The Urban Grind

Via Liberty News Online

WHY DOES ANYONE NEED AN AR-15?
02-17-2013 10:16 am – Joseph Farah – World Net Daily

Have you noticed how gun-control advocates are asking all the wrong questions in their desperation to disarm American citizens?

This is one you will hear frequently from non-Americans like Piers Morgan of CNN. He recently asked it of Ted Nugent. (What a mistake that was!)

The question goes something like this: “Why does anyone need an AR-15?”

Now I can tell you lots of reasons why people need AR-15s. I may not absolutely need one. But I’d sure like to have one – maybe more than one.

But there really are people throughout the world and throughout the United States who have needed them.

Let me make this simple for the Piers Morgans of the world. Let’s say you are the victim of a home invasion. It happens every day in America, by the way. A group of armed thugs decide to select your home for an attack. Their plan is to ransack the house looking for money, jewelry, artwork, drugs, whatever. The gang has no compunction about killing you and other members of your family if you become an obstacle to their plan.

You find yourself outmanned, but, if you have an AR-15, you might not find yourself outgunned.

It’s just that simple. Why is this difficult for people like Piers Morgan to understand? I understand why Barack Obama and other would-be government tyrants want to disarm the citizenry. That’s about establishing a monopoly on force. Governments throughout the world have been doing it since the beginning of time.

Genocides have been perpetrated around the world only when the citizenry is disarmed. It’s not even possible to commit such monstrous acts among a well-armed populace.

But there’s more to this question than meets the eye.

Look at the question again – this time with emphasis on the key word: “Why does anyone need an AR-15?”

This is the word that betrays the motivations of the non-government advocates of gun confiscation.

What do they have in common? At the foundation, they are socialists. They don’t really believe in private property. They believe in Karl Marx’s philosophy: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” That was a slogan Marx popularized in 1875. Today, 138 years later, it still resonates in the hearts and minds of people all over the world – many of them unaware of its origin.

Socialists believe the entire society should be oriented to meeting people’s “needs,” with the government determining what those “needs” are.

Think about it this way: How would you like it if the government asked you the following questions:

“Do you really need that spare bedroom?”
“Do you really need that Big Gulp?”
“Do you really need that Big Mac?”
“Do you really need that expensive cigar?”
“Do you really need that second car?

Of course, as you know, governments are already asking some of these questions.

What it comes down to for them is this: If you don’t need it, you don’t get it.

One obvious one is: “Do you really need that abortion?”

They won’t ask that question because killing unborn babies is the sacrament of the new socialist religion. Actually, there’s nothing really new about it. Evil societies have been sacrificing children for thousands of years. In America, they are sacrificed to the false god of “choice.”

“Choice” is actually a wonderful thing in a free society. But “choice” has been hijacked by evil people as a euphemism for doing what seems convenient, expedient, taking the easy way out, shirking responsibility.

Socialists aren’t for choice. They are for determining what you can have based on “need.”

That’s why I’m pro-choice on guns and pro-life on abortion.

First off, I’m all for teachers and other school personnel being armed if they choose to do so, as this blogger recently suggested. I’m also in favor of retired military vets and police officers guarding our schools.

But now, the uncle of one of the slain Sandy Hook children has come out with some excellent suggestions on how to prevent guns from getting in the hands of violent, mentally unstable people.

Lawyer Alexis Haller is the uncle of Noah Pozner, who was killed by Adam Lanza in Newtown, CT last month. Haller recently flew from his home in Seattle to Washington, D.C. to make his case for a series of plans designed to prevent future mass shootings.

Unlike other proposals currently on the table, Haller is not seeking to ban anything. His idea covers everything from before a shooting happens to the grief counseling needed after the fact.
At the core of Haller’s proposal are two new laws. First, he recommends a mandatory reporting law which would require anyone with knowledge of an impending crime involving guns or bombs to notify authorities within 24 hours.

In his written justification for the proposal, Haller notes that mass shootings are rarely spontaneous events. They often involve premeditated planning; according to the government report issued after Columbine, “Most attackers engaged in some behavior prior to the incident that caused others concern or indicated a need for help.”

His other recommendation is a “Firearm Safekeeping Law” which would make it a misdemeanor, or possibly a felony, to store guns in such a way that they could fall into the hands of someone with a mental illness. The proposed law is written so that it only applies in a case where a mentally ill or violent person actually does obtain the weapon, not where they merely could have.
Haller’s proposal defines mental illness as “a person who: (1) has undergone treatment for or been diagnosed with a mental illness or neurodevelopmental disorder and (2) is reasonably believed to pose a danger to others.”

