Page Nine

Different "Why Jews Hate Guns"

Are they right?

And who are The Shomrim?

by Rabbi Dovid Bendory, Rabbinic Director
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO)

and Author Alan Korwin, GunLaws.com

It's no secret that one of the largest blocs of people pressing for so-called “gun control” is the culturally (aka not-so-religious) American Jewish community. This confounds many observers who would expect that Jews, with such a stunning history of oppression and murder by humanity's villains, would cling tenaciously to personal firearms and the ability to protect themselves as the Hebrew Scriptures instruct.

In reaction to the Holocaust, American Jews adopted the phrase “Never Again!” If actions mean anything, they don't believe it. That's for someone else to do. How do Jews expect to put teeth behind the words “Never Again!” if not with the ability to apply and project personal force when righteous -- and necessary -- for survival?

Why then do so many American Jews hate guns and fear gun ownership so much?

Our research identifies ten reasons why these Jews feel the way they do about self defense in general, firearms specifically and your own right to keep and bear arms.

The adamantly anti-gun-rights Jews are bowing to:

1. A desire for utopian moral purity
2. A disproportional incidence of hoplophobia
3. A quest for power through victimization of peers
4. A utopian delusion that if guns would just “go away,” crime would end and the world would be a peaceful safe place
5. Self hatred and a wish to be helpless, acting out guilt-based behavioral problems that develop in childhood
6. The Ostrich Syndrome
7. Garden-variety hypocrisy
8. Adulterated religion -- Jews In Name Only (JINOs)
9. Feel-good sophistry
10. Abject fear that yields irrational behavior

Despite the modern American Jewish aversion to arms, it has not always been so, and Israeli Jews certainly understand the value of arms. Throughout history, there were Jews who fought in defense of their people and way of life. The Torah is filled with Jews who took up arms in righteous and valiant defensive action. See, for example, The Ten Commandments of Self Defense, (Bendory and JPFO, 2009); or recall, “When Abraham heard that his nephew Lot was taken captive, he took the 318 trained soldiers of his house and pursued the captors,” defeated them, brought back Lot, and exacted retribution with their looted property. (Genesis 14:14)

Special Report Released: "Why Jews Hate Guns"

An orthodox Rabbi, working with a gun-law expert, has released a white paper that claims to have identified the underlying causes for well-known Jewish hatred of guns and fear of gun owners in America.

WorldNetDaily, in a top-of-page exclusive, has described an advance copy of the report published by Wisconsin-based Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO), a 21-year-old civil-rights group.  The WorldNetDaily feature and the white paper are linked at the end of this memo.

"It's no secret that one of the largest blocs of people pressing for so-called gun control in America is the Jewish community," says Rabbi Dovid Bendory, the Rabbinic Director of JPFO. "This confounds many observers," he says, who would expect Jews, given their troubled history, to cling tenaciously to personal firearms and the right to self defense, as the Bible instructs.

"The most vigorous anti-gun-rights leaders in Congress are Jewish," notes the report's co-author, Bloomfield Press publisher and gun-law expert Alan Korwin, naming Charles Schumer, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Barney Frank, Frank Lautenberg and Carl Levin, among others. "Why so many elected Jewish leaders are enemies of the very thing that helps keep us all safe was a mystery begging to be solved."

Although this highly charged subject is rarely discussed publicly, it is on the front burner for a controversial organization like JPFO, which bills itself as "America's most aggressive defender of gun rights." The group is open to membership and actively supported across a broad spectrum of faiths. JPFO was responsible for the ground-breaking expose "No Guns For Negroes," documenting the systematic racist roots of gun control from before the Civil War to modern times.

###

CONTACTS:
WorldNetDaily: jfarah@wnd.com
Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership: info@jpfo.org
Bloomfield Press: info@gunlaws.com


Read the WND review of the white paper:
http://www.wnd.com/2012/05/who-will-save-the-jews-the-next-time

Read -- Why Jews Hate Guns:
http://jpfo.org/articles-assd02/why-jews-hate-guns.htm

Acronymed To Death

The lamestream media told you:

Nothing.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

When California's government-run gun-transfer bureaucracy crashes, it prevents any guns from being transferred or shipped into the state for the day. No apologies are made. Any business lost is lost. Martin Luther King Jr. day had this honor recently.

Because California Department of Justice (DOJ) must control everything, their California Firearms Licensee Check Program (CFLCP) must issue a Firearm Shipment Verification Approval Letter (FSVAL) to any Federal Firearms Dealer (FFL), all of whom must be enrolled in the California's Centralized List of Firearm Dealers (CCLFD).

Since the CDOJ's CFLCP requires the FSVAL for any CCLFD registered FFL to proceed, dealers and customers on MLK Day were SOL, a SNAFU, but AOK now. This may not be clear because it is FUBAR, OK? In California, this is considered acceptable management of your rights. Thanks to Chuck Michel at CalGuns for the details.

"I submit that an individual who breaks the law that conscience tells him is unjust and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the very highest respect for law."
http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-st-louis/void%280%29/%2a249%2a/  --Martin Luther King Jr.

