Wednesday, March 14, 2018

Second Amendment Foundation Membership Up! © 2018 Phillip Evans

Minuteman Statue Photo by Dave Pape

Florida's RINOs played footsie with the Democrats to pass SB 7026 recently, eagerly signed by Gov. Rick Scott, which robbed that age group of the ability to go to a gun store, have their background check run, and purchase a shotgun or rifle. They were already barred under Federal law from doing thusly to purchase pistols until the age of 21, so Florida closed the door to long guns to them, ANY kind of long gun, whether single-shot shotgun or single-shot rifle.

Florida actually did more than that and went BEYOND Federal law and made it illegal for anyone (there is the exception for those in the military or law-enforcement, but not for you peons) under 21 to buy any firearm at all, pistol or long gun, from ANY seller. Federal law allows 18 to 20 year olds to buy firearms from private sellers. No wonder even CNN is calling this a "gun control bill".

So if you are a young adult living in your own digs, being a responsible hard worker and tax-paying citizen in Florida, I hope you already have your own guns (which the overlords will allow you to keep under the new law), or hope someone will give you one as a gift (also permitted by the overlords), in case you need to defend yourself and your loved ones in your own home.

Republican Rep. Jose' Oliva, sponsor of the House companion bill admitted on the House floor there might be some 19 year old young single mothers adversely affected (kept unarmed and helpless) by the bill, but he still pushed for its passage anyway. I guess it didn't matter that much to him. They could just be satisfied to dial 911 and hope police get there in time to rescue them as far as he was concerned. He is well protected, I'm sure.

"Charles Dick championed the Militia Act of 1903, which became known as the Dick Act. This law repealed the Militia Acts of 1792 and designated the militia [per Title 10, Section 311] as two groups: the Unorganized Militia, which included all able-bodied men between ages 17 and 45, and the Organized Militia, which included state militia (National Guard) units receiving federal support.[17][18][19][20]" - Wikipedia

The state of Florida has now effectively prohibited a good portion of its unorganized militia, as defined by Federal Law, from arming itself. Let's see how the U.S. Supreme Court, if it cares at all about hearing the issue, will rule on it some years from now when it gets around to it.

After several bills to allow some additional liberty regarding the licensed open carry of firearms failed, with Gov. Scott happily not saying a peep about their demise at the hands of Negron, Flores, and Garcia, this abominable infringement passed with flying colors and was signed into law like greased lightning.

Folks, this is proof that a super majority Republican Legislature with a Republican Governor does NOT guarantee you that your rights will be protected. 

It's death by a thousand cuts with the RINOs, and death all at once by the Democrats. Let's hope some true Republicans or Libertarians start getting elected that will honor their oath of office to defend the U.S. Constitution, instead of stomping on it.

If you value your rights, then no matter your age, please join the Second Amendment Foundation. I've been a member myself for a few months. And just now I received a phone call from them as I was writing this article, and pledged an additional $10.00 to help fight for our rights. Will you join with me?                                                                        

    Gestapo Microcosm Right Here Today In America © 2018 Phillip Evans

    I was just following orders was the defense many Nazis used after WWII to try and save their own necks.

    From a PBS article:

    Creative Commons Licensed Photo by Ray D’Addario

    Texas State District Judge George Gallagher ordered the bailiff to activate a defendant's shock-vest multiple times for not properly answering questions, with no violence or threat of violence from the defendant at all. In order words, physical torture was used in an American courtroom as punishment for non-violent disobedience from the Would you hit him again?” authority in charge.

    We see horrific things done by the Nazis and dismiss them as "being in the past" by "those other people", as if the same could not happen here. Well, it should be obvious that anything that happens will one day be in the past at some point, and done by someone. That is neither an excuse for it, nor is it a buttress against something like it ever happening again.

    I'd wager the bailiff had in mind the same excuse that he was "just following orders". Perhaps the bailiff had the same fear of being executed for not following orders like the Nazis had? Or maybe it was just fear of getting a reprimand.

