MILLCREEK - A man who attempted to rob a convenience store left empty handed after a clerk surprised him with a gun.
According to charging documents, Luis Guiterrez Gonzales entered the Tesoro convenience store at 12 W. 3900 South at 11:47 a.m. Monday brandishing a knife.
Gonzales demanded money from the clerk, who in turn produced a pistol, police said.
The clerk, Ahmed Nazir, owns the Tesoro, and said he keeps the gun around for protection. In the five years he has owned the gas station, Monday was the first time he had to reach for it. Nazir said he did so with discretion, letting Gonzales know he had a gun in his hand.
"He just walked all the way over here, pulled out his knife and said, 'Hey, open the register and give me your money.' I thought, 'Wow,' " Nazir said. "I pulled out my gun and I said, 'Just leave your knife here and leave the store.' And he left."
Gonzales then fled the scene, leaving the knife at the Tesoro.
Nazir called police, who found Gonzales moments later at a Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant on the corner of State Street and 3900 South.
The man was booked on investigation for one count of aggravated robbery, a first-degree felony.
What would have happened if the store owner did not have a gun? The likely scenarios are these: He might have been stabbed. He would certainly have been robbed of his money in the register. An armed robber might have remained on the loose. Having a gun removed all those possibilities. The gun created a happy ending. Justice was served - nobody was hurt - a criminal was apprehended - the store was not disrupted - nobody was injured, killed or maimed. Democrats are on the wrong side of the gun issues of our day....
By the end of the month of July 2012, Barack Obama is expected to sign the UN Small Arms Treaty. Critics of the treaty say that if enforced the treaty will infringe on our fundamental Second Amendment rights. Scott Brown has sent a letter along with other Senators opposing enactment of the treaty. He will vote against ratification. The letter is below.
(Help protect your Second Amendment Rights here in Massachusetts. Join GOAL today! - promoted by Cool Cal)
I've possessed my Class A License to Carry Firearms since 2002 and my check to renew my annual membership to the Rod & Gun Club of New Bedford will be going out in tomorrow's mail.
At my local Walmart, ammo sales have almost literally been flying off the shelf for months upon months - our warehouse simply cannot keep bullets in stock!
Is it the fear of an Obama gun grab? Is it worries about personal safety and the safety of loved ones? Is it a deepening respect for the hunting & target shooting? Maybe it's partially all of the above.
Well a lot of things in politics irritate me, but nothing more than bullying tactics. For some ridiculous reason the left thinks they are tough and will run roughshod over ANYONE who says anything negative about the Obamasiah.
On one front, they run to the courts with the hopes that some sympathetic judge will RULE the day in their favor. The courts are the lefts favorite playground to play circle jerk word games when they can't make a case with Main St. USA.
Playing LEGAL games are not the only tactics used, the left also resorts to letting clowns run loose to cause illegal mischief such as hacking e-mails, websites etc.
Well here they go again, the NRA has produced a video which states facts. The problem is the Obamasiah does not like those facts and his maniac followers are wetting themselves to have the video squashed.
Obama has lawyers/"truth squads" threatening TV stations to NOT show the video. As the LEGAL card gets played, magically hacker punks hack a website that had linked to the video, and crashed the site.
These kind of tactics need to be slapped. Smothering the First Amendment to defeat the Second will not stand.
Below is the video hopefully....
I'm a computer moron, so hang with me if these links mess up.
CHICAGO (CBS) ? An estimated 123 people were shot and killed over the summer. That's nearly double the number of soldiers killed in Iraq over the same time period.
In May, cbs2chicago.com began tracking city shootings and posting them on Google maps. Information compiled from our reporters, wire service reports and the Chicago Police Major Incidents log indicated that 123 people were shot and killed throughout the city between the start of Memorial Day weekend on May 26, and the end of Labor Day on Sept. 1.
According to the Defense Department, 65 soldiers were killed in combat in Iraq. About the same number were killed in Afghanistan over that same period.
In the same time period, an estimated 245 people were shot and wounded in the city.
