Showing posts with label gun regulations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gun regulations. Show all posts

Tuesday, April 10, 2018

Sanders Feels the Burn After Surrounding Himself with Armed Police at National Walkout Rally

Sanders Feels the Burn After Surrounding Himself with Armed Police at National Walkout Rally | Bernie-Sanders-guns | Gun Control Multimedia Politics


By Aaron Kesel, Activist Post


Senator Bernie Sanders joined students participating in a national walkout to protest gun violence outside the Capitol in Washington, D.C surrounded by armed police as he delivered a hypocritical speech calling for the “courage to take out the NRA” and common sense gun control in response to the Parkland high school attack, Newsweek reported.







What’s wrong with this picture? Yup Bernie Sanders at an anti gun rally with students being protected w/armed police officers for security








Sanders live streamed his speech on his Facebook page, which towards the middle featured him moving through the crowd of cheering students and shaking their hands. As Sanders traveled through the protesters chanting for gun control, he was accompanied by three heavily armed Capitol police officers there to escort him through the students.




Multiple times in the live feed, the police can be heard asking the students to “step back and move away from Sanders,” as is the protocol with congressman and especially presidents to protect them from deranged psychopaths.


This isn’t the first time that Democrats have been ridiculed for the calls to ban firearms yet still have depended on them for safety.


In 2016, gun-rights groups called for Democrats to bar any armed security at the Democratic National Convention.


“Gun owners are demanding that the Democratic party practice what it preaches,” read a petition from the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. “If a political party believes that guns do not make us safer, they should set an example by rejecting any and all forms of armed security at their convention.”


Sanders frequently makes two points about his gun record, as The Washington Post reported during the 2016 election where his opponent Hillary Clinton often used his stances on gun control against him.


He has a D-minus rating from the NRA, and the NRA’s endorsement of his opponents during his first congressional race in 1988 may have cost him the election. Sanders’s most recent grade from the NRA was a D-minus. Since 1992, the first year the NRA issued a grade for Sanders, he has received between a C-minus and F. Since 1988, Sanders has been consistent on restricting the use of semiautomatic firearms (often called “assault weapons”).


Further, as per that report, Sanders voted on a 2005 law giving broad federal immunity to gun manufacturers; now he wants to suddenly ban semi-automatic firearms.








However, for three decades, Sanders has “believed we should not be selling assault weapons” like the accused gunman’s AR-15.


“These weapons are not for hunting,” he said. “They’re for killing human beings,” Sanders stated on NBC’s The View last month.


In that same interview Sanders previously also stated that Congress should close the “gun show loophole” ― the lack of federal rules mandating background checks on the sale of guns between privates sellers.


In his time in Congress, Sanders has voted against a bill in the 1990s to require a five-day waiting period to allow for criminal background checks before a gun could be purchased, voted to allow firearms on Amtrak, and expressed opposition against a lawsuit to hold gun manufacturers accountable for the 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut. However, on the other side of the coin, he has also voted for universal background checks and an assault weapons ban more recently.


In a 2015 speech while campaigning, Sanders expressed a similar argument for common sense gun control which he explained:


vast majority of hunters don’t use semi-assault weapons when they hunt, and they don’t have magazines that shoot 30 rounds at a time. So I hope as a nation we would ban these type of assault weapons so they don’t get into the hands of gun dealers.


Sanders further added that there is a cultural divide between urban and rural America on gun regulation, arguing what seemed to be to create two different regulations for rural and urban America so that everyone is happy.


“People in urban America can not demonize or stereotype people in rural America because they own guns and they hunt. While people in rural America who hunt have got to understand that guns in Chicago and LA mean a very different thing then guns in Vermont and New Hampshire. And if we can come to that understanding and cross this cultural divide we can finally come up with common sense gun solutions that the vast part of American people will support,” Sanders said, on the campaign trail.



Both U.S. President Donald Trump and Democrats have actively argued for disarming the public of assault rifles and even allowing police the power to decide who can and can’t keep their firearms if they are classified “dangerous” by government standards.


Although, U.S. President Donald Trump has since backtracked on his remarks stating that he wanted to confiscate guns “from certain individuals deemed to be dangerous.”


Meanwhile, in the state of Florida, where the Parkland shooting took place, confiscating firearms has already taken place under Florida’s new gun-control laws, temporarily removing guns from a 56-year-old man’s possession.


Four firearms and 267 rounds of ammunition were ordered removed from the man who was determined to be a potential risk to himself or others; or as Trump would state, a man “deemed to be dangerous.”


The guns and ammunition have been temporarily removed from the man under the state’s new “risk protection” law, which is also sometimes called “red flag” legislation, Lighthouse Point City Attorney Michael Cirullo confirmed to the Orlando Sentinel.


In the beginning of March, House Democrats in agreement with Trump have introduced a bill H.R.5087 that if passed would ban the sale of semi-automatic firearms. The legislation opts to prohibit the “sale, transfer, production, and importation” of semi-automatic rifles and pistols that can hold a detachable magazine, as well as semi-automatic rifles with a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds.


Rep. David Cicilline, D-R.I., announced the legislation entitled: “Assault Weapons Ban of 2018.”


In the gun debate, there is only one video that ever needs to be seen and that’s the Congressional hearing testimony of Suzanna Gratia Hupp, a survivor of the Luby’s shooting, also known as the Luby’s massacre. The attack left 23 people dead and injured another 27 when a deeply disturbed man, George Hennard, drove his pickup truck through the front window of a Texas restaurant.


On October 16, 1991, George Hennard drove his 1987 Ford Ranger pickup truck through the front window of a Luby’s Cafeteria at 1705 East Central Texas Expressway in Killeen, screaming “This is what Bell County has done to me!” then opened fire on the restaurant’s patrons and staff with a Glock 17 pistol and later a Ruger P89.


During the shooting, Hennard approached Suzanna Gratia Hupp and her parents. Hupp had actually brought a handgun to the Luby’s Cafeteria that day but had left it in her vehicle due to the laws enforced at the time, forbidding citizens from carrying firearms.


