Published by the San Diego Rifle and Revolver Association
Contributor Commentaries
A World Full of Guns
Friday, 21 May 1999 00:00 | Author: William M Lolli |
The May 21, 1999 broadcast of ABC's 20/20 featured a segment called "A World Full of Guns". The official summary to the program states:
A 20/20 hidden camera experiment found most children knew exactly how to find and use guns even after being previously warned not to play with them.
Let me first say that this wasn't journalism. This segment was the worst kind of Nazi exploitation of children I had ever seen.
For you who did not see it, you were spared the visceral reaction I had when I saw the segment. It was repeated partially on ABC's Weekly show with Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts.
It is beyond my comprehension how the ABC news people, a Day Care Center's administration, and the supposed parents of the children featured in the segment all conspired to create the ultimate propaganda anti-gun film, using the very lives of their own children as puppets.
Please forgive my rage. I digress.
The segment attempts to show what happens when children, actually toddlers, are asked not to play with guns; then set loose in a Day Care Center play room when actual, real-live firearms are placed in the TOY BOX. Yes, the TOY BOX!
Additionally, ammunition --- supposedly REAL, LIVE ammunition --- is left on the teacher's desk; so as to test the ingenuity of the children and their ability to load the firearms. A hidden camera captures it all.
We are supposed to believe that at no time, were the children in any danger. This is a promise made by people who deliberately place firearms in the hands of toddlers and place ammunition within proximity to those same toddlers-- all to advance their shameless agenda.
Well, I have HAD ENOUGH.
I demand to know who orchestrated this segment. I demand to know where it was filmed and if there are any local, state, or federal laws for child endangerment with a firearm on the books where this event occurred. I demand that law enforcement prosecute to the fullest extent of the law ALL OF THE PARTICIPANTS of this exploitation, including the parents, the Day Care officials, and ABC News. These people belong in jail.
Please contact ABC News at: http://www.go.com/Help?pg=ContactGO.html --and let them know how you feel, and that you demand accountability for their reckless acts.
Resistance Is Not Futile
Thursday, 20 May 1999 00:00 | Author: William M Lolli |
For the past week I have been in Florida visiting my mom. Like me, my mom has a Florida CCW permit that allows her to carry her handgun wherever she goes. And she does.
You see, several years back, mom had some punk, 14-year-old kid stick a gun in her face and demand her purse. Stunned into mindlessness, mom tried to comprehend the mind of the terrorist that confronted her. All she could say repeatedly was, "Why are you doing this?"
God was with her that day. The kid did not feel like blowing her head clean off, but took the purse instead.
Later the police told her that the kid had been caught. What was left of an emptied purse was returned to her. She did her duty and went to the station and pre-trial hearings and identified the kid. But the criminal was not prosecuted since there was little political will to incarcerate a "child".
Mom's confidence in the criminal-justice system was destroyed.
"You are just going to let him go?" she asked the police officer. The officer ashamedly told her that it was out of his hands. This admission made my mom genuinely fearful.
"But... what if he comes back?" She was trembling at this point. The officer said in officious tones, "Just give us a call." Then he lowered his voice so that only she could hear-- "Lady, you need to be prepared for that. You will need to protect yourself." Weeks later mom figured out the reason why the kid robbed her of her purse and would have killed her for her $35 and change: because he could.
She got herself trained, got her CCW, and now has joined the ranks of thousands of other pistol-packing senior citizens in Florida. (The lessons of WWII were not lost on this generation, I can assure you.)
That was a few years ago.
Today in Georgia yet another school-aged terrorist used a firearm and committed a crime on a school campus. One month ago today, two terrorists killed nearly a dozen people in Littleton, Colorado. For the past month we have been bombarded with news that it was the guns and the NRA that are the real criminals.
Also during this past month, mom was in a store buying some merchandise. The female cashier required a photo ID for the credit card validation. Mom had misplaced her driver's license, so she asked, "Will any photo ID be okay?"
The cashier lady said yes. Mom produces her CCW license.
Mom swears the woman went pale, exhaled a breathy "Oh my God!", and looked at her as if it were her last moments on earth.
Well, you have to know that my mom is one of these people that by virtue of her very appearance, evokes images of wholesomeness, kindness, and a tender heart. The cashier was immediately put at ease when my mom chuckled at her and said, "It's all right, sweetie."
The transaction was completed without incident. But at the end before my mom turned to leave the store, the cashier reached out to her with her hand and asked, "Could you answer me one question? Why? Why do you have... THAT."
"Because I don't want to be a victim ever again, sweetie."
Hey. Good answer, mom!!
Who Needs An Assault Rifle?
