About a month ago, I wrote about gun rights and the Town of Smithfield. Their police chief, Michael Scott, seemed to be very much in favor of keeping gun bans in place in the town park system. To me, this is just another example of a freedom hating, constitutionally illegal action and attitude. I wanted to compare that attitude and how the Smithfield Police Department handles media relations to that of another law enforcement officer.
Spartanburg County, South Carolina is where my brother lived before he passed away two years ago. Most of his children still live in that area. At one time I had considered pursuing a job opportunity there to be closer to my family, but recently I found a news story that would have made me glad to be in Spartanburg County. Their county sheriff has a real grasp of reality.
When asked why I often carry a pistol, my answer is simply, “Because cops are too heavy to carry around.” Police can not be everywhere at all times. The old saying holds true. “When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.” I have a t-shirt in my closet that has a graphic of a Smith and Wesson firing a shot, blood spattering, and the caption, “I don’t dial 9-1-1”. Sure, I have called 9-1-1 on several occasions, including for the removal of a drunken Mexican on my doorstep a few years ago. But in life and death situations, sometimes you can not wait for the police.
When a woman was sexually assaulted by a repeat offender in his county, Spartanburg County Sheriff Chuck Wright gave a spectacular news conference. He correctly referred to the offender as an animal. He criticized the justice system as being dysfunctional. He said that “our form of justice is not making it. Carry a concealed weapon. That’ll fix it...I want you to get a concealed weapons permit. Don’t get Mace. Get a firearm.” He also said, "Gun control is when you can get your barrel back on the target quick.” If Chuck Wright ran for sheriff here in Johnston County, I would vote for him instantly.
Compare that to Smithfield Police Chief Michael Scott, who said that the updated rules adopted by Smithfield (pursuant to a new state law that allows concealed weapon permit holders such as myself to carry in parks) are designed to keep as much of the original ban in place while complying with the new law. Though municipalities are prohibited from outright banning carrying in parks, there is an exception for “recreational facilities” like playgrounds, swimming pools, and ballfields. Smithfield is taking the approach of having as much government control over law abiding citizens as legally possible.
The other thing about media relations and the Smithfield Police Department that cheesed me off was how they handled the fight over their budget. From what I have read, the Smithfield Town Council set a budget for their police department. The budget has less money for fuel for police cars than the police staff wanted. When the department requested to be able to transfer about $30,000 from other areas of their budget such as for office supplies to the fuel budget, the request was denied.
I have to admit that I don’t understand why funds within the department budget can not be fungible, considering that the overall dollar amount would not change. However, that was the decision by their town council. That should end the debate right there. Elected officials did what they felt was correct, even if I find it incorrigible and inappropriate.
What did I hear as a news story shortly thereafter on a Raleigh radio station? The Smithfield Police Department was warning that without the requested fuel funding, they would not be investigating misdemeanor crimes, only felonious ones; and that they most likely would not respond to every call for service. Obviously that came from someone inside the department attempting to wage a war of public opinion by using the media. No names were given as a source and no direct quotes were given. Granted, the police department can not control how something is reported, but I found the whole media outreach to be whiny, childish, and insubordinate.
When I compare the courage by Sheriff Chuck Wright in South Carolina to go against the grain of convention during a press conference, the call for freedom, and personal responsibility in the midst of reality, and compare that to the whiny, controlling paradigm that I see coming from law enforcement in Smithfield, I am disgusted.
Showing posts with label guns. Show all posts
Showing posts with label guns. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Wednesday, January 05, 2011
Column for Jan. 6, 2011
Two weeks ago, I wrote about Johnston County's proposed ordinance concerning limits on where firearms and projectiles could be used (to include BB guns and bow and arrow shooting). I sent that very column to my elected representatives on the County Board of Commissioners. I received some feedback from several of them. One such email I got was an official message from Allen Mims, the Chairman of the Board of Commissioners. It read as follows.
"As you are aware, the Johnston County Board of Commissioners was scheduled to hold a public hearing…to review and discuss the adoption of a proposed firearm ordinance. I, as well as my fellow Board members, have received several communications over the last week from concerned citizens regarding the implementation of such an ordinance. In light of these concerns, the Board and I have decided to develop a workgroup, consisting of Commissioner, staff and citizen representatives, who will review the proposed firearm ordinance, address the citizen concerns and develop a revised ordinance that is mutually acceptable among us all."
This shows that some people do still listen to their constituents when enough people make their voices heard. That is not to say that the reviewed and amended proposed ordinance will be any better, but at least the County Board is taking another look at the situation.
In other gun control insanity, I was reading an article about yet another gun buyback program that was in Providence, Rhode Island. This was not for unused our found firearms, though. It was for toy guns for children. That's right, toy guns. Providence is not exactly known for being conservative. I have known far too many left-wing control freaks that despise freedom and traditional American values from that area.
