Posts

Women unloads

Epic Home Defense Video: Woman Shoots at Burglars Killing One

Three burglars in Gwinnett County Georgia, kick in a front door, but they are totally unprepared for what happens next as she chases them through her house emptying her gun at them as they try to escape:

One of the burglars is shot and killed. The other two manage to escape and police are on the hunt for them.

Here’s more:

WSBTV – Police are hoping someone can help identify two home invaders. They were caught on camera as a woman in the house shot at them.

“She exercised her right to defend her livelihood and property,” Cpl. Deon Washington with the Gwinnett County Police Department told Channel 2’s Nicole Carr.

Surveillance video from inside the home shows the Gwinnett County woman rush from her bedroom and then unloads all her bullets on the three men who kicked in her front door.

The woman is a local restaurant manager who was staying in a housemate’s Spring Drive home for work-related reasons.

She heard the three intruders break into the home around 4 a.m. Friday. Video shows the men have guns clearly in hand.

Police said the men were looking for cash when they met their match.

As they exchange fire with drywall debris clouding the dark home, the video shows one man run through a glass door.

Another man died of his injuries in the driveway.

The video then shows the woman being consoled by a housemate who gently takes away the gun.

“It’s not common that we receive this caliber of surveillance video showing the crime unfold, an actual home invasion,” Washington said.

Its has been said that a gun is the great equalizer. This brave woman proves it. She’s clearly outnumbered, yet she defends herself, her roommate and her property because she knew she could.

The Second Amendment triumphs again.

student-4_3

Texas Professors Sue to Deny Students 2nd Amendment Right

Three professors working in the Liberal Arts department at The University of Texas at Austin are fighting a Texas law that allows students to carry concealed handguns in their college classrooms.

Senate Bill 11, allowing concealed handgun license holders 21 and older (or 18 if active military) to carry in campus buildings, was signed by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, on June 23rd of 2015. The law went into effect Aug. 1 this year.

The professors requested a preliminary injunction to block the new campus carry law and had filed suit on July 6 against the attorney general of Texas, Ken Paxton; the president of the University of Texas at Austin, Gregory Fenves; and members of the University of Texas Board of Regents.

U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel made no ruling during the court hearing after lawyers for the professors and for the university struggled to agree on the university’s rules and policies on concealed weapons, the Austin American-Statesman reported. Instead, Yeakel requested more information to clarify university concealed weapon policies.

“Compelling professors at a public university to allow, without any limitation or restriction, students to carry concealed guns in their classrooms chills their First Amendment rights to academic freedom,” the lawsuit says.

Paxton, the Republican Texas attorney general, called the professors’ lawsuit “frivolous.”

“There is no legal justification to deny licensed, law-abiding citizens on campus the same measure of personal protection they are entitled to elsewhere in Texas,” Paxton said in statement.

Paxton filed a response with the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas Austin Division on Aug. 1 in opposition to the University of Texas professors’ request for preliminary injunction.

The professors “have no right under the First Amendment to violate the Second Amendment rights of students,” Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal. “And it is insulting to law-abiding gun owners—categorizing them as crazies who will kill someone over a debate in a classroom.”

A 1995 Texas law allows concealed handguns to be carried in public, including on the grounds of public college campuses, but previously excluded campus buildings, the Statesman reported.

Under the new law, public institutions of higher education cannot “generally” prohibit license holders from carrying concealed weapons, but are allowed to establish “rules, regulations, or other provisions” restricting guns from places like labs with dangerous chemicals and regarding the storage of handguns in residential dorm facilities.

Moore, one of the plaintiffs, who teaches English and gender studies, told NPR that “it’s impossible to do our jobs with this policy in place.” She continued:

We all teach subject matter that is quite sensitive, and we all use very participatory, you know, pedagogically sound methods of trying to teach students how to state their views on controversial subjects, challenge one another and stand up for what they believe in.

“I am genuinely not equipped to keep students safe from a firearm in my classroom,” Moore added.

Brian Bensimon, Students for Concealed Carry’s director for the state of Texas, told The Daily Signal that the professors’ lawsuit is “perplexing.”

“Concealed carry is allowed in our state capitol,” Bensimon said. “There’s plenty of open debate and lively discourse there.”