Criminals Switch -- Blades

The lamestream media told you:

Nothing, unless you live in the U.K. --
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9024711/Knife-crime-rises-by-ten-per-cent.html

National police figures show the number of robberies involving knives rose from 13,971 in 2010 to 15,313 last year, despite the overall number of crimes recorded by police falling by four per cent to 4.1 million, figures showed today.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

In a report that surprised no one in the U.S., crime with knives has increased in Great Britain, which has a virtual ban on firearms for the public. Handguns are essentially impossible to obtain, and long guns for hunting are strictly controlled and constantly monitored.

The report by the Telegraph, pointing out a decrease in overall crime, didn't refer at all to the criminal switch to knives, with guns so much harder to obtain. They also failed to point out that, with a population of 62 million, the chances of being a victim in a knife or other crime is only 1 out of 15, not very good for a nation touted as safe thanks to its gun-free approach to fighting crime.

According to the report, "Chief Constable Jon Murphy, the lead for crime for the Association of Chief Police Officers, said... 'This has been driven by a rise in robberies of personal property and police forces will want to focus actions on tackling these offences and offering crime prevention advice.'" We can only hope that they're crime-prevention advice is, like, really really good.

Arizona Attacks Animals

The lamestream media told you:

The Arizona legislature looks ready to pass, and governor Brewer seems ready to sign, a bill to allow hunting with legally owned silencers. Yet another wild idea from our state capital, hunting with silencers is unsporting and unfair to game, since it gives them no warning, according to hosts on KFYI-AM 550 radio.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Americans buy more than 27,000 silencers each year according to SilencersAreLegal.com. In its effort to promote the economy and help provide jobs, the federal government delays the purchase of silencers by as much as 120 days or more, to handle the paperwork, on top of the $200 tax per item. If you cannot imagine any private business operating like that, and staying in business, you're not alone.

In Europe and other developed countries, using silencers for hunting or at the range is considered an important health issue, since it protects hearing, and required in some jurisdictions. In France, where modulators (the British term) are not required at the range, they are considered a courtesy to other shooters. See The Worldwide Gun Owner's Guide for more worldly gun info.
http://www.gunlaws.com/WGOG.htm

If OSHA was doing its job, it would help make modulators widely available, for the beneficial health aspects they provide. If modulator sales tracked firearm sales, the one million or more units monthly would be a tremendous economic stimulus.

New "N" Word ("Birther")

The lamestream media told you:

Arizona's controversial publicity-hungry Sheriff Joe Arpaio, the self-proclaimed toughest Sheriff in America, has staged a publicity stunt over the completely resolved issue of Mr. Obama's birth certificate. Backed by "birthers" from the "tea party," and responding to a "birther" demand to investigate -- against overwhelming evidence that no wrongdoing exists -- the controversial Sheriff bowed to "birther" conspiracy-theory demands and staged the show. More than 50 news outlets attended the press conference, and left only with tales of who accused who of what, and redundant reports that Obama's righteous Justice Dept. is investigating the controversial Sheriff.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

"Birther" has become the new "N" word for the media, used with dripping hatred for anyone who dares ask questions about Mr. Obama's falsified birth certificate. Where facts do not exist, the media hurls epithets, a classic sign of bigotry.

"News" outlets nationwide ran similar ridiculous-on-its-face suppressions of this important news. This letter appeared in one of the main offenders, The Arizona Republic, Gannett's #2 rag (after USA Today) and went to hundreds of others:

"The only thing missing from today's Arizona Republic story about Sheriff Arpaio's investigation into Obama's controversial birth certificate was... news. The reporter provided plenty of charges and accusations, a lot of he said she said, finger pointing and sordid old history, but no actual news. What were the findings? Good journalism would require that in the lead. It wasn't covered at all.

"I hope some of the rest of you reported on that. Why did Arpaio say the birth certificate is suspicious? It didn't even get mentioned in passing. Six months of investigation, 2,000 hours of work, one hour of news conference, not a single word on the news! Please give us the facts in your next edition [they did not]. I cannot believe reporting has fallen to such a low that not a single word about what the irregularities actually were made it into print, and editors didn't notice. It's no wonder people have lost faith in the "news," because there isn't any."

Read the report yourself. The irregularities and obvious evidence of tampering are plain to see. The media are collectively hiding the truth and attempting to derail any effort to expose this deception.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/83402478/Ma-Raze-Best-Report

A SAMPLING:

Christian Science Monitor -- basically the same thing, all bluster, no details

Boston.com --  they report that the findings in the report are being sold as a book (but no mention of the findings)

Yahoo News -- all presidents have conspiracy theories, no details on this one

CBS -- "investigators believe that the long form birth certificate was manufactured electronically and that it did not originate in the paper format as presented by the White House." Many reports quoted this single line from Arpaio. The other more frequent quote: his six-month investigation had found that "probable cause exists indicating that forgery and fraud may have been committed" in the release of President Obama's long-form birth certificate. None of the reports followed up on that devastating breaking news.