According to her testimony in favor of Missouri’s HB-1720 bill (a law to allow concealed carry), after she realized that her firearm was not in her purse but “a hundred feet away in her car,” her father charged at Hennard in an attempt to subdue him, only to be gunned down; a short time later, her mother was also shot and killed.


Hupp expressed regret for abiding by the law in question by leaving her firearm in her car, rather than keeping it on her person. She further stated that she didn’t blame the killer or the gun; she blamed her legislators because she couldn’t protect herself and her family.


It is worth noting in Hupp’s statement she expressed that she was not a representative of the NRA when she gave her testimony.



The Second Amendment is a right of the people; if you ban sales from lawful citizens, you will encourage black market sales of firearms where the weapons aren’t registered. In such a case, all the criminals will be armed while forcing innocent civilians to be easy targets for a lunatic/lunatics or worse  — tyranny will rise, as history has proven from dictatorship to dictatorship time and time again.


Again, we will ask the question why would anyone be excited about disarming themselves under any president who shows contempt for the U.S. Constitution and due process, while simultaneously increasing the availability of military weaponry to the nation’s police? Shouldn’t we have learned the lessons of history by now?




Aaron Kesel writes for Activist Post. Support us at Patreon. Follow us on FacebookTwitterSteemit, and BitChute. Ready for solutions? Subscribe to our premium newsletter Counter Markets.


Image credit


The post Sanders Feels the Burn After Surrounding Himself with Armed Police at National Walkout Rally appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

Saturday, March 24, 2018

NJ Kid Suspended from School for Going to Gun Range with Family on the Weekend

NJ Kid Suspended from School for Going to Gun Range with Family on the Weekend | shooting-gun | Gun Control US News


By The Daily Sheeple


This is what we’ve come to in the United States. Children are getting suspended from school for going to a gun range as a family over the weekend to practice their fundamental human right of self-defense.


According to Fox News, a New Jersey high school came under fire Friday after it allegedly suspended two students over a gun photo taken during a family visit to a shooting range. News of the unnamed students’ suspension circulated through a Lacey Township Facebook group, according to NJ.com.


The kids were both in high school, but their suspension caused an uproar with a potential lawsuit against the school coming. The photo of four rifles, magazines, and a gun duffel bag was shared by one of the students on the social media app Snapchat with the caption “fun day at the range,” according to Lacey Township resident Amanda Buron, a family friend of one of the students.


The school claims that the students violated the school’s policy on weapons possession. Apparently, the school thinks they have the authority to extend any policy to weekends and the homes of the children as well now. This is like suspending a girl for wearing a spaghetti strap tank top to a bar-b-que on a day off school because she violated the dress code. Yes, it’s that insane, but that’s what their policy literally says.


The reality of the whole situation is that the school enacted an overreaching policy, which actually stated that “students could be suspended for up to a year if they are ‘reported to be in possession of a weapon of any type for any reason or purpose on or off school grounds,’” NJ.com reported further. Which basically means, the school is attempting to control kids even when they go home.  So don’t practice or exercise your natural human right to self-defense if you attend a public school.


Lacey schools Superintendent Craig Wigley said in an email to NJ Advance Media on Thursday that “information posted on social media is incorrect” and that private matters involving students cannot be discussed. He declined to say what aspect of the accounts posted on social media is inaccurate.


Since the suspension, NJ.com reported that the “Lacey school district quietly changed” the policy, scrapping the off-school-grounds prohibition and eliminating suspension-length specificity. “‘Students are forbidden to carry any type of weapon or simulated weapon to school,’ the revamped policy states. ‘Strict disciplinary action and legal actions will result if this occurs,’” the news outlet detailed.


The post NJ Kid Suspended from School for Going to Gun Range with Family on the Weekend appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

Tuesday, March 20, 2018

Forefathers Face-off with Modern Politicians – The 2nd Amendment is a God-Given RIGHT, Americans, Not a Privilege! (VIDEO)

Forefathers Face-off with Modern Politicians - The 2nd Amendment is a God-Given RIGHT, Americans, Not a Privilege! (VIDEO) | constitution | Government Control Gun Control Know Your Rights Multimedia US Constitution & Bill Of Rights US News


“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” – Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788


With all of that is going on with these anti gunner politicians (surrounded by armed security detail) working hard for their special interest groups, rather then upholding the US Constitution, the US Constitution which they swore an oath to uphold, instead, and in using the tactic of “necessity” based off of some tragedy or massacre, which, in many cases, are induced false flag events (conspired black ops Jeremiah 11:9), one must understand the methods and the language of their enemies.


“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.” – William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783


“I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787


Furthermore, when you look to the anti-gunner corrupt politicians and their methods one must ask where did they derive their delegated authority to encroach upon the God-given RIGHTS of the American people? I cannot find it! Why? Because it isn’t there (Hosea 4:6).


Americans must come to terms that corrupt politicians are not the type that you can help or rehabilitate; they are the type that you must lawfully remove, or you will lose your God-given RIGHTS! (Article 2, Section 4, US Constitution)


“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” – President Thomas Jefferson


You must fight for your God-given RIGHTS! (Deuteronomy 1:8; James 2:14-26)


It is the difference between a FREE people, and an enslaved people there are no in-between (Luke 11:2).


“To disarm the people…[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them.” – George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788


Therefore, it might be well for you to take a couple of minutes and read what our forefathers had said in their writings during the ratifications to establish gun rights to Americans as a whole, namely the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights. Who knows better what the Second Amendment means than the Founding Fathers that established our God-given rights?



A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


First, who are the militia?


“I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.” – George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788


“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.” – James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789


“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms…  “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” – Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788


“What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty …. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.” – Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789


Second, look to our American forefathers and how what they established contradicts the corruptions in the face of the present day criminal politicians (Psalm 94:20; Luke 22:48; John 8:44).



“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.” – Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787


“A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined…” – George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790


“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” – Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776


“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787


“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” – Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776


“A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785


“The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824


“On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823


“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.” – James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788


“This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty…. The right of self-defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.” – St. George Tucker, Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803


“The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like law, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance ofpower is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one-half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves.” – Thomas Paine, “Thoughts on Defensive War” in Pennsylvania Magazine, July 1775


“The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”

– Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833


“For it is a truth, which the experience of ages has attested, that the people are always most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 25, December 21, 1787 


“If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28


“As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” – Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789


“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.” – Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778


We have heard over and over from criminal anti-gunner politicians that we do not need 30 round magazines when it comes to our ability to protect ourselves.


