My Fellow Americans, have we come to a crossroad yet again?

We must take an honest look at where we are and where we may be heading in order to make sure that our country does not collapse around us, and become that very thing many Americans have fought and died so selflessly to prevent.

Many valiant Americans have fought both on American soil, in the formative years of our country, and during conflicts many thousands of miles away, to prevent the loss of the very freedoms that our country was founded to ensure for “we the people”. Shall we allow the very fabric of that to be torn and thrown to the winds to go where it may fall? I pray not.

I feel we are coming to a crossroads again in our country. We have come to these before, during the Revolution, during the Civil War, and during the wars that enveloped most of the world, and we have endured. All fought to preserve the United States in the form that would stand the test of time. All fought by brave Americans who believed that they were standing up for something bigger than themselves, something so important that their lives were put on hold, they traveled away from family, and some paid the ultimate sacrifice of their very lives. What could hold that type of meaning to an American?

I say to you that it is that very thing, FREEDOM, that is what they and many before and now hold so dear. We grasp at it, cherish it, and yearn for it because we know that without it, we are not truly Americans but may as well be part of the very countries subjects we fought to win our freedoms from.

True Americans believe reverently in those iconic words written by Thomas Jefferson so many years ago, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”. This was such an important part of why we became the country that we are they wrote those very words down when declaring their independence from others! We fought a war amongst ourselves, and hundreds of thousands of Americans died, fighting to make all men free and citizens. Racism has no place in America that I see. ALL are created equal, and all have the rights we share.

But the meaning of that word that was so important to our founders seems to be losing it’s meaning and it’s worth to many today. And therefore, we find ourselves at the crossroads today. What is freedom and what did it mean, and should it mean to us today? Should it mean anything different than it did to Jefferson, Adams, Washington and the rest? I say NO! It is no different now than before and, in the future, that none can see, it should be the same.

A citizen is free because they are just that a citizen. As those wise Americans said, EVERY citizen must be able to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. And as long as those things do not harm or restrict another’s same rights, it is then an individual thing, this freedom we have. This is where many today fail to see what freedom really meant then and should mean now.

Freedom is that choice of choosing between what is right and what is wrong. Choose wrongly and you may have consequences, some of which could be forever and affect you for the rest of your life. Who decides what is right and wrong? That is already set in the fabric of our founding documents, and our Basic principles as outlined in our Constitution.

Freedom was so important to our countries founders they codified it in our most precious of founding documents, the Constitution of the United States of America. They felt that freedoms all citizens should share were so important that they listed some that they did not even want the very government they were forming to be able to take away. This became known as the Bill of Rights. Many today have never even read this iconic document, yet they call for it to be changed because it is “outdated” or “does not apply” to today’s America. I say to them you are ignorant of the meaning of the document and its entire purpose. I say that you who think that way are not only wrong, but the very kind of threat that the authors were worried about rising up in this great nation and made that very document to stand against.

We have the freedom to choose. We have the freedom to decide our own fates. We have the “Bill of Rights”. No more should one desire to give up their rights than their very lives. As without those rights are our lives any better or for the worse? The founders wrote in the preamble to the Bill of rights these very telling words: “The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added…” declaring that they wanted to make sure that the Government DID NOT restrict the very thing they were voting on and passed, the rights of the citizens.

So how have we drifted so far away from where we were to where we are today that one may strip the rights from this group or that? By the use of the courts and the controlling parties. America was meant to be a land of the free. A land where citizens ruled themselves and when they had common interest the Government could aid them not restrict them. The Government was established to help make the United States stronger, not more divided, to make the country wealthier not poorer. We have lost the vision of our founders.

I say to you that we are free Americans. We have basic rights that the Constitution does not create but were given to us at the beginning of time, and are PROTECTED by the Constitution. Lest we allow those rights to be given away and restricted by the very government we the people founded we must decide what road we take.

We must choose carefully. If we give up one right what is to stop the rest from falling along with it. Do we want a Government that is all powerful? One that can disregard the rights we have now and say enter you home whenever they wish? Maybe incarcerate you for a crime without a trial of your peers? How about seizing your property or land because they think that they are better stewards of it? And of course one that is hotly debated today, the right to defending yourself and your family and property from lawless criminals.

