Countless Government Officials Guilty of Child Endangerment!

By Kellene Bishop, Women of Caliber

When you’re finished reading this piece, I hope that you will see how numerous of our government officials AND the majority of our journalists are actually guilty of premeditated child endangerment in our nation.

Don’t you HATE being manipulated? I don’t know about you, but I LOATHE being manipulated. So much so that when I’m watching a live presentation and I can tell that I’m being manipulated to laugh or clap or holler at a particular moment, I obstinately refuse to be a “joiner.” To me, manipulation is right up there with spewing “bold-face” lies. Such actions are disingenuous, and in my not-so-humble opinion, when such manipulated efforts are perpetrated by a government or otherwise trusted “officials”, it’s worse than just a lie. It’s an act of treason which is intended to strip me of my freedoms and security. So how would you like to discover that countless attempts are shot at you regularly to manipulate how you raise your children, and in doing so are actually putting your children at a significant danger? Yup. Now “Dem’s Fighting Words, Bubba!”

Welcome to the relationship our international media has with guns. Their motives are unfathomable to me, but they clearly reek of a subservience, minion-like attitude of one who is serving a tyrannical king. (Makes me wonder why so much blood has been spilt so that these journalists can have the right of free press, when they clearly do not use such a right freely.) While horrific criminals are being let off Scott free for premeditated murder of children, child abuse, child endangerment, and child slavery, our very own media is in love with manipulating our nation’s parents in their views and education of their children about firearms. IF firearms are a danger to the lives of children, then they are sounding a much needed warning cry. However, IF firearms are actually an effective means of protecting ourselves and our children, then such manipulation is a terrorist act, in my opinion. In such a case, here’s the real crime—the protection and safety of our children should be the number one priority of every single parent in America. Such instincts to protect the children are even remarkably innate in non-parents as well. And IF a firearm can actually ensure that an added measure of safety and security is available for our children, then anyone who would desire to eliminate such a tool is an enemy to my children, the future security of my country, and thus a terrorist enemy to me.

If right now, you cringe at the thought of possessing a firearm in your home or on your persons out of fear that a child may be harmed by it accidentally, then you have indeed fallen prey to this criminal campaign. Here’s why.

Crime #1—How the government statistics define “children.” Since the anti-gun proponents frequently use images of young children to ensure the proper emotional reaction to firearm accident statistics, it’s important to understand how such research studies define a child. Are you ready? According to the majority of all gun and children related accidents a child is defined as the age of 0 to 20 and even as old as TWENTY-FOUR years old, depending on the source. That’s right. Junior who has joined a gang at the age of 18 and is 35 times more likely to be shot as a result of such gang-relations is blatantly used to skew the statistics of the “children and guns” movement of the anti-gunners. Why is this the case? For the very reason that I used in my example. Gang related deaths are numerous. And unfortunately it’s common for teens to be involved in gangs, thus they are involved in gang related shootings.

“Most violent crime is committed by males ages 16-24, so these numbers include adult gang members dying during criminal activity.” (FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, 1997) “18-20 year olds commit over 23% of all gun murders.” (U.S. Treasury and Justice Dept. Report, 1999) None of these “children” are allowed to purchase a handgun due to their age under current law.

And don’t forget the fact that some of these “children” are fighting over in Iraq or Afghanistan right now. The clear motivation with this stretched definition of what constitutes a child is that the anti-gun individuals will have a more suitably intimidating statistic of “children involved in gun related deaths” to influence society with. Don’t believe that these statistics are defined this way? Here’s just one direct quote from Handgun Control, Inc., a blatantly anti-gun organization.
The annual review of mortality data, published by the Department of Health and Human Services, said gun-related deaths dropped from 4,223 in 1997 to 3,792 among children under age 20 in 1998." -Handgun Control, Inc. (emphasis added.)

In actuality, 142 children ranging in age from 0 to 14 were killed as the result of a gun. That does not imply that 142 deaths of any age is acceptable, but do you really think that the media and government officials would get the emotional result from you they desired if they instead stated “Out of over 300 million guns held legally nationwide among over 15 million children under the age of 14, 142 were killed in 1997.” Yeah. It lacks the “pow” effect that they believe they can accomplish with the other so-called statistic. It’s a far cry from the 4,223 or 3,792 number, now isn’t it? Do you feel manipulated yet? Don’t worry if you don’t. I’ve got more.

