Hernan Cortes was a Spaniard that earned his reputation as a merciless, greedy religious fanatic. He began his career as a Conquistador when In 1519, at the age of 34, he lead an expedition to Mexico. He had 11 ships, 100 sailors, 508 soldiers, and 16 horses. These plus a few muskets, crossbows, pikes, and swords were the instruments with which Cortes defeated thousands of native warriors. The tale of how he conquered the Mexican Empire is only equaled by the depths of cruelty practiced by the sophisticated and cosmopolitan Aztecs.
In 1519 Montezuma was the head of the vast empire and the chief priest. He oversaw and participated in the thousands of human sacrifices to Huitzilopochtli the chief deity of the Mexican people (the term Mexican now identifies a citizen of Mexico but the “Aztecs” were distinguished from hundreds of other tribes by the designation “Mexicas”. Montezuma lead a large, well organized army, the chief objective of which was to capture sacrificial victims in battle. The Aztecs also forced the subjugated nations under Aztec control to pay tribute in the form of humans for sacrifice.
“…the Aztecs claim to be descended from the Toltec nobility, and their gods- Huitzilopochtli in particular-are raised to the same level as the ancient creative gods Tezcadipoca, and Quetzalcoatl. But most important of all is the exalted praise given to what can only be called a mystical conception of warfare, dedicating the Aztec people, the “people of the sun,” to the conquest of all other nations. In part the motive was simply to extend the rule of Tenochtitlan, but the major purpose was to capture victims for sacrifice, because the source of all life, the sun, would die unless it were fed with human blood…”
The sacrifices included skinning children alive that had spent their whole life in cages being fattened for the tables of their captors. Every civilization has some cannibalism somewhere in its past but the extent to which the religious practice of human sacrifice was practiced in Tenochtitlan in 1519 (present day Mexico City) has never occurred before or since.
Keep in mind that Tenochtitlan was one of the largest cities in the world (as many as 25 million people, according to some estimates) and one of the most developed cities in the western world, comparable to Constantinople in size and cultural achievements. Sacrifices accompanied by cannibalistic feasts and psychedelic drugs occurred almost every minute for weeks on end during certain religious seasons.
Cortes started with five hundred men, commandeered about 500 more and also had allies from neighboring tribes that wished to throw off the yoke of Aztec bondage. He landed at Cozumel Island off the coast of present day Yucatan, then continued North up the coast and made allies of Indian peoples who hated the Aztecs. Upon reaching present day Vera Cruz, he burned his ships so his men would not think about turning back and buried some of the timbers.
After reaching present day Mexico City and being given the keys to the city by the indecisive and vacillating Montezuma, Cortes kidnapped Montezuma and threatened to kill him if he did not follow Cortes’ wishes.
Montezuma was killed either by his own people or the Spanish. The Spanish were trapped in the island city after they had killed the upper echelon of the Aztec military during an Aztec display of dancing. It is difficult to know whether the Spanish killed the warriors because they sensed an attack was imminent or whether they were surrounded by warriors after the massacre of the Aztec soldiers:
” They ran in among the dancers, forcing their way to the place where the drums were played. They attacked the man who was drumming and cut off his arms. Then they cut off his head, and it rolled across the floor.
They attacked all the celebrants, stabbing them, spearing them, striking them with their swords. They attacked some of them from behind, and these fell instantly to the ground with their entrails hanging out. Others they beheaded: they cut off their heads, or split their heads to pieces.
They struck others in the shoulders, and their arms were torn from their bodies. They wounded some in the thigh and some in the calf. They slashed others in the abdomen, and their entrails all spilled to the ground. Some attempted to run away, but their intestines dragged as they ran; they seemed to tangle their feet in their own entrails. No matter how they tried to save themselves, they could find no escape.”
Cortes, absent to recruit more fighting men, fought his way back into the city while his men within the city fought to save their own lives. After reaching his men and helping to defend them within the city, Cortes and his men tried to sneak across the Tlacopan causeway at night. They were spotted and Aztecs in boats converged on the Spanish from across the water.
“La Noche Triste” or the Night of Tears is still celebrated in Mexico. When Cortes finally reached Tlaxcala five days after fleeing Tenochtitlan by way of the Tlacopan causeway, he had lost over 860 Spanish soldiers. Other sources estimate that nearly half of the Spanish and almost all of this native allies were killed or wounded. His eyes teared up but the first person about whom he inquired was the ship builder, Lopez. Already he was planning the next step in his plan to subjugate the Aztec civilization!
Cortez, however kept the core of his army intact and pushed on to achieve an amazing military victory that ranks along with the conquests of Alexander. The Aztecs army which may have numbered 300,000 failed because holding prisoners took up the Aztec force’s manpower and when they took Spanish prisoners the incurably religious Aztecs could not say “no” to a barbeque accompanied by the buzz from strong psychedelic mushrooms and the screams of their victims.
Thus, the superstitious Aztecs never followed up their victories, while Cortez never waivered from his purpose. It is difficult to say whether Cortes was motivated most by the revulsion he felt when witnessing the depravity of the Aztec’s perverted religious system or by his lust for power and gold. He was highly motivated to extract the beating heart of the Aztec culture.
Cortes and his men traveled about eight hundred miles back to Vera Cruz with sick and wounded men across volcanic plateaus and up to elevations near glacial peaks, then down to steaming rain forests. After hundreds of miles of difficult mountain travel, Cortez reached Vera Cruz and instructed the ship builder, who had survived the Night of Tears, to build thirteen ships from the remnants saved when he burned his fleet and timber harvested in the forests. Some were forty feet long. The armada was built, disassembled and then portaged back across the mountain passes to the shores of Lake Texcoco.
Now the urban combat was to begin in earnest as Cortes’ men launched a naval invasion across the lake, went into the city and fought street by street and house to house.
He had already engineered a system of alliances with surrounding tribes, many of which had been allied to the Aztecs. The cadre of Spanish and their native allies soon subjugated and controlled the whole area, helping themselves to its wealth and enslaving the people. But within twenty years, the Spanish authorities responded to calls for reform from the church and the worst aspects of Spanish rule were ameliorated.
Why do many of us condemn the holocaust but feel sentimental romanticism for lost Aztec culture?
It is common to bemoan the lack of cultural sensitivity exhibited by Conquistadors like Cortes. It is problematic, however, to cast the Aztec civilization in the mantle of victimhood when beholding the image of a fattened child raised in an Aztec cage. Like the pagan civilizations destroyed by the ancient Israelites, such practices as slowly peeling off the skin of a living victim and then removing the beating heart before the victim’s eyes needed to be stopped. Cortes and his men were the instrument that stopped the Aztec evil from spreading.
This is the challenge that President-elect Obama now faces. He has a war in Afghanistan on his hands that he has promised to prosecute and the battle space has already spread into Pakistan and Mumbai. Pakistan is teetering between elements in its government that are affiliated with Al Qaeda and the official Pakistani policy of working with the United States. During his campaign, Mr. Obama raised the issue of invading Pakistan, but it seems evident that there is no viable strategy by which a city or cities can be invaded and subjugated in a manner that destroys enthusiasm for jihad.
Destroying the morale of the extremists, of course was the Neo-Conservative rationale behind invading Iraq. The theory was that sufficient humiliation within the seat of the ancient Caliphate would make way for Democracy to replace Islamic totalitarianism. Obama’s antiwar supporters are already put off by the hawkish appointments he is announcing.
This is a gun blog and not a blog for foreign policy wonks. Nevertheless, our U.S. intelligence and foreign agencies will investigate whether Pakistan intelligence really had a hand in the attack on Mumbai, as the Indian authorities are alleging. Then the new Secretary of State should submit the evidence with a list of names of the guilty Pakistani officials, if any. And demand that they be hung by their necks in front of the world or we will come and get them.
According to the Los Angeles Times:
“For Pakistan’s fledgling civilian government, however, the more immediate concern may be its own uneasy dealings with the ISI, over which it has been trying to assert greater control. Until 2001, the spy agency was the chief patron of Lashkar-e-Taiba, a now-banned militant group created in the 1980s to foment unrest in Kashmir. Some analysts have said the carefully choreographed Mumbai attacks bore some of the group’s hallmarks, though no conclusive evidence has emerged.
“It’s very likely this group has an involvement at some level, but it’s difficult to characterize because of the murky nature of how they operate,” said Kamran Bokhari, an analyst at Stratfor, a private intelligence company.
In another break from the past, the Mumbai attacks generated a near-constant stream of high-level communication between the two countries. On Friday, Zardari reminded Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of his own wife’s assassination by suspected Islamic militants, appealing to the Indian leader not to let insurgents set the regional agenda.
“We should not fall into the militants’ trap,” he said.”
If the jihadists come to our public places with AK-47s, we the people will kill them. We will not let them gun down our children and wives. Our police officers will not go against them alone. We will not spend critical minutes waiting for a SWAT team to deploy.
We prefer the culture of gentle Christian warriors to a culture that buries young women alive as a form of “honor” killing and throws acid in their faces because they choose to get educated. This is not the time to wring our hands and discuss moral quandaries. Mumbai will be the future for America if we are indecisive as a nation.
Americans are strong and smart and ready to deal with our enemies ruthlessly. Our compassion and tolerance should not be mistaken for weakness.
By invading Iraq and Afghanistan, President Bush demonstrated that it is a mistake to threaten and terrorize the people of the United States. History demonstrates the futility of attempting to occupy the Arabic homeland. But,ironically, the President-elect may have to become more like Cortes than President Bush to untie the knot that appears to exist in the government of Pakistan.
