However, a Senate committee has killed two other gun-rights proposals that would have prevented colleges from banning firearms on campus—a particularly outrageous proposal given the 2007 mass shooting at Virginia Tech—though a House committee is still considering whether to allow faculty members to carry guns on campus.

How this outrageous exactly? Is that even fair reporting? While the bias is thick already, we’d like to ask what will stop a gunman from ILLEGALLY carrying a gun on a campus? Is it strong language, a sign, or a even a law? Let’s see how those work out.

Personal bias is something journalists are trained avoid [sic] when they cover the news.

When I started working on a story about the controversial issue of concealed carry of weapons in Illinois, I was forced to face my own bias. I have never lived in a home with guns and considered myself the quintessential anti-gun nut.

First, we congratulate Brady-Lunny, not for the article that follows – where she describes her experience at the gun range – but rather that she admits she has her own bias. Too many journalists, for reasons that we don’t truly understand, have a natural bias against guns. At least Brady-Lunny admitted of such.

But let’s look at one other statement she makes:

My aversion to guns and my long-held belief that less is better when it comes to firearms in the hands of anyone other than peace officers or soldiers is rooted in my experience as a journalist. I have witnessed firsthand the harm and carnage that comes from people wielding guns. The images of a heart or a head riddled with bullets and stories of the aftermath of gun violence have always stayed with me.

And here is the root of the bias, which we don’t understand. Brady-Lunny is clearly an idealist, someone who believes cops are always the good guys, soldiers only protect the innocent and only bad people would want a gun otherwise. Clearly this journalist hasn’t watched the world news – where it took guns from Libyan rebels (and help from NATO in the way of air support) to take down a dictator, or where the military in Syria retains control despite attempts to start a revolution. Clearly this journalist doesn’t follow the news that SWAT team guns were stolen in Los Angeles, or read that a police chief in New Mexico helped arm criminals. And there was the soldier smuggling guns into the U.K.

Clearly those examples that we show that this idealistic view can be far from ideal in the real, cold, hard world. But she also notes the “images of a heart or a head riddled with bullets,” and yet does she not think of the 18-year old mother who defended her home and infant son on New Year’s Eve? Just something to think about.

But again, at least this journalist admitted to her bias. And as with addiction, the first step is admitting there is a problem.

The Post even offered this passage:

The irony that someone so highly trained and trusted to keep America safe might be thrown into prison — for a .45-caliber Ruger that he had legally registered in his home state and that he was actually trying to check with authorities — has not been lost on his Marine brethren.

Even the comments for this article show that many support Jerome, and blame Mayor Bloomberg. Maybe others have begun to see that Bloomberg is just a loud-mouthed anti-gun zealot who doesn’t care about the Constitution of the United States.

Website Gothamist for example noted:

Who believes that carrying a firearm into iconic, highly secured New York landmarks is a good idea? Metal detectors are designed to expose weapons, not belt buckles, yet clueless tourists keep getting hauled into court for packing heat at the Empire State Building. Now some Marines are claiming that Indiana native Ryan Jerome, himself a Marine who was arrested for trying to check his .45 Ruger with authorities in September, is more equal than others who have made the same mistake.

Is it necessary o describe these people as “clueless tourists,” especially in the case of Ryan Jerome, who was actually in New York City on business. But of course this is par for the course from the New Yorkers.

The first major issue Jerome’s case raises is the justice of the “mandatory minimum” sentence. Mandatory minimums are what they sound like—they are minimum sentences delineated by state legislatures or Congress to ensure that certain acts are punished with at least a given amount of time in prison, notwithstanding that a judge, knowing the relevant facts of a particular case, might feel that a lower sentence would better serve the ends of justice.

He adds:

So what becomes of a person who clearly has an “innocence of intent”, who may have been aware that he possessed a gun, but had no idea he or she was committing a crime until the cuffs were put on.

The answer is not entirely clear, but as time has gone on in the last fifty years, intent has begun to matter less and less. There is an ancient tradition in the Anglo-American “common law” (inherited from the nation’s colonial past) that an individual should know not only that he is committing the act, but that the act is a crime, before being charged and convicted.

What is so frustrating and upsetting about this situation is that law-abiding citizens are facing jail time because they traveled to New York City and inadvertently broke the law, while street thugs and criminals carry guns illegally and never serve jail time!

Likewise, we’ve heard about high-profile celebrities who are able to “legally” obtain concealed carry permits – something almost impossible for the average New Yorker to obtain!

www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKFtcZWRES8

Cam Edwards talks to Anna Rittgers, Senior Fellow at the Independent Women’s Forum

The House showed its utter disregard for public safety in November when it approved the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act, which would take away the authority of states to decide who is allowed to carry a concealed and loaded handgun within their borders.

This is really “utter disregard.” Consider the following passage:

For example, New York, New Jersey and other states that bar individuals under 21 from obtaining a concealed carry permit would have to honor permits from states with no age requirement. The measure would also hamper efforts to combat illegal gun trafficking. An individual with a concealed carry permit from Florida — which allows the holder to carry unlimited numbers of concealed weapons — could drive a stash of weapons into New York and would have to be caught selling the guns on the street to get arrested.

