According to the terms of agreement which Acosta and CNN signed, access to the White House Press Corps is given SUBJECT TO GOOD BEHAVIOR.Jim Acosta refuses to relinquish the microphone after his turn is over, even asking several additional questions beyond what he’s allotted, and even after being told to sit down and shut up by the President of the United States himself.
There’s actually quite a few more restrictions specified therein than that, but suffice it to say that Acosta clearly violated a number of them, on recorded video, and in front of the entire nation.
CNN certainly has grounds to sue, as it’s missing out on news coverage of White House press meetings, thereby incurring a financial loss. Financial injury/damage/loss are always grounds to file a lawsuit.
Proving whether or not those losses are fundamentally the result of the White House’s response or Acosta’s violation of the terms of agreement will be a matter for the courts to decide.
Here’s a FAR EASIER solution than going to court:
Formally and publicly ask CNN to replace Acosta with another qualified reporter, and when that reporter comes on board, read them the riot act i.e.Jim Acosta refuses to relinquish the microphone after his turn is over, even asking several additional questions beyond what he’s allotted, and even after being told to sit down and shut up by the President of the United States himself.
the entire content of the agreement in the presence of three White House attorneys-witnesses while recording it on video. Of course, the WH will have to record and witness all future new WH Press Corps reporters, although after the next three or four, they can lower the burden to just one attorney-witness and a video recording as the agreement is read aloud (play a recording?) to the next candidate reporter.
By offering Acosta’s seat up to any other reporter, it’s no longer about CNN. It’s just about Acosta.
Not only does this pull the rug out from beneath CNN’s lawsuit, making it solely about Acosta, and not CNN, but it also protects against any futureJim Acosta refuses to relinquish the microphone after his turn is over, even asking several additional questions beyond what he’s allotted, and even after being told to sit down and shut up by the President of the United States himself.
lawsuits by creating both crystal clear and court-admissible instructions on what members of the White House Press Corps can and cannot do. The instructions cannot limit the questions that are asked. They absolutely can require reporters to both cease and desist all further questioning and sit down when the President turns to another reporter.
While you’re at it, I noticed several reporters shouting out their questions before being called up by the President. I know that’s a tradition. It makes the event feel more alive, electrifies the air. Sometimes, however, perhaps often, the White House should employ random selection. There should be a clause in the text of the agreement that clearly prohibits shouting out, “Mr. President!” Instead, on those more solemn days, hand reporters a random number as they walk through the door. Take their questions in order. If CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, or others don’t get to ask a question for six weeks until their luck turns, so be it. That might even be a good thing for the quality of the questions being asked of our President. Currently, that quality, particularly from jerks like Acosta, is rather abysmal.
Back when I open carried (OC) everywhere I went, I would occasionally be asked why I carried a firearm. I would often respond with the well-known, “because I can’t carry a cop.” One person, a transplant from Minnesota responded with, “I don’t like firearms!” I replied, “Well, I guess we have something in common — I don’t like bad guys!” Fortunately, the funny look she got on her face was soon replaced by laughter.
When I carry concealed (CC), however, no one says anything.
Because… It’s… Concealed.
After a while, I wanted to find out just how reasonable or rational carrying a firearm really was. What was the likelihood of me needing it in any given year? Over my lifetime? And for what purpose? What are the national and local crime statistics?
I know some people who carry firearms because of mass shootings. Given the statistical rarity of mass shootings, does that even compute?
Well, if you’re the only armed law-abiding citizen near a mass shooting, then yes, it computes. By all means, stop the threat. Save lives!
In fact, Kaitlin Bennet is right. Gun control policies, particularly “No Firearms” aka “Gun-Free Zones” simply do not work. They’re where most mass shootings occur in the United States. Furthermore, all it takes is ONE armed law-abiding citizen to stop a mass shooting. In fact, the FBI’s latest report on active shooter incidents in the U.S. clearly shows that armed and alert citizens have been and will continue to be part of the solution.