Children, especially boys, love to play with toy guns. I had cap guns, squirt guns, toy machine guns, and the like when I was a tot. My oldest son loves to play with his toy guns, and I have been teaching him about gun safety. Eventually I will gift him with his own real one, when he is old enough and mature enough. The same goes for my infant son. Toy guns nowadays come in bright colors or at least with orange tips, so as not to be confused with real ones. Even without the safety contrast colors, as children we never mistook our toys for the real thing and playing with toy guns never caused us to become violent in real life.
According to The Boston Globe, "In exchange for their toy guns, all the children received wrapped presents that were indisputably not violent — dolls, stuffed animals, and board games like checkers."
When I told my son about the program, he grabbed his toy shotgun, held it above his head, and proclaimed, "…from my cold dead hands!" Charlton Heston would have been proud.
Why is it that liberals will not be satisfied until everyone has equal misery? My boy is quite happy playing with his toy guns. I am happy when I get to play with my real ones. That does not make us violent. It makes us normal, freedom loving, American males. Liberals want to neuter people like us with anti-gun legislation, regulation, court decisions, treaties, and ordinances. When they can't reach children that way, they try to indoctrinate them into thinking that guns, even toy ones, are evil.
Look, guns are no more evil than the car you drive. Lighters are not evil, but evil can be done with them in the hands of an arsonist. Cars are not evil, but in the hands of a drunken driver, they can be lethal. Guns are not evil, but in the hands of an evil person, they can facilitate evil, violent acts. More people have died because of Ted Kennedy's car than have died from a bullet wound from one of my guns…and I have about 25 times as many guns as Kennedy had automobiles.
Since drunk drivers hurt people, I propose a buyback program for all toy cars and Jack Daniels bottles. How about swimming pools? Many children die in swimming pool accidents, so let's have a buyback program on all inflatable wading pools, backyard swimming pools, and Barbie Townhouse accessories. According to the logic used by liberals, it all makes sense to me.
As for me, I join with the bumper sticker sentiment of my son that was famously uttered by the late Charlton Heston, "...from my cold, dead hands!"
"As you are aware, the Johnston County Board of Commissioners was scheduled to hold a public hearing…to review and discuss the adoption of a proposed firearm ordinance. I, as well as my fellow Board members, have received several communications over the last week from concerned citizens regarding the implementation of such an ordinance. In light of these concerns, the Board and I have decided to develop a workgroup, consisting of Commissioner, staff and citizen representatives, who will review the proposed firearm ordinance, address the citizen concerns and develop a revised ordinance that is mutually acceptable among us all."
This shows that some people do still listen to their constituents when enough people make their voices heard. That is not to say that the reviewed and amended proposed ordinance will be any better, but at least the County Board is taking another look at the situation.
In other gun control insanity, I was reading an article about yet another gun buyback program that was in Providence, Rhode Island. This was not for unused our found firearms, though. It was for toy guns for children. That's right, toy guns. Providence is not exactly known for being conservative. I have known far too many left-wing control freaks that despise freedom and traditional American values from that area.
Children, especially boys, love to play with toy guns. I had cap guns, squirt guns, toy machine guns, and the like when I was a tot. My oldest son loves to play with his toy guns, and I have been teaching him about gun safety. Eventually I will gift him with his own real one, when he is old enough and mature enough. The same goes for my infant son. Toy guns nowadays come in bright colors or at least with orange tips, so as not to be confused with real ones. Even without the safety contrast colors, as children we never mistook our toys for the real thing and playing with toy guns never caused us to become violent in real life.
According to The Boston Globe, "In exchange for their toy guns, all the children received wrapped presents that were indisputably not violent — dolls, stuffed animals, and board games like checkers."
When I told my son about the program, he grabbed his toy shotgun, held it above his head, and proclaimed, "…from my cold dead hands!" Charlton Heston would have been proud.
Why is it that liberals will not be satisfied until everyone has equal misery? My boy is quite happy playing with his toy guns. I am happy when I get to play with my real ones. That does not make us violent. It makes us normal, freedom loving, American males. Liberals want to neuter people like us with anti-gun legislation, regulation, court decisions, treaties, and ordinances. When they can't reach children that way, they try to indoctrinate them into thinking that guns, even toy ones, are evil.
Look, guns are no more evil than the car you drive. Lighters are not evil, but evil can be done with them in the hands of an arsonist. Cars are not evil, but in the hands of a drunken driver, they can be lethal. Guns are not evil, but in the hands of an evil person, they can facilitate evil, violent acts. More people have died because of Ted Kennedy's car than have died from a bullet wound from one of my guns…and I have about 25 times as many guns as Kennedy had automobiles.
Since drunk drivers hurt people, I propose a buyback program for all toy cars and Jack Daniels bottles. How about swimming pools? Many children die in swimming pool accidents, so let's have a buyback program on all inflatable wading pools, backyard swimming pools, and Barbie Townhouse accessories. According to the logic used by liberals, it all makes sense to me.
As for me, I join with the bumper sticker sentiment of my son that was famously uttered by the late Charlton Heston, "...from my cold, dead hands!"