Does President-elect Obama have the iron resolve and singleness of purpose to face down America’s enemies, enemies that have set their faces to accomplish nothing less than to subjugate the West? If you think extremists are unrealistic fanatics, stop and read your history books again. The story of Cortes’ exploits should convince you that a few men can quickly accomplish the impossible if they are set in their purposes. Look at the American Revolution in which ragged colonists challenged the mightiest army and navy on earth.
In conclusion, though he may be tempted to try, Mr. Obama, cannot solve the problem of terrorism by restricting our ability to defend ourselves with guns against such attacks. The face of Islamic extremism is the modern equivalent of Aztec bloodletting; i.e., the Face of Evil.
See video of testimony from Senate hearing related to mass shooting in Texas.
Leave a comment | Permalink
Players are prepared to resist violent criminal assaults but NFL management is sacrificing to idols of political correctness. When I reviewed much of the information about the NFL’s position on players exercising their Second Amendment right of self defense, I was reminded of the Deacons for the Defense. Most people do not realize that there was a branch of the Civil Rights movement that bore arms in order to resist the night riders that were prepared to kill civil rights workers. Not just the NFL management, but the Democratic Party has had a long history of racism that has been closely linked with the history of gun control.
“That Every Man be Armed” by Stephen P. Halbrook, deals with the legislative history of the Fourteenth Amendment and provides a startling account of the newly freed black Americans and how the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted in order to stop Southern militiamen that were actively attempting to disarm blacks who tried to protect their homes and families from lynchings. Many of the blacks returned from fighting (on both sides of the Civil War- some for the North and some for the South). The homes of black Freedmen were searched by white night riders in order to discover weapons.
White men were the only citizens allowed to have firearms under the newly passed Jim Crow laws and failure to submit to the authorities’ unlawful searches and seizures often lead to lynchings in which innocent black men, women and children were literally skinned alive and mutilated.
When the Fourteenth Amendment was debated, the Southern Democrats indignantly denounced the language of the proposed Amendment, declaring that due process protection would include the right of Negroes to be armed the same as white citizens had the right to be armed pursuant to the U. S. Constitution. At that time, during the 1870s, the Northern advocates of civil rights for blacks (mostly Republicans) vehemently asserted that the Southerners were exactly right- due process for black citizens included the right to keep and bear arms just like it did for whites!
This legislative history should be discussed again when the Supreme Court hears DC v Heller. The Court will be dealing with the issue of whether the Second Amendment is an individual right. The Congressional debates leading up to ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment show that both sides acknowledged that the Second Amendment was an individual right that adhered to all citizens. Most Constitutional scholars, the U.S. Department of Justice and most state legislatures are recognizing the importance of armed citizen empowerment related to deployment of deadly force in personal protection and for protection of families and homes.
The City of Washington DC is administered under Congressional authority and therefore the issue of whether the Second Amendment applies to the states will be a very live issue. The Parker court stated very clearly that the Second Amendment does not restrict regulation of firearms by the states but how far can regulation go without constituting a de facto prohibition? That is the issue that the U.S. Supreme Court may soon decide in connection with the District of Columbia. It should be noted that the cities like Washington DC and Chicago that have great numbers of poor blacks are also the cities where gun control has the greatest stranglehold.
Many cities have virtually outlawed possession of pistols and other firearms; in Washington DC weapons have to be kept unloaded, disassembled and locked with a trigger lock. The City’s fiat thereby makes any such weapon effectively useless in a community that has one of the highest crime rates in the U.S. The law prohibits transporting a firearm in any location and the City’s attorneys apparently did not dispute the allegation that moving a firearm from one room to the other in your own home constitutes a crime under DC’s draconian regime.
New York City and Chicago area may be good places to look for a test of whether the Second Amendment applies to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment. The author of “That Every Man Be Armed” provides a persuasive brief hammering home that the right to keep and bear arms may be one of the most fundamental protections- a Constitutional protection that is intrinsically rooted in a well ordered society. The ability to defend our lives, our families and, at certain times, our property goes to the very essence of what law is all about. Mr. Halbrook is a Constitutional lawyer and an able firearms advocate.
Halbrook has chapters discussing Constitutional theory as it has developed at various times in classical Greece and Rome, English common law, colonial America and up through fairly recent times. It is encouraging to see that many of the classical world’s philosophers and political theorists come down squarely in favor of the principle that free citizens bear arms. Not to keep and bear arms is historically an earmark of a slave in almost every Western society.
Armed citizens are the institution that the Founding Fathers proclaimed to be the most practical line of defense against foreign invaders and domestic tyrants.
I first heard about the Deacons for the Defense when Condoleza Rice was telling Larry King about her father, a theologian, who gathered with other churchmen in their homes armed with shotguns in order to resist the night riders in Montgomery, Alabama. She reasoned that, if there had been gun registration, Sheriff Bull Connors would have made sure to disarm the Deacons so that the Ku Klux Klan could do its evil work. By the way, Forest Whitaker starred in the movie.
Now the NFL has become like a new breed of plantation owner, attempting to intimidate the players from exercising their Constitutional right to defend themselves against violence.
Washington Redskins safety Sean Taylor was murdered when he confronted armed intruders with a machete. His home was located in a gated community in Miami.
The intruder(s) shot him.
Would the outcome have been different if Taylor had a gun instead of a machete?
The NFL has attempted to discourage players from arming themselves. This is a public relations campaign and has very little to do with the safety of the players.
“The leagues would rather the players put themselves at risk than have the players protect themselves with guns.”
Paul Tagliabue instituted an official league gun policy back in 1994 that discourages possession of legal weapons in the players’ own homes! “Any weapon, particularly a firearm, is dangerous,” the policy states, “especially so when it is in a vehicle or within reach of children and others not properly trained in its use.”
Former Chicago Bears tackle Tank Johnson was banned from the league for part of a season after he got in trouble with Chicago law enforcers for possessing a firearm illegally in his home. “It is not enough to simply avoid being found guilty of a crime. Instead, as an employee of the NFL or a member club, you are held to a high standard and expected to conduct yourself in a way that is responsible, (and) promotes the values upon which the league is based….”
NBA Commissioner David Stern stated, “It’s a pretty, I think, widely accepted statistic that if you carry a gun, your chances of being shot by one increase dramatically. We think this is an alarming subject. Although you’ll read players saying how they feel safer with guns, in fact those guns actually make them less safe. . . .”
Washington, D.C., home to Sean Taylor’s Redskins, is currently facing a legal challenge to its virtual ban on handguns. For decades the city has had one of the toughest gun-control policies in the country. It has also consistently had one of the highest murder rates. According to Chris Sprow,the editor-in-chief of Chicago Sports Weekly:
Pro athletes are targets. They are young, wealthy, famous, and many opt not to abandon the communities where they grew up. They face a different threat and a different reality than halls traversed by the likes of Stern and Goodell. Last summer in Chicago, two high-profile NBA players were robbed at gunpoint in their own homes. Antoine Walker was confronted in his garage, bound with duct tape, and robbed of thousands of dollars in cash and jewelry, as well as his Mercedes. This was in his multi-million dollar Gold Coast home, located in a wealthy, downtown Chicago neighborhood. Weeks later, Eddy Curry was robbed in similar manner at his palatial estate in Burr Ridge, a suburb outside the city.
Police later determined both players had been targetted because of their status as professional athletes. Locally, the Chicago Bulls were forced to issue a statement, warning their own players to take new measures to insure their own security.
Why do the players need to be warned to prepare for violent attacks?
“Professional athletes, most of us came from the streets. We feel like we know the streets and can pretty much protect ourselves. But now we’re in a position where we’re being targeted, and the stakes are just too high.”
Atlanta forward Shelden Williams was recently carjacked at gunpoint.
Is it wise to put the safety of players at risk just to enhance the NFL image?
Since the aftermath of the Civil War, “gun control” has simply been a proxy argument for some as a method for keeping blacks unarmed. Arms roundups of freedmen were common in the South in the years following the liberation of slaves, and the result was more control for white landowners, and the lurking and pervasive Ku Klux Klan, who used their mobility to terrorize freed blacks. In many ways still today the gun is as much a measure of protection as it is a symbol of the ability to protect— to self govern, if need be.
In February 1994, a black Democrat State Senator from Chicago, Rickey Hendon had his unregistered handgun stolen from his home. “I have a right to protect myself,” he told the Sun-Times. Blacks tend to live in higher crime areas; lack the resources for private security, alarm systems, and other measures; and aren’t particularly trusting of or willing to rely upon the police to protect them. When the City of Chicago began restricting handgun possession in 1983, some of the loudest objections came from black politicians, who said the ban discriminated against black Chicagoans who needed to be armed to protect themselves.
Wealthy athletes are targets for violent crime.
Mr. Sprow’s recommendation that teams focus on teaching young players how to own, maintain, and use guns responsibly makes a great deal of sense! (Chris Sprow is the editor-in-chief of Chicago Sports Weekly, and has contributed to a number of other publications, including the New York Times and ESPN the Magazine.)
John R. Lott Jr. in his incisive article entitled Athletes and Guns lists some of the reasons that fifty percent of NFL players justifiably arm themselves to fend off deadly assaults.
Their wealth and high profiles make them targets for violent criminals.
Early in the morning on Jan. 21, Corey Fuller, the 5-foot, 10-inch, 210-pound defensive back for the Baltimore Ravens, was confronted by two armed robbers outside his Tallahassee house. One robber chased Fuller into his house where his wife and children were sleeping, but Fuller was able to grab a gun and fire at the attackers, who then ran away.
