Thursday, February 28, 2013

School Notice To Terrorists



Sunday, February 24, 2013

Media Bias Vs, Guns & Self-Defense

At this time their is much debate as to the People's keeping and bearing of arms. It appears that most of the fire-and-light is on the part of the supporters of the fullest exercise of "Second Amendment Rights" and most of the smoke (To us a "politer" expression) is from the opponents to that exercise.

The "media" (Even FOX News) appears to be immersed in an anti-gun OR anti-self-defense OR both bias. This is best generally described in Chapter-2 of the book cited below.
The best individual illustration of the claimed general bias, as noted above, is in the Appalachian Law School case where: A criminal began "shooting up" occupied class-rooms, killing three; Two students retrieved their guns from their cars; And, took the mass-murderer into custody, before he slaughtered more,  by the "mere" pointing of their hand-guns. (This and the material below is paraphrased from Mr. Lott' book.)
       A week after this incident a Lexus-Nexus search found 208 stories about this event. Only four mentioned that the savior-students were armed. Some stories stated that the murderer was "tackled" OR "dropped his gun" after being "confronted" (Without mentioning the use-of-arms) or the statement (Lie?) that three students "pounced" on the criminal, Etc..
       However, sixty-eight stories described the gun the murderer was carrying. (Implying that only criminals, especially murderers, carry guns?)
       Several newspapers used the "space constraint" excuse to cover-up their failure to report facts, The AP may have exercised outright fraud in editing out the defenders' guns from stories.
       Mr. Lott provided many other examples of citizens using guns, by firing or "mere" pointing to defend themselves. 
It may be that "dead bodies" or massive wounding is more "newsworthy" the lesser wounding or "mere" pointing of guns. However, in this time of hot-and-general debate about guns and the Second Amendment, it would appear fair, if "politically incorrect"to report on all armed self-defense cases in every newspapers' general circulation areas. [Of course, many citizen and self-defense use of firearms are not reported to the Police out of a fact-based fear that their means of self-defense will be seized and, as likely as not, never returned to the citizen OR they will be criminally charged with some tyrannical anti-gun law (Think Chicago!). This is specially important: To poorer citizens who may not be able to afford another gun; Or, as increasing their physical danger in the case that criminals or their friends/family might return and "waste them".

BOOK REFERENCE: Lott, John R.; The Bias Against Guns: Why Almost Everything You've Heard About Gun Control Is Wrong; Regnery Publishing, Inc.; Washington, DC; 2003.

COMMENTS ON AUTHOR: There is no doubt but that Mr. Lott has his own bias. However, that "bias" appears to be based on facts, is not "Arbitrary and  capricious, based on will rather than judgement"; And, is held in in the light of our Constitution, traditions of freedom, and the basic soundness of our American traditions.

Friday, February 22, 2013

Impossible To Insult "Islam" Or Mohammed!

It is impossible to insult "Islam". Why? Because that criminal-terrorist ideology approves, encourages and often commands the use of: Murder; Genocide; Rape; The sexual abuse of very young children; Stealing from and lying to "unbelievers"; Aggressive war upon the slightest excuse; Punishment of criminals by torture (Once common to other belief-systems or cultures, but given up over time);  And, the other horrors taught by that fellow Mohammed.

Mohammed (Of Mecca and Medina, the inventor of "Islam") cannot be insulted as he taught the propriety of the above-noted evils AND, in his personal life (Held up, by "Muslims", as the finest model for male behavior) was a murderer, bandit, treaty breaker and general liar and the perverted sexual abuser of a
nine-year-young girl-child.

Although Christians have committed the above-noted crimes, they generally come to the conclusion that such acts were offenses against God and declare that truth. "Muslims", by contrast, "danced in the streets" about hearing of the murder of innocents at New York's "Twin Towers".  I have yet to hear or read of any collective apology (By any Mullah, Iman, Ayatollah or other "Islamist".

