"Gun Free" Means "Victim Enrichment": Target Becomes a Target for Multiple Armed Gunmen [my shocked face]

By Elizabeth Nelson

Something we won't see reported by our MSM, because it goes against our occupying Emperor's gun-ban agenda, and the "feel-good" ideals that your local police will "keep you safe from harm."  I think I've more than pounded the point home that gun-control laws only hurt and oppress the law-abiding citizen, while freeing and empowering the common criminal to victimize the disarmed citizen and anyone they choose to.


So, it shouldn't come as any great surprise that bad things did in fact happen at several recently declared "gun-free" Target stores, and we have only Target and Moms Demand Action to thank for the latest violence against the unarmed citizens that deserved to shop in a safe environment.  Even Jack-in-the-Box, who had decided to follow Targets lead, has been robbed at gun point several times since their announcement. When will these leftist idiots learn, to a criminal, it's not "gun-free" it's "victim-enrichment" to them.


Target's gun ban backfires, here come the robbers.  Within three days of a new policy asking customers not to bring their guns to Target stores, reports have surfaced of armed attacks on customers.

Two Target shoppers at two different stores in Georgia have been robbed by armed thugs since the discount retailer announced on July 2, in a letter from its CEO, that it would “respectfully request” that customers leave their guns at home when they visit Target. Spokeswoman Molly Snyder said it was not a ban on guns, just a “request” that the Minneapolis-based retailer hoped its customers would honor. She said no signs would be posted banning guns, nor would any customer legally carrying a gun in Target stores be asked to leave.


Oh, Ms. Snyder, herein lies the rub, that the liberal left just can't seem to get through their heads.  We Conservative gun owners won't "force our rights and beliefs" down anyone's throat, that's what makes us different than the liberal left.  We will do as we are asked, and give you the desires of your heart, even when we know that what you ask is dangerous.  We will leave you to your dangerous armed, law-breaking criminals and take our offending protection from your sight, and wait until they come and pillage, as they have done, so don't late tell us, "don't obey our wishes, read between the lines and disobey us so you can protect our stupid arses later, when you're worst fears come to fruition."

On the very same day that CEO John Mulligan issued his public statement, a man was robbed at gunpoint in the parking lot of a Target in Gainesville, Georgia. Three days later, on July 5, a woman in the Edgewood area of Atlanta had just parked her Mercedes Benz in a Target parking garage and exited her vehicle when she was approached by a black man who punched her in the head, knocking her to the ground. He took her purse and car keys, then warned her to “stay on the ground or I will f—ing kill you,” according to police reports. He then put her car in reverse and would have run her over if she hadn’t rolled out of the way, she told police. She said she obeyed his commands, according to Decaturish.com.

Just days earlier, the Gainesville Police Department arrested three men on charges of robbing a man of his cash at gunpoint in the parking lot of the Target on Shallowford Road in the city about 50 miles northeast of Atlanta.

Officers were able to get a vehicle and suspect description, according to police spokesman Cpl. Kevin Holbrook. The alleged robbers were arrested later that same day. The victim, Kyle Bledsoe, reportedly had more than $500 cash on him. Officers confiscated one handgun when they made the arrest, Holbrook said.

Jerry Henry, executive director of GeorgiaCarry.org, said he thought Target made a poor decision.


“That’s what happens in gun-free zones,” he told WND. “They actually should be called victim-enrichment zones because that’s what they are. If anyone wants to commit a crime with impunity, take your gun where there are no guns. You can do what you want, get in and get out and there’s nobody to stop you.

“If you notice where most of the so-called mass shootings are happening, they’re in gun-free zones,” Henry continued. “You don’t see them at gun shows or at gun stores. You don’t see people walk in there and start shooting. They’re not going to do it because they know everybody in there is armed.”

Mulligan’s message to Target customers asking them to keep their firearms at home appeared July 2 in the retailer’s online magazine which, as irony would have it, is named “A Bullseye View.”

The alleged gunpoint robbery in Gainesville occurred about 6 p.m. on July 2, followed by the Atlanta robbery on July 5.

Mulligan said in his letter that the company had “studied the nuances” of the gun-rights issue from both sides and decided that it didn’t want its customers to carry weapons into its stores, “even in communities where it is permitted by law.” Georgia is one of those states where carrying a gun at a retail store is legal for those possessing a concealed-carry permit.

