Once again the NRA’s statement of “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun” is proven correct. Thanks to Bitter I now have an article that tells most of the story about the Hospital shooting in Pennsylvania. While incomplete we can see from the story that the the attacker would have been prohibited under current law from possessing firearms having been involuntarily committed at least twice and possibly felony robbery and misdemeanor domestic violence convictions. For cognoscenti it’s not surprising that this person ignored prohibitions on firearms possession and the Gun-Free Zone where he murdered one and injured another.
The Doctor is now facing trouble because he too violated the Gun-Free Zone. Legally he may be saved by the “doctrine of competing harms,” which is a legal precedent where you may break a rule when following it would create a situation of greater danger (there’s a good explanation here). However, this may not save him from losing his job as well as his lively hood if they yank his medical license as well as terminate him.
If an organization or government entity feels it necessary to establish a gun free zone I feel they should be required to comply with the same standards the State of Kansas requires for public buildings. These standards include armed guards and metal detectors at entrances. Otherwise the good guys with the guns should be allowed to come and go without being hindered just like the bad guys with guns already do. At least the bad guys may think twice knowing response will be swifter than the nearest patrol car.
Illinois seems determined to resist entering the 21st Century and recognizing the rights of its residents. Most recently is a move to remove hundreds of lawsuits over denied CCW applications from the courts and place the appeals process back into the hands of the review board that denied the application in the first place. The fact the denied applicants get a mere ten days to appeal only serves to make the process more onerous.
This is a perfect example of why the founders included the words “shall not be infringed” in the bill of rights. It also illustrates why the voters of Illinois need to be very careful in choosing their representatives. Only by recognizing everyone’s civil rights will Illinois be able to avoid costly lawsuits, that the (living) voters will have to fund.
Commando Zero over at Notes From The Bunker has a selection of used Hardigg Cases for sale. If you’re looking for nearly indestructible cases for your gear these are worth considering.
Most of you are familiar with the term Hoplophobe, but I don’t think it should apply to those who are more concerned with disarming law-abiding citizens who have gone through the extra steps of getting a CCW permit than the gangs that kill and injure dozens every week.
From his biography:
“Lead Instructor Louis Awerbuck served in 1 Special Services Battalion in the South African Defence Force, and is a member of the National Tactical Officers Association (NTOA), the International Association of Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors (IALEFI), and the International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association (ILEETA). He was employed by Colonel Jeff Cooper at the original Gunsite Ranch as Chief Rangemaster until 1987, attaining the title of Shooting Master.
With three decades of instructional experience, Louis has been a contributory adjunct instructor to the Marine Corps Security Force Bn Atlantic combat smallarms program and an adjunct firearms/tactics instructor for the Central Training Academy, Department of Energy. He has trained extensively in the police and civilian firearms field, and has instructed military personnel from various United States bases, including Special Forces units.
Awerbuck has authored five books, “The Defensive Shotgun”, “Hit or Myth”, “Tactical Reality”, “More Tactical Reality”, and “Plowshares Into Swords”, co-produced three videos including “The Combat Shotgun”, “Only Hits Count”, and “Safe at Home”, and is Tactical Consultant and a contributing author to SWAT magazine.”
I never had the pleasure of learning from him, but his books sit on my shelf showing signs of multiple readings and I have trained with some who have been his student. One piece he wrote just last year sits on my wall. It illustrates the mind set of a man who took no bull from anyone and made sure that those who meant to direct violence towards their fellow man received far more in return:
So I was browsing a site that exemplifies ‘Reasoned Discourse‘ by blocking strong opposing viewpoints, and came across a mental midget claiming that cameras are more effective than a gun in stopping violent crime (no link their revenue is driven by visits).
Fortunately Larry Correia, Micheal Z. Williamson, and Grant Cunningham have already proven that notion to be poor fertilizer.
Next time someone bloviates about “you don’t need (gun) to hunt” kindly point them to this story and remind them that the courts have repeatedly ruled that the Second Amendment is about defense of person, home and country.
According to presumed front-runner for the democrat nomination in 2016 if you support the Second Amendment and/or own firearms you are a terrorist. Add to that her call for the banning of certain firearms and accessories (that they assure us no one wants to take away) that enjoy protection under the Second Amendment and you really have to wonder; are the democrats really that stupid?
Gun control has proven time and again to be a bad thing to agitate for in an election cycle. You would think with the shellacking her husband took after signing the useless so-called assault weapons ban, that Hillary would know this. Maybe because of her age, she would be the oldest President ever (including Reagan) if she were to win the office, she has forgotten that. Maybe (
Dr. Cocteau) Bloomberg’s bucks have them convinced they can win. Neither of these are beyond the realm of possibilities, but could something else be at play here?
Ali had a move in the boxing ring he called the Rope-A-Dope. He’d make his opponent think they were winning and then catch them off-guard and beat the crap out of them. Could we be facing the same game here? By getting everyone focused on a rapidly aging Grandma Clinton, the democrats may be positioning someone else we aren’t ready for to assume the nomination. Maybe even Dr Raymond Cocteau Bloomberg himself.
Of course the democrats may just think we are dumb enough to not remember their attacks on Reagan and McCain for their age. That somehow someone who thinks Lincoln was a Senator in Illinois, was (allegedly) broke when she and her Husband moved out of the White House (can’t budget $400K a year?), and asked “what difference does it make” to try to find out why four men including a US Ambassador were left to die in Libya is Presidential material.
Either way it doesn’t matter who they try to put in the driver’s seat. If you support this nation’s founding principles they think you’re a terrorist and they want to forcibly disarm you. Does that me re-education camps are not far behind?