NIU - "GUN FREE ZONE"

Another horribly successful school shooting because the school was a “gun free zone.”

A gunman fires at least 54 rounds into a crowd at Northern Illinois University, pausing to reload his guns, as pandemonium engulfs a lecture hall.

At what point do our country and its 513,000 elected officials wise up to the fact that slogans do not a safe country make? Time and time and time again, students and other citizens are forced to watch, panic-stricken, as some disturbed whack-job systematically – often randomly – picks off victim after victim after victim.

Once again, our shooter was apparently the only one in the room who did not read the “gun free zone” sign.

At what point do we stop making law-abiding, licensed citizens check their guns at the door when entering public arenas; be they schools, stadiums, post offices.

Consider this:

In Michigan, as well as 20 other states where gun restrictions have been eased in favor of a “right to carry”, violent crime has actually fallen.

Crime statistics show violent crime in Michigan has decreased since a law was passed in 2001 allowing law-abiding citizens to carry guns. The number of people licensed to carry concealed weapons has increased by six fold since the law was passed.

Yet the al-Qaeda-Needs-a-Hug crowd will use this most recent heart-wrenching incident as a rallying point to tighten gun control and to try and lead the lesser informed among us into thinking that this is just another instance of gun owners gone wild.

More guns, more violence?

In an article appearing in the Detroit Free Press in January, John Lott, a visiting professor at the University of Maryland who has done extensive research on the role of firearms in American society, said academic studies of concealed weapons laws that generally allow citizens to obtain permits have shown different results. About two-thirds of the studies suggest the laws reduce crime; the rest show no net effect, he said.

But facts never stymie the anti-gun rhetoric typically spewed from the left.

Shikha Hamilton of Grosse Pointe, president of the Michigan chapter of the anti-gun group Million Moms March, said she believes overall gun violence (including suicide and accidental shootings) is up in Michigan since 2001. Wow! Hey, if that’s what she says, it must be true!

So, I guess, if the facts don’t support your position, you just refute them and make up your own facts. Oy!

Another fact is, if some in the unfortunate crowd in Cole Hall at Northern Illinois University were allowed to carry their firearms, or if faculty were armed, this shooting like so many others, could have been severely limited.

Yet no one was armed. After all, it’s a “gun free zone.”


JD

PELOSI SAYS "SURGE UNSUCCESSFUL" -- AL QEADA BEGS TO DIFFER

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said twice Sunday that Iraq “is a failure,” adding that President Bush’s troop surge has “not produced the desired effect."


CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer asked: “Are you not worried, though, that all the gains that have been achieved over the past year might be lost?”


“There haven't been gains, Wolf,” the speaker replied. “The gains have not produced the desired effect, which is the reconciliation of Iraq. This is a failure. This is a failure. “


Yet according to Abu-Tariq, Iraq al-Qeada leader and emir of the al-Layin and al-Mashahdah sector, the terrorist group’s security structure suffered “total collapse.”

Abu-Tariq also stated in a letter that Iraqi al-Qeada faces an “extraordinary crises”, saying that last year’s mass defections of Sunnis from al-Qeada to the US military “created panic, fear and the unwillingness to fight.”

The letter further conceded that the “crusaders” – Americans — had gained the upper hand.

- Not quite like Ms. Pelosi says.

JD.

WE SUCK IT UP WITH MCCAIN -- NOT FOR MCCAIN

In response to the January 31 post:

'C' said...
JD,

Well...you know me...the big C (that's conscience, not conservative...though I consider myself a conservative). I am all about the truth (read "telling it like it is") too. But, are we not to tell speak the truth in Love? Ann, as right on as she is (much of the time) on issues, can paint Republicans and Conservatives in a negative (read "uncaring" and "elitist") light vis a vis her column. Truth without love tends to fall on deaf ears...even (if I may side-bar) the Good Book and absolute truth. It makes for entertaining reading and a "fist in the air"..."right on" at times...but...not to the folks we need to educate and court to our side of the aisle, especially in November!

