Leatherneck Blogger

Archive for November 2017

Are Gun Control Advocates Liars, Or Just Stupid?

with one comment

By Tom Knighton
Bearing Arms
November 30, 2017

Are gun control advocates liars, people who willfully tell falsehoods, or are they just complete and total idiots? It’s a fair question and it could go either way. I’ll also concede that the word “or” in that first sentence may need to be “and” as well. It’s certainly possible that they’re both.

The latest example that makes me ask the question comes from the New York Times. In particular, columnist Gail Collins, who writes this bit:

The House Judiciary Committee just voted to make it impossible for a state to always keep people convicted of violent offenses from carrying concealed weapons.

With a beginning like that, you just know it’s going to be good. You know that you’re going to read a reasonable discourse on the topic of national reciprocity, right?

Let’s continue.

That was just a detail in a very long day and really dreadful debate about the right to bear arms. In a normal world it might be the talk of the dinner table, but really, this week hardly anyone noticed.

On the one hand you had Garrison Keillor and Matt Lauer getting canned for sexual harassment. On the other there’s the president of the United States circulating a picture of a Muslim beating up a statue of the Blessed Virgin. About which, the presidential spokeswoman said, “Whether it’s a real video, the threat is real.”

And I haven’t even gotten to the tax bill. Or North Korea. Good grief.

But still, guns. Attention must be paid. If you count every gun crime that involves four or more victims as a mass shooting, we’ve had 397 so far this year, including the ungodly tragedies in Las Vegas and the small Texas church. You’d think the National Rifle Association would go away and be quiet for a month or two. But no, its minions in the House of Representatives were busy on Wednesday getting committee approval for a bill that would make it impossible for states to impose their rules about carrying concealed weapons on people who are visiting from someplace else.

Instead, we’re supposed to respect the judgment of the state whence they came. People, do you have this kind of confidence? We are having this conversation two weeks after Wisconsin eliminated the age limit for hunting licenses. So far there are 1,800 happy Wisconsinites under the age of 10 with the right to put their little fingers on the trigger, several less than a year old.

First, Gail, there’s a huge difference between a concealed carry permit and a hunting license. National reciprocity has nothing to do with hunting, and Wisconsin’s decision to eliminate the age for a hunting permit doesn’t mean that small children will be running around the woods unsupervised. In fact, it’s kind of impossible for most kids to go hunting on their own anyway, what with needing a ride to the hunting land in the first place.

But let’s not let facts get in the way of an argument.

Kind of like that opening line. You see, Gail’s worried about “people convicted of violent offenses” walking around with concealed guns and police being unable to do anything about it. However, what she misses is that people with concealed carry permits? You know what they’re not? People convicted of violent offenses.

That’s right. You can’t get a permit if you have been convicted of a violent offense, and the background check process is more detailed for concealed carry permits in every single state than even the background check to buy a gun. It’s why the Sutherland Springs killer could buy a gun at a gun store, but not get a carry permit. It’s because the system works.

Further, people with concealed carry permits are the least likely individuals to commit a crime.

And this information is out there, so I’m left wondering if Gail Collins and people like her are just dumb, or if they’re willfully lying in the pages of the nation’s largest newspaper in order to sway people to their way of thinking. I mean, it’s possible they’re repeating someone else’s lies, of course, but that just puts them in the dumb camp. Do a little research for yourself, for crying out loud. Get both sides of the story. At least try and find out what the other side is saying.

At least then you’d know that no one wants violent criminals walking the streets with concealed firearms and that this bill won’t allow them to.

But that might blow the narrative away. Can’t have that.

Austin Hero Pulls Gun On Rapist

with one comment

By Tom Knighton
Bearing Arms
November 15, 2017

A lot of people don’t take their guns with them when they’re doing certain things, particularly on a run. After all, even a lightweight pistol is going to cause issues with your everyday running shorts, and no one wants to wear a fanny pack, especially one loaded down with a firearm, right?

Well, Josh Williams of Austin, Texas didn’t worry about any of that. Eventually, anyway, and at least one area resident is thankful for that.

Josh Williams has been licensed to carry a gun for about 10 years and takes his Glock 43 almost everywhere he goes, KVUE-TV reported.

But on the morning of Sept. 15, Williams almost didn’t take the gun along for his weekly run on the Hike-and-Bike Trail in Austin, Texas — but a voice inside him said he might need it, the station said.

Did he ever.