Failure to secure a weapon is punished based on the results. If the unsecured weapon is obtained by a mentally ill person, the owner could be charged with a misdemeanor. If the mentally ill person who obtains it discharges the weapon, the owner would be subject to a felony charge.

Newly published information indicates that Adam Lanza’s mother kept her legally obtained gun collection in an unlocked closet in her home, despite her concern that Adam Lanza needed psychological help. The easy access to these weapons made it possible for Lanza to get the guns of his choice, kill his mother while she slept, and then commit the massacre at Sandy Hook.

Haller argues that, had she lived, Lanza’s mother “should have been subject to criminal prosecution and civil liability” for her failure to secure her weapons away from her son.

Via Liberty News

In America today, most law-abiding American citizens who happen to live in any Democrat controlled urban area of this country, are being denied their constitutional right to defend themselves with a gun. The people living in these areas, from all races and ethnic backgrounds, men and women, gay and straight, have been subjected to gun control restrictions passed by local Democratic “progressive” administrations over many years that are specifically designed to keep them under control on the new 21st century urban plantations, without the rights that citizens in other parts of the country currently enjoy.

We have only to look to Chicago, Illinois, a showplace of the 21st century Democrat-controlled plantation, to see the effects of the most restrictive gun control legislation in the country that has completely disarmed the law abiding citizens in that city. Mayor Ron Emanuel (D), a gun control activist, likes to compare his city to other so-called world class ‘Alpha cities.’ Well, let us see how Chicago does compare. Chicago has the highest murder rate of any Alpha City in the world, yes – in the world (19.4 per 100,000) — higher even than the Third World cities of Mexico City (8.0), Sao Paolo, Brazil (15.6) and Moscow (9.6). Apparently, strict gun control does not work in Chicago.

If Chicago isn’t proof enough that gun-control legislation does not work, maybe those pushing for stricter gun control laws can learn a little from history.

In 1929, the communist Soviet Union established gun control and from 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up under the leadership of Joseph Stalin and exterminated by their own government.

In 1935, China established gun control. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated by their own communist government, under Mao Tse-Tung.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, under the leadership of communist Pol Pot, one million ‘educated’ people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated by their own government.

In 1938, the National Socialist (Nazi) government of Germany under Adolph Hitler enacted the nationwide German Weapons Act that replaced the Law on Firearms and Ammunition of 1928. The Nazis had inherited “registration lists” of firearm owners and their firearms when they ‘lawfully’ took over in March 1933 and used these lists in 1938 to seize the privately held firearms from persons who were “not reliable” like the Jews and other enemies of the government.

Nazi’s are often portrayed by the left in America as being on the extreme right, when in fact, the real name of the Nazi Party was the National Socialist Party. They were the extreme liberal “Progressives” of their time in Germany. When they finally took power, they passed laws to eventually restrict gun ownership to Nazi party members and other “reliable” people. From 1939 to 1945, a total of 6 million Jews and 7 million other people, mostly Christians, who were unable to defend themselves because they had no guns, were rounded up and exterminated by the left-wing National Socialist government (Nazis).

Justifying the confiscation of firearms from the “unreliable people, Adolph Hitler, in his Edict (similar to an executive order of a U.S. President) of March 18, 1939, said:

“History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own fall.”

American citizens in 2013 who happen to disagree with the implementation of expanding socialist programs in the USA or who resist attacks of their Second Amendment Rights, whether they are members of the so-called tea party, OathKeepers, or just plain citizens, are often called “right-wing extremists,” “Nazi’s” or “Facist’s” when in fact the Nazis and Facists were socialists and on the far left of the political spectrum, not the right.

In Italy, when the Facist movement was founded in 1919, most of its leaders, like Mussolini, were Marxists and radical leftists who were followers of the revolutionary doctrines of a leftist revolutionary named George Sorel. The Facists called themselves ‘revolutionary nationalists’ and there was nothing conservative about them. After he took power, Mussolini also outlawed the possession of guns by the people and confiscated millions of weapons to insure that the people were powerless to resist his socialist government.

All in all, in the 20th century, a total of 56 million people were rounded up and exterminated by their communist-socialist governments because of gun control. Had they not been able to initially legally impose some strict gun-control on their people, these communist-socialist governments would not have been able to kill so many millions of their own people.