Mulligan said this was a complicated issue, but the company’s decision came down to its belief that carrying firearms at Target “creates an environment that is at odds with the family friendly shopping and work experience.”

Read the Target CEO’s complete letter asking its customers not to carry.

The carefully worded statement stopped short of banning guns.

“As you’ve likely seen in the media, there has been a debate about whether guests in communities that permit ‘open carry’ should be allowed to bring firearms into Target stores. Our approach has always been to follow local laws, and of course, we will continue to do so. But starting today we will also respectfully request that guests not bring firearms to Target – even in communities where it is permitted by law.”

Henry, the GeorgiaCarry.org director, said he believes Target issued the “no guns” request in an effort to assuage Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, a group backed by former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg that is pushing for stricter gun-control measures in both the public and private sectors.

“Moms Demand Action was bombarding them with calls and letters telling them that they needed to change or they were going to leave and go elsewhere (to shop),” Henry said. “They were getting a lot of pressure from Bloomberg’s group, and now they’re going to be pressuring somebody else to make the same kind of statement. This will go on until his money runs out.”

Snyder told WND she could not disclose who the company may have consulted with prior to making its decision.

“We typically don’t discuss interactions with specific groups or individuals,” she said. “However, what I would say is that we received feedback from our guests who have shared their varied perspectives on this topic.”

Henry said his group held a “We beat Bloomberg” party when Georgia’s HB 60 law went into effect July 1 and he told Georgia Carry members, “Now we’re going to celebrate with a big sugary drink,” since “he [Bloomberg] wants to ban those, too!”

The former New York mayor infamously led a campaign to restrict the sales of soft drinks there to 16-ounce sizes and smaller. It recently was thrown out by the courts.

Target’s new policy follows that of Starbucks and other major retailers that have issued similar policies. Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz used the same language in a September 2013 letter to customers in which he made a “respectful request” that they not carry guns in his stores.

“Most of them, especially the large companies, say ‘we follow the state law, if you’re allowed to carry you can do so,’” Henry said. “Starbucks started off the policy that Target just adopted, saying we’re not going to ban guns but we request you don’t bring them. Bloomberg’s ladies, the Moms Demand Action, call it a ban. ‘Oh yay, we won, we got bans approved for the stores.’ That’s what they say. But it’s not a ban. They got the companies to issue a letter saying we don’t want you to bring them in here. Target even followed up with a statement saying, ‘This is not a ban, but we just ask you not to bring your guns in here.’”

Henry said he believes at least two groups are operating in Georgia with financial backing from Bloomberg.

“He’s paying a couple of groups down here. One is Moms Demand Action and the other is Mayors Against Illegal Guns,” he said.

Henry said he refers to the latter group as “Illegal Mayors Against Guns” because its members are far more likely to commit a felony than any licensed gun holder in states like Georgia or Texas.

“Somebody did the math, and if you are a member of Mayors Against Illegal Guns then you are 82 times more likely to commit a felony than a licensed gun holder in Texas,” he said. “If you Google ‘gun owners against illegal mayors’ you’ll see all those mayors who have been convicted of or arrested (on charges of) felonies.”

Target’s no-guns “request” sparked more than 4,800 customer comments on Target’s website. The back-and-forth debate between Second Amendment advocates and gun-control progressives reached a fevered pitch.

“Thank you, Target for displaying #gunsense and promoting public safety as a civic duty,” wrote S.K. Boss of Arkansas.

“Public safety is removing my ability to defend myself? Are you on drugs?” responded another customer, Bob Jones.

Boss then struck back with the comment that only police should be allowed to carry guns in a “civilized” society.

“Civilized societies hire police for this purpose (of protecting the public) and don’t rely on random individuals among us,” Boss wrote. “If you are a cop, thanks for taking on that task. We all appreciate the work you do.”

Georgia’s new law, known as House Bill 60, went into effect July 1, allowing permit holders to carry in shopping malls, stores, restaurants and government buildings where there is not a security checkpoint.

“The timing of our announcement was in no way tied to the new law in Georgia. As our interim CEO John Mulligan noted, this was something the leadership team had been monitoring for some time,” said Snyder.

Henry likes to remind skeptics that very few businesses, even those owned by gun-control advocates, will post a sign advertising that guns aren’t allowed.