Even so, mass shootings are extremely unlikely. According to the November 8, 2018 Washington Post article entitled, “The terrible numbers that grow with each mass shooting,” 1,135 people have been killed since Charles Whitman gunned down 17 people from the University of Texas.clock tower on August 1, 1966. That incident more or less began the modern era of mass shootings.
I was born only a few short years before then, so in all that time, given our mean population between then and now, some 259.8 million, I have had a 1 in 228,899 chance of dying in a mass shooting. That’s 0.000437%, or 0.44 deaths per 100,000 people.
Less than half of one death per 100,000 people seems pretty low, doesn’t it? That’s because it is. By comparison, here are a few of the Top 100 causes of death in the U.S.:
Bottom of the 100: Unspecified Diabetes Mellitus with Peripheral Circulatory Complications: 1.3 per 100k
Intentional self-harm by handgun discharge: 1.4 per 100k
Chronic viral hepatitis C: 1.5 per 100k
Alcoholic cirrhosis of liver: 3.4 per 100k
Motor vehicle accident: 3.5 per 100k
Murders and non-negligent manslaughters: 5.35 per 100k
Pneumonia: 16.2 per 100k
Top 1 out of 100: Atherosclerotic Heart Disease: 62.5 per 100k
Violent crime: 383 per 100k
Woah! What? You mean violent crime occurs six times more often than the Number One Leading Cause of Death?
Yes. That’s exactly what I mean. Specifically, violent crime in the U.S. is 6.13 times more prevalent than the leading cause of death. Moreover, it’s 73 times more likely than murders and non-negligent homicide.
Thus, when I say I carry for my own personal protection, it’s not because of the possibility of a mass shooting which clocks in at 0.437 per 100k. Rather, it’s because of “assault by other and unspecified firearm discharge, which clocks in 8 times higher at 3.4 per 100k. It’s because murders and non-negligent manslaughters clock in 12 times higher at 5.35 per 100k.
But mainly, it’s because violent crime clocks in 876 times more likely than mass shootings at a whopping 382.9 violent crimes per 100k.
For those who say, “That’ll never happen!” please note the motor vehicle accident rate, which, at 3.5 per 100k, is 109 times less than violent crime. Yet, not only do we wear seat belts, but the federal government determined both the fatality and injury rate to be serious enough to MANDATE seat belt use.
Years ago, our Founding Fathers knew the dangers of an unarmed populace, so they MANDATED that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” They even stated that it was “necessary to the security of a free nation (state).
One gent, an ER doc, once spent the afternoon trying to convince me that firearms were “bad” because of “all the people he had to stitch up, if not zip up, in his emergency room.
Let’s examine that.
In 2013, there were 73,505 injuries and 33,636 deaths related to firearms. Their total comes to 107,141 firearms-related injuries and deaths.
Also in 2013, there were 1.3 million violent crimes. Of those, roughly 725,000 violent crimes were stopped by armed citizens. That’s 6.8 times more good than bad. Furthermore, experts examining the UK’s firearms ban estimate that violent crime would increase to between 200% and 300% of current levels if firearms were banned in the U.S. That’s an additional 1.3 to 2.6 million violent crimes, but without the attenuating effect of 750,000 stops.
The net effect would be a 192% increase from our current 1.3 million violent crimes per year to roughly 3.8 million violent crimes per year. That’s nearly 3 times as much violent crime. “No way!” you say. Wrong. The United Kingdom experience a tripling of its violent crime following its firearms ban, and violent crime remains 2.74 (“nearly 3”) times higher than it was before.
Now you know WHY I carry a firearm. Now you know WHY I firmly support our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. I support it because it’s safer — many times safer — than getting rid of them.
