News Blog
August, 2013
Not Just The Shootings, But All Acts of Insanity Continue
I'm constantly reminded by the evening news that people are still angry and continue with disregard for other human life. I feel maybe I should stop watching, but that's just pure ignorance. Whether it's kidnapping, random shooting, premeditated violence or other horrible and painful events, it just seems to continue. Why do I feel like I can't do anything about it?
All I hear is more pundits speaking up when there's a gun involved! What about the other gun-free issues? Are they less important somehow, because there's definitely more of those than gun-involved issues? Dear Mr. or Mrs Pundid, please respect all my constitutional rights, and please come up with real solutions vs. half-baked rhetoric pie. As delicious as it may sound to you, it's just not going to be served well.
April, 2013
Grief of Destruction
Some people are sacrificing just about everything to destroy the foundations and the sanity of this once greater country. We are still a great country, but it has and still is being beaten over the head with so much misinformation and deception that people are understandably getting angry, confused and careless. It's looking like the "5-stages of grief:" at first we all deny the deterioration of this country, then some advance and seem angry when they start to realize the truth. Some organizations are setup in an attempt to bargain with other organizations. Nothing gets fixed and depression sets in till we are all miserable enough to say 'whatever, I feel like I have no choice but to accept the way it is now,' just to keep our sanity, as part of our embedded survival instincts.
STOP IT! Stop forcing your agendas, personal beliefs and ideas on the masses while creating an elaborate system to punish the now-law-breaking people. Stop wasting so much valuable resources on stuff that has the potential to do more harm than good. Stop telling us that you know better what is "good for the people" specially when we the people are telling you "NO!" The majority of us don't agree with you! Even if a quarter of the population has issues with your proposal, that should be enough to make you think "maybe I don't have all the answers" or "maybe I could be wrong on this theory."
December, 2012
Tragic Shootings
I know it can be very disappointing and heart-breaking to hear someone that's been killed, even if you don't know them. I'm sure it can be exponentially more devastating if it is someone you know, love and care for. Imagining my own family member(s) in the line of fire is painful and a frightening visual enough to nearly bring me to tears. I would never wish for such misfortune, but if it were to happen, I'd wish to be prepared to fight back; and I can't be prepared if I don't prepare. I certainly can't be ignorant and say it will never happen to me, wishful hope YES, but it would be ignorant!
I'm sure you can guess my stance, but here it is anyway.
1. We need to lockup the mentally-ill people! I've heard that we used to do this several years ago, but do-gooder-lawyers mucked it all up, crying about human-rights (with no regard for the rest of society that has to deal with them when things go awry). Pharmaceutical companies benefited by selling their drugs, and these drugs at times, makes the patient even more erratic.
2. Eliminate "Gun-Free Zones." If I have the fighting chance to protect my family at home with a gun (if that's what it takes), I would hope they are also protected in public places when I can't be around! I would trust a teacher with a gun or other staff as long as they have a good record and good firearms training. These people would be working at the school anyway, so no major extra finances would be required to hire an actual security person. There's no need to "scare" our kids with a qualified rifle-man watching over our well-being, but I would not mind that either.
October, 2012
Oklahoma Practicing Their Gun-Rights
Are we becoming more sensible? This is now the 15th state to allow open-carry while permitted with a concealed-carry license. Wow, looks like some government officials actually realize the benefits and trusts their civilians with responsible gun ownership practices. Now if the rest of this country tries a bit harder to stop the madness and cries for more excessive gun-laws and instead, take time for more gun-education, I think we can utilize our law-making needs for more important purposes.
NY Times news coverage
August, 2012
New York Police vs. a killer in public
August 26, 2012 (New York) -- Having shot his former employer, the jerk flees and is being followed by a witness, who is able to get the attention of two nearby officers. The officers confront the suspect, who seems to be aware that he's being tracked, brandishes his handgun. Offices brandish their guns and begin to fire till the man goes down. 16 shots in all, over half of them hitting bystanders.
Here's where "True Gun Control" is mandatory:
1. Hold the gun with both hands,
2. Aim at your target
3. Get good sight alignment
4. Press off rounds and repeat till satisfied.
Also a very important safety rule was missing here. For you gun-nuts, it's called rule#3. That is: "Be certain of your target and what's beyond it."
With that said, thank you NYPD for taking out the scum-bag. We still like you, just please get more training soon, please.
