An American expat living in Italy for the last 20 years decided to blog a bit about my last post. Mike said:

"Does that sound a little paranoid to you? It certainly does to me. Where is the line between reasonable precaution which constitute preparedness and over-the-top paranoid delusion? Can planning for every contingency to this degree become a trap for some people which itself diminishes freedom? Or, does it make sense to plan meticulously for the extremely rare event of armed home invasion and the even rarer event of home invasion by a team of commandos?"

I typed up a response for Mike, and thought better of it. Chances are, since he did not have the courage to post a comment on my blog, he would simply delete my comment on his. So, I preserved it here prior to posting it. To wit:

Mike, we all form our opinion of the world around us based on our personal experiences. I do not "prepare for violent contingencies as if a squad of commandos is liable to attack at any moment" as you put it. I prepare for a violent and quick moving encounter that has me behind in the OODA loop. That is much more likely to be one or two criminals than a squad of crack commandos. Regardless, if I am behind on the OODA loop, chances are I will be impaired for life or dead unless I have the means of rapidly reversing the unfolding events.

Mike, the reason why a high school drop out failure at life thug can defeat and put down a well trained college graduate in a violent confrontation is not because he is smarter. It is because he has a plan and he is familiar with human behavior in violent encounters. To be able to survive such a situation, a person can depend on luck, or they can prepare themselves through training and education. To adequately prepare, they must understand the nature of a violent encounter and what their inadequacies are when attacked.

A gun does not protect you Mike. The ability to use the gun swiftly, effectively and decisively are what protects you when you are down to your last option. You will note, however, if you took the time to read before you decided to type out your screed, that I advocate first recognition, then avoidance and evasion of threats. To remain safe, the threat must first be recognized.

The fear of appearing "not normal" leads many people walking around totally unprepared for a violent encounter with a criminal. I do not know if you are a person such as this, or if you are a gun owner who simply believes that having a gun is enough. Honestly, it doesn't matter to me. I do encourage you to become a gun owner if you are not, and get solid, professional training in self defense if you are. Your lack of understanding of the nature of a violent encounter is readily apparent.

I took a look at your sidebar, and I saw "I'm an American expat living in Italy these last 20 years." That about sums it up, doesn't it? I'll put it to you this way Mike. I'm a law abiding citizen of a country where I can carry an effective means of self defense. I chose to do so. Because I do so, I invest the time to learn to use it effectively.

Now you can peck away all the you like about it, but that will not change. Am I paranoid? Are you talking clinically paranoid? Paranoia is a term that delusional people use in a derogatory fashion to describe those better prepared than themselves. It makes them feel more secure as they smugly cite statistics and anecdotes. All the while, people continue to die in violent encounters, while others manage to survive. I encourage you to investigate why some victims survive while others do not.

I'll answer a couple of your questions as well. Have I been a victim? Yes. Did it lead me towards gun ownership? No. I already owned guns. It did lead me towards effective, realistic training.

I recently had a friend, a police officer, die as the result of a violent encounter. He was holding a taser on a criminal instead of his gun. The criminal pulled a gun and shot and killed him before his partner could return fire, or before my friend could transition from his taser to his own gun. Should he have tased the criminal? IMHO, yes. However, he followed his training and went for his own gun when he saw the criminal produce a gun. As a result, he was behind on the OODA loop, was shot and killed.

These encounters happen with breathtaking speed. Training is essential, but more importantly, recognizing and understanding the threat is imperative. It is this aspect of self defense that so many people ignore, and if you had taken the time to read a bit deeper, perhaps you would have found it.

Excessive gun fanaticism? It's a gun blog Mike. Oh, occasionally it gets into photography, bicycles and such, but my core readership is gun owners and those who care about defending themselves if need be. I know my readers, just as you know your readers.

Rather than just address your blog post, I went searching through your blog for your true feelings on guns. I found it, I think, at the end of this post.

"Let me be perfectly clear. My own, extremely biased opinion is there are too many guns in the hands of too many people and something should be done about it."

I should have known. Have a good life Mike. Enjoy your blogging. Goodnight.

Interesting.

