SOME TEXAS UNIVERSITIES TO CREATE ‘GUN FREE ZONES’ TO CIRCUMVENT CAMPUS CARRY

By Hammerhead

When I read headlines like this one, I am reminded of a maxim my father used to say when I was a kid:

You can offer a drowning man a life jacket, but you can’t make him use it. The decision to live, is ultimately, always up to the individual.

But what about when these confused individuals try to influence others, (and by “others” in this case, I mean our own children), to take the same course of action as they? Don’t we, as parents, have the right to draw the line in how far a person (especially an educator) can go in leading our kids down a primrose path as dangerous as this?

According to an article in the LA Times, some Universities across the nation, including the University of Texas, who seems to be leading the charge in this endeavor, are planning on installing “Gun Free Zones” in an attempt to circumvent Campus Carry Laws recently enacted into law (which go into effect August of 2016) which allows those students with concealed carry licenses to carry a firearm on campus for self-defense.

To all these so-called “educated” people (Professors mind you) leading the charge in this foolish endeavour I ask the following questions:

1. What makes you think that installing so-called “gun free zones” in your school makes you any safer? Do you think a confused individual who has set it in his mind to kill people with a firearm  will pay attention to a sign?
2. Were not these same types of signs installed at:

• UC Merced where 4 students were recently stabbed
• Umpqua Community College where 9 people were shot and killed?
• St. Louis Military Recruiting Center where 5 People were shot and Killed?

I think the stats show that Mentally Confused People and Criminals Don’t care about signs, Just like they don’t care about Gun laws, so why punish the legal citizens who have to abide by them?

As for your other argument, where is your Data that students who carry firearms while on campus are dangerous or a threat to other students? On the contrary, if you look at the data we have on schools that already have campus carry, like in Colorado for example, which has had Campus Carry since 2003, their record is stellar as regards to student safety.

For a much more detailed analysis of WHY Campus Carry is a GOOD IDEAL, check out Students For Concealed Carry.

Stay Alert, Stay Armed and Stay Dangerous!

America being “SubArmed”

This is the ESSENCE of Gun Control Laws in America..a slow, systematic way to shift the power balance and ensure you, the civilian, does not have the advantage when push comes to shove. This is what our Colonial forefathers warned us about….SF

By Alan Korwin | Jul 27, 2015

There’s a point between fully armed and disarmed that is subarmed. Being subarmed is dangerous. Officials would never stand for it themselves. It’s the point where you don’t have a very good gun, or certainly not the type you’d prefer, or not the type your police prefer for their own safety, and not the right ammo, or certainly not enough of it. It isn’t the caliber you want, and the magazine is too small. You’re subarmed.

It seems there are people at work in the government and the euphemistic gun-control movement who have figured out if they can’t disarm the public — because the public will not stand for it and put up intense opposition — they can subarm the public (that’s you) a little at a time. If you’re subarmed, and they’re fully armed, that’s pretty much victory for them and a shift in control.

Because it happens by bits, the big picture is obscured. Little by little the power shifts from the public to the authorities. We used to have parity with government, and this kept government in check, made America the liberty capital on Earth. We the people were equal with our hired hands. Both sides were in a state of stasis, equilibrium. They had matchlocks, we had matchlocks.

They had flintlocks, we had flintlocks. They got cap and ball, we all had it. We grew up together, we were partners in this, developed the field together. Self-contained cartridges, rifled barrels, bolt-action, revolvers, semi-auto, improvements to everything, optics, full auto… the story starts to rag out right there.

Read the remainder at Townhall

Gun Control: The Killer’s Best Friend

I am thankful for The Federalist and their staff for actively providing a counter-narrative to the anti-gun lib-tard propaganda that just recently got published in Newsweek…we knew it was coming,..it seemed the lib’s missed their chance with the last shooting in Charleston but got their confederate flag agenda pushed thru instead, so they were sure to capitalize on this shooting..I don’t know, call me crazy but I think the bigger issue at hand is obama’s total lack of any viable domestic counter-terrorism strategy which could lead to beheadings on main street and IED’s on Wall Street soon if nothing changes, and then, at that very moment, those libs who were screaming about citizens having AR’s and Glocks, will remember the words of Thomas Sowell who said ““If you are not prepared to use force to defend civilization, then be prepared for barbarism.” 

Abdulazeez shot his victims in a ‘gun-free zone,’ which is a useful illustration of the absurdity of gun-control laws: we constrain conscientious Americans but offer free rein to killers.

By David Harsanyi

Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez is suspected of murdering four unarmed Marines in Chattanooga and wounding others. As I write this, we still don’t know how Abdulazeez obtained his gun or what his motivations were—though, we can take an educated guess on the latter. What we do know is that Abdulazeez shot his victims in a “gun-free zone,” which is a useful illustration of the absurdity of gun-control laws: we constrain conscientious Americans but offer free rein to killers. In this case, even our best trained warriors were helpless.

