Joe Meglen: Good riddance

Advertisement

Anti-Second Amendment Colorado Sen. Hudak resigned last Wednesday rather than face a recall election, which she was certain to lose. As a reminder, during hearings that were supposed to address the merits of the Democrat Party’s gun control legislation, Sen. Hudak would stand up, turn her back and walk out of the room when testimony did not support the bill.

The Democrats who control the Legislature passed the unconstitutional gun control bills in spite of overwhelming opposition by Colorado residents and the Rule of Law. It was also Sen. Hudak who brilliantly told Amanda Collins that a gun wouldn’t have helped her when she was attacked and raped at gunpoint in a “gun-free” zone at the University of Nevada-Reno. Hudak now joins her “progressive,” i.e., collectivist comrades, ex-state Sen. Angela Giron and ex-Senate President John Morse, who were tossed out of office earlier this year. Good riddance.

Washington, D.C., is hopelessly corrupt. There is no possibility that electing the right people and sending them to D.C. will fix things from the top down. If the damage inflicted by 100 years of the “progressive” era is to be fixed, it must be cured from the bottom up. Getting rid of Morse, Giron and Hudak in Colorado is a good start.

Real progress can be made by tossing out Sen. Mark Udall and our own anti-Second Amendment “Representative” Diane Mitsch Bush in the 2014 elections. Sen. Michael Bennett should be fired for cause in 2016.

Joe Meglen

Steamboat Springs

Comments

Brian Kotowski 9 months, 2 weeks ago

Even the liberal Denver Post raised its eyebrows at the contempt Hudak showed for the rape victim who testified before her. What Joe said: good riddance to bad rubbish.

1

Marie Matta 9 months, 2 weeks ago

Joe, as the Sandy Hook massacre is in the news again today with the release of the 911 tapes from that day, I find it disturbing that you have chosen to write this contempt-filled letter delighting in the political demise of Colorado public officials who dared to do something - anything - to address the scourge of gun violence in this country, and wishing a similar fate upon other officials who supported those measures. I know, I know! I've heard all the usual "these laws won't work", "what about the sanctity of the Second Amendment", "guns don't kill people...", "criminals will always be able to get guns" etc etc and I'm not interested in engaging in that "tit for tat" debate. I just want to offer a different point of view from the gun ownership, "down with the lefties" cheer squad who often respond to letters on this subject. Whatever the flaws of the Colorado gun control legislation, and whatever disagreement you may have with the arguments presented by those legislators, I find it sad that the best you can come up with is a sweeping attack on "progressives" and comments like "good riddance". Maybe it's just me, but I think the fact that 3 Colorado representatives have lost their seats because people think supporting gun control measures is the most terrible they could do, is a sad reflection on their constituency and on where we are in this country on this issue. It seems to me that opponents of gun control would rather see inaction, and more collateral damage (as long, of course, as it's not one of their own loved ones), than give some baby steps of change a chance.

0

Brian Kotowski 9 months, 2 weeks ago

An uninspired and juvenile diatribe, Marie - saying adios to Hudak = a lust for bloodshed and murder. For someone claiming such sensitivity to contempt, you couldn't be more "contempt-filled" for those you disagree with. Hypocrite much?

2

Joe Meglen 9 months, 2 weeks ago

Marie,

The majority of people who support gun control laws do so with the best of intentions. However, you can’t pass laws that will prevent evil or mentally ill people from performing tragic acts of inhumanity. The innocent good Samaritans (our own “representative” Diane Mitch Busch “may” be in this category) that support gun control laws are simply useful tools for the ruling elite that owns the political class. This minority makes their living off of the productive class. When the ruling elite, political class and their enforcement agents are armed, while the citizens are unarmed, it becomes much easier to control the productive class. Unarmed people are not citizens. They are subjects. The 2nd Amendment acknowledges the fact that individuals have an inherent right by their humanity to defend themselves and their family from all threats, including the threat of a tyrannical government. It is naïve as an understatement to believe that you can trust your government. Sadly, the purpose of government is to allow those that control it to plunder those that don’t. The “Civil” War, or The War of Northern Aggression as it is known in the South, is a perfect example. Prior to the South’s secession, Northern industrial interests controlled the federal government. Southern agricultural states were being plundered by the North with tariffs which funded the majority of the federal government budget. The federal government then provided subsidies to industry in the North after skimming off some of the loot for itself. It is called redistributing wealth. The South was being bankrupted and thought they had no choice but to secede, which they tried to do peacefully. In response Lincoln raised an army and illegally invaded the Confederacy. The federal government waged an unconstitutional and total war against the South resulting in the slaughter of over 700,000 Americans, 50,000 of which were women and slaves.