What is stopping those teenagers in Harlem from arming themselves now? They don’t have concealed carry permits. This argument only aims to show that it would punish the law-abiding as the criminals are already breaking the law.

Does a posted speed limit by itself stop speeding? No, so why would a law such as this change who is packing an illegal gun and who is legally carrying a gun? Except to make it illegal to even carry a gun in the first place? In the end it seems to use the illegal gun would still be carried.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuiaAAS32jM

Cam Edwards talks to Michael Newbern - Buckeyes for Concealed Carry

GRNC has just received legal analysis of Winston-Salem’s park ban, and the situation is even worse than originally thought. It is best we inform you of these developments as rapidly as possible – particularly because we need to immediately recruit Winston-Salem residents as plaintiffs!

WINSTON-SALEM PARK BAN VIOLATES STATE LAW!

You can find the law here: Winston-Salem Park Ordinance.

Specific problems include deliberate over-reaching by the City Council under Sec. 38-10 (a) (1): “Athletic facility means a building, structure or place including a walking trail, greenway and body of water such as a lake for engaging in sporting events, recreational activities, fitness or physical training”.

They plan to designate not only greenways and walking trails (both impermissible) but even whole lakes as “athletic facilities”.

Under (a) (2): “Playground means a piece of land used for and usually equipped with facilities for recreation especially by children including the adjoining area and shelter used by children for respite, eating and playing sedentary games.”

Since when are “sedentary games” and areas for eating “athletic facilities”?

Under subsection (d), they cite a long list of state parks allegedly containing “recreational facilities.” Under the statute, they need to specifically list each of the “recreational facilities” where concealed carry is banned — again, a violation of state law!

IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED:

Contact the Mayor and City Councilors of Winston-Salem, NC. If you have already emailed, contact them again!

Cut and paste email list: danbesse@danbesse.org, vivianb@cityofws.org, denisea@cityofws.org, robertc@cityofws.org, derwinm@cityofws.org, mollyl@cityofws.org, wandam@cityofws.org, jamestjr@cityofws.org, allenj@cityofws.org

Deliver This Message

City of Winston-Salem Representatives,

It is clear from your November 21st meeting that your City Attorney rewrote city ordinances not to comply with state law (HB 650, Castle Doctrine and Concealed Carry Permitted in Parks), but to take every opportunity to “not comply” with this important freedom-promoting new legislation.

The predictable result is an intentionally over-reaching ordinance that is in clear violation of state law.

You want to ban legal carry on greenways, walking trails, and lakes, none of which can reasonably be described as “athletic facilities”. If you attempt such a ban you will violate state law and subject your city to the consequences.

Even more outrageous is your intention to ban within areas intended for eating and playing sedentary games. Considering these areas as “athletic facilities” is absurd.

Your ordinance is illegal, irrational, unjustifiable and a clear example of disrespect for both state law and the Constitutional rights of free Americans.

It must be rescinded immediately.

I will be following progress through Grass Roots North Carolina.

Sincerely,

A concerned NC voter

GRNC is preparing to take appropriate legal action and needs to identify local plaintiffs

• Plaintiffs are currently needed for actions within Winston-Salem, Kernersville, Greenville and Smithfield. Please contact alert@grnc.org.
• Other municipalities may be added.
• Everyone should carefully monitor municipal ordinances, particularly those recently enacted.
• Any restrictions beyond “a playground, an athletic field, a swimming pool, or an athletic facility” should be immediately reported to alert@grnc.org.

About:
Grass Roots North Carolina/Forum for Firearms Education is a non-profit, all volunteer organization devoted to educating the public about trends which abridge the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, and engaging in grass roots activism to preserve those freedoms. Formed in 1994 to conduct a highly successful rally for the Second Amendment, GRNC has gone on to conduct projects like “Remember in November: A Gun Owner’s Guide to Voting,” bringing concealed carry to North Carolina. Visit:www.grnc.org

This again is just another attempt to suggest that conservatives are completely rigid in thinking. Of course Henigan offers some other compelling statements:

Is it a bill to ban the high-capacity assault clips that allowed Jared Loughner, in a span of around sixteen seconds, to kill six people…

We all due respect to those involved, there never has been an assault clip until the Brady Campaign coined the term. But Henigan had more to offer too:

The legislation recently passed by the House would allow the Jared Loughners of the world to carry their loaded, hidden handguns virtually anywhere in the country.

The truth is that Loughners of the world, as well as the gangsters in our urban centers, already carry guns anywhere and everywhere they want. Henigan just fails to note that all you need to do to carry a gun is have one, and of course, be willing to break the law. H.R. 822 only applies to law-abiding citizens.

And later in the same editorial Henigan tries the divide and conquer approach:

Conservatives don’t have to believe that concealed carry of loaded guns in public places poses unacceptable risks in order to be opposed to H.R. 822. Principled conservatives — even those who think concealed carry is a positive good — should be driven to the same conclusion.

While it may be bad for state’s rights, it is good for gun owner’s rights. The fact is that this is a democracy with compromises and conservatives can see that point, the truth is that anti-gun zealots are the one who twist logic and facts to take away any right involving guns – whether at the national, state or community level!