July, 2012
Disturbing and early ending for Batman movie
July 20, 2012 (Colorado) -- While out to watch the release of a new movie on a Friday night, some jerk dressed in tactical clothing (riot gear) comes through the isles, sets off his gas-bomb then shoots off his shotgun, rifle and handgun. Left 58 wounded and 12 dead. He was later found by police and when asked about his appearance he said that he was "the Joker."
My first question was, "Why didn't anyone shoot back at him?" Later I was told that this area was restricted by gun-control laws. Hmm, well how did those three guns get in, when that law was in place? Oh I forgot, only law-abiding Americans follow such laws, and unfortunately end-up being hurt by them.
April, 2012
Martin vs. Zimmerman
February 26, 2012 (Florida) -- A neighborhood-crime-watch captain, doing his job, resorts to shooting a suspect.
The Wikipedia facts just about covers it all.
As the news and articles poured out, thousands made their own assumptions and sided with either Zimmerman or Martin, the latter without really looking at all the evidence. Even the President made a bad-call and took sides, revealing his propaganda/agenda.
In my opinion, yes it's tragic that someone had to die, in this case a teenager boy, but at the same time, the "boy" should not have attacked Zimmerman, gun-toting or otherwise. Zimmerman "might have been able to" use other tools (besides a gun) to take control of the situation. However, the fact is I was not there, and his training might have been better than mine, but I might have tried other things, for example: stun-gun, pepper-spray (which I carry with my gun+permit).
I'd like to conclude by saying, never take sides without first looking at all the facts.
RIP Trayvon M. And my message to George Z.; Please continue being proactive with your watch, we need more caring people like you.
November, 2011
Fast And Furious - Gunwalking
Seems like people in power are now employing tactics to pollute society with malicious news about guns, again. The effort is in blaming legitimate gun dealers for selling guns to the Mexican drug cartels, where the ATF had specifically ordered such activity from the dealer while stating that it was for "investigative techniques" and that they would not discuss it further.
This would ultimately lead to more laws against purchasing guns, more paperwork for dealers, more expenses for buyers, slower acquisition of firearms by legitimate buyers. Why; because America has too many guns? Is it because we need more defamation on the views of guns? Is it because Eric Holder has an agenda to hold up Americans? Seriously, why would you do such dangerous activities?
October, 2011
California Bans Open Carry
This month the Gov. signed AB144 banning right-to-carry (RTC) openly, by Jan. 2012. Anyone caught violating this law will pay $1000 and/or spend 1 year in jail. Apparently we have fools making laws in this state, because they ignore the facts, even from research done by the FBI Examining the 2005 FBI Crime Statistics; saying more violent crimes tend to happen in areas with non-RTC.
Well, the economy is bad, so maybe California wants money from it's open-carry citizens? No, I hope that's not it. What about the news that our Federal Gov. has decided to release thousands of small-time-offenders from overcrowded prisons, so they can save some money; Maybe Gov. thinks these people will help watch over us and protect us like good honest people that they have become? No, highly unlikely! So is it because a few people have shown to be "scared" of seeing gun-toting people? Yeah, that's one of their claims; a bunch of Cali-wussies. So why they banned RTC? The main claim is [they are spending too many resources] checking on calls of a "man with a gun." My theory is, too many cities have been sued because the police were not trained to deal with such calls/checks, and wrongfully arrested several people, legally carrying their weapon. So Gov. says, now it's your (open-carriers) time to pay, possibly with your life.
September, 2011
Missed a few months, I've been too lazy I guess. So far, I've heard about more psychotics roaming about shooting people in public places, then turning the gun on themselves, ending the rampage. Recall this news in Carson City, Nevada on Tuesday, September 5th, 2011? Five people were killed and seven others wounded.
The victims targeted seemed to be National Guardsmen sitting and eating at IHOP. Now we should expect these people to be carrying weapons, right? Wrong! There seems to be some B.S. about being armed while in public. There's also some B.S. that even Police officers (in most areas) are not allowed to be carrying a gun while out of uniform.
If these service men and women have passed their mental and physical health tests, have proven to be of good moral character while serving their country and citizens, should not they also be allowed to be armed while off duty?
Apparently not. Can someone explain this to me?
