From: owner-cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca (Cdn-Firearms Digest) To: cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca Subject: Cdn-Firearms Digest V15 #428 Reply-To: cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca Sender: owner-cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca Errors-To: owner-cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca Precedence: normal owner-cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca Cdn-Firearms Digest Friday, December 28 2012 Volume 15 : Number 428 In this issue: [none] [none] [none] [none] [none] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: From: Subject: [none] From: "Joe Gingrich" Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2012 10:05:01 -0600 http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/12/27/armed-teachers-guards-key-to-school-security-in-israel/ Armed teachers, guards bolster school security in Israel By Greg Tepper Published December 27, 2012 FoxNews.com JERUSALEM - Americans intent on ensuring a school massacre like the one in Newtown, Conn., never happens again could learn a lot from Israel, where the long menu of precautions includes armed teachers. The Jewish state, which has long faced threats of terrorist strikes in crowded locations including schools, takes an all-of-the-above approach to safety in the classroom. Fences, metal detectors and armed private guards are part of a strategy overseen by the country's national police. And the idea of armed teachers in the classroom, which stirred much controversy in the wake of the U.S. attack, has long been in practice in Israel, though a minority of them carry weapons today. Oren Shemtov, CEO of Israel's Academy of Security and Investigation, noted that attacks typically happen in a matter of minutes, and said gun-toting teachers could, at the very least, buy time for kids to escape while police race to the scene. "Two (armed) teachers would have kept (the Newtown shooter) occupied for 45 seconds each," said Shemtov, who is one of 16 people in Israel authorized to train those who instruct school guards. Shemtov, a veteran of Israel's security services who has been teaching security methods for 22 years, praised the Newtown teachers who gave their lives trying to protect children, but lamented the fact that they weren't able to shoot back when gunman Adam Lanza opened fire, killing 20 children and six adults before shooting himself in the head as police converged on Sand Hook Elementary School. "We need to give them the tools to be heroes," Shemtov said. "No one wants to be a hero. They did what they had to do." Security consultant Dov Zwerling, an Israeli counter-terror police veteran, believes armed guards are crucial for school security. "From what I know of almost all of the active shooter events in the U.S., almost all of them conclude with the shooter taking his own life the moment he is challenged by the first officer on the scene," Zwerling said. "Why not challenge him earlier?" Shemtov said the two most critical keys to protecting schools are armed guards and armed teacher response teams. But, as in the U.S., the idea of teachers carrying guns raised some objections in Israel, he said. "At one point the Interior Ministry mandated that a certain percentage of teachers be armed but because, over time, fewer teachers carried weapons, for a number of reasons, including philosophical objections, and due to increased terror attacks, private guards were mandated at all schools," he said. School security in Israel is an extension of the comprehensive approach authorities there take to protecting all public places. According to National Police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld, police work with the Israeli Defense Force and the private security companies that protect such places as malls, bus stations, schools and universities. A centralized command system allows for quick dissemination of intelligence to every police officer and private guard in the field, he said. A collective effort among police, private guards and teachers requires that the civilians involved in armed security receive rigorous training. Private guards undergo at least three weeks of advanced training with a 9mm weapon and guards employed for school protection must pass criminal, mental and physical checks. "A long course, at a minimum of 40-60 hours, is needed so that the instructor can feel out the student," said Shemtov, noting that not all teachers or guards are suited for school protection. "Course candidates should be a certain age, emotionally mature, of a certain mentality, physically healthy - and from there move to training." In order to station armed guards in U.S. schools, an idea advocated by the National Rifle Association, America could tap a ready pool of qualified candidates, Shemtov said. U.S. soldiers returning from overseas are well suited for school protection, he said, and "instead of returning with nothing to do there's a sea of work" as school guards. "They're the elite of the American people," Shemtov said. "You have people obligated, morally and ethically to the state, to the flag - this is