The South Side's Englewood District, which includes the Englewood and West Englewood neighborhoods on the city's South Side, fared the worst over the summer. A total of 14 people were shot dead there, and 48 were shot and wounded.
The next highest totals came in the Grand Crossing District, which includes the South Shore, Woodlawn, Park Manor and Grand Crossing neighborhoods on the South Side, 12 people were killed and 31 were injured.
Also hit severely by gun violence over the summer was the Ogden District – which includes the Near Southwest Side's Lawndale and Little Village neighborhoods – where 10 people were killed and six were injured.
The South Chicago District on the Southeast Side saw nine people killed and 11 injured, almost all concentrated in the South Chicago and Avalon Park neighborhoods at the north end of the district.
The West Side's Austin District saw also saw nine people killed and 12 injured, while the Far South Side's Calumet District – including the Roseland, Fernwood and Pullman neighborhoods – saw eight killed and 20 injured.
In 2001, Obama opposed making gang activity eligible for the death penalty. "There's a strong overlap between gang affiliation and young men of color.... I think it's problematic for them to be singled out as more likely to receive the death penalty for carrying out certain acts than are others who do the same thing." In 1999, Obama opposed mandatory adult prosecution for youth who discharge a firearm near a school, declaring, "There is really no proof or indication that automatic transfers and increased penalties and adult penalties for juvenile offenses have, in fact, proven to be more effective in reducing juvenile crime or cutting back on recidivism."
Many contend that Chicago's near-absolute ban on handgun ownership has contributed to the city's recent leap in crime. Obama has recently voiced support for the constitutional right to own handguns for self-defense in the home, a right enumerated by the Supreme Court in June, his legislative record shows more hostility than affirmation to handgun ownership.
Obama opposed a bill the Illinois General Assembly passed in 2004 that shielded homeowners from prosecution for violating a local gun ban if they were defending their homes. He said he didn't support the ban because he didn't believe the state should meddle in local gun laws.
This from the man who will expoentially increase government intrusion in every aspect of our lives.
The 2000 election was somewhat of a watershed for gun rights. Gore's extremism on the gun issue caused him to lose three pro-Democrat and pro-gun states (Tennessee, West Virginia and Arkansas). Had he won any of those states, Al Gore would have been elected President in 2000.
It was only after Gore's defeat, that many top-level Democrats finally realized that gun control does not sell well at the polls. Sure, there were earlier indications of this, if they had been willing to read the tea leaves. Bill Clinton admitted in his memoirs that the gun issue cost Al Gore the White House in 2000 and Sen. John Kerry’s pathetically staged “goose hunt” in Ohio just days before the 2004 presidential election cooked his.
But the extreme anti-gun bias in the liberal wing of the Democrat Party made them turn a blind eye to an obvious truth -- gun owners will cross party lines to vote for someone who won't steal their guns.
Sen. Barack Obama's campaign just won't let the gun issue rest. Mr. Obama and his campaign surrogates continue to assure gun owners that he is on their side…
Yet, despite all the Democratic claims to the contrary, Mr. Obama is undoubtedly the most anti-gun candidate ever nominated by a major party for president…
The day the Supreme Court struck down Washington, D.C.'s gun ban, Mr. Obama claimed the court's decision merely ratified his own position… Yet, Mr. Obama personally voiced support for the D.C. ban at other times. In February, he did this himself, not something that he could blame on a staffer.
ABC New's local Washington, D.C. anchor, Leon Harris, asked Mr. Obama: "One other issue that's of great importance here in the district as well is gun control ... but you support the D.C. handgun ban." Mr. Obama's simple response: "Right." When Mr. Harris said "And you've said that it's constitutional," Mr. Obama again says "right" and is clearly seen on tape nodding his head "yes."
A candidate questionnaire shows that Mr. Obama supported a ban on handguns in 1996. In 1998, he backed a ban on the sale of all semiautomatic guns (a ban that would encompass the vast majority of guns sold in the U.S.) In 2004, he advocated banning gun sales within five miles of a school or park (essentially a ban on all guns sold in almost all the states). Possibly, even more importantly, he served on the board of the Joyce Foundation, probably the largest private funder of anti-gun and pro-ban groups and research in the country.
