As you know from every form of statistics that come out of this administration they are all skewed, then revised. The constant game of "hide the truth" through smoke and mirror parlor tricks has shown the utter dishonesty of those on the left. So, without further delay the following crime statistics are out (keep in mind that this administration always down plays the bad news, while amplifying positive):
From American Thinker titled "Dial 911 and die":
•2,600,000 home invasions 2011
•Equals a home invasion every 12 seconds
•3.5 million burglaries per year reported
•Each year 13% of homes are burglarized
•19.2% of rental properties are burglarized per year
•85% of all break-ins are through the door
•67% of all burglaries involved forcible entry
•38% of all assaults occur during a home invasion
•60% of all rapes occur during a home invasion
•70% of burglaries involve residential properties
•Burglaries happen between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.
•Home Invasions happen between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m.
•FBI stats show only 12% - 13% of burglars are ever apprehended.
Per FBI statics, police response time, to victim:
Crimes of Violence:
•Within 5 minutes 31.0%
•Within 6 - 10 minutes 24.5%
•Within 11 minutes - 1 hour 32.4%
•Within 1 day - 6.5%
•Longer than 1 day - 1.9%
•Time of response not known - 3.6%
•Not ascertained - 0.2% [2]
It is now startling clear that Obama and the elites on the left (and some on the right) are in a "full court press" to disarm it's citizens crying that our children are being slaughtered.
I wrote an article recently about the fellow travellers (Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam) are telling us that we do not need arms because we are protected by Police, State police, Federal police, the National Guard and the US Military.
When you take a look at those entities that are "purported to protect us" we see the alarming statistics as it pertains to the police. Then you have the National police (FBI, ATF, Dept. of Homeland Security, etc.) actually arming Mexican drug cartels that are coming across our borders slaughtering our citizens. Obama is currently refusing to secure our borders as any condition to giving illegal immigrants amnesty.
Next, you have our State Department and our CIA arming the same Islamic militants who slaughtered our Syrian Ambassador and 3 others. Obama is currently giving financial aid as well as military jets to the Muslim Brotherhood to help them cling to their Sharia state.
This push to disarm us has alarmed those who believe that now is the time to trash the Constitution as a few law enforcement individuals have bravely stepped up to the microphone to tell this administration and their fellow travellers that THEY WILL NOT COMPLY and be complicit in this unconstitutional act. Now, we have more and more law enforcement officers (New Mexico Sheriff's association) as well as members of the US Army Green Berets standing tall in defiance of this act.
Obama and his ilk are panicked as they under estimated the groundswell and in an act of desperation have given orders to law enforcement and military/national guard units to hold terrifying acts of power in the name of drills over American cities and neighborhoods in Texas, Florida, Los Angeles, Minneapolis and elsewhere to sabre rattle.
Obama has given himself lifetime Secret Service protection -- wonder why?
Things will of course unfold in one of a couple ways. Americans will fight, in the streets if necessary to defeat this enemy of liberty or submit to the yoke. Obama has purged the senior military ranks recently with a litmus test for advancement to higher ranks -- The question posed to the would be Generals is "are you willing to fire on American Citizens". If they answer no, out the door. If they answer yes they move up to loftier positions of military power.
Think about that for a moment. During the time Obama has been Commander in Chief, regular soldiers on the battlefield have been hamstrung with onerous "rules of engagement" against the enemy. Yet, he has no problem unleashing deadly force against the US Citizenry. The Obama military gives out medals for combat restraint when soldiers are faced with an enemy who uses women and children as human shields.
It is not difficult, nor are we conspiracy theorists when getting to the motivational heart of the matter here. Tyranny is trying to gain a "beachhead" here, in the land of the free and the brave. History will look back on these times and new patriots will be immortalized for future American children to read about.
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Farrakhan's Yoke
On Sunday, the Minister Louis Farrakhan continued his 52-week sermon series entitled, “The Time and What Must Be Done.” In his third installment, the Nation of Islam leader tackled gun control and his views on a “volatile” U.S. populace. He claimed that the American people are increasingly unhappy with their government and that they are simultaneously arming for war. In addition to making these observations and accusations, Farrakhan dismissed the modern-day application of the Second Amendment as well as the need — and right — for Americans to arm themselves.