Self-Defense Poor House

The lamestream media told you:

Nothing.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Florida has a self-defense law the rest of the nation needs badly.

If you "win" a self-defense court trial you're put in the poor house by the "justice" system. Costs can typically run into six figures. Do you have that kind of money? Kiss your house goodbye. That's not a win. And that's not justice by any rational definition.

If you prevail in a self-defense trial, which basically means the state should never have charged you at all, and you did their job by stopping or eliminating a violent felon, the state should be liable for your legal bills. The idea that you deserve a medal or a parade is too radical for the moderate Uninvited Ombudsman.

"Loser pays" is not some wacky new principle of law. It is a well established and just practice in civil cases. Not only does it make you whole again -- and this is key -- it is a serious deterrent to the state to go after you in the first place. It would eliminate many of the marginal attempts to incriminate people for defending themselves against truly bad actors.

Two states already have such protection, Washington and Florida.

Arizona, which constantly comes up with the best gun laws in the nation, should be next. I'm working on it. You should too, for your state.

Hispanic Shoots Black

The lamestream media told you:

A Hispanic volunteer neighborhood watchman shot a poor little unarmed black child to death, and he had the unmitigated gall to claim Florida's recent Stand Your Ground law let him commit the murder with impunity and no repercussions.

This has inflamed all Americans, as it should, and especially the black community, and especially the black people and people of all colors in Florida. Such a terrible law has been passed in many Neanderthal states, according to the unbiased Associated Press.

According to the esteemed New York Times, the shooter was actually something new called a "white Hispanic," proving the racial nature of the crime, or at least of the report. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/22/us/police-chief-draws-fire-in-trayvon-martin-shooting.html?_r=1

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

We can't really tell what actually happened in Florida since all we have are "news" reports, and we both know how accurate those are, especially related to armed self-defense and other gun-related subjects:

http://www.gunlaws.com/NewsAccuracy.htm

You'll get a kick out of this one--
http://www.gunlaws.com/HowGunSpinIsDone.htm

From the Florida "news" reports, it sounds like this guy stalked and gunned down a helpless little youngster. If that were true, there's no way he could be protected by law. There is no way he would not be charged.

If on the other hand, this kid posed a genuine and serious threat to life or limb, which the survivor claims, then of course the use of deadly force to protect yourself from the criminal assault would be legally justified, historically and culturally normative, and righteous and moral by any standard.

If that's true, then the universal news tone that this bigot murdered this poor innocent child, would really be, the neighborhood watchman stopped yet another murderous young black thug in the midst of a felony assault. We don't know yet, and the pictures of the kid are so cute, so why let facts get in the way of a good story. Guilty before facts are even known.

The "news" reports did also mention in passing that the person who claims he defended himself against the black youth was bloodied about the head, but that's such a small detail it should have little play in this tale. Life is a precious gift, and it is to be protected from unwarranted attack, whether four-legged, two-legged or other. All of this is completely regardless of the no-retreat law the media has mysteriously latched onto.

The recent rash of stand-your-ground laws are, to a large degree, a response to anti-gun-rights prosecutors who in the past have used any excuse to go after otherwise righteous and innocent people, just because they exercised their right to arms. In those cases, the prosecutors are the ones who belong in prison. Harold Fish, here where I live, spent 3-1/2 years in prison, and spent $700,000 in his self-defense case, and he was innocent. That should not be allowed to happen.

Government should at least pick up legal costs when it loses a self-defense case -- meaning you should never have been charged in the first place. This would also help deter politically motivated or agenda-driven charges, which are widely known to occur. I plan to draft such language.

Some legislators have introduced legally suspect laws that require you to abandon your home rather than protect it, or run away from where you have a right to be. That's always an option, and often the best one, but it certainly isn't something the state can legitimately require, granting all power to criminals and denying it to the public. Freedom is hollow if you can't stay where you have a right to stay.

Even without a no-duty-to-retreat law on the books, the immediate defense of innocent life, when necessary, is a right we all have, and should have, and is inherent in our very nature. The right to legitimately defend yourself should be honored by any court (assuming you have a good lawyer, plenty of money, a proper prosecutor, in a good jurisdiction, with ascertainable facts, and no contrary witness testimony from the perp's buddies, and cops who responded properly, and a benign face... the list is endless).

Arizona has the finest gun laws in the nation. Our self-defense statutes are particularly robust and protect the innocent while being harsh on criminals. If we can find out what actually happened in this incident, we could intelligently apply our laws to see what would have happened here.

If this white Hispanic male was criminally attacked by a black or by a white black or by a person of any color or color mixture, and he survived by his own hand, any law in the land should protect him. If he killed this youngster without cause, no law in the land will protect him and he could face death. That's what you call good law. We have the needed laws. They're good.

I can almost feel the antis brainstorming and gearing up to use this wholesome self-defense case (or heinous murder, as the case may turn out to be), to force new laws on us. The proper laws are already there, and justice will be served. Dancing in the blood of criminals (or victims, as the case may turn out to be), to get new anti-rights laws enacted, would be despicable. But no surprise.