The Obama campaign "flatly denied" the 1996 statement supporting a ban on handguns, blaming it instead on a staffer from his state senate race who they said had incorrectly filled out the candidate questionnaire. But the Politico obtained a copy of the statement and found Mr. Obama's own handwritten notes on it indicating that he had personally checked and corrected answers.
His newfound support for gun ownership raises serious questions; not only where he stands on the gun issue, but also how trustworthy he is.
The release of the new Democratic National Platform's discussion of "what [gun control] works in Chicago" implies Mr. Obama still supports Chicago's gun ban. The platform also wants to take away so-called "assault weapons." Also unclear is what his position means for who he would nominate to the Supreme Court. Mr. Obama's recent comments to Rick Warren, pastor of the evangelical Saddleback Church, showed he opposed nominating those members of the Supreme Court who voted that the Second Amendment is an individual right.
Mr. Obama doesn't even admit that he has changed his position on guns. In a July interview on "The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer," the senator admitted that there has been a "shift in emphasis" on various issues, but on guns he held firm: "There wasn't a shift there."
John Lott is a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland.
Unlike Obama’s VP running mate Joe Biden, Sarah Palin is a strong supporter of the right to keep and bear arms.
Sarah Palin’s candidate statement to the NRA in 2006 nicely sums up her gun rights stance: “I am a lifetime member of the NRA, I support our Constitutional right to bear arms and am a proponent of gun safety programs for Alaska’s youth.” Palin’s hobbies include hunting and fishing.
This should help put gun rights supporters at somewhat greater ease at the prospect of a McCain presidency. Given the extremely anti gun stance taken by Obama and Biden, the McCain/Palin ticket is certainly best option insofar as the issue of gun rights is concerned.
ON Sunday, Deval-Obama (I think they share the same mind) tossed out a plan to DOUBLE the fee for legally gun owners. Meanwhile, in no-income-tax N.Hamsphire, residents pay a fraction of our current fee.
So, $100 to $200. Why? To buy more curtains?
And the timing? Just a handful of days after the SUPREME COURT ruled for the rightful legal ownership of firearms.......
VOTE OUT DEVALUE Patrick.
VOTE OUT anyone who supports him.
p.s. And I thought my last renewal was ridiculous...now he wants $200? Take our guns, take our money, brainwash our kids.....easy to see the evil in this.
Answering a 127-year old constitutional question, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to have a gun, at least in one's home. The Court, splitting 5-4, struck down a District of Columbia ban on handgun possession.
Justice Antonin Scalia's opinion for the majority stressed that the Court was not casting doubt on long-standing bans on gun possession by felons or the mentally retarded, or laws barring guns from schools or government buildings, or laws putting conditions on gun sales.
In District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290), the Court nullified two provisions of the city of Washington's strict 1976 gun control law: a flat ban on possessing a gun in one's home, and a requirement that any gun - except one kept at a business - must be unloaded and disassembled or have a trigger lock in place. The Court said it was not passing on a part of the law requiring that guns be licensed.
Check out this frank and to the point piece by former Congressman and modern Republican Study Committee founder Ernest Istook (R-OK), shedding the light on why:
We can't afford Congress any more
By Ernest Istook
We can't afford Congress. It's driving America's cost-of-living through the roof.
Any tax cut or "economic stimulus" we might get this spring is peanuts compared to how Washington keeps jacking up the price of everything that's important.
By itself, last month's energy bill will make food, cars, gasoline and even light bulbs more expensive. Washington is also the culprit behind high medical bills and health insurance, washing machines that have doubled in price, and our wonderful, more-expensive "lo-flo" toilets that don't flush right.