Crime #2—Blatant Media Bias on the Reporting of Children and Gun Incidents: When you see a news report on a child killed with a gun, pay attention to how many times such a report is run compared to any other news piece, and pay attention to the pictures which are associated with such an instance. When individuals are killed in an airplane crash, what does the media attempt to do after such a report? They predictably follow up the story with statistics on overall safety record of flying, attempting to allay any fears the viewers/readers may have about flying. Have you EVER read a news article that ever attempted to convey the facts about the SAFETY and BENEFITS of guns in our nation?

During 2001, John Lott, Sr., Research Scholar of the School of Law at Yale University, audited the 3 major news networks. During that year there were over 190,000 words of coverage dedicated to gun crimes. However, only 580 total words were devoted to the merits of owning a gun for self-defense, and even that occurred as the result of ONE network interviewing a police office who helped stop a school shooting.

In 1999, Newsweek did a special issue of “American Under the Gun.” There were over 15,000 words spewed in an attempt to bias the dangers of gun ownership and not one single word sharing statistics of the use of guns in self-defense scenarios.

In 2001, USA Today contained 5,660 words on crimes committed with a gun, no words on gun use in self-defense. Washington Post provided 46,884 words on stories of gun crimes with only 953 words on defensive uses of guns.

In 1999, 20/20 aired a very anti-gun episode specifically attempting to enlighten viewers on dangers of mixing children and guns. During the course of the show, a toy room was filmed showing children playing with real guns and playing with them as if they were toys. At one point the “voiceover” even stated “It wasn’t long before the shooting began.” There was NO shooting. There was make-believe play! The same year this show aired, 1999, there were 31 children under the age of 10 who died from accidental gun deaths. Is there ANY other way that children die which receives more press attention with the same level of alarm? Think about it. If 31 children died this year as the result of choking on a Triscuit cracker, do you think it would receive ANY news coverage? The level of disproportionate coverage is clearly an indicator of blatant manipulation. Wouldn’t it be revolutionary for a new report to follow-up a rare accidental child shooting with statistics such as, “Did you know that water is 19 times more dangerous to a child than a firearm? Or “Bathtubs are twice as dangerous to children as guns. Fire is 18 times more dangerous to children than guns. Cars are 57 times more dangerous. Household cleaners and poisons are twice as dangerous.” (Dr. Joyce Lee Malcolm, Guns and Violence , Bentley College history professor)

Feel manipulated yet? There’s more.

Crime #3—Blatant Government Bias on the Reporting of Children and Gun Incidents: First of all, it’s important that you understand that government reports almost always result in statistics which favor the entity which funded the work of creating such a report. Politicians clearly want research studies which produce the support for the position which they have already opted to take. And they rarely resist injecting politics into supposedly objective science studies. In spite of being in existence and well-funded for decades and with all of the “studies available” conducted by government organizations on guns and children, the Department of Justice and the National Institute of Justice, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, has never conducted ANY is ANY report which attempts to discover the number of children’s lives that were SAVED as the result of a gun being present.

The manipulation never seems to cease, does it?

Crime #4—Out Right LYING about Gun Use Statistics: Seatbelts save lives, right? That’s why it’s a crime in most areas of the country not to have your child in a car seat and with a seat belt. And yet in spite of such requirements, 250,000 children are injured in car accidents every year, with over 2,000 of them resulting in child fatalities. (National Center for Statistics) Additionally, in spite of the rare circumstances which have occurred in which a seat belt or an air bag has actually killed a child in such an accident, you do not hear any clamoring for such cars or automobile safety features to be banned or locked up, right? And yet the entire aura of government reports and media reporting would have you believe that guns are an offending foe in the deaths of children.

While we’re told that 13 children die every day from a gun accident, this number “13” involves gang-related activities while committing felonies and kids that commit suicide. (FBI Uniform Statistics, 1997) In fact, four children dies each day in the U.S. as the result of parental neglect and abuse. Perhaps we should register and license parents? Not! The number “13” is nothing more than a bold-face lie intended to manipulate the presence of guns for self-defense in our lives.

According to the Center for Disease Control, of all of the accidental killings of children, 56% of them were from car accidents, 22% were from drowning. 0.1% of all deaths of U.S. children between the ages of zero and 14 are from firearms according to the National Safety Council. In 2000, there were 86 accidental firearm deaths of children under the age of 15. However, in that same year there were 40 children under the age of five that died in a bucket and 80 who died drowning in a tub.

According to the General Accounting Office, gun trigger locks are proven ineffective against most children older than 7 years of age. California has a trigger lock law and saw a 12% increase in fatal firearm accidents in 2005. Texas doesn't have such a law and experienced a 28% decrease in firearm accidents in that same year, according to the National Center for Health Statistics.

