The numbers speak or themselves, the citizens are doing a better job of policing their own neighborhoods than overpaid “law enforcement” officers.

Citizens: 32 thugs, Cops: 4 thugs

www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/jan/07/justified-homicides-triple-in-memphis/
Justified homicides triple in Memphis
Criminal slayings in city fall from 150 to 131 in 2007
By Chris Conley The Commercial
Monday, January 7, 2008

MEMPHIS – The number of justifiable homicides nearly tripled from 2006 to 2007 in Memphis.

No one is sure why, but one man has a theory.

“The thugs have started running into people who can protect themselves,” said Tom Givens, owner and instructor at the firearms training school RangeMaster.

Police detectives and prosecutors don’t think it’s that simple.

“It’s hard to put your finger on it,” said police Lt. Joseph Scott. “There are more handgun carry permits, there is more education, but you can’t say that’s the reason.”

More people are getting carry permits, and more people know their rights. As many as 35,000 people in Shelby County have carry permits, which means they have had some training on the laws governing self-defense.

The education, Givens says, is “trickling down” to friends and family members.

Of the 164 homicides in 2007, 32 were ruled justified as legal acts of self-defense. The 2006 number was 11.

Consequently, criminal homicides are down. There were 131 in 2007, compared to 150 in 2006.

The spike in justifiable homicides in Memphis may just be an aberration, experts say.

There were somewhat fewer gang killings in 2007, which are less likely to be viewed as justified. There were fewer beating deaths, which, again, are rarely justifiable.

There were somewhat more deadly shootings by law enforcement officers in 2007, four by Memphis police, including one by an officer assigned to a federal fugitive task force; one by a Shelby County sheriff’s deputy; and one by a University of Tennessee officer. All were found to be what internal affairs investigators term “good shoots.”

The law hasn’t changed in any real way, despite a flurry of headline-grabbing bills introduced by legislators last year.

Tennessee law gives residents the right to defend themselves if they have a reasonable and imminent fear of harm from a carjacker, rapist, burglar or other violent assailant. They can also employ deadly force to protect another.

And while a diminishing number of states require residents to avoid a confrontation before using deadly force, Tennessee does not have such a “retreat law.”

When someone claims self-defense, it is the burden of the prosecutors to refute that claim. 

Recently I was enjoying a sleepy Sunday and cruising the general discussion forums over at ARFCOM when I ran across this interesting post. A relatively new member had addressed a long standing issue that has been a point of concern for gun owners. Namely, would the military and law enforcement follow out orders that required them to confiscate guns from law abiding citizens? The answer to this is simple, its an affirmative. Many gun owners like to think that those in the military and law enforcement will protect the Constitution of the United States but nothing could be further from the truth. Whether it is the equal rights movement of the 60’s, were National Guard troops facilitated the forced integration of public schools and colleges, or the massacres at Waco, Texas in the Branch Dravidian Compound Gun Confiscation during Hurricane Katrina or Ruby Ridge, we have all learned something simple about American military, they don’t give a damn about the constitution. Before we get all high and mighty lets remember that the military and law enforcement are just simple government employees. Some people take offense to that, but the truth is that failure to follow a direct and lawful order will result in extreme punishment and in some cases death.They are obliged to follow ORDERS from their commanders, period. I think this posters comments sums it up best.

I have heard variations of the “will you take my guns” question ask dozens of times over the last 20 years.

For some reason, non .mil/LEO (and occasionally some active .mil/LEO, who should know better) appear to be under the belief that individual soldiers/LEO’s operate independently (i.e. lone Rambo/Chuck Norris types).

The reality is that soldiers operate in groups (Teams, Squads, Platoons, etc). They are given orders to carry out. Joe Snuffy is conditioned and expected to follow orders.

LEO’s on routine duty may operate alone, but on “high risk” duties (i.e. gun confiscation) they will be operating in groups.

If you have served, or maybe even if you haven’t, you will realize that the bottom line is soldiers fight for their buddies, the guy next to them, not for some political ideal or for their commander. We can talk about ideals or politics, or the constitution, or right/wrong – until the bullets start flying or we perceive our selves or our buddies to be at risk. When that happens we simply do what we have to in order to defeat the “enemy”.

LEO’s have a similar attitude toward brother Officers and the public(“the enemy”)

If gun confiscation ever becomes a reality, then gun owners will become the “enemy”. Especially after one well publicized incident where a soldier or LEO was killed because some Joe citizen actually followed through with the “Cold Dead Fingers” rhetoric.

