A Gallup poll released September 11, shows that 83 percent of American adults blame a “failure in our mental health system” as a reason for mass shootings.
According to Gallup, Americans believe the second-highest factor deserving blame is “the spread of extremist viewpoints on the internet.”
The Americans blame “easy access to guns” thirdly, but only ranked access to firearms four percentage points above the blame they placed on “drug use.”
Twofer, in the same county even.
AHLEQUAH, Oklahoma – The Cherokee County Sheriff’s Office is investigating two homicides that happened in three days. Deputies said they are not connected.
The undersheriff said they received a call about a death in the 14600 block of West Clyde Maher Road just before 9 p.m. Tuesday. That is in the Woodall area, southwest of Tahlequah.
A homeowner told deputies that she shot a burglary suspect who was beating on the doors and windows of the residence. The suspect was reportedly yelling, “If you don’t come outside I’m gonna burn your house down.”
The woman told investigators she has no idea who the man is. She fired warning shots then shot the man twice, according to CCSO.
“I just know it was him or her. And I thank God it wasn’t her. She had angels on her shoulders,” Johnny Shine said. Shine said he is the woman’s boyfriend.
Undersheriff Jason Chennault said the woman’s neighbors confirmed her story, and she was not taken into custody. The district attorney will be reviewing what happened.
The man who was killed has been identified as 40-year-old Josh Montgomery.
The other homicide was about two miles south of Todd Access on the Illinois River, the undersheriff said. It took place around 2:20 a.m. Sunday.
People were having a party, and a man and woman got into a fight. Chennault said the two were dating.
The boyfriend beat the woman in the head with a stick, and another man intervened, the undersheriff said. The two men fought, then the man who intervened got a shotgun and shot the boyfriend.
The boyfriend, identified as Tim Ragsdale, died at the scene. The shooter was identified as James Mounce. Mounce was arrested.
“He was a convicted felon who had possession of a firearm, which is against the law. So that’s what we arrested him for,” Chennault said.
The district attorney is reviewing both homicides. Chennault said typically the sheriff’s office investigates two or three homicides a year. So far, this year, there have been five.
Strange. I really never considered that the area around Fayetteville had that many stupid burglars.
FAYETTEVILLE, N.C. — A Cumberland County homeowner shot and killed a suspected burglar Wednesday night, authorities said.
Deputies went to 507 Snow Hill Road at about 8:30 p.m. in response to a reported burglary. The homeowner, 46-year-old Tony Libson, told deputies two masked individuals broke into his home and shot him, but he was able to return fire.
Deputies found Henry Miller, 23, dead outside the home. The second intruder is believed to have fled after the shooting, possibly in a white sedan, authorities said.
No charges have been filed in the case.
SAN ANTONIO — Police say two men who were found with gunshot wounds at a shopping center in the Alamo Ranch area may have been shot by a person they were trying to rob.
According to a police report, the injured men asked a security guard for help at the shopping center at the corner of Loop 1604 and Culebra Road at about 9 p.m. on Wednesday.
The men were suffering from gunshot wounds and told officers they were shot near Loop 1604 and Babcock.
When investigators went to the crime scene, they found a man who said the suspects came to his door, pointed a gun at him and demanded property. He ran inside and grabbed a gun.
By the time he returned to confront the suspects, they were driving away. The victim fired several shots, hitting the car. Police believe the two suspects were shot while they were in the car.
The case remains under investigation. The injured men are expected to recover. They face potential charges of aggravated robbery.
“Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47,” he said, on television, on the Democratic Party debate stage, for all to hear and see. “We’re not going to allow them to be used against fellow Americans anymore.”
And with that, all the Democrats who’ve tried for years to deny the gun confiscation motives behind their gun control pushes went — nooooooo.
It doesn’t get any clearer than that, does it?
“Hell yes,” we’re going to take your guns.
“Hell yes,” we’re going to confiscate your firearms.
“Hell yes,” we’re going to one day, make it so the Second Amendment is a Second Amendment In Name Only — and that whole God-given right to self-defend is a thing of the past.