In 1968, the U.S. Congress passed the Gun Control Act of 1968 hat was later found to be based almost entirely, word for word, on the German Weapons Act of 1938. Apparently, then Senator Thomas J. Dodd (D-CT) had obtained a copy of the Nazi Weapons Law (in German) and had it translated into English by the Library of Congress in July of 1968, before submitting the bill in the Senate.

When it came to disarming those “non-reliable people” (Jews and others) in Germany, the Nazis had proven their skills. If Senator Dodd was looking for a model for disarming those “non-reliable people” in America, he found the German Weapons Law of 1938 as a good blueprint. Gun control has always been about “people control.” It shouldn’t be surprising that a totalitarian regime like the National Socialist regime of Adolph Hitler’s Germany could offer plenty of great suggestions on the subject to their fellow Socialists in America.

Politicians of the left in America have been trying to take our guns away for over 100 years and nothing has changed as you can see from the following quotes from some of America’s socialists posing as Democrats:

“Our task of creating a Socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed.” Sarah Brady, Chairman, Handgun Control Inc.[ Source: The National Educator, January 1994, Pg.3

“We can’t be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans…” Bill Clinton, USA Today, 11 March 1993, pg. 2a

“Waiting periods are only a step. Gun Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal.” Former Attorney General Janet Reno, 10 Dec 1993.

“What good does it do to ban just some guns. All guns should be banned.” Senator Howard Metzanbaum (D-OH)

Senator Dianne Feinstein: “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out-right ban, picking up every one of them……., I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here.” CBS-TV’s “60 Minutes”, February 5, 1995.

It’s easy to see that the modern progressive socialists in the United States are showing their true colors and they are now more aligned with ideals of the socialist dictators like Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung and Pol Pot, than they are with the American people.

{snip}

Isn’t it ironic that all the socialists in the media, Hollywood and in various level of government who are calling for stricter gun laws all have either armed private security guards and services available to them, or have armed government agents and police protecting them. Our Mayors are protected by people with guns; our Governors are protected by people with guns; members of the House, Senate and the President, are protected by a lot of people with guns; our judges, courts and government buildings are protected by people with guns as are the corporate CEO’s and the Billionaire socialists.

It’s not that the American socialists want to ban all guns in America. No, they just want to ban those guns owned by those that Adolph Hitler called the “not reliable people.” That means the average Americans like you and I. The President, Senator Feinstein, Mayors Blumberg and Ron Emanuel, the Hollywood elite, corporate executives, and all high ranking government officials will still have their guns. Only the average American citizens will be disarmed and defenseless.

What do the socialists base their position on? Well, not the facts. That’s for sure.

In 2011, there were 14,748 murders in the United States. Rifles were used on only 352 of these murders. More people were murdered with knives, with blunt weapons like baseball bats and tire irons, or beaten to death with hands and feet, than were killed with rifles. Assault rifles are used so infrequently in homicides that many police departments almost never see them; in 2011, there were nine states that did not have a single murder committed with any rifle.

Continue reading the rest here.

See also “500 Murders In Chicago Show Bans Don’t Work”.

Obama’s goons in the media have pretty much declared war on legal American gun owners by publishing their names, addresses and the types of guns they own. First there was the Journal News, which is a Gannett publication. Now Gawker Media has published the names of legal gun owners in New York City.

Last month, the Journal News sparked a firestorm of protest when it published a mappable database of every licensed gun owner in Westchester and Rockland counties, north of New York City. The paper obtained the data—which New York state law explicitly and unambiguously demands be made public—through open records requests. The reaction was swift and furious—gun rights and privacy advocates published the names and addresses of the paper’s editors in retaliation, and the paper (ironically) hired armed guards to protect against threats.

{snip}

Below is a 446-page list of every licensed gun owner in New York City. I obtained it from the NYPD two-and-a-half years ago via a Freedom of Information Law request. Because the NYPD is more interested in raping and/or eating ladies and spying on Muslims than it is in honoring public records law, the list contains only the names, and not the addresses, of the licensees. (If you’re curious, here’s what section 400.00 of the Penal Law of New York, entitled “Licenses to carry, possess, repair and dispose of firearms,” has to say on the matter: “The name and address of any person to whom an application for any license has been granted shall be a public record.” The only way to get the associated addresses from the NYPD, as the law requires, would be to take them to court, which no one has apparently done.)

OK people the editor of this hit piece is one John J. Cook. Here’s his address and phone number:

Via Urban Grounds

528 16th st. Apt #2
Brooklyn N.Y. 11215-5912
718-369-8243

Here’s a picture of Cook with his two cute kids, which is his Twitter profile picture, by the way.