Wednesday, February 20, 2013

Guns, Teachers & "Feelings"

I am not interested in the "feelings" of school staff and others who would be "uncomfortable" with armed staff or even police officers in the schools. I am not interested in those who throw up such "what ifs" as potential law suits if some innocent person is shot by lawfully armed persons or the more-than-ignorant proposition that such armed persons will "challenge" terrorists, "crazies" and other criminals to invade our schools and massacre our children. (Such persons, even if mentally ill, look for "easy targets".)

I am interested in acceptance of the fact that more trained and authorized persons, carrying concealed weapons and on-site, reduces the probability that such horrid crimes will be fully successful in our schools (As well as shopping centers, retail businesses, theaters and other places). Such trained persons need not be peace officers, the cost of which to protect large buildings is within the reach of only such schools as used by the elite.
Unlike too many, I understand that those educators who rely on feelings rather than facts and baseless speculation  are those who have driven so many public schools into effective failure to educate our children---Who they would now make defenseless against evil men.

The basic question to be asked of the above-cited teachers is: Which is more important: Your “feelings” about guns OR the lives of “your” children?

Excellent training DVD  Shoot Him To The Ground: Tactical Point Shooting For The 21st Century as available from Paladin Press.

"Jihad" Vs. Wisconsin Supreme Court

With the primary election of Feb. 19, 2013 the citizens of Wisconsin continued the process of either reelecting Justice Patience Roggensack to a seat on Wisconsin's Supreme Court or replacing her with Marquette University Law Professor Fallone.. It is now fitting-and-proper to consider some facts about the ongoing (Artificially kept alive?) controversy about Justices Prosser and Bradley.

Justice Bradley has claimed that Justice Prosser physically attacked her. We should consider that  her position on a court does not  preclude her from seeking redress for that, alleged, offense in other courts.
1.She might have files charges against Mr. Justice Prosser in Dane County. I do not know if she did;  But, even the special persecutor appointed to review this matter would not prosecute as to any State Criminal charge.
2. She might have asked for a presentment to a Federal Grand Jury as to anyone of the far too manly Federal laws now burdening our legal system and the People. I do not know if she did; But, no Federal indictment has some to our attentions.
3. Justice Bradley might have filed a civil action (ie "Law Suit") in our State or Federal courts for the "Tort"  she alleges; But, it would appear that she has not done so; Perhaps, because she cannot meet even the lower "preponderance of evidence" test for civil Vs. the higher "Beyond A Reasonable Doubt" test required for criminal convictions.

Then, why is those unproven allegations continue to be "thrown up" at the our fellow citizen-voters?  That affair was, as might be expected, used against Mr. Justice Prosser who continued to receive the trust of the voter.

Then, alleged journalists, political assassins and others attempted to use the above-noted matter against Mr. Justice Gableman, who the sounder citizens reelected to office. Now, the same unclean crew is attempting to link that fairy tale to Justice Roggensack.

Why?"  Because those on-the-left only agree with the decisions, given in the sacred secrecy of  the voting booth, of the People when such choices fit in with their anti-democracy and against-the-common-good positions. The above-noted and unclean attacks are but an effort to make the majority of the  State Supreme Court into the camp of the Left.

Tuesday, February 19, 2013

How Many Rounds In Citizens Guns?

There is much current debate as to what limits, if any, should be placed on the number of rounds citizens should be allowed to have in their firearms---Especially those semi-automatic rifles, most specially those which "look like" those "scary" true, fully automatic, "assault rifles".

Estimates for trained soldiers have indicated that it takes from 30 (In urban combat_ to
250,000+ for Viet Nam, where rotary-machine guns were commonly used to kill an enemy.