In late October, T.J. Slaughter, a 6-foot, 233-pound linebacker, was arrested for allegedly pointing a gun at motorists who pulled up next to him on the highway. Slaughter denied that he had pointed the gun at the motorists and claimed that they had threatened him. According to Slaughter, he told the men to move away from his car. No charges were filed, but the Jacksonville Jaguars still cut Slaughter the next day. Jacksonville claimed Slaughter was performing poorly.
Greg Anthony, a 6-foot, 176-pound guard for 12 years in the NBA, carried a registered gun during part of his career. He said, “More and more people approach you, and you just never know what somebody is capable of doing …”
Mr. Lott goes on to state:
Recent media stories – from the New York Times to the Chicago Tribune – have run extremely negative stories on professional players owning guns. The Tribune described players owning guns as a “problem [that] persists.” Ironically, within days of the December New York Times piece, it was revealed that the New York Times lets its reporters carry guns in Iraq.
– Yancy Thigpen of the Tennessee Titans (height: 6-1, weight: 203 lbs.) has faced three armed robberies since joining the NFL eight years ago. The last one left him and his fiancée tied up inside his house with their 2-month old daughter locked in a closet. An earlier robbery involved a carjacking.
– Will Allen of the New York Giants (height: 5-10, weight: 195 lbs.) was assaulted, doused with gasoline and robbed by an assailant when he returned to his house one evening in 2001.
According to John Lott, such misguided advice simply makes players and their families more vulnerable and does not square with the U.S. Department of Justice’s findings. The Justice Department’s National Crime Victimization Survey has shown that not being armed is statistically the strategy most likely to result in victimization.
Aggressiveness is always a better strategy than the passive approach that is often recommended in much of the officially sanctioned literature on how to deal with assaults.
One player, T.J. Slaughter said. “I believe legally owning a gun is the right thing to do. It offers me protection. I think one day it could save my life.”
See NFL Athletes; Guns & Second Amendment.
2 comments | Permalink
Churches have been coming under attack for many years from many quarters. Now well armed individuals, often with a grievance or just hatred for Christianity have been literally invading churches to kill the worshippers within:
Killer’s rant filled with profanity, hate
By The Denver Post
Article Last Updated: 12/11/2007 09:24:12 AM MST
A message posted between the Youth With a Mission shooting in Arvada on Sunday, Dec. 9 and the New Life Church shooting in Colorado Springs is believed to be Matthew Murray’s last posting. It contains language which many may find objectionable:
“You christians brought this on yourselves!”—————————————————————————–
“I’m coming for EVERYONE soon and I WILL be armed to the @#%$ teeth and I WILL shoot to kill. ….God, I can’t wait till I can kill you people. Feel no remorse, no sense of shame, I don’t care if I live or die in the shoot-out. All I want to do is kill and injure as many of you … as I can especially Christians who are to blame for most of the problems in the world.
Well all you people out there can just kiss my ass and die. From now on I don’t give a @#%$ about what all you mutha fuckers have to say, unless I respect you which is highly unlikely, but for those of you who do happen to know me and know that I respect you, may peace be with you and don’t be in my line of fire, for the rest of you, you all better @#%$ hide in your houses because I’m coming for EVERYONE soon, and I WILL be armed to the @#%$ teeth, and I WILL shoot to kill and I WILL @#%$ KILL EVERYTHING! No I am not crazy, crazy is just a word, to me it has no meaning, everyone is different, but most of you @#%$ heads out there in society, going to your everyday @#%$ jobs and doing your everyday routine shitty things, I say @#%$ you and die, if you got a problem with my thoughts, come to me and I’ll kill you, because……..God damnit, DEAD PEOPLE DON’T ARGUE! My belief is that if I say something, it goes. I am the law. If you don’t like it, you die. If I don’t like you or I don’t like what you want me to do, then you die. If I do something incorrect, oh @#%$ well, you die. Dead people can’t do many things, like argue, whine, @#%$, complain, name, rat out, criticize, or even @#%$ talk. So that’s the only way to solve arguments with all you fuckheads out there, I just kill. God I can’t wait till I can kill you people, I’ll just go to some downtown area in some big city and blow up and shoot everything I can.
You break my back but you won’t break me…..all is black but I still see…shut me down, knock me to the floor…..shoot me up, @#%$ me like a whore….trapped under ice, comfortably cold, I’ve gone as low as you can go….. feel no remorse, no sorrow or shame……time’s gonna wash away all pain I made a God out of blood not superiority I killed the king of deceit and now I sleep in anarchy…”
We pieced together the following account of what happened next from various websites:
In Denver, a woman, fresh from a three day fast, in which she prayed to God for guidance in choosing a career path, was thrown right into the path of this mad-dog killer:
Amid deafening cracks of gunfire, smoke-spewing canisters and the flight of thousands of New Life Church members, Jeanne Assam said she suddenly saw the hallways clear and a gunman come through the door.
“I took cover. I identified myself. I engaged him. I took him down,” the 42-year-old former law officer and volunteer church security guard said Monday at a news conference in the Colorado Springs police station.
Murray was carrying two handguns, an assault rifle and over 1,000 rounds of ammunition, said Sgt. Jeff Johnson of the Colorado Springs Police Department.
“It seemed like it was me, the gunman and God,” she said.
Assam worked as a police officer in downtown Minneapolis during the 1990s and is licensed to carry a weapon. She attends one of the morning services and then volunteers as a guard during another service.
New Life’s Senior Pastor Brady Boyd called Assam “a real hero” because Murray “had enough ammunition on him to cause a lot of damage.”
Boyd said Assam was the one who suggested the church beef up its security Sunday following the Arvada shooting, which it did. The pastor credited the security plan and the extra security for preventing further bloodshed.
Boyd said there are 15 to 20 security people at the church. All are volunteers but the only ones armed are those who are licensed to carry weapons.
The security guards are members of the church who are screened and not “mercenaries that we hire to walk around our campus to provide security,” Boyd said.
About 7,000 people were on the church campus at the time of the shooting, said Boyd….
“I just said, ‘Holy Spirit, be with me.’ I wasn’t even shaking,” Assam said. “I give the credit to God. I say this very humbly. God was with me.”
The female security guard who shot and stopped a gunman at a Colorado Springs church yesterday is crediting God for helping her to resolve the threat by killing the assailant…
“This has got to be God, because of the firepower that [the gunman] had vs. what I had was God. I did not run away and I didn’t think for a minute to run away, I just knew that I was given the assignment to end this before it got too much worse. I just prayed for the Holy Spirit to guide me.” …
“I heard shots fired. It was chaos. There were a lot of people in the church,” she described.
“The halls cleared out and I saw him coming through the doors. I took cover, waited for him to get closer, came out of cover and identified myself, engaged him, took him down,” she said.
Church officials said they have a contingent of volunteer security officers because of the high profile of the church.
“Obviously if we had not had an armed person on our campus, 50 or 100 people could have lost their lives,” the pastor said. …
…victims Stephanie Works, 18, and her sister Rachael, 16, adorned the program for services Sunday.
The two were killed when gunman Matthew Murray, armed with an assault rifle, a .40-caliber semiautomatic handgun and a 9 mm semiautomatic handgun, opened fire in the parking lot as a service was letting out. The girls’ father and two other people were wounded.
A volunteer security guard shot and wounded Murray, 24, before he turned the gun on himself. Twelve hours earlier and about 65 miles away, police said, Murray killed two staff members of the Youth With a Mission missionary training center in Arvada and wounded two others….
A Vietnam vet’s eyewitness account:
Larry Bourbonnais, a combat-tested Vietnam veteran, said it was the bravest thing he’s ever seen.
Bourbonnais, who was among those shot by a gunman Sunday at New Life Church, watched as a security guard, a woman later identified as Jeanne Assam, calmly returned fire and killed the shooter.
“She just started walking toward the gunman firing the whole way,” said Bourbonnais, who was shot in the arm. “She was just yelling ‘Surrender,’ walking and shooting the whole time.”
Bourbonnais, 59, was chowing down in the chuch cafeteria when he heard the shots. He headed in the direction of the gunfire, asking “where’s the shooter?”, as people ran past him.
Near an entryway in the church, Bourbonnais came upon the gunman and an armed male church security guard who was there with his gun drawn but not firing, he said.
“Give me your handgun. I’ve been in combat, and I’m going to take this guy out,” Bourbonnais recalled telling the guard. “He kept yelling, ‘Get behind me! Get behind me!’ He wouldn’t hand me his weapon, but he wouldn’t do anything.”
There was an additional armed security guard there, another man, who also didn’t fire, Bourbonnais said.
…Bourbonnais yelled at the gunman to draw his attention, he said.
“First, I called him ‘Coward’ then I called him ‘S—head’ ” Bourbonnais said. “I probably shouldn’t have been saying that in church.”
No, indeed, it only attracted the shooter’s attention:
That’s when the shooter pointed one of his guns at Bourbonnais and fired, he said.
Bourbonnais ducked behind a hollow, decorative pillar and was hit in the arm by a bullet and fragments of the pillar.
Enter our heroine:
Assam turned a corner with a drawn handgun, walked toward the gunman and yelled “Surrender!” Bourbonnais said.
The gunman pointed a handgun at Assam and fired three shots, Bourbonnais said. She returned fire and just kept walking toward the gunman pressing off round after round.