    Speaking of execution, an electric shock from a stun device can kill a person by stopping their heart. So Judge Gallagher was willing to risk killing a man who dared to defy his authority by either refusing to answer his questions, or by giving an unacceptable answer.

    Folks, this was not as rare an aberration as you might think. The proof:

    Here was not just one person, the judge, acting immorally. There was also an all too willing accomplice at the same time in the same room ready to carry out such orders. An aberration would have been only one person in one room meant to uphold justice who metes out such evil against another human being, not two people acting in concert. What are the odds of that, right?

    Look at all the cases in the news of abuse of power, up to and including getting shot in the back while running away from a traffic stop, with the executing officer manipulating evidence and lying about what happened if you are not convinced that evil permeates society and grips even those who are supposed to have our best interests at heart.

    It is short-sighted to look at government brutality as a racist issue. While racism is part of some cases of abuse of power, it is far larger than that, and naive to believe otherwise. It is simply that power corrupts, and only the morally fortified can resist the dark side when endowed with the power to control others by force. And just when you think you are one of the good ones, that's when there is the greatest danger of falling.

    Judge Gallagher's courtroom that day was an example of the "utopia" that "progressives" long for and rally for.

    In that courtroom the only ones with weapons were approved government agents. Citizens were not permitted arms, and were therefore helpless to stop potentially death dealing electric shocks to a man who did nothing it in the courtroom to deserve it. Without weapons, the only thing the victim's family members could do was to merely be witnesses.

    Had a family member been able to somehow be armed with a pistol and shot the bailiff to stop the torture, I would have voted "Not Guilty" had I been on their jury.

    Citizens being armed is the only thing that can counter tyranny, yet "progressives" want us all disarmed, except for governments of course, which are responsible for mass genocide around the world. But our people are different, it couldn't happen here; we are not Nazis, goes the argument. Notwithstanding, Hitler disarmed his own citizens before crushing them underfoot. So why should we be so quick to follow with our own disarmament?

    On college campuses all over this nation, people with a different viewpoint on issues are either uninvited and not permitted to speak, or must be protected with armed guards if they do manage to get to speak.

    The same ones who despise the protections of the Second Amendment likewise show they have little regard for the First Amendment. 

    And why not? If you can destroy one amendment because you don't like it, what's there to stop the others from being destroyed. Certainly not the "good will" of "progressives" who are in truth, regressives. And what's to stop even greater abuses of power once everyone is helpless to use force against such abuses?

    You can follow one discussion on this incident here at

    Sunday, March 11, 2018

    Protest Florida's 18 to 20 Y.O. Gun Purchase Ban: Gift A Gun © 2018 Phillip Evans

    Creative Commons Public Domain Photo Under CC0 License

    Florida's state Republican law-makers and Governor, with the passage of SB 7026 have now punished you all (well, there is an exception for certain special classes of young adults, but not for you "regular" tax-paying serfs) for the evil done by a 19 year old criminal at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School last Feb 14th.

    If only those Republicans respected the efficacy of FBI background checks, you wouldn't have this problem, since background checks are supposed to catch those not responsible enough to own a firearm, right?

    But here's the kicker: The background check system itself did not fail. It was the FBI that failed to act on credible information that could have prevented the murderer from buying his rifle at a gun store. And not only did the FBI fail TWICE, the Broward County Sheriff's Office failed over two DOZEN times. 

    So because local and Federal governments failed to get someone on the prohibited NIC's list after NUMEROUS opportunities, it's now supposed to be YOUR fault. State Government has now put the blame on your shoulders, or at least the punishment.

    Oh, but at least it's still legal for someone else to buy a gun and gift it to you. That way, you don't have to have a background check performed on yourself. Do those Republicans not see the irony and the disconnect with this?

    And the last "I support the Second Amendment" RINO Republican to speak on the House Floor before the vote actually admitted that there may be some young 18 year old single mothers living with just their children, who will now be unable to go buy a rifle or shotgun for home protection under this new law. 