Eddie Eagle Under Attack

A Garland Texas mother believes the NRA's Eddie Eagle program is inappropriate for five year old children. "Not only do I think it's inappropriate to provide this information to my five year old, but this is a program published by the NRA," blathered Nicola Howe.

When Howe's daughter brought home an Eddie Eagle coloring book, Ms. Howe was shocked to discover outlines of children encountering dangerous guns for her daughter to color in. "Having pictures of guns that children color in I think is sending the wrong message," said Howe.

Howe's little girl, Samone also watched an Eddie Eagle video as part of the school district's curriculum centered around teaching children to protect themselves. The children were also exposed to life jackets, bicycle safety, car safety and instructed on appropriate action to take if confronted by a stranger. All that is fine and dandy with Ms. Howe, but pictures of evil guns and instructions on what a child should do if they encounter one have no place in the school system according to Ms. Howe. "At five years old, anytime you tell a child not to touch something, that's exactly what they do. It's in their nature to be curious and to touch and handle things," she says.

That's why you teach them what not to do, Ms. Howe. I suppose you avoid the subjects of drinking bleach, playing with matches, handling rattlesnakes and sticking your head in the sand as well.

Scared and Uncomfortable

John Wahlberg was at work one night when he received a message that the authorities "requested his presence". Being a good citizen, Wahlberg went to the police station. Inside, he was questioned and officers began to read a list firearms that were registered under his name, wanting to know where he kept them.

Sound like fiction? It happened at Central Connecticut State University. Wahlberg had unfortunately given a presentation on school violence as an assignment in a communications class. He talked about the Virginia Tech killings of 2007, and went on to say that had concealed carry been allowed on the Virginia Tech campus, Seung-Hui Cho might have been stopped before he killed thirty-two people.

"I was a bit nervous when I walked into the police station," Wahlberg said, "but I felt a general sense of disbelief once the officer actually began to list the firearms registered in my name. I was never worried however, because as a law abiding gun owner, I have a thorough understanding of state gun laws as well as unwavering safety practices."

Wahlberg's instructor, Paula Anderson, reported Wahlberg's presentation to campus police claiming it caused a "scared and uncomfortable" atmosphere in the classroom. So much for the free exchange of ideas, or even reasonable discourse in academia. "If you can’t talk about the Second Amendment, what happened to the First Amendment?" wondered Sara Adler, president of the Riflery and Marksmanship club at CCSU.

Paula Anderson has written a response and declined further comment. Her email at the university is andersonpau@ccsu.edu

More: Professor Takes Heat for Calling Cops on Student Who Discussed Guns in Class

The Sad Necessity of Anonymity

A Wisconsin middle school teacher has been placed on administrative leave after somebody informed school administrators of an internet photo of her with a rifle. Betsy Ramsdale had been a teacher at Beaver Dam Middle School for a little over a year when the bru-haha erupted. Superintendent Donald Childs states a "concerned staff member" reported the photo to school administration. Childs goes on to say that he is "unaware of any sinister intent" but he still suspended the instructor because the use of the photo on a personal Facebook page "appears to be poor judgment".

Gun owners who walk among hoplophobes in the daily course of their professional lives have long known that their jobs could be in jeopardy if too much is made of their gun ownership. If the wrong person in charge has a fear and loathing of firearms, they could find themselves in the unemployment line at a severe disadvantage. Many gun owners use pseudonyms online not because they fear government oppression, but because they recognize the very real, unjustified and ill informed snap judgements that can and probably will be made if they are exposed as gun owners in the workplace. It is sad that the life liberty and pursuit of happiness of many law abiding gun owners is placed in jeopardy if they exercise their first amendment right to speak about their second amendment rights.



Update: The ACLU of Wisconsin has chosen to defend Betsy Ramsdale. "Absent any evidence that the teacher poses a threat, the district should not over-react to the sight of a gun in one of their employee's hands," said Chris Ahmuty, Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin.

Hiding the Facts

JR writes about the anti-gun, anti-CCW bias of the Houston Chronicle.

Basic story is this: Deranged daughter of business owner enters business with a toy gun and a real bow and arrow. She shoots man in chest with arrow, injuring him critically. She points toy gun at other employees. Two CCW holders draw and fire on said deranged woman, striking her several times and forcing her to retreat into an office. Police are called. Fifteen minutes later, they arrive.

