Bloomberg News is ANGRY! Armed Detroit Citizens Are Having An Effect On Crime!

An article appearing in Bloomberg News accuses Detroiters of resorting to "gunning down burglars." The article acknowledges that the Detroit police force has shrunk significantly, doesn't have either the money or equipment to do their jobs, and responses to calls for help can take over an hour.

What really gets them, though, is this:

"Such headline-grabbing incidents belie a 25 percent drop in crime during the first three months of this year compared with the same period a year ago, according to police. Homicides fell to 45 from 68...

More than 29,000 Detroiters are legally armed and more are packing every day. The 6,974 concealed-pistol licenses issued to residents in 2013 were more than double those in 2009. Even more -- 7,584 -- were issued in 2012, according to the Michigan State Police. The number of unregistered guns is unknown," emphasis added.

In other words, while on one hand they deride Chief Craig for telling Detroiters to defend themselves, on the other hand Bloomberg News is forced to acknowledge that CITIZENS DEFENDING THEMSELVES WITH FIREARMS IS HAVING AN EFFECT ON CRIME IN THE CITY OF DETROIT!

Can I get an Oo Rah?!

Detroit Homeowners Gun Down Burglars as Police Await Cars - Bloomberg

If Bloomberg were as all fired interested in the well being of Detroiters as he would like everyone to believe, then instead of trying to disarm them, he would part with a portion of his billions to help equip the Detroit PD to do the job they were hired to do. 

Of course, THAT doesn't fit into his agenda of ridding the US of the firearms he hates so much (but with which he surrounds HIMSELF!)….

Michael Bloomberg: "...when I get to heaven I’m not stopping to be interviewed. I am heading straight in…"

A surprise is awaiting Michael Bloomberg.  In a recent interview he said that, because of his work to implement national gun control, stop smoking and fight obesity, “I am telling you if there is a God, when I get to heaven I’m not stopping to be interviewed. I am heading straight in. I have earned my place in heaven. It’s not even close,” http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/16/us/bloomberg-plans-a-50-million-challenge-to-the-nra.html?src=twr&_r=0

Mr. Bloomberg, God's Word has a few things to say on that subject.

First, your works mean nothing in the greater scheme of things: "We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment,"  Isaiah 64:6

Second, they earn you no special dispensation or favor with the God whose existence you only notionally acknowledge: "knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot," 1 Peter 1:18-19.

In fact, the Bible says that your billions, which you are now using to try to buy your way into Heaven, will be a witness against you: "Come now, you rich, weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you.  Your riches have rotted and your garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver have corroded, and their corrosion will be evidence against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have laid up treasure in the last days. Behold, the wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, are crying out against you, and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts. You have lived on the earth in luxury and in self-indulgence. You have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter. You have condemned and murdered the righteous person. He does not resist you," James 5:1-6.  This is not a statement against ALL wealth; there are certainly wealthy people who have used their fortunes for the glory of God.

Finally, you WILL stop to be "interviewed," and you WILL be forced to acknowledge the existence and supremacy of Yahweh:  "For we must ALL appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil," 2 Corinthians 5:10, "...For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God;  for it is written, 'As I live, says the Lord, EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW TO ME, and every tongue shall confess to God. So then each of us will give an account of himself to God," Romans 14:10-12.

This is a warning AND an invitation, not just to Mr. Bloomberg, but to every person who has yet to come to the realization that they cannot do it on their own.  We cannot buy or work our way into Heaven.  What is our individual fortune in comparison to the One who owns it all in the first place?  And what "righteousness" can we offer to the One who is the definition of holiness and righteousness?  "But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus," Romans 3:21-26.

Petition: IMMEDIATELY Repeal DOD Directive 5210.56

WE PETITION THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO:

IMMEDIATELY Repeal DOD Directive 5210.56, arm our military personnel and provide for MILITARY SECURITY on our bases.

DOD Directive 5210.56 provides that DOD personnel may only be armed for "...missions or threats and the immediate need to protect DOD assets or persons’ lives." Specific strategic/nuclear assets are under armed guard, but otherwise military personnel are prohibited from carrying their weapons - duty or personal - on base. In most instances, even armed security personnel (most often contracted) are required to carry unloaded weapons (condition 4 - no magazines inserted or rounds chambered).

In the light of the more than 17 attacks that have occurred on bases since 1994, we petition the government to immediately repeal DOD Directive 5210.56.

Arm our soldiers.

MILITARY SECURITY for military bases.

No more shelter in place orders.

They defend US; arm them to defend themselves.

We The People Petition: IMMEDIATELY Repeal DOD Directive 5210.56

ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND:

For those who are unfamiliar with this directive, here are the most important parts. Emphasis is added.

"a. DoD personnel, to whom this Directive is applicable, shall be appropriately armed and have the inherent right to self-defense.
b. ARMING DOD PERSONNEL WITH FIREARMS SHALL BE LIMITED AND CONTROLLED. Qualified personnel shall be armed when required for assigned duties and there is reasonable expectation that DoD installations, property, or personnel lives or DoD assets will be jeopardized if personnel are not armed. Evaluation of the necessity to arm DoD personnel shall be made with the consideration of the possible consequences of accidental or indiscriminate use of those arms. However, THE OVERRIDING FACTORS IN DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT TO ARM ARE THE MISSION AND THREAT. ARMING DOD PERSONNEL (i.e., administrative, assessment, or inspection, not regularly engaged in or directly supervising security or law enforcement activities) SHALL BE LIMITED TO MISSIONS OR THREATS AND THE IMMEDIATE NEED TO PROTECT DOD ASSETS OR PERSONS’ LIVES. DoD Components have the discretion to keep designated staff personnel qualified and available or on call to perform duties."