Sunday, December 19, 2010
Column for Dec. 23, 2010
“Save us from ourselves, Big Brother! Please act as a father for us because we are but stupid sheep!” Does the Johnston County’s Board of Commissioners think that this is how we all think and that is what we all need? Sorry, but I am 42 years old, a responsible adult, and don’t need a group of elected officials attempting to codify common sense for me. I had parents to teach me, I am a parent doing the same, and some things are just plain common sense.
I am going to quote from Grass Roots North Carolina, a state wide Second Amendment organization. “Johnston County commissioners are considering an ordinance to ban shooting of any kind of projectile within 600 feet of a dwelling. This would include BB and pellet guns. Upon questioning, county officials admitted that this would even include bows and arrows.” I know what has really kicked this subject into consideration, and quite honestly, it is another instance of hard case making for bad law. Because some individuals operate a veritable shooting range on private property in the county (outside of any town limits or jurisdiction), the county wants to pass an ordinance barring all county residents from shooting even a BB gun.
I am already covered by such nonsense, seeing that I live within the town limits of Selma. I am not allowed to discharge a firearm for sporting or pastime purposes in the town limits. I can see the regulation within the closer quarters of town limits more so than in the more rural areas of the county. I only have a quarter of an acre of land on which to recreate. The insanity is that Article 13, Article I, Section 13-4 of the Town of Selma code reads, “Any person using an air rifle in the town shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.” I can not even take my Daisy Red Rider and plug a stray dog that threatens my children or teach my boy how to proficiently handle a BB gun in my backyard. Quite honestly, if I want to tape a paper target to my glass door in my backyard and shoot at it, that should be my business and nobody else’s.
The county is even taking it one step further. A football field is 300 feet long (100 yards x 3 feet per yard). The county wants you to have to be two entire football fields away from a house in order to shoot a firearm, bow and arrow, or even BB gun. My best friend has 3 acres out in the country. His nearest neighbor can barely be seen from his house. If I wanted to comply with the town ordinance and go to his house in rural Johnston County to shoot a BB gun or even a .22 caliber rifle, we would not be allowed to do so. And I am talking way out in the country. In my friend’s words, he lives so far out in the country that he does not get the TV show “Saturday Night Live” until Tuesday. If my friend wants to stand on his porch and shoot at targets or even psychotic squirrels, he will not be allowed to do so. He would have to be off his own property, over two football fields away from his house. That is just ridiculous.
My son just won a toy marshmallow shooting crossbow Sunday night. Will he be able to shoot it in Selma without being guilty of a misdemeanor? How about in rural Johnston County? Do we have to turn in his Nerf guns to county or town officials now as part of some Nerf buy back program? Should I have saved the receipt to return the BB gun I bought him for Christmas (he better not read this column and none of you had better tell him about it since this column is going to be published just before Christmas)?
We do not need government to save us from ourselves. When I was growing up, we rode in cars without seat belts, played with lawn darts, and carried pocket knives. We survived. We also learned how to shoot safely and away from other people. Just because a few yahoos are around does not mean that every last common sense using citizen needs to have Big Brother holding our hands or acting as a parent for us.
I don’t know about you, but I am going to contact all of my elected officials on the County Board of Commissioners and let them know that too much government regulation is just not welcome. If they don’t listen to me, I hope that they will listen to common sense from citizens during the January 3rd public hearing on the matter.
------
As a result of the lobbying efforts of people like myself and other citizens, I got the following email today.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Proposed Firearms Ordinance Hearing
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 15:57:14 -0500
From: Rick Hester
From: Allen L. Mims, Jr., Chairman, Johnston County Board of Commissioners
Re: Proposed Johnston County Firearm Ordinance
As you are aware, the Johnston County Board of Commissioners was scheduled to hold a public hearing on January 3, 2011 at our 6:00pm meeting to review and discuss the adoption of a proposed firearm ordinance. I, as well as my fellow Board members, have received several communications over the last week from concerned citizens regarding the implementation of such an ordinance. In light of these concerns, the Board and I have decided to develop a workgroup, consisting of Commissioner, staff and citizen representatives, who will review the proposed firearm ordinance, address the citizen concerns and develop a revised ordinance that is mutually acceptable among us all.
Currently the workgroup will be comprised of the following members, with the possible addition of a couple more individuals:
Allen L. Mims, Jr. – Chairman of the Johnston County Board of Commissioners
Jeffrey P. Carver – Vice Chairman of the Johnston County Board of Commissioners
Rick J. Hester – County Manager
Steve Bizzell – Sheriff
Berry Gray – Planning Director
Citizens: Jeff Lawrence, Mike Walters, Jake McAllister, Stephen Reeves, Jonathan Parker and Todd Blackburn
Therefore, the public hearing scheduled for January 3, 2011 has been postponed until further notice. Upon receipt of a revised ordinance from the workgroup, we shall re-advertise the date and time of the public hearing.
Thank you.