Those that don’t think that the federal government will ever wage war against Americans haven’t studied history. Governments and criminals support gun control. They prefer that their victims are unarmed.

1

mark hartless 9 months, 2 weeks ago

"I'm not interested in engaging in that... debate. I just want to offer a different [my own] point of view."

That pretty much sums it up. To paraphrase :"Don't confuse me with the facts. I'm against guns and for gun control whether it works or not..."

In my minds eye I can just see a little kid with their fingers in their ear yelling "I'm not listening I'm not listening I'm not listening..."

Majority rule (ie democracy) is a grand 'ole thing when it gets them what they want. When it kicks their a** to the curb it's a "contempt-filled... attack", and a "sad reflection on the constituancy".

Please...

1

Brian Kotowski 9 months, 1 week ago

An armed deputy sheriff had the Arapahoe shooter cornered within 80 seconds of the violence. Things would likely have been a good deal bloodier if not for the deputy's response. One wonders if those in this forum who have expressed outrage at the mere suggestion of armed staff on campus are upset by the school's decision to have the deputy there as the campus "resource officer." And if not, why.

Interesting, too, how so little notice has been taken of the shooter's self proclaimed socialism, his admiration for John Maynard Keynes; his contempt for Adam Smith, Repubs & conservatives. As opposed the media caterwauling over Sara Palin & talk radio after the Arizona shooting...

A purely rhetorical observation, of course. It is a perfectly understandable disparity when viewed through the prism of hypocrisy.

1

Brian Kotowski 8 months, 3 weeks ago

Quinnipiac: more concealed carry = less murder.

From the abstract:

"... Using data for the period 1980 to 2009 and controlling for state and year fixed effects, the results of the present study suggest that states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murder rates than other states. It was also found that assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level. These results suggest that restrictive concealed weapons laws may cause an increase in gun-related murders at the state level. The results of this study are consistent with some prior research in this area, most notably Lott and Mustard (1997)."

1

Scott Wedel 8 months, 3 weeks ago

That sort of study is deeply flawed because it cannot separate the underlying causes from what are effects. States do not randomly chose to enact stricter restrictions. States with big cities with problems of gun violence, in particular gang related gun violence, are more likely to enact restrictions on concealed carry than a rural state without those problems.

It is the same confusing of cause and effect that invalidates comparisons of gun ownership between countries and their murder rate. Countries with stable societies that have low murder rates have many other effects limiting their murder rate that are more important than gun ownership.

0

mark hartless 8 months, 3 weeks ago

That may be a somewhat valid point, Scott.

How come leftists can't make (or even accept) the same argument for things like the progressive tax scale, minimum wage laws, war on poverty, etc?

1

Scott Wedel 8 months, 3 weeks ago

Mark,

Well, the impact of government economic policies on the overall economy has a more direct cause and effect. The economic impact of things like a progressive tax scale can be relatively accurately predicted using data from countries which have changed their taxes to be less or more progressive. Thus, the debate over progressive taxes is less over the economic impact and more over whether that impact is wanted or not.

Much of what is seen in the media is one extremist criticizing the extremist of the opposite opinion. In reality, as can be seen in the Federal Reserve, economists of different perspectives are not that far apart on important issues of economic impact.

0

mark hartless 8 months, 3 weeks ago

Like the majority of those economists which agree that raising the minimum wage kills jobs and disproportionately hurts the same poor people who politicians claim to be helping?

Or like how the progressive income tax causes venture capital and investments to flee to other countries?

Or like how there is really no such thing as a tax on business because individual consumers ultimately end up paying that tax? ...

1

john bailey 8 months, 3 weeks ago

how bout a 20 dollar BigMac ? you want fries with that ? ~;0)

1

Scott Wedel 8 months, 3 weeks ago

Mark,

The actual impact depends upon the current situations and the cost of the options. So an increase in minimum wage can make it worthwhile for businesses to reduce the number of jobs by improving automation or such. But the actual impact depends upon how many people are working in minimum wage jobs that have yet to be affected by automation. Jobs at Walmart or McDonalds have already been affected by automation and an increase in the minimum wage is not going to cause them to cut employees.