Just a reminder to all, we do not need 30 rounds to hunt with, correct, but the Second Amendment was not written in case the deer turn against us, it was given in case our government does.


“The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it!”




Article posted with permission from Sons Of Liberty Media


The post Forefathers Face-off with Modern Politicians – The 2nd Amendment is a God-Given RIGHT, Americans, Not a Privilege! (VIDEO) appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

Thursday, March 1, 2018

Here’s What Sheriff Israel’s Deputies Did to Prevent and Stop the Parkland School Shooting (But They Don’t Want US to Have Guns)

Here’s What Sheriff Israel’s Deputies Did to Prevent and Stop the Parkland School Shooting (But They Don’t Want US to Have Guns) | parkland-school-shooting | Gun Control Special Interests US News


Gun control advocates are shouting from the rooftops about disarming the public and arming only police officers. and deputies like those under the guidance of Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel.


Why do we need guns, they posit, when trained professionals will protect us? The NRA is evil, they cry, let’s shut them down, Meanwhile, they’re ignoring apathy and inaction (at best) of the people who had the authority to have prevented this tragic event by enforcing laws which already exist.


Yesterday, I shared at length the in-house documentation of the lapses made by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the case of Nikolas Cruz. Today, I’d like to discuss the trail of errors by local law enforcement that culminated in the deaths of 17 people at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School on February 14th. After reading this article and the one that preceded it, let me know in the comments if you really think “law enforcement” will save you when things go bad.


Let me preface this by stating that I don’t think all cops are bad, lazy, or cowardly. Every police officer who I know personally would have rushed into that building and risked their lives to protect those kids. I blame the bureaucracy, the failed leadership of Sheriff Scott Israel, and the specific deputies who were derelict not just the day of the shooting, but for ten years preceding the shooting.


There were many disturbing signs well before law enforcement was involved.


Nikolas Cruz watched his father die of a cardiac arrest when he was only 5 years old. “…when Cruz was just 5, he came into his kitchen crying. When mom Lynda asked him, “What’s the matter, did Daddy punish you?,” he answered, “Nope. Daddy’s dead.”” (source)


As a young teen, his mother saw him cut up a dead bird on the kitchen counter to “see what was inside.” (source) His disturbing social media history included the following events:



  • Another report said that he “appeared to be feuding with people on Instagram — where he posted pics of his “arsenal” and claimed shooting was “group therapy,” according to reports.” (source)

  • On his Instagram, it was reported that, “In almost every picture, he can be seen wearing a black shirt or scarf over his face, to conceal his identity. “F–k youuuuuuuuuuuuu allllll,” Cruz wrote in one caption, from December 2015. In other posts, viewed by the Orlando Sentinel and Miami Herald, the high school student appears to talk about background checks and buying a rifle — which he planned to outfit with a scope “for hunting,” the papers report. (source)

  • In 2016, Cruz cut himself on the social media app Snapchat and said he wanted to buy a gun. (source)


Cruz was first diagnosed with behavioral issues when he was only 3 years old and these wide-ranging issues continued.


He had been diagnosed with a string of disorders and conditions: depression, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, emotional behavioral disability and autism, records from the state Department of Children and Families show. His mom told sheriff’s deputies he also had obsessive-compulsive disorder and anger issues.


He had counselors in school and at home, according to DCF records, and he took medications…


…In January 2017… Cruz inexplicably stopped undergoing mental health treatment. (source)


His mother passed away last November when the flu turned into pnuemonia.


His former classmates weren’t at all surprised to learn he had been the shooter. A few of the stories they told to the media were:



  • Other kids were scared of him. One classmate said he was an evil kid” and “always getting in trouble.” (source) Others said they were worried because he was “talking about his guns and sharing pictures of small animals he had shot.” (source)

  • One student told the media of other warning signs, like, “stealing people’s mail, throwing rocks at cars and tormenting animals. He described one incident in which he said Cruz “cornered a squirrel and was trying to throw rocks at it and kill it.” (source)

  • Another student said she…” noticed him holding his crotch during class. “I looked close and I saw he was holding a dead bird near his genitalia,” Hemans said. “I saw some feathers and I knew it was a bird. That was disturbing.” (source)

  • Students were not surprised when they learned Cruz was the shooter. One told the media, “I can’t say I was shocked. He seemed like the kind of kid who would do something like this.” Others agreed, saying “Everyone predicted it.” (source)

  • Cruz was cited as having joked about shooting up the school previously. “Cruz said he talked a lot about having fun with firearms, so much so that some joked that if anyone were to attack the school, it would probably be him.” Others stated that he “threatened to bring the guns to school multiple times” and that he “threw jokes around that he’d be the one to shoot up the school.” (source)


Cruz was transferred between 6 schools in three years and was always in trouble. “Teachers and other students said he kicked doors, cursed at teachers, fought with and threatened classmates and brought a backpack with bullets to school. He collected a string of discipline for profanity, disobedience, insubordination, and disruption.” (source)


Cruz was expelled from Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School for disciplinary issues. (source)


Law enforcement officers also ignored the warning signs and never took actions before the murders occurred.


For the sake of ease, I’ll just list these blunders off in bullet form.



  • The local sheriff’s office – you know, the one with the deputies who stood outside and hid behind a car while children were being massacred, has a record of 45 calls about Cruz and his brother between the years of 2008-2017. Sheriff Israel disputes this number and says it was “only” 23 calls, but CNN reports that the documents prove that number is indeed 45 calls. (source)

  • The first call to law enforcement about Nikolas Cruz occurred when the boy was only 9 years old. (source)

  • The emergencies calls included a “mentally ill person,” “child/elderly abuse,” “domestic disturbance” and “missing person.” (source)

  • Police documents said, “The incident reports, which are as recent as September 2016, describe Cruz as suffering from mental illness and being “emotionally handicapped,” and being on behavioral medication. One notes, “He has mentioned in the past that he would like to purchase a firearm.” (source)


The people around Cruz pleaded with law enforcement to recognize that the boy was a real threat with numerous reports.