I am going to quote from Grass Roots North Carolina, a state wide Second Amendment organization. “Johnston County commissioners are considering an ordinance to ban shooting of any kind of projectile within 600 feet of a dwelling. This would include BB and pellet guns. Upon questioning, county officials admitted that this would even include bows and arrows.” I know what has really kicked this subject into consideration, and quite honestly, it is another instance of hard case making for bad law. Because some individuals operate a veritable shooting range on private property in the county (outside of any town limits or jurisdiction), the county wants to pass an ordinance barring all county residents from shooting even a BB gun.
I am already covered by such nonsense, seeing that I live within the town limits of Selma. I am not allowed to discharge a firearm for sporting or pastime purposes in the town limits. I can see the regulation within the closer quarters of town limits more so than in the more rural areas of the county. I only have a quarter of an acre of land on which to recreate. The insanity is that Article 13, Article I, Section 13-4 of the Town of Selma code reads, “Any person using an air rifle in the town shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.” I can not even take my Daisy Red Rider and plug a stray dog that threatens my children or teach my boy how to proficiently handle a BB gun in my backyard. Quite honestly, if I want to tape a paper target to my glass door in my backyard and shoot at it, that should be my business and nobody else’s.
The county is even taking it one step further. A football field is 300 feet long (100 yards x 3 feet per yard). The county wants you to have to be two entire football fields away from a house in order to shoot a firearm, bow and arrow, or even BB gun. My best friend has 3 acres out in the country. His nearest neighbor can barely be seen from his house. If I wanted to comply with the town ordinance and go to his house in rural Johnston County to shoot a BB gun or even a .22 caliber rifle, we would not be allowed to do so. And I am talking way out in the country. In my friend’s words, he lives so far out in the country that he does not get the TV show “Saturday Night Live” until Tuesday. If my friend wants to stand on his porch and shoot at targets or even psychotic squirrels, he will not be allowed to do so. He would have to be off his own property, over two football fields away from his house. That is just ridiculous.
My son just won a toy marshmallow shooting crossbow Sunday night. Will he be able to shoot it in Selma without being guilty of a misdemeanor? How about in rural Johnston County? Do we have to turn in his Nerf guns to county or town officials now as part of some Nerf buy back program? Should I have saved the receipt to return the BB gun I bought him for Christmas (he better not read this column and none of you had better tell him about it since this column is going to be published just before Christmas)?
We do not need government to save us from ourselves. When I was growing up, we rode in cars without seat belts, played with lawn darts, and carried pocket knives. We survived. We also learned how to shoot safely and away from other people. Just because a few yahoos are around does not mean that every last common sense using citizen needs to have Big Brother holding our hands or acting as a parent for us.
I don’t know about you, but I am going to contact all of my elected officials on the County Board of Commissioners and let them know that too much government regulation is just not welcome. If they don’t listen to me, I hope that they will listen to common sense from citizens during the January 3rd public hearing on the matter.
------
As a result of the lobbying efforts of people like myself and other citizens, I got the following email today.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Proposed Firearms Ordinance Hearing
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 15:57:14 -0500
From: Rick Hester
From: Allen L. Mims, Jr., Chairman, Johnston County Board of Commissioners
Re: Proposed Johnston County Firearm Ordinance
As you are aware, the Johnston County Board of Commissioners was scheduled to hold a public hearing on January 3, 2011 at our 6:00pm meeting to review and discuss the adoption of a proposed firearm ordinance. I, as well as my fellow Board members, have received several communications over the last week from concerned citizens regarding the implementation of such an ordinance. In light of these concerns, the Board and I have decided to develop a workgroup, consisting of Commissioner, staff and citizen representatives, who will review the proposed firearm ordinance, address the citizen concerns and develop a revised ordinance that is mutually acceptable among us all.
Currently the workgroup will be comprised of the following members, with the possible addition of a couple more individuals:
Allen L. Mims, Jr. – Chairman of the Johnston County Board of Commissioners
Jeffrey P. Carver – Vice Chairman of the Johnston County Board of Commissioners
Rick J. Hester – County Manager
Steve Bizzell – Sheriff
Berry Gray – Planning Director
Citizens: Jeff Lawrence, Mike Walters, Jake McAllister, Stephen Reeves, Jonathan Parker and Todd Blackburn
Therefore, the public hearing scheduled for January 3, 2011 has been postponed until further notice. Upon receipt of a revised ordinance from the workgroup, we shall re-advertise the date and time of the public hearing.
Thank you.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Column for Oct. 15, 2009
"Shut up, dogs!" I hollered from my bedroom. The barking stopped for just a moment, then continued. Both Barack Odoga and Daisy the killer Pekingese kept yapping...and yapping. "That's unusual," I thought. Hearing the dogs bark in the middle of the night was not especially odd. We get that a lot in this area. One of the neighborhood dogs barks at a pedestrian or cat, and the alarm system travels throughout the neighborhood. This time, however, something was different in how my two canines kept barking.