Likewise, taxes can affect where businesses locate, but taxes is one cost among many. A business may also need skilled employees and so Silicon Valley is still home to forming new companies despite the higher state taxes. Notice that Facebook didn't start in California, but moved there to get the expertise to be a larger rapidly growing company.

And saying there is no such thing as a tax on business because consumers end up paying the tax is more of a political; statement than economic policy. Taxes on one business adds a cost to that business and can affect how much it sells which is the intent of tobacco, alcohol and mj taxes. A business tax is a tax at that point of economic activity and ownership.

Economics is the study of decision making based upon all factors. Adjusting a single element generally does not completely dictate the result. Laws making drug dealing illegal has not eliminated illegal drugs. Going to jail is just another potential cost for drug dealers and greatly increases the cost of seeking capital to expand the business.

0

Brian Kotowski 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Punk vs.90 year old. Doesn't go so well for the punk.

An excellent example of the type of defensive gun use that is seldom reported, where the gun is brandished but not fired. Estimates range from 100k to 2.5 million annually, the vast majority of which (well over 90%, according to researcher John Lott) are episodes where the gun is deployed but not fired and no one is injured as a result. Not only are those instances frequently not reported, they are not included in official statistical analyses of defensive gun usage.

1

mark hartless 8 months, 2 weeks ago

"Jobs at Walmart or McDonalds have already been affected by automation and an increase in the minimum wage is not going to cause them to cut employees."

Why was there automation in the first place, Einstein?? Because the manual labor costs made that automation more desirable and competitive.

"So an increase in minimum wage can make it worthwhile for businesses to reduce the number of jobs..." THAT'S what I said in the first place, Scott; that increasing the minimum wage kills jobs.

Good grief, You'd argue with someone who counted a hald dozen cows in the field by insisting "NO, there are SIX". Geeez...

1

Scott Wedel 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Mark,

Automation occurred at Walmart as part of their fundamental business strategy. It was not caused by high wages, but as how they manage inventory and ordering. They cannot reduce labor costs any more by automation. So a hike in the minimum wage will not reduce employment at Walmart.

I could throw in some insult, but I don't like going there. I'll let that be your specialty.

0

mark hartless 8 months, 2 weeks ago

What was Wal Mart's "fundamental business strategy", Scott? To save money, Scott.

Hell, They made it their motto... "Save money, live better..."

And if letting hungry ethiopians unload the trucks instead of forklifts would save them $$$$ then that's what their technology would have remained.

Only a fool would state that a company like Wal Mart can not further reduce labor costs through automation. They are in the process of doing so as we speak.

Furthermore, I was NOT speaking only of Wal Mart. YOU isolated that convarsation. The minimum wage hike that the Democrat party now favors WILL kill jobs. I could throw in some insult, but...

Your argument is falling down so you are starting to whine about being insulted...

The insult is that you expect the rest of us to believe that big gubbamint can incessantly screw with all facets of the economy with no negative consequences.

1

Brian Kotowski 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Detroit's top cop: armed, law abiding Americans = less crime.

“Coming from California (Craig was on the Los Angeles police force for 28 years), where it takes an act of Congress to get a concealed weapon permit, I got to Maine, where they give out lots of CCWs (carrying concealed weapon permits), and I had a stack of CCW permits I was denying; that was my orientation.

“I changed my orientation real quick. Maine is one of the safest places in America. Clearly, suspects knew that good Americans were armed.”

1

Thomss Steele 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Hudak good bye and good riddance... Marie shut up and sit down. You know NOTHING about preventing crime. We have only begun the cleansing.

1

mark hartless 8 months, 2 weeks ago

I guess if Hudak felt as strongly about the gun issue as Marie apparently does, she might have stuck around and fought for her seat instead of running away in fear before the people had a chance to speak.

Perhaps it's a pavlovian response with anti-gun leftists; to run away rather than fight. They certainly seem to expect that from everyone else.

It seems as if they simply fail to understand man's natural inclination to bear arms.

1

Brian Kotowski 8 months, 2 weeks ago

A more comprehensive way to express Mark's last sentence is that the left denies human nature in all things. Collectivism has an undeniable intellectual appeal. Its adherents believe those who deny that appeal can and must be coerced into compliance.

Interesting too that Marie & her ilk are unwilling to act on their convictions, unlike their opposite numbers on the other side. The 50+ Colorado Sheriffs who publicly announced they would not enforce the new legislation are elected officials subject to recall, just like Hudak and her colleagues who were tossed out on their keesters.