It was about 5:30 a.m. and still dark when Williams heard a woman’s screams on the trail over his earbuds, KVUE reported.

So he took out his earbuds and pointed his flashlight in the direction of the screaming — and quickly realized a woman was being sexually assaulted, the station said.

“I came up, pulled my gun and told him to get off of her,” Williams told KVUE, adding that he ordered the man to get on his knees and show his hands.

The man ran off, leaving him with the victim, safe and sound.

A few days later, 22-year-old Richard McEachern was arrested for the assault. He remains in the Travis County Jail.

Williams said that he’d never thought he would point the gun at another person, but that’s how it goes. Most of us never really do, but then something happens and a number of gun owners actually do. What matters is what you do when confronted with a situation that requires it, and Williams did what most of us would have done.

He protected another.

“It’s dark, and I don’t know what’s out there, so I have it to protect myself and other people,” Williams told KVUE. “That’s what it’s all about anyway — to help other people with it, not just myself.”

For a lot of gun owners, it’s exactly that.

Most gun owners don’t want to just protect themselves, but others as well. However, contrary to what the anti-gun crowd likes to think, we’re not a bunch of wannabe heroes itching for the opportunity to pull their guns and feel like a badass. We’re just people who don’t like to see others getting hurt.

Yet some would have seen Williams and others like him left unarmed and unable to help others. They would rather see an innocent woman raped and possibly murdered than to see someone like Williams be able to step up and protect another.

They’d rather see women raped and possibly murdered than to allow women to have the most effective means to defend themselves out there. They operate under the warped belief that a violated and potentially dead victim is preferable to a live woman and a dead scumbag.

Egyptian lawyer: It’s a man’s ‘national duty’ to rape women who wear ripped jeans

with one comment

By Rick Moran
American Thinker
November 2, 2017

Oh, those crazy Muslim men!  What will they say next?

An Egyptian lawyer, appearing on a popular satellite news program, told a panel debating a new law on prostitution in Egypt that it is the “patriotic duty” of men to sexually harass and a “national duty” to rape women who wear revealing clothing.

New York Post:

An Egyptian lawyer has sparked outrage after saying women who wear ripped jeans deserve to be sexually harassed and raped.

Nabih al-Wahsh, a prominent conservative in Egypt, said raping women who wear ripped jeans is a man’s “national duty”, adding that girls who show parts of their body by wearing such clothes are inviting men to harass them.

His disgusting comments were made during a TV talk show called “Infrad” on satellite channel Al-Assema.

The panel were debating a draft law on prostitution and “inciting debauchery” when Wahsh made the jaw-dropping comments.

During the heated debate, Wahsh said: “Are you happy when you see a girl walking down the street with half of her behind showing?”

He added: “I say that when a girl walks about like that, it is a patriotic duty to sexually harass her and a national duty to rape her.”

His controversial remarks prompted fury across the country and Egypt’s National Council for Women announced it plans to file a complaint to the attorney general against Wahsh and the TV channel.

The council said it had also filed a complaint to the Supreme Council for Media Regulation and urged media outlets not to invite controversial figures who make remarks that incite violence against women.

The lawyer has apparently been paying attention to U.S. TV and how politicians shamelessly deny they said what they clearly said:

Wahsh later said his comments were a call to demand stricter punishment for sexual harassment.

He added: “Girls must respect themselves so others respect them. Protecting morals is more important than protecting borders.”

So urging men to sexually harass and rape women is actually a way to “demand stricter punishment for sexual harassment”?  Sheesh.

While the various women’s groups and Westernized media heavily criticized the lawyer, what do you think the reaction to his words were in the suks and mosques across the rest of Egypt?

Recall that the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt received a majority of votes in the last relatively free election.  So I think it safe to say the lawyer’s sentiments would meet with the approval of a solid majority of Egyptian men, who view women little better than cattle and, in some ways, worse.

Egypt’s president, General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, has made it clear he wants to secularize the country.  But after centuries of control by radical clergy, he faces an uphill battle to bring Egypt into the 21st century.

Pro-Abortion Democrat Congressman Shouts Down Black Pro-Life Woman, Calls Her “Ignorant”

with one comment

By Steven Ertelt
November 1, 2017

A pro-abortion Democrat Congressman, during a congressional hearing today, shouted down a black pro-life advocate who expressed her dismay at how Planned Parenthood targets black babies in abortions. Rep. Steve Cohen, a Tennessee Democrat, yelled at the pro-life woman and said she was “ignorant.”