Yet along come the libtards, who cannot for the life of them figure out that assaults with firearms are just as deadly as automobile accidents, and that violent crime is 100 times more likely. They’re all for wearing seat belts, not to mention prohibiting supersize soft drinks, but they refuse to even consider the only effective solution to a very real problem that’s 109 times more prevalent than motor vehicle deaths.
Bottom Line: There were 1.28 million violent crimes in the U.S. in 2017. That comes to 382.9 per 100k people, which is 109 times more likely than dying in a motor vehicle accident.
THIS is why I carry a firearm. Of COURSE I carry a firearm. You should, too. You wear seat belts, don’t you? Then why wouldn’t you protect yourself against a threat that 109 times more prevalent than motor vehicle deaths?
To all the blitheringly idiotic liberals who think they know better: No, you do not. You don’t know the facts. You’re ignorant. All you know is the predigested liberal anti-gun mantra, factless ideals that have no basis in reality.
The FBI’s own statistics blow all of your anti-gun and gun control arguments totally out of the water. You’re idiots with irrational fears. Not only do so-called “gun-free zones” never work, they backfire, actually attracting mass shooters. When it comes to firearms, you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about and really need to shut the hell up and stop interfering in other people’s lives.
The following FAQs are taken from the University of Colorado at Boulder’s Weapons on Campus page maintained by CU Boulder’s Police Department. They are very well organization and exceptionally well-written. I am preserving them here as a prime example of How It’s Done.
Q. What concealed carry guidelines are permit holders required to follow, to sufficiently conceal a weapon? What must a person do to obtain a concealed carry permit?
A. The law does not define what concealed means, but permit holders must make a reasonable attempt to keep the concealed weapon from view. There are a number of requirements to obtain a concealed carry permit in Colorado. These are covered in this Boulder County Sheriff’s Department Q&A.’
What weapons are covered under the concealed carry permit?
Only handguns are covered by the statute. A handgun is a pistol, revolver, or other firearm the length of the barrel which, not including any revolving, detachable, or magazine breech, does not exceed twelve inches. Other weapons – rifles, semi-automatic weapons, knives and other edged weapons – are still not permitted on campus.
Q. Who has the authority to ask an employee or student who is carrying a concealed weapon if he or she has the appropriate permit?
A. Anyone is permitted to ask, but the individual asked is not required to reply unless asked by a police officer.
Q. What does it mean to “brandish” a weapon? If someone is brandishing a weapon, what actions should be taken?
A. “Brandishing” is displaying a weapon in a threatening manner. If you see anyone brandishing a weapon, call the Police at “911” immediately and take precautions to protect yourself (i.e., evacuate the area or retreat behind a locked door, depending on the circumstances).
Q. What responsibility does a concealed carry permit holder have to keep his or her weapon absolutely concealed? Are they violating the terms of their permit if someone gets a glimpse of their weapon?
A. A person with a concealed carry permit must take reasonable measures to conceal the weapon. For example, if a person’s coat opens in the act of raising his or her arm to ask a question and a gun can be seen, it is not a violation. A violation would be a person taking a gun out of concealment or otherwise displaying/brandishing it.
Q. Can a student who legally possesses a concealed handgun be excluded from the classroom on the grounds that the student’s presence and his or her concealed weapon constitutes a class disruption?
A. No. The mere act of carrying a handgun (with a concealed carry permit as authorized by law) is not in and of itself a disruption of class activity. Concealed carry permit holders should not be excluded from class under any supposition that their presence alone is a “disruption.” Another person’s adverse reaction to someone carrying a handgun in accordance with the concealed carry act is not grounds to eject the permit-holder from the classroom.
Q. Can faculty ask a student who holds a concealed carry permit to report that status to them?
A. While faculty can ask a student who has a concealed carry weapon permit to report that status to them, or place in a course syllabus the request that students report this status to them, students are not required to provide this information to any faculty member. Any voluntary reporting of concealed carry permit status by a student to a faculty member should be done privately. Faculty should not, under any circumstances, coerce students into complying with their requests or pressure them to answer concealed carry queries
Q. Can staff or student employees bring a concealed weapon to any service office, public venue or elsewhere on campus?
A. Yes, if they have a valid concealed carry permit and the weapon is carried in accordance with the law, i.e., concealed.
