Customer at bar ignored open carry laws and shoots armed robbers

A customer at a bar in Houston ignored open carry laws. Luckily for those around him, he shot and killed 2 of 4 armed robbers.

According to KHOU:

Just after closing around 2:30 Saturday morning, four armed men barged in at EJ’s Place demanding money.

Instead, a customer inside the bar, which is located on the 16500 block of Kuykendahl Road, pulled out his gun and started exchanging fire with the robbers. He shot and killed two of them while the other two ran. Once the heated exchange ended, the patron left, too.

“We’re still trying to determine who he is, and why he left the scene,” said Harris County Sheriff’s Sgt. Robert Spurgeon.

At the moment it is still illegal for citizens to carry a gun into a bar, which is most likely why the patron fled the scene. Regardless of the local and state laws, most believe that this man had every right to defend himself and the people in that bar.

This is a prime example of why ‘gun free zones’ don’t make you safe. It is just a false hope that can actually put you into harms way because criminals aren’t expecting anyone to be able to defend themselves. That is precisely why the other 2 robbers ran away. They don’t want to die, which is why allowing law-abiding citizens to carry actually protects you and your loved ones.

If criminals don’t know whether or not someone is carrying a gun, it gives them fear. Fear leads to hesitation and reconsideration. When criminals are afraid to rob/steal/rape/kill, that is when there will be less crime.

Moms Demand Action Is At It Again with Not One More

STAND WITH RICHARD: After his only child was murdered in the Santa Barbara shootings last week, Richard Martinez’s voice roared across America: “Not. One. More.” Join Julianne Moore and the more than 400,000 Americans who – in just two days – have sent nearly two million postcards to Congress. Show that you stand with Richard, and that you will hold legislators accountable for protecting our children, families and communities from gun violence.

CLICK HERE to send a postcard to your members of Congress and governor telling them that not one more American should die because of our broken gun laws: http://every.tw/1irSuER. And SEND your #NotOneMorephotos to photos@momsdemandaction.org

 

It just never ends. Why is it that people refuse to look at the fact the more guns means less crime? They are basically using the argument that the number of mass shootings is steadily increasing and they won’t tolerate it any more. Which, I hate to break it to you Mom’s Demand, but the FBI crime report shows them as flat from 1980 to today. That means mass shootings are not increasing nor decreasing. However, violent crime IS decreasing drastically. I think that has something to do with the fact that 42% of American households have a gun in the home.

Where is Moms Demand when someone uses a gun in self-defense and ultimately saves their own lives? How about WE NEED MORE. We need more people behind legal gun ownership. Law abiding citizens are not the reason this poor man’s son was killed. You want to get rid of guns in the hands of criminals? Go for it! I agree. Not one more criminal should have a gun, but you’re attacking the wrong people. Sending hundreds of thousands of cards to congress isn’t going to take weapons out of the hands of violent people, it will take weapons out of the hands of those hoping to use them AGAINST a criminal in a violent or threatening attack.

Gay Rights VS Gun Rights: Which is more dangerous to society?

I feel like from the title alone I am going to get a mass of angry emails. But regardless of how many people decide to yell at me for this post, it still makes me wonder.

Reading this article before continuing may offer a better understanding of why I posted this and how I am making this connection: http://carm.org/is-homosexuality-dangerous

 

Total death by firearm (homicide, accidental, suicidal, and self-defense) each year is estimated at around 11,000 people, according to the CDC.

Also according to the CDC, there were almost 50,000 NEW cases of HIV/AIDS in the year 2011 alone and over 1.3 million people today who are diagnosed with HIV/AIDS (not including those who do not know they have it). The number of deaths associated with HIV/AIDS is estimated at 8,369 per year. To add to that, nearly 7,000 homosexual men die each year from HIV/AIDS. Then considering an additional 40,000-50,000 NEW cases each year, this only adds to the amount of homosexual men and women who will eventually die due to this disease. Aside from this, homosexuals and liberals are still putting ALL of their focus into allowing same-sex marriage because gay men and women should be allowed to EXERCISE THEIR RIGHT to love and marry anyone they want. Although, I don’t know where this ‘right’ came from. This is a right that they believe they have developed over the years, not necessarily a right that has been written down for government not to intervene.