Taco Mac, an Atlanta-based Mexican eatery, did that several years ago and it backfired.

“They’d been in business for 29 years and never had a robbery,” Henry said. “After we passed our update to the Georgia carry laws in 2008 allowing us to carry in restaurants that served alcohol, as long as we didn’t consume alcohol, Taco Mac posted a sign, and within nine months they had their first robbery.”

It didn’t take that long when Jack in the Box restaurants made a similar demand.

In fact, there have been four robbery reports in the few weeks after the change was announced.

One incident was in Liberty, Texas. Only a few weeks earlier, a Jack in the Box in northwest Houston was hit. The second in the series also was in Houston, but the first one after company officials announced their changed policy, only about a month ago, was in Tennessee, where a man was shot in the restaurant’s parking lot.

The incidents began shortly after an anti-gun group, Moms Demand Action, put pressure on the company to ban guns.

Jack in the Box announced the new policy with an explanation: “Creating a warm and inviting environment for all of our guests and employees is a top priority for Jack in the Box. The presence of guns inside a restaurant could create an uncomfortable situation for our guests and employees and lead to unintended consequences. While we respect the rights of all our guests, we would prefer that guests not bring their guns inside our restaurants.” Read more WND

Sadly, the liberals will never understand, until they are in a situation where they are either saved by a Concealed Carrier or they escape death by the skin on their teeth.  We'll never stop evil intent, and bad men with guns by giving them fish-in-a-barrel, surrounded by "gun-free" "victim-enrichment" zone signs.

Because Gun Control Worked so Well in the Past and for Others?

by Elizabeth Nelson

I have yet to have one "open minded" anti-gun zealot answer this question: if gun control works

(in a liberal, Utopian world), only cops had guns and criminals "obeyed gun laws," then how is it that men get robbed, raped and killed in prison? 

This is probably why over the 4th of July holiday, in Chicago, more than 50 people were shot which led to 15 people dying from their injuries; but hey, the homicide rate is down, while the "shooting rate is up" in Chicago. What a way to liberally spin gun violence, when they have the "toughest gun laws" in the nation.

Chicago's Fourth of July weekend death toll has climbed to 15 with the death of a man who was shot just before midnight Sunday.

The Cook County Medical Examiner's Office says 25-year-old William Allen was pronounced dead shortly before 2:30 p.m. on Monday afternoon. Police say Allen was shot Sunday night.

Allen was one of more than 50 people shot over the long holiday weekend. The killings continued Monday with the slayings of three people — the first two early Monday and the third on Monday night on Chicago's South Side.

The Chicago Sun-Times reports that the latest victim was a 19-year-old woman who was shot in the back by a gunman who rode up on a bicycle and opened fire.

However, why stop there, let's see what our future would be, if we allowed our Government to "Molon Labe," come and take it. Let's look to Australia and see how they are doing.


It has now been over 10 years since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own Government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.

The statistics for the years following the ban are now in:

 

Accidental gun deaths are 300% higher than the pre-1997 ban rate

The assault rate has increased 800% since 1991, and increased 200% since the 1997 gun ban.

 

Robbery and armed robbery have increase 20% from the pre-97 ban rate. From immediately after the ban was instituted in 1997 through 2002, the robbery and armed robbery rate was up 200% over the pre-ban rates.

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 171 percent.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort, and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns.

Let's examine the overall murder rate and the gun murder rate in Australia.  Take note both are virtually unchanged and unaffected by the gun ban.

The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.  While the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns. Criminals in Australia now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws ONLY adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Source: Australian gun ban facts statistics.

One final statistic, so easy that a Liberal anti-gun zealot could understand it

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 170 million

"The sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental."- John Steinbeck

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" - George Santayana

Intelligence is learning from our mistakes, wisdom is learning from other's mistakes.  Before we find ourselves in a prison of our own making, stripped of liberties and freedoms we will never get back; a warning from our Australian friends:

Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late! The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson. With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subjects'. 

    
 
I found this video as entertaining as much as terrifying, because we can literally see our liberal incompetence and future, in another country, before it happens;  "we can't explain why crime increased, after the gun ban," and "we can't explain or legally define what a home invasion is."  

