FIREARMS REFRESHER COURSE

FIREARMS REFRESHER COURSE:

"Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not."~ Thomas Jefferson(This is why Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton want gun control so badly! )

FIREARMS REFRESHER COURSE:
1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
2. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.
3. Colt: The original point and click interface.
4. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.
5. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?
6. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.
7. Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.
8. If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.
9. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.
10. The United States Constitution (c)1791. All Rights Reserved.
11. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?
12. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.
13. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.
14. Guns only have two enemies; rust and politicians.
15. Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.
16. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.
17. 911: Government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.
18. Assault is a behavior, not a device.
19. Criminals love gun control; it makes their jobs safer.
20. If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson.
21. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.
22. You have only the rights you are willing to fight for.
23. Enforce the gun control laws we ALREADY have; don't make more.
24. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.
25. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.

Just some points to ponder.............................

Things as they should be.....

I am inspired by this young lady.
She needs to be proudly paraded back and forth in front of the Brady headquarters.

"Guard's hands "didn't even shake"
"The guard who saved untold lives at New Life Church gives credit to God for giving her cover, and boosting her firepower as she shot a heavily-armed gunman........"
"I heard shots fired, there was chaos," she said. "There was a lot of people in the church. People were running away from shots fired.
"I saw him coming through the doors, and I took cover, and I waited for him to get closer...I identified myself, engaged him, and took him down."

Thank her and God we didn't have another "Gun Free Zone" massacre.

why the gun is civilization.

Marko posts a great essay on how the gun is what makes us civilized.
It is very interesting and makes very valid points.

"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 gangbanger, and a single gay 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 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 weightlifter. 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."
Posted by Marko at 7:06 AM

I Don’t Carry a Gun …

Here is a excellent post, on Front Sight, Press by Sid. It is clear, to the point, and 100% spot on the money. I could not agree more.............

Front Sight, Press
Memories, dreams and reflections on guns, the right to keep and bear arms, M1911 pistols, snubnose revolvers, self defense, gun sports and anything else that comes to mind, by Syd, The author of The Sight M1911:

November 13th, 2007 by Syd
"I don’t carry a gun…
… to kill people. I carry a gun to keep from being killed.
I don’t carry a gun to scare people. I carry a gun because sometimes this world can be a scary place.
I don’t carry a gun because I’m paranoid. I carry a gun because there are real threats in the world.
I don’t carry a gun because I’m evil. I carry a gun because I have lived long enough to see the evil in the world.
I don’t carry a gun because I hate the government. I carry a gun because I understand the limitations of government.
I don’t carry a gun because I’m angry. I carry a gun so that I don’t have to spend the rest of my life hating myself for failing to be prepared.
I don’t carry a gun because my sex organs are too small. I carry a gun because I want to continue to use those sex organs for the purpose for which they were intended for a good long time to come.
I don’t carry a gun because I want to shoot someone. I carry a gun because I want to die at a ripe old age in my bed, and not on a sidewalk somewhere tomorrow afternoon.
I don’t carry a gun because I’m a cowboy. I carry a gun because, when I die and go to heaven, I want to be a cowboy.
I don’t carry a gun to make me feel like a man. I carry a gun because men know how to take care of themselves and the ones they love.
I don’t carry a gun because I feel inadequate. I carry a gun because unarmed and facing three armed thugs, I am inadequate.
I don’t carry a gun because I love it. I carry a gun because I love life and the people who make it meaningful to me."

Better off with a DUI than a CCW

I don't know if this is just political correctness run amok or shear stupidity by our legislators. It is obvious that the left leaning Ohio newspapers have pushed for this ability to publish lists of CCW holders for no other reason than to stigmatise the evil gun owners. We all need to contact our congressmen and push to get this fixed. It is an abomination of our privicy rights as well as a down right dangerous practice.

