Gun control extremists despise this kind of common-sense approach to the potential of school violence. But the time has come to challenge their head-in-the-sand philosophy. How many lives have been lost on public school and college campuses because of these insane victim disarmament measures? How many students and teachers might be alive today if only lawmakers and school officials had acted as responsibly as the Harrold administration?

Allowing armed staff and teachers will provide a last line of defense if other security measures at the school fail. No doubt the school board and Mr. Thweatt will suffer some slings and arrows, but if this decision one day saves the life of even one child, it will have been worthwhile.

Alan Gottlieb
Chairmain, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
August 15, 2008
HARROLD, TX SCHOOL OFFICIALS RIGHT ON CHANGE IN CAMPUS GUN POLICY, SAYS CCRKBA
[“If it only saves one life” and “for the children”. Nice, very nice.–Joe]

Watch the media – both the gun media and the LameStream media – and pound them every time they use the word “allow” or other language that turns your rights into privileges.  The word “allow” is the most obvious offence, but any language which requests permission rather than demanding that infringements be stopped, is part of the problem.

Jeff Knox
08-12-2008 12:41
“Allow” Me Not!
[If you have even the slightest doubt as to what Jeff is talking about then read the whole thing. See also State of mind for defending the RKBA and Just One Question. It boils down to when they say “allow” we need to turn it around and demand to know why we should allow them to infringe our rights. And this applies to all freedoms not just rights associated with firearms. We need a mindset of a personal sovereignty (H/T to Kevin for that link).–Joe]

Although the NRA and I have certainly had our disagreements over the years, I hope that we can agree that the gun violence prevention debate should be based upon an open and honest exchange of ideas, not on underhanded tactics.

Sen. Frank Lautenberg
August 7, 2008
In a letter to John Sigler, the president of the NRA in regards to an alleged informant, allegedly paid by the NRA, who allegedly infiltrated various gun control groups.
[Isn’t that a hoot! Notice that Lautenberg does not say he would ever be “open and honest” or avoid “underhanded tactics”. Just that “we can agree” it should be based upon that. Does anyone remember how the infamous Lautenberg Amendment got passed? That’s just one very small example of their tactics. Lautenberg’s statement reminds me of the old white man, crying like a baby, in this post of mine.

H/T to Uncle for the link.–Joe]

[My] fighting mindset…which I generally describe as a very irritable wolverine with PMS after a bad day at the office.

Victoria Deaton
May 17, 1998
[On the proper frame of mind when you must defend yourself from an attacker.–Joe]

Thanks to Mr. Gura’s efforts, the NRA is no longer gun-shy about going to court.

James Taranto
July 19, 2008
Alan Gura–How a Young Lawyer Saved the Second Amendment
[And this resulted in, as Sebastian says, More Heller Dominoes. Bans that have been in place for nearly 30 years went away simply by the NRA filing a lawsuit. All this is thanks to Mr. Gura’s (and hundreds of others) efforts.–Joe]

Here are six reasons I’m wary of gun buybacks, such as the one scheduled for Saturday in Chicago in which those who turn in firearms at any of 25 locations get a $100 prepaid credit card per gun, no questions asked:

1. I can’t imagine criminals disarming themselves for a lousy $100.
   
2. I don’t see the economic sense of offering law-abiding people a flat fee for their guns.
   
3. I worry about buyback programs subsidizing crime and weapons traffic.
   
4. I can’t find much evidence that buybacks are effective.
   
5. I’m not convinced that buybacks get “problem” guns off the streets.
   
6. I hear in Mayor Richard Daley’s arm-flapping jibber-jabber on this point an admission that the buyback is simply a feel-good program to make citizens believe the city is actually doing something to reduce gun violence.

Eric Zorn
July 23, 2008
Hard to find good reason to buy back guns
[There is much more in the original article, including support for each of his reasons and this Webliography of gun buy-back programs. He left out one of my favorites though. The bigots have to twist the language in order for this to even begin to make sense. This isn’t a “buyback”. The government is not buying back guns it previously sold. It is offering token compensation for the surrender of a specific constitutionally enumerated right that only a sucker would accept.–Joe]

I vow to keep attacking the stupidity of unfettered gun ownership until I have vanquished the gun sellers’ lobby and broken the back of the NRA.

…

So enjoy yourselves, gun-persons. Your end is coming. And when the black helicopters land on your lawn and AFT [sic] agents shoot you for resisting arrest, I’ll be proud to show up and pry your weapon from your cold, dead hand.

Donald Kaul
July 24, 2008
Attacking the stupidity of unfettered gun ownership
[Okay, so it was mostly a poor attempt at humor. But still there are people see nothing wrong with using violence to achieve their goal of depriving us of our right to keep and bear arms. And this was the guy that said he had given up just nine days ago.–Joe]

It is a sad commentary on the U.S. Justice Department that they allowed this flagrantly racist and elitist law to stand for so long.  But, when one understands the history of gun control laws it isn’t surprising that this racist, elitist law was ignored.

John Bender
July 21, 2008
Civil rights organization fights elitists and racists
[H/T to David Hardy. It’s really good article. It is well documented and openly calls people that created and continue to support the denying of a specific enumerated right to the poor and minorities racist and elitist.–Joe]