Woman points bow and arrow at police officer who is trying to convince her to surrender peacefully as other officers attempt to evacuate employee with an arrow still in his chest. As she begins to draw the bowstring, the officer demonstrates why gunpowder trumps the bow.

From the Houston Chronicle:

"Police are still trying to determine the motive for the incident. Officers said the violence erupted after Parker came into the office in the 1600 block of West Sam Houston Parkway with a hunting bow and arrows and what appeared to be a handgun about 3 p.m. Monday. Her father works there and was in the building at the time, police said, but it was not clear whether she was looking for him.

After walking into the company's micro-electronics division, Parker shot Silva with an arrow and then pointed the apparent gun at two other employees, police said. Those employees, who are licensed to carry concealed handguns, fired "numerous" shots at Parker, hitting her several times, investigators said. Parker dropped her pistol, which later was found not to be a real gun, and retreated to an office with the bow and arrow, officers said. Workers at nearby businesses took cover and called police.

Police arrived about 3:15 p.m. and were told the woman was hiding in one of the rooms inside the office building. As the officers tried to rescue Silva, Sgt. M.S. O'Neil saw Parker pointing her bow and an arrow at him and drawing back the string, police said."

JR deftly shows how the Houston Chronicle plays down the CCW holder's role in putting an end to what could have been a very bloody massacre with a deadly weapon on the part of a mentally disturbed person.

What is even more telling is how the Liverpool Daily Post and the Scotsman fail to even mention private citizens stopping a mass killing, nor the quarter hour police response time. We wouldn't want disarmed subjects of the crown to realize how vulnerable they are would we?

Gun Fetishists

Mike gets it right on target.

How Not To Treat A M1911A1

After Heath Maddox's father died unexpectedly in 2006, Maddox was clearing out his dad's belongings when he found a surprise: a U.S. military-issued .45-caliber handgun wrapped in a towel and tucked into a kitchen drawer.

Maddox vaguely recalled a story about his grandfather owning the gun, but he wasn't sure why, or how, it turned up in his father's kitchen.

Yet on a recent Friday evening, two years after the discovery, Maddox stood inside artist John Ricker's San Francisco studio, ready to smash the gun flat with a sledgehammer. "My uncle wanted to keep it in the family," said Maddox, a planner in the city's transportation agency, before he delivered the first blow. "But I knew about John and what he does with guns. ... I wanted it destroyed."

"If you have a gun, you have to envision who you're going to kill," Ricker said. "I want people to think about who they think it's OK to shoot, and where that puts them morally."

OK Mr. Ricker........It's perfectly fine to shoot somebody who is trying to kill you. Who the hell are you to judge a person that has been forced to use a handgun to preserve their life against an animalistic sub-human bent on snuffing the life from their body? That makes the victim of crimes morally........Alive. Handguns save far more lives than they take. Period. Dumbass.

More on this knucklehead here. He has a website and blog full of falsehoods, misrepresentations, and a childish view of reality. I will not provide him with a link here.

Gun Free Zones

Comments......

Heh......

Taser Shotgun

"Cue the creepy new age music and slow panning shots of pasty-white police officers that appear to be suffering from severe constipation.

A caption on the screen touts a 'ghost ring' sight. Foreshadowing perhaps? I thought this thing was built to be less-lethal!

Then, just when it shouldn't be able to get any worse, you're staring straight down the barrel."

Wired article.

The anti-law enforcement stance of this article is as palable as the anti-gun bias. Still, it is overwhelmed by the copious arrogance based on ignorance, making it completely laughable.

Yeah, those creepy ghost ring sights need Jennifer Love Hewitt to come exorcise them. Frightening stuff for a liberal hippie gun ignorant know it all who probably got his ass beat at the last anti-nuke love-in he attended. The irony is, the Taser shotgun was developed so criminals will not have to be shot with the uber frightening real thing!

Lessons From Miami

"You just pull a trigger and 20 or 30 rounds come in a second and in those 20 rounds you're sure to hit your intended target and some innocent bystanders, totally unlike a firearm that is just one bullet every time you pull the trigger," Miami Police spokesman Willie Moreno said in regard to "assault weapons."