Monday, 03 May 1999 00:00 | Author: William M Lolli |
Who Needs An Assault Rifle?
On May 3rd, 1999, according to Reuters, former cabinet member and Presidential hopeful Elizabeth Dole went out on a limb Sunday by urging stricter gun control, earning herself scattered boos at the first major Republican presidential forum of the 2000 campaign. Elizabeth Dole, the wife of defeated 1996 Republican nominee Bob Dole, was the most controversial, declaring her support for a ban on assault weapons which many conservatives bitterly oppose and want to overturn.
``I don't think you need an AK-47 to defend your family,'' she said to tepid applause and a few boos. ``I also favor safety locks on guns to protect our children.''
In my last commentary I focused on "Two Questions Gun Owners Have Trouble Answering." Those two questions are: Why not a waiting period; and Why not ban big magazines?
I would like to continue further, adding new questions and answers to this debate. Since the Littleton killings, many thoughtful people are asking gun owners and NRA members reasonable questions. We, as the media-identified "extremist" 2nd Amendment defenders, must have the correct and truthful answers when asked these legitimate questions.
Question: Does anyone really need an AK-47 to defend his or her home? Don't all assault weapons spray bullets indiscriminately? Aren't these weapons of war? Why is it that in America average citizens are allowed to own military assault weapons?
Answer: Firstly, the answer is, yes, in America the average citizen is permitted to legally and lawfully own and use weapons that were designed for military use. Some states such as Ohio, Texas, Florida, and Arizona citizens can apply for special permission from the Federal government to own military machineguns. (Note that to this day, no crime has ever been committed with any of these weapons by their owners. That's 65 crime-free years.)
But machineguns are not the "assault weapons" that are talked about by Mrs. Dole and the media. Don't' worry. It's not you. There is a deliberate attempt at confusion here.
The media and the Brady Law label "assault weapons" as the semi-automatic versions of military weapons. However, the imagery of "machineguns spraying bullets" is used when discussing semi-auto weapons of any kind. Thus, "assault weapons" are viewed without distinction from machineguns. This view is the "politically correct" adjustment required by the gun-control / gun-ban advocates. In their view, appearance is the same as functionality.
But let's be clear and stick with semi-auto assault weapons, since these are the ones the gun-ban advocates are trying to control. Historically since its foundations, America has always secured in law (the 2nd Amendment) the right of individuals to possess military arms. Why? The answer is in the 2nd Amendment: "being necessary to the security of a free state".
Yes, but does anyone really need an AK-47 to defend his or her home?
Such question begs for a scenario. The answer is maybe. Defend your home from what?
The military, the police, and law-abiding civilians possess "assault weapons" so that they have the defensive capacity to address with lethal or wounding force the dynamic circumstance of the threat posed to them.
If you pose to me ANY scenario where the use of a firearm must be used as the means of preventing or stopping violent aggression, I can demonstrate that use of an assault weapon would be necessary to maintain a controlled response to the dynamic changes in the scenario posed.
The problem with Mrs. Dole's view of the world is that she never anticipates a wide-spread natural disaster, or the breakdown of law and order, or the 1992 Rodney King Riots, or an act of terrorism such as a Home Invasion crime by as many as perhaps seven people. People like Mrs. Dole and the Clintons never think about coming to your neighbors' aid, stopping a crime, or using the psychological-visual impact that an AK-47 or Colt AR15 has on a gang of looters, whose only intent is to burn your neighborhood.
Instruments necessary for the security of a free state and to preserve the lives of all citizens must not be banned from lawful use.
And yes, you really do need an AK-47 to defend your home.
NRA-ILA Wakes Up
Sunday, 11 April 1999 00:00 | Author: William M Lolli |
Dated March 29,1999 James Jay Baker of the National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action has sent out a "proxy ballot" appeal letter to members of the NRA.
The substance of the letter is a response to the cries from the grassroots that the ILA open a new judicial branch to counter-attack, and indeed, make a more aggressive presence in, the courtrooms of America, where it seems each day our 2nd Amendment liberties are being assaulted.
We are all aware that in recent months, various major cities have embarked upon the class-action suit business of suing gun manufacturers for the perceived costs associated by the criminal use of guns. We all know, of course, that this is nothing more than a tobacco-modeled "gun-grab" with a giant, golden carrot dangling on a stick in front of any politician and city attorney looking for politically-correct press. But the battle will be in the courts, just the same.