Democrats have been trying for years to convince Americans that registrations and limits on assault weapons and universal background checks and other so-called common sense gun control proposals were harmless steps to curb gun-related violence that even hard-core Second Amendment activists should embrace. That the evil National Rifle Association and all those evil gun rights groups were trying to drum up fears of confiscations that just weren’t true.
That Democrats had no intention of taking away firearms from the legal gun owners. That if you like your gun, you can keep your gun.
And for some, the left’s talking points have been convincing. Particularly, as school shootings and tragic, heartbreaking stories of gun-related violence dominate far too many media cycles.
Then comes Beto, charging to clarify.
“Hell yes,” we’re going to confiscate.
It doesn’t get more honest than that.
There’s the golden ticket the NRA, the Republican Party, the patriotic Second Amendment supporters of this country needed to prove their argument, to prove their points, to showcase the truths about the Democrats’ ultimate gun controlling end game.
Democrats want to confiscate guns, pure and simple. Beto O’Rourke himself admitted it.
This letter was submitted to the New York Times
Dear Letters Editor:
There’s a serious flaw in John Donohue and Theodora Boulouta’s claims about the 1994 assault weapons ban (“That Assault Weapon Ban? It Really Did Work,” September 4). There are few actual “assault weapons” of any type in their dataset, either pre- or post-ban.
According to data by Mother Jones magazine, there were 3 mass public shootings with assault weapons in the ten years before the assault weapons ban, 2 during the 10-year ban, and 4 in the ten years after. Shootings had to have six or more fatalities to be included. As the authors note, these changes constitute large percentage variations, but are not statistically significant.
If Donohue and Boulouta are right that the ban had an impact, it should have reduced the number of shootings with assault weapons relative to shootings with other guns. While the share of mass public shootings with assault weapons did indeed fall from 30% in the pre-ban period to 25% during the ban, it fell to just 14.8% in the post-ban period. If the ban was really the driving force behind the change, it makes little sense that the sharpest drop would occur after the ban expired.
John R Lott, Jr., President of the Crime Prevention Research Center
Professor Carl Moody, Department of Economics, College of William & Mary
Alyssa also has self-admitted mental illness and owns two guns herself
As Whiskey, Tango, Foxtrot points out— “Serious question. How does @Alyssa_Milano have two weapons for self-defense when she has self-admitted mental illness?”
Here’s a good part of the meeting between Alyssa Milano & Senator Cruz. You’ll notice, Milano had to bring along two (2) ‘assistants’ for the emotive effect.
And here’s the whole thing
Last year, when Christine Blasey Ford emerged after then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings to accuse him of attempted rape at a house party when both were teenagers, there were many unanswered questions both about her story and her credibility.
She offered no proof that she and Kavanaugh had ever even met. She couldn’t remember where it happened, when it happened, or how she arrived at or departed from the party. None of the four alleged witnesses she eventually named, including one of her closest lifelong friends, corroborated her accusations. Prior to airing her allegations with the media, she scrubbed her entire social media history that indicated she was a liberal activist.
To this day, there is zero evidence beyond her claims that the alleged assault ever happened. One detail, however, remains particularly intriguing. The Blasey family stayed conspicuously silent about the veracity of her allegations. A public letter of support for Ford that began “As members of Christine Blasey Ford’s family . . .” wasn’t signed by a single blood relative. Reached for comment by the Washington Post, her father simply said, “I think all of the Blasey family would support her. I think her record stands for itself. Her schooling, her jobs and so on,” before hanging up…………………
So what was the point of the cavalcade of unsubstantiated allegations? Ford’s attorney Debra Katz offered not so much a hint as a confession. Ford testified that she had no political motivation. But in remarks captured on video, Katz admitted that Ford’s allegations against Kavanaugh were at least in part driven by fear he might not sufficiently support unregulated abortion on the court.
“We were going to have a conservative” justice, she said, “but he will always have an asterisk next to his name” that will discredit any decision he makes regarding abortion. What’s more, she added, “that is part of what motivated Christine.”
Even before attorney Debra Katz took on Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s primary accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, as a client, she was someone the abusive and unscrupulous should have feared. At least, that’s how she was portrayed in the press.