Pay back’s a bitch, isn’t it?

Now I’m not a lawyer, but I have a hard time believing that banks can just freeze a business account because they don’t like the product(s) being sold. But that’s what happened to American Spirit Arms.

Here’s what was written on their Facebook page:

Via The Inquistr

All,
My name is Joe Sirochman owner of American Spirit Arms and I wanted to share my recent experience with Bank of America .(which we have been doing business with for over 10 years)…. Everyone is familiar with the latest increase in guns sales , dealers selling out of inventory , Manufacturers back logged for months , large revenue all generated in the last two weeks …. American Spirit Arms is no exception to the overwhelming demand . What we have experienced is that our web site orders have jumped 500 % causing our web site E commerce processing larger Deposits to BANK OF AMERICA ..Well, this through up a huge RED Flag with Bank of America . So they decided to hold the deposits for further review , meaning that the orders/payments that were coming in through the web ,( being paid by the customer and that were shipped out by American Spirit Arms ),the BANK was keeping (UNDER REVIEW )..as you could imagine this made me furious…After countless hours on the phone with BANK OF AMERICA I finally got a Manager in the right department that told me the reason that the deposits were on hold for FURTHER REVIEW …HER EXACT WORDS WERE …
..” WE BELIEVE YOU SHOULD NOT BE SELLING GUNS and PARTS ON THE INTERNET “
…I flipped the F**k Out and told them that they have no right to make up their own new rules and regs..that we are a firearms Manufacturer with all the proper licensing FFL (Federal Firearm license ), SOT and that we follow all Federal and All
States’ rules and regulations on shipping Firearms and parts ..and that we are also Audited by ATF and Homeland
Security on a regular basis … She said that she understands that but that the deposits will be released After they have a
Chance to review and clear them …I told her that This was unacceptable and the those deposits (that were a week old by now ) needed to be released ASAP, that we are a small business and rely on the revenue to run and stay operational.
After that being said another Manager got involved and released one of the deposits (to help out )… So far to date after
Two weeks of sales only 1/3 of collected internet sales have been released ..I am still pissed and looking for another
Bank and options …

I just thought the public should know ..

I will keep everyone posted on new developments ..

Sincerely

Joseph P Sirochman
American Spirit Arms

Update:

All,

I first want to thank all of you that have called, emailed and posted your support.

I also wanted to post an update and to clear up some questions ..
BANK OF AMERICA started holding American Spirit Arms deposits for REVIEW on 12-18-12.
Since that time we had to fight tooth and nail to get them released ..
We have now gotten most of the deposits and have set up new accounts with a local bank.

Again I want to thank everyone for the outpour of support on this matter and believe because of You we were able to get our deposits..

Sincerely and Many Thanks,

Joseph P Sirochman
American Spirit Arms

Let me also remind everyone that back in 2005, Bank of America sought to give credit cards to illegal aliens. Isn’t it interesting that they have no problem taking drug money from lawbreakers who have killed, maimed, robbed and raped more Americans than any gun?

In an effort to harass and humiliate legal gun owners, (as opposed to just reporting the news), the people at White Plains New York based Journal News decided to publish a list of legal gun owner, along with an interactive map.

Obviously, they never cared that these people were either retired police officers, battered women requiring protection from their abusive spouses, and other law abiding citizens. So when they received angry correspondence, they got all scared and decided to hire armed body guards for themselves. I guess it never crossed their minds that they’re seeking to deny for ordinary people what they bought for themselves.

If you want to see pictures of the hags responsible for intimidating law abiding citizens, along with the others involved,just click here.

Now it just so happens that Journal News report Dwight R. Worley is also a gun owner. So here’s his contact information (via Chris Fountain):

According to an Editor’s Note accompanying this reporter’s article revealing the home addresses of all licensed pistol owners, “Journal News reporter Dwight R. Worley owns a Smith & Wesson 686 .357 Magnum and has had a residence permit in New York City for that weapon since February 2011.” I’d heard pistol permits were impossible to obtain in New York City unless you were Donald Trump or a friend of the Mayor, but perhaps Dwight knows someone. In any event, should you wish to examine his 357, here’s where to view it:

Dwight R Worley
23006 139 Ave
Springfield Gardens, NY 11413
Tel: (718) 527-0832

Furthermore, some ex-crooks have come out against this list on the grounds that criminals will know which homes to avoid, and which ones to focus on.