Do we become that country of the subjects to a government that is our provider of all or do we work to become that country that the citizens work to provide for themselves and have the right to become whatever they wish and can achieve? I say the later.

I will leave you with this. Freedom is never pretty or safe. It has always had its dangers and perils. Yet it is the very reason we are here where we are and in this wonderful country we are part of, the United States of America. My ancestors came here and fought to free this country. Some of them fought to maintain it, and in the future should it become necessary we must be willing to defend it again. Freedom is not safe, it should not be, it should be hard fought and cherished like the prize that it is.

God Bless you and keep you safe, may he watch over you and your family. God Bless the United States of America.

By Chris Wagoner

Those terrible death machines called “bump stocks”.

Well, I finally got to read the official Las Vegas Mass Murder report. It is 187 pages long and a lot of it is simple documentation of evidence and statement of things we already knew.

But a few interesting things came to light. Probably the most interesting being that it is documented that bump stocks were used in that shooting. Yes it has been documented that bump stocks were used in exactly 1 (one) crime in the entire United States, yet we have a national push to ban them and they have been in 11 states already. Think about that for a minute.

Here is a firearm accessory that when looked at in all honesty is nothing more than a novelty, a “fun” item to shoot with. It definitely is not used for accurate fire. Nor does any serious shooter use one for self-defense as it cuts the accuracy of your shot placement way down. If you know firearms and know how to shoot a rifle, you can fire very quickly (as fast as a bump stock if not faster), with far more accuracy without one.

The Las Vegas murderer used bump stocks on 12 of the 14 rifles that he fired before he killed himself. He fired over 1050 rounds. What became interesting and obvious to anyone with knowledge about firearms is that most of the rifles used had 100 round magazines and when he ran them dry (ran out of ammo) rather than reloading, he just switched rifles. Even though he had multiple loaded magazines ready to go. Also interesting was the fact that many of the rifles used had no optics or sights on them at all. What does that mean? He was not aiming at anyone but just spraying rounds at the crowd. Some of those he did have optics on had red dot style sights. Shooting one of those with a bump stock is not very accurate at all either. And at the distance he was from the crowd, would have been useless.

What does this lead one to think about the shooter and shooting? He was not very experienced with shooting the firearms he used. Had he been, well without giving copycats out there ideas, he could have done much more damage shooting differently. Let’s leave it at that. In fact, I will go out on a limb and say had he not used bump stocks he would have caused many more deaths or injuries as his accuracy would have been much greater.

Now before you go off on a tangent and think I am defending bump stocks, I am not. Personally, I think they are just a novelty item and serve no real purpose other than maybe being fun to waste ammo with. BUT I will say that I also do not support any bans of them. Especially based on the fact they have been used in just one (1) document case of murder. Again we must revisit the fact that it’s not the tool that is at fault it’s the person using the tool.

So why the bump stock bans and cry for a national ban? Because they need something to blame that they can target. It’s is to hard to target human behavior and it’s causes. The real problem in these cases. So let’s target something that really had nothing to do with the causation and may have actually contributed to fewer lives being lost. Let us blame the tool, not the user. Does that make any sense at all? I say no.

Let’s Try a Gun Control Experiment! Let’s Make These Laws…

Ok with the continued cry for stricter gun control and the call for the removal of assault weapons, adding magazine limits and more, let’s try those and a few more new laws as an experiment and see what happens to the murder rate! As a supporter of the 2nd Amendment and individual rights, I confess that we have to do something to help make people safer right? So let’s try what those calling themselves #gunsense or #guncontrol want.

Let’s start out by enacting laws that require the following:

  • universal background checks
  • gun registration requirements
  • Gun Violence Restraining Orders
  • a ten-day waiting period for gun purchases
  • an “assault weapons” ban
  • one-gun-per-month limit on handgun purchases
  • minimum age of 21 to purchase a firearm
  • ban carrying firearms on campuses
  • “good cause” restriction for concealed carry permit issuance
  • limit the buying of ammunition to state-approved vendors
  • gun free zones mandated for anywhere that sells alcohol

Those should be a good start right! If we can only enact all of those new laws we should be able to curtail and maybe even reduce the number of murders by a significant amount I hope. You see many are clamoring for “common sense gun control”, yet they fail to say just what that is. I have asked many a gun control supporter just what they want and they almost always look at me with a vacant look. Like they had not thought out just what they have been led to believe is the answer. To them, gun control of any kind is what they want. Anything that will help. So I suggest the above as a start to see what happens. (bear with me and read to the end)

I mean we have an “epidemic” of gun violence in the US right? That’s what the Doctors told me when I read their posts, tweets, and articles. We have a crisis of gun murders right? That’s what Mom’s Demand Action, Everytown, and Micheal Bloomberg have told us right? The media tells us all the time that we have a huge problem of gun violence in the US. We have a crisis/ epidemic of school shootings in the US now right? That’s what they have blasted all over the media and social networks. So something has to be done about all this right?