Yes, the number of deaths by HIV/AIDS is still less than death by firearms. However, if you take out deaths from handguns, the death from rifles and shotguns combined is lower than the deaths from HIV/AIDS each year. Anyways, so let’s look at something else now- Suicide and self-harm are another factor. The Stonewall 2012 Survey discovered that 3% of gay men and 5% of bisexual men had attempted to take their own life, compared to only 0.4% of men in general. The rate for suicide is MUCH higher in homosexual men. When looking at self-inflicted harm, here are similar findings. 7% of gay and bisexual men had deliberately harmed themselves compared to only 3% of men in general, and in the 16- to 24-year-old age group, 15% of gay and bisexual men had harmed themselves compared to 7% of men in general.

Next we have murder, domestic violence, and hate crime.

In 2010, 6,628 hate crime incidents, involving 7,699 offenses
and 8,208 victims, were reported to the Federal Bureau of
Investigation by local law enforcement agencies.

Hate Crime

So in 2010, there were a total of 8,208 victims of hate-inspired crime, 19.3% of which were geared towards sexual orientation. That means that in 2010, about 1,560 homosexuals were victims of hate crime. This number increased to 2,016 incidents reported and 25 homicides in 2012.

 

Now all of that aside, what is everyone doing in order to confront this issue and end violence against homosexuals? They are attacking the culture. They are attacking the “old-fashioned” view that being homosexual is wrong/dirty/sacrilegious. In general, America has an extremely violent culture which in turn leads individuals to resort to violence. We have homosexual awareness rallies, we have government funded screenings to help educate and prevent HIV/AIDS, and we have people encouraging them to EXERCISE THEIR RIGHTS. Which, I’m sorry if this offends anyone but last time I checked ‘gay rights’ was not protected by the Constitution. At most, one could argue that the Constitution protects one’s privacy and even that’s a stretch. All in all, people are fighting for gay rights because people believe that we should have the right to make our own decisions. With guns, instead of attacking the culture, they are attacking the weapon and the people who own them. Tell me, if being homosexual is life-threatening and dangerous ALSO due to the increased risk of disease, suicide, depression/mental instability, and hate crime then why is owning a gun not approached in the same way?

This doesn’t make any sense to me. How can you expect us to support your choices and what you choose to do with your life, but want to restrict us from making choices of our own? We shouldn’t be attacking law-abiding gun owners. We should be attacking the culture that is encouraging people to act violently. We should be attacking the criminals who are hurting people. You’re attacking them for hurting homosexuals, why aren’t you attacking them for using a gun? Do you want to know why I have a gun? Because I KNOW this country is violent and I want to protect myself from it. I know we have criminals on the street with what seems to be the result of little consequences and being let out of jail early on ‘good behavior’. Would I need a gun if there was no murderers, rapists, or other horrible people out there? No. Honestly, I probably wouldn’t have ever thought about getting one.

Whether or not I agree or disagree, support or don’t support homosexuality and same-sex marriage is not my point here. My point is that you are asking us to support your decision and your right when it kills a large number of people each year as well. My second point is that I don’t want to hear that you are in favor of gun-control because of the amount of gun-related deaths each year. If you are truly concerned about death, you wouldn’t support homosexuals yet you do anyway.

