners Or Religious --Probably Are

The New American Enemies List

June 17th, 2013 - 12:14 am
obama_nixon_beach_10-8-11-2
The vast majority of the annual shooting homicides are committed by inner-city and minority youths below the age of 30. Handguns are involved in 80% of all murders. Rifles and shotguns account for less than 10% of homicides.
No matter; the National Rifle Association is now blamed for generic gun violence, especially the mass shootings at schools, even though usually no one knows of any proposed gun law — barring outright confiscation of previously purchased firearms, bullets, and clips — that would have prevented the shooters at Sandy Hook and Columbine. Gun merchants are blamed by the president while in Mexico for selling lethal semi-automatic weapons to drug cartels. But so far, the only identifiable purveyor of illegal weaponry is the president’s own attorney general, whose subordinates in the Fast and Furious operation sold hundreds of guns illegally to Mexican drug lords.
Suggestions to encourage greater incarceration of the mentally unstable, to jawbone Hollywood about its profitable (and gratuitous) gun violence, to regulate extremely violent — and extremely well-selling — video games usually fall on deaf liberal ears. In short, the stereotyped camouflaged, weekend gun enthusiast is not the problem that leads to Columbine, or the nearly 532 murders last year in Chicago. But because we can’t or won’t address the causes of the latter, we go after the former. He is not the unhinged sort that shoots a Gabby Giffords or innocents in an Aurora, Colorado, theater; but somehow is the supposed red-neck yokel that a journalist like ABC’s Brian Ross assumes does.
If the Department of Homeland Security, as is rumored, really did wish to stockpile hundreds of millions of rounds of ammunition, then why did it begin such repository buying right in the middle of a hysterical national debate about limiting access to various rifles and semi-automatic weapons? Was it not to create a climate of fear and panic buying that has emptied America’s shelves of the most popular types of ammunition? If the homicide rate in Philadelphia and Chicago is any indication, murderers still have plenty of access to bullets. Those who want to target practice or shoot a varmint on their property do not.
The CIA and FBI knew of the suspicious activity of the Boston bombers, of Major Hasan, and of Anwar al-Awlaki. And they did nothing to preempt their violence. The FBI is said to be carefully avoiding monitoring mosques, although all of the above terrorists were known by many fellow Muslim worshipers to be either disturbed or extremist or both. In contrast, the NSA monitors, we are told, nearly everyone’s communications rather than focusing on Middle Eastern male Muslims, even though Middle Eastern male Muslims have been involved in the vast majority of post-9/11 terrorist plots. The NSA is the electronic version of the TSA, which feels it is noble and liberal to stop an octogenarian in a wheel chair for special frisking as proper compensation for every focused look at a West Bank resident or Pakistani visitor on his way into the United States.
The words “Tea Party” and “patriot” in a non-profit’s name would more likely earn a negative appraisal from the IRS than would “Islam” or “Muslim.” One wonders how Lois Lerner’s IRS division would treat a hypothetical “Sarah Palin Foundation” versus “The Dr. Zawahiri Charity.”
The IRS is not worried at all about 47% of the nation who pay no federal income taxes. The vast majority of those whom it focuses on are instead the 10% who pay over 70% of all taxes. These are the would-be proverbial “fat cats” who did not build their own businesses. They are reluctant to spread their wealth. They certainly did not know either when to stop making money or when the age of profit altogether had passed. Sometime around 2009 success was deemed failure, and failure success — at least if we collate the president fat-cat rhetoric with the vast expansion in the disability, food-stamp, and unemployment-insurance rolls.
Note that the IRS is not interested in leaking to Democrat senators or former administration official rumors about George Soros’s income or the details of the tax returns of Warren Buffett, Steven Spielberg, or Bill Gates. Instead, the Democratic majority leader in the Senate bragged that he knew (falsely as it turned out) that Mitt Romney paid no income taxes. And former high administration official Austan Goolsbee claimed (also falsely as it turned out) that he too knew that the Koch brothers were shorting the IRS.
Note that only liberal groups like ProPublica leak information about the confidential donor lists of conservative activists, apparently given their familiar arrangement with the IRS. So far IRS chiefs are not looking at prominent Democrat politicians for tax violations, although for a time — cf. Tim Geithner, Tom Daschle, Hilda Solis — that might have been a fruitful profile for inquiry. (One encouraging side note: if you are a suspect white, mature, well-off, conservative, heterosexual, Christian male, you can still obtain exemption from federal suspicion by loudly announcing that you also are enthralled by Barack Obama.)