Q. Can a supervisor request a list of employees who have received a concealed carry permit?
A. No. This information is not a matter of public record.
Q. Are there certain areas of the campus where, due to the nature of the work and/or workspace, an employee or student would be prohibited from carrying a concealed weapon (e.g. lab with flammable chemicals, daycare centers, offices and treatment facilities
A. No. There are no “carve outs” under the statute for those who have a concealed carry permit. CU employees in these areas who have clients that hold concealed carry permits are free to ask their clients not to bring weapons into these environments, however, provision of care and resources cannot be conditioned upon compliance with the request, nor can the request be made in a coercive manner. Clients are also free to decline the request.
Q. Under what circumstances can a supervisor tell employees they cannot bring a concealed weapon into the office?
A. There are no circumstances in which issuing this kind of directive would be permitted. Appointing authorities and supervisors may ask all employees to voluntarily not bring legal concealed carry weapons into the workplace, but they cannot require it or otherwise coerce their employee(s) through the workplace relationship to comply with the request
Q. Can employees bring a concealed weapon to a meeting (e.g. staff meetings, disciplinary meetings, performance coaching and evaluation meetings, trainings, campus resource consultations, interviews)?
A. Yes, if the employee has a valid concealed carry permit and the weapon is carried in accordance with the law, i.e., concealed. For assistance in any situation of concern, such as a performance review, please contact the Office of Human Resources at the link below.
Q. Are there any exceptions?
A. No
Q. If I see someone carrying a weapon on campus, should I call the police?
A. Yes, the safest course of action is to call the University of Colorado Police by dialing “911.” They will respond and make contact with an individual to determine if that person has a concealed carry permit and is carrying a weapon legitimately or brandishing it illegally. All concealed carry permit holders are required to carry their permits on their person if they are also carrying their weapon.
Q. Can concealed carry permit holders bring their gun to a concert, athletic event or performance?
A. No. A condition of purchasing a ticket to these events at CU-Boulder is that the person agrees not to bring a weapon into the venue, even if that person has a valid concealed carry permit.
Contrary to popular and widely publicized misconception, allowing concealed carry on campus did not immediately erupt into a bloodbath. In fact, just the opposite happened as crime — particularly violent crime — took a precipitous nose-dive while not one firearms related incident has occurred in the six and a half years since the Colorado State Supreme Court ruled in favor of 2A on campus in March 2012.
For further information on protecting the rights of LAWFUL ADULTS while attending colleges and universities around the country, please visit Students for Concealed Carry.
In closing, I would like you to think about the following two graphics:
As a graduate of Virginia Tech, I know full well the only way to stop a nut with a gun is a good guy with a gun:
An acquaintance who said, “I voted Red!” was immediately bashed for sharing her opinion. The individual said, “Nobody cares. A vote is private. JUST VOTE ????“
Here’s my response:
OUTSTANDING!
As for the individual, in case you haven’t noticed, the United States Constitution, specifically our First Amendment, recognizes, empowers, and protects the right of everyone in our nation to choose to make public their vote by any and every means at their disposal.
She is exercising her Constitutional rights. With all due respect, your attempt to get her to stop exercising her Constitutional rights is prime example of what’s wrong with the Democrat Party today: It’s ok for others to have opinions, but only so long as their opinions match yours.
On June 3, 2014, Senate Democrats took the first steps to rewrite the First Amendment. They claimed, “the foundations of democracy are threatened.”
It wasn’t just one of them. Fully Forty-Three Senate Democrats sponsored the amendment! That was nearly all of them, if not actually all of them.