Funny, we conservatives have no problem defining evil intent. "Home invasion:"  any armed assailant who invades our home, uninvited, and enters our sanctuary with the expectation of freely taking something that wasn't theirs, by any means necessary: our property, lives and even our body, if they want it.  It is the firearm in our homes and on our bodies that equalizes their "wants and desires."  

Before liberals repeat our own history, and create another "ban," explain this one thing for me, not even why people die in a gun-controlled prison; in Sept. 13, 1994 our Assault weapons ban went into effect, and crime went up by 4%, and our Assault Weapons ban lasted 10 years and was allowed to expire because, it had no impact on crimes committed. Explain to me how and why, if the '94 gun ban was supposed to "stop school violence" how it is it that it didn't stop the Columbine massacre on April 20, 1999, or ANY of the other 19 school shootings during the Assault weapons ban?

The answer is in the report presented before Congress, when our Assault ban was expiring, under point 4.2.1. and blows the anti-gun zealots theory for more gun laws away:

Secondary markets encompass second-hand gun transaction s made by non-licensed individual. Secondary  market participants are prohibited from knowingly transferring guns to ineligible purchasers (e.g. convicted felons and drug abusers). However, secondary transfers are not subject to the federal record-keeping and background check requirements placed on licensed dealers, thus making the secondary market almost entirely unregulated and, accordingly, a better source of guns for criminal users.  Easily explained, criminals don't obey gun laws, they will always find a way to get guns and gun control only hurts the law-abiding citizen.

Now, our Country has decided that it wasn't only going to try to repeat our own history, but that we were going to try to replicate Australia's gun law, and do it in American Style and go one step further.  We've managed to not only make the gun the villain but the legal-gun owner and Concealed Carrier as well.  When common sense should tell us to make the Concealed Carrier the hero, when this is the person that is willing to put themselves in harm's way, to protect another, if the situation to do so ever arose.

We don't need gun control laws, we need to enforce the laws we have, and stop making these law-breakers "instant celebrities," by televising their names and heinous crimes nationwide. If need be, we can make the penalty, for breaking the law, so horrific that people will think twice before they even start to fantasize about picking up the gun and taking a life, then enforce the laws we already have on the books, and then make examples of the people who break the law by televising their names and faces nation wide. 

Let's start producing Gun-Safe PSAs on safe-storage tips and what to look for in radicalized teens or teens that are about to snap, so we will be more aware of our surroundings. What about  coupons for gun safes, so we can keep these guns out of the hands of kids that steal the guns from their parents and criminals that break into our homes and do the same.  The answer isn't rocket science or brain surgery.

"You won't get gun control by disarming law-abiding citizens. There's only one way to get real gun control: disarm the thugs and the criminals, lock them up and if you don't actually

throw-away-the-key, at least lose it for a long time...  It's a nasty truth, but those who seek to inflict harm are not fazed by gun controllers. "  Ronald Reagan

US Marine Veteran Thwarts Robbery in Houston - 2A Success Story

By Kim D.

Last Thursday in Houston, a US Marine Veteran spotted two armed men in the act of committing a robbery at a GameStop. Unfortunately for the robbers, the veteran happened to be eating lunch next door at a Quiznos Sub and also had access to a firearm.

Deputies said two men, wearing masks and bandanas over their faces, robbed the Game Stop on Wallisville Road shortly after noon. The 28-year-old veteran, who was eating lunch at Quiznos nearby, saw the suspects loading up Xboxes. He dropped his sandwich and went to his car to get a gun.

“The robber raised his pistol and pointed it at the 28-year-old male. Fearing for his life, he exchanged gunfire with the robber,” said Harris County Sheriff’s Office spokesman Thomas Gilliland.

The veteran shot and killed the suspect in the car.  Deputies said the suspect was in his 20s.

Click to see KHOU video report.

2A Fail for Moms Demand Action in Tulsa, OK

By Kim D.

This past Saturday was a busy one for Shannon Watts and her band of "merry" moms. According to the Twitter timelines of Watts (@shannonRwatts), Everytown for Gun Safety (@Everytown), and Moms Demand Action (@MomsDemand), all of the action was taking place in Dallas, TX at a Home Depot.