a soldier. It's a person who went out to do this. All you have to do is give him the appropriate training to do this in the private sector....This is the best of the American people, like they're the best of the Israeli people. They're people who took it upon themselves to help others." Greg Tepper is a freelance journalist based in Jerusalem ------------------------------ Date: From: Subject: [none] Joe, Tell her that her wish has been granted: Gun owners in both the US and Canada have been working hard to reduce firearms accidents and suicides for at least 70 years. The NRA has been instrumental in this effort. In addition, as citizens, gun owners have worked with others to elect politicians to reduce criminal violence, including murders and the small portion of murders that involve firearms. The NRA has been very helpful in this effort as well. Respectfully yours, Gary Mauser Professor Emeritus Institute for Canadian Urban Research Studies Beedie School of Business Simon Fraser University Burnaby BC CANADA V5A 1S6 On 2012-12-28, at 7:24 AM, "Joe Gingrich" wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carolyn McClanahan" > To: "Joe Gingrich" > Sent: Friday, December 28, 2012 4:18 AM > Subject: Re: letter to editor >> And the medical community is working hard to reduce medical errors - >> we acknowledge it is a problem and are addressing it. I wish the gun >> lobby would work on reducing gun violence. >>> On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 1:59 AM, Joe Gingrich >>> wrote: >>> http://www.forbes.com/sites/**carolynmcclanahan/2012/12/24/** >>> suggestions-on-take-two-for-**the-nra/ >>> I read, ''Suggestions On "Take Two" For The NRA''' by Carolyn >>> McClanahan, Contributor, Physician/Financial Planner, ADVISOR NETWORK >>> Dear Dr. Carolyn McClanahan: >>>Dec. 28, 2012 >>> As a physician, you have a distinct interest in gun violence and their >>> costs. Perhaps I could interest you to peer into your own medical >>> community for a simple comparison of firearm violence to medical >>> misadventures in your medical community. A medical misadventure is >>> when a medical procedure does not go as planned.(3) >>>>>>>Snipped to Shorten Previously Posted Info.**AsstMod-RAM**<<<<<<<< ------------------------------ Date: From: Subject: [none] From: "Joe Gingrich" Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2012 10:19:22 -0600 http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SURVEILLANCE_LAW?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-12-28-10-30-44 Congress extends foreign surveillance law By LARRY MARGASAK Associated Press Dec 28, 10:30 AM EST WASHINGTON (AP) -- Congress has voted to renew the government's authority to monitor electronic communications of foreigners abroad. It's a classified program to identify terrorists and spies without getting court orders for each intercept. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act program was on the brink of expiring by year's end. But the Senate on Friday approved a five-year extension by a 73-23 vote and sent the bill to President Barack Obama, who is expected to sign it. Lawmakers rejected arguments from an unusual combination of Democratic liberals and ideological Republican conservatives. They demanded to know about any Americans whose communications were swept up in the foreign intercepts. The intelligence community and leaders of the Senate's intelligence committee say the information is classified and oppose the disclosure. © 2012 The Associated Press ------------------------------ Date: From: Subject: [none] From: "Dennis R. Young" Date: Fri, December 28, 2012 10:48 am FORBES: Gun Control Tramples On The Certain Virtues Of A Heavily Armed Citizenry Lawrence Hunter, Contributor - OP/ED | 12/28/2012 @ 9:25AM |1,309 views http://www.forbes.com/sites/lawrencehunter/2012/12/28/gun-control-tramples-on-the-certain-virtues-of-a-heavily-armed-citizenry/ It is time the critics of the Second Amendment put up and repeal it, or shut up about violating it. Their efforts to disarm and short-arm Americans violate the U.S. Constitution in Merriam Webster's first sense of the term-to "disregard" it. Hard cases make bad law, which is why they are reserved for the Constitution, not left to the caprice of legislatures, the sophistry and casuistry of judges or the despotic rule making of the chief executive and his bureaucracy. And make no mistake, guns pose one of the hardest cases a free people confronts in the 21st century, a test of whether that people cherishes liberty above tyranny, values individual sovereignty above dependency on the state, and whether they dare any longer to live free. A people cannot simultaneously live free and be bound to any human master or man-made institution, especially to politicians, judges, bureaucrats and faceless government agencies. The Second Amendment along with the other nine amendments of the Bill of Rights was designed to prevent individuals' enslavement to government, not just to guarantee people the right to hunt squirrels or sport shoot at targets, nor was it included in the Bill of Rights just to guarantee individuals the right to defend themselves against