Late breaking news (3/26/12): A leaked police report indicated today that the youngster was the aggressor, but the "family" denies this (and was not present to witness); evidence shows the youngster instigated the assault, which the "family" denies (and was not present to witness); the leaked report indicates the youngster had been suspended from school, and may have been high, and the family knew this, but the family says this has no bearing; CNN indicated the news should have never been revealed, but since it has, the world has to deal with it; CNN added that the search is on for the person who released these facts, and if found will likely face dismissal, to which CNN voiced no objection, probably because it was not a CNN leak source, which are highly honored.

EVEN LATER BREAKING NEWS: Images you have been treated to by the lamestream may not be accurate according to reports on the unreliable un-federally regulated (yet) Internet.



Don't forget, in self defense, the "victim" is the person with the gun who survives the criminal assault. The person with the bloody holes is not the victim, despite media reports to the contrary. The person shot is the perpetrator.

National Training Week

The lamestream media told you:

Nothing.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

National Training Week is when everyone is encouraged to go to the range and practice during 4th of July week (July 4 - 11). http://www.gunlaws.com/NationalTrainingWeek.htm. "Celebrate the 4th of July with fireworks, firearms and freedom."

Wouldn't it be nice if, as a special project, your own local shooting ranges offered one-hour handgun rentals for free, so you could try out new guns?

Wouldn't the week of Independence Day be a nice time to do that? Sort of, celebrate your freedom with fireworks and firearms for the 4th of July. Ranges nationwide could make the offer, throw in special classes even for newcomers, and America would be better for it.

I'm trying to help make that happen.
We've been working this for four years now.
The ranges that have participated had good results,
new business, revenue, new customers.
You can help me make it happen.

Take a look at the plans for National Training Week, when everyone is encouraged to go to the range and practice during 4th of July week (July 4 - 11). http://www.gunlaws.com/NationalTrainingWeek.htm. "Celebrate the 4th of July with fireworks, firearms and freedom."

Non-gun Owner's Title

Thanks to all of those who answered my call for a term to describe people who choose to reject personal ownership of firearms. Those numerous suggestions, ranging from silly to sarcastic to serious, led me to an answer.

The Dangers of Being

GUNLESS

by Alan Korwin, Author
Gun Laws of America
http://www.gunlaws.com/consult.htm

Gunless people, those who steadfastly refuse to keep and bear arms, practice marksmanship or learn gun safety create certain burdens for the rest of society.

• Gunless people increase the need for police protection, by being unable to fend for themselves in certain dire emergencies.

• By remaining unarmed, a gunless person becomes a "free rider," obtaining safety and protection against criminal activity through the responsible actions of others.

• Gunless people in general reduce national security. An armed populace is more capable of aiding in national defense, from border risks to crime or terrorism events, and poses a greater deterrent to such activity.

• Borrowing the logic from the Wickard v. Filburn case at the U.S. Supreme Court, gunless people have a negative impact on interstate commerce. By failing to keep and bear virtually the only property that is constitutionally guaranteed,* they weaken the economy and contribute to lowered economic stimulus. This is admittedly a somewhat circuitous argument, but it seems quite popular in other arenas (e.g., growing grain for your own use) and so appears germane.

SHOT Show Finally

The 2012 SHOT Show

I look forward to the show each year with both eager anticipation and dread. There are so many miles of aisles that no shoes will be comfortable enough. The sheer volume of it is overwhelming, more guns, knives and gear than a person can absorb, or even see in detail in the five days of the show. Parties at night, entertainment, and of course, it's in Las Vegas which is its own sensory overload. Speaking of sensory overload,



There is always plenty of eye candy for male chauvinist pigs to enjoy, or as we, the real mainstream knows it, beautiful women to admire and appreciate. That appreciation translates to sales, everyone knows it even if some political cults like to denigrate it, and so plenty of eye candy gets used at this show as at any show. This young lady was giving out discounts for the Indian food booth at one of the many eateries scattered around the show. Dos this make you hungry?



As in years past, the evolving militarization of local police was evident at every turn. An entire section of the show is dedicated to police, private security and paramilitary, and the gear is getting way awesome, much of it out of reach of the common citizen. Bullet proofing is getting so elaborate (full body suits, floor to head ballistic panels, much more) that it's important to remember, "You only think you have a gun if the other guy is wearing armor."

Pro Gun President

The lamestream media told you:

President Obama hasn't turned out to be nearly as bad on firearms as gun owners and the powerful gun lobby feared. This proves once again that these paranoid gun toters are full of baloney and afraid of their shadows. In fact, Mr. Obama has signed some pro-gun bills and basically left the Second Amendment alone, to the chagrin of huge swaths of his supporters.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Obama's record on gun-rights is atrocious, as a simple look at the facts shows. While some issues sit in near-permanent limbo, like interstate recognition of permits or rights restoration, the current occupant of the White House has allowed his administration to attack gun ownership in subtle and low visibility ways. Sarah Brady, as you probably already know, said he told her this was his "under the radar" approach. Why would he lie to someone like her?