This is the party you’re supporting, a party that routinely steps on YOUR Constitutional rights and freedoms every time it suites their pathetic craving to remain in control. The idea that we are “a government of the people, by the people, for the people” (A. Lincoln) is abhorrent to them. They have no respect for differences of opinion, precisely evidenced by Pelosi hushing a junior senator who “dared” to clap at President Trump’s State of the Union Address — as members of Congress and Supreme Court Justices have always done.
It’s rather sickening to watch people blinding voting Democrat like they’ve always done without realizing, understanding, or accepting the Democrat party of today is a vast departure from where it was just fifty years ago. I’d have voted for John F. Kennedy in a heartbeat. Any of today’s Democrats, however, engage in detestable, if not reprehensible practices.
We’ve always been a great nation. Now we have liberals chanting, “America was never great!” in the streets, despite the fact that most economic records have been absolutely shattered over the last nearly two years.
Democrats holding resolutely to their ideals cannot for the life of them figure out why. The rest of us are celebrating the rebirth of our great nation under non-idealistic policies that actually work.
And that’s a GOOD thing.
See you at the polls.
By the way, I’m voting RED. Why? Because I’m a Republican? No. Because I’ve studied business for 35 years and have three degrees, two masters in the field, so I know WHY our economy is doing so well.
I’m watching one news clip after another as shown in Death of a Nation as countless liberal news persons, celebrities, and others absolutely lost their minds.
Democrats may very well take the House this time around. They may take the Senate. But if they do it’s because people voted. And if they don’t, it will be for precisely the same reason: people voted. Before you vote, however, I simply encourage you to vote for what works, rather than some failed ideal. Vote reality.
Whether you own firearms or not, it is very much in your own best personal interest not only to FIGHT BACK against their incessant infringement on our right to keep and bear arms, but also to help educate them as to why it’s in their bests interests, as well.
Here’s the main reason: Everywhere governments have curtailed the right of their citizens to keep and bear arms, the overall violent crime rate has skyrocketed. Sure, murders by gun went down, but murders overall go up, along with all other violent crime.
Here’s another reason: Fully HALF of all mass shootings are stopped by armed citizens.
Here’s a third reason: Roughly 725,000 violent crimes are stopped by armed citizens each and every year. Some reports put that number far higher, around 1.3 million. Infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms will never — can never — reduce either crime in general or mass shootings in particular. The violent crime rate in the United Kingdom TRIPLED when their blitheringly idiotic government deprived the citizenry of their right to keep and bear arms, and those same blitheringly idiotic citizens LET them.
Consider: In 2015, the United States of America had 13,286 gun-related deaths. With a 2015 population of 319,929,162, that comes to 4.15 gun-related deaths per 100,000 people. As a double-check of my accuracy, Nation Master lists that as 4.2 in 2010. But the United Kingdom’s murder rate is 11.68. That’s 2.8 — nearly three times — higher than the U.S.
The UK’s murder rate used to be on par with that of the U.S. before they banned most civilian ownership of arms. This is what happens when you deny the ability of a private citizen to effectively secure themselves, their family, and their problem.
The same thing happened in Australia, when they infringed on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
This is not a new phenomenon. All other things being equal, a well-armed citizenry always has a significantly lower violent crime rate than a disarmed citizenry. This is WHY our Founding Fathers wrote “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” into our Constitution’s Second Amendment.
It just works. Stop messing with it.
While you’re at it, stop comparing liberal hot spots like Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, New Orleans, and St. Louis to the rest of America. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is seriously infringed in those locations, and it shows. Liberal policies do not bring about security, and that shows, as well.
Although I’m not fan of Obama, I’m hardly a conspiracy nut, either. In fact, I usually lean towards debunking conspiracies, primarily on the basis of science. For example, in these articles I debunk chemtrails, in large part because my time as a rated officer in the U.S. Air Force with thousands of hours over twenty years flying medium to heavy aircraft strongly leads me to believe the entire idea of chemtrails is absolute hogwash. Similarly, I’m not exactly a fan of the blithering idiots who claim the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks were faked, either. Such crap is an insult to the memories of both the innocent victims as well as the heroic rescuers who gave their lives on September 11, 2001.