Open-carry rally scheduled Sat. at @HomeDepot in #Dallas Call manager NOW: 817.656.5274 #MomsDemand #GrillsNotGuns pic.twitter.com/XUuHp9bpbX
— Shannon (@shannonrwatts) May 31, 2014

Simultaneously while the Moms were going after Home Depot and open-carry citizens in Dallas, another group was gathered at a farmer's market in Tulsa, OK trying to gather signatures to promote a "Gun Sense Voter Pledge." 

According to David Risselda who reported his experience on Freedom Outpost, the Moms Demand Action group was a bit surprised when members of The Oklahoma Open Carry Association approached them to ask some questions. As is usually the case when dealing with liberals, the questions we asked went unanswered as the host of their event . . .  deflected the questions and attempted to change the subject, ridicule and even accuse us of wanting to start a war with the police. This came about because he made it perfectly clear that he didn't want to be in any public establishment with citizens carrying handguns in the open. He was alluding to his belief that we are just a bunch of untrained rednecks that simply shoot indiscriminately in all directions just to prove how big our egos are.

Having read some Twitter debates about open-carry laws and gun restrictions involving Moms Demand members, so far this account sounds accurate. This group, for the most part, is ignorant about guns in general and has a difficult time arguing anything other than gun = bad. When confronted by supporters of the 2nd Amendment trying to establish an open dialogue on how to solve the true problem of gun violence without restricting rights of law-abiding citizens, they resort to deflection and insults.

The encounter in Tulsa with the Moms Demand group escalated when the The Oklahoma Open Carry Association found out the moms were going to a local Chipotle restaurant for lunch and decided to join them. You can imagine what happened next. But, the outcome probably will shock you.

According to Risselda, Chipotle restaurants in Oklahoma have officially taken the position that they would rather see people leave their guns at home, but they won't ask you to leave if you don't; after all, in Oklahoma it is legal to openly carry, so they at least respect the law and your rights. Moms Demand Action on the other hand, seemed to be demanding a little much on this Saturday afternoon as they approached management and asked them to throw OKOCA members out of the restaurant because they were "offended" by the presence of guns.

To be honest, we were expecting this, and we figured that we would be asked to leave; but what happened next was nothing less than awesome. The manager refused to kick out OKOCA and even gave them free drinks. MDA activists then proceeded to take pictures of the gun owners and attempted to portray them as intimidating and threatening. The management wasn't having any of it; he threw Moms Demand Action out of his store!

Another Liberal Spouts of on Something They Know Nothing about. Okay, that's not really news

By Rob Janicki

I seem to have missed this liberal fool telling the world she had a greater insight and understanding into the foundations of 2nd Amendment than the Supreme Court.

On May 27, retired North Carolina state senator Ellie Kinnard (D) used an editorial to argue that the Second Amendment does not define itself as absolute and that the Supreme Court made a mistake by "expanding gun accessibility" via the Heller (2008) decision.

The 2nd Amendment is just 27 words long: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the

security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The 2nd Amendment should be self explanatory, unless, of course, you happen to be a liberal and subscribed to the idiotic concept that the Constitution is a "living document', subject to change at the whim of still more idiotic liberals.  

Kinnard says the Supreme Court got it wrong in Heller (2008), and that it was not the first time they have been wrong. She shows that they were wrong on Dred Scot (1857), on Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), and in Lochner v. New York (1905) too. Read more Breitbart

With Kinnard's logic we could just as easily say that Roe v. Wade was an example of the Supreme Court "getting it wrong", while the Supreme Court also got it wrong over its decision in the Affordable Care Act. 

The 2nd Amendment was included to protect the individual from the tyranny of a dictatorial government out of control and running over all the protections of the Constitution, much like we see today in the Obama administration as it issues Executive Orders in contravention of the Constitution, along with a host of agency regulations that have yet to be adjudicated throughout the legal system to determine their legality.  We have an administration that picks and chooses which laws it will or won't enforce in total or in part.  News flash to Ms. Kinnear:  Government cannot pick and choose what laws it will or will not enforce.  Agents of government, from the President on down, are sworn to uphold ALL the laws of the United States, not just those that comport with their political agenda.

I suggest Ellie Kinnear return to retirement and concentrate on activities to which she may actually have some knowledge of and can comment on with some degree of reason and logic, because her comments on the 2nd Amendment don't come close to approaching any understanding of the Constitution. 