1. Wow! What's that rate of fire again? 1200 to 1800 rounds a minute? Fact=M-16 rate of fire: 800-900 rounds/minute. AK-47 rate of fire: 600 rounds/minute. HK MP5 rate of fire: 800-900 rounds/minute. The God forsaken Uzi rate of fire: 600 rounds/minute. I wonder which "assault weapon" Moreno is talking about here, but I'll play along. Perhaps the officer did not do very well in third grade mathematics. Let's assume that a criminal does possess a crime dispensing evil assault gun with a 1200 round/minute cyclic rate, and proceed to 2.

2. Weapons with empty magazines don't shoot very well. Some folks refer to them as clubs. Here's a quick tactic for officers facing a criminal blazing away with a dreaded 1200 round/minute "assault weapon." Take cover ! Then shoot the son of a bitch when he is reloading. It won't take long.

3. You are not sure to hit your "intended target" nor are you sure to hit innocent bystanders. Saying such a thing is indicative of a police officer's need for a bit of trigger time. This ranks right up there with laser guided bullets and heat seeking ammunition.

4. Now here's the goocher......Assuming that in our universe there was such a thing as an "assault weapon" with a 1200-1800 rate of fire and a never ending magazine like the firearm Miami Police spokesman Willie Moreno is referring to, it would, by definition, be a fully automatic rifle. These particular firearms are tightly regulated, and the use of such weapons in violent crimes is about as common as turtle teeth. It's been 30 years since police spokesmen began parroting off the Brady bunch drivel. When are police spokesmen going to understand the difference between a full auto "machine gun" and a semi-automatic rifle before they open their mouths and expose their ignorance?

5. Tyler Peterson. Oh, wait.......That's not fair........The problem is the criminal, not the inanimate object he uses. Guns do not copulate and give birth to baby guns. They do not breed. They do not "proliferate." Guns not responsible for the increase in homicides, or violent crime. Criminals are.

It's time police spokesmen start to focus on the criminals that cause crime, rather than trying to prop up smoke and mirror deceptions that obscure the real problem.

Physician Education

When was the last time you were asked by your physician if you had guns in your home? It is no secret that many medical and nursing professional organizations espouse anti-gun and anti-self defense agendas. Guidelines issued by the American Academy of Pediatrics even encourage doctors to ask your children about guns in their homes.

Today, I learned about Doctors For Sensible Gun Laws. This organization, founded by Dr. William B. Rogers is taking on the professional groups who have sided with the anti-gun lobby. A quote from a letter to the American Psychiatric Association:

"To treat firearms violence as a medical issue in an effort to push for further gun control is absolutely ludicrous, when all the relevant research in the field of criminology reveals a net benefit to society of gun ownership."

Further:

"As physicians, we must be advocates for our patients. Embarrassingly often, we have advocated "treatments" without full knowledge of the facts (therapeutic bloodletting comes to mind). And while lack of research and scientific knowledge might be a partial excuse, that certainly isn't the case with gun-control, where solid research has been done, but organizations like the APA ignore this research because it doesn't fit their preconceived ideas."

The doctors affiliated with Doctors For Sensible Gun Laws also discuss what a patient can do when a nurse or physician pushes his or her own political agenda regarding firearms. Known as boundary violations, these inappropriate questions and inaccurate declarations are highly unprofessional and take advantage of the therapeutic relationship that should exist between nurses, physicians and patients. For many gun owners, the ignorant accusatory condemnations that make up this type of interview destroys trust and fills the relationship with justifiable suspicion and even hostility.

Nurses and physicians need to get out of the gun control business. By allowing gun control advocates to be lead them around by the nose, they lose credibility among the patients they serve. I am blessed to be living in a free state, one that cherishes the second amendment, regardless of what happened in Louisiana's own San Francisco known locally as Nawlins. I know and shoot with many physicians and nurses. The professional organizations that seek to strip us of our rights do not represent them, or myself. Many of us refuse to join, much less pay dues to such a group. That though, will not bring about change. More than enough gun ignorant nurses and physicians are available to keep the funds coming to support those at the top of the bureaucracy of health care.