After the gunman went down, Bourbonnais asked Assam, a volunteer security guard with the church, how she remained so calm and focused.
Bourbonnais said she replied:
“I was asking the Holy Spirit to guide me the entire time.”
Leave a comment | Permalink
The U.S. Supreme Court has decided the first major case involving the important Second Amendment issue of whether the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. The landmark case originated in Washington, DC where, like Chicago and other cities, law abiding citizens were not allowed to defend themselves against lawless criminals! Since Heller v DC was decided, cities all over the land are changing their laws ro conform to the Second Amendment.
The Washington, DC case may be the most important gun rights case ever but more are sure to follow. Such issues are going to be percolating through the courts for years because the United Nations and domestic gun ban advocates are seeking a worldwide treaty banning small arms (firearms are already prohibited to private citizens in all but a few nations). Will the U.S. join the consensus of dictators all over the world by bending our Constitution to “international norms“?
Where are your loyalties- to the UN? To the secular one-world religion of humanism? Or are you looking toward traditional values of individual freedom, U.S. sovereignty and inalienable rights that are founded on Biblical principles. The Scripture speaks of covenant responsibilities that God requires of people that would be free (like the duty to defend life, liberty and property as set forth in the U.S. Constitution)- not “rights” bestowed by the State!
Do you know that the concept of a written Constitution itself was a development that grew out of the practices of the early American religious colonies? The Pilgrim fathers (and mothers) were consciously entering into covenants (compacts, mutual promises or contracts, if you will) that imitated the Old and New Covenants (i.e., Old and New Testaments). The Old Testament abounds in examples of covenants between God and man and between people within the ancient social framework of Israel. The fact remains that a people that are covenant keepers will be strong and prosperous. But we need to be careful what kind of covenants and treaties we make as a people.
Additionally, a people that recognize their heritage in God and that are grateful for blessings every day (not just on Thanksgiving) will prosper and remain free.
Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set.
Proverbs 22:28 (King James Version)
WHICH WEAPON IS BEST FOR PERSONAL DEFENSE?
A weapon has to fit your personal defense strategy. For example, a young man that has spent years studying martial arts may not feel the need to carry a pistol. On the other hand, a single mom or a grandfather that lives out in Grays Harbor County may wish to have a shotgun or pistol to protect the home.
The choice of strategies and weapons is personal; you need to look at your environment, training, life philosophy and personal budgetary issues. And you owe it to those that love and depend on you to strategize. To avoid planning for and dealing with potential violence is also a choice called denial.
People sometimes say to me, “Yes, I will protect my family if I have to!” Do you have a CPL? Access to a weapon? Have you taken the time to learn to shoot? It doesn’t take years and years and years but you don’t want to learn to shoot while you are being assaulted! Every homestead, sheep camp and ranch in America had a shotgun near to hand- truly the weapon that won the West. Your wife can use a 20-gauge, however, more effectively than a 12-gauge because there is less recoil and the stopping power is about equal to the 12-gauge if you choose the right ammunition.
Most shotguns and rifles are too long to utilize within the confines of your home during an emergency. Stay in a safe place, usually the bedroom, behind cover and call the police. If you have to leave your safe room to help others in your family, a short tactical shotgun will work. If you decide on a 12-gauge, a Remington 870 is quite suitable and the price is about $300.00.
If you want to protect your family away from home then you probably need to carry a pistol. Even if you do not own or carry a pistol, you should obtain a Concealed Pistol License. The CPL will normally permit purchasing a pistol without the mandatory five-day waiting period.
If you are like the majority of gun owners that don’t practice much, get a small .38 revolver. Revolvers go bang every time you pull the trigger. Revolvers normally have only five or six shots, however. The semi-automatic GLOCK is popular because of its price and quick deployment when concealed. But look at the SPRINGFIELD XD. It has a well-engineered trigger, cycles well and has features that are not available with most pistols in the $500.00 range.
If you have not shot a great deal, you may learn faster with a smaller caliber. Many law officers are using .40 caliber pistols. The recoil is manageable and your hits stop the bad guy(s) immediately. Go to a range, rent guns and see how each weapon feels in your hand before you buy. More than ever before, seniors, women and minorities that are targets of hate crimes are beginning to realize why pistols are still called equalizers in the New West.
See Triggernometry Taurus Blue Steel PT1911.
Leave a comment | Permalink
LE Targets’ DST-5 is very effective for live-fire drills. (Photos Dave Spaulding)
2008 Oct 23
Law Officer Magazine Volume 4 Issue 10
What Should I Practice?
Dry & live fire options
Dave Spaulding
One of the most common questions I receive from readers or students is, “What should I practice?” It’s a legitimate question, especially with skyrocketing ammunition prices. Recently, I was at the local Wal-Mart buying some Winchester White Box 9mm ammo (the cheapest I can find) and paid $19.23 for 100 rounds. I noticed that .40 S&W of the same brand was $28.12 and .45 ACP was just under $30!
This no doubt affects law enforcement agencies in how much ammunition they can purchase, but also the individual officer who might want to keep his skills sharp while paying the mortgage, car payment, buying groceries, clothing and all the other things necessary for daily life. Since blowing up ammo needlessly is certainly recognized as expensive, we need to shoot our limited ammo supply wisely.
I’m a firm believer in fundamentals, and while many officers get bored practicing basics, these basic skills are necessary to prevail in a fight. I don’t know who said, “Advanced skills are the basics mastered,” (many have laid claim to it), but it’s true. Thus, practicing basics is a great place to start.
A Dry Run
Fortunately, many fundamental skills are mastered without firing a shot. Dry fire is the best way to improve draw, reload, malfunction clearances (using dummy rounds), shooting around cover (with a mirror at the opposing side to see how much you expose of yourself), one-hand manipulation, unconventional shooting positions (kneeling, prone, on the side, “roll back", etc.) and any other skill that doesn’t require actual trigger manipulation. The purchase of a dry fire training aid such as the Beamhit) can give first shot feedback via a laser fit into the barrel of your carry gun.
Before beginning any dry fire training program, make double, triple and quadruple sure that your gun is empty and that no live ammo is in the room with you. A capable dry fire pad, such as the one manufactured by Safe Direction, is a very good idea. That way, if you suffer a “brain fart,” the round will be captured harmlessly and a valuable lesson learned.
The Real Deal
Now that we’ve narrowed the skills needed for live fire practice, let’s look at when we do need live ammo.
The two skills that must be practiced live fire are trigger and recoil control. Trigger control is the most important skill required for accurate shooting and the most difficult to master. In a nutshell, the index finger on the shooting hand presses the trigger to the rear, working independently of the rest of the hand, without interrupting muzzle to target alignment.
Think about how many times a day you open and close your hand, using the thumb and fingers in concert with one another. Then you can get some idea of how complex this action really is! Taking this into consideration, is it really hard to understand why shooters squeeze their whole hand when they shoot, something I call “milking the grip?”
Independent trigger control requires intense concentration and needs to be mastered before all other skills. It must be practiced regularly, as it’s the most perishable of a skill set that’s already very perishable. Luckily, recoil control isn’t quite as difficult and is really a function of upper body position and applying forward force to a pistol.
To the Range
With the previous thoughts in mind as I head to the range, I start out with a few timed drills to see where I’m at. I like to do these drills “cold,” as I believe they are a better indicator of performance than after I have shot for a while. Remember, it’s unlikely you’ll have just come from a practice session at the range when your gunfight occurs. You’ll more than likely be “cold” as well.
I shoot these drills at 20 feet on the Law Enforcement Targets’ DST-5 target. Only hits in the 8″ Primary Neutralization Zone in the high chest count. I consider live fire a confirmation of the dry practice drills. I do each drill twice—anyone can get lucky and perform a single session well. One after another is more telling.
These are the drills I perform:
One shot from ready in 1 second;
One shot from the holster in 1.5 seconds;
One shot, reload, one shot in 3 seconds;
Draw, two shots, reload, two shots on two targets in 4 seconds;
“Bill Drill” of draw and shoot six shots looking for a consistent time between each shot in 3 seconds or less;
El Presidente’ Drill (10 yards on three targets, turn 180 degrees, shoot two shots on each target, reload, shoot two shots on each target again in 10 seconds or less; and
John Farnum’s “DTI Dance” (see January 2008 issue of Law Officer).
These drills take 15–20 minutes and consume 70 rounds. You may decide to shorten this test to conserve ammo. To me, they give an idea of where I am lacking and what to work on. But don’t shoot any faster than you can hit! A “lucky run” isn’t educational, only deceiving. These drills should be learning points, not ego gratifiers. Also, you have just spent around $20—make it worthwhile.
Trigger Focus
I then shoot several magazines focusing on trigger control, which, as previously stated, is one area where dry fire does not suffice. I start at 10 feet, shooting the small dots on the bottom of the DST-5 target, going agonizingly slow, trying to shoot one jagged hole. I focus completely on what my hands are doing, making them control the trigger and not milking the entire grip, find the reset point and then smoothly pressing through the trigger action.
I also take note of my body position, making sure my shoulders are over my toes. I move back 5 feet at a time, shooting 5 to 6 rounds at each distance, trying to stay on the 3″-dot, concentrating on “sight, press.” Somewhere around 30–35 feet, I start to miss the 3″-dot and move to the larger, 5″-dots and work my way back to 50 feet or so. By this time, I have fired 100 rounds, give or take, so if the ammo supply is low, I stop.