OK, so what if I told you a state has already enacted those laws that I listed above? And guess what happened? Well, the murder rate went up 18%. WHAT!?!? That is right, the state of California already has enacted those things (all of them) and the murder rate in that state went up 18%. How is that possible? We have been told over and over that restrictions and new laws will help curb the murder and shooting epidemic. I guess not.

And as for those claims of a national epidemic or crisis of firearms shootings, murders and school shootings being a crisis or epidemic, I had to look at the numbers just to see how bad it was. Imagine how surprised I was (not really) when I discovered that instead of increasing sharply or even being higher than in the past, murder and firearms victimizations have dropped dramatically over the last 25 years or so. And not by a few percentage points, but by more than 45% each! That’s right, according to the FBI Crime database (FBI Crime Statistics) murder and firearms victimization has dropped by almost half over the last 25 years. So what about our crisis and epidemic?

Now I do not profess to be a linguist or language scholar, but even I know that when something drops by almost half it is not anything close to an epidemic or crisis. In fact by anyone’s standards that would be called a very positive trend. So why are we being told it’s a crisis, epidemic or problem? Maybe because if it was known that it’s not, those people would have no basis for these restrictions and laws? So why don’t people point out these facts to those calling for these new laws and restrictions? We do, but of course are told we are lying, or making stuff up, even with the numbers available to all.

And what about the school shooting epidemic? We all can agree that is real right? Well, let us look at the numbers again. NPR (National Public Radio) not known to be a very conservative media outlet, published an article titled “The School Shootings That Weren’t“. In this very interesting article they say:

“This spring the U.S. Education Department reported that in the 2015-2016 school year, “nearly 240 schools … reported at least 1 incident involving a school-related shooting.” 

Now that is alarming! 240 school shootings in just one year. Anyone can agree that is terrible and should be investigated farther. So NPR did just that and looked into that further. And they reported, “We were able to confirm just 11 reported incidents, either directly with schools or through media reports.” They report that two-thirds of the reported school shootings reported by the DOE NEVER HAPPENED. Now that is just downright scary that the U.S. Department of Education would report things that are in such error. But they do. And it is picked up and run with by many who support any kind of firearms restrictions that it takes on a life of its own, even when it’s false. If it’s on the internet it has to be true right?

We hear it over and over that firearms are the problem. Murders, firearms victimization and other gun related things are a crisis. Why do we hear this when the numbers do not support these claims? Because the world has changed. The internet has made the ability to post and have spread around the nation or world in minutes any claim that anyone wants to make. Even if it’s not true. And many people today are just plain too lazy to do any research for themselves. They rely on others, even when those others may not have the facts, or may have an agenda, to tell them what they should think.

Here is a fun experiment to try. Find someone that wants to have stricter gun control laws or restrictions. Ask them simply why they want them. If they say because of all the murders or school shootings simply ask them how much have these things gone up over say the last 25 years or so. Ask them to tell you what the increase in numbers has been. When they can’t, simply ask them then why do you want restrictions? If they point to bogus made up numbers, point them to the FBI Violent Crime Statistics and ask them to again prove their claim. They can’t.

We live in the instant information age, even if that information may be misleading or worse, made up. Information takes on a life of its own and becomes fact because so many people read it and tweet it and post it, it must be true right? The answer? No.



2020 Florida Amendment Petition Drive to Ban “Assualt Weapons” Will do Nothing Except make Felons out of Law Abiding Citizens.

Recently a group calling themselves “Ban Assault Weapons Now” proposed a Florida Constitutional Amendment that bans assault weapons and requires registration be added to the 2020 Florida election ballot.