Both .mil and LEO’s will obey orders and do what they perceive is necessary in order to come home at night. Of course there will be a few, but not many, who quit their jobs (not an option for .mil) or who choose to face the punishment of disobeying a lawful order.

And don’t kid yourself; if nationwide gun confiscation ever comes to pass it will be “lawful”. Not in the eyes of you and I and the founding Fathers, but at a minimum our elected officials will have passed the law. Most likely before .mil/LEO goes door to door it will have passed judicial review also. What’s Joe Snuffy going to say? “I refuse to follow this order, because I think it’s unlawful even though the legislature and courts say it isn’t?”

Right now Gun confiscation seems like an extreme far out event. But if it ever comes to pass, there will have been numerous smaller events leading up to it. We are not going to wake up one sunny Monday morning to hear on the news that all of a sudden and completely unexpectedly .mil/LEO is kicking down doors and taking guns.

Look at the Republican’s shift to the left, and the base’s acceptance of that shift. Listen to all the “voices of reason” telling us how we need to go along with it, how getting something is better than nothing, the alternative is so much worse, etc, etc.

My belief is that the same folks advocating acceptance of the current political landscape will make excuses and opt for the “lesser of two evils” when it appears we have only two choices-give up some guns or risk looosing them all. They will claim we need to go along with some regulation, we better not get stuck in all or nothing thinking, at least we get to keep single shot .22lr, non firing replicas, etc, etc, If you are one of those folks you will have turned in your guns long before .mil/LEO come to confiscate them anyway.

Bottom line is we need to fight against the politicians who pass the laws, because .mil and LEO WILL do their duty and carry out Lawful Orders. 

And there you have it, I couldn’t have said it better myself. However this “messenger” was deemed a troll and some members flatly refused to even read his post despite leaving disparanging comments. Our government has already obliterated the constitution to the point of no return, ignoring one more amendment isn’t even going to “nag” at the conscious of our military members and law enforcement.

Ignorance is bliss.

Some you actually missed the videos, so they are back. Enjoy

Like what you see? Check out more of Britney Stevens in Asses in Public for FREE, that’s right, Fucking FREE!

Today the NRA has filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of D.C. vs Heller. These court proceedings have gained national notiertary for those of us that still believe in the Constitution of the United States of America and the vision of the founding fathers. However, while the NRA has all the best intentions in mind they are making a critical flaw, one they have made many times before. The 2nd Amendment is NOT about the right to hunt NOR self defense, the 2nd Amendment was written as a last ditch safety clause for the people. The truth is the 2nd Amendment is to facilitate the VIOLENT OVER THROUGH OF AN OPPRESSIVE GOVERNMENT THAT IS UNRESPONSIVE TO THE PEOPLE.

I say again, the “The 2nd Amendment is to facilitate the VIOLENT OVER THROUGH OF GOVERNMENT”. The founding fathers put this in the constitution to ensure that the people always had a right to defend themselves not from ghetto goblins or a wild bear but their own governments. We are the only government in the history of mankind to actual be this forward thinking. To me, the NRA’s cause is just more fuel to the fire. If the whole reason to allow citizens to own guns is for self defense, then you don’t have much of a leg to stand on when you want to ban them. On the other hand, if you look at the true intent of the 2nd Amendment there is no excuse to ban gun ownership, and to even attempt to enact such laws SHOULD result in the violent over through of government. However the NRA is a “compromise” organization, and that is how they managed to survive.

When advocating the 2nd amendment or gun ownership, the violent over through of an unresponsive government should be the primary motive, with self defense and hunting only serving as secondary roles. To advocate anything else is not legitimate reason for gun rights.

NRA Files Amicus Brief in U.S. Supreme Court, D.C. v. Heller

Thursday, February 07, 2008

Fairfax, Va. – The National Rifle Association (NRA) and the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund today submitted an amicus curiae brief to the United States Supreme Court in the case of District of Columbia (D.C.) and Mayor Adrian Fenty v. Dick Anthony Heller. This brief supports a lower federal appeals court decision holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, and asserts that the D.C. bans on handguns, on carrying firearms within the home and on possession of loaded or operable firearms for self-defense violate that fundamental right.

“We want to return hope and we want to return freedom to our nation’s capital. After this ban was enacted, D.C.’s murder rate tripled, and the city was labeled ‘murder capital of the United States’,” said NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre. “The irony of this gun ban is that it has resulted in criminals having guns while denying law-abiding citizens their basic right to self defense in their own homes.”