More Practice
If I have additional ammo available, I then work on delivering the gun to the target from one of several “ready” positions, ensuring the delivery is consistent and feels right. The felt aspects of shooting are grossly under-rated. I then move to the draw stroke, making sure it’s consistent and direct to the target. Think of the draw stroke as an upside-down L with the gun coming up and out from the holster, directly to the target.
Lateral movement should be part of this drill. I also work on picking up the front sight in my field of vision as quickly as possible. Make sure you practice with the same carry gear that you use daily, including a concealing garment. Add a few drills, which simulate combat conditions, while kneeling or from extreme close quarters, and you will have a reasonable 200-round practice session.
No, these drills do not account for all of what might happen in a gunfight, but understand there’s no way to prepare for any conflict. History has shown that the person who prevails in armed conflict is the one who can keep his head and decide which of their practiced skills will solve the problem at hand. The officer that never practices is the one who will fail to decide. Stay safe, stay alert and practice your skills often.
Dave Spaulding is a 28-year law-enforcement veteran, retiring at the rank of lieutenant. He currently works for a federal security contractor. He’s worked in all facets of law enforcement—corrections, communications, patrol, evidence collection, investigations, undercover operations, training and SWAT—and has authored more than 800 articles for various firearm and law enforcement periodicals. He is also the author of the best-selling books Defensive Living and Handgun Combatives.
Leave a comment | Permalink
Federal Way recently had an unfortunate incident where a law enforcement officer (LEO) shot at a man that was threatening the officer with a gun that looked like a real gun; shooting the subject would have been justified. But why did the officer shoot twice and miss?
Officers are trained not to shoot unless an opponent presents deadly force. An officer is trained to aim for center of body mass. The primary objective is to stop an opponent from inflicting death or grave bodily harm. If the LEO hesitates or misses, the risk is that the officer or bystanders will become victims. The fact that the Federal Way incident occurred at a strip mall raises the issue of bystanders being hit by the LEO’s shots. The officer missed his shots. This raises the issue of whether the officer would be alive had the subject been carrying a real gun.
LEOs justifiably hold Monday morning quarterbacks, including many lawyers, in disdain. Every time an LEO shoots at an assailant, no matter how justified, lawyers reconstruct every moment before, during and after the shooting. A few thoughts on training are in order, nevertheless.
LEO firearms training starts with the LEO’s desire to return alive to loved ones at the end of the shift! Although officers must meet basic proficiency standards, many of them have never fired a shot in self-defense. Many competent “civilians” can and do take the time to become trained and acquire gun handling skill that equals or exceeds the average LEO’s skill.
Consider the effect on motor skills as adrenaline starts pumping along with the heavy first trigger-pull that commonly causes LEOs to jerk the first shot with some semi-automatics under stress. Studies have proven that officers and civilians that participate in exercises simulating real-life scenarios have a much better chance of surviving a gun fight. Competitions that combine speed, movement, shooting from cover and multiple targets create the stress necessary to increase LEO and civilian survivability.
Studies show that mistaken shootings are more likely to happen in low light. Shooting an innocent subject as he presents his identification may be blamed on racism when lack of low-light training is to blame. How many departments have a house where officers can shoot at targets in a darkened environment? It is unlikely such opportunities are available unless the LEO pays for private training.
FWPD trains its LEOs beyond the minimal levels required by law enforcement; neverthless, a defensive handgun class like the one at the Firearms Academy of Seattle teaches civilians and LEOS how to survive without incurring legal liability and the experience will enhance your appreciation for LEOs protecting us on the street. Marty Hayes told me that it is not uncommon for LEOs to attend FAS as a unit at their own expense. Whether or not you are an LEO, you owe it to your family to remain alive. If you are a civilian with a CPL and/or carry a gun, you are responsible to know the laws, be safe and be proficient.
See AR-15 Training.
Leave a comment | Permalink
Why the U.S. needs a space-based missile defense against an EMP attack.
By Brian T. Kennedy, Wall Street Journal
As severe as the global financial crisis now is, it does not pose an existential threat to the U.S. Through fits and starts we will sort out the best way to revive the country’s economic engine. Mistakes can be tolerated, however painful. The same may not be true with matters of national security.
Although President George W. Bush has accomplished more in the way of missile defense than his predecessors – including Ronald Reagan – he will leave office with only a rudimentary system designed to stop a handful of North Korean missiles launched at our West Coast. Barack Obama will become commander in chief of a country essentially undefended against Russian, Chinese, Iranian or ship-launched terrorist missiles. This is not acceptable.
The attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, have proven how vulnerable we are. On that day, Islamic terrorists flew planes into our buildings. It is not unreasonable to believe that if they obtain nuclear weapons, they might use them to destroy us. And yet too many policy makers have rejected three basic facts about our position in the world today:
First, as the defender of the Free World, the U.S. will be the target of destruction or, more likely, strategic marginalization by Russia, China and the radical Islamic world.
Second, this marginalization and threat of destruction is possible because the U.S. is not so powerful that it can dictate military and political affairs to the world whenever it wants. The U.S. has the nuclear capability to vanquish any foe, but is not likely to use it except as a last resort.
Third, America will remain in a condition of strategic vulnerability as long as it fails to build defenses against the most powerful political and military weapons arrayed against us: ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads. Such missiles can be used to destroy our country, blackmail or paralyze us.
Any consideration of how best to provide for the common defense must begin by acknowledging these facts.
Consider Iran. For the past decade, Iran – with the assistance of Russia, China and North Korea – has been developing missile technology. Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani announced in 2004 their ability to mass produce the Shahab-3 missile capable of carrying a lethal payload to Israel or – if launched from a ship – to an American city.
The current controversy over Iran’s nuclear production is really about whether it is capable of producing nuclear warheads. This possibility is made more urgent by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s statement in 2005: “Is it possible for us to witness a world without America and Zionism? But you had best know that this slogan and this goal are attainable, and surely can be achieved.”
Mr. Ahmadinejad takes seriously, even if the average Iranian does not, radical Islam’s goal of converting, subjugating or destroying the infidel peoples – first and foremost the citizens of the U.S. and Israel. Even after 9/11, we appear not to take that threat seriously. We should.
Think about this scenario: An ordinary-looking freighter ship heading toward New York or Los Angeles launches a missile from its hull or from a canister lowered into the sea. It hits a densely populated area. A million people are incinerated. The ship is then sunk. No one claims responsibility. There is no firm evidence as to who sponsored the attack, and thus no one against whom to launch a counterstrike.
But as terrible as that scenario sounds, there is one that is worse. Let us say the freighter ship launches a nuclear-armed Shahab-3 missile off the coast of the U.S. and the missile explodes 300 miles over Chicago. The nuclear detonation in space creates an electromagnetic pulse (EMP).
Gamma rays from the explosion, through the Compton Effect, generate three classes of disruptive electromagnetic pulses, which permanently destroy consumer electronics, the electronics in some automobiles and, most importantly, the hundreds of large transformers that distribute power throughout the U.S. All of our lights, refrigerators, water-pumping stations, TVs and radios stop running. We have no communication and no ability to provide food and water to 300 million Americans.
This is what is referred to as an EMP attack, and such an attack would effectively throw America back technologically into the early 19th century. It would require the Iranians to be able to produce a warhead as sophisticated as we expect the Russians or the Chinese to possess. But that is certainly attainable. Common sense would suggest that, absent food and water, the number of people who could die of deprivation and as a result of social breakdown might run well into the millions.
Let us be clear. A successful EMP attack on the U.S. would have a dramatic effect on the country, to say the least. Even one that only affected part of the country would cripple the economy for years. Dropping nuclear weapons on or retaliating against whoever caused the attack would not help. And an EMP attack is not far-fetched.
Twice in the last eight years, in the Caspian Sea, the Iranians have tested their ability to launch ballistic missiles in a way to set off an EMP. The congressionally mandated EMP Commission, with some of America’s finest scientists, has released its findings and issued two separate reports, the most recent in April, describing the devastating effects of such an attack on the U.S.
The only solution to this problem is a robust, multilayered missile-defense system. The most effective layer in this system is in space, using space-based interceptors that destroy an enemy warhead in its ascent phase when it is easily identifiable, slower, and has not yet deployed decoys. We know it can work from tests conducted in the early 1990s. We have the technology. What we lack is the political will to make it a reality.
An EMP attack is not one from which America could recover as we did after Pearl Harbor. Such an attack might mean the end of the United States and most likely the Free World. It is of the highest priority to have a president and policy makers not merely acknowledge the problem, but also make comprehensive missile defense a reality as soon as possible.
Mr. Kennedy is president of the Claremont Institute and a member of the Independent Working Group on Missile Defense.
Leave a comment | Permalink
Seattle’s Misguided Gun Ban
Mayor Greg Nickels plans to defy state law with a gun ban that is worse than an empty gesture: It puts law-abiding citizens at greater risk.
By Knute Berger
November 17, 2008.
Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels is planning to issue an order to ban legal handguns from city parks and buildings next month, despite the fact that such a move is “unequivocally” against state law. That’s only one of the reasons I voted to re-elect Republican state Attorney General Rob McKenna earlier this month. McKenna has already weighed in against Nickels’ proposal, and I hope he’ll be a zealous guardian in court of citizen gun rights in Washington.
Nickels’ move will no doubt be popular with many Seattleites — it’s the kind of symbolism that underscores our city’s more-liberal-than-thou reputation. I wish I could say it would be an empty gesture in a country where the right to bear arms has both popular, constitutional, and Supreme Court support, but I think such a ban is ill-advised.