In the heat, fear, uncertainty of a home/business invasion I doubt that we can expect too much more of citizens, even at the point-blank ranges in such events, as: The usual such "invasion" is by three thugs; And, it generally takes three+ rounds (Dependent on placement) to immobilize (Or kill) an enemy soldier or a criminal   For those who have forgotten their grade-school mathematics:  Three-thugs X Three rounds each = Nine rounds which is more than in Mr. Joseph Biden's double-barreled shotgun or the seven-round limit imposed by New York's pro-death (For law abiding citizens) Legislature and Governor.

Of course, an evil-minded persons could easily obtain a WMD as could kill or maim hundreds/thousands of persons----Without the technical knowledge applied by Timothy McVeigh in Oklahoma City or twice by Mohammedan terrorists at the Twin Towers in New York. (I will not list or describe these weapons here lest someone use them.)  Of course any such act-of-tyranny as taking modern weapons away from the People might  result in patriots using such WMD!

Sunday, February 17, 2013

Mentally Ill Vs. Dangerously So & Guns

I am becoming more-and-more disturbed  about the far too many politicians, news commentators/reporters, those opposed to the fullest exercise of Second Amendment rights and others of that ilk who loosely  substitute the terms  "mentally ill"  OR "emotionally disturbed", for the more accurate term "dangerous mentally ill" as to those who should not be allowed to obtain firearms.

It is fit-and-proper and legally/constitutionally-sound  that someone should be declared "Dangerously Mentally Ill" only after a fact-based and contested hearing before a judge-and-jury, in accordance with our 1000 year old system of laws and our Constitution. Why? Because to tag any citizen as being "dangerously mentally ill" takes from such citizens as many civil and political rights as a conviction of a felony---And, deserves the same legal protections.  

At this time there are too many government units (eg -- The FBI) who will accept the unverified and non-judicial comments of some (Anonymous?) Psychologist/Psychiatrist/Other-persons as sufficient "Proof" to deprive citizens of a basic civil right.  Even super-sane me (If, and only if,  you accept my self-diagnosis)  once consulted a psychologist, with my wife, to iron out some marital problems---Which smoothing did occur. .

 Should I or some child with home/school problems who sees a school psychologist or some active-duty member of the Armed Forces/Veteran for whom war/other-problems has resulted in s/he seeking counseling, and other like and law-abiding citizens be deprived of a basic civil right without "due process of law"? [I believe we have another, of too many  Federal Laws which provides for both criminal and civil prosecution for "Deprivation of Civil Rights Under Color Of Law" which should deal with and punish those who would do so to those who are not dangerously mentally ill.

the FBI has reportedly placed entire groups of innocent military veterans on the "no buy"  list and that without "due process of law".

 I suspect that only a very small percentage of those with "emotional problems" are dangerous. This is probably a small/smaller portion  that of semi-automatic rifles with 10+ round magazines  used in unlawful shootings.

Thursday, February 14, 2013

Some Notes On U-Wisconsin


On Nov. 20, 2012 you published a front page story with the headline "Big Ten plus two" as to expansion of that football league. The UW connected headlines I would rather see would be: "UW Freezes Tuition Fees"; Or, "UW Cuts Non-Teaching Employees By 30%"; Or, "UW Does Cost-Benefit Analysis Of Sports Programs"; Or, "UW Eliminates Remedial Education & Affirmative Action".  

Of course, all of such wishful thinking stories would be basic to the reformation of UW towards what should be its basic and overriding goal--The provision of a quality education at a reasonable cost to Wisconsin's youths.
The University of Wisconsin's most recent and most unreasonable tuition increase is a duplicate of the Democrat Party's policies which drove our State's general budget towards bankruptcy and our overall economy down.