 

Sources:

http://fathersforlife.org/gay_issues/gay_hate_crimes.htm

http://gaylife.about.com/od/hatecrimes/a/statistics.htm

http://aids.gov/hiv-aids-basics/hiv-aids-101/statistics/

http://blogs.poz.com/peter/archives/2013/03/aids_kills_7000_gay_men_each_year.html

http://www.avert.org/usa-hiv-aids-statistics.htm

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/lgbt/news/2013/10/31/78518/4-years-later-examining-bias-motivated-crimes-against-lgbt-people-after-the-shepard-byrd-act/

http://www.cdc.gov/search.do?q=HIV&sort=date%3AD%3AL%3Ad1&oe=UTF-8&ie=UTF-8&ulang=&entqrm=0&wc=200&wc_mc=1&ud=1&site=nchs

And You Say Gun Owners Are Paranoid?

Short, sweet, and makes a good point. Found this in an article while I was doing my daily digging.

This is just great:

Let me see if I have this straight

 

You want to control:

 

  • What kind of gun I can own

  • How many I can own

  • How many I can buy in a month

  • Who I can sell a gun I own to

  • What color the gun can be

  • How loud it can be

  • How quiet it can be

  • How inexpensive it can be

  • Where i can carry it

  • Where I can carry it

  • What States I can drive through with a gun

  • How many rounds it can hold

  • How many rounds I can own

  • Where I can buy the rounds

  • A master list of what guns I own with serial numbers

  • The publishing of my name and address in the newspaper for owning a gun

  • My ability to have a voice supporting pro-gun laws and candidates for office

  • Where I can store my  guns

  • How I can store my guns

  • How you can verify my compliance

  • How much training I need to have

  • How much I should have to pay the government to exercise a “right”

  • what businesses I can frequent

 

And you are quite sure I’M the paranoid one?

Should Women Purchase Pink Guns?

I guess my constant Google searches and endless hours of looking at guns for sale has finally caught up to me. I am getting emails, tweets, phone calls, and Pinterest links sent to me with “Girly Guns”.

I have to say I have some mixed feelings about the bedazzled and painted guns that seem to only target female gun owners on the web and in stores. Because of these feelings, I have tried to think of why I like and dislike the idea of having a pink gun or something covered in rhinestones. I have also tried to look into why it is women are interested in these designs.

What about Pink? Just in case lol

I believe that a lot of women (not all) search for guns that look ‘less scary’. Picking up a small pink gun the size of your hand almost doesn’t register in your brain that you are holding a deadly weapon. Which makes me wonder- if you aren’t recognizing it as a dangerous weapon, would your attacker? This is one of the reasons that I have a bit of hesitation in purchasing a decorated gun. I don’t ever want to give my attacker any indication that I am not serious about defending myself or that my weapon is “too girly” to do any harm to a man, even if that isn’t true.

The next reason I think that women flock to these guns is because they are more ‘fashionable’ or ‘pretty’. To me, a gun is not something you sport around on your hip just to look good or feel pretty. Carrying a gun is serious business and needs to be treated like such. The other thing that I am confused about is a lot of these guns are meant for concealed carry. If you are meaning to keep it hidden from someone, then why choose a weapon designed to stick out? Now some women wear a TON of pink. In that case, I guess a pink concealed carry gun is probably a good choice. In the case that you are trying to hide in a dark corner somewhere, I have some concerns that a bright colored or bedazzled gun may give away my position if light catches it.

Another reason women lean towards this purchase is because it shows men that “this isn’t my husbands gun, it’s mine”. I have talked to a lot of women who feel empowered by having a gun that is unmistakably their’s. Heck, more power to them.

Let me dig a little deeper here. It’s not the little pink and black handguns that really bother me. It is more the “My Little Pony” and the “Hello Kitty” guns that I can’t stand.

Pink Savage Rascal Rifle .22 girl's rifle Accutrigger Unicorn

Bad Kitty for all the Bad ladies

Another issue I have with these is they look like toys. If something looks like a toy, it is pretty much assumed that it will be treated like a toy. If not by you, then possibly by a child. That being said, if not taught by their parents, any child could pick up a gun thinking it’s a toy.