What will make a difference is educating doctors and nurses and hospital administrators. One by one. It seems a daunting task, but each time a gun owner submits to these types of interviews without effective protest, ground is lost. Print a copy of this form. Hand it to your doctor or nurse when they try to intrude upon your privacy and your constitutional rights. Doctors For Sensible Gun Laws also has a polite letter and an angry letter prepared as templates to mail your physician if such a boundary violation has already occurred. Do not simply avoid your physician or find another physician, educate the one you have. Until we educate health care providers in large numbers, political winds will continue to influence them, and as a result the care we all receive.

First, do no harm. What a concept. Doctors need to stick with it.

An Air Soft Case

For the benefit of Montgomery County District Attorney Bruce L. Castor Jr, what is the legal definition of a gun or a firearm in Pennsylvania?

A gun or firearm is defined by federal and Pennsylvania law to mean any weapon that is designed to fire a bullet or other projectile by means of an explosive. A firearm silencer or muffler is also included in the definition of a firearm, as is a destructive device and ammunition.

Federal and Pennsylvania definitions of a firearm do not apply to antique firearms, which include any firearm manufactured in or before 1898. Pennsylvania and federal definitions of a firearm do not include toys that fire plastic balls by means of compressed air or springs. A Hi Point carbine makes the cut, but thirty airsoft toys and a collection of blades do not. Super Soakers don't make the cut. Water hoses do not make the cut. Blenders do not make the cut. Two whole beef patties special sauce lettuce cheese pickles onions on a sesame seed bun doesn't make the cut either. So why are three law enforcement officials doing photo ops behind a table filled with toys guns and toy ninja swords? Could it be that they are trying to legitimize a faux pas with a sensationalized song and dance?

"I do not think an attack was imminent and I am not certain that an attack was going to occur at all," Bruce Castor stated. "It could have simply been big talking by a kid who thought that he was bullied previously and he was going to exact his revenge." Police found about 30 air powered guns, swords, knives, videos of the 1999 Columbine attack, books such as The Anarchist Cookbook, a U.S. Army counterinsurgency operation handbook, and notebooks filled with violent missives, Castor claimed. Also found was a Hi Point carbine, now known in the mainstream media as a "9mm assault rifle." No 9mm ammunition was found for the Hi Point carbine. Police also discovered several explosive devices described as homemade grenades: plastic containers filled with pellets to which gunpowder could be added at any time. Authorities said one grenade was operable and the others had been in the process of being assembled. I guess gunpowder could be added to the chicken salad in the tupperware beside the milk in the old Frigidare too. That would make a hell of a mess.

The boy's mother was charged today with unlawful transfer of a firearm, possession of a firearm by a minor, corruption of a minor, endangering the welfare of a child and two counts of reckless endangerment. She was later released on bail. Oh, by the way Bruce, it is not illegal for a parent to purchase their child a firearm.

So look Bruce, no doubt the boy had problems. Address the real issues. Don't try to manufacture a case where there is no substance. That only makes you look silly.



To read the exact legal definition of a firearm, go to 18 USC § 921- Definitions.

Information for Pennsylvania Firearms Purchasers & Basic Public Safety

Montgomery County District Attorney Bruce L. Castor Jr.

Pennsylvania Firearms Law

Doc, what’s up with snooping?

Pediatrician paranoia runs deep
By Michael Graham
The Boston Herald

They’re watching you right now.

They counted every beer you drank during last night’s Red Sox game.

They see you sneaking out to the garage for a smoke.

They know if you’ve got a gun, and where you keep it.

They’re your kids, and they’re the National Security Agency of the Nanny State.

I found this out after my 13-year-old daughter’s annual checkup. Her pediatrician grilled her about alcohol and drug abuse.

Not my daughter’s boozing. Mine.

“The doctor wanted to know how much you and mom drink, and if I think it’s too much,” my daughter told us afterward, rolling her eyes in that exasperated 13-year-old way. “She asked if you two did drugs, or if there are drugs in the house.”

“What!” I yelped. “Who told her about my stasher, I mean, ‘It’s an outrage!’ ”

I turned to my wife. “You took her to the doctor. Why didn’t you say something?”

She couldn’t, she told me, because she knew nothing about it. All these questions were asked in private, without my wife’s knowledge or consent.

“The doctor wanted to know how we get along,” my daughter continued. Then she paused. “And if, well, Daddy, if you made me feel uncomfortable.”