    Those same young mothers that could have their door kicked in by human monsters, and be raped and robbed, and perhaps murdered in front of their children.

    But ladies and gentlemen, that did not phase Rep. Jose Oliva (sponsor of the House companion bill) as he spoke in support of passing the bill. He simply must not care.

    I suppose since there is no right to keep and bear arms in Cuba (except for police and soldiers), that was good enough for him. Rep. Oliva and his wife have their guns to keep themselves and their children safe, but vulnerable young adults in bad South Florida and other neighborhoods under 21 are on their own, unless they can get someone to give them a rifle or shotgun as a gift.

    South Florida has been very good to Rep. Oliva, much better than Cuba would have been if his family had never immigrated here. He now repays the opportunity of a good life and liberty in these United States of America by abusing the Constitutional Rights of 18  to 20 year old adults old enough to vote, old enough to sign a contract to lease, rent, or buy their own house, old enough to buy an automobile, and old enough to join the military without parental permission, and fight and die to defend our freedom.

    He and all the other back-stabbing Republicans who voted for this abominable bill should be kicked out on their ear. They failed to keep their oath of office, to uphold and defend the Constitution. They trampled what Lady Liberty stands for.

    I'm glad the NRA has filed a lawsuit challenging this new law, at least the portion of it this article is referencing. Will the NRA have the guts to give every single one of those Republicans who voted YES on the bill, the "F" rating they deserve? Let's see what sort of fortitude the NRA will show in that regard.

    Please do three things:
    • Organize and pool your resources to buy rifles and shotguns to give to adults you know under 21 who now have their right to purchase their own protection stripped from them.
    • Contact the NRA and ask them to give out those "F" ratings to every one of those filthy traitors of liberty.
    • Share this article on Facebook, Twitter, etc. Links are right under here in the middle.

    Wednesday, March 7, 2018

    Florida's Gun Control Bill of 2018 © 2018 Phillip Evans

    Later today, the Florida State House will vote on SB 7026 (Florida's largest foot stomp on the U.S. Constitution since Janet Reno led Florida to ban open carry of firearms in 1987), and it will pass (yes, I am working on this article now before the vote). 

    Because SOMETHING has to be done, no matter how much it will step on liberty, no matter whether it will actually help save lives or not. Feelings matter more than love of freedom in this country, and has for a long time now. Showing that you care is the key to keeping the flock of sheep happy.

    Crop of a photo of Stoneman Douglas High School sign by Coral Springs Talk

    Some highlights from the House debate:

    Some of these are from memory, so exact word-for-word quotes are but a few, and in some cases I didn't get their names, but no one is misrepresented in what I'm reporting here that they said. I challenge anyone to show otherwise.

    Dracula Riding Godzilla

    "A young Black or Brown boy will be running scared down the hall during a school shooting, reach for his cell phone, and get shot by a teacher thinking the boy was a shooter in the school." - Rep. Stafford (D)

    That wasn't the only time the race card was played by "social justice warrior" (SJW) Reps. It was played until it was worn raggedy. Other Reps talked about "Black or Brown boys" being shot by intimidated teachers feeling threatened and using the "stand your ground" law. 

    What they don't realize is that Black defendants have benefited as much or more from that law than Whites. Also, what they don't realize is the high legal bar to claim that defense. You can't just shoot someone because you are scared and claim "stand your ground". At least you cannot do that and get away with it.

    "My four year old daughter who loves anything that looks like a toy will get her classmates to over-power an armed teacher to get his gun." - Rep. Hardemon (D)

    I can do one better than that. Perhaps they would have used my example and thanked me for it had I been there: "If it suddenly thundered, a frightened teacher might believe the school was being bombed and pull out her gun and just start shooting through the walls in panic."

    Utterly Lying:

    "At Fort Hood, they were all armed and that didn't help. They still got wounded and killed." - A female Rep. (D)

    Actually, they were unarmed and in a "gun-free" zone of the base, as most parts of military bases are.