But as an amateur scientist, having studied engineering in college, and with three degrees, two in science, two graduate, and two summa cum laude, I’m not going look the other way when more than mere coincidence and a preponderance of the evidence points to a different conclusion than one claimed by the subject or reached by the laughably enthralled mainstream media who backed him at every turn. Ok, at the graduate level there’s no such thing as “summa cum laude.” However, top of my class, both times, with the highest GPA… You get my drift.
Barack Hussein Obama II aka “Barry Soetoro” was born on August 4, 1861, supposedly in Honolulu, HI. I find it strange those who maintain his Wikipedia entry feel the need to mention “two years after the territory was admitted to the Union as the 50th state.” Furthermore, the fact that his Wikipedia entry gushes with praise, rather than objectivity, such as, “Obama signed many landmark bills into law,” tells me those who maintain his page are hardly objective.
So, let’s head elsewhere for information, and by “information,” I’m referring to the peculiar information which appears to indicate something “not quite right” is going on.
First, he sealed his collegiate records. Why would he do that? Bad grades? Who cares? He smoked dope as part of “The Choom Gang” and was still elected.
Some say it’s because he was a foreign student. Naturally, this popped up on the Internet several years back:
Or was it? Did you see any video of Thomas Lugert testifying under sworn oath that his was the real ID? The only piece of information that leads me to belief that Obama’s was faked is a tiny missing piece of crown beneath the “O” in Soetoro. Snopes claims that “the pictured card couldn’t possibly have been a Columbia University student ID issued to Barack Obama in 1981, as the digital ID card format is uses wasn’t introduced at Columbia until 1996.”
Ok, because Snopes claims something, then it MUST be true, right? Well, at least they provided a link to Columbia University’s archives. But the argument that “it was digital” holds zero weight with me, as my university student ID which I received in 1981 had a bar code for registering for classes, checking into the infirmary, access to the gym, and checking out books at the library. It was “digital,” although the photograph was still punched from a Polaroid and laminated to the card. Still, it was digital. In 1981.
Due to the presence of Columbia’s article on his card, along with many similar articles in their archives, I’m inclined to agree that Snopes’ argument about the student ID card is true.
Second, there’s the case of the missing birth certificate, which brings up the case of the allegedly faked birth certificate along with the case of the strange death of the Hawaiian official who certified Obama’s regenerated birth certificate copy as being official.
Let’s take these one at a time.
Why did it take several years for Obama to cough up a copy of his birth certificate? All other U.S. citizens can obtain a certified copy of their original between a few days to a month (30 days is standard) to, at most, 3 months (90 days). I’m not going to post a copy of the Hawaiian birth certificate he finally produced.
The problem is, that’s not the same copy that was first floated back in 2011, the one that many said showed Photoshop artifacts galore. And yet, countless websites picked up on problems with the first one, as well as this one.
And what of Hawaiian Health Director Helen Fuddy? Even USA Today reports she was “the Hawaiian health official who verified the authenticity of President Obama’s birth certificate.” It’s not the fact that she died, nor that she died in an airplane accident. What strikes me as very strange is the fact that of the pilot and eight passengers, all survived without a scratch except for her. Here’s the video of the ditching:
Interestingly enough, Aviation Safety Network reports that Fuddy and one other passenger inadvertently used child life jackets, and that Fuddy’s, “the passenger who died before the first responders arrived was found wearing a partially inflated infant life vest.”
Now, I don’t know about you, but as an avid skin diver, S.C.U.B.A. diver, body-surfer, and certified sailboat skipper, I’ve spent plenty of time in salt water. Even back when I was 6% body fat, I floated. Everyone floats in salt water, as it’s significantly more dense than the human body. All you need to do is relax. Supposedly, her autopsy revealed that she suffered from a “hyperventilation-induced heart failure.” Is that even a thing? I don’t know, as I’m not a cardiologist. I do, however, find it difficult to believe that anyone living in Hawaii would panic after finding themselves in the warm waters of Hawaii.