We know who was not an administration suspect in the killing of four Americans in Benghazi — hard-core, al Qaeda-related Islamic terrorists. Instead a  supposedly right-wing unhinged video-maker was the object of vitriol from the secretary of state, the UN ambassador, and the president of the United States. He currently sits in jail. The known perpetrators of the murders walk free.  In contrast, Lisa Jackson, the former EPA director, just got a fat inside job from Apple, despite creating not just a fictitious name (e.g., “Richard Windsor”) to avoid scrutiny when she communicated official business, but also an entirely made-up alter ego: “Richard Windsor” became an ideal employee lauded by the unethical EPA for his supposedly “ethical behavior.”
We also know who in the media is not a target. Not the CBS or ABC News presidents who have siblings working in the White House. Not ABC’s Good Morning America, given that one of its stalwarts is married to Press Secretary Jay Carney. Instead, there are two sorts of suspicious reporters that are considered hostile to the administration and worthy of having their communications monitored. One group are those journalists who leak information that the administration wished to preempt and leak first or who refuse to only leak favorable classified information — the bin Laden trove, the cyber war against Iran, the drone targeting protocol — that makes the president look as if he were a competent commander in chief.
The other target, of course, is Fox News, whose staff, in a variety of ways and on a number of occasions, the Obama administration has previously attacked as in some way illegitimate.
Again, who fits these profiles that our current, vastly expanding big government does not like? If you are an operator of a coal plant that creates needed energy at a profit, then beware that the EPA is after you. If you are a shady insider who wants tens of millions of government dollars to subsidize a money-losing wind and solar plant, you hit the jackpot. Ditto the suspect people who build guitars, loan money to Chrysler, or wish to locate a jet airliner plant in South Carolina. Profits create suspicion; failures earn subsidies.
Then there are the clingers, whom the president long ago blasted as religious zealots and gun-toting xenophobes. These are the sorts whom the attorney general calls “cowards”  (not “my people”) — the “enemies” whom the president advises Latino activists to “punish” at the polls, the sorts that the president apologizes for abroad as guilty of sundry sorts of past class, race, and gender oppression.
In contrast, who is not so worried about government surveillance or audit? The New Black Panthers who turned up at a polling station in Philadelphia to intimidate voters; the “farmers” who, according to the New York Times, filed bogus claims to cash in on the government’s ill-advised and poorly administered Pigford settlement; the Secret Service agents who routinely visited prostitutes while on duty protecting high government officials abroad; and the assistant to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who used her office to enhance her private consulting business.
Americans wonder whom would the immigration services more likely wish to deport: the German Romeike family that was “guilty” of homeschooling their children; Obama’s aunt Zeituni, who lied about her immigration status to illegally obtain state and federal subsidies; or Onyango Obama, who likewise is here illegally (for 21 years) and was recently charged with ramming a police car while driving intoxicated? Is the U.S. so short of DUI offenders and frauds that we must deport homeschoolers to make room for them?
There is currently a climate of fear growing throughout the United States. Millions of Americans are terrified of the IRS, the Department of Justice, the EPA, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and even perhaps the FBI, CIA, and State Department.
Why?
These government agencies have never been bigger, more powerful, and more ideologically driven. Citizens fear them for understandable reasons: those who do nothing wrong, whether in filing tax forms or trying to buy a rifle, are considered suspect and deserving to be the target of either federal scrutiny or presidential slurs.  But those who do a great deal of wrong, either by illegally entering the country, disrupting polling, trafficking in weapons in Mexico, eavesdropping on American citizens, pulling tax information for partisan purposes, subverting a government agency, or lying to the public about government activity, seem exempt from punishment — and, more chillingly, sense that they are so exempt.
Ask who now is sitting in prison — a shyster video-maker who had nothing to do with the deaths of four Americans, or their five known terrorist killers lounging about in North Africa? Apparently, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, like EPA director Lisa Jackson, was guilty of creating a fake persona. Like Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, he had a lien on his business. Like former Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, he had some unpaid taxes. Like Tamerlan Tsarnaev, he had been visited by government investigators. Like Attorney General Eric Holder and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, he lied to federal authorities — although they were not quite as high as those in the U.S. Congress. And unlike all of the above, he was therefore jailed.
Of all the legacies of Barack Obama, the most pernicious will be the creation of a rogue government that has cut off and terrified half the population — and for no other reason than that they seem to represent things that Mr. Obama simply does not seem to understand.