Great. I send my daughter to the pediatrician to find out if she’s fit to play lacrosse, and the doctor spends her time trying to find out if her mom and I are drunk, drug-addicted sex criminals.

We’re not alone, either. Thanks to guidelines issued by the American Academy of Pediatrics and supported by the commonwealth, doctors across Massachusetts are interrogating our kids about mom and dad’s “bad” behavior.

We used to be proud parents. Now, thanks to the AAP, we’re “persons of interest.”

The paranoia over parents is so strong that the AAP encourages doctors to ignore “legal barriers and deference to parental involvement” and shake the children down for all the inside information they can get.

And that information doesn’t stay with the doctor, either.

Debbie is a mom from Uxbridge who was in the examination room when the pediatrician asked her 5-year-old, “Does Daddy own a gun?”

When the little girl said yes, the doctor began grilling her and her mom about the number and type of guns, how they are stored, etc.

If the incident had ended there, it would have merely been annoying.

But when a friend in law enforcement let Debbie know that her doctor had filed a report with the police about her family’s (entirely legal) gun ownership, she got mad.

She also got a new doctor.

In fact, the problem of anti-gun advocacy in the examining room has become so widespread that some states are considering legislation to stop it.

Last year, my 7-year-old was asked about my guns during his physical examination. He promptly announced to the doctor that his father is the proud owner of a laser sighted plasma rifle perfect for destroying Throggs.

At least as of this writing, no police report has been filed.

“I still like my previous pediatrician,” Debbie told me. “She seemed embarrassed to ask the gun questions and apologized afterward. But she didn’t seem to have a choice.”

Of course doctors have a choice.

They could choose, for example, to ask me about my drunken revels, and not my children.

They could choose not to put my children in this terrible position.

They could choose, even here in Massachusetts, to leave their politics out of the office.

But the doctors aren’t asking us parents.

They’re asking our kids.

Worst of all, they’re asking all kids about sexual abuse without any provocation or probable cause.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has declared all parents guilty until proven innocent.

And then they wonder why we drink.

Link

If your physician wants to educate you on firearms safety, you may want to provide your physician with a copy of this form.

A better informed medical opinion.

Muzzleloaders

It seems the anti-gun forces are seizing onto the idea that accused St. John's gunman Omesh Hiraman did not have to undergo a background check to buy a muzzleloader.

"No self-respecting criminal or gang-banger would ever buy one of these," a law enforcement source said. "But crazies - they love 'em."

On the lack of background checks for muzzleloaders:

"It's not a BB gun," said James Gannalo, a retired NYPD officer and ballistics expert. "It's a lethal weapon if the person fires it into a human being."

Yeah right, Mr. Gannalo, knives and screwdrivers are lethal weapons if they are jabbed into a human being, automobiles are lethal weapons if they are intentionally driven into a human being..........Do you advocate background checks on those as well?

Good Grief!

WEST NEW YORK - A man was arrested after accidentally shooting his girlfriend in the thigh with a plastic BB gun Sunday, police reports said. Pedro Dubon, 38, of the 200 block of Cliff Street in Cliffside Park, was charged with aggravated assault and unlawful possession of a weapon, reports said.

The woman was shot in the upper right thigh with a plastic pellet fired from an air-powered rifle at a home on 50th Street and Bergenline Avenue at 12:44 p.m., reports said. Jersey City Medical Center responded, but the woman refused
treatment, reports said. The man appeared to be "playing around with the gun" and the bullet ricocheted off a wall before hitting the victim, reports
said.

"No one should be using any kind of weapon indoors," West New York Police Director Oscar Fernandez. "It might not kill someone but it could injure someone seriously."

Note how an Air Soft pistol becomes a "weapon"? Even more amusing alarming, note how a plastic pellet becomes a "bullet"?

Air Soft Safety

Jodie Foster on Guns

"Here's my commentary: I don't believe that any gun should be in the hand of a thinking, feeling, breathing human being. Americans are by nature filled with rage-slash-fear. And guns are a huge part of our culture. I know I'm crazy because I'm only supposed to say that in Europe."
Jodie Foster

Nice. I believe this is what psychiatrists call projection. Even though Jodie is a pretty good actress.....Her bias against guns and Americans is crystal clear. Perhaps she is so filled with "rage-slash-fear" that she should not handle guns, but that is obviously not the case for many "thinking, feeling, breathing" Americans who own and use guns responsibly.