I wiped the sleepiness out of my eyes, as it was about 1:30 in the morning. I stumbled my way towards the bedroom door to make my way to the living room, where the pups were both on alert. "What is it, babies?" I asked. I looked around the room after turning on the ceiling fan light switch and saw a normal living room, just as I left it earlier in the evening. I walked into the bathroom, my office, and around the kitchen to ensure that nothing was wrong. I had listened to hear if I could hear what the dogs were barking about before I even got out of bed. The baby monitor often amplifies sound that only the dogs hear before I do. I often hear movement, outside dogs, and outdoor noises on the monitor before I do naturally. I did not hear anything out of the ordinary.
When I walked back into the living room, both dogs stood at attention, pointing towards the door to the carport. I flipped on the floodlight to the driveway and cracked open the living room door to the carport. I peered out to see if anyone was standing in my driveway, but saw nothing. When I looked down at the three brick stairs below my door stoop, I saw a body laying there clad in denim, sneakers, and white socks. I peered through the living room window and could not see much better.
Since the door opening, the dogs barking, and the light did not make the person stir, I figured that some drunken individual had passed out on my door step. I immediately put on some jeans, shoes, a shirt, and went to one of my gun safes. I despise the gun control laws that require me to lock up firearms since I have children in the house. I believe in safe handling, teaching respect for firearms, and having loaded weapons available at a moment's notice. Since becoming a dad, I complied with state law and locked them up (that's my story and I'm sticking to it). I went to the safe with my favorite revolver for concealed carry purposes, which also has a laser grip sight and wanted to at least carry it, should I need to take action. Since this is not where I keep my quick grab firearms, I had not used this piece in months. I found that the electronic lock was dead. This is not what one wants to run across when needing quick access to a gun. Fortunately, there was no imminent danger in this situation, so I took the time to try to solve the lock issue. Eventually, I used key access and figured I would fix the stupid thing later. Thankfully, that particular safe only held one gun.
I debated whether it was tactically better to handle this vagrant myself or to simply let the local constabulary force handle the situation. I weighed the pros and cons. If I took care of it myself, I would ensure that this individual was removed from my property on my terms and if medical assistance was necessary, my long expired emergency medical technician skills would come in handy. On the other hand, I am one person, and the police usually send at least two officers should things get physical. I had no idea if this person is armed or not or what would happen if he was startled awake suddenly. I could have gone out another door and approached the subject. However, I figured it was tactically best to have the local police to come remove the drunk.
Well, it turned out that an illegal immigrant with little or no English speaking capability had been so intoxicated that he either could not make it back to his residence or thought that my house was his and he just could not get through the door. Unfortunately, the Latino population, especially those here illegally, have a high instance of alcohol abuse. I understand being away from home and lonely, but there is still no excuse for drunkenness. Or illegal immigration, for that matter. At least he was not driving. I read far too many stories of drunken Latino drivers killing innocent people.
I have a t-shirt that says, "I DON'T DIAL 911" and has a picture of a Smith and Wesson 45 auto pistol firing (it looks like a model 4506, for you gun aficionados out there). Two things I know are that when it is not an emergency situation, it is worth it to sit back and wait for local law enforcement to handle non emergency situations. If it was a life threatening situation, I would have definitely done things differently. I also know that I despise gun laws, since they seldom deter law breakers but often inhibit law abiding citizens.
I wiped the sleepiness out of my eyes, as it was about 1:30 in the morning. I stumbled my way towards the bedroom door to make my way to the living room, where the pups were both on alert. "What is it, babies?" I asked. I looked around the room after turning on the ceiling fan light switch and saw a normal living room, just as I left it earlier in the evening. I walked into the bathroom, my office, and around the kitchen to ensure that nothing was wrong. I had listened to hear if I could hear what the dogs were barking about before I even got out of bed. The baby monitor often amplifies sound that only the dogs hear before I do. I often hear movement, outside dogs, and outdoor noises on the monitor before I do naturally. I did not hear anything out of the ordinary.
When I walked back into the living room, both dogs stood at attention, pointing towards the door to the carport. I flipped on the floodlight to the driveway and cracked open the living room door to the carport. I peered out to see if anyone was standing in my driveway, but saw nothing. When I looked down at the three brick stairs below my door stoop, I saw a body laying there clad in denim, sneakers, and white socks. I peered through the living room window and could not see much better.
Since the door opening, the dogs barking, and the light did not make the person stir, I figured that some drunken individual had passed out on my door step. I immediately put on some jeans, shoes, a shirt, and went to one of my gun safes. I despise the gun control laws that require me to lock up firearms since I have children in the house. I believe in safe handling, teaching respect for firearms, and having loaded weapons available at a moment's notice. Since becoming a dad, I complied with state law and locked them up (that's my story and I'm sticking to it). I went to the safe with my favorite revolver for concealed carry purposes, which also has a laser grip sight and wanted to at least carry it, should I need to take action. Since this is not where I keep my quick grab firearms, I had not used this piece in months. I found that the electronic lock was dead. This is not what one wants to run across when needing quick access to a gun. Fortunately, there was no imminent danger in this situation, so I took the time to try to solve the lock issue. Eventually, I used key access and figured I would fix the stupid thing later. Thankfully, that particular safe only held one gun.