Channel 5 Gun Dealer Story a Tragic Case of Blind Journalism
In response to a one sided anti-gun report aired on WCVB Channel 5 on January 31, 2008, Gun Owners Action Leauge (GOAL) issued the following:
On Thursday, January 31, 2008 Channel 5 of Boston aired a story Weapons Easy to Get; Traffickers Go Unpunished reported by News Center 5's Sean Kelly. The entire premise of the report was how easy it is for criminals to obtain guns in Massachusetts because the neighboring states don't require a background check. The entire story was completely a one sided display of journalistic political action. Not once in the story did the reporter cite the federal laws that require background checks for out of state purchases. Nor did Sean Kelly interview anyone from our side.
The reporter's bias was clearly represented in his final lines in the story: "Changing gun laws will be difficult, however, because the gun lobby spends millions of dollars convincing lawmakers that we don't need more gun laws, but better enforcement of the ones we already have." Of course Mr. Kelly fails to mention the millions that are spent annually by a wealthy minority in attempts to trample the civil rights of innocent citizens...read the rest of the story here
They Don't Support The Troops
Here is how the the Tierneys, Murthas, and Pelosis of the world show their support for our troops:
You see like most liberals, Tierney supports the troops, but only the wounded ones, and the veterans and the dead, all of those that need his compassion because of the harm done to them by the "illegal and immoral" war. In retrospect, he doesn't even support the wounded.
In March 2007, he jumped at the opportunity to get in front of the news cameras and express his "outrage" over the Walter Reed scandal. However, for six months prior to the news on the conditions at Walter Reed taking the national spotlight, a soldier from his Congressional District had been fighting for his life at Walter Reed after being severely wounded in an IED attack. Not once did he or his family receive a visit, a phone call, or any other inquiry on his condition from Congressman Tierney. In fact, Tierney had never been to Walter Reed until holding his very public hearings, live on TV. He did have time to travel to San Juan Puerto Rico in February 2007 for a privately funded six day conference on No Child Left Behind.
He and the progressives only talk about these troops. We all know they are important, read my blog posts for starters. However, what the compassion-mongers ignore are the troops who are still the pointy end of the spear, the ones on the ground taking out the terrorists and insurgents, those are the troops Tierney and the left don't support. Tierney's anti-military voting record is clearly documented. Go read Tierney's Veterans page on his site, all fluff, no substance, and not one mention of victory, not one mention of the battles we have fought and won, and certainly no mention of dead terrorists or our live enemies. Heaven forbid we talk about that.
Our troops deserve better. John Tierney has demonstrated time and again that he does not support our military. He has no business serving in any capacity that determines how our troops are funded and supported.
If you are concerned about the struggle for the future as I am, if you are tired of single party ideological representation, and if you want a representative that places principle over politics, please use this Slatecard link to make a secure online donation, or if you prefer send your check to:
Rick Barton for Congress Committee P.O. Box 511 Beverly, MA 01915
Thanks for everything you have done and anything you can do. Let's make 2008 the year that puts common sense back in Massachusetts politics.
Please help us maximize the impact of our campaign by forwarding this message to your friends, colleagues, and other concerned citizens looking for change.
FULL DISCLOSURE: This is being posted simultaneously on chimpschumpspolitics, RedMass, BlueMass and published in selected North Left Coast Newspapers.
I have avoided writing this until I could get a reasonable, if not perfect, grip on both my sanity and my temper. I have still not succeeded at that last. I am still seething with so much anger at the lunatic anti-gun idiots that it's almost nuclear, but I will try writing anyway; after all, the nutballs need to get a little bit of HEAT! It is high damned time to tell the Brady Bunch and their minions to go to hell, and STAY!
There are more than TWENTY THOUSAND LAWS on the books of these United States http://www.cnsnews.c... at the STATE, COUNTY, and LOCAL LEVEL, having to do with what I laughingly refer to as "gun control." Almost every one of them is designed, intentionally and with malice aforethought, to restrict or deny the public's right to keep and bear arms. Pious politicians, self-serving bureaucrats and mindless Hollywood stars drone on and on about how these laws make us "safer." And the Brady Bunch and "Violence Policy Center" cheer them on - mustn't have guns, now, tiny-minded American, you just can't be trusted.