  • In 2014, someone accused him of shooting a chicken with a BB gun.

  • Records show that in 2016, a neighbor warned the sheriff’s office of an Instagram post in which Cruz said he “planned to shoot up the school.” This week, Joelle Guarino told CNN she placed the 911 call and had begged the sheriff’s office to intervene. She was told there was nothing deputies could do until Cruz actually did something, she said.

  • Later that year, an unidentified peer counselor alerted the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School’s school resource deputy that Cruz “possibly” drank gasoline “in an attempt to commit suicide,” was “cutting himself,” and “wished to purchase a gun.”

  • On November 1, the day his mother died, Broward Sheriff’s Office received a call from Lynda Cruz’s cousin, who warned deputies that Cruz had rifles and pleaded for them to “recover these weapons.”

  • On November 30, the sheriff’s office received a call from a tipster in Massachusetts who warned them Cruz was “collecting guns and knives,” and “could be a school shooter in the making.” Records show the deputy “referred caller to the Palm Beach Sheriff’s Office,” which had jurisdiction over Cruz’s temporary home with a family friend.


But it appears that their calls to the Sheriff’s office fell on deaf ears. Had any of these encounters been followed up with the appropriate actions, Cruz’s name would have been in a database and he wouldn’t have been able to legally purchase a firearm.


Then, 4 armed deputies stood outside and hid while children were massacred.


The next part of this tale is even more disturbing. On the day of the shooting, an armed, uniformed Sheriff’s deputy was on site and never even entered the building.



  • First, there was the armed deputy who served as the school’s resource officer. He was on the scene and considered himself a hero because he called it in. However, the armed man with 33 years of experience with the sheriff’s office never even entered the building because he says he thought the gunfire was happening outside so he “took up a tactical position.”

  • Ironically, Peterson was Broward County’s 2014 School Resource Officer of the Year, hailed then for his “reliability in handling issues with tact and judgment,” CBS2’s Dick Brennan reported. (source)

  • Peterson has defended his actions in a statement delivered by his attorney. “the allegations that Mr. Peterson was a coward and that his performance, under the circumstances, failed to meet the standards of police officers are patently untrue. Mr. Peterson is confident that his actions on that day were appropriate under the circumstances and that the video (together with the eye-witness testimony of those on the scene) will exonerate him of any sub-par performance…” (source)


Sheriff Israel strongly denounced Peterson but denies any responsibility for the deputy’s inaction.


“As I said, I’m the Sheriff, my name’s on the door,” Israel said. “The people responsible are the ones who took the calls and didn’t follow up on them, as it was with the FBI, as it was with any person.”


“Leaders are responsible for the agency, but leaders are not responsible for a person,” Israel told the station. “I gave him a gun. I gave him a badge. I gave him the training. If he didn’t have the heart to go in, that’s not my responsibility.” (source)


However, it turns out that Peterson wasn’t the only person from the Sheriff’s department who did nothing. Sheriff Israel’s men were the first on the scene.


When Coral Springs police officers arrived, they were shocked to discover that the deputies had not yet entered the building. 130 officers from the Coral Springs PD responded and commendably, raced into the building immediately. (source)


Zero Hedge reported:


Some Coral Springs police were stunned and upset that the four original Broward County Sheriff’s deputies who were first on the scene did not appear to join them as they entered the school, Coral Springs sources tell CNN. It’s unclear whether the shooter was still in the building when they arrived.


The four Broward Sheriff’s deputies, including fired High School Resource Officer Scot Peterson, had their pistols drawn from behind the safety of their vehicles, and “not one of them had gone into the school,” according to shocked Coral Springs police.


The Coral Springs officers, meanwhile, entered the building soon after they arrived on scene to confront the shooter, while the four Broward County Sheriff’s deputies remained outside until two more officers arrived on scene along with an officer from neighboring Sunrise city.


What these Coral Springs officers observed — though not their feelings about it — will be released in a report, likely next week. Sources cautioned that tapes are currently being reviewed and official accounts could ultimately differ from recollections of officers on the scene.


Many have asked the question of whether these deputies were cowards or if they were ordered to stand down to push an agenda.


The Coral Springs PD was definitely not pleased with the deputies’ lack of participation…or their glory-hogging.


The resentment among Coral Springs officials toward Broward County officials about what they perceived to be a dereliction of duty may have reached a boiling point at a vigil the night of February 15, where, in front of dozens of others, Coral Springs City Manager Mike Goodrum confronted Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel. A source familiar with the conversation tells CNN that Goodrum was upset that the Broward deputies had remained outside the school while kids inside could have been bleeding out, among other reasons…


…Coral Springs Police Chief Tony Pustizzi addressed some of the concerns voiced by his officers in an internal email obtained by CNN that said, among other items, “I understand that another agency has given the impression that it had provided the majority of the rescue efforts, and that the tremendous work of the Coral Springs Police and Fire Departments has not been recognized. (source)


While taking all the credit, Sheriff Israel takes no responsibility for the botched work of his office and somehow blames the NRA for the entire debacle.


At a televised town hall last week, Israel took no responsibility for the failures of his department.  Instead he presented himself as the protector of the public while suggesting the NRA is a direct threat.


“You won’t be on [our] side, until you start pushing for less guns,” he told NRA spokesperson Dana Loesch.


This is troubling because even as he stood on that stage, Sheriff Israel knew–though his audience didn’t—that one of his officers took cover in the parking lot and left the shooter to roam the school halls. The very strategy Israel was advocating—rely on the police for your personal safety, not armed citizens—had failed, and he knew it. When the facts came out later in the week, Sheriff Israel’s performance appeared shockingly dishonest.


Instead of apologizing, however, Sheriff Israel doubled down, bragging Sunday morning that he has provided “amazing leadership” to Broward County.  “I have led this county proudly… it’s not the responsibility of the general or the president, if you have a deserter.”


High self-praise for a law enforcement official who just had 17 people killed on his watch. (source)


I couldn’t make up this mindboggling narcissistic lack of awareness if I tried. In a bizarre interview with CNN explaining why he refuses to resign, Israel managed to deflect any blame and praise himself.