I debated whether it was tactically better to handle this vagrant myself or to simply let the local constabulary force handle the situation. I weighed the pros and cons. If I took care of it myself, I would ensure that this individual was removed from my property on my terms and if medical assistance was necessary, my long expired emergency medical technician skills would come in handy. On the other hand, I am one person, and the police usually send at least two officers should things get physical. I had no idea if this person is armed or not or what would happen if he was startled awake suddenly. I could have gone out another door and approached the subject. However, I figured it was tactically best to have the local police to come remove the drunk.
Well, it turned out that an illegal immigrant with little or no English speaking capability had been so intoxicated that he either could not make it back to his residence or thought that my house was his and he just could not get through the door. Unfortunately, the Latino population, especially those here illegally, have a high instance of alcohol abuse. I understand being away from home and lonely, but there is still no excuse for drunkenness. Or illegal immigration, for that matter. At least he was not driving. I read far too many stories of drunken Latino drivers killing innocent people.
I have a t-shirt that says, "I DON'T DIAL 911" and has a picture of a Smith and Wesson 45 auto pistol firing (it looks like a model 4506, for you gun aficionados out there). Two things I know are that when it is not an emergency situation, it is worth it to sit back and wait for local law enforcement to handle non emergency situations. If it was a life threatening situation, I would have definitely done things differently. I also know that I despise gun laws, since they seldom deter law breakers but often inhibit law abiding citizens.
Thursday, April 09, 2009
Column for April 9, 2009
Gun control only disarms the innocent
It is tragic to see how many lives have been taken this past week in various incidents of killing rampages. There have been shootings in an immigration office in New York, shootings in Pittsburgh, in Washington State, and of course the recent mass shooting in a Carthage nursing home here in North Carolina. All of these incidents have made national news.
Of course there is the typical knee-jerk reaction to violence committed by individuals wielding firearms. What you rarely hear in such news reports is whether or not the perpetrators obtained the firearm in a legal or illegal manner to begin with. If the guns were legally obtained, then no new gun law would have helped stop the crime. If the guns were illegally obtained, then laws would have been irrelevant, anyway, since that is the definition of the word illegal.
Criminals do not follow the law by definition. For every nut job out there with a gun, there are millions more who are responsible, sane gun owners. So how do government officials try to keep nut jobs from attacking? They put further restrictions on law abiding, responsible people.
I have read about several attempts to curb your freedom in the name of protecting you. One has even been hidden in the guise of a health care rider on the spending stimulus bill. One way or another, your privacy, your freedom, and safety will be abridged in the name of safety and security.
Here in North Carolina, Senate Bill 664, deemed "The Rapist Protection Act" bill by opponents has resurrected the idea of "safe storage" of firearms. As a collector myself, I do own safes for storage of firearms. I want to protect my investment from theft. I do not want to prevent my access to them when needed. Firearms would have to be stored in locked locations, essentially with ammunition stored separate from the gun itself under this proposed law. There are numerous other insane requirements, including holding a property owner liable for what those who step foot on his property do.
In the United States House of Representatives, HR 45 is a bill that would require licensing for all people who purchase firearms as well as a record for each and every gun sale. Of course we already have laws that do that. The bill has language to seize further regulatory control under the guise of regulating interstate commerce. It used verbiage such as, "…to restrict the availability of qualifying firearms to criminals, youths, and other persons prohibited by federal law from receiving firearms…" If it is already illegal for these people to obtain firearms, then we don't need yet another law that does the same thing. Further laws only make criminals out of already law abiding citizens or seriously infringe upon their freedoms. What part of the Second Amendment's "shall not be infringed" is so hard to comprehend?
The stimulus bill signed into law requires that your health care records be placed into a huge database. People who have had any issues in the past would be heavily scrutinized and judgment calls would prohibit them from obtaining a firearm for personal protection.
I know of one person whose home was almost broken into this weekend. He lives out in the country. A burglar was at his home and attempted to get in through a window. Now this man is concerned about protecting himself and his wife, and rightly so. He wishes to purchase a gun for home defense. He served honorably as a Vietnam War combat veteran.
However, since he had a few problems coping with the horrors of war after his return to the United States almost forty years ago, his health records are available in a database and he will most likely be placed on a "prohibited persons" list maintained by the FBI. In case you think that I am exaggerating here, I also had a family member who was denied a pistol carry permit right here in North Carolina for having sought mental health care after a traumatic experience several years ago. That person's health record was available to law enforcement for determination of whether or not to infringe upon gun rights.
The bottom line is that criminals will get guns and whack jobs will use them if they want to, regardless of whether guns are legal or not. Further gun restrictions only harm law abiding, innocent people and produce victims. The story in Carthage may have been much different had someone who worked there been trained to use a firearm and had one available to stop the attack. Instead, it was a "gun free zone" and a lot of people died as a result.