“Those who know and have worked with Katz describe her as a meticulous and battle-tested attorney, as someone who vets her clients carefully and doesn’t take on cases merely because she sympathizes with victims of exploitation and abuse,” the Washington Post glowed. The Washingtonian described Katz as the capital’s “top attorney for women who want to fight back.” And that’s not a burden she took lightly. Litigating sexual harassment cases “hurts people in such a deep way,” she confessed. “We need to be fighting harder, and more strategically and more vocally.”
Katz was a serious person, and congressional Republicans took her seriously. Blasey Ford’s attorney made a variety of demands on the Judiciary Committee staffers who were slated to question her client, some of which were absurd but others—like her request for Blasey Ford to testify without Kavanaugh present and to be questioned by outside counsel and not lawmakers—were granted. These were small concessions in service to what Katz insisted was the effort to get to the truth. “Intention matters,” the lawyer told CBS News, “if we’re trying to really engage in an inquiry to get at the truth, a highly politicized environment such as the one were in is not designed to do that.”
As it turns out, Katz wasn’t as opposed to a “highly politicized environment” as she maintained. “In the aftermath of these hearings, I believe that Christine’s testimony brought about more good than the harm misogynist Republicans caused by allowing Kavanaugh on the court,” Katz told attendees at the University of Baltimore’s Feminist Legal Theory Conference this past April. “He will always have an asterisk next to his name. When he takes a scalpel to Roe v. Wade, we will know who he is, we know his character, and we know what motivates him. And that is important; it is important that we know, and that is part of what motivated Christine.”
Only someone with a lawyer’s gift for prevarication could fail to comprehend Katz’s meaning. In this textbook definition of the Kinsley gaffe, Katz has revealed that not only was she motivated to litigate the claims against Kavanaugh for the advantageous political effect they would have but that her client was, too. And what was that desired effect? Affixing an “asterisk” to Kavanaugh’s record so that his judgments and decisions would be regarded as animated by biases and prejudices and would be, therefore, suspect if not entirely illegitimate.
This is an admission entirely against interest, in part, because you do not have to announce the presence of an asterisk if it truly exists. The Democratic partisans who insist Justice Clarence Thomas has been similarly undermined are screaming into a void. His concurrences and dissents still carry as much moral and intellectual weight as any other justice. He still influences the evolution of legal thought as much as or more than his colleagues on the bench. His clerks still get confirmed to federal judicial appointments in striking numbers. The notion that Kavanaugh’s reputation had been irreparably tarred in some way by his confirmation hearings isn’t an observation. It’s a self-affirmation.”
A Wichita Falls man and his wife closed the liquor store they have owned 25 years like they normally do at 9 p.m. and drove home, only to immediately be faced with armed gang members invading their home through the garage, according to court documents.
The husband exchanged gunfire with two masked men, and his wife was shot in the leg, according to court records. The ensuing police investigation involved DNA from a shoe one suspect lost in the garage.
A Wichita County grand jury handed down an indictment against Dequavious Eugene Sanderson last week in connection with the home invasion, court records showed.
The 23-year-old Wichita Falls man was indicted on one count of burglary of a habitation with the intent to commit aggravated assault and/or attempted aggravated robbery, according to court documents filed Sept. 5.
If convicted of the first degree felony, Sanderson faces up to life in prison.
‘Red flag’ gun laws have caused backlash
Many counties in Colorado refuse to enforce law
GREELEY, Colo. – In the wake of recent mass shootings, President Donald Trump has called for “red flag” laws, which would temporarily prevent individuals in crisis from accessing firearms through a court order.
That has some wondering whether Congress could enact national red flag legislation in a rare instance of Democrats and Republicans coming together to pass a gun law.
But in Colorado, the state’s passage of a red flag law has sparked a backlash.
The state’s red flag law won’t take effect until next year, but opponents have already filed a lawsuit attempting to overturn it. A number of the state’s counties have declared themselves Second Amendment “sanctuaries” in an effort to fight back and some sheriffs, including Weld County Sheriff Steve Reams, have said they would rather go to jail than enforce the law.
Reams believes Colorado’s red flag law is unconstitutional and is afraid of what will happen when it takes effect.
