Mr. President, you were totally asking for this photo of you “skeet shooting” to be edited the minute you told us not to do it. You know Americans, we are incorrigible and we really like our 1st amendment rights.
So this comment:
“This official White House photograph is being made available only for publication by news organizations and/or for personal use printing by the subject(s) of the photograph. The photography may not be manipulated in any way and may not be used in commercial or political materials, advertisements, emails, products, promotions that in any way suggest approval or endorsement of the President, the First Family, or the White House.”
was sort of like waving a giant red sheet in front of the raging bull of conservative disdain.
What exactly did you think was going to happen?
Apparently Piers Morgan believes that armed guards or civilians should actually be Tom Cruise in disguise, able to stop a shooter before the shooter pulls and fires their gun.
Mother Jones doesn’t think that any shooting where the shooter has less than 4 victims is a “mass shooting”, but Piers apparently lives in the opposite extreme where, even if an armed guard foils the attempts of a 15 year old would-be mass shooter, it doesn’t really count as stopping the mass-shooting because 1 person was shot.
“REVEALED: Armed guard was NOT able to stop Atlanta school shooting,” Morgan posted via his official Twitter account. He then linked to a story with a headline that completely contradicted his questionable claim. “Armed guard disarmed teen in Atlanta school shooting, says police chief,” the headline read.
No one ever claimed that armed citizens or armed guards are sci-fi heroes who could stop crimes before they even happen. We don’t have pale, naked, bald psychics laying around in vats of water in our basements that alert us to when and where someone is going to commit a crime; contrary to what Piers seems to believe.
This week in stupid things that anti-gun advocates have said.
CAROLYN MCCARTHY: I will tell you, if you talk to professionals, hunters and certainly sportsmen, they’ll tell you that’s not the gun to use. A rifle is more accurate. It’s certainly easier for a woman to be able to do that.
There are several glaring issues with this statement. Not only are AR-15 used for hunting and sporting, as well as home defense, but she seems to be making the claiming that an AR-15 is not a rifle. This alone proves that she knows absolutely nothing about guns and has no place being part of the debate about gun control. AR-15′s are most certainly rifles.
In amongst all of this brouhaha, there are some claims that we can all agree on “common sense gun control.” And this sounds reasonable. More strenuous background checks, preventing the mentally ill from getting guns, and the like. Of course all of these measures must be implemented by the government. You know the same government that gave the very guns it’s now claiming should be banned to Mexican Drug Cartels. I’m sorry but I would give a schizophrenic a gun before I give a gun to drug cartels (with the schizophrenic you might have a 50/50 chance they won’t do anything, with the cartels you have a 100% chance that mass murder will occur).
But I do believe in common sense gun control.
My latest post at Dirty Sex and Politics Magazine reminds gun owners to be responsible and reminds liberals that accidents do happen, accidents do not equate to mass shootings, and gun ownership still makes our country safer, regardless of accidents.
As for me, my dad has promised my family a trip to go shooting tomorrow.
For some reason people are finding it odd that gun owners are a bit peeved at having their names and addresses published.
“They haven’t done anything illegal, so why should they care.” they shout and I shout back “And that’s why we don’t want to be treated like a sex offender!”
I fully support the 1st amendment and the 2nd amendment. They are my two favorite amendments in the Bill of Rights in fact, but what The Journal News did when they published an interactive map of all the pistol permit holders in Westchester and Rockland counties in New York state, was an outrageous abuse of the Freedom of Information Act (FoIA) and a disgusting breech of journalistic ethics.
Yes, this is public information.
Yes, anyone can request it from their county office.
No, you should not make an interactive map of the names and addresses of people who legally own handguns for any variety of reasons.
It’s legal, but it’s a HUGE breech of ethics and any “journalist” who thinks it’s appropriate, needs to get some lessons in common decency.
Even former criminals are saying this was a horrible, horrible idea.
“That was the most asinine article I’ve ever seen,” said Walter T. Shaw, 65, a former burglar and jewel thief who the FBI blames for more than 3,000 break-ins that netted some $70 million in the 1960s and 1970s. “Having a list of who has a gun is like gold – why rob that house when you can hit the one next door, where there are no guns?
“What they did was insanity,” added Shaw, author of “License to Steal,” a book about his criminal career.…
Frank Abagnale, who was portrayed by Leonardo DiCaprio in the 2002 film “Catch Me if You Can,” and is perhaps the most famous reformed thief to ever earn a legitimate living by offering the public insight into the criminal mind, called the newspaper’s actions “reprehensible.”
“It is unbelievable that a newspaper or so called journalist would publish the names and addresses of legal gun owners, including federal agents, law enforcement officers and the like,” said Abagnale, who noted that he grew up in the suburban New York area served by the Journal-News. “This would be equivalent to publishing the names of individuals who keep substantial sums of money, jewelry and valuables in their home.”
In other words, The Journal News just made the world a far more dangerous place for everyone to live in. Those who don’t own guns will now be at higher risk of being burgled and those with guns will be targeted by criminals who want to steal their guns, putting more stolen guns on the streets if these criminal entrepreneurs are successful.
Thanks, thanks a lot TJN.