robbers, rapers and lunatics, or to make sure the states could raise a militia quick, on the cheap to defend against a foreign invader or domestic unrest. The Second Amendment was designed to ensure that individuals retained the right and means to defend themselves against any illegitimate attempt to do them harm, be it an attempt by a private outlaw or government agents violating their trust under the color of law. The Second Amendment was meant to guarantee individuals the right to protect themselves against government as much as against private bad guys and gangs. That is why the gun grabbers' assault on firearms is not only, not even primarily an attack merely on the means of self-defense but more fundamentally, the gun grabbers are engaged in a blatant attack on the very legitimacy of self-defense itself. It's not really about the guns; it is about the government's ability to demand submission of the people. Gun control is part and parcel of the ongoing collectivist effort to eviscerate individual sovereignty and replace it with dependence upon and allegiance to the state. Americans provisionally delegated a limited amount of power over themselves to government, retaining their individual sovereignty in every respect and reserving to themselves the power not delegated to government, most importantly the right and power to abolish or replace any government that becomes destructive of the ends for which it was created. The Bill of Rights, especially the Second and Ninth Amendments, can only be properly understood and rightly interpreted in this context. Politicians who insist on despoiling the Constitution just a little bit for some greater good (gun control for "collective security") are like a blackguard who lies to an innocent that she can yield to his advances, retain her virtue and risk getting only just a little bit pregnant-a seducer's lie. The people either have the right to own and bear arms, or they don't, and to the extent legislators, judges and bureaucrats disparage that right, they are violating the U.S. Constitution as it was originally conceived, and as it is currently amended. To those who would pretend the Second Amendment doesn't exist or insist it doesn't mean what it says, there is only one legitimate response: "If you don't like the Second Amendment, you may try to repeal it but short of that you may not disparage and usurp it, even a little bit, as long as it remains a part of the Constitution, no exceptions, no conniving revisions, no fabricated judicial balancing acts." Gun control advocates attempt to avoid the real issue of gun rights-why the Founders felt so strongly about gun rights that they singled them out for special protection in the Bill of Rights-by demanding that individual rights be balanced against a counterfeit collective right to "security" from things that go bump in the night. But, the Bill of Rights was not a Bill of Entitlements that people had a right to demand from government; it was a Bill of Protections against the government itself. The Founders understood that the right to own and bear laws is as fundamental and as essential to maintaining liberty as are the rights of free speech, a free press, freedom of religion and the other protections against government encroachments on liberty delineated in the Bill of Rights. That is why the most egregious of the fallacious arguments used to justify gun control are designed to short-arm the citizenry (e.g., banning so-called "assault rifles") by restricting the application of the Second Amendment to apply only to arms that do not pose a threat to the government's self-proclaimed monopoly on the use of force. To that end, the gun grabbers first must bamboozle people into believing the Second Amendment does not really protect an individual's right to own and bear firearms. They do that by insisting on a tortured construction of the Second Amendment that converts individual rights into states rights. The short-arm artists assert that the Second Amendment's reference to the necessity of a "well-regulated militia" proves the amendment is all about state's rights, not individuals rights; it was written into the Bill of Rights simply to guarantee that state governments could assemble a fighting force quick, on the cheap to defend against foreign invasion and domestic disturbance. Consequently, Second-Amendment revisionists would have us believe the Second Amendment does little more than guarantee the right of states to maintain militias; and, since the state militias were replaced by the National Guard in the early twentieth century, the Second Amendment has virtually no contemporary significance. Gun controllers would, in effect, do to the Second Amendment what earlier collectivizers and centralizers did to the Tenth Amendment, namely render it a dead letter. The truth is, the Founders understood a "well regulated" militia to mean a militia "functioning/operating properly," not a militia "controlled or managed by the government." This is clearly evidenced by Alexander Hamilton's discussion of militias in Federalist #29 and by one of the Oxford Dictionary's archaic definitions of "regulate;" "(b) Of