This is due to the UW Regents and administrators refusal to make the same level of budget cuts and Governor Walker used to bring his Administration "out of the depths" and into a new day. The very token "cuts" touted by UW's President are not reflected in the "bottom line" of its budget---Yielding an insulting increase in tuition. Below are only a few real cuts as must be made to make UW follow the government principles presented by our Governor and as so recently confirmed by the People.
1. As students should be qualified for university-level academic work before admission, UW must abolish all "remedial" education programs, their staffs and costs.
2. As UW has not been found guilty, by our laws-and-courts, of any pattern of racial or other illicit discrimination, the like abolishing of all "affirmative action" (ie Reverse discrimination) programs, their staffs and use of questionably legal substitutes for "quotas".
3. All fees from copyrights and patents  payable to UM must go directly to either that school's general fund (And NOT to some out-of-control spin-off entity) or to the General Fund of the State for allocation to the universities and more-reality-centered technical colleges.
4. With the  exception of professors, building-and-grounds maintenance, police and library services fully eliminate all current jobs with "Assistant", "Associate" "Special" and "Deputy" (Such staff are not immune to those lay-offs which have so attacked so many of our fellow citizens!)
5. Freeze all pay increases for all staff until tuition increases are, over the prior five years, no greater than inflation AND our State's true unemployment rate is less than 6%.

If the Legislature does not have the collective courage to force such changes then they should, at the least, turn UW back over to the People by having the Regents elected
(eg Two from each Congressional District to establish a truly democratic basis for that Board).

Wisconsin's unemployment rate is still much too high. Student debt is at a all time high..  Many UW graduates are asking "Do you want fries with that sir?" OR leave for other States where their UW education pays taxes in those places.. There is even a (Sort of?) freeze on raises in faculty pay within the University of Wisconsin system. UW still maintains costly remedial course work for those students not prepared for university level work.  UW still maintains a costly, top heavy, load of various administrators who do not teach or "do research" or provide, by themselves, direct library, maintenance and like services.

Yet, the UW Regents have authorized the increase of the salary for the UW-Milwaukee provost to $317,362/year!

I still maintain that the best means of correcting the waste, inefficiencies and corruption within UW is to have the Regents democratically (eg Two from each Congressional District) and directly elected by the People. I note that my elected State officials have not responded to that recommendation. [Perhaps, you should ask Governor Walker and the appropriate chairs in the Legislature about that issue/recommendation.]

However and failing that, I suggest that the Regents have fallen so far from reality that they need "professional help". I suggest the Psychiatry Department of UW's own medical school.  That would only be just as that school rejects superior students for less qualified, "affirmative action", applicants.  [Why, they might find their own and very personal Dr. Nidal Hasan.]

There is the question: Are the "Provost"  positions really necessary for the proper administration of UW? The job descriptions available for Department Heads and Deans seem to "cover the ground" as to administrative duties. If some of those persons cannot be trusted to "do the job", they should be replaced. Internal conflicts should be referred to the President or Regents for resolution, giving another reason to eliminate the Provost position.

If, and only if, the Provost positions are to be retained, I suggest that UW actively recruit such from the Commissioned Officer staffs of our excellent military service academies, the various (Graduate level) Staff colleges maintained by the Armed Forces and the academies of the USCG and Merchant Marine. Those persons have demonstrated a commitment to excellence, service and loyalty which seems too rare in the academic world.
I have received a letter, from UW-Madison's "Interim Chancellor" David Ward,
noting that UW's Medical School does apply "affirmative action" as to its students.

If your (Or any other person's) physician is UW Medical School graduate AND a "person of color" or female or otherwise eligible for "affirmative action", you (And they) might wish to inquired more closely as to that person's qualifications at the time of entry into medical school and, for example,  "class standing" at the time of graduation. (IIf any such physician refuses to provide relevant information, that person's services should be rejected and s/he reported to the State "Medical Board" & their employer).

Those UW-Madison students who obtain their medical services through on-campus clinics should specially note the above.

The admission of anyone other than the best, academically qualified students to that Medical School can be considered on a scale ranging from foolishness to criminality.

 It is also another reason why the People should directly elect (eg Two from each Congressional District)  UW's Regents. Please advise me if you support this proposal and will (When?) submit enabling legislation. (At the very least, Regents should be appointed on a democratic basis with equal representation to all parts of the State.)