“Look at the American peoples’ thoughts about Congress. What is the percentage of the American people that feel that the U.S. Congress is doing a good job. Eleven percent,” he said. “Then 89 percent of the American people are angry, disaffected, dissatisfied with their government — and you’re selling them weapons of war and the militias are multiplying.”
and
“See, the right to bear arms was given at a time when there was no regulated militia to protect America,” he said. “But now you have police well-armed, you have state troopers well armed, you have the National Guard and you have federal troops.” -- The Blaze.com
So, does Farrakhan have a legitimate point? Let me start at the end of the quote listed above when he espoused his view of history as it relates to the 2nd Amendment. Is the right to bear arms only extended to State militia or was it meant to extend to the individual. Liberal politicians have used this tired excuse for decades. So, what was the "spirit" of the 2nd Amendment? To get to this question we look to the Federalist papers of the founding fathers though last week another famous Reverend (Jesse Jackson) indicated that the 2nd Amendment was so the founders could defend slavery.
Alexander Hamilton (you know the dude on the $20 dollar bill) wrote:
Federalist #28
"That there may happen cases in which the national government may be necessitated to resort to force cannot be denied. Our own experience has corroborated the lessons taught by the examples of other nations; that emergencies of this sort will sometimes exist in all societies, however constituted; that seditions and insurrections are, unhappily, maladies as inseparable from the body politic as tumors and eruptions from the natural body; that the idea of governing at all times by the simple force of law (which we have been told is the only admissible principle of republican government) has no place but in the reveries of these political doctors whose sagacity disdains the admonitions of experimental instruction.
If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse 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."
According to Farrkhan, 89% of Americans are are angry at their government! Would it not be logical that Hamilton's example bolded above is directly relevant?
"then 89 percent of the American people are angry, disaffected, dissatisfied with their government — and you’re selling them weapons of war and the militias are multiplying"
Hamilton was even more specific here:
"[T]he people, without exaggeration, may be said to be entirely the masters of their own fate. Power being almost always the rival of power, the general government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government. The people by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress. How wise will it be in them by cherishing the union to preserve to themselves an advantage which can never be too highly prized!"
The main question I pose as it relates to Farrakhan and HIS motivation to disarm Americans of their 2nd Amendment rights is -- what does he gain? He obviously relates that in today's times: “But now you have police well-armed, you have state troopers well armed, you have the National Guard and you have federal troops." He appears to be enamored with those entrusted to our defense as adequate to deny individuals the necessity to take up arms.
But is he really? "In 2007, the Nation of Islam’s Akbar Muhammad (aka Larry 4X Prescott) appeared at a Muslim Alliance in North America (MANA) meeting with Siraj Wahhaj, reportedly “to deliver a passionate speech defending convicted cop killer Jamil Alamin." -- RealCourage dot Org
Farrakhan and his Nation of Islam side with a killer of cops.
I think we can safely assume that Farrakhan is NOT enamored with the criminal justice system (police) or the State troopers nor the National Guard or Federal Troops. You see Farrakhan and his followers are also anti-US Government. The quote above from realcourage.org ends with the following information:
"In 2007, the Nation of Islam’s Akbar Muhammad (aka Larry 4X Prescott) appeared at a Muslim Alliance in North America (MANA) meeting with Siraj Wahhaj, reportedly “to deliver a passionate speech defending convicted cop killer Jamil Alamin.” (Siraj Wahhaj has also been vice president of ISNA, has called for replacement of the U.S. government with an Islamic caliphate, and spoke at the July 4, 2009 ISNA convention in Washington DC.)
According to supporters of Jamil Alamin, MANA’s call for an alliance of “indigenous Muslims in America” “initiative began almost two years ago when Imam Jamil Al-Amin made a call for the formation of such an alliance.” In October 2009, when reported Jihad plotter Luqman Ameen Abdullah was killed in a shootout in Michigan, the FBI criminal complaint regarding members of the Masjid Al-Haqq’s role as part of the “The Ummah” was as follows - “Their primary mission is to establish a separate, sovereign Islamic state (‘The Ummah’) within the borders of the United States, governed by Sharia law. The Ummah is to be ruled over by Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin, formerly known as H. Rapp Brown, who is currently serving a life sentence in the Florence, Colorado Supermax for shooting two police officers in Georgia.” MANA’s Ihsan Bagby disputed this FBI report and indicated that while members of “The Ummah” were “anti-government,” they did not promote violence.