April, 2011
Use of Deadly Force
Some people theorize that if you carry a weapon, you automatically intend to kill someone. I've recently heard it go something like this;
"The only reason that you should carry a gun, is if you're going to pull it out. And the only reason you should ever pull a gun out, is to point it at a person. And the only reason you'd ever point a gun at a person is to shoot them. And you'd never shoot anybody unless you'd wanted to kill them. So if you're leaving the house with a gun in your pants is because you're going to go murder someone." --Chris Ranck-Buhr (quoting his father).So according to that theory, apparently we have a bunch of police and other law enforcement officials out to commit murder. Well that's an obvious fallacy that even some respectable people believe.
I agree that a time may come, that we must be able to take a life in order to save another, and that is the original reason we choose to peacefully carry our weapon of choice. However, in a life or death situation, if we humans can not use our brains to discriminate between right and wrong, then yes, we're likely to be good-for-nothing criminals. Since we are able to use our brains, we must always use our best judgement and understanding to decide if we're to use deadly force or not. And if we decide in favor of deadly force, we must reserve that to be the last option, after we've fully considered and exhausted other non-lethal options.
For now, here's another funny fallacy to enjoy:
Books have knowledge, knowledge is power, power corrupts, corruption is a crime, and crime doesn't pay.. so if you keep reading, you'll go broke.
March, 2011
Questioning The Anti-Gun Fears
The Brady Campaign wants us to believe their goal is "To Prevent Gun Violence" by scaring us away from guns, even in our own homes. My question is, why are they trying to make all weapons and ammunition illegal, even for the non-violent people? Our great country was established by fighting for our rights against the opposing forces. Today, we don't necessarily have to fight a large army, nonetheless, there are still opposing forces, just in much smaller quantities. How are we honest-working people supposed to survive through encounters with the local hostile forces? Hey Brady Campaign, do you want all of us to live in fear of being the next victim of some other violent crime? Are you aware these asocial criminals are not going to follow your rules, because their line of work involves breaking the law in the first place?
There are always going to be some irresponsible people in this country, but you (anti-gun fear-mongers) are out of your mind to blame and accuse the majority, of crimes that are null.
February, 2011
Training to be Responsible
This February I had nearly two weeks of training at Front Sight. I took several courses. I learned a whole lot of what I didn't know, refined what I did know, and realized subjects I plan on going back to learn further about. They have terrific instructors and their training style makes learning easy.
There were approximately 300 students there, daily, for various classes. Some are repeat students, but most were there for their first time. Imagine 300 strangers, all carrying some kind of weapon at their side, whether it's a knife, rifle, shotgun, handgun or all the above. Strangers, freely walking about with their semi-automatic guns, access to several hundred rounds of lethal projectiles, 2 or more high-capacity magazines fully loaded and carried on their belts or in their pockets. Not a single death or act of violence occurred! Hey politicians, go figure that one out!
Instead they joyfully stood beside one another for over 7 hours a day, ate their lunch in a classroom full of other gun-toting individuals, made new friends, and on the range, shot-off their guns within elbow-distances from another, watching and coaching each other in tandem.
January, 2011
When mentally disturbed individuals are fed up with people in power,
society ends up having to deal with the trail of madness left behind after the individual has lashed out. The individual here does not care about himself or his pending punishment, just that he's done his crime and took care of matters by himself is his only reward.
I am referring to Jared Lee Loughner as the individual here and his confused mental state. On January 8, 2011 (Tucson Arizona), sought after a local politician, shot her and several others because of his twisted mindset that the government is doing wrong and he feels like he can make things right. According to media, he had recently been posting disturbing messages in forums, made unusual contacts with friends and family.
Weeks after the shooting, we learn that at least one of his school instructors had requested that he should not return to school until after he is evaluated and certified to be not dangerous by a mental health professional.
Here's a thought; Why don't we have a mandatory record for mentally unstable people who may be a threat to themself and/or others? Then, restrict them from acquiring any weapons. Additionally, when they are deemed to be placed on such a record, have their local PD or Sheriff's department to initially search their property for dangerous weapons, and as an ongoing service to the public, have mandatory searches be made on their property, even if it's just once a year. Is it against their 4th amendment rights? No, because it's a reasonable search due to their mental instability.
December, 2010
We're excited to announce the beginning of a new website "TrueGunControl.com" aimed to educate the public about gun-rights and help reduce crime in more ways than one.
We will be sharing news from various sources and posting the links here. Feel free to submit your findings and let's share with everyone.
Interested to see movies on how "gun control" was viewed in politics many years ago?
Download and Watch Movie "No Guns for Negroes" (~56MB)
Youtube Movie "No Guns for Jews" (part 1)