    TV Overload:

    "In a Rifleman episode - a kid kills his dog by accident at night because he was so curious to fire a gun he was told not to touch, so we should keep guns out of the hands of children." - Rep. Hardemon, justifying the 18 - 20 year ban on purchasing long guns.

    Representative Hardemon, you had me in stitches with that one along with your commando 4-year old daughter scenario. I think you watch way too much television!

    Let's understand something basic here: 18-20 year olds are not children. They don't buy firearms so they can go outside and shoot them for fun in the middle of the night out of curiosity. They want home protection, especially when living alone or with children to protect themselves from home invaders.

    But, But You Can Still Possess Long Guns:

    The RINOs playing footsie with the Democrats on the Second Amendment infringements in this bill were quick to point out that 18-20 year olds, while not able to legally buy a rifle or shotgun under this bill, would still be able to legally possess them. 

    You mean they can legally possess one to shoot up a school, to legally kill children? That was a sarcastic question for the Democrats who watch too much TV and their RINO friends that don't easily catch sarcasm.

    Most school mass shooters are over 18. And the 20 year old mass murderer at Sandy Hook didn't buy his gun, he stole it. Perhaps if they put their noses to the grindstone they can craft a bill to make it illegal to steal a rifle, instead of catching under-21 year old adults together into an infringement net that will solve nothing.

    "It's [18-20 year old purchase ban] not an infringement. It works around the edges [of the Second Amendment]. It makes some things harder. It's minor...Better pass this now [you "Conservatives"] or you might get something worse later." - Rep. Roth (RINO)

    The various infringements in this bill will not be forgotten, you filthy RINOs, just because you supported school districts to have the choice to have an armed Marshall program. That will not absolve you of your traitorous theft of our rights.

    Most school districts will choose to NOT opt in to the Marshall program (school districts are typically controlled by "progressives", especially in South Florida), and of those that do opt in, very few staff will volunteer, simply because they will not have four weeks of free time to take the required training

    Of course, one Rep said on the floor that he didn't want any school staff member carrying a gun in school after taking "a weekend course". I guess the fool Rep didn't bother to even read the bill.

    Bump Stock Ban:

    The bump stock language is very troublesome, and will affect virtually all aftermarket triggers that increase the rate of fire even a small amount due to a lighter trigger pull, and will make a multitude of good citizens instant felons, as with bump stocks themselves, since the bill has no method of disposition of bump stocks. 

    Bring a bump stock to a police station to turn it in? You get arrested for possessing it. Nothing in the bill has a mechanism for safely turning it in without getting charged with a crime.

    Not to mention, bump stocks should not be banned in the first place! A rapid-fire rifle is a valid anti-tyranny device.  

    No mass shooter in or out of a school has ever used a bump stock, so what was that about? Yep, it's about control, as you will read more about below. Just read what one Rep actually admitted along those lines about this bill.

    Well They "Did Something":

    This bill has now passed 67-50 because law-makers, regardless of what parts of the bill they did not like, held their noses and voted Yes, because as the gum-chewing young lady Rep at the 1:30pm mark said, they "had to do something". 

    Not many stood on principle and voted No, because they were chickens. And those that voted for the infringements in this bill while parading their "love" for the Second Amendment deserve to be tarred and feathered.

    We Love Hunters:

    "You can't hunt with an AR-15..."  - A Democrat

    No, but you sure can use one to defend yourself and your family. 

    "Ducks and birds are more protected than our children. You can't have more than three rounds in your gun when duck hunting, but it's legal to hunt humans with an AR-15." - Rep. Stark (D) Yes, he actually used the word "legal".

    It's the Militia Fool:

    "Muskets, blah, blah, blah. The Founding Fathers could not have envisioned the future development of firearms. This is not the 18th Century. The Second Amendment was just for the militia. You won't over-throw the U.S. Government's tanks. The Second Amendment is out of date." - Rep. Joseph Abruzzo (D) representing South Florida. Any surprise there?