“My biggest fear for the law is violating someone’s constitutional rights and the potential for placing my deputies in a situation for an encounter with an armed individual,” Reams told CNN.
Tulare County, California Sheriff Mike Boudreaux is encouraging all concealed carry weapon (CCW) permit holders in his community to exercise their rights to defend themselves and others against active shooters.
Reacting to mass shootings in the U.S., Sheriff Boudreaux posted a message on Twitter August 6, calling for those who legally own firearms and CCW permits to “protect life” against active shooters:
“I encourage all CCW holders in Tulare County to exercise your rights. Do so legally and only with a valid permit. Secure our communities and protect life by being able to defend ourselves against active shooters, threats to life and those who use guns for criminal behavior.”
“We need to level the playing field,” Sheriff Boudreaux said in a follow-up statement to “America’s 1st Freedom.”
Law-abiding gun owners don’t commit mass shootings, Boudreaux said, responding to critics:
“I have more than 10,000 gun permits issued in my county. In the thousands that we’ve issued, we’ve had zero issues with law abiding citizens who are carrying concealed weapons.”
“If something like those horrific active shooter incidents was to happen here, I want the people of my county to be able to defend themselves,” Sheriff Boudreaux told “America’s 1st Freedom.”
When even the NY Times publishes it…………..
WASHINGTON — As Democrats make an aggressive push for new gun control legislation, they have made a calculated decision to stop short of pursuing their most ambitious goal: an assault weapons ban.
The overwhelming majority of House Democrats — 211, seven shy of the 218 needed for passage — are co-sponsoring legislation to ban military-style semiautomatic weapons, similar to the ban in effect from 1994 to 2004. But some centrist Democrats remain skittish about any proposal that keeps firearms from law-abiding citizens — a frequent charge against Democrats by Republicans and gun rights groups — making any such ban politically risky for moderates in Trump-friendly districts. In the Senate, it draws less support.
The split reveals just how complicated gun politics remain inside the Democratic Party, even as mass shootings are terrorizing the nation and the Twitter hashtag #DoSomething has captured the mounting public demands for Congress to act.
Despite of what the left-wing media wants you to believe, there is not an epidemic of mass shootings, or an epidemic of gun violence in general, in the United States. The data make this clear.
In fact — and again, in spite of what many in the media would have us believe — by many accounts, mass shootings are not even on the rise. Definitions of what constitutes a “mass shooting” vary, but using “standard definitions,” a recent piece in The Conversation — an academic and research journal — declares that “Mass shootings aren’t growing more common.”
In support of this conclusion, The Conversation article references data presented in USA Today:
Northeastern University criminologist James Alan Fox, a leading expert with decades of experience on such matters, has long held that “There is no evidence that we are in the midst of an epidemic of mass shootings.” This was true five years ago, as the graphic below, using Professor Fox’s data, reveals:
And it’s true today, as Fox recently revealed in a lengthy interview with Reason’s Nick Gillespie: “There is no evidence that we are in the midst of an epidemic of mass shootings.” Even the liberals at Politico agree. There, Grant Duwe, a research director for the Minnesota Department of Corrections and author of Mass Murder in the United States: A History, concludes that mass shootings are “roughly as common now as they were in the 1980s and ’90s.”……….
In his new book, Bleeding Out, criminal justice scholar Thomas Abt reveals that, “Since October 2001, 410 people have died in domestic terrorist attacks & 520 have died in mass shootings. During that same period, at least 100,000 lost their lives to urban violence.” This should come as little surprise to those who are aware of the weekly events in Baltimore, Chicago, Ferguson, St. Louis, and the like.
In other words, the real problem with gun violence in the U.S. is the murder and mayhem that often plague Democratic enclaves in urban America. Where are the cries of “Do something!” when it comes to the weekly gun violence in America’s cities? The silence is deafening.
HENDERSON, N.C. — A man trying to break into a Henderson home was shot and killed early Monday, police said.
Police responded to a reported shooting at 232 Crozier St. at about 2 a.m. and found a man dead outside a window to the home. A preliminary investigation determined that the dead man, whose name hasn’t been released, was trying to break in when someone inside the home shot him, police said.