Thursday, February 21, 2013

Columbine Survivor--Gun Control Bad

No one can speak to the effect of being a gun shot victim more than one who has gone through that experience. Evan Todd, a survivor of Columbine recently wrote a letter to President Obama and eloquently told the President that he was on the wrong side of the gun control issue.

We could not agree more. Gun control will only effect law abiding citizens who responsibly own and use guns, it will not effect those who have terror, criminality, theft or murder in their minds. They will find a way to do their deed without regard to the laws.

Conservative Tom



COLUMBINE SURVIVOR PENS BOLD OPEN LETTER TO OBAMA REJECTING GUN CONTROL: ‘WHOSE SIDE ARE YOU ON?’


Columbine survivor Evan Todd released an open letter to President Barack Obama on Wednesday in which he offers a point-by-point analysis of proposed firearms control initiatives, dismissing them as ineffective and dangerous to Americans’ rights.
He recently outlined why he fervently disagrees with the gun control policies that have been proposed in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. TheBlaze interviewed Todd earlier this week and subsequently detailed how his experience being shot back in 1999 has shaped his views on the issue.
The letter, which speaks directly to the president, covers a number of key facets in the gun control debate. On universal background checks, Todd expresses his fears that “universal registration can easily be used for universal confiscation.” Additionally, he says his belief that assault weapons bans are ineffective and argues that the first law did little to stop violence when it was in effect from 1994 until 2004; he cites Columbine as a prime example.
“It was during this time that I personally witnessed two fellow students murder twelve of my classmates and one teacher,” he writes. “The assault weapons ban did not deter these two murderers, nor did the other thirty-something laws that they broke.”
Columbine Survivor Even Todd Rejects Obamas Gun Control Initiatives in Open Letter
President Barack Obama uses a cell phone to call supporters during a visit to a local campaign office, Monday, Oct. 1, 2012 in Henderson, Nev. Credit: AP
Of particular note in the letter is the survivor’s insistence that Obama’s proposed regulations impede the rights of Americans and endanger them by capping magazine sizes and restricting the types of guns that are available to law-abiding citizens.
“Why would you prefer criminals to have the ability to out-gun law-abiding citizens?,” he asks the president in the text. “Whose side are you on?”
Read Todd’s open letter to Obama, below.
–
Mr. President,
As a student who was shot and wounded during the Columbine massacre, I have a few thoughts on the current gun debate. In regards to your gun control initiatives:
Universal Background Checks
First, a universal background check will have many devastating effects. It will arguably have the opposite impact of what you propose. If adopted, criminals will know that they can not pass a background check legally, so they will resort to other avenues. With the conditions being set by this initiative, it will create a large black market for weapons and will support more criminal activity and funnel additional money into the hands of thugs, criminals, and people who will do harm to American citizens.
Second, universal background checks will create a huge bureaucracy that will cost an enormous amount of tax payers dollars and will straddle us with more debt. We cannot afford it now, let alone create another function of government that will have a huge monthly bill attached to it.
Third, is a universal background check system possible without universal gun registration? If so, please define it for us. Universal registration can easily be used for universal confiscation. I am not at all implying that you, sir, would try such a measure, but we do need to think about our actions through the lens of time.
It is not impossible to think that a tyrant, to the likes of Mao, Castro, Che, Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, and others, could possibly rise to power in America. It could be five, ten, twenty, or one hundred years from now — but future generations have the natural right to protect themselves from tyrannical government just as much as we currently do. It is safe to assume that this liberty that our forefathers secured has been a thorn in the side of would-be tyrants ever since the Second Amendment was adopted.