-- A million or more fine M1 Korean-era carbines are available for shipment to collectors and enthusiasts in the United States. These are in Cold-War stockpiles in Korea, which would like to unload the valuable merchandise. The White House and State Dept. have stonewalled the effort.

-- Congress just passed an omnibus bill that prohibits spending money on lobbying for gun control and funding gun-control studies through the National Institute of Health. The president, in a signing statement, basically said these provisions do not apply to him. ("I have advised the Congress that I will not construe these provisions as preventing me from fulfilling my constitutional responsibility to recommend to the Congress’s consideration such measures as I shall judge necessary and expedient" (referring to himself four times in one sentence).

-- He moved to ban target practice on huge tracts of deserted public land, where outdoor marksmanship had been practiced safely for as long as anyone can remember. He was rebuffed only by enormous and swift public outcry, showing that your voice does matter when it's used quickly and loudly enough. The fact that he "didn't" ban shooting does not make him pro rights on the issue.

-- Obama and Hillary (watch out for people who prefer not to use their full names) were both vigorously promoting the need for more gun-control laws, because of the "iron river" of guns causing mayhem in Mexico. Then just by coincidence, after it turned out that 90% of the drug cartel hardware did not come from the U.S., thoroughly undermining the claim, the Justice Department began a campaign of supplying guns to the cartels, which helped "improve" the numbers (from the administration's twisted standpoint). Caught red handed, the administration has circled the wagons and refused to let real information seep out (but that didn't work real well, it's now a matter of time to see who is taken down by GunSmuggleGate). The next congressional interrogation of AG Eric Holder is set for Feb. 2.

-- When fury over Fast and Furious grew large enough to float a vote of no confidence in Congress with 90 co-sponsors, Holder declared it's because he and his boss are black, refusing to acknowledge the crimes that led to the ongoing reprimand.

-- Hillary, with full support from the White House, is pursuing a massive gun-rights grab by the UN, being drafted in secret (because people will enjoy it so). This is not what you call standing up for your rights, even if the "news" media tells you it is. We have people working on the inside scoop, will hopefully have news on this before the draft is released. Expect the scat to hit the air circulator when it does.

-- The newly named nominee for the BATFE is a long time gun-control advocate, Andrew Traver.

-- Two Supreme Court nominees, now confirmed for life to the Bench, are ardent advocates of gun control. One of them, Sonia Sotomayor,  signed on to the dissent in McDonald v. Chicago that basically says you have no right to keep and bear arms for self defense.

-- According to FOX News, "Administration officials say they are working to develop the gun-safety measures promised" after a maniac killed people at a Tucson political rally. No one knows what these might be, and the administration isn't saying.

The Uninvited Ombudsman remains skeptical, when the lamestream media repeats its mantra that the man in the White House is moderate on guns. He's a moderate all right, but only if "yes" means "no." And since turning meaning upside down is a tactic of the international communists, who we already defeated, it can't be so.

The head of communist Korea, communist China, communist Cuba, the four countries in South America led by avowed communists, the avowed communists working with the current administration who did not undergo FBI background checks before getting their positions, and the 1.5 billion people currently living under socialism around the globe could not be reached for comment.

Thanks to scholar and author John Lott for so many leads for this story. Get on his FOX News blog for some of the most intelligent news and commentary you are likely to find.
http://www.foxnews.com/archive/author/john-lott/index.html

Hunting With Silencers

The lamestream media told you:

The movement afoot to allow people to hunt with silencers is a bad idea. A bill has been introduced in at least Arizona to allow such dangerous activity. Risks include no warning to other people in the woods if guns make no noise, it does not give wild game a fighting chance, and more.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Once again we can see where, if government would just get out of the way, an entire industry can blossom. If the ban on your freedom to buy and use these devices is lifted, sales of the tools will expand, manufacturers will have more work, new models will be created and produced to meet demand... business will flourish if government just gets out of the way. The market is between 10 and 20 million Americans who hunt for sport and food. Even the government will get money, since they extract a $200 tax on each item sold. Who else tolerates a tax as large as a (basic model) ought to cost?

To set the record straight, Larry Grupp, author of The Worldwide Gun Owner's Guide, notes:

England, the UK, New Zealand, Finland, Falkland Islands and France all
encourage hunters to use silencers.  Mostly it's a health issue, they don't want
shooters to go deaf.  France's encouragement principally centers
around using silencers on the range -- as a courtesy to other shooters.

Please keep in mind that silencer is a poor word choice.  These devices
do not really silence.  Firing anything with a silencer past a .22 cal rimfire
produces a loud, noticeable pneumatic thump.  Won't damage hearing but
definitely recognizable to folks around the shooter.

Also, bullets past the speed of sound (c. 1,126 ft. per second, in dry air at 68 °F,
which is 768 mph, or about one mile in five seconds*, thanks Wikipedia) "crack"
as they pass stationary objects.  As a young man on the farm, I recall a
demonstration of a military grade modifier on an '03 30-06 Springfield rifle
fired down a rail siding past rows of old telegraph poles.