Ben Carson Gives Blunt Explanation Of Why The 2nd Amendment Is Vital, He's Right

By Elizabeth Nelson

I previously wrote a blog about Dr. Ben Carson's stance on guns, based on an interview he had done with Glenn Beck.

    

Obviously other conservatives and Second Amendment advocates have also raised their objections and, in the light of Dr. Carson's potential run for office in 2016, because he has come out and explained his view of the 2nd Amendment, some say he's "changed his view on gun rights" but has he really?  He sure sounds like a politician, if we read it logically, void of emotion, and read what he's not saying.  Read the CNS article and see if you saw what I did:

Dr. Ben Carson, author and retired pediatric neurosurgeon, said the “real reason” the Founding Fathers created the Second Amendment was because they knew it was possible for our government to “go off the rail” and try to  “dominate the people” and the citizens would need the means to protect themselves.

“But the real reason that they put it [2nd Amendment] there is recognizing that there could come a time when our government itself could go off the rail, and could try to dominate the people, and the people would need a mechanism of defense for themselves,” said Carson.  “I would never allow the Second Amendment to be jeopardized.”

Carson made his comments on May 23 as the guest host on the conservative talk radio program, the Sean Hannity Show. A caller had asked Carson for his views on the Second Amendment and how that constitutional right was being treated by the Obama administration.

The caller said, “I’ve heard some conflicting things from people and I’m curious what your thoughts are on the Second Amendment and what this administration is doing to gut it, right now?”

Dr. Carson said, “Well, it’s always good to hear it from the horse’s mouth. First of all, I am a very strong believer in the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment is there for a very good reason, and I think our Founding Fathers were very wise to recognize that the populace could be a tremendous aid to the military. They could form their own militia; they would be a tremendous deterrent for invasion.”

“But the real reason that they put it there is recognizing that there could come a time when our government itself could go off the rail, and could try to dominate the people, and the people would need a mechanism of defense for themselves,” he said.  “I would never allow the Second Amendment to be jeopardized.”

“I do believe that it is necessary for people to begin to have rational discussions about things – what kinds of weapons,” said Carson.  “You know, I don’t think tanks, for instance, would be a very good thing to be keeping in your garage. But you certainly should have access to any kind of weapon that you want for recreational purposes or to protect yourself. There really shouldn’t be a lot of restrictions on that.”

Did you notice, he would like us to now "discuss" what weapons we're going to use for recreational purposes and to protect ourselves? He'll go into a little  more detail a little later, and actually, Dr. Carson, we can buy a tank, if that's what floats our boat, as long as the gun as been rendered inoperable, and there is a market for it.

He continued,  “You do need to have a discussion about how we deal with situations where there is a tremendous amount of crime and easy access to the kinds of weapons that can create a lot of damage quickly. But that needs to be done in context of always preserving Second Amendment rights.”

So again, he's thinking about the semi-automatic weapons? But wait, hand guns were used at New Town, Aurora AMC24, and just recently at UC Santa Barbara, so is he going "discuss" the ban of hand guns too?

Again, we have another "politician-wanna-be," author, and motivational speaker that would sooner blame guns instead of looking at the bigger picture and the cause of the "tremendous amount of crime,"  or "easy access" of guns.  Ironically, no one wants to tackle our broken mental health system, just as they didn't want to touch our broken VA system, until dead Vets floated to the surface.  I guess dead children in schools, dead college students, dead movie goers, and so many more just aren't enough and we need more bullet ridden bodies at the hands of the mentally ill before we cry uncle?  

Of course we don't see the Mental Health reform, that's too hard for them to do, but where are the gun-smart PSAs or coupons for the rather expensive gun safes, to keep the guns out of the hands of home invaders or children that may have bad intentions - have you seen any lately? Yeah, me either.  Let's not fix the problem, let's just be another fool blaming the tool.  While we're at it, let's blame pencils for misspelled words; forks for diabetes, heart disease and obesity; cars for speeding and drunk driving; and the pharmacist for prescription drug addiction.

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Read more CNS

I agree, we should always be concerned when the government tries to take our weapons away. A militia capable of defending itself was integral to the founding of our country, and it remains just as important today, and they know it.

So, as interesting as this is, coming from Dr. Carson, considering he has taken a lot of heat for his criticism for his support of some gun control measures, do you think this is this just a political double-talk to make himself look better for a potential run in 2016?