Liberals Call for Murder of NRA Leaders after Sandy Hook Shootings

What a shocker. Liberals on Twitter are caalling for NRA leaders to be murdered following the murder of twenty innocent children and six teachers Friday at Sandy Hook Elementary.

Freedom’s Outpost has posted several of these threats including these.
(Warning on Language)

Read more here.

What if 1 of the teachers had a gun?

Does making schools “gun-free zones” really protect children, or make them easy targets?

The recent mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., has left many wondering how best to keep children safe from mad gunmen who ignore the “gun-free zone” laws – and indeed any gun-control laws – to open fire on our nation’s most innocent.

According to news reports of the Connecticut massacre, Adam Lanza, 20, shot his mother Nancy dead at their family home, then drove to the school, where he gunned down six more adults and 20 children, before killing himself.

But what if one of the teachers had a gun, too? Could Lanza have been stopped and many of the children’s lives saved?

The question isn’t new. Back in 1999, the year of the Columbine school shooting, an organization called Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership interviewed Dr. David Th. Schiller, a leading gun-rights advocate in Europe on how to combat the school shootings that even then were deemed “quite common” on U.S. soil.

Schiller cited the example of Israel in the 1970s, which had suffered a string of horrific attacks on schoolchildren by Palestinian terrorists.

“After this a controversial debate erupted in Israel in regards to guns, self-defense, etc.,” Schiller said. “We heard, of course, the same dumb arguments by some good people you always hear on these occasions, like, ‘We do not live in the Wild West here!’ or, “Guns don’t solve problems!” or similar silly things.”

Read more here.

The folly of a gun ban

Besides the obvious shock and sadness regarding the Sandy Hook shooting, there is a patina of disgust that certain elements of government and their sycophants in the partisan media didn’t even wait for the bodies to cool before calling for new, stricter gun laws.

I have news for you: that’s not the solution. Before the shooter even walked out of his house, he had not only murdered his mother in cold blood but violated laws regarding unauthorized use of property. These guns weren’t his; he had taken guns belonging to his mother and legally purchased. Never mind the school was a “gun free zone,” all that gave the shooter was cold comfort he would be unopposed until he finished his rampage on his own schedule.

But Michael, you ask, why was it necessary for Nancy Lanza to have three guns? And I answer: why is it necessary to ask something which is none of your business? The question is insulting and is akin to asking why some of us own multiple cars or live in houses with more than one bathroom: some prefer the convenience of having a weapon they purchased for self-protection close at hand. If an intruder has me cornered in the garage and my gun is locked away in the bedroom it’s pretty much useless to me, isn’t it? Surely millions of American homes have multiple guns – a house I’ve lived in had a gun room with several rifles and shotguns which were taken when the previous tenant moved out. And it’s no one’s business but the owner’s.

Ironically, the city of Baltimore is doing a gun buyback program today, where those who wish to give up a piece of their Second Amendment rights receive their thirty pieces of silver in the form of a grocery gift certificate of $100. It’s popular with politicians who can claim they’re addressing the crime issue, but I’m sure criminals see it as a way to get rid of their hot guns which were used in committing a crime – just pay some dupe to bring the gun in and let them keep the $100 gift card to boot. Meanwhile, that key piece of evidence is lost and even if they somehow trace it back they catch the poor sap who brought the gun in rather than the real culprit.

There are those who point out that other nations have armed teachers or armed citizens at large and believe that stops criminals in their tracks. I think the idea of an armed citizenry has merit, but caution that it’s no panacea: obviously those at Sandy Hook were beginning a normal day and unaware that a shooter would be in their midst seconds later. The element of surprise was on his side, so there still would have been some victims regardless. Just like in the Aurora theater shooting, having more weapons present would have possibly saved some of the lives but also raised the potential of striking innocent victims given the swift reaction time required and the adrenaline rush the body naturally undergoes when danger is present. The shooter had the advantage of knowing and sighting his targets while one who is reacting has to quickly figure out where the shooter is coming from and is fortunate to strike center of mass on someone who is likely moving as he shoots before becoming a target himself. The shooter’s advantage dissipates with time, of course, but if one is uncaring for his life it doesn’t matter whether it ends by his own hand or “suicide by cop.”

Read more here.

Good Guns Can Kill Bad People

The progressives hadn’t let the blood dry on the classroom floor in Newton, CT before they were using the deaths of all those children to leverage their cause of gun control. Had conservative broadcasters attempted to exploit such human suffering, they’d be roundly denounced as soulless ghouls and rightly so. When I first read online of the killings, I just shook my head in sadness then immediately steeled myself for what I knew was coming from the hysterical lefties. They did not disappoint although, I must confess to a certain despair that Mayor Bloomberg has become such a predictable old scold. Can we not somehow sue this turkey for calling himself a Republican?

Another horrific mass murder and if we could not predict its timing we could predict its site within certain parameters. With predictable regularity, the most lethal of these types of attacks take place in public venues such as shopping malls, restaurants, theaters, with the deadliest frequently being institutions of learning. We are all familiar with the Columbine High School killings in which 12 students and a single teacher died or the Virginia Tech massacre where 32 people died. Fewer remember the 2006 killing of five Amish schoolgirls by a milk truck driver or the Jonesboro, AR school shooting in which five died, gunned down by fellow students. How many remember the memorable name of Kip Kinkel, an Oregon high school student who murdered his parents and two students in 1998? Or what about that Red Lake, MN mass killing where nine died in 2005? Of course everyone remembers the Aurora, CO theater shooting, but what about the 2007 Arvada, CO school shooting that left five dead?

The point I’m attempting to make here is that these tragedies recur with an irregular chronological predictability, but with a largely predictable targeted area, school campuses, be they elementary as with this latest tragedy, or high school as at Columbine, or university as with Virginia Tech. Other than their educational bond, they all share another commonality, the one which most likely leads to their selection by the perpetrators as the scenes for their slaughters: they are all sites where the presence of firearms is strictly prohibited and enforced with zero tolerance. There is no one to shoot back and thus deter the shooter from his maddened mission. Think about it, most of these mass shootings end with the suicide of the killer after he has accomplished his goal. Few are ever killed by authorities or captured.

Read more here.