I am sure you would agree that Ann's column on her late father was very "human" and very moving. It struck a chord, I would wager, with any reader. What Ann described were solid morals and values. If Republicans are to have any hope in taking back Congress and keeping the White House, they need to strike a chord with the American people too. Now bear with me, JD. I don't mean being "relative." We must stand on principle here. No moral relativism. No wishy-washy middle of the road pandering platform. No back peddling on Republican or Conservative values (e.g. God, life, fiscal responsibility, lowering taxes, spending our own money, strict constructionism, etc. ...you know...Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness and those inalienable rights our good Creator endowed us with). Very few folks want or want to believe in their need for big government and big hand outs.. We have truth and history on our side.

I recently read a column where the author was, I believe, right on regarding Ronald Reagan and his success. In brief, my spin, Reagan was great not because of his conservative ideals, but because of how and when he applied them. Folks can't simply take Reagan's actions and apply them to every situation. We need to step back and apply the best conservative ideals and answers to our current problems....and stop trying to apply the same old answers.

Though with simple truth (and no love)....we lose when faced with voting against, for example, the health of our children (a la S-CHIP). We lose when we campaign again "universal health care." Who doesn't want health care for all??? No one! But NO ONE wants to move a large chunk of children who are already covered privately to the government dole at your and my expense (a la S-CHIP). No one wants the reality of a much higher marginal tax rates required to pay for universal health care (a la HillaryCare). More importantly....would you accept the long waiting lines at hospitals or second-rate health care delivered by an IRS style health system (a la Canada and England and HillaryCare). Though this may fall on deaf ears (not yours, the voting public)....moving billions from the private sector to the public sector does not bode well for jobs or the economy. Though the later should hit home well enough. You can go on and on. Sadly, most folks don't seem to "see" this.

I am sure I am preaching to the choir, but we need to make Conservative values hit home and hit hard. We need to have a solid platform that is a better fix for healthcare, for social security, etc. Good sound business/fiscal/economic (read "Republican") fixes, but fixes that show folks why our policies are better for them and our great country. Anyway...off the ole soap box.

As for my thoughts on the leftovers....At this point, with only one real horse left in the race, I too will likely be left "holding my nose" and voting. Let's hope McCain fairs better in November than my first choices have faired in this race.

February 8, 2008 8:26 PM



JD said...

I agree that the “fist in the air”…”right on” stuff doesn’t necessarily resonate well with “folks we need to educate and court to our side of the aisle.” And I am so glad you couched it in that way; “…to our side of the aisle.”

But since Ann is speaking to the faithful, I so enjoy her needle-in-the-eye candor.

Problem is, candidates calling themselves Republicans these days seem to think “progress” is being courted and then crossing to the other (Dems’) side of the aisle! I don’t understand this “movement”…This “movement” among Republican candidates that implies; in order to win over independent voters, they need to become Democrats!

Now that McCain is the presumptive GOP nominee, I’ve resigned myself to a sort of peaceful recognition that there is nothing left to get worked up over in this election cycle. At this seemingly early stage, the campaign is over. I can’t get fired up over the general election either.

Hillary, Obama, McCain, Mao, Chavez, what’s the difference. I will still vote, but the only point of it will be to try and guess which one will tax me less.

There will be no leadership to secure our borders, expand oil exploration or production, extend the Bush tax cuts or repeal McCain-Feingold. (Although McCain voted to extend the tax cuts the first time, he initially opposed them… Which McCain do we get?) No leadership in support of semi-aggressive interrogation of terror suspects, no protection against the death tax; no protection from the multinational lobby to bleed Americans for the money and sacrifice needed to fight alleged “global warming.”

In a twisted sort of way, I think we are better off with Clinton or Obama this next presidential cycle. That way, the GOP won’t get the rap for further screwing up our Country, which I think McCain will do as well as either Dem.

If the Dems win, I will expect a string of policy disasters on a Carteresque scale that will, hopefully (prayerfully), wake up the electorate and spawn a conservative movement capable of identifying and fielding true conservative candidates.

***********************************************

On the lighter side: MSNBC’s Chris Matthews made a statement saying it is hard to be in the presence of Barack Obama without crying. (This goes into the “I shit you not!” category) As best selling author and commentator Bernard Goldberg stated, this is not journalism, this is a man crush!

JD.