By Chad D. Baus
"....The latest examples of this discrimination against those who choose to exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms comes direct from Columbus, Ohio, where Senators continue to allow journalists to access the private information about law-abiding citizens who obtain concealed handgun licenseholders and publish it on the Internet. ...the Ohio Supreme Court recently decided that the names of all Ohioans convicted of drunken driving are off-limits to newspapers..... When Ohio's concealed carry law first was enacted, Republican Governor Bob Taft, long a opponent of the legislation, made news by removing the names of all former prison inmates from the state's Web site so that the convicts would not have to be "stigmatized" - this just a few weeks after he had insisted that the names of CHL-holders be given to journalists, who could then go publish them on the Internet...... Mark Drum, a lobbyist for the Ohio FOP, told the Dispatch that "our major concern is the criminal element that's using the Internet for a number of criminal ventures, one of which is to seek retribution on law enforcement."Indeed, and yet the FOP and Senate have overlooked an equally obvious danger to many of these same public officials who have obtained concealed handgun licenses - if they have a CHL, ..... As Attorney General Marc Dann recently issued an opinion addressing the concealed carry law's media access loophole. Among his findings is that there is nothing in the law prohibiting journalists from publishing a CHL-holders' name, date of birth and county of residence once they are given access to it. So in the name of protecting these public employees (and the rest of us), shouldn't SB6 be amended in the House to close the media access loophole once and for all?"

Chad D. Baus is a the Buckeye Firearms Association Vice Chairman and Northwest Ohio Chair.

You can use this link to find your local legislators, if don't already know
http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/

Lunacy in Ohio

Right here in good old Midwestern Ohio, we get a taste of big city liberal gun ban lunacy of our very own. This is so typical of how the left will try anything to ban guns. I'm not suprised he is promoting this idea, he has no intention of addressing the real problem that is infecting the city, that of gangs and drugs, these are the root of the vast majority of the crime.

"Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson is attempting to bring big-city, liberal gun control to a town near you. HB354, "..."This Bill has nothing to do with addressing the non-existent problem of juveniles walking around with guns and everything to do with banning guns and holding gun owners liable for the criminal acts of third parties."..." Mayor Jackson lamented “We need action now and we are asking for swift enactment of this legislation so that we can begin to take guns out of the hands of our children and make our community safer."..."As soon as Cleveland lays out the cases where “kids” got guns and the city was powerless to act, and as soon as Cleveland demonstrates that “kids” are somehow getting guns legally under current law, then, perhaps, it will be time to make the case for a new law"..." there are hidden pitfalls in this Bill that no one is talking about. First, and most importantly, this Bill is a gun ban. Right now, under current law, someone 18 or older can possess a rifle or shotgun for home defense, with or without another adult present. HB354 completely bans these people, who may now lawfully own a gun, from buying/owning a gun, and these people may not possess a gun, even a long gun, unless under the direct supervision of an adult age 21 or over"..."This clearly violates the Ohio Constitution."..." In this case, Mayor Jackson has not made any justification of the need for this law, so that should be the death of the measure then and there. Beyond this, a review of the provisions show that this is a gun control measure, and like all gun control measures, will only impact the law-abiding."

Understanding Constitutional RIGHTS

Just in case there is anyone (besides Rudy) that believes the Constitution ganted you the Right to Keep and Bear Arms:

"In 1875, in the case of United States v Cruikshank, 92 US 542 (1876), the Supreme Court ruled that the rights enumerated in the First and Second Amendments were not granted by the Constitution and were not dependent upon the Constitution for their existence. The Court also ruled that these Amendments were restraints on the powers of the federal government."

"In discussing federal powers, the Court said:
"The Government of the United States is one of delegated powers alone. Its authority is defined and limited by the Constitution. All powers not granted to it by that instrument are reserved to the States or the people. No rights can be acquired under the Constitution or laws of the United States, except as the Government of the United States has the authority to grant or secure. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left under the protection of the States."

"The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment declares that it shall not be infringed: but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National [Federal] Government."

"Since the right to keep and bear arms was not created by the Second Amendment, it cannot be classified as a constitutional right because, as acknowledged by the Court, the right exists independent of the Amendment. Thus, ... repeal of the Second Amendment would not negate the right. The sole purpose of the Amendment, as stated by the Court, was to restrain the powers of the federal government concerning the right to keep and bear arms."

I hope that the Suprimes are able to keep this in mid in the upgoming DC case.