“I can’t predict how an investigation is going, but I’ve exercised my due diligence, I’ve led this county proudly as I always have… we have restricted that deputy as we look into it…”


Tapper angrily asked about the department’s decision to ignore the red flags…


‘If ifs and butts were candy and nuts OJ Simpson would still be in the record books,’ Israel replied in his rambling TV appearance.


Tapper then asked Israel: ‘At this point sir, do you understand how the public, seeing red flag after red flag… warning after warning… they hear that your office didn’t even initiate a report?! How could there not even be a report on this?’


Israel replied: ‘Well, if that’s accurate Jake, there needed to be a report and that’s what we’re looking into.’


He pointed the blame to officer Peterson, who he said was wrong by failing to forward the reports to Homeland Security or the Violent Crimes Unit. (source)



It’s interesting, although not related to this story,  to note that Sheriff Israel has previously been accused of corruption, allegations to which he responded with fun phrases like, “”What have I done differently than Don Shula or Abraham Lincoln or Martin Luther King, Gandhi?” and “Lions don’t care about the opinions of sheep.” (source)


Would you trust Sheriff’s Israel’s deputies to protect you?


Meanwhile, people are loudly demonizing gun owners and the NRA on social and mainstream media, while suggesting we all hand over our weapons so these yahoos can “protect us.” Sheriff Israel himself has a history of being vocally anti-gun, “opposing open-carry legislation and one law that would allow concealed weapons on campuses.” (source)


So basically, he opposed anything that might have saved those kids.


The lack of logic in this premise is truly astounding, but one thing is blatantly clear. If you need to protect yourself, chances are that you’ll be completely on your own. And I’m improving my chances of survival by being armed because I certainly can’t depend on folks like Sheriff Israel and his team.


The post Here’s What Sheriff Israel’s Deputies Did to Prevent and Stop the Parkland School Shooting (But They Don’t Want US to Have Guns) appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

Wednesday, February 28, 2018

These Companies Still Support the NRA

These Companies Still Support the NRA | nra | Economy & Business Gun Control US News


This morning when I was reading the headlines, I came across one that talked about the companies which still supported the NRA after all the ridiculous boycotts that caused other businesses to withdraw their support. I eagerly clicked the link and saw this sub-headline:



Come for the discounts, stay for the opposition to common sense gun laws.



What???


Of course, then I saw that it was ThinkProgress and wasn’t surprised anymore, but I figured I should make my own list that was a bit more positive than their dismal droning, blaming the guiltless NRA instead of the FBI or the other law enforcement agencies that actually WERE at fault for not stopping the school shooting in Florida that took the lives of 17 people on Valentine’s Day.


For more information, read Part 1 and Part 2 of my investigation into the shooting.


*Climbs off soapbox.*


In the article, Josh Israel (any relation to Sheriff Scott Israel?) and Kira Lerner ranted:


After the shooting in Parkland, Florida, the NRA has been the focus of renewed national attention, as the group continues to successfully block any legislation to curb gun violence on the national level. Dallas’ mayor pro tem told the NRA Monday that the group will be “met with opposition” if it holds its scheduled May conference in his city. And over the weekend, hundreds of people gathered outside the group’s Virginia headquarters to hold a vigil and protest.


ThinkProgress asked more than two dozen corporations that offer incentives to NRA members whether they plan to continue their relationships with the gun lobby. A growing number of those companies have ended their relationship with the NRA since this list was initially published. (source)


Anyway, the following companies haven’t caved to pressure and continue to support the NRA. If you get a chance, you can support them in return.



Shots fired.


Many other businesses have severed ties with the NRA or have announced plans to do so.


The NRA denounced those companies in a statement, saying:


“Some corporations have decided to punish NRA membership in a shameful display of political and civic cowardice.


Let it be absolutely clear. The loss of a discount will neither scare nor distract one single NRA member from our mission to stand and defend the individual freedoms that have always made America the greatest nation in the world.” (source)


The companies which have caved to the public pressure of websites like ThinkProgress are:



  • Alamo Rental Cars

  • Allied Van Lines

  • Avis Rental Cars

  • Budget Rental Cars

  • Chubb (they underwrote carry insurance for gun owners)

  • Delta Airlines

  • Enterprise Rental Cars

  • First National Bank of Omaha

  • Hertz Rental Cars

  • LifeLock

  • Lockton (they underwrote carry insurance for gun owners)

  • MetLife

  • National Rental Cars

  • North American Van Lines

  • Republic Bank

  • Securian Financial Group

  • SimpliSafe

  • Starkey Hearing Technologies

  • Symantec (the company that produces Norton Antivirus software)

  • Teledoc

  • TrueCar

  • United Airlines

  • Wild Apricot


ThinkProgress smugly concluded:


In early 2013, weeks after the Sandy Hook shooting, ThinkProgress published a similar list. Since that time, several companies have discontinued their relationships with the pro-gun group.  Following a grassroots pressure campaign led by the global advocacy group Avaaz.org, both Best Western and Wyndham hotels stopped offering an NRA discount…


…A similar pressure campaign by a coalition of LGBTQ rights groups and gun violence prevention organizations began pressuring FedEx to do the same in 2016, but has not yet had success. (source)


It’s astonishing to me that the NRA is being publicly crucified, yet none of these people are talking about the failures of the FBI, the Broward County Sheriff’s office, or the local police to follow the laws that are already on the books.


Then again, I guess it isn’t really that astonishing at all. But it certainly demonstrates where their priorities are.


The post These Companies Still Support the NRA appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

Sunday, December 17, 2017

The Gun Bill That Is Going Through Congress Could Significantly Increase The Number Of Americans Banned From Buying Guns

The Gun Bill That Is Going Through Congress Could Significantly Increase The Number Of Americans Banned From Buying Guns | Capitol-Building-In-Washington | Government Control Gun Control Losing Rights Politics Sleuth Journal Special Interests US Congress


When news that a “concealed-carry reciprocity law” had been passed by the U.S. House of Representatives, gun owners all over the nation rejoiced.  But what most people didn’t realize is that there had been a last minute change to the bill that could substantially increase the number of Americans that are banned from buying guns.  This poison pill completely ruins the bill, and it must be voted down.  What we need is a clean “concealed-carry reciprocity bill” that does not include “Fix-NICS” in it.