Now in order to put it on the ballot in 2020, they will have to get upwards of over 750,000 valid signatures on the petitions. Then they must get 60% of Florida voters to vote in favor of it. While we like to think that is unlikely, stranger things have happened. Just look at the recent elections and some of those elected like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and you will see just how far away from the middle of the road we have gone.

Looking into this lunacy further we find the definition that they want to use for “assault weapon”: “Assault Weapons – For purposes of this subsection, any semiautomatic rifle or shotgun capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition at once, either in a fixed or detachable magazine, or any other ammunition feeding device. This subsection does not apply to handguns” 

Read that carefully. If you know anything about firearms this would apply to most semi-automatic rifles, even some shotguns. If that was not bad enough, what the “Limitations” states should make you cringe: “If a person had lawful possession of an assault weapon prior to the effective date of this subsection, the person’s possession of that assault weapon is not unlawful (1) during the first year after the effective date of this subsection, or (2), after the person has registered that weapon by make, model, and serial number with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement or its successor agency, as designated by the legislature. Registration records shall be available to local, state and federal law enforcement agencies for valid law enforcement purposes but shall otherwise be confidential.” So, in other words, they want to grandfather in already owned firearms, but you have to register them within one year.

So what is the punishment or penalty for not doing this? You become an instant FELON! Here are the penalties: “Criminal Penalties – Violation of this subsection is a third-degree felony. The legislature may designate greater, but not lesser, penalties for violations”. So if you fail to register your assault weapon within a year you are a felon. If you buy or take into your possession an assault weapon (by their definition) you are a felon.

So let us look at this logically. Just exactly what would this do to reduce the crime rate or shootings or mass shootings? Nothing. You see MURDER is already against the law. Taking a firearm onto school grounds is already illegal. Harming someone without a lawful reason is illegal. So the only thing this proposal will do is make felons out of hundreds of thousands if not millions of Floridians. There is NOT ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE that this would reduce anything.

Then there is the little problem of resistance to this proposed amendment/ law. I for one will go on record saying that I will not comply with this if it becomes part of the constitution. You do not legislate through Constitutional Amendment, you make laws through the Florida House and Senate. The reason for that is to prevent exactly what this group is trying to do. Prevent the possibility of a majority taking away the rights of a minority. As James Madison once said: “The purpose of the Constitution is to restrict the majority’s ability to harm a minority”.

Florida has the highest number of concealed carry permit holders in the US. Currently, it is at 1,941,097 as of October 31st, 2018! While not all of those may be rifle owners, I would be willing to bet a good number are. These are people that have shown less propensity to commit a crime than even the police in Florida, yet they want to restrict them even more. In what reality does that make any sense?

So I guess I should close by going on the official record. As a 35+ year veteran law enforcement officer in Florida and U.S. Army veteran, I will not comply with this should it pass. I am sorry but there comes a time when the purpose of the 2nd Amendment becomes obvious, to protect the citizens from the over-reaching of the government they elected. They tried to take firearms from the citizens of the United States once before, it was in 1775, and we ended up shooting those that tired and kicking them out of the country. Think about that.

Here is a link to the petition.

Trump Derangement Syndrom is Real! Professor Shoots Himself in Protest of President.

Ok just when you think you have heard it all, someone comes along and raises the bar of stupidity to a new level! And that bar just got set very high. A sociology professor at the College of Southern Nevada, Mark Bird, 69, was found collapsed and bleeding from a gunshot wound outside a bathroom on that campus.

Further investigation and on speaking with the Professor the Campus Police discovered that he had shot himself in the arm in protest of President Trump. That’s right, he shot himself in the arm, dropped the firearm in the bathroom and stumbled outside to collapse. All in protest of President Trump.

The police did say that they discovered a hundred-dollar bill taped to the mirror in the bathroom with the note “For the janitor” on it.

Now that he pulled this stunt, he is being charged with multiple firearms-related charges and faces several felonies, including bringing a firearm onto the campus.

When reading this news report, one must ask themselves, just what was he trying to show or prove, besides that he needs some serious mental health evaluation. Anyone that would shoot themselves in protest of anything has some very deep-seated mental health issues and needs to be evaluated. Some states even have laws that allow for involuntary admission to a mental health facility when someone is showing signs of possibly harming themselves. I think Professor Bird meets that criteria.