Unsurprisingly, this is already causing problems for people in who own guns in these counties.
Consider who has these permits. Many retired police officers, who have criminals a plenty who would like to find them; survivors of domestic abuse, rape victims, and victims of stalkers who only purchased guns to protect themselves and feel safe in their own homes.
Now, thanks to this incredibly stupid “news” organization, these people’s names and addresses have been published for all the world to see.
“This one narcotics officer from Westchester County just retired. Dedicated his whole career to protecting the citizens of Westchester County and they can’t protect him now. He said I’ve never been so fearful for the safety of my family… This one lady whose been stalked for years in West Chester County. She finally found peace, two years without the stalker contacting her. Two days after that paper released her information she gets hangups all night long. She lives in fear, her and her three daughters.”
And now inmates in prisons have been telling guards that they know their home addresses, thanks to the map. (via Reuters)
Yes, Journal News, I’m sure you’ve made the world a much safer place by exposing the addresses of all us “bitter clingers”.
The first time an innocent civilian or cop is killed in their home and the criminal admits to getting the address from your publication, the first time a house that doesn’t have a gun permit is burgled and the burglar admits he cased houses NOT listed on your website, and the first time a person is shot using a gun stolen from the the home of a law-abiding citizen whose address you published, I want you to take a long look in the mirror and hold yourself accountable for your actions.
You might not have committed the crime, but you enabled it.
I hope you are proud of yourself.
I watched the first season of The Walking Dead and I have to tell you that there was a lot of gun use in that show, they all must have been a bunch of racists. For some reason not a single person came up with the revolutionary idea of taking their group inside a house and nailing a sign to the door that said “THIS IS A ZOMBIE FREE ZONE. NO ZOMBIES ALLOWED.” Surely that would have been a much simpler way to survive the zombie apocalypse.
“That’s crazy!” I hear you cry.
Why is it crazy?
“Because zombies don’t care about rules!” you shout.
Gun free zones just don’t work.
Criminals don’t care whether someplace is a “gun free zone”. In fact, that usually leads them to go TO those places to commit crime, because they are a “soft target”.
Ann Coulter makes that point brilliantly in one of her recent Townhall articles.
You will notice that most multiple-victim shootings occur in “gun-free zones” — even within states that have concealed-carry laws: public schools, churches, Sikh temples, post offices, the movie theater where James Holmes committed mass murder, and the Portland, Ore., mall where a nut starting gunning down shoppers a few weeks ago.
Guns were banned in all these places. Mass killers may be crazy, but they’re not stupid.
So gun free zones don’t work.
It’s time to try something new when it comes to protecting our children.
Or something old, apparently Rahm Emmanuel, David Gregory, and Barack Obama consider armed guards in schools are good enough to protect their kids. Even if they think the idea is “outrageous and unsettling” when the NRA suggests it for other other schools.
That’s right, the school Rahm’s kids go to has an armed guard, Obama and Gregory send their kids to school at Sidwell Friends, which has no fewer than 11 armed guards on campus.
So why shouldn’t other kids have the same protections? Either in the form of armed guards or armed teachers. Maybe Obama thinks his kids are somehow more important than the other children in the United States. Wouldn’t really surprise me.
Leaders in my state of Arizona are working toward better protection in schools at the moment, such as Tom Horne’s plan.
Arizona’s attorney general proposed arming one principal or employee at each school to defend against attacks such as the recent Connecticut school massacre.
“The ideal solution would be to have an armed police officer in each school,” Attorney General Tom Horne said in a news release Wednesday. But budget cuts have limited the number of Arizona schools with “school resource officers” on campus, he said.
The “next best solution,” Horne said, “is to have one person in the school trained to handle firearms, to handle emergency situations, and possessing a firearm in a secure location.”
Until some sort of option of this type can be worked out, there has been a plan put forward by Sheriff Joe Arpaio (who I have met!) who has decided to send some of his volunteer posse out to guard school’s in the area.
“I have the authority to mobilize private citizens and fight crime in this county,” Arpaio said. Arpaio first started using his posse to protect malls during the holiday shopping season in 1993 in response to violent incidents in prior years. Since then he said malls where his posse members are on patrol have had zero violent re-occurrences and patrols by his all-volunteer squad during the 2012 shopping season netted a record 31 arrests. Arpaio said since the program has worked so well in malls he believes it will work just as well protecting schools. “We’re not talking about placing the posse in the schools right now but in the outlying — the perimeters of the school — to detect any criminal activity.”
Sheriff Joe gets a lot of hell from liberals for any number of his positions here in Maricopa country, from his tent city jail (making criminals uncomfortable, how kooky) to his views on illegal immigration (where he actually views illegal immigrants as criminals, shocking right?) but he keeps getting re-elected.
Someday Sheriff Joe will need to stop running for re-election and back someone new for the position of Maricopa county Sheriff, but for now I cheer him on and hope that more locales take a harder stance on protecting our children.
Neither criminals or zombies are likely to follow the rules and laws you set out. Sometimes the best protection of innocent life, is an armed guard to blow their brains out…in the zombies case. I suppose you could just shoot to wound if at all possible in the case of the criminal.