Now to my biggest issue. I think that the way pink guns are being marketed towards women is a bit ridiculous, and quite frankly I think that is the main reason they bother me. It’s as if some believe women are only attracted to the style and color of the weapon and not to the fact that it’s a firearm. There has been one occasion where I was looking at a gun and was encouraged to go with the pink gun instead of a black one. To me, I felt like the man thought that I knew nothing about guns and would want that one just because it’s ‘pretty’. I then asked him “why this one over that one?” while pointing at the PX4 I had been wanting. He starred at me for a couple of seconds and then said “well because this one is popular with our female customers”. Wrong answer dude. Someone once phrased it “It’s as if I was looking at a car and the salesmen shows me the vanity mirror with pretty lights when I was about to ask a question about the engine”. That is exactly how I felt. I mean seriously now, guys do you have this problem? I don’t think so.

Finally, I feel like a lot of the negativity that goes towards pink guns is one of the main reasons that I haven’t considered purchasing one. Why do a lot of  the guys tend to laugh at the women who walk into a range with an ‘unmanly gun’? I surely don’t want to fall into this stereotype that women are weak and can’t own a ‘real’ gun. On the other hand, how would it make these guys feel having this pink gun wind up in the evidence tray for their case after getting shot? Yea.. I don’t think they’d feel too good about that one.

All in all, I have come to the conclusion that it’s just a color.  It by no means determines whether or not a woman is weak. It by no means takes away from the damage that the gun can do. Heck, it’s a ‘man’ gun with a coat of paint on top of it. Now will I ever purchase a pink gun? Probably not. Pink isn’t really my thing. But will I NEVER buy any colored gun? I wouldn’t go that far. This Tiffany Blue rifle is pretty cool 🙂

Tiffany POF and M&P

 

 

Founder of Safe Campus Colorado Believes Arming Women Won’t Stop Sexual Assault

Ken Toltz, the founder of Safe Campus Colorado, is pushing to ban concealed carry permits on college campuses because he doesn’t believe it would help a female stop an attacker.

According to Toltz, “Addressing the prevalence and risk of campus sexual assault shouldn’t be tied into a concealed gun issue,”

It’s separate and politicizes something that we’re not doing enough about. The statistics are really worrisome about how prevalent sexual assault is on college campuses. We’re not doing enough, and handing out guns is not the solution.”

Toltz would like to start a discussion on how to prevent and respond to sexual assault without the use of guns on campus. However, Amanda Collins, a student at a college campus in Nevada, strongly disagrees.

I think everyone would agree that more needs to be done to prevent sexual assaults, however campus carry isn’t trying to prevent sexual assaults. It’s about allowing women to be able to protect their bodies and preserve their lives if they find themselves in that situation, which they continually do.

Part of her argument is that carrying guns on campus was never meant to PREVENT sexual assault, but instead give women an opportunity to respond to the attacker in a way that could save their life. Her testimony is that her concealed gun stopped her from being a victim of sexual assault.

The sad truth is that 20% of college females are victims of a sexual assault attack on their campus. These women who have been sexually assaulted in the past DESERVE to feel safe, protected, and less vulnerable. They have a right to protect themselves from harm, yet Ken Toltz believes that taking away guns is the answer to preventing more women from being attacked.

Here are some statistics regarding rape and sexual assault on college campuses:

  • At least 1 in 4 college women will be the victim of a sexual assault during her academic career. Hirsch, Kathleen (1990)”Fraternities of Fear: Gang Rape, Male Bonding, and the Silencing of Women.” Ms., 1(2) 52-56.
  • At least 80% of all sexual assaults are committed by an acquaintance of the victim. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2001.
  • 48.8% of college women who were victims of attacks that met the study’s definition of rape did not consider what happened to them rape. Bureau of Justice Stats. “Sexual Victimization of Collegiate Women” 2000, US DOJ.
  • More than 70% of rape victims knew their attackers, compared to about half of all violent crime victims.Dennison, Callie. Criminal Victimization 1998. Bureau of Justice Stats, DOJ.
  • There are 35.3 incidents of sexual assault per 1,000 female students on a campus as recorded over a 6.91 month period (the academic year of ‘96 – ’97) as reported in the 2000 DOJ Bureau of Justice Statistics report “The Sexual Victimization of College Women.”
  • On average, at least 50% of college students’ sexual assaults are associated with alcohol use Abbey et al., 1996a, 1998; Copenhaver and Grauerholz, 1991; Harrington and Leitenberg, 1994; Presley et al., 199). Koss (1988),Within the study’s nationally represented sample of college students the results found that 74% of perpetrators and 55% of rape victims had been drinking alcohol prior to the assault.
  • In a survey of high school students, 56% of girls and 76% of boys [some of whom may be incoming college freshmen] believed forced sex was acceptable under some circumstances. Acquaintance Rape: The Hidden Crime, 1991.