From information received, it appears that the Law School of the University of Wisconsin is still inflicting a "stuck in the 1960s" style of that very anti-equal-rights and anti-accomplishment called "Affirmative Action".

I expect (Hope?) that those persons entering UW's Medical School or PhD programs in such real graduate programs as Mathematics,  Chemistry (For Which UW is justly world famous) and Physics are not selected on the basis of anything other that "best candidates available" without regard to race, gender, etc..

I suggest it is well past the time when UW's Regents should stop such practices. As far as I know UW has not been judicially found culpable (At least in recent memory) of any pattern of racial discrimination. Therefore, such programs should be halted AND, in fact, all "Affirmative Action Officers" employment with UW terminated to a great savings for a stressed-out university budget.
                                                                            July 26, 2011
Dear Governor Walker:

During this time of so much heat (And very little light) as to the Federal Budget AND Wisconsin's redistricting, recall-elections, CCW controversies, local (If not State) "budget crunches", it may be difficult to focus on the cost of higher education to the youth of our State.

Yet, it is the time for you to use the courage you have and the budget-reform-skills you have demonstrated and take such measures as will bring the University of Wisconsin back under the control of the People (Through their elected representatives OR by direct election of the Regents) and insure that the tuition-and-fees charged by that dis-organization is NOT increased beyond the same inflation rate as used, for example, for increases in Social Security payments.

As it appears that the Legislature has a very firm track-record of NOT demonstrating the needed courage to do-the-job, direct election of Regents (ie Two from each Congressional district to satisfy constitutional and fairness standards; Without any Regent having any employment or other interest in UW).

Some financial controls could be had by requiring that not less than 50% of all copyright and patent fees paid to UW employees go directly to the General Fund for allocation, by the People's representatives, for Wisconsin's higher education programs. (If research now supported by such funds is worth-the-while, private investors will support such. Otherwise, those moneys, belonging to the People, will go to the various hobby-horses of academic elitists.)
                                                                        June 10, 2010


Thank you for pointing out the (At the least) inappropriate behavior of UW's President and Administration in making a very political appointment, without the usual search for a "best candidate", of Mr. Michael Morgan to a $245,000.00/year job. I am pleased to see that you are going beyond the prior limit of such stories as pointed out the questionable financial arrangements of some UW physicians to the heart-and-core of  maladministration within UW---The President's office. (It might be interesting to determine if some of  the politically appointed Regents had any involvement in this matter!)

In this and many other matters, UW's Administration (And the Regents) have morphed well away from the People AND the most common standards of honesty and decency expected by our fellow citizens.

Again, I urge the Legislature (During the 2011 term) to enact such laws as would require the direct election (eg Two from each Congressional District to insure a State-wide representation) of the Regents by direct vote of the People. As a supporter of democracy and openness in government, your editors should consider seconding this proposal in their editorials.
It appears the UW-Milwaukee Professor Amanda Seligman (Letter published 25 November 2009) is out-of-contact with economic realities as to the cost of public, university, education to poor and lower middle class students and their families. If she thinks that the debt load of such UW students is low she, as a professor, should reexamine the data and redefine what she means by "low" rather than define her statement in terms of that too common thinking error "glittering generalities".

As she will, no doubt, rush to examine basic data, I suggest that she compare the following factors: The cost of a (Full time) UW education over each of the last twenty years; The mean and median rise in (Full time) faculty salaries and fringe benefits over those same years; The increases in Wisconsin's cost-of-living and tax-loads over those years; And, the mean and median of personal income in our State over each of those years.

I suggest that she (And too many others) are out of contact as to who receives the most value from UW. It appears to many that the tenured faculty and senior administrators of that non-system have been using UW as a "milk cow" (Or, to be more modern, ATM) for too many years through both their lawful payments, gray-area payments and just plain thefts and corruption.