Ban on Military-Style Assault Weapons
The evidence is very clear pertaining to the inadequacies of the assault weapons ban. It had little to no effect when it was in place from 1994 until 2004. It was during this time that I personally witnessed two fellow students murder twelve of my classmates and one teacher. The assault weapons ban did not deter these two murderers, nor did the other thirty-something laws that they broke.
Gun ownership is at an all time high. And although tragedies like Columbine and Newtown are exploited by ideologues and special-interest lobbying groups, crime is at an all time low. The people have spoken. Gun store shelves have been emptied. Gun shows are breaking attendance records. Gun manufacturers are sold out and back ordered. Shortages on ammo and firearms are countrywide. The American people have spoken and are telling you that our Second Amendment shall not be infringed.
10-Round Limit for Magazines
Virginia Tech was the site of the deadliest school shooting in U.S. history. Seung-Hui Cho used two of the smallest caliber hand guns manufactured and a handful of ten round magazines. There are no substantial facts that prove that limited magazines would make any difference at all.
Second, this is just another law that endangers law-abiding citizens. I’ve heard you ask, “why does someone need 30 bullets to kill a deer?”
Let me ask you this: Why would you prefer criminals to have the ability to out-gun law-abiding citizens? Under this policy, criminals will still have their 30-round magazines, but the average American will not. Whose side are you on?
Lastly, when did they government get into the business of regulating “needs?” This is yet another example of government overreaching and straying from its intended purpose.
Selling to Criminals
Mr. President, these are your words: “And finally, Congress needs to help, rather than hinder, law enforcement as it does its job. We should get tougher on people who buy guns with the express purpose of turning around and selling them to criminals. And we should severely punish anybody who helps them do this.”
Why don’t we start with Eric Holder and thoroughly investigate the Fast and Furious program?
Furthermore, the vast majority of these mass murderers bought their weapons legally and jumped through all the hoops —  because they were determined to murder. Adding more hoops and red tape will not stop these types of people. It doesn’t now — so what makes you think it will in the future? Criminals who cannot buy guns legally just resort to the black market.
Criminals and murderers will always find a way.
Critical Examination
Mr. President, in theory, your initiatives and proposals sound warm and fuzzy — but in reality they are far from what we need. Your initiatives seem to punish law-abiding American citizens and enable the murderers, thugs, and other lowlifes who wish to do harm to others.
Let me be clear: These ideas are the worst possible initiatives if you seriously care about saving lives and also upholding your oath of office. There is no dictate, law, or regulation that will stop bad things from happening — and you know that. Yet you continue to push the rhetoric. Why?
You said, “If we can save just one person it is worth it.” Well here are a few ideas that will save more that one individual:
First, forget all of your current initiatives and 23 purposed executive orders. They will do nothing more than impede law-abiding citizens and breach the intent of the Constitution. Each initiative steals freedom, grants more power to an already-overreaching government, and empowers and enables criminals to run amok.
Second, press Congress to repeal the “Gun Free Zone Act.” Don’t allow America’s teachers and students to be endangered one-day more. These parents and teachers have the natural right to defend themselves and not be looked at as criminals. There is no reason teachers must disarm themselves to perform their jobs. There is also no reason a parent or volunteer should be disarmed when they cross the school line.
This is your chance to correct history and restore liberty. This simple act of restoring freedom will deter would-be murderers and for those who try, they will be met with resistance.
Mr. President, do the right thing, restore freedom, and save lives. Show the American people that you stand with them and not with thugs and criminals.
Respectfully,
Severely Concerned Citizen, Evan M. Todd