Star Parker told members of Congress during the hearing on a bill to ban abortions after 6 weeks that she believes abortion unfairly targets the African American community.

“In fact when you put the Dred Scott decision next to the Roe v Wade decision, they read almost verbatim. I’d like to also address something that was brought up earlier…when it comes to mixing the abortion issue with the challenges that we face in many of our hard-hit communities. I feel it disingenuous that the issues of Medicaid would come up, and other opportunities for us to re-address what has happened in our most distressed zip codes,” Parker said.

“The way that Planned Parenthood targets these particular zip codes with abortion. Abortion is the leading cause of death in the black community today. Since Roe v. Wade was legalized, 20 million humans have been killed inside of the womb of black women. And then on Halloween, Planned Parenthood tweets out that the black women are safest if they abort their child rather than bring it to term,” Parker continued.

Cohen complained that he is “not disingenuous about anything I say…. And to suggest I’m disingenuous shows your ignorance or your absolute inability to deal with Congresspeople the way they should. I believe in those issues and I think they’re proper, and to say I’m disingenuous is just wrong and I expect an apology.”

Instead of an apology, pro-life lawmakers on the panel said Congressman Cohen ought to apologize to Parker for calling her “ignorant.”

“I would ask for an apology from the gentleman from Tennessee — calling our witness ignorant when it seems to me she has a whole lot more knowledge and wisdom” than he does, Rep. Louie Gohmert commented.

“She’s ignorant about me,” Cohen replied.

Citing the “lack of civility” that had erupted, Chairman Steve King ended the hearing.


Kristen Gillibrand Proposes ‘Gun Trafficking’ Bill

with one comment

By Tom Knighton
Bearing Arms
November 22, 2017

Kristen Gillibrand is hardly a rare breed. After all, an anti-gun Democrat is about as rare as air. However, the senator from New York who took Hillary Clinton’s seat is trying to make a name for herself. Her most recent proposal would do just that, she apparently believes.

A New York lawmaker is making a bid to bring back federal legislation that would make selling guns to a prohibited possessor worth 20 years in federal prison.

The measure, proposed by U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, D-NY, would make it a crime to sell two or more guns to someone whom the seller knows is prohibited from legally possessing them. It is a repeat of legislation proposed by Gillibrand in 2013 and 2015 that never made it out of committee.

“Over the last year and a half, our country has suffered through three of the five biggest mass-shootings in our history and thousands more Americans have been victims of gun violence on a much smaller scale, but Congress has done nothing to solve this crisis,” Gillibrand said in a statement.

The bill, termed the Hadiya Pendleton and Nyasia Pryear-Yard Gun Trafficking and Crime Prevention Act, is named after two teens killed in New York with guns traced to out-of-state origins.

The problems with this are obvious. After all, it’s difficult to prove what people know and what they don’t know.

Further, Gillibrand’s argument regarding the mass shootings is complete bollocks. Neither Orlando, Las Vegas, nor Sutherland Springs were cases of people selling guns to anyone they knew to be prohibited. The shooters in Orlando and Las Vegas weren’t prohibited, and the Sutherland Springs killer passed NICS background checks, so it’s unlikely anyone would have had any reason to believe he was actually prohibited.

All Gillibrand is doing is grandstanding, which is par for the course.

If she wanted to actually make an impact on mass shootings following Sutherland Springs, then why not look at legislation that would push the Department of Defense to add relevant information to the NICS? That might actually make a difference.

Alright, probably not much of one, but at least it would deal with something that actually happened.

Instead, Gillibrand wants to pretend that there’s this epidemic of people just selling their personal firearms to people they know can’t legally own them, but offers no evidence.

Instead, what’s happening are straw sales (which are already illegal) and people breaking other laws in the process. We don’t actually need yet another law, one that could land innocent people in hot water for selling a firearm in good faith to the wrong person. No good will actually comes of a law like this, only a lot of heartache.

But Gillibrand doesn’t care. She simply wants to look like she’s tough on crime without having to actually do anything at all about the actual problem of crime.

Par for the course from our political elite. We should be used to it by now, but since there pathetic efforts usually impact us gun owners more than the criminals, it’s kind of hard to let it slide.

Why do terrorists yell ‘Allahu akbar’ when they attack?

with one comment

By James Arlandson
American Thinker
November 3, 2017

It’s not complicated, except for our overpaid intellectual news media betters and the punditocracy.