Jodie's gun handling is examined by Breda.

The Frogman Takes on AFP

Confiscating Clergy?

Recently, Jeff Ferrell of KSLA News of Bossier City, Louisiana published a story regarding the federal use of clergy to confiscate firearms in a disaster such as Katrina. He used footage from a Hollywood movie, "The Siege" to illustrate potential events in his news story. I'll cut and paste his story here.

Homeland Security Enlists Clergy to Quell Public Unrest if Martial Law Ever Declared
Aug 15, 2007 06:07 PM CDT

Could martial law ever become a reality in America? Some fear any nuclear, biological or chemical attack on U.S. soil might trigger just that. KSLA News 12 has discovered that the clergy would help the government with potentially their biggest problem: Us.
Charleton Heston's now-famous speech before the National Rifle Association at a convention back in 2000 will forever be remembered as a stirring moment for all 2nd Amendment advocates. At the end of his remarks, Heston held up his antique rifle and told the crowd in his Moses-like voice, "over my cold, dead hands."
While Heston, then serving as the NRA President, made those remarks in response to calls for more gun control laws at the time, those words live on. Heston's declaration captured a truly American value: An over-arching desire to protect our freedoms.
But gun confiscation is exactly what happened during the state of emergency following Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, along with forced relocation. U.S. Troops also arrived, something far easier to do now, thanks to last year's elimination of the 1878 Posse Comitatus act, which had forbid regular U.S. Army troops from policing on American soil.
If martial law were enacted here at home, like depicted in the movie "The Siege", easing public fears and quelling dissent would be critical. And that's exactly what the 'Clergy Response Team' helped accomplish in the wake of Katrina.
Dr. Durell Tuberville serves as chaplain for the Shreveport Fire Department and the Caddo Sheriff's Office. Tuberville said of the clergy team's mission, "the primary thing that we say to anybody is, 'let's cooperate and get this thing over with and then we'll settle the differences once the crisis is over.'"
Such clergy response teams would walk a tight-rope during martial law between the demands of the government on the one side, versus the wishes of the public on the other. "In a lot of cases, these clergy would already be known in the neighborhoods in which they're helping to diffuse that situation," assured Sandy Davis. He serves as the director of the Caddo-Bossier Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness.
For the clergy team, one of the biggest tools that they will have in helping calm the public down or to obey the law is the bible itself, specifically Romans 13. Dr. Tuberville elaborated, "because the government's established by the Lord, you know. And, that's what we believe in the Christian faith. That's what's stated in the scripture."
Civil rights advocates believe the amount of public cooperation during such a time of unrest may ultimately depend on how long they expect a suspension of rights might last.

Story by Jeff Ferrell

Wow. Tin foil hat time.

I believe there is a misrepresentation of facts in this news story.

I know Charlton Heston's statements were misrepresented.

I'm not an attorney, so I'll simply cut and paste what I can find on Posse Comitatus.

The Posse Comitatus Act could be replaced, nullified or modified by a simple act of Congress.

In early 2006, the 109th Congress passed a controversial bill which grants the President the right to commandeer Federal or even State National Guard Troops and use them inside the United States. This bill, entitled the John Warner Defense Appropriation Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (H.R. 5122.ENR), contains a provision, (Section 1076) which allows the President to:

“...employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to...restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States..., where the President determines that,...domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order; suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy...” [3] Senator Patrick Leahy and others have condemned Section 1076 because it effectively nullifies the Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C. 331-335) and gives the President the legal ability to define under what conditions martial law may be declared. Link

The John Warner Defense Appropriation Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (H.R. 5122.ENR) says nothing about gun confiscation. It refers to restoring order and enforcing laws during civil unrest. One will note that laws are now in existance in many states prohibiting the confiscation of firearms from law abiding citizens in the event of a disaster. In Louisiana, House Bill 760 provides this protection.

The Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006 was a bill introduced in the United States Congress to prohibit the confiscation of legally owned firearms during a disaster. It became law in the form of the Vitter Amendment to the Department Of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, in 2007. On July 13, 2006, the Vitter Amendment passed the United States Senate 84 to 16. President George W. Bush signed the Department Of Homeland Security Appropriations Act on September 30, 2006 and the Vitter Ammendment became Public Law 109-295.

So, you see, if the clergy is going to act as an agent of the federal government using Posse Comitatus to restore public order during periods of unrest following a disaster, they must be used to persuade the public, including public officials, to abide by laws already in existence. Thus, by the very laws they are trying to restore, they would effectively prevent the confiscation of legally owned firearms.

I do not know Sandy Davis, nor do I know Dr. Durell Tuberville. I do believe they were done a disservice by Mr. Ferrell, the journalist responsible for this misleading story. There is no talk from either man regarding confiscations, only of diffusing unrest, and helping to maintain the peace. I believe there was a stink pot of misrepresentation in this story, deliberate misrepresentation, to try to get a story started that does not even exist.

There were many guns confiscated in the New Orleans area after hurricane Katrina. Not one priest or minister abused the public trust to confiscate a single gun. Many priests and ministers traveled to the hurricane zone to help however they could. They were there. They did go into communities and shelters to help ease fears, and comfort the inconsolable. They did not, however, confiscate guns, nor did they to my knowledge attempt to convince people to surrender guns. In my opinion, it's time to call bullshit on this story.

Letter to ebay

mhalprin@eBay.com


Sir,
I would like you to know that ebay's recent decision to ban the trade of gun parts based on the VT massacre is misguided and wrong. While ebay, being a private enterprise, can make any decision they feel is necessary, the rationale for this decision is flawed.

The killer at Virginia Tech did use magazine purchased on ebay. He could have just as easily killed while wearing sneakers purchased on ebay or driven a car purchased on ebay. In fact, the sale of unsafe, unregulated and uninspected automobiles and their components on ebay bothers me greatly. I wonder how many auto accidents are caused by faulty auto parts traded on ebay.

I do not feel this recent decision is made in the interest of public safety, a safe auction atmosphere or a trustworthy marketplace. I believe the tragedy at Virginia Tech simply gave the powers that be at ebay the opportunity to implement a long standing anti-gun bias. They saw their opportunity, and they took it.

With that in mind, I fully intend to sever all relations with ebay and PayPal on implementation of this policy. Bear in mind that I trade many items on ebay, not just gun parts.

Please do not send me the same canned response you have sent to other sellers. I have already read it. It is published again and again in many forums and chatrooms outside of ebay's control. In fact, I will cut and paste it here for you. If you would like to send me a canned response, please make it a bit different. A little variety never hurt anyone, and I will know an actual human being read this email.

Thank you,
Xavier B.

Dear [recipient],

Thank you for your recent email to Matt Halprin in regard to changes to
our Firearms, Weapons and Knives policy. He has asked that I review
your email and respond on his behalf.

Let me start by saying that I understand that this is a very
frustrating situation. Before choosing to discontinue use of your eBay and
PayPal accounts I hope that you would allow me the opportunity to explain
why we have chosen to amend our policy.

Like the rest of the nation, eBay was deeply saddened and shocked by
the events at Virginia Tech and we felt that it was not only appropriate,
but necessary, to revisit our related policies. While nothing purchased
on our site was illegal in any way, we felt compelled to ask ourselves
some tough questions and ensure we do everything possible to provide a
safe and trusted marketplace. After careful consideration, we decided
to expand the scope of our existing policy to specifically restrict any
part that is required for the firing of a gun.

We have always valued an open and transparent marketplace; if items are
legal to buy and sell in an unrestricted manner we allow them on our
site. However, there are some items that while legal, may not be safe
for our marketplace. In these instances, our applicable policies go
beyond the law to ensure that our marketplace is safe.

After careful consideration our executives and our Trust and Safety
team determined, that while legal, any item required to fire a gun has no
place on eBay. All of our policies are under constant review. As the
Internet and the way our communities use the Internet evolves, our
policies and our marketplace must evolve with it. We determined that
this policy change was in the best interest of promoting a safe
marketplace for all members.

I understand your frustration regarding this matter and apologize for
the inconvenience it caused you.

Sincerely,

Terri
Office of the President