    The Second Amendment was written to guard against tyranny from within or without. 

    It was not written to protect hunting rights. Its purpose is as valid today as it was in when it was written. The very fact the government wants to infringe on your right to keep and bear arms is the very reason it was written. Punish the criminals, but not me. Hands off my guns and my firearm accessories and bump stocks!

    A 1776 style revolution in this country will not be fought with tanks. It would be guerrilla warfare, with a fair portion (not a majority, but enough perhaps) of current government law-enforcement and military on the side of liberty if tyranny rose up.

    I predict several lawsuits over the 18-20 year old ban on firearms purchases, especially with the "special people" carve-out that will exempt some.

    Perhaps the U.S. Supreme Court will hear one of those cases and correctly rule the long gun purchase ban unconstitutional. If enough years passes for it to even get there. In the meantime, how many honest, hard-working young adults will have been disarmed and left as prey at the mercy of criminals? 

    Blame The Object:

    Blaming the object is the lazy way out, because you can then just ban the object and be done with it, problem solved. 

    Don't worry, pistols are in their sights. They are already nibbling at them with their push to ban ALL "high-capacity" magazines. Who NEEDS a pistol magazine that holds more than 7, or 9, or 10 bullets? Whatever the magic number of the day happens to be.

    And they wanted to completely ban the AR-15 (just for us "regular" citizens, of course), which thankfully that amendment did not pass, so civil war is delayed a little while longer. 

    Why didn't the professional organizers take advantage of emotional students after knife attacks to use them as pawns to gather them together with Bloomberg money to call for banning knives? Not enough political capital in it for them yet? 

    Is it because knives are just inanimate objects that can do no harm unless wielded in a way to cause harm? Guns do not fire on their own. They are inanimate objects as well, and can do a lot of harm, or they can prevent a lot of harm depending on who has them.

    80-90 MILLION law-abiding gun owners in America are doing quite well peacefully owning their arms (including millions of AR-15s) without government assistance.

    Right about now, we should all send the overloads in their fancy armed-guarded building the message that we, the American People, will not comply with their edict of our rights infringements.

    That's Just Racist:

    Those who kept quoting Dr. Martin Luther King were apparently unaware he applied for and was denied (by Democrats) a license to carry a gun, even after having received threats to his life.

    The Democrats who spoke care more about the racist "stand your ground" boogeyman that doesn't exist, than doing something (Marshall Program, if could be unfettered to actually be allowed to work) that could save the lives of children. 

    And if they really do care about children, utter delusion is the only possible explanation for their opposition to allowing law-abiding citizens to be armed in schools. 

    Citizens are already lawfully armed around hundreds and even thousands of children at public beaches, parks, festivals, fairs, etc.

    Children - The Most Valuable Political Pawns:

    "Children coming to protest is the only reason we are here doing something" - Rep. Stark

    Really? You mean there would have been no blood dancing in the Legislature, no attempt to strip Americans of their Second Amendment Rights, no virtue signaling and posturing, no use of the limelight of a video broadcast to emotionalize and get your 15 minutes of fame?

    Forgive me if I don't believe you, Rep. Stark. Yes, you can take that as me calling you a liar.

    Let's not forget that those students were highly organized with help from professional and well paid organizers and Billionaire Bloomberg $dollars$ who are hardcore despisers of the right to keep and bear arms by we "regular" citizens. 

    We Don't Love Guns, I Mean We Do:

    Oh, they are all for guns, all sorts of them, as long as they are possessed and used by law-enforcement and the military that they love and trust, except when they are calling them racist pigs, killers of Black and Brown babies, and worse things.

    Yes, "progressives" despise police and the military, but they despise something else even more. And that is the individual liberty to have the means to not have to wait for the police, to be able to protect yourself and your family. 

    You see, the idea is to have everyone view government as the savior and provider of society, even if you hate the police, even if you hate the current President. 

    Because at some point, they hope there will be a government of their making, and they want that love and trust of government to be transferred to them. 