troops: Properly disciplined." The Founders intended that a well-regulated militia was to be the first, not the last line of defense against a foreign invader or social unrest. But, they also intended militias to be the last, not the first line of defense against tyrannical government. In other words, the Second Amendment was meant to be the constitutional protection for a person's musket behind the door, later the shotgun behind the door and today the M4 behind the door-a constitutional guarantee of the right of individuals to defend themselves against any and all miscreants, private or government, seeking to do them harm. The unfettered right to own and bear arms consecrates individual sovereignty and ordains the right of self-defense. The Second Amendment symbolizes and proclaims individuals' right to defend themselves personally against any and all threatened deprivations of life, liberty or property, including attempted deprivations by the government. The symbolism of a heavily armed citizenry says loudly and unequivocally to the government, "Don't Tread On Me." Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence said, "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny." Both Jefferson and James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, also knew that their government would never fear a people without guns, and they understood as well that the greatest threat to liberty was not foreign invasion or domestic unrest but rather a standing army and a militarized police force without fear of the people and capable of inflicting tyranny upon the people. That is what prompted Madison to contrast the new national government he had helped create to the kingdoms of Europe, which he characterized as "afraid to trust the people with arms." Madison assured his fellow Americans that under the new Constitution as amended by the Bill of Rights, they need never fear their government because of "the advantage of being armed." But, Noah Webster said it most succinctly and most eloquently: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States." That is why the Founders looked to local militias as much to provide a check-in modern parlance, a "deterrent"-against government tyranny as against an invading foreign power. Guns are individuals' own personal nuclear deterrent against their own government gone rogue. Therefore, a heavily armed citizenry is the ultimate deterrent against tyranny. A heavily armed citizenry is not about armed revolt; it is about defending oneself against armed government oppression. A heavily armed citizenry is not about overthrowing the government; it is about preventing the government from overthrowing liberty. A people stripped of their right of self defense is defenseless against their own government. ------------------------------ Date: From: Subject: [none] From: "Dennis R. Young" Date: Fri, December 28, 2012 10:57 am HUFFINGTON POST: Forget Wayne LaPierre's 'Monsters': For Gun Control, Focus on NRA Financed Members of Congress Ellen Freudenheim, Freelance author and activist http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ellen-freudenheim/nra-guns-congress_b_2345859.html NRA Press Conference Blames "Monsters," Calls for Guns in Schools Wayne LaPierre of the NRA is beyond hard-right. This industry shill called for armed guards in all American schools. He's blaming "monsters" for the recent spate of mass murders, including the recent massacre of children in Newtown, Connecticut. It's the monsters, not the guns, folks! It's the copycat mass murderers wanting their "moment of fame" and the "national media machine" that feeds their egos, that's who is to blame. Many people anticipated that the NRA would make an overture for gun control, after they announced that a major statement would be forthcoming following complete silence in the face of the deaths of 27 people in Newtown. Instead, the NRA in a press conference blamed everyone and anyone other than themselves and the nation's saturation by firearms. La Pierre blamed the mentally ill, rapists, gang members and killers who "spread like cancer across the nation." "A dirty little truth," he added, is that the entertainment industry is to blame for creating a culture of violence. There won't be any important breakthrough from this industry front-man. His breathtaking proposal to arm schools spells more money for the NRA paymasters, the gun manufacturers, firearm accessories makers and middlemen. His vision: an armed society is a safe society. Literally. If you don't agree, then find a way to speak up in the coming months. For meaningful gun violence prevention legislation to be enacted, concerned citizens will have to break the bond between NRA funding and Congressional votes. If you care about making sure American kids are safe from gun violence, and you don't want your children going to school with armed guards at every turn, if you want to see a drop in our nation's gun death toll of 34 gun-related deaths on average per day, then pressure Congress. Specifically, pressure Republican members of the House of Representatives who take campaign money from the NRA. How? Scour your contact list -- for