Since this is the US, guarding a military installation (with the exception of certain strategic/nuclear assets) is considered to be a low threat mission. On many military installations,  security personnel are generally contracted from one of the defense contractors; whether contracted or military police, security either carry weapons at condition 4 (no mag inserted and no round in the chamber) or they carry no weapons at all. The Beirut bombing (which preceded this directive) was possible in part because the base guards were required to carry their weapons at condition 4. By the time they inserted their mags and chambered rounds, the bombers had already cleared the gates and were closing in on the barracks.

The base CO has no authority to override this directive. The fact is, all weapons not being used for training purposes or actual missions are locked in the armory, and unless an order is received to distribute those arms, they are unavailable for use by all base personnel. Even personal firearms must be secured. The CO may keep designated personnel available or on call, but not on continuous duty according to this directive unless there is an imminent threat.

Dr. Ben Carson For President...

I received an email today from runbenrun.org, an organization set up with the purpose of drafting Dr. Ben Carson to run for the presidency in 2016.  This is an email I sent to the organization explaining why, at this moment, I cannot support a Carson candidacy:

John,

In many ways, I am in favor of Dr. Carson running for president.  In fact, I STRONGLY supported the idea of drafting him to run for president.

Then I heard him give his stance on the Second Amendment; it is unsupportable.

This is a transcript from the Glenn Beck Show less than a month ago:

Dr. Carson: "Uh, guns, there's a reason for the Second Amendment. People DO have the right to have weapons. With this argument that's been going on, the way we solve it is we ask what is each side afraid of, and then we address it that way."

Glenn Beck: "Do I have a right to own a semi-automatic weapon?"

Dr. Carson: "It depends on where you live. I think if you live in the midst of a lot of people, and I’m afraid that that semi-automatic weapon is going to fall into the hands of a crazy person, I would rather you not have it." (emphasis added)

Dr. Benjamin Carson On Gun Control: "It Depends On Where You Live" | RealClearPolitics

Sorry, but I have to agree with Dana Loesch on this one. If Dr. Carson decides to run for President, his stance on the Second Amendment is a deal breaker. My right to own and carry firearms is a Constitutional right that is not up for compromise because someone is afraid of my exercise of that right, and frankly, Dr. Carson does not have the right to decide WHERE I may own a semi-automatic firearm, either.

Our Second Amendment rights are non-negotiable.  We already have too many politicians in Washington who are out to dismantle those rights, and Dr. Carson's willingness to consider possible limitations on those rights based on A) the fears of those who have been brainwashed to think that firearms are evil and B) where HE perceives it proper for someone to own a particular class of firearm based on his own fear regarding the potential of someone stealing it from me is something to which he will need to give SERIOUS reconsideration.

As long as he holds this stance, there are too many who will not even consider voting for him.

I'm one of them.

Sincerely,

Finstein's San Francisco Handgun Ban Effectiveness By The Numbers….

OK. Sen. Feinstein became mayor of San Francisco in 1978 (1978 - 1988) after the assassinations of Harvey Milk and George Moscone; Feinstein, by the way, was the first to come upon Milk's body after he was shot. The murders were carried out by a former police officer using his five shot .38 special duty weapon; he carried 10 extra rounds with him that day (hmmm - maybe this has something to do with her obsession with 10 round limitations?). Surprisingly, even though she traces her gun control obsession back to this event, a five round .38 special is what DiFi carried herself, and that weapon has never made it onto any of the gun ban lists she has compiled while in congress.

After assuming control of the mayor's office, she pushed through the San Francisco handgun ban - something about which she is very proud. After passing the ban, citizens had 90 days to turn in their firearms, so the effect on firearm-related crimes should have been immediate.

But the question is, HOW EFFECTIVE was her handgun ban (which was eventually overturned in 2008)? Following are the raw murder numbers for the years 1978 - 1990 (unfortunately, the numbers from that far back do not tell us how many of these crimes were actually committed using handguns):

1978 - 113

1979 - 108

1980 - 110

1981 - 121

1982 - 106

1983 - data not available 

1984 - data not available

1985 - 85

1986 - 114

1987 - 103

1988 - 92

1989 - data not available

1990 - 102

http://www.city-data.com/forum/city-vs-city/1286828-top-25-cities-violent-crime-rate-9.html

http://www.disastercenter.com/californ/crime/1191.htm

The raw data tell us that he prized handgun ban had little, if an, effect on murder in San Francisco during her tenure as mayor.  In the years from 1990 to the present, murder rates did indeed drop, but they follow the same general pattern as was experienced by the entire nation, so the drop cannot be linked to her handgun ban. Additional study would have to be done to see what effect, if any, her ban had on rates of armed robbery.

In short, her gun bans had little if any effect on crime in San Francisco during her years in the mayor's office.  Likewise, the bans for which she has fought while in congress have proved ineffectual, as the incidence of violent crimes of all sorts have steadily fallen for the last twenty years, while at the same time firearms ownership and carry have dramatically inreased.

That isn't going to stop her from trying to get all of the guns, though.