Of course Farrakhan doesn't want you to be armed because it runs contradictory to his visions of an Islamic Caliphate in the US that replaces our government.
So, I know that I am definitely one of the 89% displeased and angry of this blossoming tyrannical ruling party of the modern Democrats as well as RINO's who, on a daily basis, have "betrayed it's constituents", but the question is, are you?
“Look at the American peoples’ thoughts about Congress. What is the percentage of the American people that feel that the U.S. Congress is doing a good job. Eleven percent,” he said. “Then 89 percent of the American people are angry, disaffected, dissatisfied with their government — and you’re selling them weapons of war and the militias are multiplying.”
and
“See, the right to bear arms was given at a time when there was no regulated militia to protect America,” he said. “But now you have police well-armed, you have state troopers well armed, you have the National Guard and you have federal troops.” -- The Blaze.com
So, does Farrakhan have a legitimate point? Let me start at the end of the quote listed above when he espoused his view of history as it relates to the 2nd Amendment. Is the right to bear arms only extended to State militia or was it meant to extend to the individual. Liberal politicians have used this tired excuse for decades. So, what was the "spirit" of the 2nd Amendment? To get to this question we look to the Federalist papers of the founding fathers though last week another famous Reverend (Jesse Jackson) indicated that the 2nd Amendment was so the founders could defend slavery.
Alexander Hamilton (you know the dude on the $20 dollar bill) wrote:
Federalist #28
"That there may happen cases in which the national government may be necessitated to resort to force cannot be denied. Our own experience has corroborated the lessons taught by the examples of other nations; that emergencies of this sort will sometimes exist in all societies, however constituted; that seditions and insurrections are, unhappily, maladies as inseparable from the body politic as tumors and eruptions from the natural body; that the idea of governing at all times by the simple force of law (which we have been told is the only admissible principle of republican government) has no place but in the reveries of these political doctors whose sagacity disdains the admonitions of experimental instruction.
If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse 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."
According to Farrkhan, 89% of Americans are are angry at their government! Would it not be logical that Hamilton's example bolded above is directly relevant?
"then 89 percent of the American people are angry, disaffected, dissatisfied with their government — and you’re selling them weapons of war and the militias are multiplying"
Hamilton was even more specific here:
"[T]he people, without exaggeration, may be said to be entirely the masters of their own fate. Power being almost always the rival of power, the general government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government. The people by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress. How wise will it be in them by cherishing the union to preserve to themselves an advantage which can never be too highly prized!"
The main question I pose as it relates to Farrakhan and HIS motivation to disarm Americans of their 2nd Amendment rights is -- what does he gain? He obviously relates that in today's times: “But now you have police well-armed, you have state troopers well armed, you have the National Guard and you have federal troops." He appears to be enamored with those entrusted to our defense as adequate to deny individuals the necessity to take up arms.
But is he really? "In 2007, the Nation of Islam’s Akbar Muhammad (aka Larry 4X Prescott) appeared at a Muslim Alliance in North America (MANA) meeting with Siraj Wahhaj, reportedly “to deliver a passionate speech defending convicted cop killer Jamil Alamin." -- RealCourage dot Org
Farrakhan and his Nation of Islam side with a killer of cops.
I think we can safely assume that Farrakhan is NOT enamored with the criminal justice system (police) or the State troopers nor the National Guard or Federal Troops. You see Farrakhan and his followers are also anti-US Government. The quote above from realcourage.org ends with the following information:
"In 2007, the Nation of Islam’s Akbar Muhammad (aka Larry 4X Prescott) appeared at a Muslim Alliance in North America (MANA) meeting with Siraj Wahhaj, reportedly “to deliver a passionate speech defending convicted cop killer Jamil Alamin.” (Siraj Wahhaj has also been vice president of ISNA, has called for replacement of the U.S. government with an Islamic caliphate, and spoke at the July 4, 2009 ISNA convention in Washington DC.)