old roommates (Virginia, Kentucky, Texas) retired relatives (North Carolina and Arizona), bankers-turned-ski-bums (Colorado) -- anyone who lives in pro-gun states and cajole, beg, demand, persuade those folks to pick up the phone and call their pro-gun Congressmen, send letters to their district offices, and make the argument that this is the time for meaningful firearms regulation in America, and not for putting guns in schools. And even if you live in liberal Brooklyn or Boston, you too can send them a letter or make a call. Send them a Christmas card, and beneath the picture of Santa and the Peace on Earth messages, say you want, at the minimum: - a ban on a broad category of assault weapons, without the loopholes of the previous regulations - a ban on ammunition clips used in mass killings - a new trafficking statute with penalties for "straw purchases" - all gun sales to be subject to an instant background check. Toss in this factoid, from an organization called Media Matters: Of "nearly $18 million the NRA poured into the 2012 elections, over 95 percent was spent on races where the NRA-backed candidate lost." Write to those who took the most from the gun lobby in this last election cycle: Jim Renacci of Ohio, Steve Fincher of Tennessee, Mike Coffman from Colorado, Rick Berg from North Carolina, John Carter from Texas and Raul Labrador from Idaho. How Much Is A Vote Worth? Much Feared NRA Contributions Close to Peanuts In 2012, the NRA contributed $18 million to election campaigns both to support allies and defeat their enemies. But NRA contributions to the 2012 election campaigns of members of the House of Representatives -- ranging from a few hundred dollars to just a few who got about $10,000 --show just how cheap a vote can be, if you believe that money talks in Congress. In the 2012 House elections, among those who won, Republican Jim Renacci got the most NRA money, $10,245 from the NRA and NRA PACs, as reported by the nonprofit Open Secrets. Next in line, with a $9,900 NRA contribution, was Steve Fincher, a gospel-singing businessman Tea Party pol who arrived in Congress in 2011. Fewer than ten representatives elected or re-elected in 2012 received between $6,000 and $8,500 from the NRA. The list includes a House member from Arizona, where fellow Congresswoman Gabby Giffords was shot this year: Mike Ross. It also includes Mike Coffman from Colorado, Eric Cantor from Virginia and John Carter from Texas and Tim Murphy of Pennsylvania. Representatives Paul Gosar of Arizona, Steve King from Iowa, Hal Rogers from Kentucky, and Mike Simpson from Idaho along with John Runyan of New Jersey took between $5,000 and $6,000 each in NRA funds. Twenty-five Republican members of the House who won reelection got $2,500 or less from the NRA. You can see the full list of NRA funded candidates at Open Secrets. Don't Arm the Schools! Instead, Show Up, Turn Out, Join Be Seen and Heard to Support Obama's Initiative President Obama is going to introduce new legislation to reduce gun violence. He's serious about it; no vice president in living memory has been charged with coming up with a plan of action on this topic, as Joe Biden was this week. The NRA's call for arming America's schools is outrageous. If you have children or grandchildren, plan to have a family some day and don't like the idea of armed teachers in every school in America, then join in this political fight. Because fight it is. You can hook up with DemandAPlan, a project of the Mayors Against Illegal Guns, the Brady Campaign and others. Everyone who has lost a loved one to gun violence, who's been held up with a gun, who has feared for their teenagers safety, or who has been traumatized by losing a colleague, a friend, a classmate to a firearm-related homicide, suicide or accident: it's time to speak up. If, after the Newtown tragedy, you want to see passage of the president's gun safety legislation in the next term -- and hopefully it will be strong -- put these NRA-funded House Republicans in your cross-hairs of a campaign to make them think twice about ignoring increasingly powerful public demand for better gun control. But now that the NRA has "responded" to the Newtown killings, don't underestimate the opposition: if you want stronger federal regulation of guns in America, you'll have to stand up and be counted. Write those NRA-funded Congressmen a letter -- and spread the word. ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V15 #428 *********************************** Submissions: mailto:cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca Mailing List Commands: mailto:majordomo@scorpion.bogend.ca Moderator email: mailto:owner-cdn-firearms@scorpion.bogend.ca List owner: mailto:owner-cdn-firearms@scorpion.bogend.ca FAQ list: http://www.canfirearms/Skeeter/Faq/cfd-faq1.html Web Site: http://www.canfirearms.ca CFDigest Archives: http://www.canfirearms.ca/archives To unsubscribe from _all_ the lists, put the next four lines in a message and mailto:majordomo@scorpion.bogend.ca unsubscribe cdn-firearms-digest unsubscribe cdn-firearms-chat unsubscribe cdn-firearms end (To subscribe, use "subscribe" instead of "unsubscribe".)