Category Archives: Gun rights philosophy

Looks like I was right!

I told you a while back on Facebook

Well here’s the first real sign of that.

Republicans have ended negotiations on a bill that would expand background checks for gun purchases because of House Democrats’ push for an impeachment inquiry into President Trump.

A Senate staffer told Washington Free Beacon reporter Stephen Gutowski that “gun legislation is dead, at least for the time being, because of the impeachment inquiry” that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced Tuesday. 

This is how you win on a contentious issue. You don’t stand on tables and scream “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!” You let the idiots punch themselves out and then you walk away blaming them for their own failure.

The ole rope a dope

That’s not to say that your howling on social media and directly to Republican Senators wasn’t useful, it was. It scared enough Senators that it made standing up to the Dems and their gun grab efforts an attractive political position. But look closely at how this was done. The President signalled willingness to sign gun control, causing two easily predictable things.

  1. Dems would overreach.
  2. Gun owners would freak out and start bombarding their Senators with pro gun messages.

Had Trump said “Screw that, we’re not doing anything,” the Dems might still have tried, but we gun owners would have remained quiet, which would have scared the Senators into believing that the other side might have the votes to put them out at the next election.

You’re being played. Why? Because we gun owners are terrible at politics. We get some of what we want and then we go away and mind our own business. We are so focused on finding heresy that when the President doesn’t immediately stand on the nearest table and scream “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!” we act like he’s a traitor. So the guy who is better at making deals than anyone else needs to win, he manipulates us in order to create the conditions where he gets the deal he wants.

This is the world the gun ban fans want us to live in

This might surprise you, but the UK Practical Shooting Association (UKPSA) is involved in… Practical Shooting.

I know, shocker!

What’s even more shocking is that the UKPSA has acquired five handguns plus the usual holsters and mag pouches in order for their members to practice IPSC shooting at a range in Northern Ireland.

A shooting organisation is facing questions over its charitable status after exploiting loopholes in firearms laws to obtain live-firing handguns of the type banned after the Dunblane massacre.

The UK Practical Shooting Association (UKPSA) announced the “awesome news” that it had “acquired” five 9mm handguns, which members can shoot at a gun club in Northern Ireland.

Handgun ownership was banned in England, Scotland and Wales after the 1996 massacre in which Thomas Hamilton, 43, who learnt to shoot at a gun club, murdered 16 children and a teacher before killing himself. The weapons are still legal to own and use in target shooting in Northern Ireland.

The charity refused to say who bought the weapons or whether charitable funds were used in the purchase.

So let me get this straight, the UKPSA bought (or were given) five pistols, put them in a gun club in Northern Ireland, and is now inviting their members to shoot these handguns in competition? And this is some sort of scandal?

From the UKPSA website…

The UKPSA have agreed a deal with NITSA Ranges in Northern Ireland and have acquired five handguns for the exclusive use of any and all UKPSA members!

These guns will be kept on the NITSA Club licence and so can be legally used for training, competitions and for you to undertake your Hand Gun Competency Test at NITSA (once you have completed a short gun safety course on Action Air or LBP)! These guns are free to use if you are a member of the UKPSA (you will have to pay a daily green fee of £25 for use of the range), all you have to do is make sure they are clean when you have finished!

YouTuber English Shooting made a video about this

This sounds pretty exciting. I want to play!

Callum responds to the idiotic anti gun story in this video about the reporter and how painfully clue free he is.

This is the world that the gun banners want you to live in. After they ban the guns, they want to ban anyone from renting a gun from a gun club, taking multiple training classes to get certified, and using that gun in organized pistol competition.

They hate you. Never forget that. They can’t be bargained with. They can’t be reasoned with. They don’t feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And they absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead.

This is what winning looks like

One of the things Scott Adams says in his podcast is how the moments right before winning looks a lot like the moments right before losing. Let me explain how gun owners can seriously win on gun control while looking at all times like we gun owners are losing…

Privately, the White House has floated at least one particularly unorthodox idea: an app connected to the National Instant Criminal Background Checks system that could be used to conduct background checks on private gun sales, according to three senators and other officials familiar with the proposal who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the proposals have not been finalized. 

Now the gut reaction of most gun owners who are politically active will be “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!” But before you jump up on that table and do your best Patrick Henry impression, let me explain why this is a good idea.

Currently, only Federal Firearms Licensees (gun stores, basically) can access the NICS system in order to conduct background checks. Right after Sandy Hook, Republican lawmakers proposed a method that would allow private citizens to access NICS so they could conduct a background check before a private sale.

It was a simple plan.

A gun buyer would log in to a free federal web portal and enter some personal information. If the buyer passes the background check, he or she would get a multi-digit key code, good for 30 days, to print out and take to a seller. That seller would use the same portal to confirm the authenticity of the background check

The Dems (driven by the gun grabbers) rejected it out of hand.

Why would they do that? If they wanted gun sales to proceed only after a background check, why would they make it impossible to conduct those checks outside of an FFL? The answer is obvious. They don’t care about the background check. They only care about getting the transfer on paper. If they don’t get the transaction written down and permanently recorded, they can’t later take that information and create the firearms registry that they actually want.

There’s an agenda here. The gun haters want to change two things about firearms. First, they want to change firearm ownership from an ordinary liability into a strict liability. Basically we treat dangerous objects like guns just like dangerous objects like cars. If someone runs into your car and your car hits another car, they guy who hit you is responsible for all the damages. They want to change that into a strict liability like for explosives. If you’re transporting explosives and someone runs into you, YOU are liable for the damage from the resulting explosion even though the other guy hit you and caused it. That’s how they want guns treated under tort law.