Allison Peregory, a 21-year-old University of Texas pre-law student, plans to get a state-issued concealed weapon license and carry on her campus, The Dallas Morning News reported.

“It’s important for people to have their right to self-defense be protected,” Peregory said, according to the Morning News.

Aug. 1, the date the bill went into effect, marked the 50th anniversary of a mass shooting that took place at the University of Texas at Austin.

“It is quite ironic; they [the professors] are apparently unaware that private citizens, including students, helped police in 1966 stop Charles Whitman, the University of Texas Tower sniper, when they grabbed their guns and started firing at the sniper in the tower,” Heritage’s von Spakovsky said. “One of those Texans, Allen Crum, even climbed to the top of the tower with a rifle to assist the policeman who eventually killed Whitman.”

Students for Concealed Carry is trying to block a University of Texas rule that allows professors to ban concealed weapons from their individual office space. The group filed a complaint with Paxton on Aug. 4.

“Gun control advocates think that gun bans will make people safer,” Dr. John R. Lott, a staunch gun rights advocate, former Professor at The University of Chicago, Yale University, and the University of Maryland, as well as founder of the Crime Prevention Research Center ( a non-profit formed to study the relationship between gun laws and crime ) and author of “The War on Guns,” wrote in an op-ed. “But banning guns only ensures that law-abiding good citizens are disarmed, not the killers. Instead of bans improving safety, these bans attract killers and make it easier for them to commit crimes.”  A study done by Harvard, a well-known and revered university by the left, concluded that, “The more guns a nation has, the less criminal activity.”  The study looked at armed crime rates, including murder, in nations that have total bans on gun ownership compared to nations that have high rates of gun ownership among their citizens.

In the official policy written by Gregory Fenves, the President of the University of Texas at Austin, you will find some other strange policies that have been adopted, specifically, “A license holder who carries a semiautomatic handgun on campus must carry it without a chambered round of ammunition.”  While the school intends the rule to be yet another safety measure, it goes against what most Texas firearms instructors, police academies, and the military teach for self-defense.

It’s generally accepted that—in the context of self-defense shootings, which typically happen at close range—one’s ability to quickly and cleanly present from the holster is more important than even one’s aim. Being forced to draw one’s weapon and then load the first round (a procedure that typically takes both hands) is a serious impediment to being able to quickly and cleanly present to the target. Chambering a round in the heat of battle also denies the defensive shooter an opportunity to perform a chamber check—a safety check typically performed when loading a firearm. At close contact (any distance close enough for an assailant to grab the defender’s gun), having an empty chamber can essentially render the defender’s handgun useless.

This policy, also going in tandem with another rule to require that guns be kept in a holster that covers the trigger and trigger guard, goes further than any other university in prescribing how the guns should actually be carried.  When asked by gun rights advocates groups which experts the school relied upon to define these two policies, the school declined to do so.  If UT-Austin President Gregory Fenves wishes to act responsibly, he will modify these two policies. If he does not, the policies will almost certainly face legal challenges—challenges likely to succeed and likely to cost the university significant time and money.

3 Percenter

Why the 3%er Movement is Relevant

The term 3%’ers (III%’ers or 3 Percenters) refers to the claimed 3% of colonists who fought in the American Revolutionary War against the British to achieve American independence. Today, another group has taken the statistic as a title with what they see as the same mission. Resisting authoritarianism, tyranny, and upholding the constitution. To the radical liberal plague enveloping the college scene of America, some of the 3% might appear as a bunch of redneck vigilantes fringing on the grounds of racism. Presumptuous feelings aside, to understand the movement you must review ancient history; the 90’s.

3_Percenters_flag The birth of the 3%’er movement was not an anomaly. In the wake of the Columbine shootings, people were gravitating heavily towards the idea of gun control. Every person had their opinion on the issue, and some were even in favor of the U.S implementing the same policies, ironically, as Britain. To one who follows the constitution strictly, this is was a nightmare, especially after 1994 which introduced the Federal Assault Weapon Ban which, whether you like the amendment or not, infringed on the right to bear arms. The main focus being that weapons with such stomping power should not be of easy access to those with the intent to cause harm to innocent people. However, the 3%ers and many other Americans, as well as many outside of the U.S, recognize this is not a weapons issue but a people issue.