Strange, as the bullet passed various wooden poles creating a loud crack till
about 500 yards out when the bullet fell to below the speed of sound and
became silent.

Larry

*You can use this to calculate the distance of lightning -- start timing when you see the flash, stop timing when you hear the thunder, divide the number of seconds by five, and the result is the mileage from the lightning to you.

Toys Aren't Weapons

The lamestream media told you:

Two students charged with bringing weapons to school
By Jim Jaworski, Tribune reporter

Police arrested two Julian Middle School students who were found in possession of weapons on school property, Oak Park Elementary District 97 officials said this week.

A sixth-grade boy on Thursday reportedly brought a small metal cap gun to school. School staff and the police resource officer confiscated the weapon after other students notified them, district officials said. The 12-year-old was arrested at Julian and charged with misdemeanor aggravated assault.

“He showed it to some students and displayed it in a threatening manner to others,” said Cmdr. LaDon Reynolds.

While both the district and police initially reported that the item was a starter pistol, a small firearm that shoots blanks, Reynolds said that, after they were able to examine the item, it was actually a metal cap gun that closely resembles a firearm. The gun only uses caps that create noise and was not loaded, so Reynolds said no one was in any danger.

“While I am incredibly disappointed by the news of these incidents, I am pleased to report that nobody was harmed in either one,” Superintendent Al Roberts said in a statement. “I also want to applaud everyone involved for the effective way they handled these matters. Their quick, decisive action helped ensure the continued safety of our students, staff and community.”

School officials also are conducting their own investigation into the incidents.

“The district is expected to hand down the strictest discipline allowed by board policy,” district spokesman Chris Jasculca said.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Dear Mr. Jaworski,

I have no doubt that the officials you quote in your story referred repeatedly to the "weapon" this child had, but as a reporter, you have a duty to accuracy. Accurately reporting false statements is not accuracy, and misleads your readers. A cap gun is a toy, not a weapon, by any definition you can find. A weapon can harm a person. A toy is for child's play. A cap gun is no more dangerous than a football.

With news distortion on firearms issues so high, it behooves you to be especially careful when covering such stories, to avoid the appearance of or actual bias. In the interest of journalistic integrity, you should ask your editors to run a short correction, such as, "[Ref: the article] The paper mistakenly referred to a child's cap-gun toy, as did people quoted in the story, as a weapon. It is a toy. We regret the error."

Erroneous tales like this one only serve to support the now widely circulating rumor that communists -- the old hobgoblin we all thought we defeated -- are actually at work quietly subverting American values, by attacking traditions like firearms ownership to further their goals, and capturing the minds of educators, police, the news media and others with mindless propaganda like this. Please don't support such nonsense. You know a cap gun is a toy. Make the correction.

Alan.

No reply has been received.
jjaworski@tribune.com
Permission to pile on granted

Diplomatic Carry

Discretionary carry

May issue carry

Shall issue carry

Right to Carry

Discreet Carry

Freedom to Carry

Constitutional Carry

Diplomatic Carry


The Second Second Amendment


by Alan Korwin
The Uninvited Ombudsman


Officials travel armed. When a contingent of our officials visits any other country, they bring armed personnel in classic right-to-bear-arms manner. Life is dangerous and the ability to protect yourself is a reasonable and prudent thing, a fundamental human right of existence, a moral imperative. So they go armed. It's only rational. Hillary and similar bring along enough firepower that if some of their group go one way while some head off in another, they're both covered.

The same is true in reverse. When an ambassador from Trashcanistan comes to the United States, discreetly armed bodyguards accompany the party at all times, "laws to the contrary notwithstanding." That's lawyer-speak for "their right to carry supersedes any other rules," or in plainer English, "We're above those laws." The ambassador might decide to personally carry too. I'm guessing Hillary does not.

There's this whole "second system" of gun possession and carry here domestically, another layer of rules on top of the common ones you must follow, operating quietly with people in the know cooperating.

Where are the laws for this exception to every gun law on the U.S. books? How does this special class of people exempt themselves from laws controlling the rest of us?

No one is harmed by their exemption. In fact, community safety increases, because assaults on those armed people are naturally deterred, even defensible if needed. Should we the people maybe have Diplomatic Carry too? Is a diplomat's life truly at more risk -- or worth more -- than any "commoner"? How does this comply with equal protection under the law?

Local authorities understand implicitly that these armed folks aren't going to randomly shoot people, or settle arguments with gunfire, the same as you and me when we're armed. They enjoy proper respect (even if they come from regimes that don't deserve it). We on the other hand have rights denied haphazardly, even with Constitutional Carry. As good as it is, Constitutional Carry is not enough.

Americans need and deserve the next step, Diplomatic Carry.

The body politic moves slowly. After several decades of experience, police nationwide understand and operate just fine within a framework of millions of people traveling armed. As the number of people carrying arms for crime control has increased, assaultive crimes have decreased. The media generally calls this "a surprising decrease in crime that has the experts baffled." All these people are walking around armed, expressly to forestall crime, and the media can't understand why crime has dropped. But I digress.