I again suggest that the Regents be required, by a "soonest" law, to be equally distributed over the State (eg Two per congressional district) and, in the near future, directly elected by the People. This might bring the UW-ATM over-users back into contact with reality.

"The Gun In Civilization

"The Gun Is Civilization" by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret) 

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. 

If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. 

Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it. 

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. 
Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some. 

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. 
You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. 

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender. 

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. 
These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a armed mugger to do his job. 
That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed. 

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly. 

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. 
This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. 
The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. 
It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable. 

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. 

It removes force from the equation... and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act. 

By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.) 

So the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.

Tuesday, February 12, 2013

Islam Defined---Revised

A Short Lesson As To Islam


Defining Islam---Again

1. Islam is NOT a religion; But, is a criminal-terrorist movement-or-ideology not far
different from the KKK or Nazi-Party (Sharing the same principles of hate-of-Jews and all real religions, use of violence and the other horrors taught in Mein Kampf and the Koran;
2. Islam (Like the KKK, Mafia and the SS brand of Nazism) has/had a very thin veneer of religion;
3. The false-prophet Mohammed (Who was a murderer, liar and treaty breaker, bandit and the perverted sexual abuser of a nine-year-young girl-child) declared perpetual war against all "unbelievers" (Until they join Islam or accept the slave-like state of dhimmitude), a war which continues in our era in the Sudan, Thailand, parts of the Philippines,,Fort.Hood and New York City on "9/11";
4. Most Mosques are, to some extent, funded by the most regressive, medieval and anti-civilization branch of Islam (ie Wahhabism) and use that sect's hate literature, much printed in Saudi Arabia;
5. Lying to "unbelievers" is one of the standard and common responses of Muslims to any questions, about their ideology, from "unbelievers", including before the Courts in the USA whose authority Muslims do NOT recognize;
6. Muslims "behave themselves" ONLY until their part of any local, regional or national population reaches certain levels (eg France; "Londonistan"; the Nordic nations; Dearborn, Michigan);
7. The true believers of Islam must believe that the words of the the Koran are directly from its Allah (Not the same as Arabic speaking Christians) and, along with the sayings and examples of Mohammed, are totally binding on them;
8. The declared goals of Islam include: The destruction or effective suppression of all ideologies other than itself and of all real religions; Rule of all nations by only Muslims; Replacement of all legal systems other than Sharia; Subjection of all women and all non-Muslims to the will of male Muslims; And, the other horrors of that Nazi like movement.
9. The allowed, approved and too often commanded methods of Islam and Muslims to achieve those goals include: Murder and mutilation; Rape and enslavement; Genocide;
Perpetual war with "unbelievers" until they become Muslims or accept the slave-like state of "dhimmitude"; Lying to "unbelievers" as the approved and commanded tactic of Muslims as to "pointed questions" regarding Islam; AND, the consideration of any resistance to or complaints about Islam as an attack which the "faithful" are required to counter-attack, very often by physical attack.

Sunday, February 10, 2013

AR-15s = "Personal Defense Weapons"/FEDs

I am even more confused than usual state. President Obama, Congress Members, Mayors Bloomberg (New York) and Barrett (Milwaukee) (And such others of their mayors' group who have not yet been sent to prison) and others on-the-left all assure us that "assault rifles", with large capacity magazines and folding stocks (Most of which are not such as they are only semi-automatics) are a clear-and-present danger to the People and the Republic.

Yet, the Department of Homeland Security has posted a request for bids on such weapons (With 30-round magazines) describing them as PERSONAL DEFENSE WEAPONS!

Could it be that Federal bureaucrats (Probably more loyal to their political bosses than to the Constitution)  expect an unequal privilege of personal self-defense greater than the right of the People to the same and effective means of self-defense? It would appear that the large capacity magazines and folding stocks are an integral part of self-defense weapons--At least per our own Federal government.