For example, Huffington Post contributor Carol Kuruvilla informs us that the phrase is used in Muslim prayers and affirms the supremacy of God.  She even points out that American Christians use it, though in English.  Her main point: It’s harmless.

All this is true, except the misleading statement about Christians.  The problem with her analysis is that it overlooks an additional reason for its use: warfare.

It’s in the hadith.  In this one, Khaibar (or Khaybar) was a Jewish settlement.

Narrated ‘Abdul ‘Aziz: Anas said, ‘When Allah’s Apostle invaded Khaibar, we offered the Fajr prayer there yearly in the morning) when it was still dark. The Prophet rode and Abu Talha rode too and I was riding behind Abu Talha. The Prophet passed through the lane of Khaibar quickly and my knee was touching the thigh of the Prophet . He uncovered his thigh and I saw the whiteness of the thigh of the Prophet. When he entered the town, he said, ‘Allahu Akbar! Khaibar is ruined. Whenever we approach near a (hostile) nation (to fight) then evil will be the morning of those who have been warned.’ He repeated this thrice. The people came out for their jobs and some of them said, ‘Muhammad (has come).’ (Some of our companions added, “With his army.”) We conquered Khaibar, took the captives, and the booty was collected. (Bukhari 1, no. 367)

It’s difficult to be clearer than that. Muhammad used the expression to instill terror in the Jews of Khaibar and to announce his arrival.  As the hadith says, he conquered the town (or it surrendered).  Ruin will be inflicted on the town or the nation that is warned of impending battle when the people hear “Allahu akbar!”  The rest of the hadith goes on to say Muhammad enslaved the most beautiful woman, manumitted her, and “married” her.

So yes, Muslims use the phrase during prayers, but terrorists also follow Muhammad’s example.  One more reason why this man’s religion must be left behind.

James Arlandson’s website is Live as Free People, where he has posted Twenty-five reasons to leave IslamRescuing Noah’s ark from the flood of science, and Christianity is fastest growing religion in world.


Special Olympics Athlete Slams Eugenic Abortion: “I Am a Man With Down Syndrome and My Life is Worth Living”

leave a comment »

By Micaiah Bilger
November 1, 2017

Any mother who hears that her unborn child may have Down syndrome should listen to the testimony of Frank Stephens.

An actor, Special Olympics athlete and special needs advocate across the globe, Stephens himself has Down syndrome. Last week, he spoke to a U.S. Congressional committee about protecting people with disabilities like himself and supporting medical research, according to The Atlantic.

“I am a man with Down syndrome and my life is worth living,” Stephens told members of Congress.

Stephens brought up the disturbing level of discrimination that unborn babies with Down syndrome are subjected to in the womb.

“… we are the canary in the eugenics coal mine. We are giving the world a chance to think about the ethics of choosing which humans get a chance at life,” he said.

Research indicates unborn babies with Down syndrome are targeted for abortions at very high rates. A CBS News report earlier this year shocked the nation by reporting that Iceland has an almost 100-percent abortion rate for unborn babies with the genetic disorder. The rate in the U.S. is estimated to be between 67 percent and 90 percent.

Stephens told Congress:

Sadly, across the world, a notion is being sold that maybe we don’t need research concerning Down Syndrome. Some people say prenatal screens will identify Down Syndrome in the womb and those pregnancies will just be terminated.

It’s hard for me to sit here and say those words.

I completely understand that the people pushing this particular “final solution” are saying that people like me should not exist. That view is deeply prejudice by an outdated idea of life with Down Syndrome.

Watch his full testimony here.

Every human being deserves the right to live and thrive, no matter what their life expectancy or abilities are. But it also is true that people with Down syndrome now enjoy better opportunities and longer lifespans than they ever have before.

According to The New Atlantis: “The life expectancy for someone born with Down syndrome has increased from twenty-five in the early 1980s to more than fifty today. In many other ways as well, a child born with Down syndrome today has brighter prospects than at any other point in history. Early intervention therapies, more inclusive educational support, legal protections in the workplace, and programs for assisted independent living offer a full, active future in the community.”

Stephens emphasized this to legislators last week, saying, “Seriously, I have a great life!”

Tragically, though, many parents say they face intense pressure to abort their unborn babies after receiving a Down syndrome diagnosis. And across the United States, pro-abortion groups like NARAL are fighting against bills and laws that would protect unborn babies with Down syndrome from abortion. This massive and deadly discrimination against people with Down syndrome by abortion is nothing short of repulsive.