In March, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that “[T]he phrase ‘the right of the people,’ when read intratextually and in light of Supreme Court precedent, leads us to conclude that the right in question is individual.” The D.C. Circuit also rejected the claim that the Second Amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia because D.C. is not a state. This case marks the first time a Second Amendment challenge to a firearm law has reached the Supreme Court since 1939.

“It is beyond unreasonable to prevent law-abiding residents from using a firearm to protect themselves and their loved ones in their own homes, and that is clearly not what our founding fathers intended in crafting the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution,” added Chris W. Cox, NRA’s chief lobbyist. “The American people – whether democrat or republican, urban or rural – know that the Second Amendment was not written to give a right to the government, but rather to guarantee the fundamental right of individual citizens.”

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), along with bi-partisan majorities of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives – in fact, the largest number of co-signers of a congressional amicus brief in American history – will also be filing a strong brief in support of the individual rights view. Several other pro-Second Amendment individuals and organizations, including an overwhelming majority of state attorneys general, will be filing briefs in favor of affirming the D.C. Circuit’s decision as well.

The NRA is widely recognized as America’s foremost defender of Americans’ civil rights as guaranteed by the Second Amendment, as well as being the nation’s leading provider of firearms safety and marksmanship training. The NRA has a vital interest in this case, as the District of Columbia’s arguments, if accepted, would abrogate the fundamental right to keep and bear arms enjoyed by the NRA’s members and other Americans.

As stated in the NRA brief:

“In adopting the Second Amendment, the Framers guaranteed an individual right to keep and bear arms for private purposes, not a collective right to keep and bear arms only in connection with state militia service.”

* * *

“By its terms, the Amendment protects the right ‘of the people’ to keep and bear arms. The holder of the right is unambiguous: it is not the States, it is ‘the people’ themselves.”

* * *

“Americans’ personal right to possess . . . firearms for hunting or self-defense was part of the essence of the Framers’ view of themselves as a free and democratic people. Had Americans in 1787 been told that the federal government could ban the frontiersman in his log cabin, or the city merchant living above his store, from keeping firearms to provide for and protect himself and his family, it is hard to imagine that the Constitution would have been ratified.”

The NRA’s counsel-of-record is Mr. Stephen D. Poss of Goodwin Procter LLP.

Click Here to read NRA’s brief.

This is some bullshit. As to how anyone can call John McCain a racist is BEYOND me. The man served his country and went above and beyond the call of duty while he was imprisoned then he makes ONE fucking remark about gooks and he’s labeled a “bad bad man”. What type of country do we live in? Is the pussification of America complete? Are we at such a point that we will overlook a man’s character, actions, and deeds and just focus in on what he said? If it wasn’t for his anti-gun stance, he would be a front runner for those who support and defend the constitution of the United States of America. This is just another example of media sensationalism. What is even more laughable is that “Katie Hong” wrote this piece. Hell if it wasn’t for people like John McCain “Katie” wouldn’t even be living in this country with the freedom to openly criticize political candidates.  Hey Katie, if you have a problem with John McCain’s first amendment right then go take your gook ass back to China.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/hongop.shtml 

John McCain’s racist remark very troubling

Thursday, March 2, 2000

By KATIE HONG
SPECIAL TO THE POST-INTELLIGENCER

On his campaign bus recently, Sen. John McCain told reporters, “I hated the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live.” Although McCain said he was referring only to his prison guards, there are many reasons why his use of the word “gook” is offensive and alarming.

It is offensive because by using a racial epithet that has historically been used to demean all Asians to describe his captors, McCain failed to make a distinction between his torturers and an entire racial group.

It is alarming because a major candidate for president publicly used a racial epithet, refused to apologize for doing so and remains a legitimate contender.

Contrary to McCain’s attempt to narrowly define “gook” to mean only his “sadistic” captors, this term has historically been used to describe all Asians. McCain said that “gook” was the most “polite” term he could find to describe his captors, but because it is simply a pejorative term for Asians, he insulted his captors simply by calling them “Asians” — a clearly disturbing message. To the Asian American community, the term is akin to the racist word “nigger.” A friend of mine, a white male Vietnam veteran, pointed out that veterans, especially Vietnam veterans, know how spiteful the term “gook” is. It has everything to do with labeling someone as “other,” the enemy and yellow. McCain sent the message that all Asians are foreigners and remain forever the “other” and the enemy.