It is tragic to see how many lives have been taken this past week in various incidents of killing rampages. There have been shootings in an immigration office in New York, shootings in Pittsburgh, in Washington State, and of course the recent mass shooting in a Carthage nursing home here in North Carolina. All of these incidents have made national news.
Of course there is the typical knee-jerk reaction to violence committed by individuals wielding firearms. What you rarely hear in such news reports is whether or not the perpetrators obtained the firearm in a legal or illegal manner to begin with. If the guns were legally obtained, then no new gun law would have helped stop the crime. If the guns were illegally obtained, then laws would have been irrelevant, anyway, since that is the definition of the word illegal.
Criminals do not follow the law by definition. For every nut job out there with a gun, there are millions more who are responsible, sane gun owners. So how do government officials try to keep nut jobs from attacking? They put further restrictions on law abiding, responsible people.
I have read about several attempts to curb your freedom in the name of protecting you. One has even been hidden in the guise of a health care rider on the spending stimulus bill. One way or another, your privacy, your freedom, and safety will be abridged in the name of safety and security.
Here in North Carolina, Senate Bill 664, deemed "The Rapist Protection Act" bill by opponents has resurrected the idea of "safe storage" of firearms. As a collector myself, I do own safes for storage of firearms. I want to protect my investment from theft. I do not want to prevent my access to them when needed. Firearms would have to be stored in locked locations, essentially with ammunition stored separate from the gun itself under this proposed law. There are numerous other insane requirements, including holding a property owner liable for what those who step foot on his property do.
In the United States House of Representatives, HR 45 is a bill that would require licensing for all people who purchase firearms as well as a record for each and every gun sale. Of course we already have laws that do that. The bill has language to seize further regulatory control under the guise of regulating interstate commerce. It used verbiage such as, "…to restrict the availability of qualifying firearms to criminals, youths, and other persons prohibited by federal law from receiving firearms…" If it is already illegal for these people to obtain firearms, then we don't need yet another law that does the same thing. Further laws only make criminals out of already law abiding citizens or seriously infringe upon their freedoms. What part of the Second Amendment's "shall not be infringed" is so hard to comprehend?
The stimulus bill signed into law requires that your health care records be placed into a huge database. People who have had any issues in the past would be heavily scrutinized and judgment calls would prohibit them from obtaining a firearm for personal protection.
I know of one person whose home was almost broken into this weekend. He lives out in the country. A burglar was at his home and attempted to get in through a window. Now this man is concerned about protecting himself and his wife, and rightly so. He wishes to purchase a gun for home defense. He served honorably as a Vietnam War combat veteran.
However, since he had a few problems coping with the horrors of war after his return to the United States almost forty years ago, his health records are available in a database and he will most likely be placed on a "prohibited persons" list maintained by the FBI. In case you think that I am exaggerating here, I also had a family member who was denied a pistol carry permit right here in North Carolina for having sought mental health care after a traumatic experience several years ago. That person's health record was available to law enforcement for determination of whether or not to infringe upon gun rights.
The bottom line is that criminals will get guns and whack jobs will use them if they want to, regardless of whether guns are legal or not. Further gun restrictions only harm law abiding, innocent people and produce victims. The story in Carthage may have been much different had someone who worked there been trained to use a firearm and had one available to stop the attack. Instead, it was a "gun free zone" and a lot of people died as a result.
Thursday, January 01, 2009
Column for Jan. 1, 2009
A permit to purchase ammunition coming to a town near you?
I was told that I was yelling "the sky is falling". I was told that I am an alarmist using scare tactics. And yet I have been proven right yet again. I am a freedom advocate. I believe in your Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. I believe that there are plenty of people who will stop at nothing to take away that right. And of course, I am correct.
Three years ago, I had a disagreement with the National Rifle Association over the efficacy of their involvement in a grass roots manner, especially on the local level. I was informed that their organization only attempts to involve itself on the national and maybe state level. I was told that local politics were not important and not worthy of their efforts. The ironic thing was that they told me this while relocating their annual convention from one Ohio city in protest of municipal ordinances in that town against gun ownership and freedom. The NRA is so myopic in their activism that I gave up my membership a couple of years ago.
It figures that gun control nuts will attempt to subvert the right to keep and bear arms in any way that they can. The latest attempts are nothing new to me, but are new to many people in Durham, North Carolina. On the other side of the Triangle, Reverend Melvin Whitley is attempting to have enacted a "bullet ownership" law. Melvin Whitley is a so-called community organizer and activist. He is a liberal and is active with the NAACP. He believes that by curbing or severely controlling who can purchase ammunition, that we will cut down on gun related violence.
I personally invited "Reverend" Whitley to sit down for an interview about a year and a half ago when I first heard of his proposal. I offered to give him a full hour on my talk show to make his case for the plan. He never responded.