The shooting remains under investigation, but no charges have been filed.
Neighbors said they weren’t sure what could have made the home a target for a burglary other an empty television box sitting outside.
“I was just shocked,” said one woman who asked not to be identified. “I came out when I saw all the police. That’s when I realized someone was lying on the ground dead.”
A woman tells Warren police that she shot at a man that tried to rob her outside of her home.
Police responded to an attempted robbery in the 700 block of Willard Ave on September 9 just before noon.
The victim told police that as she pulled her car into the driveway and exited the vehicle, a tall man wearing a red shirt and tan pants approached her from behind.
According to the report, the victim then pulled out a gun but was punched in the face by the suspect.
The suspect then fled down the victim’s driveway.
The victim then called the police to make a report.
According to authorities, while the victim was sitting on the front porch waiting for police to arrive, she walked into her backyard.
While she was in the backyard, the suspect returned, but this time the victim warned him and said that he would shoot at him if he didn’t run away.
The suspect moved closer to the victim, and she shot at him. The suspect then ran away.
Warren officers checked the surrounding area, but they could not find the suspect.
Well, to no one’s surprise, the Democratic-controlled House Judiciary Committee approved several anti-gun measures for a vote, including red flag laws, a ban on so-called large-capacity magazines, and expanded background checks. It’s the same old story with the anti-gun Left. Red flag laws are an issue. We should always be on the alert, but an expanded background checks bill is the enemy at the gates. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell can nuke all of these proposals but said he’d put a background check bill for a vote if it had the backing of Trump. And that goes for the rest of the Senate GOP caucus (via CBS News):
The House Judiciary Committee voted to send several gun control bills to the House floor for a full vote on Tuesday, even as the Senate and President Trump vacillate on support for less restrictive proposals.
The committee meeting, known as a markup, came after three deadly mass shootings in the month of August that killed 38 people in total. House Democrats urged the Senate to hold an emergency session to vote on a bill passed by the House in February which would implement universal background checks, but Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell resisted the call.
McConnell recently said that he is waiting on Mr. Trump to signal which gun control measure, if any, he supports, before acting in the Senate. He said that he would bring a background checks bill to the Senate floor only if it had Mr. Trump’s support and he was certain “we will pass it and it’ll become law.”
Speaking to reporters on Tuesday, McConnell said that Democratic tactics were “theatrics,” given that Mr. Trump has not said that he would sign any of the gun control legislation under consideration in the House.
“We are working on coming up with a proposal that the president will sign. Until that happens, all of this is theatrics,” McConnell said.
Mr. Trump has sent mixed signals about whether he would support background checks.
H.R. 1236, the “Extreme Risk Protection Order Act of 2019”: This bill would provide grants to help state, tribal and local efforts to remove firearms from individuals determined to be a danger to themselves or others. Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) laws are more commonly known as “red flag” laws.
H.R. 1186, the “Keep Americans Safe Act”: This bill would regulate large capacity ammunition feeding devices, such as a magazine or belt, making it illegal to import, sell, manufacture or possess such devices.
H.R. 2708, the “Disarm Hate Act”: This bill would prevent a person convicted of a misdemeanor hate crime from obtaining a firearm.
US News and World Report rates the states for public safety. The rating takes both property crime and violent crime into account. The ratings use the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) data from 2017 for the article this year, as the latest data available.
The top three states for public safety this year are Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire. All three are Constitutional Carry states, which means no permit is required to carry a loaded handgun in most public places, openly, or concealed. That was the state of the law in the nation when the Constitution was ratified on 4 March, 1789. Constitutional carry existed in all states for the first four decades of the Republic. Then states and the courts started chipping away at the Second Amendment.
Vermont has always been a Constitutional Carry state. No permit has been required to carry handguns there since the Constitution was ratified.
Maine became a Constitutional Carry state in 2015. At the time, those opposed claimed that Constitutional Carry would increase street violence. From pressherald.com:
Tom Franklin, president of Maine Citizens Against Handgun Violence, predicted that passage will lead to more street violence and deaths. The group works to prevent gun violence through gun safety and education.