According to supporters of Jamil Alamin, MANA’s call for an alliance of “indigenous Muslims in America” “initiative began almost two years ago when Imam Jamil Al-Amin made a call for the formation of such an alliance.” In October 2009, when reported Jihad plotter Luqman Ameen Abdullah was killed in a shootout in Michigan, the FBI criminal complaint regarding members of the Masjid Al-Haqq’s role as part of the “The Ummah” was as follows - “Their primary mission is to establish a separate, sovereign Islamic state (‘The Ummah’) within the borders of the United States, governed by Sharia law. The Ummah is to be ruled over by Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin, formerly known as H. Rapp Brown, who is currently serving a life sentence in the Florence, Colorado Supermax for shooting two police officers in Georgia.” MANA’s Ihsan Bagby disputed this FBI report and indicated that while members of “The Ummah” were “anti-government,” they did not promote violence.
Of course Farrakhan doesn't want you to be armed because it runs contradictory to his visions of an Islamic Caliphate in the US that replaces our government.
So, I know that I am definitely one of the 89% displeased and angry of this blossoming tyrannical ruling party of the modern Democrats as well as RINO's who, on a daily basis, have "betrayed it's constituents", but the question is, are you?
Sunday, January 27, 2013
Is America about to fall?
On January 19, 2013 the Ohio National Guard, 52nd Civil Support Unit held drills under the auspice that 2nd Amendment advocates are terrorists.
"The mock disaster training exercise is being done with Scioto County first responders and the Ohio Army National Guard 52nd Civil Support Unit.
“It’s the reality of the world we live in,” says Portsmouth Police Chief Bill Raisin. “Don’t forget there is such a thing as domestic terrorism. This helps us all be prepared.”
The make-believe scenario is timely. Two school employees who are disgruntled over the government’s interpretation of the Second Amendment, plot to use chemical, biological and radiological agents against members of the local community."
US Military drills have been seen over the skies of Boston, Minnesota, Miami (April 2011) and last night again in Miami (see video below).
All it will take is one crisis that Obama will not want to go to waste to implement his Department of Homeland Protection Agency to shut the air waves, air ports, food, resources and roads to keep everyone from knowing what is happening while the quickly round up dissidents and those who cling to their 2nd Amendment rights.
I know, this sounds orwellian, but what if? Do you trust Obama or our elites who do not share you view of our Constitution?
Saturday, January 26, 2013
Why does China want to disarm Americans?
Pravda, Russia's former propaganda agency has published numerous OpEd pieces advising everyday Americans to hold on to their 2nd Amendment rights -- dearly! As everyone knows, Russia has a long and bloody history of communist oppression that ensued because their citizens were not able to throw off this yoke. There are some Russians that have learned that history at great cost and now want to help us avert it as they see all the warning signs, bells and whistles and fulfillment of history repeating itself here. Who would ever imagined that the US is at this crossroads?
In a speech Obama gave he said "I think that most gun owners would agree that an AK47 belongs in the hands of soldiers, not a criminal."
According to the left wing in this country, only the military does an AK47 belong. I now point to a recent study that came out of West Point Academy, where are young attend to become the future leaders of our US Military. This study cites right wing extremists as terrorists just like the Janet Napolitano release to law enforcement a few years ago before it was retracted under the light of day.
The college of West Point is now infiltrated by these same leftist ideologues we see on every other college campus across the country. Please note that if the Obama Administration orders the military to point their weapons at our citizens these are the young men and women we will rely upon to make a critical judgement on whether or not that order is lawful or to be disobeyed.
Those who want to pry your weapons from your hands are hedging their bets that the young future officers coming out of West Point may not be enough to fulfill their goals. The Obama Administration is now employing a litmus test for senior officers of the US Military. They are posed with the a questions. If they answer yes, they get promoted to a more senior rank. If they answer no, stagnation and career destroyed. What is the question they are asked?
Will you fire on American Citizens?
On the other hand we have China pressing Obama to disarm America now and Obama agreeing.
There is hope where tyrany lies though and it is called "Oath Keepers". If you are former, or active duty military and law enforcement personnel I implore you to go to this link and join. We who have taken the Oath to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic understand that this Oath never expires once we leave the military, or law enforcement. We need to protect and defend our country when the time arises and need to be active and vigilant in educating those around us to understand and support the US Constitution as the reverent document that it is and what it was intended to prevent. The 2nd Amendment is the last line of defense for those in power to heed when they desire to subvert this American right. We are not terrorists, we are Americans who believe and will not be cowed into submission.