The Obama administration, mostly Obama himself, consistently persuades(with major success)the public that he’s not trying to deny citizens their right to bear arms, but trying to stop criminals from attaining high power or even military grade firearms. This is bullshit. Obama has openly declared assault weapons being available to the public is immoral, and has attempted many times to eliminate guns held by legal carriers off the streets despite the new ‘Wild Wild West’ created by him in Chicago. Basically, Obama, and the rest of the left are saying “You can have guns, just none that can really do anything”, and that’s how the 3%ers perceive this. If the government ever began to enforce laws the citizens disapproved of, we would not be able to defend ourselves due to the fact our equipment could not combat the military’s in a fight to protect our freedom, which denies the purpose of the second amendment that’s already being infringed on, and the idea that a democratic country could turn on it’s own people isn’t abstract to the history books.

Last year in Colorado as many know, Freedom of religion was denied to a Christian bakery for stating it was against their religion to provide cake for a gay couple’s wedding. Now if it was me in that situation, I would say “fuck you” and leave because there’s other bakeries and I wouldn’t want to fund a place of such discrimination. The couple took another approach and brought it to court, and won denying a religious belief that is fundamental in every major monotheistic religion in the world(against homosexuality), and while I have nothing but support for the LBGTQ community, it seems that religious freedom is very dim flame in the Left’s agenda. Across America, cases like this are increasingly common, where religion is open to persecution(unless it’s Islam) and never defended(unless it’s Islam).

Islam, as some are aware, and many unwilling to accept, commits more theological based crime than any other religion worldwide, due to it’s inherently aggressive nature found within the Quran and the dedication of its many followers. This is made especially apparent by the rapid increase of crime in Europe due to the E.U allowing both innocent and dangerous people to flood in from predominantly Muslim countries with absolutely no information as to who any of these people were. The statistics are shocking, as within less than a year of the refugee invasion, the Dailymail reported migrant crime went up 79%. The statistics in Sweden make it clear that since the migration, the rate of rapes has increased. The 3%ers recognize that Islam is a massive potential threat to Western civilization that is both proven and somewhat hidden. The 3%ers have been seen protesting outside of Mosques in the U.S with guns, discouraging Muslims from coming to America and in general being here. And while I don’t support these actions, there is clear evidence to support the notion that the values of Americans, both conservative and especially liberal, heavily conflict with those of the Middle Eastern Islamic community, seeing as how we don’t make it a habit to throw gay people off of buildings or decapitate those with different beliefs. Actions like those mentioned are the inherit threat of allowing undocumented refugees into the U.S, which is why the 3%ers are so concerned with Islam in general.

Refugee-crime

The rise of 3%ers should not be a shock to anyone as some of us have allowed the government to convince us that we can’t responsibly carry weapons, but should trust said weapons in the hands of those who serve under our government who deny the enemy at home and abroad. Denying legal gun owners the right to military grade weapons makes it easy for tyrannical power to come, take control via military force, and push citizens around in the same way the British did to the early colonists(which is why the 2nd Amendment exists), and in the same way Hitler did to the Jewish. It’s also rather terrifying to see our president consistently deny the inherit threat of Islam on American soil and equally as terrifying when a presidential candidate can openly break the law that others have been punished for and be charged with nothing. While I don’t think the U.S army is about to march down the street to impose the will of Obama Christ, are we the people truly to be disarmed of our ability to combat possible government tyranny by a president with the potential to be succeeded by a woman who, despite clear evidence of guilt, walked away from a crime that could put you or I behind bars?

 

Author Rob Ash @RobAsh97

Editor Tom Marshall

From: http://robash97.blogspot.com/2016/07/why-3er-movement-is-relevant.html

Trump and Musket

Donald Trump say’s he’s ‘Second Amendment 100%’

According to CNN while in Sarasota, Florida Donald Trump on Saturday touted his opposition to gun control, the day after a shooting rampage outside a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado killed three people.

At a Sarasota, Florida rally, Trump didn’t mention the episode, in which one officer and two civilians were killed. But the mogul did cite the recent Paris attacks, in which more than 130 people died.