Let’s start at the beginning.  Last week, gun owners were elated when the House passed a bill that would enable them “to legally carry concealed weapons across state lines”


Republicans rammed a bill through the House on Wednesday that would make it easier for gun owners to legally carry concealed weapons across state lines, the first significant action on guns in Congress since mass shootings in Nevada and Texas killed more than 80 people.


The House approved the bill, 231-198, largely along party lines. Six Democrats voted yes, while 14 Republicans voted no.


The measure would allow gun owners with a state-issued concealed-carry permit to carry a handgun in any state that allows concealed weapons. It now goes to the Senate.


It would be easy to assume that since virtually every single Republican voted for this bill that it must be a good thing.


But it turns out that a change was inserted into the bill at the last moment that many lawmakers never read.  According to Fox News, the bill “contained an 11th-hour change to help states and agencies enter such data as criminal and domestic-violence convictions into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System for gun purchases”.


A few member of the House immediately figured out what was going on and decided to vote against the bill.  One of them was U.S. Rep. Louie Gohmert


Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) explained on Wednesday that he could not support national reciprocity because House Leadership added the gun control expansions of “Fix-NICS” to it.


“Fix-NICS” is a measure Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Chris Murphy (D-CT), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), and John Cornyn (R-TX) support. It responds to the Air Force’s failure to report Devin Kelley’s criminal history by expanding the number of people who will be barred from gun possession going forward.


So exactly how many people could be “barred from gun possession going forward”?


Well, according to Gun Owners Of America, even people with “unpaid traffic tickets” could be banned from owning guns under this bill…


The goal of the Cornyn-Feinstein-Murphy-Schumer bill is to force every single potential NICS name to be sent to the FBI’s NICS system.


It was prompted by reports that the Air Force did not send the name of the Sutherland Springs shooter to NICS — even though he certainly could have gotten a firearm in a wide variety of ways, even if he had been in NICS, and even though his carnage was stopped by the real solution to violence … a good guy with a gun.


The problem is that, because of this isolated horror story, the Cornyn bill could add the names of millions of additional law-abiding Americans to NICS.


You already know of the 257,000 veterans who have lost their rights because of a bad experience in Iraq.


You already know that 95% of NICS denials are “false positives.”


And you probably also know that “Fix NICS” would require that the rolls of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, and ObamaCare be trolled for recipients with PTSD, ADHD, or Alzheimer’s — that is, people who have had guardians appointed.


What you may not know is that the SECOND LARGEST CATEGORY of prohibited persons is “fugitives from justice” — and that a good portion of these are Americans who have UNPAID TRAFFIC TICKETS.


Needless to say, I would have voted against this bill, and as a member of CongressI will never compromise on the 2nd Amendment even a single inch.  If you believe in what we are trying to do, I hope that you will help us to win next May.


Even though Donald Trump is in the White House, the enemies of the 2nd Amendment are still trying to sneak gun control measures through Congress, and we need leaders in Washington that will tirelessly defend our rights.


The post The Gun Bill That Is Going Through Congress Could Significantly Increase The Number Of Americans Banned From Buying Guns appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

Tuesday, November 7, 2017

Here’s the Story about the Texas Church Shooting Gun Control Advocates Don’t Want You to Hear

Here’s the Story about the Texas Church Shooting Gun Control Advocates Don’t Want You to Hear | texas-church-shooting | Gun Control Sleuth Journal Special Interests US News


By now, everyone has heard about the horrific shooting in Sutherland Springs, Texas, in which a man dressed in tactical gear entered the First Baptist Church and opened fire. 26 people were killed and 20 others were injured.


Of course, the tears were still wet on people’s cheeks when the anti-gun folks began screaming for gun control. Chelsea Handler, struggling to be relevant, made this ignorant Tweet:


Here’s the Story about the Texas Church Shooting Gun Control Advocates Don’t Want You to Hear | Chelsea-Handler-on-Twitter | Gun Control Sleuth Journal Special Interests US News



If the pro-gun control people want to blame someone besides the man in there pulling the trigger, the man who illegally got a weapon, maybe they should look in the mirror. Maybe they should consider their own complicity in making guns more difficult for law-abiding citizens to carry. Maybe they should look at their part in this war on guns and gun owners. Perhaps their derision played a part in seeing to it that no one in that church had the means to stop that killer.


If these folks had their way, none of us would be allowed to be armed…except, of course, the criminals who wouldn’t follow the laws anyway. The New York Times published an op-ed solemnly titled, “It’s Not Too Soon to Debate Gun Control” immediately on the heels of the shooting. Okay. If that’s what you want, then here’s my side of the debate. And it’s based on facts, not on emotional rhetoric.


Let’s be honest. The person to blame for this tragedy was the shooter.


Devin Patrick Kelley got his gun illegally.


It’s essential to note that the shooter was dishonorably discharged from the Air Force for assaulting his wife and child, and due to this, it is illegal for him to have a gun.


Huh. What a shock. A criminal who broke the law (by lying on his background check) and got a gun.


Let me just emphasize that the shooter circumvented our existing gun laws and got a gun anyway.


Because people who are going to commit a crime like shooting 46 people do not worry about silly things like lying on a background check.


A good guy with a gun stopped a bad guy with a gun.


What the gun-control people are missing is that it was a neighbor with a gun who ended this cowardly attack on unarmed churchgoers. This is the part of the story that gun control advocates don’t want you to hear. It’s the part that they conveniently ignore while screaming that guns are the problem.


If it hadn’t been for two brave men and judicious marksmanship, Kelley’s killing spree could have continued. There could be more dead bodies in Sutherland Springs, Texas this morning.


Because the police didn’t show up until this situation was long over.


Here’s the part of the story we SHOULD be talking about.


According to the Texas Department of Public Safety, church neighbor Stephen Willeford “grabbed his rifle and engaged the suspect.” Willeford was alerted by his daughter, who called him and said that a man in body armor was shooting people in the church.