Toltz’s attempt last year failed but this year, he seems more optimistic that enough signatures will be on his petition upon review by the Secretary of State by June 30. Toltz did not explain why his group is pushing a ban that will disarm law-abiding female gun owners who go through an extensive personal background check before being issued a concealed carry permit for self-defense. Also, he did not disclose any so-called ‘better recommendations’ to prevent sexual assault.

Screen shot 2014-05-19 at 9.44.00 PM

 

I hope and pray that this movement fails and females will be permitted to continue to carry on campus.

Victim of Stabbing Heads To The Range

No one ever wants to be a victim of an attack, especially one so close to home. 

WBNS (CBS Columbus) reported that more women are seeking to arm themselves after a woman was attacked in their community in March. Rikki Whitaker was held at gun point and then stabbed after leaving an LA Fitness Gym in Hilliard, OH. She is now out of the hospital and learning self-defense. 

The article describes the courses that Whitaker has been involved in to receive her CCW permit.

It is an empowering feeling, but I know it’s a last resort. It’s not something you want to use, but at some point it’s something you could need to.”

-Rikki Whitaker

 

Though Whitaker has forgone weeks of training and course work, Ohio law offers law-abiding citizens a different option known as a Temporary Emergency License (TEL), which will allow someone to legally carry a gun before completing the 12 hours of state mandated training and waiting on a sheriff to issue a license, which can take up to 45 days. 

The TEL is only valid for 90 days and cannot be renewed for 4 years. There is a lot of confusion when it comes to what it takes to qualify for a TEL and a lot of gun-control nuts argued that this law would be abused. However, the low numbers are proving that this is just another thing they have wrong about guns. 

Obama Asks for $1.1 Billion for Gun Control

Yup, you read that right! Our ever-so-economical president wants $1.1 BILLION to protect Americans from gun violence. $182 million of Obama’s request is to support the “Now Is The Time” gun safety initiative, which includes:

Image

Let’s take a closer look at these so-called “gun safety initiatives”. First, background checks are already required for any legal purchase of a firearm. This isn’t how criminals are getting a hold of guns. It’s people like Leland Yee who are illegally trafficking guns into the country and placing them into the hands of very bad people. This will happen regardless of what our background check requirements are. Do you think Senator Yee and ‘Shrimp Boy’ performed background checks on any of the Muslim rebels they so willingly armed?

Passing a stronger ban on assault weapons. Look, I’ve already done an article on how Obama, Feinstein, and other anti-gun advocates are misusing terms in order to scare uniformed American citizens into supporting their agenda. He wants to pass stronger bans on guns in general and will do so by manipulating you into thinking a modern day sporting rifle is a military weapon. Which in turn makes a legal gun an ‘assault weapon’.

Banning magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. I also mentioned this briefly in my post about misuse of guns terms, and I will mention it again. Limiting the amount of rounds a magazine can hold WILL NOT prevent or stop gun violence. Statistics say that criminals on average only fire about 4 rounds, which is well under the 10 rounds held in a supposed ‘dangerous’ magazine. Not to mention, PoliceOne did a survey in which 96% said that a ban on standard capacity magazines would not reduce crime. And last but not least, just because you have a limit on the amount of rounds your magazine can carry, doesn’t mean a criminal won’t have another fully loaded magazine on his/her person. An experienced shooter can unload and reload like it’s second nature.