More importantly for this discussion, they want to reverse the burden of proof on firearms possession law. Instead of the law forcing the government to prove that someone possesses a firearm unlawfully, they want the law to force anyone in possession of a firearm to prove the firearm is possessed lawfully. Instead “innocent until proven guilty,” they want firearms ownership to be “guilty until proven innocent.” They want specific licensing and ownership documentation for anyone permitted to own a firearm and strong punishment for anyone who hasn’t complied with every jot and tittle of their licensing system. When the cops see you have a gun, it’s up to you (and your expensive lawyer) to prove that you have complied with the law and are legally in possession of the firearm.

This is what people mean when they say “firearms are a right, not a privilege.” When something is yours by right, the government cannot take it away without proving that you fall into a special case where your rights have been taken. If it is only yours by privilege, then it is you who must prove that you fall into a special case where you are permitted.

This “background check app” is what’s called a Devil’s Fork.

Image result for damned if you do damned if you don't

It’s a test. If you just wanted Background Checks, this is everything you’ve asked for. But if “Background Checks” are just a stalking horse for the universal firearms registration that you REALLY want, then this is the worst possible thing in the world.

Gun grabbers can’t possibly accept this.

But they can’t reject it either.

Damned if they do, damned if they don’t.

They will reject it. They have to. Accepting it is an off ramp on the highway to gun banning. It throws a permanent roadblock between them and their fantasy of registering all guns, licensing all gun owners, and slowly reducing the numbers of both. It’s a stake in the heart of their long term plans.

But if they reject it, they get two things.
No Background Checks at all.
Their duplicity exposed for all to see.

Us: “OK, guys, you win. Here’s your background checks.”

Image result for you get nothing

And then for ever after we get to beat them to death with “We offered you background checks and you refused. You don’t actually want background checks, what you really want is registration.”

Their argument will be “oh! People will just refuse to do the check!”

[C]ritics say Coburn’s plan relies too much on voluntary compliance by private sellers.

“It’s unworkable,” said Ladd Everitt of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, “and there would be no incentive for any private seller to do a background check under the legislation.”

Our response will be, “And people will refuse to go to the FFL.”

Their real problem with this plan is pretty obvious.

Another problem for gun control advocates: There would be no lasting record of the sale.

“When there’s a crime committed, a police agency can go to a manufacturer and ask, ‘Hey, where did this gun go?'” said Mark Kelly, who founded Americans for Responsible Solutions with his wife, former Rep. Gabby Giffords. The manufacturer can point to a federally licensed dealer, who would have a paper record of the sale, “and then they can help them solve some crimes,” Kelly said.

This was back when Starman was new to the gun control game. I doubt he would be stupid enough to give away the registration game so obviously.

The true goal here is registration of all firearms. The only way they will ever be able to prove transfers didn’t happen legally is to require all transfers to be registered with the government. That’s their end game. Registration, licensing, confiscation, enough red tape and bureaucratic nonsense to dissuade all but the most dedicated from becoming gun owners. Gun Culture dwindles down to just a few old guys clinging to their break action single shot shotguns (and maybe a Bible or two) and eventually just dies.

Robert Francis O’Rourke shot a giant freaking hole in their “No one wants to take your guns” argument, and this will shoot a giant hole in their “we just want background checks on all gun sales.” They never wanted just background checks. Background checks are just a stepping stone to their actual goals.

We need to put out weight behind this and push. Some simple app that allows us to conduct our own private, untraceable background checks before private sales. Something that doesn’t tell the FBI what guns got transferred. Something that doesn’t leave records of the check. Something like the Coburn plan.

You’re asking the wrong question

  • “Why do they think so-called ‘Universal Background Checks’ will prevent crime?”
  • “Why don’t they understand that so-called ‘Universal Background Checks’ are useless?”
  • “Don’t they understand that so-called ‘Universal Background Checks’ criminalize ordinary behavior?”

Stop asking these questions. They don’t matter to the debate. But for your information,

  • They don’t think they will prevent crime.
  • They are only useless for their stated aims. They will work very well for destroying our ability to pass on gun culture to our friends.
  • This, for them, is a feature, not a bug.

The actual question that needs to ask looks something like this…

And this one

How many years in Federal PMITA prison does AOC, ‘The Squad,’ Douche Nukem, and the rest of the Left think should gun owners get for ordinary gun owning behavior?

Make them defend sending Uncle Andy to the Federal slammer for loaning his turkey gun to his neighbor. Make them defend sending Cousin Mike to the Big House for teaching his friend’s wife to shoot. Make them defend it in public and on the floor of the House of Representatives.

This is the conversation they don’t want to have.

Scott Adams’ “opinion” on guns is itself a “half-pinion.”

My recent post on Scott Adams and his “opinion” on guns…

My opinion: I am willing to accept up to 20,000 gun deaths per year in the United States in order to preserve the 2nd Amendment right to own firearms.

is itself a “half-pinion.”

A full opinion on any topic considers both the benefits and the costs. A half-pinion looks at only the costs or only the benefits in isolation.

It just occurred to me that at no time did Scott Adams discuss the benefits of gun ownership and the Second Amendment. He only actually discussed the costs. So-called “Gun Deaths™.”

So what are the benefits?

We could try to make the case that an armed citizenry makes a rogue government less likely, or that it’s good for the moral character of our citizens to be armed. But we can’t actually quantify those things.

What can we quantify? Defensive Gun Uses.

There are several estimates of total number of Defensive Gun Uses, from Kleck’s 2.1 million per year down to the unlikely low number from the National Crime Victimization Survey’s 55,000-80,000 per year.

That means that even the lowest possible number, which has been criticized for not being designed to count defensive gun uses, is still higher than the total number of people who are killed each year with a gun. And if you don’t consider the actual tangible benefits of fairly widespread gun ownership, your “opinion” is just a “half-pinion.”

How many “gun deaths” are we willing to tolerate?

Scott Adams (you know him as the guy who does Dilbert) offered what he considers to be ” first opinion you have ever heard on the topic of gun ownership in the United States. “

I am willing to accept up to 20,000 gun deaths per year in the United States in order to preserve the 2nd Amendment right to own firearms.

Why does he consider this the first opinion? Because in his formulation, anyone who doesn’t consider both the pluses and minuses of a particular course of action before offering their viewpoint is giving a “half-pinion.” If all you care about is the benefits, you’re not considering the costs. If all you care about is the costs, then you’re not considering the benefits. If you don’t address both, your “opinion” is not actually an opinion at all. It’s just you bloviating.

Let me preface all of this by saying that I like listening to Scott. I enjoy his Periscope talks, which I listen to as podcasts. He makes things easier to understand and he makes a lot of what’s going on in the world less infuriating. Moving on…

So, what’s my opinion? My considered opinion is I’m willing to tolerate 325 million “gun deaths” in order to preserve the 2nd Amendment. I don’t care if every last one of the rest of you go out and blow your own brains out. I’m not trading in my AR for a Walmart gift card.

Now let’s discuss his “opinion” that “gun deaths” need to fall by about half in order for him to be satisfied that the 2nd Amendment is worth retaining.

Just for the sake of argument, I’m going to use only CDC WISQARS data. We understand that what the CDC calls “homicide” does not track with the official FBI data on total murder and non-negligent homicides, but the FBI doesn’t track suicides, so we’re stuck with these numbers. You can check these numbers directly on the CDC database yourself if you’d like.

WISQARS Death by Firearm 2017

Legal Intervention553

What would be the easiest way to “cut ‘gun deaths’ in half?

Eliminate all firearm suicides.

I have a plan. Exit Bags

Instead of letting white men 35 and over (49.2% of all suicides, 58.7% of all firearm suicides) shoot themselves, let’s hand out helium or nitrogen cylinders, tubing, and a head bag to everyone. Hold a great big campaign. Make up some rhyme that encourages potential suicides to suck some inert gas rather than use a gun. Maybe do some PSAs with crime scene cleanup crews who discuss the mess and evidence of the agony of those who shoot themselves while contrasting that with the ease of cleanup and the total quick exit provided by inert gas.

Scott Adams says he’s a master of persuasion. Maybe he could join in the effort by helping persuade people that suicide by gun is so last year. All the cool kids are sucking helium.

Of course, suicides would skyrocket, but no one gives a shit about that. No one cares about the person who kills themselves, especially not those who cry crocodile tears over their dead bodies while using their blood to lubricate the slippery slope of gun control.

If all you care about are how many people die due to gunshot wound, then the solution is easy. If you actually give a shit about people, it’s a little harder.

Maybe, Scott Adams, you should consider giving a shit about people and not just about numbers in a chart.

You Can’t Fight Drones and Tanks with AR-15s!

I like to point this out to people…

I used to live in Garner, NC. When the NC CHP database was something you could get, I searched it for everyone with a Garner address. There were more than 850 people who had Concealed Handgun Permits in the city of Garner. Not “gun owners,” but people who had taken a one day class and spent about $200 total just to get permission to carry a gun. You have to assume that the total number of gun owners was far higher.

Garner had (at the time) a total police force of 56 sworn officers. The total number of officers on patrol never exceeded 12 and was usually 6-8.

How the hell are 12 people going to police a town that has 850 concealed handgun permit holders and an unknown number of gun owners unless those gun owners WANT to be policed?

We knew exactly where the Mayor lived. And the Town Manager. And every single member of the Town Council.

One phone call and we could have summoned the cops on duty to an ambush and murdered half the cops on patrol before anyone knew what was going on. Then hit the Mayor’s house. And then randomly start attacking infrastructure. And then disappear, only to pop up from time to time whacking cops or town leaders or burning down buildings.

There’s literally nothing the cops could do to stop us. Cops would have to ride two-up in cars and respond in groups. They’d have to stop short of the call location and be careful on the way in, never knowing if it was an ambush or a real call. The Town Council could never meet again in public. Never mind having elections.

And where would the State and the Feds be in all of this? Dealing with their own troubles. One town rebels and they could all descend on them like a ton of bricks. Piss off everyone and the same thing starts happening everywhere. There are 800K sworn police officers of any description in the US, from your local beat cop to the head of the FBI. There’s no possible way that 800K could force 300 million to obey.

And don’t give me any guff about the US military. They’d desert before they went to war against their own people. (as would most of the police, but let’s ignore that for now) You can’t run drones or warships without safe locations to refuel and rearm. Guess what? We know where all those places are. Where do you think the people who man these weapons live? In a secure bunker someplace inaccessible? They’re your neighbors. So are the people who move the fuel and armaments. What do you think will happen to their families if they chose the wrong side?

We obey because we want to. They police us with our consent. If that consent was withdrawn, no one could exert power over us ever. That’s the reality of an armed population. That’s why we fight to keep our firearms.

Image result for you can't fight tanks with ar-15

What if I need to kill a lot of people?

Whenever some jerkoff mass murders people with a semi-auto rifle we have the usual suspects lining up to screech “‘Assault weapons’ have no legitimate purpose! They are designed solely to kill!”

Ok, so what?

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know. They’re also good for target and sport shooting, as well as hunting. Anyone who owns an AR knows several things they can do with it that don’t involve killing anyone. But go with me for a second. For the purposes of argument, let’s pretend that the gun grabbers are correct. Let’s pretend that there is LITERALLY nothing else I could do with my AR-15 besides killing people.

So what? Really, SO WHAT?

I carry a handgun. I don’t carry it because I think an IDPA match will suddenly spring up. I don’t carry it because I’m hoping for a deer to pop up so I can whack it for dinner. I carry a handgun in case I meet someone who needs to get shot. I would hate to meet a person who needs to get shot and not be able to oblige him by shooting him. My handgun’s primary usefulness is to shoot people. Yes, shoot them only in the appropriate circumstances, but shoot them.

That’s what it’s for.

My rifle is the same, but even more so. I absolutely want to hunt a deer with it. I even have a silencer that I can attach to it so I can be a little more respectful of those around me. But that’s really not what I own an AR for. I own it in case I need to shoot someone.

Or several someones.

Its primary purpose is to shoot people. Not paper, not deer, and not those annoying coyotes who live on my friend’s property. The reason I own it is to shoot people who need to get shot.

So, for the purpose of this discussion, let’s assume that the gun grabbers are correct and my AR is solely for killing people. So what? You know that in certain circumstances it’s totally legal to kill another person, right? It’s even considered by most people to be a socially responsible thing to do. If someone kicks in my door at night with the intention of robbing, raping, or murdering me and my family, pretty much everyone agrees that putting a few bullets in him is not only legal, but moral, and ethical as well.


Why not? Who are you to tell me that I can’t or even shouldn’t do exactly that? What’s the difference to you if I shoot a home invader to death with a shotgun or with an AR? Dead is dead.


So what? What if I need to kill a lot of people?

This is usually their back up argument. First ARs are only good for killing. Then they’re only good for killing LOTS OF PEOPLE!

Again, so what? Let me philosophize with you a bit.

How many grains of sand constitute a beach? How many grains of sand do I have to pile up in one place before you are willing to call it a beach and not just a pile of sand next to some water?

One grain? Surely not.

Two grains? Still no.

Ten million grains?

At what point does a pile of sand next to water become a beach?

Same thing goes for self defense. When the gun grabbers fall back from “It’s for killing!” to “It’s for killing LOTS of people really fast!” they’re trying to make the argument that maybe it’s ok for you to kill one person who is trying to murder you, and maybe two… or three at the outside. But not TEN!

Why not? Is there some tipping point where the criminals have gathered enough people together who want to kill you that you’re outvoted? If the vote is three to one you’re allowed to fight back, but at ten to one you’re supposed to lay down and die like a good little subject?

No. I don’t care if you line up the entire population of Newark, New Jersey outside my house. If they try to take me, I’m legally, morally, and ethically permitted to keep shooting until every one of them is dead, running away, or otherwise unable to continue harming me.

The gun grabbers, however, are terrified of having this conversation. This conversation exposes them for what they really are. They aren’t anti-gun. They’re anti-self-defense. They don’t believe that you should be permitted to use deadly force for any reason. You’re not a government agent, sprinkled with the pixie dust that imbues cops and soldiers with the authority to kill. You’re just some peon whose life belongs to the State.

So the next time you’re given some BS line by the gun grabbers, ask them a simple question.

“Is it ever legal, moral, or ethical for me, a non-police officer, not military civilian, to kill another human being?”

If they’re honest they will say “no.” If they’re mealy mouthed about it, make them describe in detail when they believe you are permitted to kill another person. I’m betting you’ll get some convoluted explanation that basically means “never.” But if you get a “yes,” along with conditions that seem reasonable, ask them one more simple question.

“If it’s legal, moral, and ethical for me to kill another human, why do you care if I do it with an AR-15 rather than a 12 gauge?”

North Carolina 4th in nation in SchoolShootings™

When you hear “School Shooting,” naturally you think about things like Newtown, Columbine, and Virginia Tech. The gun grabbers like to exploit that thinking in order to pretend that there is a serious problem with mass murder in schools.

A new report says North Carolina is fourth in the nation for the number of school shootings since the tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut two years ago.

Everytown for Gun Safety and Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America released the information Wednesday. They say there have been at least 95 school shootings in 33 states around the country. The data was collected for incidents that occurred at colleges, as well as K-12 schools.

Six of the shootings were in North Carolina, including a shooting at Salisbury High School in February 2014, and at Carver High School in Winston-Salem in August 2013. 

“That’s not a ranking that any parent, any student, any principal, any teacher wants to see that we have the 4th most school shootings in the country,” says Jackie Holcombe, a volunteer with Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America.

They forgot to point out that Jackie Holcombe is a “volunteer” for Moms Demand Illegal Mayors for Everytown, a wholly owned subsidiary of Michael Bloomberg, Inc, only because she no longer has a job being mayor of Morrisville, NC. She pissed off the gun owners and GRNC led the charge to vote her out of office.

So let’s take a look at these SchoolShootings™. Are they incidents of mass murder and mayhem?

4/13/2013            Elizabeth City, NC             Elizabeth City State University

ELIZABETH CITY, N.C. – A 23-year-old student has been released from the hospital after being shot near a residence hall on the Elizabeth City State University campus Saturday.

Police officers patrolling the campus on foot responded to Butler Hall late Saturday about 9:30 p.m. after hearing gunshots. They found the student with a gunshot wound, a news release from the university said. Elizabeth City police also responded because there were officers on campus assisting with security for a concert that was taking place at the Robert L. Vaughan Center.

The student was taken to Albemarle Hospital, treated and released, according to ECSU.

No arrests have been made, but police said that the shooting was in retaliation for a fight that had occurred earlier in the evening at Butler Hall. The university did not say in the news release whether any suspects in the shooting had been identified.

University counselors will be available for students in Butler Hall today and students may also make appointments with counselors this week.

Increased security measures are also in place for the remainder of the semester, the university news release said. Students, faculty and staff should have their university ID cards with them at all times.

Following the shooting, the campus was placed on lockdown and visitors were eventually required to leave, the university news release said. With the exception of the concert at the Vaughan Center, all other events on Saturday night were canceled. Once the concert ended, attendees were routed away from the crime scene.

Shortly before 11 p.m., the campus lockdown was lifted.

This was the second lockdown at ECSU this week. On Thursday night, the campus was placed on lockdown about 11 p.m. after a report of shots fired on campus. No injuries were reported and the university said later that the shots were fired by someone who was not on the campus but in a wooded area east of the university. The lockdown was lifted less than two hours later.

No mass mahem. Not even an injury.

8/30/2013            Winston-Salem, NC         Carver High School

WINSTON-SALEM, N.C. — A Winston-Salem student pleaded guilty today to shooting another teen at Carver High School last August.

(Suspect), who was 18 at the time of the shooting, was sentenced in Forsyth County Superior Court to between two years and three years, two months in prison.

He was also placed on supervised probation for three years.

He was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon, possession of a firearm on school property, assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury and discharging a firearm within city limits.

According to eyewitnesses and police, the shooting happened outside of the school building at the end of a scheduled fire drill. Officer Tim Wilson, a school resource officer assigned to Carver, called in the shooting.

Wilson, a 25-year police veteran, saw the shooting and arrested the suspect without incident, Chief Barry Rountree said at a news conference on the day of the incident.

According to police, (Victim), 15, was shot with a .38-caliber handgun. A witness said four or five shots were fired. Police said that the shooting stemmed from an on-going dispute between (Victim) and (Suspect).

A contingent of 30 to 60 police officers responded to the scene and officers delayed traffic in front of Carver High School. Carver officials followed the district’s lockdown procedures for its schools immediately after the shooting.

Police set up an area at nearby Russell Community Center where parents could pick up their children. Authorities allowed school buses one at a time to pick up riders, so police could account for every student.

School officials released students to their parents or buses about 4:15 p.m. that day, and students were patted down before getting on buses.

A Carver home football game that was scheduled that night against Reynolds High School was postponed.

(Suspect) had previously been convicted of bringing a knife to school during the 2011-12 school year while attending Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools. From court records, it appears (Suspect) enrolled in Carver High School the following year.

On Dec. 14, 2012, (Suspect) was arrested and charged with carrying a concealed gun and possession of marijuana. He was accused of having a .25-caliber handgun.

Then in January 2013, (Suspect) was charged with misdemeanor second-degree trespassing and resisting a public officer.

According to court records, he was accused of trespassing on property in the 1000 block of 15th Street that belonged to the Housing Authority of Winston-Salem. He was also accused of failing to stop when a police officer told him to do so.

At the time, he was a sophomore at Carver High School.

That May, as part of a plea arrangement, (Suspect) pleaded guilty in Forsyth District Court to the charge of carrying a concealed weapon, and Assistant District Attorney Aaron Berlin voluntarily dismissed the other charges.

Forsyth District Judge Victoria Roemer gave (Suspect) a suspended sentence of 45 days in jail and placed him on 18 months of unsupervised probation. Roemer ordered the handgun be destroyed.

(Victim) was involved in the 2011 beating of Rickie Wilson, a 58-year-old man with learning disabilities. At the time, prosecutors requested that (Victim) be tried as an adult, but a judge denied that request.

It was recommended that (Victim) spend a minimum of six months at a locked juvenile training center.

A fine pair of individuals.


The victim was convicted for previous offenses as a juvenile and did not have an adult criminal record.

11/2/2013            Greensboro, NC                               North Carolina A&T State University

GREENSBORO — A review of footage from N.C. A&T’s closed circuit cameras may answer questions about the campus shooting that took place late Saturday during homecoming weekend.

Greensboro police spokeswoman Susan Danielsen said police have the recordings, but would give no further details.

“There is surveillance footage, which we can’t release or talk about, from an investigative standpoint,” Danielsen said. “The content may help us find the people responsible for the shooting.”

A&T junior Devine Eatmon, 21, was shot at about 10 p.m. Saturday. The campus was placed on lockdown for about two hours.

Danielsen said police continue to search for four men in connection with the shooting, based on information from witnesses.

Information distributed by police the night of the shooting describe the number of armed men, but do not give specific, identifiable physical details.

Police have said that the shooting isn’t connected to an Oct. 29 shooting that occurred at Bluford and Regan streets, just a few blocks west of the homecoming incident.

Police said the man shot during homecoming festivities was about 50 yards away from the suspects.

“(Eatmon) was not the intended target,” Greensboro Police Capt. Mike Richey said.

Eatmon was shot near the Bluford Street Circle, just south of the residence halls known as Aggie Village. There were several clusters of people nearby at the time, Richey said.

The Greensboro department is heading the investigation of Saturday’s shooting at the request of campus police.

Eatmon is from Whitakers, approximately 20 miles north of Rocky Mount. He has been released from Moses Cone Hospital, where he was treated for a gunshot wound, said Samantha Hargrove, director of media relations for A&T.

Hargrove would not comment on whether Eatmon will receive time off or any other accommodation from his classes because of the injury.

A&T had additional police and security officers on campus for homecoming weekend. Following the shooting, the university increased patrols, Hargrove said. The exact number of officers the university added for the weekend was not immediately available.

The university does not think it needs to improve security for the school on a daily basis, Hargrove said. However, it will take steps to increase safety at the school for future homecoming celebrations.

“We view this as an isolated incident,” Hargrove said.

The last shooting on the A&T campus occurred in 2001, according to Hargrove.

A News & Record article of the account states that a 21-year-old man shot an A&T student in the chest during a dormitory cookout. The shooting victim survived.

I couldn’t find a story saying that they had located any suspects.

2/10/2014            Salisbury, NC                      Salisbury High School

SALISBURY, N.C. —A 17-year-old is being held under a $1 million bond after being accused of shooting a high school freshman in Salisbury.

(Suspect) of Salisbury is charged with assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill, possession of a firearm on school property and discharging a weapon on school property. It’s not known if he has an attorney.

Salisbury High School student (Victim) told the Salisbury Post that he was trying to break up a fight in the school gymnasium on Monday when he was shot in the stomach. The 16-year-old was treated and released after several hours at the hospital.

Investigators say the shooting happened during a fight between two groups, including some students. It is believed to have stemmed from a weekend fight.

Neither suspect nor victim had adult criminal records in the NC DOC database

9/30/2014            Albermarle, NC                                 Abermarle High School

ALBEMARLE, N.C. — An Albemarle teenager shot twice by a fellow student is still in serious condition, one week after the campus shooting. The attorney for (Victim) and his family says the 16 year old has a long road ahead of him. Medically, he says (Victim) hasn’t improved much over the past seven days.

“Still facing a long road from a medical stand point,” said Ken Harris, (Victim)’s family attorney. “He sustained profound injuries in the incident, and it’s going to be a long time before his medical situation resolves.”

Harris wouldn’t elaborate on (Victim)’s injuries, just that it’s a tough situation for him and his family. They’ve been by his side in Charlotte, since the shooting.

(Victim) was shot one week ago before class at Albemarle Senior High School. Police say (Suspect) shot him twice, then turned the gun over, and waited for police. Some speculate bullying led to the argument and shooting, but (Victim)’s attorney says it’s too early to say.

“I don’t think there’s been any confirmation at this point that this is a bullying situation,” said Harris. “I’m not saying that that won’t happen. I’m saying it’s very early in the investigation, and investigators have not reached that conclusion at this point.”

Harris says his firm is concerned about the school system and whether it did everything necessary to protect its students following reports (Suspect) was involved in another incident at a different school.

Time Warner Cable News reached out to Stanly County Schools, but never received a call back.

Albemarle Police Chief William Halliburton says the department has no comment on the bullying reports tied to this shooting, and they will not release any 911 calls from last Tuesday until the district attorney’s office has time to review them.

“Devastating for both families,” said Harris. “Of course, you expect your child will come home safely. And that’s our role, to make sure everything was done to protect those students.”

Harris says it could be months before they decide if there will be any civil action. In the meantime, Miller’s family asks for privacy as their teenager recovers.

Neither the suspect nor the victim’s names appear in the DOC database.

10/8/2014            Elizabeth City, NC             Elizabeth City State University

ELIZABETH CITY, N.C. (WAVY) – Police arrested the man who is accused of firing a gun Wednesday near the center of Elizabeth City State University’s campus.

(Suspect), 24, faces five charges of possession of marijuana, possession of drug paraphernalia, going armed to terror of public, discharging a gun on educational property (a felony) and gun on educational property (another felony), according to officers.

University police said no one was hurt and they located (Suspect) and his car within an hour of the shot. (Suspect) fired the bullet by the outdoor classroom, which sits near the center of ECSU’s campus. spoke to ECSU Campus Police Chief John Manley about the incident. Manley said (Suspect) came across another student in the outdoor classroom shortly before 1 p.m. Manley said the two knew each other and had a previous dispute that dated back a few months ago. According to Manley, (Suspect) confessed he fired a gunshot into the ground near the student.

“His words were to us, directly, were that he fired a warning shot,” Manley said.

Manley said the incident was isolated and campus police responded quickly. He said the call came in at 12:57 p.m. and an alert was sent out three minutes later.

However, there have been discrepancies. Some students said they received the alert around 1:10 p.m. A campus news release said an emergency alert was sent out to campus at 1:14 p.m. is working to determine exactly what time the initial alert was sent to students and staff.

(Suspect)’s bond has been set for $156,000, and he is held in Albemarle District Jail.

Strangely, the suspect in this case doesn’t have any conviction records in the NC DOC database either.

So there you have it. At least this time the gun grabbers are only including actual on campus incidents, unlike the previous time where they included drive by shootings near campus. But do any of these situations sound like Columbine? Newtown? No. They sound like ordinary crime that happened to occur on school grounds.

Why do these people think that the magic line between “school” and “not school” repels crime? Is there something that makes people believe that the presence of people learning things prevents crime? If anything, these incidents point to the need for expanded concealed carry on school campuses. The magic line doesn’t stop criminals from bringing guns, much less stop them from committing crimes. So why is it that the gun haters want to keep the law abiding from carrying a firearm for self defense? Why do they need to keep us disarmed and helpless?

Marky-Mark wants a pardon, a guest post

One of my Facebook friends gave me permission to reproduce his post about Mark Wahlberg asking for a pardon from the Governor of Massachusetts. He agreed, but asked to remain anonymous.


So apparently, Mark Wahlberg is asking for a pardon for his 1988 felony convictions in the state of Massachusetts. Now, as a HUGE Mark Wahlberg fan(boy), and as someone who looks up to him and admires him as an actor and a top-tier professional in a field I want to get into, as well as my being a deeply appreciative veteran for everything that Mr. Wahlberg has done for America’s vets, my initial reaction was, “Sure, why not pardon him? Yeah, he did some awful, violent, racist shit back in 1988 as a teenager, but the man served his time and has genuinely turned his life around since then and become an exemplary model citizen.”

I’ve actually made multiple Facebook posts gushing over this guy, despite my philosophical disagreement with him over gun rights and the 2nd Amendment. He and Brad Pitt are the two guys that I absolutely look up to most in Hollywood. It’s fair to say I want to be like them.

THEN, I actually bothered to look into the situation and his reasons for wanting a pardon…

When Marky-Mark was fifteen, he had civil actions placed against him for hurling rocks at black people while screaming racial slurs at them. One year later, on April 8, 1988, Mark Wahlberg was arrested, while drunk and high, after robbing a liquor store and beating up two middle-aged Vietnamese men on the same day, just because they were Vietnamese. We know this because he verbalized his reason for beating the living crap out of them while he was doing it. Specifically, as he knocked Thahn Lam unconscious with a stick, he called him a, “Vietnam fucking shit” in front of several witnesses. Then, when the cops found him, picked him up and brought him over to the two men he has just attacked for identification as the perp, Mark said to the officers, “You don’t have to let them identify me, I’ll tell you now that’s the motherfucker whose head I split open.” He also made several remarks regarding “gooks” and “slanty-eyed gooks” during police proceedings. For his crimes he spent 45 days in a correctional facility, out of a 2 year sentence.

It is worth mentioning here that at one point, Mark Wahlberg was the number one suspect of both the Boston Police Department & Massachusetts State Police for the murder of an Asian man (though never charged for the crime,) and it is also worth mentioning that one of the middle aged fathers and husbands he attacked on April 8, 1988 lost his eye due to the absolute viciousness of Mark’s assault on the man’s face.

A teenage Mark Wahlberg quite literally blinded a man in one eye just because the kid was racist against Asians.

I also found the following quote in the comments section of CNN’s Facebook post several hours ago by an Asian man from Boston, MA;

Bui Khanh writes: “Hey Mark … remember those Asian children you terrorized on Dot Ave? … You and your buddies chased us as soon as we got off the school bus, threw rocks at us, called us names … Oh, should I remind you about the Savin Hill T stop too? Those were not reported, and I am sure you have forgotten, but hey, since we open up things that took place over 2 decades ago, might as well throw this in the mix.”

Now, I don’t know what happened at the Savin Hill T-stop, but whatever it was, it doesn’t sound good. And judging from Mark Wahlberg’s violent distant past, it was most likely a violent crime.

You could easily make the argument here that this was 27 years ago. Mark Wahlberg paid his debt to society as deemed by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and has since dramatically turn his life around. He is an enormously successful actor and businessman, a husband and father of four, donates boatloads of hard-earned cash to all sorts of various charities, especially charities that help at-risk youth and Veterans’ causes, has started several charities of his own, and is, quite frankly, an admirable pillar of society. Without a doubt, Mark Wahlberg has come quite a long ways from attacking, blinding and possibly murdering Asian people on the streets of Boston. Those days are long behind him and NO ONE could realistically or rationally argue otherwise.

Now, when I first heard that Mark Wahlberg wanted a pardon from the State of Massachusetts, my first thought aside from being initially supportive was, “He probably just wants his 2nd Amendment rights back.” My initial instinct was that he wanted to be able to own and carry the guns that he uses in his movies, despite his public anti-gun stance. Lots of Hollywood elites have an attitude of, “guns for me, but not for thee.” They trust themselves with guns, (and hire guys like me to protect them with guns) but they don’t trust you or me with them.

I quite frankly didn’t give a shit about that. I figured that worst case scenario, the gun rights community could point to the fact that Mark Wahlberg was now a gun owner and would most likely become the proud holder of an incredibly rare (but not for long) Los Angeles County concealed carry pistol permit, and we could use that as yet another example of Hollywood’s (and the left’s) blatant hypocrisy on guns and 2nd Amendment rights. The best case scenario would be Mark Wahlberg becoming a gun enthusiast himself (like fellow A-lister Brad Pitt) and seeing the light on 2A rights.

Then, I actually read that CNN article…

Mark has listed three reasons for wanting a pardon for his felony convictions:

1) He says he wants to show the at-risk youth of Boston who he works with that a completely clean slate and total do-over/second chance are possible. I don’t buy it. He’s a movie mega-star and a multimillionaire. That’s the very definition of getting a second chance to make something of your life and doing your absolute best with it. He’s already proven through his life that second chances are possible. There is absolutely nothing that having his criminal record cleared up would do for his career or livelihood.