Melvin Whitley's plan would call for anyone purchasing ammunition in Durham to have procured a special permit from the local sheriff in order to do so, just as is required to purchase a pistol in NC. There are a couple of problems with this idea. First, the City of Durham has no right to impose upon the local sheriff for anything of the sort. Second, the program is yet another tax upon law abiding citizens that will go through the procedure and pay for a permit while the lawless will avoid the procedure. Third, what part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to comprehend? One can not utilize a firearm for which one can not obtain ammunition. As a collector of antiquated firearms, I am all too familiar with this concept. Available ammunition is part and parcel of keeping and bearing arms.
Want to know the funny thing about this whole proposal? The system of obtaining a permit from the local county sheriff for the purchase of a pistol is a 1950's era law that was intended to legally institutionalize racism. Since all sheriffs were (at the time) White in a segregated society, they could use their personal discretion to deny a pistol purchase permit for anyone they chose. This was a "good old boy" way of prohibiting Blacks from getting guns and thereby limiting their freedom and ability to defend themselves. Requiring people to get a permit for ammunition is using the same system from the roots of racist oppression to ostensibly prevent gun violence, particularly the Black community.
Mr. Whitley has yet to find a willing sponsor for the bill in the NC General Assembly, but he has two willing accomplices on the Durham City Council already. If passed in Durham, it would be a matter of time before other towns would follow suit. Once the concept gains traction, it will be a matter of time before it gains support on a state-wide level.
I tried to tell the NRA that such issues are worthy of their attention and support of pro freedom candidates at the local levels of government. I saw issues such as this coming to the municipal level years ago. I pray that no elected official in Johnston County would be so stupid as to consider such a permit.
If the "good reverend" Melvin Whitley is so concerned about protecting the Black community from violence, as he so states, then perhaps his goal would be better served by proclaiming the gospel for which he is ordained rather than attempting to limit the freedoms of his fellow, law abiding Americans.
I was told that I was yelling "the sky is falling". I was told that I am an alarmist using scare tactics. And yet I have been proven right yet again. I am a freedom advocate. I believe in your Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. I believe that there are plenty of people who will stop at nothing to take away that right. And of course, I am correct.
Three years ago, I had a disagreement with the National Rifle Association over the efficacy of their involvement in a grass roots manner, especially on the local level. I was informed that their organization only attempts to involve itself on the national and maybe state level. I was told that local politics were not important and not worthy of their efforts. The ironic thing was that they told me this while relocating their annual convention from one Ohio city in protest of municipal ordinances in that town against gun ownership and freedom. The NRA is so myopic in their activism that I gave up my membership a couple of years ago.
It figures that gun control nuts will attempt to subvert the right to keep and bear arms in any way that they can. The latest attempts are nothing new to me, but are new to many people in Durham, North Carolina. On the other side of the Triangle, Reverend Melvin Whitley is attempting to have enacted a "bullet ownership" law. Melvin Whitley is a so-called community organizer and activist. He is a liberal and is active with the NAACP. He believes that by curbing or severely controlling who can purchase ammunition, that we will cut down on gun related violence.
I personally invited "Reverend" Whitley to sit down for an interview about a year and a half ago when I first heard of his proposal. I offered to give him a full hour on my talk show to make his case for the plan. He never responded.
Melvin Whitley's plan would call for anyone purchasing ammunition in Durham to have procured a special permit from the local sheriff in order to do so, just as is required to purchase a pistol in NC. There are a couple of problems with this idea. First, the City of Durham has no right to impose upon the local sheriff for anything of the sort. Second, the program is yet another tax upon law abiding citizens that will go through the procedure and pay for a permit while the lawless will avoid the procedure. Third, what part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to comprehend? One can not utilize a firearm for which one can not obtain ammunition. As a collector of antiquated firearms, I am all too familiar with this concept. Available ammunition is part and parcel of keeping and bearing arms.
Want to know the funny thing about this whole proposal? The system of obtaining a permit from the local county sheriff for the purchase of a pistol is a 1950's era law that was intended to legally institutionalize racism. Since all sheriffs were (at the time) White in a segregated society, they could use their personal discretion to deny a pistol purchase permit for anyone they chose. This was a "good old boy" way of prohibiting Blacks from getting guns and thereby limiting their freedom and ability to defend themselves. Requiring people to get a permit for ammunition is using the same system from the roots of racist oppression to ostensibly prevent gun violence, particularly the Black community.
Mr. Whitley has yet to find a willing sponsor for the bill in the NC General Assembly, but he has two willing accomplices on the Durham City Council already. If passed in Durham, it would be a matter of time before other towns would follow suit. Once the concept gains traction, it will be a matter of time before it gains support on a state-wide level.
I tried to tell the NRA that such issues are worthy of their attention and support of pro freedom candidates at the local levels of government. I saw issues such as this coming to the municipal level years ago. I pray that no elected official in Johnston County would be so stupid as to consider such a permit.
If the "good reverend" Melvin Whitley is so concerned about protecting the Black community from violence, as he so states, then perhaps his goal would be better served by proclaiming the gospel for which he is ordained rather than attempting to limit the freedoms of his fellow, law abiding Americans.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