Perhaps the most revealing remark in Marie's post is her assertion that it "...is a sad reflection on their constituency and on where we are in this country on this issue." [emphasis mine]

In other words: it is the constituency's obligation to reflect the views of a politician, and not the other way around. Marie's contempt for the "constituency" is inescapable, despite her derision of the "contempt" expressed in Joe Meglen's letter. Contempt for me, but not for thee. The hypocrisy and elitism are breathtaking.

1

Steve Lewis 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Joe, I agree with your frustration with corrupt politics and influence. But focusing so much on popular partisan conclusions is not going to change that central problem. Too often I think you accomplish the reverse - popular partisan talking points echoed by the existing elite and lobbyists, that divide us on vastly oversimplified hot-button items that are never resolved. We send our $$ to the same old D.C. endorsed lobbyists and end up reinforcing the status quo. You seem to accept the corruption is wide spread, but you only point at Democrats as the problem. I suppose I do the same in regard to policy, if not the politicians by name.

Effective argument against the elite should explore common ground at the grass roots where we agree, but cannot advance. What is your opinion of Citizens United? Gerrymandered congressional districts? How would you suggest we improve government?

0

mark hartless 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Steve,

You should read Charles Murray's book "Comming Apart".

Explains why the divisions are likely only going to get worse... much worse.

The elite rule from afar. Isolated zip codes, isolated, impracticle ideas, increasing isolation from the results of their flawed ideas, insulated from manual labor, contemptous of self protection, totally unfamiliar with the inside of a Wal Mart, McDonalds drive thru, camouflage clothing, eating something they killed, working a job that makes their body hurt, doing anything that might require a pickup truck, etc.

All these narcissists really actually know is that they know better than we how to run our lives. It is evident from the White House, right on down to the local housing "authority".

1

Steve Lewis 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Mark, black and white stereotypes and labels exemplify the dumbing down of information, and thus the dumbing down of voters - something you routinely decry. If you want smarter voters, stop oversimplifying the issues to the level of your gut.

For instance, Mark Udall has been pushing back against the excesses of the Patriot Acts more than any elected official. He was vocal about the overreaching NSA powers years before his peers. I consider Udall to be the exception to D.C.'s corruption and influence. If you do not, at least acknowledge the positives beside the negatives when you argue to toss Udall out.

0

Joe Meglen 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Steve,

It may appear to you that some of my Letters To The Editor or comments are partisan. I despise both parties, especially at the national level, equally. It just so happens that the Republican party is on the correct side of the 2nd Amendment and Health Insurance “reform”, although I suspect for, with a rare few exceptions, political reasons rather than principle. It was after all the Republican party, which was nothing more than resurrected members of the Whig party, that was the cause of the War Between The States. The Republican’s war slaughtered more than 700,000 Americans, killed state’s rights and the Constitutional Republic established by the founders. It was George W. Bush and the Republicans that expanded government more than any administration before them, being only second to the current administration. Both parties are for big unconstitutional government which grows at the expense of the private sector and freedom. My letters or comments are not partisan, but an attempt to bring to the attention of those that think critically how our freedom continues to be stolen from us by government at all levels.

How do I suggest we improve government? As stated in my letter, DC is hopelessly corrupt (an understatement) and it will not be fixed from the top down. We can do something locally working from the bottom up. We can improve government starting at the local level by selecting candidates that are socially tolerant, fiscally responsible, swear an oath to uphold the Constitution, and actually mean it. These candidates must recognize that they are our agents, not our rulers. These principled candidates will replace those without principle, like Ex-Senators Morse, Giron, Hudak and “our” own Diane Mitch Bush. Then we move up the line and get rid of “our” Colorado DC senators, both of which have proven to be devoid of integrity as well. These steps would be a good beginning, although this requires an informed electorate. That is the greatest challenge.

0

mark hartless 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Sorry Steve, I'm with Joe.

When you vomit, EVERYTHING comes up, not just the bad sushi. Anyone (including Udall) who is IN office today ought to be puked OUT... PERIOD. The cesspool on the Potomac needs to be purged, and if the very few "good ones" get up-chucked in the process then so be it.

To the extent Udall has fought against the Patriot Act and the NSA I applaude him and thank you for reminding us of that.

Yes, I do indeed decry the dumbing down of the electorate. But my criticism of them no more causes their ignorance than flies cause garbage.