A final reflection on the thoughts and advice of the author who penned the OpEd in Pravda (link to the article provided in the first paragraph):
"Moscow fell, for example, not from a lack of weapons to defend it, but from the lying guile of the Reds. Ten thousand Reds took Moscow and were opposed only by some few hundreds of officer cadets and their instructors. Even then the battle was fierce and losses high. However, in the city alone, at that time, lived over 30,000 military officers (both active and retired), all with their own issued weapons and ammunition, plus tens of thousands of other citizens who were armed. The Soviets promised to leave them all alone if they did not intervene. They did not and for that were asked afterwards to come register themselves and their weapons: where they were promptly shot.
Of course being savages, murderers and liars does not mean being stupid and the Reds learned from their Civil War experience. One of the first things they did was to disarm the population. From that point, mass repression, mass arrests, mass deportations, mass murder, mass starvation were all a safe game for the powers that were. The worst they had to fear was a pitchfork in the guts or a knife in the back or the occasional hunting rifle. Not much for soldiers."
So why does China want to disarm Americans? I think you know why, we owe them a great deal of money and Americans will never allow them right to confiscate our resources because of the decisions by a few ruling elites decision to bankrupt us for their aims.
In a speech Obama gave he said "I think that most gun owners would agree that an AK47 belongs in the hands of soldiers, not a criminal."
According to the left wing in this country, only the military does an AK47 belong. I now point to a recent study that came out of West Point Academy, where are young attend to become the future leaders of our US Military. This study cites right wing extremists as terrorists just like the Janet Napolitano release to law enforcement a few years ago before it was retracted under the light of day.
The college of West Point is now infiltrated by these same leftist ideologues we see on every other college campus across the country. Please note that if the Obama Administration orders the military to point their weapons at our citizens these are the young men and women we will rely upon to make a critical judgement on whether or not that order is lawful or to be disobeyed.
Those who want to pry your weapons from your hands are hedging their bets that the young future officers coming out of West Point may not be enough to fulfill their goals. The Obama Administration is now employing a litmus test for senior officers of the US Military. They are posed with the a questions. If they answer yes, they get promoted to a more senior rank. If they answer no, stagnation and career destroyed. What is the question they are asked?
Will you fire on American Citizens?
On the other hand we have China pressing Obama to disarm America now and Obama agreeing.
There is hope where tyrany lies though and it is called "Oath Keepers". If you are former, or active duty military and law enforcement personnel I implore you to go to this link and join. We who have taken the Oath to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic understand that this Oath never expires once we leave the military, or law enforcement. We need to protect and defend our country when the time arises and need to be active and vigilant in educating those around us to understand and support the US Constitution as the reverent document that it is and what it was intended to prevent. The 2nd Amendment is the last line of defense for those in power to heed when they desire to subvert this American right. We are not terrorists, we are Americans who believe and will not be cowed into submission.
A final reflection on the thoughts and advice of the author who penned the OpEd in Pravda (link to the article provided in the first paragraph):
"Moscow fell, for example, not from a lack of weapons to defend it, but from the lying guile of the Reds. Ten thousand Reds took Moscow and were opposed only by some few hundreds of officer cadets and their instructors. Even then the battle was fierce and losses high. However, in the city alone, at that time, lived over 30,000 military officers (both active and retired), all with their own issued weapons and ammunition, plus tens of thousands of other citizens who were armed. The Soviets promised to leave them all alone if they did not intervene. They did not and for that were asked afterwards to come register themselves and their weapons: where they were promptly shot.
Of course being savages, murderers and liars does not mean being stupid and the Reds learned from their Civil War experience. One of the first things they did was to disarm the population. From that point, mass repression, mass arrests, mass deportations, mass murder, mass starvation were all a safe game for the powers that were. The worst they had to fear was a pitchfork in the guts or a knife in the back or the occasional hunting rifle. Not much for soldiers."
So why does China want to disarm Americans? I think you know why, we owe them a great deal of money and Americans will never allow them right to confiscate our resources because of the decisions by a few ruling elites decision to bankrupt us for their aims.
Friday, January 25, 2013
Thursday, January 24, 2013
Political humor
Disclaimer: For all US Governmental agencies monitoring this site the image below has no purpose of ill will towards the President, his wife or Oprah Winfrey. For all the Liberals monitoring this site -- It's a joke.