On a side note, to all the parents of college students there at the College of Southern Nevada, just think this man was teaching your young adults the subject of sociology One has to wonder just what he was teaching them in that classroom if he is unhinged enough to shoot himself in protest, how safe are his students?

One must wonder if the anti-Trump movement has become so deranged that if they are feeling the need to shoot themselves in protest, how long before they start shooting others in protest? Oh, never mind, that has already happened, and they have tried to stab other GOP members with knives, shoot up GOP baseball games and more. And the part that makes one wonder is why they accuse the GOP and law-abiding firearms owners as being those who are dangerous. I think I will continue to legally carry my concealed firearm everywhere, just in case an unhinged anti-Trump protestor wants to take a few of us with them when they decide to shoot themselves in protest. A word to all of them, get help for your mental disorder before you harm yourself or anyone else.

An open letter to all the #guncontrolnow and #gunsense people crying the sky is falling over 3D printed guns.

Stop all the lies or complete ignorance. Like anything else to do with firearms if you only knew about a 10th of what you need to you would know how silly your articles and postings are.

OK, I am going to probably give you a heart attack by what I am about to say if your anti-firearm and worried about these 3D printed guns, but here goes. We have been making un-serialized and homemade guns for decades. Do you need CPR now? Yes, that’s right it has been completely legal to manufacture your own guns at home and use them for many years. In fact, a whole industry has been born out of this. If you would research a bit about the 3D printing of guns, you would realize that they are not printing the entire gun, only parts. And no they are not able to pass through metal detectors undetected, what utter hogwash. You are being lied to and misled by those very people that want to make you helpless and remove your rights.

A 3D printed gun must have certain parts made from metal. In addition, the ammunition is standard ammunition and that alone is made from lots of metal and detectable by metal detectors. Oh, and maybe one of the most important parts, it can only hold and fire 1 round at a time. All of your anti-firearms crying about “high capacity magazines” should be pushing for these guns to become the standard used by everyone! But that is not the most egregious part of all your crying about 3D printed guns.

For many years we have been making our own, workable, well-functioning, “un-serialized” guns from metal without a 3D printer! Yes, that’s right, it’s called making a gun from an 80% lower. Google it. There are many of us out here that like working with our hands, we like firearms for fun, sport, and self-protection. And we like to combine our hobbies, so we create our own firearms. They are perfectly legal, have no serial numbers, and yes, they are untraceable by the government, but what does that matter? You are not allowed to sell them. Once you make it, you must keep it, unless you put a serial number on it and register it with the Feds, but what fun is that?

So, you folks wailing and gnashing your teeth about 3D printed guns are just laughed at by 99% of the gun owning population or anyone that knows anything about them. Why because we realize that only a silly person, with way too much money on their hands, would by a 3D printer, print that huge ugly 3D printed gun, and then try and use it in a crime as a single shot firearm. Not when real guns are cheaper and easier to come by. No, they can’t sneak them on a plane (remember it has metal in it and requires regular ammunition which is made of metal), no people will not be churning them out by the thousands. Why do that when you can buy a nice, commercially available 80% lower and build your own gun for far less than the cost of the 3D printed firearm?

Oh, and to really get the anti-firearms folks going, the 3D printed firearm issue was not a case about the 2nd Amendment. I know you probably have been told otherwise, but the court case was being argued on a First Amendment rights issue. I guess now that you #gunsense and #guncontrolnow people know that you will be against the first amendment also? Please if you do nothing else after reading this, do a google search and learn a little about the topic you are trying to speak on, you’re making your movements look foolish with your sky is falling cry. The sky isn’t falling, intelligence is it seems.

Can an “unarmed” attacker be a threat to your life? What is “disparity of force”?

With the recent shooting in Clearwater Florida of an “unarmed” assailant by a concealed firearms license holder many are questioning why was an unarmed man shot, all he did was violently shove the man to the ground? And even looking further, some saying that you are a coward or not a “real man” if you have to resort to firearms if the attacker is unarmed. To those people, as a 35-year veteran LEO (and LEO Instructor) and U.S. Army veteran I say you’re talking about a subject you have no knowledge of or are being purposefully stupid.