    More Control On The Horizon:

    When the next mass shooting happens at a school in Florida, what other sorts of infringements will they propose?

    "When you have a weapon that can tear through the flesh of any human being..." - Rep. Williams (D) - talking about the AR-15 (Armalite Rifle, not "Assault Rifle")

    You mean like a pistol? Seems to me that pistols fire bullets, too, that can "tear through flesh". That folks, is their standard for banning something, so she may as well have been talking about pistols. There is no quenching the gun-grabbing thirst of those who despise  the idea of mere non-badged citizens owning, or heaven-forbid carrying guns in public for their own protection.

    "You can't pick and choose which Constitutional Amendments...We have the First Amendment but you can't say certain things at an airport..."Rep. Willhite (D)

    What he means is you can't say things that would cause a panic in an airport, and so because of that restriction we can infringe on law-abiding citizens peacefully possessing and NOT misusing certain firearms and firearm accessories. 

    I saw that illogical conflation argument coming from a mile away. Even "hate speech" is legal under the First Amendment according to the U.S. Supreme Court, but a young adult man or woman under the age of 21 can't lawfully go to the gun store and buy a rifle or shotgun, to use them lawfully, as millions do in this country in other states? How stupid is that?

    The misuse of the right of free speech or any other right is not equivalent to the PROPER ownership and use of firearms by law-abiding citizens. This is a non-sequitur if there ever was one. If that's the sort of "logic" they use, then NOTHING is beyond their capacity to pursue in infringing on our rights.

    One of the last Reps (a Democrat) to speak, admitted out loud and honestly in clear words that "this may not stop the next school shooting." That's cover for them, folks! They KNOW another mass shooting will happen again, and their cover is that this is a "comprehensive" gun control bill, and NOT a school-shooting-prevention-bill.

    Yes, this is what they been craving, and this school shooting was eagerly grabbed as the catalyst for the "step in the right direction". "Not just a school bill", he said. "Truly a comprehensive approach", he said.

    And the very last to speak (RINO Rep. Oliva), who made sure to harp his "support" for the Second Amendment said the following: 

    "It's just a judgement call, that's all this is. We are not depriving you of your rights. We are not infringing on your right to bear arms. We can ban 18 year olds from buying guns, even 18 year old single mothers, because we ban 17 year olds from buying guns. Constitutionally offensive to some? Meh. But for those of you who believe strongly in the right to bear arms, this is okay because 18 year olds are already banned [by Federal law] from buying pistols. Let's treat all weapons the same and not allow adults under 21 to buy either pistols or long guns. The victims' parents have all endorsed this bill, so that's why we can support it."

    Sorry, but even victims do not get to infringe on our rights. And just because the Federal Government infringes on our rights doesn't mean Florida has to up the ante even further. 

    This bill was born out of the burning desire to rob us of our right to keep and bear arms. It was buoyed out of emotion from the right "opportunity" to not let a tragedy go to waste, and anti-gun rights buckets of Bloomberg dollars that make NRA dollars look like pennies.

    Now Let Our Protests Begin!!!

    First, join, then join

    Ask around in the Facebook group about the various provocative, but peaceful things you can do to "stick a thumb" in the eye of the hypocrite liars in the Florida Legislature who croon to us their "love" of the Second Amendment but who stab us in the back.

    And then VOTE THEM OUT!

    Monday, March 5, 2018

    Gwinnett County Shiloh Middle School - Student With Gun © 2018 Phillip Evans

    I just learned today that a student brought a gun into the school. Someone knew about it or noticed he had it, and notified school personnel, who got the pistol from the student.

    With the millions of dollars that pour into school districts from Georgia and the Federal Government, along with the fact that Georgia law generally bans even licensed-to-carry citizens from bringing guns into schools, and the presence of signs banning weapons, how is it that a child could bring in a gun inside the school?