“If they would have had the guns, they wouldn’t have had the carnage they had,” Trump told an often-raucous crowd. “I just want to say upfront, right now, Second Amendment 100%.”

The billionaire businessman’s Thanksgiving weekend event came amid mounting criticism over his apparent taunting of a New York Times reporter’s physical appearance. Trump has denied mocking the scribe’s physical disability. The New York Times earlier in the week issued a statement condemning Trump, while the mogul maintains it’s the news outlet that should be saying sorry.

It’s only the latest brouhaha in a campaign filled with taunts and insults of political opponents, media critics and others. Though before the Sarasota rally Trump showed a softer side, at least briefly. After his helicopter landed, Trump called for some children to go up in it, a stunt he pulled in Iowa this summer as well.

“I can call her girl right?” Trump said speaking to the parents of a young child at the rally. “Today we have to be so politically correct.”

Trump’s campaign on Saturday also announced the endorsement of Kathryn “Kat” Gates-Skipper, the first female Marine in combat operations.

CNN’s full story »

 

Barbara LeSavoy

College Professor: “I urge President Obama to ban firearm possession in America,”

On Fox New’s “The O’Reilly Factor,” correspondent Jesse Watters often goes to college towns, microphone in hand, to document the airy ignorance of some college students. Now we know it’s not really their fault.

“I urge President Obama to ban firearm possession in America,” a college professor wrote in the Rochester (New York) Democrat & Chronicle. “He is the president of the United States. He can change the country. He can do it today. I believe in him.”

That’s Barbara LeSavoy, director of Women and Gender Studies at The College at Brockport. You’d think she would know something about the U.S. Constitution and the way the country works. But alas, she seems pretty clueless.

“Today, I write this letter with a bleeding heart,” she states. “I admire Obama. But he has let me down. I am disappointed because his presidency could have done more for our country, and sadly, the many taken lives who cannot read this essay. I still worry about urgent social tensions facing our nation, and I recognize their ongoing complexities in policy and legislative action. But gun violence can be averted.”

How? It seems pretty simple to her.

“Firearm possession should be banned in America; President Obama can orchestrate this directive,” she wrote. “His presidency can be remembered as a remarkable turn in United States history where a progressive leader forever changed the landscape under which we live and work. This is his legacy. To establish gun control laws in America that will reduce high levels of male violence and usher in a culture of peace and civility.”

No, President Obama doesn’t have that power. What’s standing in his way isn’t political meekness, as professor LeSavoy implies, but the Second Amendment.

As the U.S. Supreme Court held in the Heller decision in 2008, “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”

Professor LeSavoy’s letter doesn’t make it clear how she thinks the government should go about collecting all those guns she wants the president to ban. But any such effort would be disastrous.

As The Federalist’s Varad Mehta noted, “Let there be no doubt. Gun confiscation would have to be administered by force of arms. I do not expect that those who dismissed their fellow citizens for clinging bitterly to their guns are so naive that they imagine these people will suddenly cease their bitter clinging when some nice young man knocks on their door and says, ‘Hello, I’m from the government and I’m here to take your guns.’”

It would be needlessly cruel to quote much more of professor LeSavoy’s letter, although this sentence pretty much sums it up: “During (Obama’s) 2008 presidential campaign, my two daughters, partner, and I ate every meal in our house on Obama placemats.”

The point here is that professor LeSavoy is a celebrated scholar and thought-leader in academia. So maybe we should give college students a break. It’s not their fault.

 

Sheriff Brad Rogers

Indiana Sheriff: I Will Uphold The Constitution, Not Obama’s Executive Actions

“I will not allow gun confiscation in my county.”

Elkhart County, Indiana Sheriff Brad Rogers made a covenant declaration to his citizens that he will “disregard” any executive orders sent by President Obama that infringes on their Second Amendment rights.

“If President Obama today said, ‘I’m creating an executive order that all sheriffs and police chiefs around this nation need to start registering firearms,’ I will disregard it,” the sheriff said on Sunday’s broadcast of WNIT’s Politically Speaking.

Rogers was a guest, along with several other members of the community, invited to talk about the government’s call for more gun control and to speak on gun rights in the wake of the recent university shootings.