There is an adage that I like to use when younger police recruits talk about the physical part of the job, the fights, the “defensive tactics” we teach in the police academy and other things related to defending yourself. I tell them, “at my age, I don’t fight fair I fight to win”. And go on to elaborate that what I mean is I will use whatever I need to end the fight quickly and without as much injury as I can sustain. If that means throat punching someone, gouging an eye, or otherwise fighting “dirty” then I will do it if I am in fear for my life and cannot get to my self-defense firearm. I am older and have had several medical related issues over the years, I am not able to take as much punishment as when I was 20. So enters the concept of what constitutes a serious bodily injury and what is “disparity of force”?

We teach this in the police academy and teach law enforcement officers all over the nation about it because it can be what they come across on the job, but it applies as much to the everyday citizen as it does law enforcement. What is “serious bodily injury”? It is recognized in court cases and case law as that force which is likely to cause severe pain and injury that will require protracted recovery or permanent scarring is considered serious bodily harm. When it comes to the law of self-defense, you have to look at potential injury from the victim’s point of view, not the attackers or their intent. A blow to the throat, eyes or other soft areas of the body. Hitting someone with a closed fist to the side of the head, or base of the skull can be seriously crippling or even deadly. Throwing or pushing someone down hard onto concrete or asphalt, all can cause serious bodily injury or even death.

That is not even adding in the “disparity of force” factors. If the victim is old or physically disabled in any way, their ability to defend themselves may require the use of a weapon or firearm. A large attacker, even if unarmed, attacking a smaller weaker victim causes the danger of serious bodily harm or death to rise. And in the victims mind (remember that the fear spoken of in law is that of the victim, not the witness or the attackers), a small framed, weaker victim being attacked by a larger more powerful attacker may form in their mind a well-founded fear that they are going to be seriously injured or killed.

Let us use an example to explain this. You are an older person who has some issues with mobility. Nothing that requires a cane or wheelchair but you can’t get around as well as you used to. You are walking down the street when out of nowhere you are hit in the chest with a blow hard enough to send you flying backward several feet and land on your butt. Your dazed and your breathing is hard and painful. Your chest hurts as well as your back and legs from the fall to the ground. You realize you were just physically attacked by a much younger and larger attacker. And the attacker is there just a few feet away. You look up and think to yourself that the attacker is going to attack you again and that this time you may not be so lucky as to not be seriously injured or worse, maybe even killed (remember the law does not say only fear of death, but serious injury also, and rightfully so). Do you have the legal right to draw your self-defense firearm to defend yourself from further attack? Do you have the legal right to fire at the attacker to stop him from attacking you again if that is what you think he is going to do? The answer is of course yes. No one should have to just sit there and be seriously injured (or worse). No one should have to wait to be hit several times and just before losing consciousness be able to fight back. No one should be attacked physically or have to be seriously injured in the first place.

This ladies and gentlemen is what happened in Clearwater, Fl.
Would all people react the same way? Probably not. I doubt that I would have reacted the same way as the victim on the ground in this case. But what people seem to be forgetting is that you don’t get to make that decision based on what you would have done and what you are capable of, you have to look at it from the point of view of the person who used force to defend themselves. A disparity of force is what happens when you have factors that make the victim in a self-defense case more fearful of the attacker and the attackers ability to cause them harm. Size, age, physical ability, number of attackers, weapons, all of those things (and more) need to be taken into account when looking at the attacker verse victim issues in any use of self-defense.

So back to the original question. Can an unarmed attacker seriously injure or kill you? Of course, they can. Can you use force including deadly force to prevent an attack or stop an attack if you (the victim) feel that you are in fear of great bodily harm or death? Of course you can that is the way it should be. Did you look at and consider the possibility of things like the disparity of force in this case? Maybe you should.

Imagine if people had to try and run away or flee before they could defend themselves from criminal attacks. Imagine what the criminals would think and do. Self-defense is a right that we have had long before the Constitution and laws. The laws are there to try and explain it to those who are too stupid to understand that if you do not attack anyone else you have no fear of being shot by someone defending themselves then. Pretty simple when you think of it.

And don’t be foolish and try and bring up other cases that have caused media attention to focus. Especially those that have gone through the court system and been justifiable. That’s why we have a court system.

A simple solution to these supposed problems with the self-defense law is to present the case to the Grand Jury and let them decide if charges should be filed. If they do, the person using force still has the court to present their case, if not it has been reviewed by more than your standard Jury and has been put to rest.