Surely, we are in for a new round of emotional pleas for more gun-control laws. And, helpfully, in this week’s Newsweek cover story by Kurt Eichenwald we already have a compendium of muddled and misleading anti-Second Amendment talking points that dominate the Left these days.
The confusion begins with headline, which is based on an absurd premise, and bleeds into the lead:

Let’s start with an undeniable truth: In the United States, the people have the right to keep and bear arms. And let’s then acknowledge that the childish interpretation of that constitutional amendment—that Americans have the right to whatever accessory they can put on, in or over a gun for the sole purpose of making it more deadly—is a dangerous falsehood.

Read the Remainder at The Federalist

The Armed Citizens Project

You know it only take a spark to start a fire? One small chemical reaction can start a blaze that can burn thousands of acres to ash. One of the few redeeming qualities of fire is it clears away the OLD so that the NEW can grow. I came across one of those sparks recently, it calls itself the ACP.

Taken from their website, the ACP is:

“An organization/program that is dedicated to facilitating the arming of law-abiding citizens, and analyzing the relationship between increased firearm availability and current crime rates. We are choosing mid-high crime neighborhoods in cities across America, and offering defensive weapons to citizens that can pass a background check, and that will take our safety, legal, and tactical training.  The data that we collect will be used in the completion of a policy study that will measure the deterrent effects of firearms on crime.”

So to sum it up the ACP is a social experiment to attempt to prove heavily biased anti-gun statistics WRONG.

They also wants to serve as a counter to the nazi-esque practice of “Gun Buybacks”.

“We would like take a role in being the counter to the anti-gun practice of gun buybacks.  It is our opinion that we would be well served by offering training to those that decide they do not want to own a firearm that they do not know how to use.  We would like to offer training to those that would otherwise sell their gun for a gift card, and even trade them for brand-new shotguns, provided they attend a training session.  We want to reverse the flow of guns, to where they are flowing into a community, along with the necessary safety training and skills.”

Although some have criticized the ACP’s decision to arm “newbies” with free Shotguns, feeling they are giving in to Joe Bidens famous comment about not needing an assault weapon for self-defense, just a double-barreled shotgun is akin to (as my grandpa was famous for saying) “Picking gnat shit out of pepper” or in other words, a useless criticism.

For your convenience, I have listed the ACP’s response, as posted on their website to this criticism:

How will we arm citizens, and what will we arm them with?

Through using existing crime data, we will decide on a few areas that will be a fit with this project.  Regardless of where we decide to operate, our principles will remain the same.  All citizens of the area that wish to receive a weapon must , and have lived in their current home for over one year.  Those receiving a weapon will do so upon completion of our safety and tactical course, which we will administer.

All participants that wish to receive a weapon, and take our training, will receive a shotgun. There are many reasons for us to use this type of weapon, and it will be our standard weapon of use.  They are easy to use, less expensive than other weapons, and effective against intruders. Additionally, every shotgun will come equipped with a lock, that can be locked behind the trigger, thus leaving the weapon inoperable to those that are not authorized to use the weapon.

Another BIG reason for using this style of defensive weapon, is to challenge the anti-gun lobby on a claim they often make.  We are now quite used to hearing arguments along the lines of “why do you need an “assault weapon” for home defense?”  These gun-control proponents often insist that they do believe in the right to bear arms to some extent, and we are challenging them to prove it.  If an “assault weapon” is too extreme to be used for home defense, then there must necessarily be a weapon that is acceptable for home defense, or else the gun-control proponent is being blatantly intellectually dishonest.  This style of firearm is likely to be the most palatable to any gun-control proponent that claims to believe in the right of self-defense, and we challenge them to reveal who they really are.

Does this mean we advise against higher powered/capacity defensive weapons?

Absolutely not.  For the purposes of this project, we aim to keep it simple.  Of course the stronger the firepower, and more shots that are able to be fired will increase the odds of success.  If a gang of four breaks into your house, it is best for your wife to be equipped with 30 rounds of .223 if possible, and we fully support the decision of firearm owners to be prepared for all eventualities. 

As it is too soon to tell whether the ACP will be a successful experiment, you have to applaud their efforts. Anytime someone stops bitching about a problem and gets off their ass to work for a solution, every CO owes it to them to help.

So whatta you say; let’s help spread the word, contribute your time and a few bucks and do what you can for the ACP!

After all, I can assure you the first news story that comes out involving a women or child whose life was saved because they had a firearm due to the ACP, you will be glad you did!

Burn Baby Burn & Stay Dangerous!