“I believe this bill reflects the current state of dysfunction in Augusta,” Franklin said Monday night during a telephone interview. “It does not reflect the wishes of Maine people.”
He said his group is deeply concerned about allowing people to carry handguns without a permit.It hasn’t happened. Maine followed the same script as has happened in other states that restore Constitutional Carry. Mostly, nothing but a restoration of personal freedom.
New Hampshire restored Constitutional Carry in 2017. Opponents said the law would result in dead kids. From nhpr.org:
Although those in favor of the legislation argued the bill would not be a safety hazard, Rep. Wayne Burton of Durham told his colleagues it was too risky.
“I think a few inconvenient people is far less important that 12 dead kids,” Burton said Wednesday.It did not happen. New Hampshire continued to be a very safe state.
Of the top ten states on the US News and World Report list, five of them are in Constitutional Carry states. Those states are shown in bold print. The top ten are:
At 8:48 a.m. Mohammed Atta took a jet headlong into the north tower of the World Trade Center. Eighteen minutes later and accomplice did the same to the south tower.
When Jeremy Glick called his wife, his first question was an attempt to confirm something another passenger had heard on his spousal call: was the World Trade Center story true?
Lizzy Glick paused, thought for a minute, swallowed hard, and told him the truth. Yes, they had. Moments later, still on the line with her husband, Lizzy Glick saw that another plane had run into the Pentagon. She passed that information on as well to her husband, who relayed it to the other passengers.
Jeremy Glick then told her that the passengers were about to take a vote and decide if they should rush the hijackers and attempt to foul up whatever evil plans they had.
He put down the phone and a commotion was heard by those on the other end of the line. Then nothing. A dead line. An aborted missile launch against the town where I live.
That was 10:37 a.m. on Tuesday, September 11… just 109 minutes after Mohammed Atta rammed the first plane into the north tower of the World Trade Center.
Just 109 minutes after a new form of terrorism — the most deadly yet invented — came into use, it was rendered, if not obsolete, at least decidedly less effective.
Deconstructed, unengineered, thwarted, and put into the dust bin of history. By Americans. In 109 minutes.
And in retrospect, they did it in the most American of ways. They used a credit card to rent a fancy cell phone to get information just minutes old, courtesy of the ubiquitous 24-hour news phenomenon. Then they took a vote. When the vote called for sacrifice to protect country and others, there apparently wasn’t a shortage of volunteers. Their action was swift. It was decisive. And it was effective.
United Flight 93 did not hit a building. It did not kill anyone on the ground. It did not terrorize a city, despite the best drawn plans of the world’s most innovative madmen. Why? Because it had informed Americans on board who’d had 109 minutes to come up with a counteraction.
And the next time a hijacker full of hate pulls the same stunt with a single knife, he’ll get the same treatment and meet the same result as those on United Flight 93. Dead, yes. Murderous, yes. But successful? No.
Unlike those on the earlier flights, the hostages on 93 understood they were aboard a flying bomb intended to kill thousands of their fellow citizens. They knew there would be no happy ending. So they gave us the next best thing, a hopeful ending.
Todd Beamer couldn’t get through to anyone except a telephone company operator, Lisa Jefferson. She told him about the planes that had smashed into the World Trade Center. Mr Beamer said they had a plan to jump the guys and asked her if she would pray with him, so they recited the 23rd Psalm: ‘Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me….’
Then he and the others rushed the hijackers. At 9.58 a.m., the plane crashed, not into the White House, but in some pasture outside Pittsburgh. As UPI’s James Robbins wrote, ‘The Era of Osama lasted about an hour and half or so, from the time the first plane hit the tower to the moment the General Militia of Flight 93 reported for duty.’
Exactly. The most significant development of 11 September is that it marks the day America began to fight back: 9/11 is not just Pearl Harbor but also the Doolittle Raid, all wrapped up in 90 minutes. No one will ever again hijack an American airliner with boxcutters, or, I’ll bet, with anything else — not because of predictably idiotic new Federal regulations, but because of the example of Todd Beamer’s ad hoc platoon. Faced with a novel and unprecedented form of terror, American technology (cellphones) combined with the oldest American virtue (self-reliance) to stop it cold in little more than an hour.