But fortunately, Stephens and countless others are exposing the tragedy to millions of people and promoting the message that every human life is valuable and deserving of protection.

Shannon Watts: Pry Into People’s Personal Lives, Property This Thanksgiving

with 2 comments

By Tom Knighton
Bearing Arms
November 21, 2017

Shannon Watts is just one of many busybodies, but she’s best known for her busybody attitude regarding guns. After all, The Moms Demand Action founder is really something of a one-trick pony. Her latest? Pester friends and family this holiday season regarding firearms.

Now, don’t get me wrong. People should store their firearms securely so curious hands don’t get hold of them. There have been far too many tragedies through the years because guns were placed where young and inquisitive people–usually boys, to be fair–would find them and treat them as toys.

However, it’s also no one else’s business if I have firearms in my home. It’s also no one’s business how I store them.

If your kids are coming over to my home for the holidays, then here’s what I expect:

Respect Boundaries

Your children need to respect that this is my home. That means no plundering through my stuff and to stick to the common areas of the home and any other regions expressly permitted (my kids’ bedrooms, for example). If they do this, they won’t be digging in my nightstand or closet or anywhere else that people typically keep firearms they want ready access to.

Most gun owners don’t have guns scattered throughout the house. They keep them in a few different places, and almost all of those aren’t in the common areas of the home such as the kitchen, living room, dining room, etc. They’re private tools and are kept in private places.

If your child is going to be welcome in my home, I have a right to expect those private places to be respected. You wouldn’t want my kids plundering in your room. Show me the same courtesy, for crying out loud.

Teach Them Basic Firearm Safety

It’s the responsibility of every parent to teach their children some basic firearm safety.

For my five-year-old daughter, it’s mostly “don’t touch” and “tell an adult if you see one.” For my 16-year-old son, he gets the full Four Rules treatment. He’s old enough to understand them. She may or may not be, but she’s also not likely to pay attention enough for them to stick, so we go with what will.

It’s up to each parent to teach this to our children because the schools simply won’t. There’s no effort to educate children, particularly in the inner cities, on how to treat and respect firearms. As a result, accidents happen with “found” guns far too frequently.

But if you’re coming to my home, and you’re worried about your child getting into my guns, then it’s up to you to teach them what not to do with a gun. Remember, you and your child are guests in my home. It’s up to you to keep your child safe and sound, not up to me to teach them about firearms.

Now, if you’re clueless and you ask me to, I’ll be more than happy to help. I speak for the vast majority of gun owners, if not all of them when I say that we’d be thrilled to help educate your child on gun safety. While the holidays may not be the ideal time, many of us are willing to carve out a bit of time to educate someone to be safe.

Act Like A Parent

It’s not my place to parent your child. While I am a responsible adult, it’s not up to me to do everything. You are their parent, so make sure you act like it. If you’re in my home, you see to your child. It’s up to you to keep them from plundering in bedrooms, in closets, or wherever else they may go, just as it’s up to you to keep them from pulling out the chef’s knife and running around the house with it.

If you maintain control over your child, even in someone else’s home, most accidents will generally not happen. This doesn’t just include gun accidents, either, but many others.

Now, if your child is spending the night with family or friends, that’s different. You simply can’t be expected to maintain a vigil when you’re not there. No one would say otherwise. But in that case, you really should have laid the groundwork beforehand. You should have educated them on how to be a good houseguest.

You Do Your Part, I’ll Do Mine

Plain and simple, if you do your part, I’ll do mine. I’ve already educated my children, and I also don’t let them run all over the house. If your kids come over, my kids should do their part in this. If you do your part as a parent, we should be able to have a safe and joyous holiday.

But if it’s clear that the onus for all of this will fall on me, simply because you think guns are icky, then we’re going to have a problem. Oh, your kid will be safe. I and my children will make sure of that, but then you and yours will never be welcome in my home again.

For me, it’s not the anti-gun attitude that will severe the bonds of friendship or family, but the poor parenting skills on display. If you, a parent, thinks it’s all on me to keep your child safe, then that’s nothing but shirking your responsibilities. My ownership of guns is irrelevant, it’s youthat is failing.

Shannon and company can pretend they’re righteous when they pontificate on how everything is all on gun owners, but there’s remarkably little talk from her neck of the woods on what she needs to do as a parent in such circumstances. It’s past time these busybodies get called on their determination to make everything our faults.