Instead, I was trying to point you and other readers who claim to seek knowledge, toward a source of information on the subject to which you yourself had just alluded. You said "...effective argument against the elite"; I pointed you toward the best damned book (current print)I have ever read on that subject.

Charles Murray did not write an opinion piece. His book is a well-researched work that sheds light on major demographic trends and how the elite are increasingly isolated from the electorate.

Am I guilty of "oversimplyfying the issues"? Perhaps. I think it is equally possible that your rebuke of my "oversimplification" is a common and heretofore effective response; and that it is... well... spoken EXACTLY as I would expect from the kind of elite, ruling class to which I refer above.

1

Scott Wedel 8 months, 2 weeks ago

"If the damage inflicted by 100 years of the “progressive” era is to be fixed, it must be cured from the bottom up."

So apparently just go back and undo the past 100 years of progressive legislation. So no more need for women to vote, no New Deal or Social Security, no Warren Supreme Court decisions on civil rights, no Title IX, no medicare and no EPA.

0

Joe Meglen 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Scott,

Progressives have their roots in Fabian Socialism. They are collectivists who reject the constitutional form of government and the principles upon which the United States were founded; individual liberty and freedom. Collectivists see a government solution in everything in the mistaken belief that an enlightened elite can do a better job in managing people than the individual can for themselves.

What should we unwind from the Progressive Revolution? It is a long list that can't be covered in the space allowed here. Let’s start by abolishing the unconstitutional Federal Reverse System, a cartel of private bankers that collude with government to plunder the citizens via the secret tax of inflation. It is the Federal Reserve, and its creation of unconstitutional currency, that has facilitated the welfare/warfare state that has bankrupted the United States. It follows that Legal Tender Laws should be repealed. Let’s then repeal the 16th Amendment, the ratification of which remains suspect, that steals a substantial portion of a persons life by taxing the fruits of their labor. Next let’s repeal the 17th Amendment, the ratification of which is also suspect, and return the appointment of senators to state legislatures ensuring the state’s interests are represented in Washington DC. Yes, phase out Social Security and Medicare. These are federal government Ponzi schemes, and like all Pyramid schemes, they collapse. Abolish the Department of Education which has been effectively indoctrinating good little socialists for years. Repeal the ACA quickly before the Too Big To Fail Health Insurance Industry needs a bailout the country can't afford. Eliminate the ineffective EPA. Polluters should answer directly to property owners in court for the damage they create. These would be a good start.

Sadly, Collectivism is a psychological tool causing free people to willingly cooperate in their own enslavement.

1

mark hartless 8 months, 2 weeks ago

The sun has helped the people of earth for centuries.

But today we are told to fight global warming.

The government, according to Scott, has been helping the people of America for so long that it should be allowed to "help" us WITHOUT QUESTION for another thousand years...???

We should revolt against the sun for "obvious reasons" but cowar to government because of what it did for us many years ago???

And that's assuming we all agree that those government "gifts" were beneficial...

1

Joe Meglen 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Some people suffer from Stockholm syndrome, some from cognitive dissonance. Some have both afflictions.

Some people are ignorant, which is not the same thing as being stupid. However, if a person has the opportunity to become informed, but chooses to remain ignorant, then they are stupid.

1

john bailey 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Joe , that's about the most sense I've heard in some time , brilliant....tip o the hat to ya...~;0)

0

Brian Kotowski 8 months, 2 weeks ago

CDC Study commissioned by President Obama: Use of Firearms For Self-Defense is ‘Important Crime Deterrent’

“Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies,” the CDC study, entitled “Priorities For Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence,” states.

1

mark hartless 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Joe is, of course, exactly right.

Humans are not a rational animal, but a rationalizing one." -Leon Festinger

Nowhere is this more evident than in the actions of the statist.

I believe this is why leftists constantly defend big government programs on the basis of their stated intent RATHER than on the basis of those programs' success rates; which even Hellen Keller could see are abysmal failures.

To the leftist, the intent seemes noble and well-meaning. Therefore, no amount of emphrical evidence to the contrary can peel the rose-colored lenses off their eyes.

The pain of accepting the reality of these repeated failures is simply more than they can bear.

This is probably why they often go into the grown-up version of pluging their ears and yelling "I'm not listening, I'm not listening...".

Minimum wage kills jobs, you say? "but, but but bu...t".

Guns prevent crime you say? "but but but but..."

Taxes force companies out of business or over-seas, you say? "but but but but..."

Corporations DO NOT pay taxes, only individuals, you say??? "but but but but..."