Oh sure, armed forces within the U.S. -- from local police to secretive agents our government is now filled with -- keep a watchful eye on the armed diplomats, as well they should. They also provide backup in the event of need. The same as for us.

But in the big picture, diplomats have less need for an ever-present armed escort than the public. A rare few diplomats face death at the hands of the mobs. Thousands of citizens are murdered each year. Who needs protection more?

The freedom of Diplomatic Carry, a concept many of us can easily grasp, is mind boggling to the great unwashed. So insulated from any truth about firearms, victims of television and the government-run school system, they have imbedded ignorance that is hard to shake. Destructively misinformed kids and teachers compound the problem. I digress again.

Now, Diplomatic Carry is not going to happen overnight. Many voices will be raised in objection to such freedom.
And unfortunately, some opposition will come from people who consider themselves firearms enthusiasts. Establishing everyone's uninfringed freedom to carry is scary, at least to some. But that's OK. Real freedom is a house high on a hill.

Diplomatic Carry is a paradigm shift. A window into a world that could be, and ought to be, a lofty goal. Your right to your life and its protection cannot morally be denied. It is denied only by force, and there is only one viable countermeasure to force unfortunately, in this best of all possible worlds, and that's countervailing force. I don't like it, but there it is.

Diplomatic Carry is a new level of autonomy, of personal sovereignty. It raises the bar. In this country, the people are the sovereigns and the government is the servant. How do you justify the servants carrying arms if the masters cannot?
The only consistent position for free people to take is this:

Anything short of Diplomatic Carry is infringement.

I am in the process of dissecting the legal framework that enables Diplomatic Carry, and modeling an approach for extending those principles to the public. Conceptually this is sound. Pragmatically it is an uphill climb, but as Americans we know that anything can be climbed. I'll have early results soon in my blog, PageNine.org. Sign up to stay informed.

Copyright 2012 Alan Korwin
http://www.gunlaws.com
Permission to circulate granted

Global Whining Unravels

The lamestream media told you:

"Associated Press --DURBAN, South Africa -- Brighten clouds with sea water? Spray aerosols high in the stratosphere? Paint roofs white and plant light-colored crops? How about positioning "sun shades" over the Earth?

"At a time of deep concern over global warming, a group of scientists, philosophers and legal scholars examined whether human intervention could artificially cool the Earth -- and what would happen if it did.

"A report released this month in London and discussed at the U.N. climate conference in South Africa said that, in theory, reflecting a small amount of sunlight back into space before it strikes the Earth's surface would have an immediate and dramatic effect... but no one knows what the side effects would be.

"Within a few years, global temperatures would return to levels of 250 years ago, before the industrial revolution began dumping carbon dioxide into the air, trapping heat and causing temperatures to rise." http://tinyurl.com/7mg6aya

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Howard Maccabee, Ph.D., M.D., writing for the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, notes, "Allegations of harmful effects of climate warming on health are based on increased deaths observed in heat waves, especially in European cities. Year-round mortality data show, however, that death rates during cold weather are seven to nine times greater than during warm weather.

"If the predictions of the climate modelers based on the hypothesis of anthropogenic warming were true, rising temperatures in the 21st century would save millions of lives and improve human health directly."

Download the article, with its charts and graphs:
http://www.jpands.org/jpands1502.htm

Illegal Immigration Persists

The lamestream media told you:

According to the AP:
"WASHINGTON — Arrests of illegal immigrants along the U.S. border with Mexico are at the lowest level since the Nixon administration, indicating that fewer people are attempting to cross the border to live or work in the U.S. The development could change the debate on illegal immigration from securing the border to handling the people who are already here. It's the sixth straight year apprehensions have dropped. In the fiscal year that ended Sept.30, the Border Patrol arrested 327,577 people trying to cross the southern U.S. border.

"Arrests of people trying to sneak across the border have been steadily declining since 2006 after an all-time high of more than 1.6 million apprehensions in 2000." [If the all time high was in 2000 but numbers are declining since 2006, does that add up?]

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

1. For the umpteenth time: Decreased border arrests do not equate to fewer border crossers, it simply means authorities are catching fewer people.

2. Catching 327,000 people invading the U.S. is not a good thing, as AP implies. No accounting of the people who snuck in was included in the report because it is not known, could be much larger than the number of captures, as it has been in the past, and is also not a good thing.

3. The AP's suggestion in its second sentence that this, "could change the debate on illegal immigration from securing the border to handling the people who are already here," is blatant editorializing right where the news is supposed to go. A third of a million invaders implies no such suggestion, except perhaps to the AP, a now well-recognized frequent propaganda arm of government.

4. Peak apprehensions of 1.6 million, several years ago (implying that at least an equal number snuck in) does nothing to justify the nearly 1,000 people this year caught trying to sneak in every day.

5. If indeed the lower captures are somehow related to a reduced number of invaders, the most likely explanation has been unmentioned -- after sneaking more than 20 million illegals into the country, they're running out of people to send. Who is "they"? Good question.