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
My thoughts on Gun Control
First and foremost I firmly believe in the 2nd Amendment. I am not an American who is uninformed as to this right under our Constitution. For instance, I know what the framers intent was when the 2nd Amendment was enacted. I know my history. The right was born so that Americans could protect and defend their person and their property against a tyrannical centralized government.
The arguments that are flying around the media today, in response to Sandy Hook, are bandied about and framed in the argument that we need to control weapons to protect our children from harm. Do not be fooled by this argument. If the legislators and politicians wanted to protect our children they would not allow abortion. I know, I know, here is that kook talking about abortion, but the argument cuts directly to the core of the current gun debate argument from the left. It has nothing to do with children and everything to do with disarming a populace in the style and manner of Stalin. Pravda, the famous mouthpiece of Stalin has printed articles recently warning us NOT to go in this direction and to learn from history as to what will occur if it does.
The long and successful mission creep to disarm us has been wildly successful as we Americans are asleep at the wheel again. We have allowed cities, States and the Government to infringe upon this absolute right in ways we cannot comprehend. I can give you a prime example. On January 11, 2013 two men in Oregon caused quite a stir when they walked the streets with semi-automatic weapons (assault rifles) slung over their shoulders, openly.
At first blush I thought that the two men were irresponsible and to be honest, extreme. The news covered the incident as the populace was alarmed, scared and cowering since the two decided to make their political statement so close to the Sandy Hook massacre.
As I followed the news and saw the reaction to the public about the display I realized that even though both men were well within their rights lawfully (as no charges were filed and their weapons were not confiscated) the public was not accustomed to seeing armed men walking about and thus caused alarm.
"residents and parents were upset and disturbed. They voiced their disapproval of the men's behavior coming less than a month after the tragic Sandy Hook massacre in which a man armed with a semiautomatic weapon killed 20 children and six adults at the elementary school in Newtown, Conn.
Anglada Bartley, a mother of a 9-month-old, told KATU-TV: "That’s not the purpose of the Second Amendment, to frighten citizens, to frighten women and children. And I don’t think there’s anyone who can argue, especially after the tragedy where so many children were killed – nobody can argue that it’s not scary to have people marauding around Sellwood with guns."
Another resident Bob Cronk, said: "It’s completely ridiculous. I think our right to a peaceful quiet school day comes before their right to brandish their rifles in a family-oriented neighborhood."
Then I followed the statement by the police:
"The Portland Police Bureau, however, wisely asks anyone who sees someone armed with guns not to approach the person and talk to him but to call 911 immediately.
OregonLive reports that Drouin has an extensive history with Medford police over his practice of openly carrying semiautomatic weapon in parks, businesses and other public places. Medford police say they have received at least 67 complaints about Drouin between June 2011 and December 2012. The incidents generated several 911 calls and one business barred him from its premises.
According to OregonLive, Drouin is very well know to the police. They refer to him simply as "Warren" and officers receive training and instructions on how to deal with and approach him and others in the "open carry [activist] movement."
He was once handcuffed and briefly detained when he showed up at the Medford City Hall complex openly carrying a semi-automatic. Medford police Chief Tim George, commented on Drouin's behavior: "Being legal does not mean it is a wise thing to do. Responsible firearms owners would not and don't do this."
Oregon law allows (or in this case, does not disallow) residents to openly carry firearms without a permit. If you wish to conceal carry you must have a license. The Medford police Chief's comment is indicative of the mission creeps success when he stated "Being legal does not mean it is a wise thing to do. Responsible firearms owners would not and don't do this."
Responsible firearm owners are not wise to openly carry? Our current climate in this 2nd amendment debate is already framed for us by stigmatizing a right being exercised as "unwise". Society is shocked to see 2 men walking the streets with AR-15's slung over their shoulders as "out of the ordinary" and instill fear in common citizens.
It was at that point of realization that the action of these two young men were not so extreme. They are, in my eyes, refocusing the debate.
Imagine -- If all responsible firearm owners follow suit. You have to ask yourself whether or not this is a good thing or bad. Will the result of armed populace end in "OK Corral" style violence? Or, will violence actually be curbed as criminals will see an armed populace. Will the action scare the populace or will more exposure to armed individuals reassure a populace once they see that crime rates drop? Finally, the most important message it will send is to the Government itself -- we are armed as was intended by the framers.