Not in their narrative so it just can't be true. The pain of acknowledging these facts is simply more than they can bear.

The alternative? Remain ignorant by choice and associate with those who choose to believe the same and who reward each other for their allegiance to that group and it's narrative.

The reward? Like a rat in a cage... Pull the right lever-get a food pellet. Say the right thing-get an "atta-boy" from the group.

How do you feel about the founders? "Jefferson? Slave owner!". Get a pellet. Coal? "Can't be clean-always bad". Atta-boy here's your pellet! Wind power kills eagles? "doesn't matter-wind power good" Atta-boy, here's your pellet.

1

Steve Lewis 8 months, 2 weeks ago

I'm disappointed by this thread. Why spend so much of your time describing how wrong and dumb everyone else is? It is an utterly false premise. Those who disagree with you are hopelessly inferior to you?

Political extremes are easy, and made easier with oversimplified views. As one with family property on the Gulf coast marginally affected by the BP spill, Joe's "you could sue BP" is a hopeless proposition. Similarly, the EPA can trace its formation to the fouled and even "dead" state of important U.S. rivers. We should go back to that?

If we do not improve our ability to work together, 100% of us will regret that we never managed to see ourselves as one.

1

Brian Kotowski 8 months, 2 weeks ago

I do not wish to be "one" with people like former Sen. Hudak, who want me and mine to live as prey; and who couldn't be less interested in "our ability to work together" - as evidenced by the contempt she exhibited for any constituent who presumed to disagree with her. I will call them out on their stupidity, arrogance, and elitism every chance I get. The first step in cleansing a stain is to shine a light on it. If that means exposing how "wrong and dumb" someone is, so be it.

1

bill schurman 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Joe, I'm afraid that you are paranoid. Time out for some professional help.

0

mark hartless 8 months, 2 weeks ago

In the imm ortal words of momma... "stupid is as stupid does, Forest."

1

Brian Kotowski 8 months, 1 week ago

Federal Court tells Rahm Emmanuel to pound sand.

Despite the Heller decision, Dipstick Rahm imposed an all-out ban on virtually any transfer or sale of firearms in Chi-Town. Judge Edmond E. Chang (an Obama nominee) sent the Mayor packing.

1

Brian Kotowski 7 months, 2 weeks ago

Obama DoJ Report: Since 1993, Murders Using Guns Down 39%, Violent Crime Down 70%

It never made the news because it can't be shoehorned into the narrative approved for consumption by the sheeple.

1

Brian Kotowski 7 months, 1 week ago

9th Circuit Nukes California's Concealed Carry Restrictions

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Thursday that the Second Amendment endows the right to carry a gun outside the home...

"...So concludes our analysis of text and history: the carrying of an operable handgun outside the home for the lawful purpose of self-defense, though subject to traditional restrictions, constitutes “bear[ing] Arms” within the meaning of the Second Amendment."

1

john bailey 7 months, 1 week ago

oh those crazy Colyfornians , they don't know whether there coming or going.....I caught that yesterday Brian......bet they change their mind within 3 months...sheezz......

0

Brian Kotowski 7 months, 1 week ago

They can change their minds all they like. The judiciary has just insured that their feckless conceit can't be translated into law. At least with regard to concealed carry. Open carry of toys by Disney dolls on the other hand... It wouldn't surprise me to see Cali follow Britain's lead. Because that's the kind of vigilance that will keep us safe. It's For The Children ®.

0

Brian Kotowski 5 months ago

A headline & accompanying story that must be a lie; yet more evidence of Hillary's Vast Right Wing Conspiracy© : How Chicago Became ‘Chiraq’

"On Easter weekend, 45 people were shot in the city, six of them children."

Bald-faced lies and fabrications. Media malfeasance, that's what it is. Good Socialist Rahm is running the show in the President's hometown, where everyone knows guns are illegal.

0

Brian Kotowski 4 months, 3 weeks ago

Purdue University: More guns in schools equal fewer deaths during active shooter situations.

"...However, the real reductions came when teachers carrying concealed firearms were supplemented with a resource officer, the results show.

In the scenario where five percent of teachers were carrying concealed guns and a resource officer was present, casualties dropped an astonishing 69.2 percent and response time dropped 59.7 percent. Finally, when 10 percent of teachers were carrying concealed firearms and a resource officer was present, casualties fell by 70.2 percent and response time was reduced by 62.7 percent..."

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.