It’s not.

When Jeanne Assam’s Gun Stopped a Church Massacre

with one comment

By Daniel John Sobieski
American Thinker
November 7, 2017

Once again, the cries for gun control measures that wouldn’t have stopped the shooter are being heard. Yet once again, it was a good guy with a gun that in this case pursued the killer in a chase that resulted in death, preventing further deaths and saving lives. Once again, we hear cries that the good guy with the gun should be disarmed.

If a good guy with a gun had been inside the First Baptist Church, the killer could have been blown away and we might not be having this conversation. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton pointed out what should be obvious — that we don’t need more unarmed potential victims sitting like sheep, targets in what amounts to a gun-free zone:

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) indicated during an interview with Fox News’s Brian Kilmeade that the response to the Texas church shooting should be more armed law-abiding citizens rather than more gun control.

Paxton pointed out that there were numerous laws already on the books, including “laws against murder,” and the attacker violated those laws without hesitation. He observed, “So adding some other gun law, I don’t think would in any way change this guy’s behavior.”

He added:

It’s not clear to me that [the attacker] wasn’t already prevented from having a gun, given his history in the military. What ultimately may have saved some lives is… people that were outside the church that actually had guns that may have slowed this guy down and actually pursued him. So I would rather arm law-abiding citizens and make sure that they can prevent this from happening as opposed to trying to pass laws that would prevent law-abiding citizens from having guns.

Guns in churches seem like some sort of grotesque oxymoron but in the right hands a firearm can be the ultimate peacemaker. Many were thankful that day in 2007 that Jeanne Assam, a volunteer security guard at New Life Church in Colorado Springs, had easy access to a gun when Matthew Murray entered the east entrance of the church and began firing his rifle. Murray was carrying two handguns, an assault rifle, and over 1,000 rounds of ammunition.

Assam, who worked as a police officer in downtown Minneapolis during the 1990s and is licensed to carry a weapon, shot and killed Murray. Had she not done so, more than two would have been killed at the church that day. Two others had been killed by Murray at the Youth Mission School in nearby Arvada. New Life’s senior pastor Brady Boyd said Assam’s actions saved the lives of 50 to 100 people:

A former police officer, Assam, 42, was on security duty Sunday morning at New Life Church here. Hours earlier, a 24-year-old who had been rejected from a missionary school in a Denver suburb had shot and killed two staffers there. Now he was spraying New Life’s parking lot with gunfire and pushing through the doors to the sanctuary.

Assam hid and inched toward the gunman, Matthew Murray, as dozens of terrified worshipers fled. She waited until he got close enough, revealed herself, aimed her pistol and fired. Murray dropped to the ground. He was carrying an assault rifle, two pistols and a backpack holding more than 1,000 rounds of ammunition.

“I just prayed to the Holy Spirit to guide me,” Assam said at a packed news conference Monday. “I give the credit to God. This has got to be God, because of the firepower he had versus what I have.”

As they say, praise the Lord and pass the ammunition. In places like Sutherland Springs, San Bernardino, Orlando, and other mass shooting sites, the slaughter of the innocent could have been cut short by someone with a gun. As the widow of one of the San Bernardino victims noted:

Amy Wetzel is the widow of San Bernardino shooting victim Michael Wetzel and she is also applying for a concealed carry weapons permit. During a recent interview, she speculated that the outcome of the San Bernardino terrorist attack could have been very different if someone had been carrying a concealed gun.

“What if someone in that room (at the Inland Regional Center) had had a permit to carry (a concealed weapon),” she said.

Overlooked in the news coverage of the mass shootings was the Oregon massacre that wasn’t at Clackamas Town Center Mall in December of 2012. As Investor’s Business Daily noted, fortune placed another good guy with a gun at the same place a bad guy with a gun planned a massacre:

Before the tragedy in Connecticut, a shooter at an Oregon shopping mall was stopped by an armed citizen with a concealed carry permit who refused to be a victim, preventing another mass tragedy.

In the target-rich environment of the Clackamas Town Center two weeks before Christmas, the shooter managed to kill only two people before killing himself. A far worse tragedy was prevented when he was confronted by a hero named Nick Meli.

As the shooter was having difficulty with his weapon, Meli pulled his and took aim, reluctant to fire lest an innocent bystander be hit. But he didn’t have to pull the trigger: The shooter fled when confronted, ending his own life before it could be done for him.

We will never know how many lives were saved by an armed citizen that day.