    Photo from Gwinnett County Public Schools Website

    I'll tell you how. No security screening of students as the enter the school. No metal detectors. Add unarmed teachers and other staff, with probably only one armed officer assigned to the school, and you have a recipe for what happened in Parkland, Florida.

    There is much resistance to letting anyone but badges carry guns in schools. Public schools are a seat of the government's power, and governments want to be relied on as the sole protector.  

    Letting teachers or anyone else be armed except law-enforcement takes the wind out of their sails when they talk about the "only ones" being professional enough to carry firearms, and they can't bear that. It's a direct affront to their world view that subjects must obey and trust only their government to protect them.

    Everyone in Georgia who possess a license to carry a firearm needs to email their school's Principal and ask that they be allowed, under the provisions of HB 60, to be armed whenever they come to the school for the defense of themselves and others around them.

    Get their responses in writing and post them on Facebook, blogs, and other forums.

    Then, if a mass shooter strikes one of those schools, point out that they had been offered the tools to help keep them safe, but they REFUSED, and are now partly responsible for the dead and wounded.

    In Georgia, local schools have the authority to appoint staff, teachers, and even parents who are licensed to carry, as being permitted to carry in their schools.

    Gwinnett County has been able to do this since 2014 (HB 60 - start reading at line 281), but has REFUSED to do so. Gwinnett County, like all school districts so far in Georgia (Floyd County is considering it), prefers teachers and students to be sitting ducks when attacked by criminals and terrorists.

    Waiting for the police to arrive has been proven over and over to be a prescription for many wounded and dead.

    Superintendent J. Alvin Wilbanks gives his spiel on school safety here

    Allow me translate it: "Blah blah blah, blah blah.... blah." NONE of his fancy talk did ANYTHING to keep a child from bringing a gun into one of his schools today.

    Just because you have a few fancy letters after your name doesn't mean you possess any decent measure of common sense.

    Nothing but gobbledegook pablum coming from those on the government payroll. Hack speech is just their attempt to hide behind a thin veil of buzz words meant to pacify the general public and fool them into thinking they are doing all the rights things to keep them safe.

    The naked reality is that when you are a fish in a barrel with someone shooting at you, you need to be able to SHOOT BACK.

    Wednesday, February 28, 2018

    School Shootings - A Hard Choice For Teachers © 2018 Phillip Evans

    Finally, after multiple mass school shootings in this country and multiple injured and murdered students, teachers, and staff, a momentum is building that possibly, if they are licensed to carry, and if they take comprehensive government-approved training, teachers might be given permission to carry a concealed pistol on their person while in their school.

    Photo by Marcus Quigmire

    Unfortunately, the wheels of loosening government fingers from the neck of Lady Liberty turn slowly. Most states have not yet decriminalized carry in schools by citizens who possess a weapons carry license. And most probably never will.

    Even those states, such as my home state of Georgia, that allows local school districts the authority to appoint teachers, staff, and even parents to carry in schools if licensed, has seen either zero or very few school districts taking advantage of the offer.

    In Georgia, if you are licensed to carry and carry your firearm into a school (except when picking up or dropping off a student), you can be charged with a misdemeanor. That means up to a year in jail and loss of your weapons carry license for at least three years after you complete your sentence. A nice government "gift" for someone who just wants to be safe, eh?

    While this is a harsh penalty, it pails in comparison to being permanently injured by a bullet or especially to being killed by one or several.

    So teachers, where you have no legal opportunity to carry your concealed pistol in a school, but where you love life and the lives of your students, you have a solemn decision to make, and only you can make it.

    If you choose to carry your firearm in your school, you must be sure to conceal very, very carefully. Do not skimp on a holster. Get a high quality concealment holster. Use a pseudonym and become a member of a gun forum such as Georgia Packing to ask about methods of concealed carry. You will get plenty of helpful responses. 

    For ladies who want to carry, check out the The Well Armed Woman website.

    If you are a school teacher and illegally carry in your school, do not be on Facebook or Twitter saying anything about guns. If pressed by anyone, tow the party line and pretend to be against guns rights. You have to be smart about this to not get caught.