There are several problems with it, aside from its legality. One is that the safety of Seattle’s citizens is far from assured — and no amount of law enforcement (including a police state) can ensure the safety of particular individuals. The other night, I attended a party for Seattle magazine’s annual list of the most powerful people in the city — as editor-at-large there, I serve on the committee that reviews the picks. It was held in the Pampas Room at Belltown’s El Goucho. The buzz of the party wasn’t so much about insider power but the lack of power Belltown itself is feeling when it comes to safety. This week, concerned Belltowners met with the city over safety issues, as described by KING-TV:
Belltown used to be known as a very hip and happening place to live, but now residents say they are afraid to leave their home – even in broad daylight. Store owners say they are losing business because of drug dealing outside.
One Seattle magazine staffer described how she was recently mugged in Belltown — the kind of crime where the mugger immediate ran off to use her credit card to buy what she thinks was $13 bucks worth of booze at Safeway. Other partygoers talked about how they’re afraid to walk through Belltown anymore. “When you have high densities of living, alcohol establishments, and social services, we’re going to have some challenges,” Capt. Steven Brown of the Seattle Police Department’s West Precinct told KING 5.
That’s not just a Belltown concern but a citywide concern for a town that is densifying all over, where Manhattan-style urbanization (higher densities, high-rise development) isn’t just a growth phenomenon but official city policy, and in a town with budget troubles, too few cops, holes in the social service safety net and a troubled economy. It’s sad to say Belltown — once the prime example of how this “world-class city” stuff was supposed to work — is taking on the distinctly un-Seattle feel of a neighborhood of fortified towers and underground parking designed to protect affluent residents from the sans-culotte.
While the mayor’s ban won’t make Belltown safer, it could make city parks less safe for the urbanites who use them. I have previously written that I oppose handguns in national parks because I believe these are public sanctuaries to preserve nature. They are off the beaten path, and people have to travel long distances and pay relatively expensive entry, lodging, and camping fees to use them under the supervision and protection of park rangers. The biggest threat might be bears, but in wild country, it’s the bears that have the right to bear arms.
But I see city parks in an entirely different light. They are part of the urban fabric, part of everyday space, used by people of all types, all classes, all criminal backgrounds. They are the heart of our commons. Many have remote parts and places like playgrounds that are also potential stalking grounds. They are mostly open, uncontrolled, and unguarded. They are vital, lively and important public spaces that should be open to all. I do not see how they can be segregated in terms of gun laws. To ask citizens with the legal right to carry guns elsewhere to disarm themselves in circumstances where vigilance is often required and protection hard to come by is unfair, even dangerous.
I’ve been stalked. I know others who have been the victims of stalkers and involved in domestic violence situations that pose an ongoing threat. I have been through handgun training for gays and lesbians and have seen how the de-mystification of firearms has helped empower people whose very lifestyle puts them at risk. Simply knowing that they have the ability to protect themselves, holding the idea that gay bashers might have to think twice before assuming potential targets were defenseless, seemed to lighten a psychological load if nothing else.
I think the legal right to carry a weapon, whether you choose to or not, is part of putting a caution in the head of some predators that you — and the general citizenry — may not be as vulnerable as they would like. It’s important to know that guns aren’t just for the bad guys, and that protecting yourself with a firearm doesn’t automatically make you one.
It’s absolutely an individual choice whether to arm oneself. And the laws should be strict about criminal background checks and keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. But for many people, legal gun rights give them a chance to use the city more openly, safely, and with a sense of security that no law enforcement agency or piece of paper could ever provide.
Knute Berger is Mossback, Crosscut’s chief Northwest native. He also writes the monthly Gray Matters column for Seattle magazine and is a weekly Friday guest on Weekday on KUOW-FM (94.9). You can e-mail him at mossback@crosscut.com.
View this story online at:
XML:
© 2008 Crosscut LLC. All rights reserved.
See also Federal Way Weapons Law.
Leave a comment | Permalink
The American Bar Association has a good directory that includes links to leading blog pages dealing with Constitutional law.
Permalink
The following notes are the beginning of a series of observations penned by a man that attends autopsies- lots of autopsies. I cannot vouch for the author’s authenticity but the issues identified below seem worth considering. The prose may seem morbid but there are passages herein that constitute sheer poetry for serious gunners and the information may save your life:
One of the benefits of working in a morgue is that I get to see what works and what doesn’t. Ballistic gelatin is good as far as it goes, but there’s nothing like seeing what a bullet actually does once it strikes bone, flesh, and organs. Suffice it to say, it doesn’t always mimic ballistic gelatin.
The other is that I get to hear some great CCW stories. Here’s one of them: A recently-married couple living in one of the less desirable sections of Atlanta decided that for safety purposes they should get a handgun and learn how to shoot it. They bought a Glock 27 in .40, CCW permits, and made regular trips to an indoor range. One evening, having just come back from the range, they cleaned and loaded the Glock and had left it on the coffee table in the living room, intending to put it up later. Shortly thereafter they heard a knock at the door and, expecting company, opened it without looking through the peephole.
A crazed male entered the apartment brandishing a handgun yelling, “Give it up, give it up!” The husband said that it was obvious the individual was high on drugs and there was absolutely no question in his mind that both he and his wife were going to die. Knowing this, he decided that his only option was to go down fighting.
The BG forced them both down a narrow hallway into the living room, screaming all the while. The husband was in the lead, followed by his wife, and then the BG, whose view of the living room was being blocked by the husband and wife.
The husband reached down, grabbed the Glock, pushed his wife aside, and fired one shot at the BG, striking him dead center in the middle of the chest. Although knocked to the floor, the BG still made a feeble attempt to retrieve his own gun. At this point, the husband let him hold another one to the chest. That ended that little problem.
Upon talking to the still-shaken husband, the police said he could remember little of what all the BG had said. As he recalled it, “All I can remember is that his first words were ‘Give it up!” and his last words just as he saw the Glock were “Oh, (fill in the blank)!”
I see an average of 8.2 autopsies per day/365 days per year, and I can tell you that when the chips are down, there’s nothing that beats a 12-gauge. As for handguns, the name of the game is not only shot placement but how a properly-placed bullet acts once it gets there. I’ve seen folks killed by a bb to the eye and others survive after being hit by several well-placed rounds with a 9mm.
As for me, I’ll take a slow-moving .45 to a gun fight any day. I absolutely despise a 9mm for defensive situations (yes, they will eventually kill but often not quickly enough to prevent the BG from doing you in first)and a .380 as well. These are probably the two calibers I see most often on the autopsy table.
But then, I’ve seen most everything. I’ve seen a guy killed by a .416 Rigby, as well as a suicide to the head with a .44 Mag that didn’t penetrate the skull on the other side.
The long and short of it is that you just don’t know how ANY bullet will react to tissue and bone until you open them up and take a look. I’ve seen hardball fragment and hollowpoints act just like hardball. That said, shoot what you’re comfortable with and place your shots well whatever caliber you use.
The .357 is gloriously effective. It’s just that semi-autos are much more common than they used to be, so we see far more 9mm and .380 rounds on the autopsy table than we do the .38 and .357.
Particularly among the gangbangers, the 9mm and .380 are the weapons of choice. The .357 is a wonderfully effective round for self-defense from what I’ve seen, but it’s rare that we get them in anymore.
Again, this is from experience that I’ve made my calls on what works and what doesn’t. I have no use for mouse guns like the .32, although it’s a lot better to have a mouse gun than nothing at all. Personally, I’ll never carry anything smaller than a .40 and prefer the .45. Day in and day out, results from the autopsy table show me that the .45 is the gun to have in a gun fight, provided you can shoot it well. If not, it’s better to have something you can shoot well, even if it’s a mouse gun, than something you can’t.
I spent most of my life in Knoxville, TN and absolutely loved it. But then, my job is working in the Medical Examiner’s Office, and, as you said, this is a target-rich environment. Having a job in an Atlanta morgue is job security at its best.
KRL, I’ll take slow and heavy to light and fast any day. What I want is a round that plows through bone and tissue and expends ALL of its energy in the body. That said, the 125-grain .357 is marvelously effective.
S/W-Lifer, You’re correct in what you’re thinking. Yes, the 9mm and .380 are the rounds I most often see on the autopsy table, but they’re also the rounds that usually require multiple hits to make the kill. The standing joke in the morgue is to guess the caliber by looking at the x-rays. If multiple rounds show up on the x-rays more often than not it’s a 9mm or .380 (or .32 or .25 or some mouse gun caliber). If only one round shows up, it could be an inordinately good hit with a .380 or 9mm, but more likely it’s a .40 or .45.
Yes, the .380 and 9mm will do the job, but usually multiple hits are required as opposed to single hits with a .40 or .45.
Instead of individual replies to each of these questions, let me see if I can narrow some observations down into one long one. Forgive me if some of these have been in other posts, but they bear repeating.
First, ballistic gelatin, being all that’s available for most bullet testing, is good as far as it goes but it’s often far different from what we see in the morgue. A far more realistic scenario would be to dress up ballistic gelatin with a heavy coat of denim to mimic blue jeans, embed some bones obtained from a butcher shop, and throw in a few objects of varying densities to mimic organs. Try it again, and I think you’ll see that this impressive wound cavity that’s so often seen in ballistic gelatin goes down the tubes. The human body isn’t just composed of one density as ballistic gelatin is, and the bullet does various things to various parts of the body as it passes through.