Indeed, we will not. What we do know is that killers will deliberately choose gun-free zones such as Umqua or that Aurora, Colorado movie theatre to target their victims knowing there will be no one thereto immediately return fire:

As John R. Lott Jr., president of the Crime Research Prevention Center, wrote in an op-ed in the Chicago Tribune on Tuesday, “Since at least 1950, all but two mass public shootings in America have taken place where general citizens are banned from carrying guns.” This is usually why they are selected as targets, Lott says.

In the July 2012 mass shooting inside a movie theater in Aurora, Colo., the shooter had a choice of seven movie theaters within 20 miles of his home that were showing the Batman movie he was obsessed with. The Cinemark Theater he chose wasn’t the closest, but it was the only one that banned customers from carrying guns inside.

Ever since Cain slew Abel, there has been evil in the world and a desire among some to kill others. Disarming the law-abiding to prevent such killings is like trying to fight drunk driving by making it harder for sober drivers to get driver’s licenses. We don’t need more gun-free zones populated with unarmed targets. We do need more people able to defend themselves.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), who was at the batting cages in the Alexandria, Virginia baseball field where Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) was shot, said the obvious, that for the presence of a defender with a gun, a massacre would have ensued. As Fox News reported:

“Without Capitol Hill police, it would have been a massacre — we had no defense — we had no defense at all,” Paul said on “Fox & Friends” just minutes after the incident. “I think we’re lucky Scalise was there because this was his security detail and without them, it would have been a massacre.”

Paul described the scene as “sort of a killing field,” and said there were more than 50 shots of gunfire which lasted for at least 10 minutes. Paul described the sounds of the gunfire as possibly coming from an “AR-15” style rifle. The actual model gun used by the shooter has yet to be confirmed.

“We were like sitting ducks,” Paul said, describing his location during the shooting as inside the batting cages, which was approximately 50 yards from second base where Scalise was.

“We were so lucky Capitol Hill Police were there,” Paul said. “They saved our lives.”

But for the Capitol Hill Police detail assigned to protect Scalise as a member of the House Republican leadership, the killer would have been free to roam the fenced in field picking targets at random. The field would have been just another gun-free zone, as in places such as Paris and Orlando

There will be more endless hand-wringing on what we must do to stop this violence. How about learning the lesson of places like Alexandria, Clackamas, and the New Life Church? A lesson taught in so many other places — that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun.

Daniel John Sobieski is a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.

The Happy, Harmless Quran

leave a comment »

By James Arlandson
American Thinker
November 16, 2017

What’s all the fuss about? If only we threw off our secular ignorance, religious ignorance and fearful ignorance, then we could interpret the Quran wisely and rationally; then we could reach this conclusion: “The religion of the Quran is a religion of peace.”

So says Garry Wills on p. 140 in his book What the Quran Meant: And Why It Matters.


But we can skip over his first three chapters on the three kinds of ignorance mentioned above. It seems no challenge can be rational, by definition, since peace and good will dominate the Quran, and it is actually misunderstood by the ignorant. The rest of his book is intended to correct the hysterics.

Instead, let’s analyze chapter 7 on peace, chapter 8 on jihad, chapter 9 on shariah, and chapters 11-13 on women’s issues.

Chapter 7

Apparently the Quran extols an almost global family of believing Jews, Christians, and Muslims, living in harmony and tolerance. Great for Western utopians, as leftists tend to be.

However, he neglects to mention Muhammad’s atrocities against the Jews, when he ordered 900 men and pubescent boys to be slaughtered and the women and girls to be enslaved, after he conquered them outside Medina, which the Quran approves of (33:26-27). Was the atrocity a one-off? Islamic history says Jews and Christians suffered death and persecution and second-class treatment, as Muslims waged aggressive and unprovoked jihad for centuries. (See chapter 8, next).

The Quran calls Jews “apes and pigs” (7:166, 2:65, and 5:60). One could place those verses in their historical context to soften the extreme rhetoric, but for centuries now they have opened the door to deep prejudice.

As for apostasy, he casually brushes aside its punishment by equating biblical Christianity with quranic Islam, not mentioning the fact that the first generations of Christians never executed anyone for leaving the faith (nor does the New Testament order this), while Muhammad and his earliest caliphs certainly did, on the authority of the Quran and his example.

