Mississippi State Firearm Owners Association

This page was last updated on 03/11/2008

http://www.ccrkba.org/pub/rkba/press-releases/israeli.student.gun.htm 

______________________

Breaking news:

Police report a 23 year old female student shot and killed at least two

other female students, 21 and 26, and herself this morning at the Louisiana

Technical College in Baton Rouge (a gun-free zone). Officers ran into the

building within four minutes of the first 911 call, which came at 8:36 a.m.

One officer - the first into the classroom - could still smell gunpowder.

Yet, they were too late.

Notes on the Kirkwood, Missouri city council shooting resulting in 6

fatalities:

1) Police officers were present at the meeting when the shooting started

2) The officers were the first shot - the gunman killed one officer

outside City Hall, then walked into the council chambers, shot another and

continued 3) The police will NOT protect you

4) The potential victims "crawled under the chairs and just laid there."

(victim's quote)

5) The shooting stopped when good guys with guns ended it

6) Neither the prohibition of guns in city council meetings nor the

actual presence of the police prevented the attack

On the Portsmouth, OH school shooting:

1) A teacher was shot AT (unknown whether hit) and stabbed minutes after

another woman was stabbed 5 blocks away by the same man

2) The students hid in the closet

3) The assailant was the teacher's estranged husband, and she "was

terrified something like this would happen."

4) Neither the gun-free-school-zone laws nor the police stopped him, in

spite of the victim's anticipation of just such an attack

And in better news, SD to remove schools from "killing zones:"

http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2008/02/05/news/south_dakota/8eac6d30a544132c862573e600175659.txt 

Notes on the election:

With the Republican presidential field narrowing faster than a drunk's

vision, it's anything but clear what course Second Amendment supporters

(that would be us) must steer in the upcoming presidential election.

Presidential politics this year seems to offer no clear choice in

candidates. But it's a long way to the elections, and way too soon to be

tossing in the towel.

After all, no candidate has yet been forced to nail down an absolute

position on gun rights.

They've danced around the matter like an old-time country singer surrounded

a musical note without ever quite nailing it, but not one of them has a

position set in concrete.

There's a simple political reason behind that.

Accepted political wisdom is that guns don't win campaigns; but a hard-line

gun position can kill a campaign as surely as a dead-on shot from a

high-powered rifle.

In the narrowing field - of both parties - "the gun issue" campaign

managers are starting to consider the topic. With the D.C. ban case

heading to the Supreme Court in a few weeks, campaign managers are sticking

their political fingers up to see which way the wind's blowing.

During the SHOT Show earlier this week, trial balloon questions were asked

of attendees, asking them questions such as "did you vote absentee on

Tuesday," or "could you see yourself supporting the most conservative

candidate, regardless of a party affiliation?" Some revealing - and

disturbing - truths were found.

First, gun owners, despite the angry and unrelenting front, are very

nervous about the future. Hubris aside, everyone has concerns, whether it

be the state of the economy, global raw material shortages, fuel prices or

the simple fact that this election cycle will not produce a candidate most

of us want to support.

Secondly, there is a small school of thought advocating a mass "political

suicide" with our votes. That position says you go into the voting booth

and vote for the candidate who least represents our pro-gun position.

What's the rationale behind that idea? "Gun owners only stand united when

they're all under attack." Or maybe "Elect the Democrat liberal instead of

the Republican one, and then the Democrat Party will get the blame; in

response we will elect Ronald Reagan next time." Right.

The statement may be widely repeated, and more true than not, but the logic

doesn't hold up under critical examination. It's almost the same thing as

"fight for peace" - cute expression, but nonsensical argument.

The right to vote is one of our defining points as a nation.

Tossing that right away in some symbolic gesture you'd like to characterize

as defiance isn't brave, or noble, it's surrender.

I certainly hope gun owners or any conservatives/constitutionalists don't

surrender their votes thinking it to be part of some noble protest. It's

neither noble nor a protest.

You don't win battles by surrendering. You can't win every battle, but you

have to remember your goal is to win the war. That long-thinking may be

one reason the anti-forces have had success against us in the battle for

public opinion. They flow around unequivocal positions the same way water

runs around rocks. All the while, they're eroding the base of the rock.

Eventually, the rock topples, eaten away by the seemingly ineffective

water.

As we go into the weekend, it's fair and appropriate that we take stock of

the developments this week on the political campaign. It isn't however,

appropriate to give up in advance of the general elections. We must keep

speaking our message clearly to the average voter, and refuse to allow

ourselves to be marginalized by a deliberate misrepresentation by those who

want us to toss in the proverbial towel.

No election is won in advance of the vote. And no candidate is unbeatable,

so don't give up hope.

For all of you "die-hard Reagan Republicans" out there ... you know, the

ones who are acting like you're not going to support John McCain in this

year's election .. and who may even sit this one out. By now you should

have heard about McCain's speech yesterday before CPAC. Here are just some

of the things McCain SAID he would do:

Continue to carry the fight to the Islamic radicals and goons wherever we

can get to them.

Close the borders .. tight .. before any consideration is given as to what

to do with the illegals who are already here.

Not sign a bill with earmarks in it. ANY earmarks in it.

Reduce the size of government.

Not allow the expansion of entitlement programs.

Make the Bush tax cuts permanent.

Cut corporate tax rates.

End AMT.

Develop free market solutions for health care, and respect for the right of

free individuals to make choices for themselves.

However, others have legitimately claimed that he supports open borders,

illegal alien amnesty, increased taxation, free speech restrictions, global

warming hysteria, restrictions on anti-terrorist U.S. military activities

on foreign soil, and abortion.

What WILL he do? Certainly not all he claimed above, in my opinion, as his

temper, unreliability, disdain for the Constitution and lack of moral

backbone are well known. However, if he accomplishes 1/4 of the list, that

will be more than we hope for from any president. On the other hand, the

Democrat nominee PROMISES to do the polar opposite of the above, and means

it. Food for thought.