He grabbed his gun and bravely headed down to confront the killer.


The local said that while Willeford has no military experience, he is an excellent shot, and when he came face to face with Kelley, he didn’t hesitate; he shot in between Kelley’s body armor, hitting him in his side.


The 26-year-old had dropped his Ruger assault rifle and climbed in an SUV to flee the scene.


He said that Kelley had taken a hostage in the passenger seat as he fled. (source)



What would have happened if Willeford hadn’t taken action?


Authorities said the armed neighbor may have saved countless lives by opening fire on Kelley and forcing him to flee the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs during his 11:30 a.m. massacre. (source)


Another report said that Kelley had “several guns” in his SUV. What was Kelley planning to do once he left the church? We’ll never know because of two brave men.


The story didn’t end there in the church parking lot, though.


Another local resident, Johnnie Langendorff, happened to drive through the intersection when Willeford and Kelley were exchanging gunfire. He picked Willeford up, and the two men pursued the shooter.


“The shooter of the church had taken off, fled in his vehicle, the other gentleman came and said we need to pursue him. And that’s what I did…


He got a little bit of a jump on us. We were doing about 95 (mph) down (Route) 539 going around traffic and everything. Eventually he came to a kind of a slowdown and after that we got within just a few feet of him and then he got off the road.


He just lost control. That is when I put the vehicle in park and I was still on the phone to dispatch (police). The other gentleman jumped out and has his rifle drawn on him. He didn’t move after that.”


Police arrived within five to seven minutes to the location where the shooter stopped. (source)


Let me repeat, it took police FIVE TO SEVEN MINUTES to get to the location where the shooter stopped. This was after the two men had chased him for a distance and after a man engaged the shooter and after he had opened fire on a church.  So we have to be talking about at least 10 minutes. At least.


Here’s the Story about the Texas Church Shooting Gun Control Advocates Don’t Want You to Hear | texas-church-shooting-suv2-ksat-171105_4x3_992-768x576 | Gun Control Sleuth Journal Special Interests US News


photo credit

Kelley must have realized there was no escape and shot himself after he ran off the road.



The man who killed at least 26 people in a Baptist church in a rural Texas town on Sunday died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound, Wilson County Sheriff Joe Tackitt told CBS News in an interview on Monday morning….


“There was some gunfire exchanged, I believe, on the roadway also, and then (the shooter’s vehicle) wrecked out,” said Tackitt. “At this time we believe that he had a self-inflicted gunshot wound, after he wrecked out.” (source)



So tell me again about how civilized people should call the police and wait for help. Tell me about how dangerous it is for Americans to have guns and take the responsibility for their own safety.


What if someone in that church had been carrying concealed?


Maybe today, I wouldn’t be writing about dead children. A two-year-old. A six-year-old. An 8-year-old. A fourteen-year-old.


Maybe I wouldn’t be writing about 26 people who were mowed down by a criminal who had a gun illegally. Maybe when Kelley stopped to reload, someone could have stopped him.


Instead, the people in that church were powerless victims.


The post Here’s the Story about the Texas Church Shooting Gun Control Advocates Don’t Want You to Hear appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

Sunday, October 22, 2017

An Open Letter to Women Who Want Gun Control (VIDEO)

An Open Letter to Women Who Want Gun Control (VIDEO) | Capture3 | Civil Rights Gun Control Multimedia Special Interests US News


Dear Women Who Are Fighting for Gun Control:


Please give me just a few moments of your time so I can talk to you, one woman to another. We truly do want the same things. This is not an attack on you or the things you believe in, but rather, a discussion of empowerment.


I am sure that your heart is in the right place when you tell us that guns should be banned for the good of humanity. You see the aftermath of horrific events like the Pulse nightclub shooting and the concert in Las Vegas and you are horrified. I am too. You are convinced that the world would be a better place with no guns at all. I am not.


You hear the impassioned pleas from celebrities like the ones in the video below and you are inspired to take action to make America a safer place.




But I hear this and the hypocrisy of it makes me sick.


These people in the videos who are begging for our Second Amendment rights to be abolished to do not have anything in common with women like you and me. They are protected by gated communities with armed patrols. They have burly bodyguards. They have monitored home security systems that would rival that of the Louvre. Many of them are insulated and protected in their homes, their cars, and when they’re walking down the street.


But are you?


Or do you have nothing more than a locked door and the hope that the police will arrive in time standing between you and a home invader? Do you put your keys between your fingers when you walk through a parking garage, hoping that if someone tries to rape you that you’ll be able to gouge his eyes with it an run screaming for help? What would you do if someone broke into your home and was heading to your child’s room with the intent of doing harm? Would you just hide and pray that the stall door of the bathroom you were hiding in didn’t get kicked open by the criminal who had just opened fire on the restaurant you were in?


What is your plan?


I believe that your premise (personal safety) is valid but your conclusion (gun control) is wrong.


I beg you to read the following with an open mind.


Hiding, calling 911, and hoping you can inflict enough damage to protect yourself from someone, bigger, stronger, and meaner than you is not much of a plan.


If you really, truly want to be safe, equal, and empowered, what you need to do is get a gun, learn how to use it, and carry it everywhere. Encourage your daughters to do the same. Treat your girlfriends to a day at the range instead of a day at the spa. Give your mom a gift certificate for shooting lessons. Campaign to banish gun-free, target rich zones and stop relying on a flimsy lock and 911 for your personal safety.


There is no greater equalizer against a culprit intent on doing you harm than a firearm in the hand of a woman who knows how to use it.


Let me share a personal story.


I can tell you from personal experience that my daughter and I are unharmed today because I was carrying a gun one night.


It was after supper when the dogs in the back began barking. A car had come down my long private driveway and pulled to a stop. I live way down a long country road, and my driveway is the last one on the road.  Uninvited visitors are extremely rare. We’re too far out there for the usual smattering of Jehovah’s Witness, little girls selling cookies, and neighborly drop-offs of homemade jam.


I looked outside and saw that two men had gotten out and approached my daughter while one waited in the driver seat of the car. My daughter, 15, was doing some of the after dinner chores. I had a bad feeling immediately. I knew it, because I was adamantly told by that gut instinct that doesn’t hint something is wrong, but pounds your heart like a drum to get your attention, and screams it inside your head. 