Chapter 8

As for jihad, it is clear that he does not understand the chronology of the Medinan chapters, for he repeats this tiresome stock misinterpretation: “The Quran never advocates war as a means of religious conversion, since ‘there is no compulsion in religion’ (2:256)” (p. 132). However, that verse was written when Muhammad first arrived in Medina and was weak. But as soon as he grew in military might, he compelled all sorts of people to convert or die (polytheists), or convert or die or pay a second-class citizen tax (Christians and Jews) in 9:29. (A prejudicial tax based on religion does not even squeak by as tolerant, one more contradiction of his utopian chapter 7.)

Further, he omits an adequate discussion of qital, which exclusively means war, slaughter, and killing. In light of that, his long analysis of 2:191-94 (an early Medinan passage) overlooks one key clause about fighting for the Kabah shrine back in Mecca: “Fight [qital] until… worship is devoted to God.” Clearly Muhammad says here that he would never let the Meccans rest until he made it a place devoted (only) to Allah. And in fact that is what he did from 623 until 630, when he finally conquered Mecca with 10,000 jihadists and kicked out or killed the unclean polytheists (9:28).

The most egregious oversight in his book, as noted, is the missing analysis of Quran 9:29, which is an open-ended call to qital inside and outside of Arabia. Ever since Islam’s prophet marched north with 20,000 jihadists to Tabuk in late 630 to fight the Byzantines, who never showed up, Muslims have been waging the same aggressive jihad/qital for over 460 years before the pope called the first crusade. Wills should know this; instead he seems to assume that Muslims peacefully acquired the lands they now hold, and the crusaders unjustly picked on them. Yet 9:29, reflecting the Tabuk jihad, set the institutional genetic code from then until now.

Chapter 9

This chapter on shariah is better because he discusses the harsh punishments in the Quran, but the Old Testament is worse, he is quick to point out to justify the Quran, an ineffective, distracting ploy.

Further, he is wrong to believe that only the Islamic State imposed them. Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Nigeria, for example, have done so and still do. Various websites like Amnesty International and Jihad Watch (which Wills sniffs at) keep track of them.

And no, it is not wise to allow any part of shariah into our legal system. Numerous harmless religious laws, like washing or praying five times a day, are irrelevant to the law, except to protect these practices. But the Quran’s punishments and domestic and commercial laws, for example, are out of date and must not be allowed in the West (or anywhere else).

Chapters 11-13

His three chapters on women’s issues are actually very solid in most places, like divorce and the few verses that respect womankind. Maybe the Muslim feminists whom he lists can indeed make something of those positive verses. However, the problem is not the abstract positive verses, but the concrete oppressive ones.

His discussion on wife beating, for example, is thorough, except his odd comment about a husband using a tooth stick to strike his wife. “I think a modern Muslim who threatened his wife with a toothbrush might become guilty of killing her — with laughter” (p. 189). In the seventh century tooth sticks could be long and inflict injury. And why be so cavalier about a husband raising his hand against his wife, at all?

Many traditions indeed report through Aisha herself that she was betrothed to Muhammad at six and the “wedding” was consummated at nine, immediately afterwards. So Wills is wrong to plead ignorance about her age at consummation (p. 186, note 3). Unsurprisingly, he does not bring up 65:4, which assumesprepubescent girls are fair game.

To wrap up, since Wills takes many shots at the Bible, as Western scholars delight to do (though none or hardly any shots at the Quran), here is a thought experiment: If everyone on the planet were to follow the teachings of the four Gospels and epistles to their fullest, the world would be much better off, such as no more wars, no legal mutilations, love for womankind and humanity generally, and a lot of grace.

Following the Quran to its fullest would produce these results, to name a few: too many bruises and not enough equal legal rights for womankind; no religious freedom to critique Islam and Muhammad; no grace (a missing doctrine in the legalistic Quran); legal floggings and mutilations; jihad/qital might not cease (Muslims still wage war on Muslims).

Rather, Wills reassures us that the troublesome verses in the Quran are simply misunderstood and just fine as they are or maybe after minor interpretational adjustments.

But we are not the ones who are ignorant of what it really says. The fault lies not in our “confusion,” but in the Quran itself, whose extreme verses are clear enough.

Ironically, too often he is the one who seems ignorant of unfavorable evidence in the Quran, so his short book comes across mostly as a condescending and shallow exercise in special pleading and unfounded puffing.

No need to buy his book.

James Arlandson’s website is Live as Free People, where he has posted Thirty shariah lawsTen shariah laws that oppress women.

%d bloggers like this: