According to news sources, Hasan is a Muslim who disagreed with U.S. foreign policy and was resisting deployment to the Middle East.  The politically correct spin is that Hasan had been harassed about being a Muslim and was at the end of his rope with regard to legal methods of avoiding deployment.  The report that Hasan yelled “God is good!” before he began murdering his fellow soldiers would tend to indicate that the killings were a Jihadist act of terrorism.  “Alu Akbar” is the venerable battle cry of a Muslim warrior.

The shocking killings by a U.S. Army field grade officer raise disturbing issues about the role of Muslims in the military.  All service members take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies.  Christianity urges that its followers “render unto Caesar.”  Islam teaches that devotion to Allah supercedes all national loyalties.

The U.S. is committed to religious freedom.  How do you reconcile that value with a religious doctrine that prescribes the death penalty for leaving the faith?  Islam may, depending on interpretation, legitimize the killing of “infidels” during Jihad as a way to obtain blissful eternal life. 

Unfortunate fallout from this incident will probably include more calls for gun control and more discrimination and harassment against Muslims.  There are no easy answers on this massacre.  There are not even any easy questions.  For our part, we must not let Left-wing politicians parlay a shooting in a government-mandated “criminal-safe free fire zone” (gun-free zone) into more restrictions on our fundamental natural right to armed self-defense from crime, tyranny and genocide recognized by the Second Amendment.

Def Mech

As least two other individuals have been detained in conjunction with this event.  Their roles appear to be uncertain at this time.

News sources seem reluctant to call the shootings a terrorist attack, but the officer involved seems to have a name associated with Middle Eastern origins.  As a major in the U.S. Army, the shooter would have to have undergone some sort of background checks to obtain security clearances.

The shootings undoubtedly occurred in a nominal “gun free zone” on the sprawling Fort Hood Military Installation.  It is beyond imagination that one man with two handguns could have killed about a dozen armed soldiers.

The families and comrades of the fallen deserve our somber thoughts and heartfelt prayers.  My initial reaction leans toward a terrorist explanation.  Only time will tell, if this plays out.

Under any sort of gun control scheme imaginable, the army major would have had access to firearms.  We will see if the Left tries to use this tragedy as a springboard for more gun control.

Def Mech

Hypothetical “discussion” between a student and a teacher in a public school:

“No, Johnny, you can’t tell people about going hunting or target shooting.”

“Why not?”

“Because those things involve, well, you know, things that go boom or things that are sharp.”

“You mean like firecrackers and sharp-pointed scissors?”

“No! You know what I mean. Things that stupid rednecks use to make themselves feel big and powerful.”

“Oh. You mean sports cars!”

“No! I don’t mean sports cars. Don’t you cop an attitude with me, young man!” In a whisper, “I mean guns and knives; things that nice people don’t talk about, or don’t even think about, unless they are used by police or government agents in the movies or on TV. Now, don’t ever bring this up again, or you’ll be in detention until you’re twenty-five.”

(See my post, “Zero Tolerance=Zero Intelligence,” 02-12-09, tagged “Culture of informers” and “Zero Tolerance.”)

Another prime example of the cleverness of the Left in shaping young minds was the original lesson plan for the President’s speech this week to schoolchildren. (See Mike Rosen’s article, “Big Brother in Schools, Obama’s speech was early indoctrination,” The Denver Post, 09-10-09, Page 11B. You can’t miss the Lefty cartoon right above the article and under the headline.) (See my posts under the Category “Media Bias.”)

The lesson plan I am talking about is the one that was formulated before the country found out what Obama’s minions had in mind. Suffering from the angry reaction to political indoctrination in the original outline, the Administration’s education gurus removed the offending items.

What was so insidious about the original lesson plan? There were two subtle psychological ploys at work. The plan called for the students to write a paper describing how Obama’s speech had “inspired” them. The psychological kicker here is the implied assumption that the individual student had been “inspired” by Obama’s speech. What do you suppose would have happened had a student written that he or she had not been “inspired” by the President’s speech? I suspect there would have been a serious “discussion” between Teacher and student.

The expectation of the Educational Establishment, of powerful adults in charge of discipline, grading, promotion, and even continued attendance in school, would have obviously been that students would have been “inspired.” Kids aren’t stupid. They know what is expected of them and they have some idea of what is going to happen, if they don’t meet expectations.

The vast majority of students, even those who didn’t agree with, or who didn’t know anything about the President’s policies or agendas, would have felt pressured to write something positive about Obama’s “inspirational” speech. Teachers would have no doubt prompted the younger students with “suggestions” about how the speech “might” have inspired them, if the students couldn’t come up with an “appropriate” response.

The second ploy is a subliminal psychological technique bordering on hypnosis. “Write yourself a letter telling yourself how you can “help the President.” This bit of mental manipulation reminds me of a slick insurance salesman I encountered a few years ago, shortly after I completed a comprehensive course in unconscious communication techniques.

The salesman ran about eleven subliminal sales techniques on me that night in my apartment. These strategies were designed to influence me outside the awareness of my conscious mind. The verbal pattern that I still remember from his presentation is essentially a post hypnotic suggestion.

“Mark, when you need insurance, I want you to say to yourself, “Call John.” (The names have been changed to protect the guilty.) “John” had some rapport with me. I considered him to be an authority. There would have been a pretty good chance that when I needed insurance, I would say to myself, “Call John;” especially if I didn’t know the game he was playing. (No. I didn’t buy insurance, but then, I understood the game.)

If I am a child in a school run by adults who have a great deal of power over me, there is a high probability that I am going to internalize their message, presented as part of an “official” lesson plan, “How can I help the President?” Help the President do what? Get reelected? Meet his partisan political goals? Socialize medicine? Support gun control?

Enter our old friends “Cognitive Consonance” and “Cognitive Dissonance.” These are psychological terms. They have to do with the way a person organizes his or her mental world. They basically mean that ideas that agree with my view of reality are easy for me to accept and that ideas that don’t correspond to my worldview make me nervous. I will tend to embrace compatible ideas and reject or dismiss contrary information. (See my posts under the Category, “Psychology.”)

There is also what I call an “investment component” in the “Consonance” and “Dissonance” paradigm. The more of my time and effort that I put into the support of an idea, the harder it is for me to change my mind about it.

A personal example: I have put over a thousand hours in passing out Second Amendment literature at gun shows and other functions. If I were to change my mind and embrace the concept that the American People should be disarmed for their own good, I would be faced with a situation in which I had “wasted” a significant portion of my life on the “wrong” side of the issue. That would be a gut-wrenching psychological experience that would have a profound effect on my psychological landscape.

David Horowitz, author of Left Illusions and The Shadow Party, co-authored with Richard Poe, went through such a transformation following the murder of his friend Betty Van Patter by a Black Panther group in California.  (Horowitz was an important leader in the New Left and an outspoken and effective critic of the U.S. war effort in Vietnam.)  Horowitz went to other members of the American Left and Anti-war Movements to urge a cessation of support for the Panthers. He was told, in effect, by his “friends” that the injustices of the evil Capitalist System sometimes forced “oppressed people” to commits acts like murder. It took Horowitz years to explore his belief system and reorient his thinking to his current position that the Socialist and “Progressive” Movements are nihilistic and morally bankrupt. (See pages 85-90 in Left Illusions, Spence Publishing Company, Dallas, Texas, 2003, for his initial reaction to the killing of his friend.)

Forcing vulnerable school children to write how the President “inspires” them and forcing them to write letters to themselves as to how they can “help” the President create experiences that become building blocks of cognitive consonance. “I wrote the paper that ‘said’ that I was inspired. How can I now not be inspired by Obama?” “I wrote myself a letter about how I can ‘help’ the President. How can I not do everything I can to help him?”

It would take a measure of psychological sophistication that I believe is far beyond the grasp of most school children to say to themselves something like the following. “OK. I don’t agree with, or I don’t know about what the President is up to, but the teacher said I’ve got to do the writing assignments. I’ll do them, but I’ll make up my own mind regarding what I think about the President’s plans.”

You’ll notice that I slipped in a psychological jab in the phrase “…what the President is up to,…” By using that language, instead of saying something like “what the President wants,…” I am implying that there is a covert motive behind Obama’s actions. The ability to use unconscious communication cuts both ways, but I’m not afraid of an honest debate in the marketplace of ideas. Beware of people who don’t show you the man behind the curtain of Mainstream Media adulation and obfuscation. (There I go again!)

By the way, the same dynamic is operational in the Pledge of Allegiance, The National Anthem, God Bless America, America the Beautiful, and the oath of office taken by every American government official and military person. It was in the loyalty oaths to America rejected by Left-wing teachers in the 1950’s during the so-called “Red Scare.” The more that you say you will do something, the more likely you are to do it. Failure to follow through conjures up personal internal images of untruthfulness, weakness, and indecision.

I don’t want to see myself as a liar, a weakling, or indecisive. I am likely to continue to think and act in consonance with my previous oral and written statements and behaviors.

The difference between the oath of office and a pledge to the President, is that the oath of office is a vow to “…protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic.” The pledge to the President, is, well, a pledge to Obama. I do not believe that forcing such a commitment to the support of one individual is an appropriate exercise of power for the educational system of a democratic republic.

The sin committed by those who would have school children, in effect, pledge allegiance to one man, is not that they were successful, but that they tried to succeed.

Def Mech

Today, my particular bone of contention with the Left-wing media involves Mother Goose and Grim, which I submit is wasting ink agonizing over the restoration of a Second Amendment right to American Citizens in some of our national parks. This historic event is to occur early next year, after Congress passed an amendment affirming a Bush Administration rule change making possible this restoration of a lost right to self-defense.

In the simple arithmetic of the cartoon strip and probably many Liberal minds, allowing concealed carry permit holders to protect themselves and others equals exposing the parks to a hail of gunfire from trigger happy rednecks bent on killing Bambi, Thumper and each other. Don’t even mention hundreds of innocent bystanders! (Bambi and Thumper are registered trademarks of the Disney Corporation.)

We heard this same doomsday rhetoric before the passage of every “shall-issue” concealed carry law in the country. “Blood in the Streets! Fender bender shootouts! The end of civilization as we know it!”

The “expected” slaughter hasn’t happened. CCW permit holders are extremely law-abiding. Law enforcement officials in state after state have admitted as much.

The following statements are from two Texas police officials quoted by H. Sterling Burnett in Texas Concealed Handgun Carriers: Law-abiding Public Benefactors, Brief Analysis No. 324 from the National Center for Policy Analysis, Dallas, TX, June 2, 2,000, Page 2.

John B. Holmes, Harris Country District Attorney, said of his former opposition to concealed carry, “Boy was I wrong. Our experience in Harris Country, and indeed statewide, has proven my initial fears absolutely groundless.” Glenn White, President of the Dallas Police Association, stated in support of concealed carry, “All the horror stories I thought would come to pass didn’t happen… I’m a convert.”

If someone intends to commit crimes using a firearm, how likely is he or she to go to the trouble of getting a permit? As one young gang banger opined years ago on Denver talk radio, “If you’re going to smoke somebody, you don’t need no paperwork.” Criminals, by definition, don’t obey the law. (Someone, somewhere, please engrave this phrase in stone over the door to a library or courthouse!)

BTW, concealed carry has nothing to do with hunting in national parks, contrary to the 09-02-09 Mother Goose… cartoon in The Denver Post. Concealed carry is primarily a defense against two-legged human predators. Open carry of defensive handguns might be a sensible option against bear or mountain lion attacks, but such a display of “evil” guns would no doubt shock many Liberal tourists out of their Ho Chi Minh sandals.

For what it’s worth, to ease the angst-ridden minds of Liberals anticipating the destruction of parks by gunfire and the catastrophic pollution of all nearby water by lead residue, there are still laws prohibiting the brandishing and discharge of these “oh-so-deadly” concealed weapons. In other words, if you are going to display or fire a gun in a national park, you would want to have a legally defensible reason.

If the laws against display and discharge don’t deter would-be evil doers, how exactly would a policy against government sanctioned concealed carry be any more efficient in preventing crime? The simple answer is, it wouldn’t! (See my posts under the Category, “Gun Law Failures.”)

Furthermore, concealed carry in national parks applies only to those states that allow concealed carry in state parks. In those jurisdictions that still restrict the Second Amendment rights of their citizens in state parks, those rights are also denied in national parks within the boundaries of the infringing state. (We’ll have to fix that problem later.)

The action of Congress and the signature of President Obama on the CCW amendment simply restored a portion of the rights previously lost by American Citizens to armed self-defense against, crime, tyranny, and genocide. The forest streams will not run red with the blood of innocents, if our national experience with concealed carry is any indication.

Take heart, Liberals! Hoplophobia can be treated. You don’t need to live in fear.

Def Mech

Washington D.C., where the Holocaust Museum Shooting took place, is a legally mandated “gun free” zone for ordinary, common citizens.  (Think of it as a criminal-safe, free-fire zone, although, this time, there were armed security guards.)

Possession of a firearm by a convicted felon is against the law. Brandishing a weapon is illegal.  Murder or attempted murder, battery, or even a verbal offer of violence is illegal.  Von Brunn broke numerous laws in his intended rampage, which thankfully was ended by people with guns.  Criminals, by definition, don’t obey laws.  That statement should be engraved somewhere on a library.

There are roughly 80,000,000 law-abiding gun owners in this country.  We must not allow ourselves to become hostage to acts of violence perpetrated by deranged individuals. 

For those firearms enthusiasts who slowly shoot paper targets, collect antiques or “curios and relics,” and those hunters who use lever action, bolt action, or pump firearms, be advised that this crime was committed with an “old” rifle.  Do not ever be deluded into the notion that the “Progressive” Left only wants to take away handguns and “black” rifles.  If they can ban an AR-15, I believe that they can and will, ban your target rifle, hunting rifle, or Winchester ’73.

Look at the interconnecting web of restrictive regulations being spun by the Homeland Security Report on “right-wing extremists,” H.R. 2159, and H.R. 2401.  The Homeland Security Report broad brushes veterans, abortion opponents, Evangelical Christians, and “single issue” advocates (read Second Amendment supporters) as potential terrorists.

H.R. 2159 allows the Attorney General to declare you to be a terrorist based on “a preponderance of the evidence” and may deny you the right to confront your accuser based on “national security interests.”  Once on a watch list, you have no legal right to possess a gun or get on a plane.

McCarthy’s bill, H.R. 2401, the “No Fly, No Buy Act of 2009,” would include “persons who may be prevented from boarding an aircraft in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System…”

The Page 1B, 05-31-2009  Denver Post article,”Name’s not the same?  That just won’t fly,” “Mistaken ID’s of flyers on watch lists happen daily,” outlines some of the problems with the current aircraft boarding program.  What happens if you happen to have the same name as a “terrorist” on the “No Fly List?” “No Fly, no buy?”  

What happens if an errant bug falls into a printer at our Big Brother’s Ministry of Information or whatever it was that they called “Spy on You Central” in Terry Gilliam’s prophetic, dystopian movie, Brazil.   It could be, “No Fly, no buy!”  No legal right to own a gun, ever! 

(Dystopia is a variation on utopia, meaning a utopian vision that didn’t work out.  See 1984, Animal Farm, Brave New World, It Can’t Happen Here, Soylent Green, Minority Report, and Logan’s Run, for a few warnings about dystopian societies that may be closer to our present reality than we would like to think.)

By the way, isn’t it strange that shortly after the Homeland Security Report came out, we have multiple shooting incidents that seem to reinforce the conclusions of the report?  Abortion clinic shooting.  Anti-Semitic shooting.  Hmmm!  Von Brunn: name sounds Nazi-like, doesn’t it?  (See my post, “Look for more shootings after church killing and more calls for gun control,” 03-12-09, under the Category “Spree Killings.”)

In any case, all law-abiding gun owners must stand together in resisting further attempts by the Left to restrict our fundamental right to self-defense against crime, tyranny, and genocide.  Failure to do so will result in our demotion from citizens to subjects.  Remember!  The British Olympic Pistol Team trains in Switzerland, because it would be illegal for them to practice on their native soil.

Def Mech

The CBS hit piece on Americans’ right to self-defense from crime, tyranny and genocide apparently followed an NBC attack on 04-10-09.  We can expect an increasingly shrill crescendo of anti-Second Amendment rhetoric until at least after the anniversary of the Columbine killings.  There may be anti-NRA demonstrations at the Phoenix convention in May.

Why do I say that the CBS piece was biased?  Let’s look first at the timing of the piece to fit in with the annual, anti-gun rights, spring barrage.  The annual Columbine mourning and the upcoming annual NRA Convention provide ample targets for this sort of propaganda.

Next, let’s look at the structure of the segment.  It was a typical “advocacy journalism” set up.  The story opened with the implication that guns cause mass murders and that people buying guns is not a good thing.  The producers bring on a “straw man,” in this case the head of a Virginia gun rights organization.  Then, the presentation closes with a sound bite from anti-gun California Senator, Diane Feinstein, intimately associated with the first ban on semi-automatic firearms during the Clinton Administration.

You will notice that the pro gun-control side of the argument got the first and last slots in the segment.  It was designed this way, so viewers will tend to remember the anti-gun message.  The pro-gun rights “straw man” was “rebutted” by the closing arguments.

The “straw man” did mention that just one legally-armed student might have aborted the Virginia Tech Killings, which occurred in a “gun free criminal safe free fire zone.”  However, that statement was effectively drowned in the much more extensive coverage given to the anti-gun side of the argument.

Keep in mind that the producers controlled every minute aspect of this “news” report.  They just “happened,” to photograph some Nazi swastika flags at the gun show during the interview with the “straw man.”  These flags are normally displayed in conjunction with displays offering collections of war trophy Nazi memorabilia.  The casual observer of the “news” story probably wouldn’t know this, nor even consciously be aware that he or she was being led to associate the flags with the “straw man.”  Get it!  “Gun shows and gun rights are tied to Nazism!”  Excellent job of unconscious psychological persuasion!  Pavlov, not to mention Lenin, would be proud.

Let’s look at the advocates for the various sides in this “news” story.  There was one pro-individual rights advocate interviewed.  There were five pro-gun control viewpoints presented, including interviews with a wounded Virginia Tech student, the relative of a person killed in the Virginia Tech Massacre, an anti-gun law enforcement representative, and Diane Feinstein.  Illinois anti-gun Senator Dick Durbin got in his two cents for “sensible gun laws” in a sound bite.  Five to one aren’t bad odds  in a “news” story?

You will note that there were no persons interviewed or quoted who had employed firearms for self-defense, even though Dr. Gary Kleck estimates that up to 2.5 million defensive uses of guns occur every year.  You wouldn’t know it from this report.

Language is also telling.  The report misidentified semi-automatic, or self-loading firearms, as “assault weapons.”  ”Assaults” are bad things, right?  By pejorative labeling of commonly owned guns, the producers can shape the perceptions of viewers in the desired direction.

Real “assault weapons” are capable of fully automatic fire.  The guns shown in the news story are not.  You have to pull the trigger every time to fire a round from a self-loading firearm.  With a full-auto weapon, you pull the trigger and the gun will fire multiple rounds.  Advocates for more gun control typically deliberately blur this distinction.

In the segment, advocates for individual rights were called “The Gun Lobby,” which has a “stranglehold” on Congress.  Private sales of firearms at gun shows without background checks are referred to as “The Gun Show Loophole.”  (Ooh! Doesn’t that make you want to close that pesky “loophole,” register all gun sales, and force those nasty “gun lobby stranglers” back under the rocks from which they crawled?)

Never fear!  Even though the police are currently “outgunned” by drug dealers and gang bangers armed with their “gun of choice,” the “assault weapon,” Diane Feinstein will pick the time and place to push her gun control legislation and save us all from ourselves.

It’s extremely interesting to me that criminals and gangs didn’t seem to have a lot of interest in semi-automatic rifles, until the news media began hyping the idea that self-loading firearms were “guns of choice.”  I suppose the media had to point out to the gangsters what guns they should be using.

According to the CBS report, a recent poll indicated that “only” 49% of Americans currently favor stricter gun control laws.  After a few weeks of this kind of “news” reporting, the numbers will probably rise.

Now, I don’t object to the fact that CBS and “60 Minutes” producers have opinions on the issue of gun control.  I would just like them to express their opinions as opinions, and stop calling them “news.”  I would also like Mainstream Media pundits to clean up their language on the debate and stop trying to shape public opinion against gun owners.  Silly me!  That’s what advocacy journalism does! They have to make the world a ” better place”, a place like Chicago, or Oakland.  (See my posts under the Category: “Gun Law Failures.”)

Def Mech

Def Mech

Def Mech

Opponents were apparently concerned about the environmental impact of lead that would “undoubtedly” be sprayed around the parks by “kill-crazed” permit holders, as well as the “danger” to visitors, and the “danger” of “opportunistic poaching.”  The rationales would be the stuff of  Marx Brothers’ comedy, in my opinion, if they weren’t put forth as reasoned arguments by supposedly competent people.

Perhaps the most specious argument against concealed carry in the parks, is that the presence of guns would discourage park visitors and potential volunteers by making them feel “unsafe.”  Hoplophobia (fear of weapons) is probably a curable mental issue, but sometimes, I wonder.  (See my post, “Displacement as a defense mechanism in the irrational fear of guns,” 08-17-08, under the Category: “Psychology.”) 

The next time that a female hiker is raped and murdered in a national park, or a hiker gets mauled by a bear or mountain lion, let’s think back on this decision and ponder deeply about what these apparent opponents of common sense could have been thinking.  (These are the people that “don’t want to take your gun,” but who support gun bans, gun registration, ammunition restrictions, ammunition bans, closing down rifle ranges, and hate the whole idea of concealed carry.) 

Let’s then get behind the Mainstream Media blitz to return concealed carry to national parks.  Oh!  Wait!  There won’t be a media blitz.  The Mainstream Media doesn’t like ideas that don’t coincide with the party line. 

I guess the best that we can hope for is that the victims of human and animal predation in national parks will be hoplophobes, and not people who would have defended themselves, if they had been given a chance.  This seems cruel, but unarmed victims are not that high on the food chain.  

Def Mech

We can debate whether these clusters of murders are copycat killings caused by  “immortality” conferred on killers by the Mainstream Media, or caused by the “easy availability” of firearms (scientific evidence to the contrary).  Mass murders could be linked to  government creation of “gun-free zones,” which are really “criminal- safe, free-fire zones.”  There might be a conspiracy to manufacture these incidents in order to further an anti-individual rights agenda.  My inclination is toward the first, third, and last of these explanations, but I could just be paranoid.

In any event, lovers of freedom and advocates for the right to armed self-defense against crime, tyranny, and genocide must brace ourselves for another onslaught against our right to own inanimate objects that can be used as tools for protection, recreation,  or destruction.  The other side sees them as “Demon Guns.”

David Kopel of the Independence Institute has made the case that media outlets should minimize publicity regarding the names of spree killers to dampen the enthusiasm of those who would emulate mass murderers in the hope of gaining lasting notoriety.  Kopel also discusses the correlation between the rise of the electronic media and increases in criminal violence.

Open almost any newspaper or tune into any mainstream TV station to get the argument that the “easy availability” of guns is going to kill us all.  (See my posts under the Category: “Research” for a bit of the evidence that guns don’t cause crime.)

I believe that Kirby Ferris has insight into the possibility that some shadowy anti-gunners are using Manchurian Candidate-like mind control to motivate shooters into perpetrating mass murders at strategic times.  (Before you write us both off as crazy, read his articles here and here.)

I have done a considerable amount of research into this issue, myself, and have found a number of anomalies in many shooting incidents that have occurred at times that were much too convenient for the other side.  Then again, I could just be paranoid.

Look for a moment at Columbine.  It occurred days before the NRA Convention in Denver.  The State Legislature was considering an improved concealed carry law at the time.  The Columbine is the Colorado State Flower, so the incident stuck in the minds of many people.  The mass murder occurred on Hitler’s birthday and one day after the anniversaries of the Battle of Lexington, the Waco conflagration, and the Oklahoma City Bombing.  The shooting tainted an upcoming, annual,  pro-individual rights rally at the State Capitol.  One of the teens killed at the school was named Mauser.  (For anyone unfamiliar with firearms, Mauser is also the name of a famous gun maker.)

How did the Columbine killers get all those bombs into the school without help?  Given the extremely volatile nature of propane, why didn’t the two propane tank bombs go off?  Who was “KiBBz,” (Kibitzer?)  a code-named person in the killers’ writings?  Too many questions without answers cloud this mass murder.  There are other examples.  It could be coincidence, but a gunman at the State Capitol came from Rifle, Colorado.  How many shootings have occurred in places named “Springfield?”  (Springfield is also the name of a gun maker.)

If something “accidental” happens to me, I hope people will be suspicious.  How’s that for paranoia and ideas of reference?  So far, I’m willing to admit that I could be wrong, unlike a lot of really emotional folks on the other side of the debate.

In any case, look for more shootings that “conveniently” occur at the worst possible times for gun owners.  Look at the details surrounding mass murders and things that don’t fit in.  “Question authority!”  The folks on the other side often liked to say that.  They don’t say it so much, any more.

Def Mech