Killer's Rights Defended?

The lamestream media told you:

"SAN DIEGO - A federal court is being asked to grant constitutional rights to five killer whales that perform at marine parks - an unprecedented and perhaps quixotic legal action that is nonetheless likely to stoke an ongoing, intense debate at America's law schools over expansion of animal rights," according to the Associated Press. http://tinyurl.com/7zs66cr.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, or PETA, is accusing the SeaWorld parks of keeping five star-performer whales in conditions that violate the 13th Amendment ban on slavery... PETA relishes engaging in the court of public opinion, as evidenced by its provocative anti-fur and pro-vegan campaigns.

The plaintiffs are the five orcas - Tilikum and Katina, based at SeaWorld in Orlando; and Corky, Kasatka and Ulises at SeaWorld San Diego. Tilikum, a 6-ton male, made national news in February 2010 when he grabbed a trainer at the close of a performance and dragged her underwater until she drowned. PETA's five-member legal team spent 18 months preparing the case.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Any questions remaining about the U.S. justice system's legitimacy, and willingness to stray from the bounds of reasonable jurisprudence, were put to death today with the acceptance of a slavery lawsuit defending animals -- that belongs instead in an obscure philosophy journal, but I repeat myself.

In days when the justice system would cling vigorously to real law, a case like this would have been summarily dismissed, its perpetrator lawyers disbarred, and the legal community in need of oxygen for laughing so hard. A simple question or two from the bench would have served to sever the nonsense and ridicule the monstrous assault on American courts.

"When did your clients retain you for this action counselor?" "What are your clients' goals?" While those questions expose the silliness, the followup would deserve punishment: "Are you saying your clients don't even know you've decided to represent them, and have not agreed to be party to this suit?" And of course, "Do we need an interpreter for this case, and what language should that person speak?" The courts no longer entertain such inquiry, no matter how bizarre a case they face. In common terms, that's malfeasance, grounds for removal from office, with prejudice.

One of the unwitting so-called plaintiffs committed murder but has not been charged. The parties remained silent on whether the murder charge would apply, if the whales are granted 13th Amendment anti-slavery human rights. The Founding Fathers could not be reached to see if they expected wild animals to be covered by the Bill of Rights or Constitution.

The TrainMeAZ.com Campaign!

Visit Arizona. See what real freedom feels like.
http://www.trainmeaz.com




Click the billboard and visit the TrainMeAZ state training site.

1. The lawsuit against the city of Phoenix, for censoring 50 of our advertisements at public bus stops (by claiming they are non-public spaces, and our ads don't meet their speech guidelines) is proceeding, but has thrown a wrench into our plans obviously. The suit is going well, fast (as these things go, it's been a year now), and we are cautiously optimistic about a positive outcome.

2. Although the majority of the campaign is on hold while the lawsuit proceeds, trainers who bought ad listings are getting some free "override" time, still posted without an additional fee. The Contributing Sponsors are still standing firm in support of the campaign, which will kick into high gear when the dust settles. http://www.trainmeaz.com

3. THE BIG NEWS is that, as promised, we have developed a tourist map for air travelers who arrive at Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport -- they get the billboard shown above smack dab in the middle of the page! We're in good company with other advertisers including Bass Pro Shops and Casino Arizona. Maps are on pads and available from every staffed information kiosk in the airport (all nine), and at both info booths at the car-rental facility. Rental companies are cutting expenses, so the TrainMeAZ map is often the only map everyone uses.

Hunters Reducing Hunger

The lamestream media told you:

Nothing. But it does frequently refer to the benign life-saving wonderful efforts of environmentally sensitive animal lovers in PETA. Read more about their wonderful exploits in item #6 later.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

"NEWTOWN, Conn. -- When you're feasting on holiday meals and leftovers, here's a story to tell -- one that would not be possible without the thoughtfulness and generosity of hunters.

"A new study commissioned by the National Shooting Sports Foundation and conducted by Mile Creek Communications reveals that last year 11 million meals were provided to the less fortunate through donations of venison by hunters. Nearly 2.8 million pounds of game meat made its way to shelters, food banks and church kitchens and onto the plates of those in need.

" 'Given our challenging economic times, hunters' donations of venison have never been more important to so many people,' said Stephen L. Sanetti, president and CEO of NSSF, the trade association for the firearms, ammunition, hunting and shooting sports industry. 'These contributions are just one way hunting and hunters are important to our way of life in America. Learning about these impressive figures makes me proud to be a hunter. I have donated game meat during the past year, and I urge my fellow hunters to strongly consider sharing their harvest.' "

"'These figures are from confirmed sources, but annual donations could easily be double this amount if direct donations from hunters to friends and family are included,' said Jim Curcuruto, NSSF's director of statistics and research."

Often overlooked by animal "rights" radicals is the fact that laws typically make it illegal to let any edible portion of harvested game go to waste. Urban dwellers are often unaware that meat does not come from a foam tray covered in plastic wrap.