    I'm not advocating that anyone break the law. I'm just providing information to you for informational purposes that is already in abundance on the Internet. So abide by all Federal, state, and local laws, and stay safe.

    And about the photo of that sign above. Signs keep out drugs from schools about as well as they keep out guns.

    Tuesday, February 27, 2018

    It's Not About Arming Teachers, It's About NOT Disarming Them © 2018 Phillip Evans

    "Progressives", bless their little pea-pickin' hearts, imply that lovers of liberty want to force teachers to be armed against their will. They are liars of the first degree if they deny they are implying such when they poo-poo the idea of armed teachers.

    Actually, we lovers of liberty want teachers to have a choice in the matter. Isn't the word "choice" worshiped when we talk about dismembering innocent unborn human beings in the womb? But somehow that word becomes taboo when we talk about free Americans being able to defend themselves and others from criminals and terrorists.

    If teachers are armed in public at the same rate as the general population, then about 7 to 11% of them (depending on what state they live in) possess a license to carry a firearm.

    How about we NOT disarm them when they come to school. They already carry their concealed pistols in public when shopping, going to the park, and most every other place they go. And many of those places often have children in abundance. We don't see a rash of licensed-to-carry teachers murdering children in other places, so why would we believe it would happen in schools if the law was changed to allow them to be armed while teaching?

    Here's a golden nugget of common sense: even now under current law banning guns at schools, a teacher could bring his gun into a school for the purpose of committing mass murder. Allowing law-abiding teachers the opportunity to be armed for good reasons won't increase the likelihood of an evil teacher bringing his gun. Having armed good guy teachers would instead be a deterrent to armed bad guys (teacher or not) from coming into the school. 

    "If President Trump or the Legislature ever had a dumber idea than arming teachers, we can’t recall one. It’s a prescription for more dead teachers and more dead students. Teachers are teachers, not SWAT team cops."

    Really? In all the school shootings where the teachers were unarmed and unable to defend themselves and their students, wasn't that an effective prescription for dead teachers and students? Is it easier to shoot fish in a barrel when the fish can shoot back, or when they can't? 

    When most murders in a mass school shooting occurs within the first five minutes after shooting begins, but where the best police response time is in the 6 to 8 minute range, what better prescription is there for the most dead victims? No police help in time, and no one armed in the school to shoot back.

    Now, I don't see police response times getting better. If response times were going to get better, that would have happened right after the first school shooting in this country.

    The only honest prescription left is letting the real first responders, and that would be teachers if you are paying attention, have the tools they need and want to save lives.

    And teachers don't need to be as highly trained as "SWAT team cops". That is merely a dishonest attempt by the Sun Sentinel to put up an artificial barrier to allowing defenders their ability to defend.

    The same type of argument has been used against women by President Obama and other self-proclaimed, supposed "women-empowerment" types. "Little lady, you don't need a gun because the criminal will just take it away from you and hurt you with it. Just comply with their demands and give up what they want from you."

    Notwithstanding there are multiple news stories where women with no formal training have shot armed men that attacked them, successfully defending themselves.

    Imagine the lives saved we would have in schools if teachers voluntarily took firearms training from professional instructors, and were allowed to be armed.

    The response was 10 times the amount they expected. Teachers are ready and willing to step up to do what it takes to protect their students. It's not fair for state governments to deny them that ability. Those politicians make sure they are protected in their Legislative buildings, don't they?

    Do armed bad guys want to be fired upon as soon as they start their evil deeds, or do they want easy pickings? Most state governments want to keep schools easy pickings. Who's side are they on? Well, we know.

    Police are armed because it takes a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun

    When running, hiding, and waiting for the police to arrive fails to save lives, other good guys are already at the scene face to face with the danger at that very moment, so let's allow them their human right of self-preservation when looking at certain death otherwise, shall we?

    If you believe the government cannot protect your children, then enroll them at for a tuition-free public school education they can have in the safety of your own home!