Remember, when it comes to guns and gun crimes, never believe the media *UPDATED*

No gunsMike McDaniel, who blogs at Stately McDaniel Manor, is one of the blogosphere’s go-to guys when it comes to guns.  Not only does he know his stuff, he’s a wonderful writer.  Today, he’s brought his knowledge and skills to bear on the recently released final report about Adam Lanza’s attack on Sandy Hook.  Unsurprisingly, given that the only source for information was the MSM, just about everything you thought you knew was wrong — except for the fact that Sandy Hook elementary school was a gun-free zone. For Adam Lanza, it was an irresistible target.

UPDATE:  This story about an armed bystander stopping an attempted mass shooting seems apropos.

William Jefferson Clinton has blood on his hands

Those of us who are actually paying attention have noticed that mass murders consistently happen in gun-free zones.  It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that a killer is likely to be more effective if he’s not dodging bullets heading his way.  He’s the fox in the hen house.  (Or maybe it does take a genius, because the stubbornly ignorant folks on the right refuse to recognize this cause/effect nexus.)

What most people didn’t realize before the Fort Hood massacre is that military bases — which are the places where you’d think everyone is armed — are places where no one is armed.  This is because William Jefferson Clinton decided in 1993 that, while the military can carry guns to protect him (think of those Marine guards), they’re not allowed to bear arms to protect themselves.

Jeff Bruner describes vividly the fallout from Clinton’s “I don’t like scary soldiers” policy:

Excepting military police and troops shooting under supervision at practice ranges, no person (regardless of rank) is today allowed to carry any weapon (including standard service pistols) onto any US military base or to keep any weapon, even stored securely, in his office or personal quarters.

Prior to that order, officers of certain ranks were required to wear side arms.

Anyone who watched more than a few minutes of the extensive television coverage of yesterday’s attack at the Navy Shipyard saw multiple accounts by senior Navy officers who described running for their lives after others nearby them fell or hiding under their desks, desperately texting colleagues seeking and offering reassurance that they had escaped the shooter thus far.

Think about that.

Career commissioned officers of the United States Navy–the Navy of “I have not yet begun to fight!” and “Don’t give up the ship!”–the Navy of “We have met the enemy and they are ours!” and “Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead!”–the Navy of which George Washington said “[W]ithout a decisive Naval force we can do nothing definitive, and with it, everything honorable and glorious!”–had no choice but to “shelter in place,” cowering despite their proven personal courage and the best training in human history, while a lone gunman without benefit of body armor calmly executed 12 of their colleagues and wounded as many others.

As a former anti-gun liberal myself, maybe I should give Clinton a pass. Nah, on second thought, nah. You see, I’ve figured out how dumb I was, and I try to make amends (including an NRA membership). Clinton and the party to which he belongs have instead decided to double down on a policy that transcends stupidity and heads into evil.

As you know, I wholeheartedly support America’s military.  I know that, as an entity, it will survive the Obama years.  If America elects another Democrat president, however, I would strongly advise people not to enlist or to re-up. There’s nothing more dangerous to America’s military than a Democrat in the White House. What makes Democrats worse even than Republicans such as Bush who took the military to war is that, with war, at least military members expose themselves to risk doing what they’re trained to do and, because we have a voluntary military, what they want to do. Under Democrats, though, they’re exposed to unreasonable risk when being forced to do something that goes against their training, ability, and instincts.

I need to get me a duck hunting shotgun

I’ve been making the point in the last few posts that the issue we should be debating is violence limitation, not “gun control.”  This video makes the point perfectly:

Don’t let the 12 minute video run time deter you from watching this. And please . . . share it.

And while you’re at it, and we’re talking about ducks, you might want to give thought to the sitting ducks in England.

A petition to remind our government that they serve us, not vice versa

A deservedly popular White House petition is available for you to sign, one that reminds those who serve in government that they are our employees, rather than our “betters.”  Here’s the text:

We petition the Obama administration to:

Eliminate armed guards for the President, Vice-President, and their families, and establish Gun Free Zones around them

Gun Free Zones are supposed to protect our children, and some politicians wish to strip us of our right to keep and bear arms. Those same politicians and their families are currently under the protection of armed Secret Service agents. If Gun Free Zones are sufficient protection for our children, then Gun Free Zones should be good enough for politicians.

As of this post, the petition needs only 6,794 more signatures before the White House has to address.  The White House, of course, will not address it seriously, so the substance of this petition should live on in Congress.