Now, perhaps all of these are indeed mere coincidences. However, I’m not the only one who raises the “Huh? Waitaminute…” flag. I’m not the only one who sees this as possibly being just a little too convenient. Sealed collegiate records. Birth certificate missing for more than two years. Tragic and quite rare manner of death for the only person who could have recanted at a later date…
Third, there’s the case of Obama’s social security number(s). I’ll leave this as an exercise for the reader. It only took me about ten seconds to found a number of mainstream news articles wondering about this, as well.
The Bottom Line: All we care about is whether or not he was ever actually eligible to be a U.S. president, and if he wasn’t, then bringing to justice both him and each and every member of the Democrat National Convention/Party who played any role in selecting, grooming, and supporting him, as well as hiding his records.
I’m not saying she was silenced. I am saying that given the rather long odds against these being coincidences, as well as the Democrat Party’s rather length history of lying, cheating, stealing, manipulation, and other underhanded techniques, most recently with the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation (WHO gave passes to all those rabble-rousers, again?), then I certainly cannot put it past them. No sane, rational human being ever could.
One would think the Jewish community would understand Nehemiah and the necessity God taught his chosen people to build and maintain a strong defense. The entire book is about obedience, trusting God, and doing so by following God’s commands to secure the city against enemies. In fact, Nehemiah 1:7 clearly indicates failing to provide proper security is both “wicked” and “disobedience” toward’s God’s “commands, decrees, and laws.”
God allowed early Americans to create a great nation. Early Americans knew their Bibles through and through. They carried their rifles to church. In fact, it was a law in Virginia for many decades that all church attendees had to carry their firearms to church.
Security during worship begins when we exercise our First Amendment rights by carrying firearms in churches and synagogues. It certainly stopped a mass shooting here in Colorado Springs on December 9, 2007. Only two people died before the shooter was STOPPED by an armed member of the church.
Clearly, however, the people in Pittsburgh were not thinking straight, as evidenced by the headlines which read, “Former Synagogue President: Working With DHS on Exit Routes Likely Saved Lives in Shooting.” Says “security was a ‘major concern’ for the building.”
While cover, concealment and escape are indeed security concerns, RETURNING FIRE TO STOP THE THREAT should ALWAYS be your number one security action, and had it been exercised, it would have saved lives.
“…leaders’ react to tragedy with sorrow, anger and frustration…”
I’ll BET they’re frustrated. I’m frustrated. I didn’t spend the last thirty years supporting and defending our Constitution only to watch people ignore their Constitutional rights of self-defense and be slaughtered. That’s INSANE, people. Same goes for the church in Charleston on June 17, 2015. Nobody was armed except for the shooter. Nine people died.
You can NOT prevent people from committing mass shootings.
You CAN, however, stop mass shooters in their tracks by RETURNING FIRE. More commonly, it’s called SHOOTING BACK. Had the members of that synagogue returned fire, perhaps only 3 would be dead instead of 11. Perhaps no one would have died, except the shooter.
Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf wrote: “The shooting in Pittsburgh this morning is an absolute tragedy…”
The real tragedy, Governor Wolf, is that most of those deaths were preventable.
This is how you stop mass shootings:
1. STAY ARMED
2. CARRY EVERYWHERE
3. WHEN SOMEONE OPENS FIRE ON INNOCENT PEOPLE, RETURN FIRE, using cover as required.
There’s only one option remaining for those who refuse to exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms:
Here’s what happens when people exercise their Second Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms:
Short story: “A brave dad armed with a pistol stopped what could have been a mass shooting Saturday inside an Alabama McDonald’s when he took down a masked gunman who had stormed in and opened fire.”