Right after Newtown, some people have written on forums about how they believed the whole thing to be a conspiracy to disarm Americans. While I don’t believe Sandy Hook was a set up, I am certain now that the left is using it to chip away at, and ultimately destroy our 2nd amendment.

First we have Iowa liberal calling for the death of gun owners and for Mitch McConnell and John Boehner to be dragged behind a Chevy truck.

…That’s obscene. Here, then, is my “madder-than-hell-and-I’m-not-going-to-take-it-anymore” program for ending gun violence in America:

• Repeal the Second Amendment, the part about guns anyway. It’s badly written, confusing and more trouble than it’s worth. It offers an absolute right to gun ownership, but it puts it in the context of the need for a “well-regulated militia.” We don’t make our militia bring their own guns to battles. And surely the Founders couldn’t have envisioned weapons like those used in the Newtown shooting when they guaranteed gun rights. Owning a gun should be a privilege, not a right.

• Declare the NRA a terrorist organization and make membership illegal. Hey! We did it to the Communist Party, and the NRA has led to the deaths of more of us than American Commies ever did. (I would also raze the organization’s headquarters, clear the rubble and salt the earth, but that’s optional.) Make ownership of unlicensed assault rifles a felony. If some people refused to give up their guns, that “prying the guns from their cold, dead hands” thing works for me.

• Then I would tie Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, our esteemed Republican leaders, to the back of a Chevy pickup truck and drag them around a parking lot until they saw the light on gun control.

And if that didn’t work, I’d adopt radical measures. None of that is going to happen, of course. But I’ll bet gun sales will rise.

We also have one Louis Michael Seidman a so-called Professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University writing an op-ed in favor of abandoning the constitution.

Vanity Fair Magazine has also gotten in the action. But they’re even more blunt about. The title of the piece is Let’s Repeal The Second Amendment.

According to Todd Hartley, the bigger the gun, the shorter the tool.

So, since I’m not particularly concerned about the National Rifle Association ruining my political career, I’ll be the one to say it: If you own multiple guns or feel the need to possess a military-style assault weapon, it’s because you have a small penis.

Let me clarify that statement a little, if I may. Owning a handgun to protect your home and your family is fine. Owning a rifle or shotgun for hunting or target shooting is also fine. But owning lots of guns or pseudo-machine guns means you have a tiny wiener and you’re incredibly self-conscious about it. That’s the plain and simple truth, even if it’s not true. Oh really? Has our intrepid columnist taken out a ruler and measured all these big bad gun owners?

Now, I know a lot of you are probably saying to yourselves, “But Todd, plenty of women also own guns. What about them? Do they have small penises, too?”

My answer to that question would be: yes. Yes they do. Women who own assault weapons have tiny penises, just like their male counterparts. That would explain why they’re angry enough to buy a weapon whose sole purpose is to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible. OK, how about this one? I think white male liberals are dickless excuses of men.”

{snip}

And to those of you out there who own assault weapons or numerous pistols, I encourage you to seek less violent ways to make up for your shortcomings. There are thousands of “natural male enhancement” products out there, and if Austin Powers is to be believed, Swedish-made penis-enlargement pumps might actually work. Give those a try. Surely there’s some product out there that can make up for your puny wiener more effectively than arming yourself to the teeth.

After the tragic Newtown shootings, and the emotional cries for more gun control, the gun grabbers invariably ask “Why does anyone need a 30-Round magazine?” Or “Why do ordinary citizens need AR-15′s/semi-automatics, etc.”

First off, Senator Dianne Feinstein came out with another ban of semi-automatic weapons.

Not to be outdone by Feinstein, Congresswoman Diana DeGette has also introduced a bill to ban large gun magazines.

Senator Dianne Feinstein’s latest divide-and-conquer attack on the Second Amendment has made even Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) a sucker for the argument that private citizens do not need high-capacity magazines. These include not only 30-round rifle magazines, but 17-round magazines for handguns like the Glock.
Why does anybody need a high capacity magazine? If Senator Manchin were to educate himself by, for example, attending Front Sight’s four-day defensive handgun class, he would learn the two primary answers:

(1) Failure to stop the aggressor, and
(2) Multiple aggressors

Failure to Stop
The classic .38 caliber revolver, with a capacity of six rounds, was the standard sidearm of the United States Army during the Moro insurrection in the Philippines. The Army found at least one dead Army officer with an empty sidearm, and his head split open by a machete or similar weapon. They also found the soldier’s killer, who had finally bled to death. Six rounds of .38 were therefore not enough to convince even one determined attacker.
Police instructor Masaad Ayoob’s The Truth About Self Protection adds an incident in which a female police officer saw a crazed gunman murder a woman, who then shot her as well before she could do anything. “She lay helpless as she watched a neighbor empty a .22 rifle into the killer; the neighbor then had to club the madman down with the empty rifle, again and again, before he succumbed.”