Get “armor-piercing bullets off the streets”. Oh how I love this one. What exactly is an ‘armor-piercing bullet’? Where can I buy them? If I go to a store and ask for a box of armor-piercing bullets, will the counter clerk know exactly what I’m talking about? Not really, because there is no such thing. It is yet another term that Obama uses to scare you along with his favorite phrase “police are being out-gunned on the streets”. Which I also showed to my readers is not true in previous posts. Basically what Obama is wanting to “get off the streets” are regular bullets. You know, bullets that actually have more than 100 grains of powder and not the rinky-dink ones you use to practice at a shooting range. So not only is he going after guns, he is going after ammunition.

Giving law enforcement additional tools to prevent and prosecute gun crime. Ok, like what Mr. Obama? Another $382.1 million has been requested by the Department of Justice, $2 million of which will be for Smart Gun technology grants. Did you know that there have been recommendations for police officers to have access to Smart Guns owned by citizens? Yes that means that your little chip/bracelet/fingerprints can be overtaken by a band that any law-enforcement official can wear. They also would like to put GPS tracking devices in each Smart Gun. Now why would a gun need a tracking device? Could it be because the government wants to know exactly who owns a gun and where it is located so that they can confiscate at any given moment?

End the freeze on gun violence research. Seriously? End what freeze? You can do research any time you want to. All of the data, statistics, polls, and crime ratings are all there. It just doesn’t match up with his claims against guns, therefore he wants to make uniformed people believe that any of the research that has been released is invalid since apparently there is a freeze on the real research. Give me a break.

Make our schools safer. Ok fine. I’m all for my future children going to a safe school, but his definition of safe and mine are not the same. Being from Texas, I have heard all of the stories about Charles Whitman shooting from the clock tower at the University of Texas in 1966. Did you know that it wasn’t just police officers who fired back? Other armed citizens, both students of UT and locals around the area at the time opened fire. A couple of these citizens even went with the officers into the tower to get to Whitman. With the extra help from these armed citizens, lives of students, faculty, and even police officers were put at a lesser risk. Because of the return fire from multiple directions, Whitman was forced to hide behind a wall to avoid shots which in turn prevented him from having good aim to harm any other people.Taking guns away and providing counseling instead is not going to help make schools any safer.

Lastly, of course he has to enter ObamaCare into his anti-gun plan. Don’t even get me started on that one.

To wrap up my post, why are we going to spend money we don’t have? Our country is already trillions of dollars in debt, yet he wants to spend another billion to take away our Constitutional right? How about we use that money to REMOVE laws that infringe on Americans’ Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms instead and be done with it.

Why Liberals Are In The Wrong Mindset About Guns

Ronald Reagan once said:

It isn’t so much that liberals are ignorant. It’s just that they know so many things that aren’t so.

Whenever I look at current research, surveys, similar past laws, current laws, etc I ask myself “why don’t liberals get it? I mean the information is all there!” I believe the truth is that liberals are constantly being fed falsified information to support an agenda. If you feel that you know everything already, why would you feel the need to look at research, journals, history, or past/present/future laws? 

I think about why I started this blog in the first place. Moving from Texas to the DC area was a huge change for me. I wasn’t used to homeless men threatening to shoot me and my family on the street in the middle of the day if we didn’t give him money (might I add, he finished this sentence with “Merry Christmas”). I wasn’t used to hearing about shootings or how crime rates are increasing. I wasn’t used to hearing about violent break-ins. I wasn’t used to the fear that sweeps over me every time I walk to my car by myself at night after meeting my husband for dinner. Fact of the matter is, I wanted to know that in a dangerous situation, I could rely on more than a can of mace to protect myself. 