I note that 7000 such weapons is enough to arm a large Army brigade or small division. Against who are such weapons to be used? (B[Please remember that paranoia is limited to unreasonable, not based on facts, fears].


Saturday, February 09, 2013

Women, Self-Defemse & Protecting Others

The October 21, 2012 mass shootings in a Brookfield, Wisconsin salon demonstrate just how effective is an over-dependence on "restraining orders" to prevent somestic violence. It is only a piece-of-paper and will not stop a bullet (Or other weapons which I will not mention as they might give someone some very bad ideas for WMD). It also and clearly demonstrate the inability of the always too late police to protect anyyone and everyone from all dangerous criminals.

In true and serious cases of domestic abuse the potential victim (Usually, but not always, women) should be advised to also obtain a license to carry concealed weapons, obtain a concealable handgun, learn to use it (At the usual short range of related shootings) AND carry that weapon, knowledge and intent where ever they go.

Had Ms. Zina Haughton (The primary target) done so she and the others murdered  by her lack of effective preventive actions might still be alive and uninjured.
It appears that lazy police, inattentive prosecutors, the courts' use of restraining orders and various counseling programs have not stopped determined and murder-minded domestic abusers.

The "hard lesson" is that such terrorists (Like others I could name) are stopped only by deadly force. When the attacks of such creatures are seconds away, the police are minutes or hours away. Therefore, it is the right and, perhaps, the duty of threatened persons to protect themselves. In this era, that means having a CCW license, possessing a concealable firearm, knowing how to use it (At the close ranges usual in such matters) and carry the gun, training and intent with them at all times.

"Gun control" has never worked. There are alternatives to guns abd some easily available WMD much more dangerous than handguns or long-arm.

Legislators AND all others should remember that possessing firearms is now a constitutional right which may be limited or revoked only by due process of law.  The kangaroo court responses to petitions for restraining orders do not meet that standard!  [Although I have never been a subject for any restraining order, I know of cases where no proofs were offered to support such petitions beyond petitioners' claims of abuse.]
Please remember the "woman in the attic who protected herself and her child by (Only) driving away an armed intruder with the only six rounds available to her.

Excellent Self-Training Source: Tomkin, Mattherw; (DVD) Shoot Him To The Ground---Tactical Point Shooting for the  21st Century; Paladin Press.

Saturday, February 02, 2013

Even More Thoughts On Guns & Violence

1. The illegal use of guns is inversely proportional to the ease, in each jurisdiction,with which the People can obtain (And carry) large caliber firearms with magazines of eight-plus rounds---And have semi-automatic rifles with larger magazines, even the "scary" ones which look like true assault rifles, which are machine guns;
2. Chicago's high crime rate cannot be blamed on the illegal drug trade as other cities where such trafficking exists in cities with much lower murder rates and easier access to guns;
3. Home invasions are usually executed (No pun intended) by more than one thug;
4. In the heat of a home-defense a minimum of three rounds per  invader is the minimum needed for self-defense and defense of family (ie 3X3=9). So much for New York's limit of seven-rounds in each semi-automatic pistol AND Mr. Joseph Biden's "Double Barreled Shotgun:! [This is based on the old FBI protocol of "Two to the chest and one to the head"---AND who wants to limit the People to the minimum needed to defend their homes and lives?];
5. Universal record checks lead to universal identification (Who will trust the Federal government to erase that data after approving a gun sale/transfer?) and, as in Australia, universal confiscation;
6. The real reason for the People to have military grade rifles is not self-defense but to retain, as recommended by President Thomas Jefferson, the ability to depose tyrants; And,
7. The real danger of mass killings comes NOT from firearms but from very easily accessible WMD which do not even require the level of expertise demonstrated by Timothy McVeigh and those other terrorists at  both of Twin Towers bombings (I will not list or describe those WMD lest this note be leaked and some terrorist use them).