Ayoob does not report the size of the .22′s magazine, but the Moro insurrection exemplifies why even a 30-round rifle clip might not be enough to stop a crazed and determined attacker, such as one hopped up on a drug like PCP. “He had 32 Krag balls through him and was only stopped by the 33rd bullet — a Colt .45 slug through both ears.” The Krag-Jorgensen’s 30-caliber cartridge was far more powerful than the .22 in Ayoob’s example, but not sufficiently powerful to civilize this particular attacker even when fired in mass.
Colonel Jeff Cooper’s To Ride, Shoot Straight, and Speak the Truth adds the case of a man who was prosecuted for shooting his attacker eight times with a .380 automatic pistol. The prosecutor admitted that the dead man had been the aggressor, but argued that the shooter had taken the law into his own hands by continuing to shoot an adversary who had “obviously” been disabled. Cooper, whom the defense called as an expert witness, cited a suicide in which “the deceased shot himself amidships four times with a .380 Webley. Presumably the first three hits did not convince him.”

{snip}

Gang Bangers and the Knockout Game

Front Sight’s 4-day defensive handgun class included scenarios with multiple aggressors, including four gang bangers on a street and five or more in a house (along with innocent bystanders). Front Sight’s standard doctrine is to fire a controlled pair into an aggressor’s thoracic cavity and, in the event of failure to stop, another into his cranio-ocular cavity to take out his central nervous system.

In the street gang situation, though, one shot is fired into each gang member due to the need to economize on both time and ammunition; only those that don’t go down (or flee) then get “seconds.” You might conceivably stop four gang members with seven or eight rounds of .45 ACP; that is what the cartridge was designed to do. A small man or woman who can handle only a 9 mm comfortably might not be able to end the incident even with 15 or 17 rounds, unless he or she can make the far more difficult head shots. It is particularly telling that most police officers carry either .45s or high-capacity 9 mm sidearms.

Then there is the knockout game, in which a street gang selects a victim at random, knocks him or her down, and then maybe beats him or her to a pulp. Here is an example that involved six individuals; only one struck a blow, but the others seemed to approve. Although the Web page and the book it promotes focuses on black racial violence, there is similar Caucasian-on-black crime, such as that perpetrated by the Ku Klux Klan. In any event, if there are six (or more) bad guys, you are obviously going to need far more than six bullets. Note: Since Barack Obama took office, quite a few “urban youths” have been getting together in flash mobs to play this knockout game (and to seriously injure their defenseless victims. You can read all about it here, here, here, and here. And let’s not forget how the Korean shopkeepers bravely defended themselves in the L.A. Riots of 1992.

The anti-Second Amendment camp may argue that the teacher who was assaulted in this video would not have had time to defend himself with a firearm or anything else, because his attacker hit him by surprise. (While use of a firearm in response to a fist might normally be considered excessive force, multiple aggressors, even unarmed ones, create a disparity of force situation that might indeed justify a lethal response. The same applies if a single unarmed aggressor is much younger, bigger, and/or stronger than the victim, e.g. a teenage punk against a senior citizen or woman.) This is where the five conditions of mental awareness, as taught by Front Sight, come into play.

In response to Senator Dianne Feinstein’s proposed “assault weapons” legislation, one brave Marine wrote the following.

Senator Dianne Feinstein,

I will not register my weapons should this bill be passed, as I do not believe it is the government’s right to know what I own. Nor do I think it prudent to tell you what I own so that it may be taken from me by a group of people who enjoy armed protection yet decry me having the same a crime. You ma’am have overstepped a line that is not your domain. I am a Marine Corps Veteran of 8 years, and I will not have some woman who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one.

I am not your subject. I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant. I am the flesh and blood of America.
I am the man who fought for my country. I am the man who learned. I am an American. You will not tell me that I must register my semi-automatic AR-15 because of the actions of some evil man.

I will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and your misinformation campaign against the American public.

We, the people, deserve better than you.

Respectfully Submitted,

Joshua Boston?Cpl,
United States Marine Corps