Once I came to the conclusion that I should get a gun and learn proper gun safety, I then started to gain interest in current events pertaining to guns. But what if I was a liberal? What if I had liberal parents, liberal grandparents, and a liberal husband? What if from day 1, I had it engraved in my brain that guns were dangerous? In that case, I wouldn’t have looked into owning a gun as means to protect myself. Which would mean that I wouldn’t have gained interest in current laws and wouldn’t be the gun advocate that I am today. What’s the difference between me and that liberal? I didn’t assume that my prior knowledge of guns was correct. In fact, my research and follow-up has only further validated my previous claims that guns are for protection.

When I said “I want to get a gun”, it was natural to me because I was in that mindset based on previous/current knowledge. Liberals come from a different background or mindset and believe whole-heartedly that guns are not safe. Why? Because every time there is a tragedy, anti-gun advocates blame the gun instead of the shooter, which in turn puts fear in the hearts of people who are not well-informed. And because people FEAR guns, they aren’t willing to do research to validate statements they hear from people like Obama and Feinstein.

The main reason for this blog is because I want to share research findings and compare current events to that of past ones in a way that makes freedom to own and carry easy to digest. Along the way I choose to provide entertaining videos and stories to show you that guns aren’t dangerous in the hands of law-abiding citizens, so why take them away from them? Along the way, I take emails, comments, and tweets to heart because I can’t change your opinion if I don’t understand where you’re coming from. 

What do you, the gun control advocate, have to say about research findings showing that stricter gun control laws increase gun-related crimes?

Have you, the gun control advocate, ever learned how to properly shoot a gun and took courses to educate yourself of gun safety?

How will laws restricting law-abiding citizens from owning/carrying a gun stop criminals from conducting in mass shootings like Aurora or the elementary school in Newton?

If you don’t know how to answer these questions, how can you continue to stand up against something that you cannot logically defend? Shootings like this cause anger, heartache, frustration, confusion, sadness. These are all emotion-based and do not void the fact the research shows that stricter gun laws increase gun-related crime. 

Basing your arguments on emotion rather than logic and fact does not put you in the proper mindset. Educate yourselves and review the data that Obama and other anti-gun advocates want to keep from you. Maybe then you will see that law-abiding citizens are not the problem. 

Liberal Radio Show Host Wishes to Shoot NRA Board Member

A lot of debate is taking place over the new “guns everywhere” law in Georgia. Although gun owners in the state are pleased with the expansion of Georgia’s concealed carry laws, liberal radio show host Mike Malloy is far from it. He is so angered that he said he would like to invite an NRA Board Member to his home and shoot him using the “Stand Your Ground” Law in defense.

Once the state’s Safe Carry Protection Act receives the governor’s signature, concealed carry will be permitted in schools, bars, churches, and sections of the airport that are outside of the security parameter. Malloy’s reaction was anything but friendly OR logical.

[The] organization founded by Gabrielle Giffords…the former Arizona Congresswoman…who was critically wounded in a mass shooting in 2011, she calls it “the most extreme gun bill in America.” The NRA, which they’re behind this of course, they want guns everywhere….I would like to invite one of the NRA board members, and I’ll be armed, let’s just get this over with, OK? Come on down to Georgia and I’ll be packing heat and you be packing heat or whether you want to or not, I don’t give a damn, it’s up to you. And you come, meet me someplace, and all of sudden, see, we have stand your ground here, and all of a sudden I’m going to feel real $&#^*!@ threatened by you! And I will shoot you! If I feel threatened. The law says I can. Ha ha ha ha ha, Ha ha ha ha ha!

Seems to me that Mr. Malloy lost his ability to debate intelligently so he resorted to threats. That’s pretty typical when you face a person who bases his arguments on emotion instead of facts. Once again, another example of a liberal who has no knowledge of guns or the laws the govern them. 

So tell me Mr. Malloy, why are you more concerned that law-abiding gun owners (who I assume have proper knowledge and training) will abuse the second amendment when you’re the one publicly making threats on a person’s life? But I thought you were AGAINST gun violence!?