And that’s why I think observations from a morgue are so important. Day in and day out, I get to see what works and what doesn’t. More than that, I get to see what the same caliber does with various bullets weights and designs and how it reacts to different parts of the body. The best of all are when the gangbangers use the mix and match technique and shoot a variety of bullets in the same magazine and these bullets wind up in the same victim shot from the same gun. Hardball and hollowpoints in the same body from the same gun give a great comparison on the effectiveness of each.
To be continued. Please e-mail your comments to
XML:
.See also Notes From the Morgue.
Leave a comment | Permalink
THE LIVING CONSTITUTION
This week I was amazed to read in the NEW YORK TIMES that some conservative legal scholars think that the recent Second Amendment case, DC V HELLER, is a case in which the conservative Supreme Court justices made a decision based on judicial activism. For those initiated into the arcane intricacies of Constitutional jurisprudence, this is tantamount to accusing the majority in HELLER of un-American activities- at least from the standpoint of the strict-constructionists (like Justices Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Chief Justice Roberts. The epitome of judicial activism is Roe v Wade in which the Court held that a woman’s right to privacy, although not identified as a constitutionall protected right in the text of the U.S. Constitution, nevertheless exists by virtue of a “penumbra” that emanates from the text.
Thus, in modern times the theory has arisen that the “living Constitution” changes and mutates in organic, almost Darwinian progression along with changes in American society and evolving international norms. Strict-constructionists (like the conservatives in the HELLER majority) maintain that we are going down the road to dictatorship from the unelected judicial and academic elite when we depart from the original meaning of the text as understood by the men that drafted the document.
The NEW YORK TIMES article quotes Judge Richard A. Posner’s August, 2008 article in THE NEW REPUBLIC in which he wrote that the HELLER court’s failure to allow the political process to work out varying approaches to gun control that were suited to local conditions “was the mistake that the Supreme Court made when it nationalized abortion rights in Roe v. Wade.” Such criticism cannot be dismissed- Posner is preeminent among modern legal thinkers!
Then we have another well-recognized judge, J. Harvie Wilkinson III, stating, “The ROE and HELLER courts are guilty of the same sin.” So was the HELLER majority running roughshod over the states and making new law by judicial fiat?
The article in the NEW YORK TIMES fails to note one very important aspect of the HELLER, decision; i.e., the decision pointedly does not guarantee a right to keep and bear arms in a situation where state government action poses the threat to gun owners. The Court took the HELLER appeal in order to decide whether the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right while exercising judicial restraint by deciding a case that only impacts Washington, DC, at this time.
The U.S. Constitution originally restricted the federal government’s powers; in relatively modern times, the Court has applied its decisions to the several states. The Fourteenth Amendment, enacted after the Civil War to protect newly freed black citizens, is the rationale by which some Constitutional protections are incorporated so as to protect citizens from our own state legislatures and other state officials- including the above mentioned right of privacy that a woman can assert against her husband, the life of a child (right up to and beyond birth) and any claims that families and society can make regarding parental rights and related concerns.
At the time of the debate over passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, Southern Democrats argued that if the new citizens’ rights were protected then blacks would own guns. The Northern Republicans answered them by telling they were damned right! It is worth noting also that none of the legal scholars quoted by the NEW YORK TIMES claimed that the Second Amendment is a “corporate” right that does not apply to individuals.
The NEW YORK TIMES article explains that some prominent liberal law professors, including Laurence H. Tribe of Harvard, Akhil Reed Amar of Yale and Sanford Levinson of the University of Texas, have concluded, sometimes reluctantly, that the amendment in fact protects an individual right. The Supreme Court appointments made by the new president may decide if and how and when the Second Amendment protects many of the rights that you and I cherish. So now that you have voted, did you vote with a careful view as to how the Constitution should be read?
Leave a comment | Permalink
WHY THE SECOND AMENDMENT MATTERS
Last summer, the Supreme Court of the United States (hereinafter SCOTUS) ruled that Americans have an individual right to keep and bear arms. Why does the decision in DC V HELLER matter to city-dwellers like you and I that live or work in Federal Way and have almost no place in our lives for hunting, target shooting or toting a pistol as we go about our busy routines?
The fact that the Washington State Constitution already guarantees Washingtonians protection if we choose to possess firearms also raises the issue of what was, if any, the HELLER decision’s impact on residents of our local communities. Any law-abiding U.S. citizen of sound mind (twenty-one or older) can obtain a Concealed Pistol License in Washington State. You can even keep and wear a weapon in your own home or business without obtaining a CPL. So why does DC V HELLER matter in the Evergreen State?
To answer the question we need to a nutshell course on Second Amendment jurisprudence. When the federal government first got involved with regulating guns pursuant to the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA). In the 1939 case of UNITED STATES V MILLER, SCOTUS took up the issue of whether the NFA’s prohibition against sawed-off shotguns violated the Second Amendment. The MILLER court decided the issue by analyzing whether sawed-off shotguns are militarily useful. Ever since that time gun control advocates, law professors and even a minority of Supreme Court justices in the HELLER dissent have been able to point to United States Circuit Court precedents in which the decisions cited the MILLER case and rejected claims that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. Thus, prior to recent times, a majority of legal scholars and even our own Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals have taken the position that the “people” that have the right to keep and bear arms are the states; i.e., the U.S. Constitution only protects a state’s right to maintain a militia.
Pro-gun folks advocate that MILLER only dealt with the issues in a very oblique fashion for a number of reasons, including the fact that the only representatives that appeared to argue the issues in MILLER were the government lawyers! Because the defense did not appear, there was arguably no way for the judges to hear both sides of the issues. It is worth noting that, despite the assertion in the MILLER opinion declaring that sawed-off shotguns have no military usefulness, short barreled shot-guns were very much in use as trench guns in WW I.
It can be argued that the HELLER case is actually the first case in which SCOTUS has dealt directly with the issue of who has standing to assert the right to keep and bear arms. The HELLER decision almost guarantees that many more Supreme Court decisions will follow. Because Washington, DC is not a state there are bound to be cases that decide whether the states are obligated to abide by the Second Amendment and what restrictions are reasonable for the states and the federal government to enact. Keep in mind that many rules dealing with firearms are administrative and are buried deep within arcane intricacies of local, state and federal bureaucracies.
Those of you that resent rampant militarism, the Founding Fathers are on your side! The legislative history of the Bill of Rights reveals that the Founders were conflicted about the wisdom of permitting standing armies that could be used against the people to usurp American’s civil rights. The Federalists compromised with the anti-Federalists by leaving the size of the military up to the President and Congress. By keeping the people armed, Americans would be prepared if the government neglected the national defense and, at the same time, the people would have recourse in the event that the new federal government ran roughshod over our liberties. You have to say one thing for those old boys- they were radical!
Dick Heller, an armed security guard for a government agency, was prohibited under Washington, DC’s draconian gun laws from possessing a gun in his home, even though the United States Government entrusted him to guard life and the U.S. Government’s property. Because he challenged and overturned the DC gun ban, cities like Morton Grove, Illinois are already revising their gun laws to permit at least some private possession of guns within their city limits.
History has demonstrated that the federal government, states and local governments can and will enact laws that deprive individuals and states of the ability to take control of our own destinies. The Interstate Commerce Clause has been invoked to justify economic regulation and federal incursions into almost every area of our lives. Presidents can enter into all kinds of treaties and there are many legal scholars prepared to argue that treaties may be valid even without going through the cumbersome process entailed by the plain meaning of the U.S. Constitution. My Constitutional law professor taught me that treaties supersede the Constitution!
Consider also that in the very near future, you will be hearing a great deal about a proposed UN Treaty that is being touted as a “common sense” agenda to limit trafficking in small arms- a solution to international terrorism and other criminal activities. The only problem is that everywhere we look in the world, the thugs in high places are busy building up arsenals, while the honest folks are mostly disarmed- except in the United States of America. The fact that treaties may preempt state laws may raise some real Constitutional issues, especially since the UN wants to preempt guns in the hands of you and yours. If you think I am being reactionary look at all the countries that already have become signatories to the UN Treaty on Small Arms. There is, however, a state preemption law that prohibits local and county governments from enacting any restrictions on our gun rights:
The state of Washington hereby fully occupies and preempts the entire field of firearms regulation within the boundaries of the state, including the registration, licensing, possession, purchase, sale, acquisition, transfer, discharge, and transportation of firearms, or any other element relating to firearms or parts thereof, including ammunition and reloader components. Cities, towns, and counties or other municipalities may enact only those laws and ordinances relating to firearms that are specifically authorized by state law, as in RCW 9.41.300, and are consistent with this chapter. Such local ordinances shall have the same penalty as provided for by state law. Local laws and ordinances that are inconsistent with, more restrictive than, or exceed the requirements of state law shall not be enacted and are preempted and repealed, regardless of the nature of the code, charter, or home rule status of such city, town, county, or municipality.
RCW 9.41.290
But there is considerable pressure from Mayors, city councils and others for the legislature to do away with RCW 9.41.290. Many cities in Washington (like Federal Way) are already banning weapons in parks and other public places in full knowledge that such bans violate state law. If our Washington State legislators cave-in to pressure from cities like Seattle, you could have a situation where every time you cross a municipal boundary, or enter into a public place, you will be forced to stop and look up that jurisdiction’s municipal code or administrative regulations in order to avoid the possibility of being arrested and charged as a criminal. Thus, your CPL would become almost useless.
The U.S. Constitution does not mandate state preemption laws but the DC v Heller case makes it far more difficult for the executive branch of the federal government, Congress or a federal judge interpreting an international treaty to undermine the protection that Washingtonians enjoy under various state laws.