This is the tip of the iceberg of legal court interpretations that face the gun owner. Consider the other on-going national gun-related issues that are in court now, or are soon to be:
* The continued illegal and unlawful national gun registration processes put into place by the Clinton Administration, supported by the Justice Department and implemented by the FBI. The continued assault of the Brady Law, extended by the Administration's legal interpretation that Brady has superceded all previous gun laws prohibiting the creation of a database of law-abiding citizens. * In Massachusetts, the licensing of owners who retain ownership of "large [capacity] magazines" for rifles, shotguns, and handguns. * In Massachusetts, the illegal use of a "human" silhouette target; now a criminal offense. * In Missouri, where federal district attorneys illegally used federal assets to lobby against the CCW ballot measure; the subsequent investigation will undoubtedly involve a court trial on 2nd Amendment issues. * In California, laws banning assault weapons possession will be soon expanded to include punitive actions to be taken against those who will refuse to allow their weapons to be redefined and confiscated. * In California, the prohibition of ownership of all magazines larger than 10 rounds. * Issues concerning the Administration's Executive Orders, which carry the weight of unrepresented law, curtailing the importation of ammunition and firearms from overseas, and regulating the firearms industry domestically.
The lists go on.
The good news is that there are victories like the Emerson Case in Texas, where a Federal District Judge has ruled that the 2nd Amendment is, in fact, an individual right. This opinion is beautifully crafted and stated. I believe that it will see the Supreme Court as it continues the appeals process. I urge everyone to read it at the following web site:
The battle lines are clear. The NRA is right to establish this new beachhead in the court arena. If I were to suggest to the NRA how to implement this new division it would be to model it after the Heritage Foundation's legal division.
My first suggestion would be that the ILA allow this division to stand alone, perhaps as the IJA, the Institute for Judicial Action.
The form of this new division would then be modeled into two branches:
The first, the current legal division of the NRA, which provides members with legal assistance and answers questions regarding gun laws, and aids the ILA in the crafting of proper legislation.
The second, a branch of Judicial Operations setup to support a network of pro-gun attorneys across the United States. This branch would monitor and coordinate 2nd Amendment battles in courtrooms across the country. Its web site would be a central repository of relevant court case precedents.
The ACLU has had great success with this latter model. Let us capitalize upon their success and use it to our advantage.
I am very excited about the designs NRA has on this battlefront. I believe that this is an area where we can win, and win big. Please contact the NRA at their national office and let them know where you stand on their desire to fight in the federal and state courts for our rights.
Moore on Guns
Monday, 29 November 1999 16:00 | Author: William M Lolli |
Liberals are always portrayed with the complicity of the media as the compassionate vanguards of civil rights and for the preservation of the innocence of "the children".
Remember that movie "Roger and Me" by film-maker Michael Moore? I saw it when it came out in the theatres. I liked it then. It had a few liberal overtones, like anti-capitalism themes; but mainly I liked the "Pat Buchanan-America-First" docu-message. Michael Moore was an unknown back then.
Of course now we all know that Michael Moore is anything but "America-First". He is probably the most anti-Reagan, ultra-liberal, globalist-socialist in film making today.
Recently, and to the credit of the Bravo Cable Channel, Bravo has refused to air Moore's recent production of what Moore calls a "satire" of the Columbine School Massacre.
Comedy? Satire?
The four-minute segment, produced five months before the April 20 shooting in Colorado, was to run on Moore's Bravo series, ``The Awful Truth.''
Moore said his satire takes easy access to guns to its ``logical extreme,'' by arming children and teaching them to be better shots as part of the school curriculum.
``One of the main functions of satire is to confront the uncomfortable issues,'' he wrote. ``Satire is not supposed to be the kind of Comedy-Lite you can find on every other channel. Satire assumes the audience has a brain.''
Moore said he offered to add a statement to his report that said, in effect, that it took 25 years after the King and Kennedy assassinations to get the Brady gun control bill passed, yet legislation happened much more quickly after shootings in Colorado and Georgia.
``Clearly, the only way to get true gun control in this country is for there to be more school shootings,'' Moore offered to write.
Thank you, Bravo Channel for keeping this maniac's productions off the air.
Maybe somebody remembers that when shooting and gun safety was part and parcel of public education, there was never a single incident of school massacres like the one at Columbine.
That's more than 200 years of violence-free, school-sponsored gun involvement. Since the NRA's founding in the 1870's, millions have been educated on gun safety-- and hey, guess what? No massacres.
Well, golly gee whiz, how can that be?
Could it be, Michael Moore, that the most "logical extreme" of arming children and teaching them to be better shots as part of a school's curriculum is-- dare I say-- a less violent society?
The liberal skeptic demands to know how this can be? Simple. Believe it.
The answers are evident, empirically substantiated, and carry the weight of historical fact.
Contributor Commentaries
Contributor Commentaries