I stopped for just long enough to grab my loaded Glock 19 and for the first time since purchasing it, I racked the slide and chambered a round for a reason other than target practice. For the first time, I did so because of another human being. I did so because there were 3 men out there with my child and they were bigger than both of us. They were undoubtedly stronger, and we were outnumbered, and I knew that there was the potential for something bad to happen.


I stuffed the gun into the side pocket of my hoodie and hurried out. I asked the men brusquely, “Can I help you?”


One was the talker. He was bearded, overly friendly, and ingratiating. The other hung back. He was blond, thin, and moved constantly. I never got a good look at the driver due to the tinted windows in the vehicle. But I noticed the older, beat-up vehicle had no license plate. Another warning sign that this was not right at all.


The bearded one, the talker, told me that his vehicle was overheating and that they needed to come in and make a phone call. I said, “No, you’re not coming in.”


He asked if they could at least have some water.


I wanted to hustle my daughter into the house right that moment and lock the doors and call 911 and wait for a speedy rescue, complete with sirens and flashing lights.


But they were closer to my daughter than she was to me, so that was not an option.


I let them have a bucket of water, even though I could tell that the car was not overheating. There was no smoke, no sweet smell of antifreeze. The bearded one kept up a friendly patter the entire time, pretending that the radiator cap was hot, jumping back as if to avoid billowing steam that didn’t exist. While he pretended to work on the car, the antsy blond fellow was whispering to the driver. Without me bringing it up, the chatty one said, “Can you believe our license plate just fell off? If you noticed we don’t have one, that’s what happened. We just discovered it at the gas station.”


“Wow, that’s a shame,” I said, playing along. “They’ll charge you an arm and a leg at the DMV.”


I finally positioned myself to the point that I was between them and my child. Whether they’re 5 or 15, in moments when you fear for them, they are your precious child, and they are every age they ever have been and ever will be. Any person who has ever loved a child can easily imagine the relief I felt.


“You need to leave.”


The bearded one looked hurt. The blonde one looked watchful. I still couldn’t get a good look at the driver.


“I just need one more bucket of water and then we’ll be on our way,” the bearded one said, putting his hands out in a manner meant to calm me down.


“No. You need to leave now.” I put my hand firmly on the gun at my side.


Suddenly, there was a shift. I wasn’t the one backing away. The bearded guy slammed the hood of the car and walked slowly backward to the passenger side, while the blonde guy got in the back.


I never drew my firearm.


I never pointed it at them.


I never shot them.


But the very sight of my hand on the butt of it, and the fact that I was clearly determined to use it if necessary was all the deterrent that was needed in that particular situation.


Suddenly, a woman and a child were more than 3 grown men wanted to tangle with.


Suddenly, we weren’t weaker. We weren’t victims. We had the power to protect ourselves.


We lived on a lonely country road, 45 minutes from the nearest police station and official “help” had we been forced to call 911 to protect ourselves. Can you honestly say we would have been better off if I had been unarmed?


Biological fact: due to testosterone, in most cases, men are physically stronger than women.


Obviously, there are exceptions, but if you were going with percentages, they’d be on the side of this fact.


As equal as people would like to say the sexes are, biology defies the politically correct ideals. If my daughters were to ever find themselves in a position where they had to fight to save their own lives, I would far rather they be armed with the handgun of their choice than any number of weekend self-defense classes. Nothing is going to empower them more than a firearm that they can use with comfort and accuracy. Nothing is going to be more likely to end a conflict before it erupts into violence than seeing that the person you thought was going to be your victim is willing to fight back with deadly force.


Anyone who is against the idea of women learning to handle a firearm cannot truly call themselves pro-woman. The idea that we all need to hand over our guns and then the world would be a safer place is nothing but a silly,  rose-colored daydream.  If that offends you, then you need to sincerely think about the fact that under your guidelines, the smaller, weaker person will alwaysbe the victim.


We all have the natural right to protect ourselves and our loved ones.  Why are some people so terrified of the idea of taking control of their own safety?


There is no way to guess how many times a firearm in the hands of a would-be victim deters a criminal and saves a life. I would hazard a guess that situations like the one that happened to my daughter and me are not unique. The mere sight of the firearm at my side did not cause violence. It prevented the violence that was brewing.


If you call yourself a feminist, why in the world would you be against the one thing that could keep you the safest and empower you the most? And while I’m at it, any person who feels marginalized or vulnerable to hate crimes should be there lining up at the shooting range with me. If you are a gay person, a minority, a transgender person, or of a religion that is being persecuted, you, too, need to take the power into your own hands to defend yourself from the bullies of this world should they physically attack you.


Instead, all I see are examples of hatred for those who promote real empowerment.


Dana Loesch, the spokeswoman for the NRA, is currently moving to a secret location because her life and that of her family are being threatened in the wake of the Las Vegas shooting.


An Open Letter to Women Who Want Gun Control (VIDEO) | Capture2 | Civil Rights Gun Control Multimedia Special Interests US News


This is the “side” you are supporting. This is the side that wants to ban guns or deter national reciprocity. I had a similar experience years ago in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook shooting when people fervently wished my children dead in the “next school shooting.” For some reason, our ability to be supported by other women stops cold at guns. If we arm ourselves, it’s open season for threats of harassment, violence, brutal rape, and against the safety of our children.


If you agree with the following statements, then you cannot logically agree with gun control.


  • I have the right to keep my family safe.

  • I have the right to protect myself against someone bigger and stronger than me.

  • I have the right to protect myself when traveling.

  • I have the right to be safe in public places.

  • I have the right not to be raped until the police arrive.

Most of us are on the same side. We want to be safe. I urge you to take that safety into your own hands.


Women, please empower yourselves.


Get a gun.


Learn to use it.


Carry it everywhere.


Stop relying on others to protect you and learn to protect yourself. You could be more empowered than you ever imagined if you’d just stop begging the government to take your power away.


Please think about this.


Love,

Daisy


The post An Open Letter to Women Who Want Gun Control (VIDEO) appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.