“We’ve always had this conversation that we need more reasonable gun control put in place,” Rogers said. “But we already have what is reasonable, in my opinion, and in fact it’s probably overdone.”

Rogers was questioned on how he can hold these unruly views and be reconciled with the oath he took for office. So, he repeated his oath, saying it is to defend the United States Constitution and the Indiana constitution to the best of his ability. However, he said that doesn’t mean he enforces every law every time:

If you want the police to enforce every law on the books, that means all the discretion is taken out. That means you get a ticket every time instead of a warning. That means we can’t take a juvenile home instead of throwing him into the juvenile justice system and starting their career in crime.

The sheriff said his role in the government of the people doesn’t mean he “checks his mind at the door” and blindly follow orders. If something is asked of him that checks out as unlawful with the Constitution, even a law itself, his conscience wouldn’t permit him to enforce it.

The American Mirror posted a video of Sheriff Rogers from 2013 speaking on the same subject just as defiantly. In this clip he said:

I want to affirm my commitment and my oath of office to uphold the Indiana and United States constitutions, the Second Amendment and all of the Bill of Rights. I will not allow gun confiscation in my county.

I will not enforce any additional anti-gun laws and I stand with you for liberty as a law enforcement officer, as a sheriff and hopefully to light the flame across this nation for other sheriffs to also stand for liberty and not tolerate the constitutional usurpations that are occurring at the federal level.

 

High Bridge Arms gun store general manager Steven Alcairo displays a rifle at the shop located on Mission Street Thursday, July 16, 2015. Hi Bridge is San Francisco's only gun store.

The last gun shop in San Francisco is closing

Next month will mark the end of an era in San Francisco as the city’s sole remaining gun shop closes its doors. High Bridge Arms has been in business at the same location since the 1950s, but with the next round of city regulations and restrictions on gun dealers (which means just High Bridge) the city fathers have found the straw required to break the camel’s back. It’s a glorious day for liberals. (Fox News)

Business for the last gun shop in the city of 840,000 has been good, according to Alcairo, especially since the store, which caters to law enforcement and outdoors enthusiasts, announced it would close next month.

Situated in the prominent city heart of Mission Street, High Bridge Arms was founded in the mid-1950s by Bob Chow, who competed in the 1948 Olympics 25-yard pistol shooting event. By some accounts a Bay Area institution, it has long been a tourist destination – specially for members of the law enforcement community who visit the city.

“I found the staff to be friendly, decent, law-abiding people who have been harassed by the San Francisco anti-gun crowd for quite some time,” Jim Wilson, a retired sheriff from Alpine, Texas, told FoxNews.com as he recalled stopping by the shop during a visit to San Francisco a few years back.

The new city laws were so far over the top that it’s difficult to imagine them surviving a court challenge, but the owners apparently don’t feel like converting their entire operation into little more than a legal defense fund to keep fighting the liberal legislature. They were going to force them to record videos of every customer in the store and keep those videos available permanently. The personal information of every customer would have to be turned over to the police department each and every week even if there wasn’t a hint of an allegation that any crime had taken place. In short, the rules were designed to force the shop to harass their own customers mercilessly to the point where no reasonable person would want to shop there anyway.

As the general manager viewed it, the writing was on the wall.

“This time, it’s the idea of filming our customers taking delivery of items after they already completed waiting periods,” Alcairo said. “We feel this is a tactic designed to discourage customers from coming to us.

“This year, it’s this and next year will probably be something else,” Alcairo added. “We don’t want to wait for it.”

The reason this is such a huge victory for the Left is that they’ve finally found an escape hatch to go around the courts and the Second Amendment. They were unable to flatly make guns illegal or to order the closure of a legally operated business, but with one strike after another they were able to finally harass them into closing. The real world effect is negligible, of course, since law abiding gun owners can still go somewhere else to purchase their guns, but it’s still a “moral” victory in terms of driving the evil gun shop out of their peace loving neighborhood.

And hey… it’s not like San Francisco is full of crime to the point where citizens would need to arm themselves, right?

 

Steinle

 

By Jazz Shaw September 27, 2015 (Hotair)

gun rally

Rasmussen: Only 34 Percent Support Federal Gun Control Laws

Rasmussen released a poll On September 23, which shows only 34 percent of likely voters believe the federal government should be involved in gun control.