2) He says that his felony convictions could “potentially” be the basis to deny him concessionaire’s licenses to open restaurants in California and Massachusetts, and he wants to expand his Wahlberger restaurant chain. I don’t buy this, either. At all. I checked both California and Massachusetts laws, and there does not appear to be ANYTHING on the books that prevents a convicted felon from opening up restaurants in either state.

And now for the 3rd reason, listed way deep down in the article:

Moreover, he says, “given my prior record, Massachusetts and California law prohibit me from actually obtaining positions in law enforcement,” which he says prevents him from becoming “more active in law enforcement activities.”


3) He wants to be a Reserve Sheriff’s deputy in Los Angeles County, CA and thus be covered by federal law under HR 218, the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act.

“How do I know something so specific when he never actually said that?” you might ask…

Simple… As many of you know, I want to be both a police officer and an actor, much like our yellow menace-fighting friend Marky-Mark, over there. More specifically, I want to be a cop for my survival job while going on auditions and casting calls during my off time, and if I eventually do make enough money as an actor to do it full-time, I still want to volunteer in my community as a reserve police officer. I have an incredibly elite and rare level of training from the United States Marine Corps that only 1% of the Marine Corps Infantry, which is only a small fraction of the Marine Corps itself, which makes up only 1% of the veteran community, which only makes up about 1% of the entire population of the United States, actually has. I’m literally in the 1% of the 1% of the 1% of the 1% of the 1%, in terms of advanced tactical combat training. And I worked my ass off to get there. The United States government spent several million dollars on my training, and that, combined with my deep patriotism and sense of duty, leads me to want to use the training that you all paid for to give back to my community in a meaningful way, in the best way that I know to give back, despite whatever I may be doing for a full-time career. I have a passion for law-enforcement, and a desire to help people matter what else I’m doing with my life, using the incredibly unique and rare training that I’ve been fortunate and blessed enough to receive.

But what does any of this have to do with my statement that Marky-Mark wants to be an LASD Reserve Sheriff’s Deputy, and thus be covered by the HR 218/Law Enforcement Officer’s Safety Act, which allows off-duty and retired police officers to carry concealed firearms nationwide? Very simple:

The LA County Sheriff’s Department, which I was looking into for a while to work as a full-time LEO while I auditioned for acting roles during my days off, is WELL KNOWN for this. LASD has more reserve officers (800, specifically) than any other California police department. This is because the Sheriffs of Los Angeles County are well-known for giving out Reserve Sheriff’s Deputy credentials to wealthy A-list celebrities who give them large political donations for their reelection campaigns. Yes, in exchange for the right to carry a gun everywhere in United States, celebrities donate a huge amount of money to the sheriff’s reelection PAC, and they go through an abridged police academy, and are issued a badge and gun as sworn police officers, which automatically cause them to be fully covered under HR 218. The only condition that they have to abide by is that they have to donate 20 hours of their time each month to actually patrolling the streets as a cop. So for doing 2.5 patrol shifts each month, they get privileges that every other civilian does not.

The catch for Mark Wahlberg is that he is ineligible for this privilege because of his 1988 felony convictions in Massachusetts. THAT is the ONLY reason that he wants this pardon. He says he wants to “get more active in law enforcement activities.” You don’t need a clean criminal record to get involved in law-enforcement activities. MILLIONS of convicted felons all across America help the police every day, in an enormous variety of ways. They work as liaisons between gangs and the police, they work as consultants, they work as advisers, as informants of all kinds, they help with menial tasks, they give speeches on behalf of law-enforcement, and do a whole lot of other things, none of which require or allow them to carry a gun. Even celebrities like Jackie Chan have done recruitment videos for the LA County Sheriff’s Department itself, and don’t have to be (nor do they demand to become) duly sworn, armed deputies in order to do so. They do it out of a sense of community, and to help law-enforcement using their celebrity status. Not in exchange for a badge, agency credentials, and being allowed to carry a handgun with high capacity magazines around Los Angeles. If Mark Wahlberg actually wanted to “get involved with law-enforcement” and help the police, there are literally COUNTLESS ways for him doing that without actually being issued a badge and gun.

Much more importantly, being a police officer is a PRIVILEGE. Guys like me literally spend our entire lives dreaming about it, and join the military and go to college for it. We work our asses off, stay clean and away from drugs, carefully choose our friends, don’t get mixed up with the wrong crowd, and don’t commit incredibly violent hate crimes. We don’t go around beating up, blinding, or murdering Asians just because they’re the “yellow menace” Many of you have seen my handful of Facebook posts regarding my absurd struggle to get hired as a full-time municipal police officer, just because I was diagnosed with PTSD while serving my country. Now, Mark Wahlberg wants the fact that he blinded a man out of pure racism to not hold him back from having a badge, gun, and carry privileges.

Is there some animosity on my part that a job I’ve been struggling for almost 4 years to get, a job that I’ve wanted my entire life and sacrificed deeply for, would be INSTANTLY handed to him on a silver platter, despite his violently racist past, just because he’s a celebrity? Yes, absolutely. I have no problem admitting that. But ask yourself this question… How would you feel if you were an Asian and Mark Wahlberg stopped you in Los Angeles County, CA during one of his required 2.5 police shifts a month?

Even as a filthy-rich, world famous A-list celebrity movie star worth $200 million, the man has STILL never made restitution to Hoa Trinh for blinding him, nor has he even so much as reach out to him to apologize, to this very day. He even says in interviews that he’s at peace with it & sleeps fine at night. Sounds like a real remorseful, repentant guy.

I wonder how “at peace” Mr. Trinh is with only one eye…