For example, if state preemption of local firearms laws is overturned, then it may be a matter of time before all semi-automatic rifles are defined as “illegal assault rifles”, the fact that they are “militarily useful” under the MILLER case notwithstanding. The next thing you know, certain calibers are banned and then “high capacity” magazine clips. Such a process is already gradually happening in California and other states. It remains to be seen how the U.S. Supreme court will deal with firearms related issues in the future. Future Supreme Court appointments will impact the future of Second Amendment jurisprudence in ways that are difficult to predict at this time.
Hopefully, by now you are seeing all the layers of legal protection that we enjoy as potentially well-armed U.S. citizens. In a very real sense, the Second Amendment helps to protect our First Amendment rights. But guns have no inherent ability to guarantee that we will remain a free people.
In conclusion, you should take a final look at a not-so-apparent but self-evident truth. The right to protect our loved ones does not come from a constitution or other legal document. Protecting our families and communities from violence is not really even a right! It is a duty that is placed on us by God. Even if you, like most people, do not choose to obtain a CPL and go about armed, the predators in our midst are still very aware of the fact that many of us are going about our business with enough training and firepower to stop a criminal assault. Thus, that soccer-mom or senior citizen that might be carrying a concealed pistol often represents as much of a deterrent to violent crime as a six foot, two-hundred pound police officer. Why? Because predators never know where and when the armed citizen may respond with deadly force!
Leave a comment | Permalink
I just completed three days in a Surveillance Detection Training class. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) provides some very valuable training in many areas related to protecting your home, community and critical infrastructure such as utilities and industrial facilities.
The class was primarily attended by folks that supervise security personnel. You may wonder why a firearms lawyer participated in surveillance exercises with professional operators responsible for guarding some of the most critical resources all over our state.
One of the more enjoyable features of practicing employment law and the law of armed self-defense is that I occasionally have the opportunity to advise security professionals and law enforcement in my law practice. Many Federal Way residents are small business owners and probably cannot afford the time off to attend a Surveillance Detection (SD) class or to employ any security, let alone armed security. I have been politely told that if I publish my class notes, I could be aiding and abetting the enemy. Nevertheless, by identifying a few issues you may be able to recognize the need to be aware of how important it is to be aware!
Every facility has a potential red zone. The red zone is the area that hostiles watch in order to size up security procedures and determine vulnerabilities that may be exploited. If initial surveillance activity informs the hostiles that your facility is well guarded then it is very likely that no attack will be attempted.
Thus, the time to interrupt the cycle is prior to the point at which a terrorist attack occurs. At this point, you may be wondering why a terrorist would target your small business, church or other facility. We know that the high value targets lie in dams, bridges, national icons (like the WTC), etc. Keep in mind that in Iraq, Israel and many Asian, South American and other countries, schools, daycares, apartment buildings and churches are routinely targeted. We have not seen this in the U.S. but did we ever see jet liners fly into buildings before Sept. 11?
By getting into the mindset of a professional “operator” now you can be prepared in the event that we are headed for change in the future. Incidentally, many of the security professionals to which I talk indicate that they would like to employ at least some armed personnel but risk-management and the legal department think there is too much liability. It is not the lawyer who advises management that may confront the Manchurian candidate as he puts riacin in the water you and I use for our coffee tomorrow morning. The loss of a human asset or two is cost-effective compared to all the money that it costs to employ armed guards.
The SD class was a joint production between Federal Way Emergency Management, Department of Homeland Security and Washington Military Department, Emergency Management Division. Students spent much of all three days in the field and if employees at Crossings wonder why so many people in “cover” spent so much time taking notes and talking on cell phones it is because we were busy developing plans for detecting surveillance. If you detected us we need to improve.
Interestingly enough, the DHS trainers work for International Training, Inc. (ITI). If you look at their website, you will discover that they train operators and “civilians” in all kinds of skills up to and including advanced sniper training, explosives, and protecting virtually any kind of asset.
ITI is a subsidiary of Wackenhut so if you want them to come and guard your facility they are among the largest security companies in the world.
For training closer to home see Training.
See Cyber-Terrorists Use Online Network Surveillance.
Leave a comment | Permalink
Cape Girardeau woman kills man who returned to rape her second time
By Heather Ratcliffe
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
Friday, Oct. 31 2008
An intended rape victim shot and killed her attacker this morning in Cape Girardeau when he broke into her home to rape her a second time, police said.
The 57-year-old woman shot Ronnie W. Preyer, 47, a registered sex offender, in the chest with a shotgun when he broke through her locked basement door. The woman told police he was the same man who raped her several days earlier.
Officials do not intend to seek charges against her.
In the first incident, the woman heard glass reaking in her basement about midnight on Saturday. She went to leave the house, and the man attacked when she opened the front door. He punched her in the face and then forced her into a bedroom, where he raped her, said H. Morley Swingle, prosecuting attorney in Cape Girardeau County.
The victim reported the crime to police, and her landlord repaired the broken window.
She was home alone again Friday about 2:15 a.m. when Preyer broke the same basement window. The victim was awake watching television, when Preyer switched off the electricity to her house.
She tried to call 911, but couldn’t because the power was off. She got a shotgun and waited as the man began banging on the basement door. She fired when Preyer came crashing through the door. When Breyer collapsed, the woman escaped and went to a neighbor’s home, where she called police. Officers, who arrived within a minute, found a bleeding Preyer stumbling away from the house.
He was taken to St. Francis Medical Center, where he died several hours later.
Swingle said the victim identified Preyer as the attacker in both incidents. Preyer, of Jackson, Mo., had wet caulking from the recently repaired basement window on his clothing when he was shot.
“I will not be filing any sort of charge against this 57-year-old woman, who was clearly justified under the law in shooting this intruder in her home,” Swingle said.
See Slain Mom Needed Home Defense Plan.
Leave a comment | Permalink
“Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with thee, which frameth mischief with a law?” -Psalms 94:20
“A wise man scales the city of the mighty, and casts down the strength of the confidence thereof.” Proverbs 21:22
“They that forsake the law praise the wicked: but such as keep the law contend with them.” Proverbs 28:4
Josiah was king of Judah when he was eight years old. 2 Kings 22. The kingdom was governed via guardians in a trustee capacity and Josiah was educated by men who had lost the Books of the Law so many generations back that they had no recollection of the Holy Decrees, Memorials and Feasts of the Lord (kind of like those that hold the reins of power in many of our modern academic institutions and government-media complex- and churches!
His elders worshipped Baal and condoned or actually practiced false religion wherein parents sacrificed their children to Baal and other idols. Hearing the screams of their children while they burned in furnaces fashioned into statues of evil deities, apostate Israelite parents had sex with temple prostitutes that were kept in the high places. These practices went back to Solomon’s time when his wives brought in their false worship from other countries.
How did Josiah know what was right in the sight of the Lord in order to destroy the high places and depose the priests that presided at the high places?
What inspired him to do this at approximately the age of twenty-six? He was administering repairs on the Temple of Solomon when the Books of the Law were found in the Temple and brought to him. After he read the Pentateuch (five Books of Moses) he went into grief, tore his clothes and then did not stop until he made all the people take an oath to serve God. Josiah instituted the Feast of Passover that had been commanded by God in the Books of the Law as a memorial to Israel’s deliverance from Egypt. 2 Kings 23: 21-25.
Today young men and women are looking for values to which they can commit. How many of we older citizens have declared the glory of God and his eternal values “from one generation to another"? We grew up differently than kids today (but not that differently, in many cases). Nevertheless, our culture was steeped in cultural messages that were accretions from past generations that had fought and died to serve the God of the Bible. Much of that traditional culture has now been erased and we wonder why our children go into the schools and start shooting each other. We need to start pulling down some idols and send the prophets of Baal packing. We need judges and professors and journalists that will wake up and smell the coffee before it is too late.
Stop smoking the heroin pipe that secular-humanism offers us and start seeking after righteousness. If you think culture and righteousness are not important because one culture is as good as another then look at the mass shootings of defenseless people occurring around the United States The professional bureaucrats intone the usual mantras involving “response times” and predictive factors. They promise to get to the bottom of the problem.
The Biblical answer is in the Book of Esther. Surprisingly, Esther is a Second Amendment treatise. The enemies of the Jews had obtained a decree permitting genocidal annihilation of the Jews within the Persia-Median Empire. The Emperor, by Persian tradition unable to reverse his own decree, issued a new decree permitting the Jews to defend themselves and permitting their neighbors to come to their aid. This is exactly the concept of the Second Amendment. The difference is that for the Jews it was on an ad hoc basis. In other words, only for a few specifically designated days until the Jews had overcome their persecutors. The Second Amendment permanently institutionalizes the means of self-defense on a de jure basis; i.e., by permanent enactment of law.
The reason humanists want so badly to erase the Knowledge of the Holy from our society is because such knowledge is more powerful than guns, bombs, political action committees, money and sex, political deception or all the books in the world. Think about it.
“To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne” (Rev. 3:21).
Leave a comment | Permalink
Join WAC to stay informed and support gun shows in Washington. The WAC is fighting for gun owners in our state.
Permalink
The horse is prepared against the day of battle: but safety is of the LORD.
Proverbs 21:31 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
The ultimate force is love. Everything we do has to be motivated by love. That is why we constructed this site. To express love for our community, our servicemen and law enforcement; to encourage sensible solutions to the threats that seem to be gathering.
When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn. Proverbs 29:2
We can blow the trumpet until we are blue in the face but if it is not motivated by love, we have accomplished nothing.
So