Thirty-six percent of likely voters believe gun control ought to be left up to state governments while 18 percent believe it ought to be up counties and municipalities.

According to Rasmussen, the percent of likely voters who oppose the idea of banning guns for everyone but government entities continues to grow. For example, “69 percent think it would be bad for the country if only the government had guns, [which is] up seven points from 62% in December.” Moreover, 68 percent of likely voters—nearly 7 out of 10—”would feel safer living in a neighborhood where they can own a gun” rather than in one where a gun ownership ban is in place.

When Rasmussen delved into basic questions about support for gun control versus opposition to gun control, they found only 43 percent of likely voters support more gun control, while 48 percent oppose it. They also found that likely voters continue to view the heinous August 26 shooting of WDBJ-TV reporter Alison Parker and cameraman Adam Ward as a mental health issue instead of a matter to be addressed with gun control.

 

Tump and guns

Trump: “The Second Amendment to our Constitution is clear, The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed upon. Period.”

Republican presidential candidate and front-runner Donald Trump released on Friday his policy paper detailing his views on gun rights, saying he supports the Second Amendment right to bear arms and that “our personal protection is ultimately up to us.”

“That’s why I’m a gun owner, Mr. Trump wrote “That’s why I have a concealed carry permit, and that’s why tens of millions of Americans have concealed carry permits as well. It’s just common sense.”

Mr. Trump continued “The Second Amendment to our Constitution is clear, The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed upon. Period.”

Mr. Trump argued for tougher enforcement of current gun laws and criticized the Obama administration for failing to rein in violent crime in cities like Baltimore and Chicago.

“Drug dealers and gang members are given a slap on the wrist and turned loose on the street. This needs to stop,” Mr. Trump wrote.

He also called for an overhaul of the nation’s broken mental health system, arguing “law-abiding gun owners get blamed by anti-gun politicians, gun control groups and the media for the acts of deranged madmen.”

Donald Trump addressed the issue of assault weapons stating, “What they’re really talking about are popular semi-automatic rifles and standard magazines that are owned by tens of millions of Americans,” he said, calling gun and magazine bans a “total failure.”

Mr. Trump also advocated for a national right-to-carry bills saying permits should be valid in all 50 states.

“A driver’s license works in every state, so its common sense that a concealed carry permit should work in every state,” he said.

Regarding the military Mr. Trump also called for allowing service men to carry firearms on bases and at recruiting centers, saying such bans were “ridiculous.”

“We train our military how to safely and responsibly use firearms, but our current policies leave them defenseless. To make America great again, we need a strong military. To have a strong military, we need to allow them to defend themselves.”

Furthermore, he said the nation’s mental health system has allowed people who should not have guns to obtain them.

“We need to expand treatment programs, because most people with mental health problems aren’t violent, they just need help… But for those who are violent, a danger to themselves or others, we need to get them off the street before they can terrorize our communities. This is just common sense.”

“And why does this matter to law-abiding gun owners? Once again, because they get blamed by anti-gun politicians, gun control groups and the media for the acts of deranged madmen,” he said.

 

Matt Gaetz

Push For Open Carry Comes Up Again In Florida

State Rep. Matt Gaetz is leading the latest attempt to pass an “open carry” gun law in Florida to repeal the state’s outdated laws on open carry.

In a Facebook post in July, Gaetz – who is seeking the Senate seat held by his father, former Senate President Don Gaetz – called Florida “an outlier” in prohibiting the open carry of firearms.

The Shalimar Republican filed HB 163 on Monday; in part, the bill would allow a person licensed to carry a concealed firearm or weapon to “also openly carry such firearm or weapon.”

“Texas recently made the change and it’s time we change too,” he wrote. “Share if you believe in protecting our 2nd Amendment freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution.”

HB 163 (PDF) would allow a concealed carrier to also open carry a firearm, chemical spray, or stun gun.

Furthermore, the bill affirms:

The right to bear arms and defend one’s self is a fundamental and individual right that exists in any place that a person has the right to be, subject only to exceptionally and narrowly tailored restrictions that employ the least possible restriction on the right in order to achieve a compelling government interest.