The final question of police responding to 911 calls will diminish as more and more people become accustomed to an armed populace. I believe that violent gun related deaths will be to those who use weapons against innocents and have no respect for the rule of law.
The arguments that are flying around the media today, in response to Sandy Hook, are bandied about and framed in the argument that we need to control weapons to protect our children from harm. Do not be fooled by this argument. If the legislators and politicians wanted to protect our children they would not allow abortion. I know, I know, here is that kook talking about abortion, but the argument cuts directly to the core of the current gun debate argument from the left. It has nothing to do with children and everything to do with disarming a populace in the style and manner of Stalin. Pravda, the famous mouthpiece of Stalin has printed articles recently warning us NOT to go in this direction and to learn from history as to what will occur if it does.
The long and successful mission creep to disarm us has been wildly successful as we Americans are asleep at the wheel again. We have allowed cities, States and the Government to infringe upon this absolute right in ways we cannot comprehend. I can give you a prime example. On January 11, 2013 two men in Oregon caused quite a stir when they walked the streets with semi-automatic weapons (assault rifles) slung over their shoulders, openly.
At first blush I thought that the two men were irresponsible and to be honest, extreme. The news covered the incident as the populace was alarmed, scared and cowering since the two decided to make their political statement so close to the Sandy Hook massacre.
As I followed the news and saw the reaction to the public about the display I realized that even though both men were well within their rights lawfully (as no charges were filed and their weapons were not confiscated) the public was not accustomed to seeing armed men walking about and thus caused alarm.
"residents and parents were upset and disturbed. They voiced their disapproval of the men's behavior coming less than a month after the tragic Sandy Hook massacre in which a man armed with a semiautomatic weapon killed 20 children and six adults at the elementary school in Newtown, Conn.
Anglada Bartley, a mother of a 9-month-old, told KATU-TV: "That’s not the purpose of the Second Amendment, to frighten citizens, to frighten women and children. And I don’t think there’s anyone who can argue, especially after the tragedy where so many children were killed – nobody can argue that it’s not scary to have people marauding around Sellwood with guns."
Another resident Bob Cronk, said: "It’s completely ridiculous. I think our right to a peaceful quiet school day comes before their right to brandish their rifles in a family-oriented neighborhood."
Then I followed the statement by the police:
"The Portland Police Bureau, however, wisely asks anyone who sees someone armed with guns not to approach the person and talk to him but to call 911 immediately.
OregonLive reports that Drouin has an extensive history with Medford police over his practice of openly carrying semiautomatic weapon in parks, businesses and other public places. Medford police say they have received at least 67 complaints about Drouin between June 2011 and December 2012. The incidents generated several 911 calls and one business barred him from its premises.
According to OregonLive, Drouin is very well know to the police. They refer to him simply as "Warren" and officers receive training and instructions on how to deal with and approach him and others in the "open carry [activist] movement."
He was once handcuffed and briefly detained when he showed up at the Medford City Hall complex openly carrying a semi-automatic. Medford police Chief Tim George, commented on Drouin's behavior: "Being legal does not mean it is a wise thing to do. Responsible firearms owners would not and don't do this."
Oregon law allows (or in this case, does not disallow) residents to openly carry firearms without a permit. If you wish to conceal carry you must have a license. The Medford police Chief's comment is indicative of the mission creeps success when he stated "Being legal does not mean it is a wise thing to do. Responsible firearms owners would not and don't do this."
Responsible firearm owners are not wise to openly carry? Our current climate in this 2nd amendment debate is already framed for us by stigmatizing a right being exercised as "unwise". Society is shocked to see 2 men walking the streets with AR-15's slung over their shoulders as "out of the ordinary" and instill fear in common citizens.
It was at that point of realization that the action of these two young men were not so extreme. They are, in my eyes, refocusing the debate.
Imagine -- If all responsible firearm owners follow suit. You have to ask yourself whether or not this is a good thing or bad. Will the result of armed populace end in "OK Corral" style violence? Or, will violence actually be curbed as criminals will see an armed populace. Will the action scare the populace or will more exposure to armed individuals reassure a populace once they see that crime rates drop? Finally, the most important message it will send is to the Government itself -- we are armed as was intended by the framers.
The final question of police responding to 911 calls will diminish as more and more people become accustomed to an armed populace. I believe that violent gun related deaths will be to those who use weapons against innocents and have no respect for the rule of law.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)