The myth is perpetuated that handguns are 43 times more likely to kill a family member than a criminal. And yet of the deaths that were reported in the study this mythical statistic originates, 86% of the deaths were suicides. Other deaths involved criminal activity between the family members such as drug deals that went awry. Only 0.1% of the defensive gun deaths resulted in the death of a family member. (Dr. Gary Kleck, Criminologist, Florida State Univ.)

Manipulation rages on.

Crime #5—Failing to Assist in the Education of REAL Gun Safety: You can’t watch television all your life without being exposed to the reinforcement of rules that parents teach their children such as “don’t talk to strangers,” “say please and thank you”, etc. And yet there has not yet been ONE government or media sponsored piece teaching children gun safety. Over the past 5 years, not a single gun safety mention has ever been made after the report of an accidental shooting involving a child. Not one. And yet if the safety message of parents were to be reinforced by the media and our government, the number of accidental child shootings would be reduced by HALF! (Read The Bias Against Guns by John R. Lott, Jr.) Instead of supporting and even sharing such teachings of safety, our media, entertainment industry, and particularly Hollywood glorifies the insolence and rebellion of youth and gangs.

In my opinion, if you are not a part of the solution, then you are definitely a part of the problem. Instead of getting this kind of support funded from the egregious taxes they pay, parents have to rely solely on like-minded friends and family members, or the generosity of private organizations such as the NRA’s Eddie Eagle Gun Safety program, to reinforce the most critical of gun safety rules. If you were to protect yourself and your family from an intruder (rapist, kidnapper, robber), would a telephone or a firearm be more effective?

The facts are that over 2.5 million crimes are PREVENTED every year as the result of the possession of legally held firearms. (as reported by John R. Lott, JR AND Dr. Gary Kleck) How many of those prevented crimes have actually saved the life of a child or prevented the sexual abuse of a child or a child kidnapping? Well, that’s yet one more “research study” that is glaringly missing from the campaign of guns in America. Gee. I wonder why?

Instead of vilifying guns and gun owners, our government should be accurately reporting the facts related to guns and children and guns used in self-defense. And based on the REAL statistics, even encourage and empower more citizens to actually possess and use guns in self-defense and to defend their family.

Consider these final facts. Eight times as many children die from non-gun violent acts than from gun crimes. (Kids and Guns, 2000, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention) 82% of homicides to children age 13 and under were committed without a gun. (1997, FBI Uniform Crime Statistics)

Yes. You’re being manipulated. And the overwhelming statistics of SAFETY actually prove that such a distortion of the truth could cause harm to your children. That’s why I wholeheartedly accuse several government officials and leaders, as well as so many so-called journalists of endangering the life of our nation’s children. Unfortunately, if you buy into this travesty of a campaign, the real statistics indicate that it just may COST you or your child their life.

Copyright 2009 Kellene Bishop. All rights reserved.
You are welcome to repost this information so long as it is credited to Kellene Bishop.

Back Door CIFTA Threatens Firearm Freedom

“If you can’t beat ‘em, hide from them.”

The Obama Administration has unabashedly announced in several instances that they intend to bring in more gun control, even going so far as to taking away our firearms of self-defense. However, the likelihood of our 2nd Amendment being taken away from us is highly unlikely. So what does Obama do? He uses our apathy in international relations to try to accomplish the same end.

Stage Left: Enter CIFTA (read text here)

CIFTA appears to remove ownership of any firearm manufactured for, or any based on a military design, OF ANY AGE, from 2nd amendment protection. No exemptions for flintlocks, or pre-1899, either.

The treaty bans ‘“illicit” manufacturing’ of firearms, defined as:

the manufacture or assembly of firearms, ammunition, explosives,
and other related materials:

a. from components or parts illicitly trafficked; or

b. without a license from a competent governmental authority of the
State Party where the manufacture or assembly takes place; or

c. without marking the firearms that require marking at the time of
manufacturing.

This would seem to require a government license for home building, assembling from parts, and quite likely many types of repairs and customizations. And here’s the really scary part, it defines “other related materials” this way: “any component, part, or replacement part of a firearm, or an accessory which can be attached to a firearm.” This would make all people who make accessories that attach to a firearm to have a license. It would presumably also ban home manufacture of these items without a government license. Do you own trigger jobs? Reload your own ammunition? Not anymore, not without a government license!

It defines illegal trafficking as “the import, export, acquisition, sale, delivery, movement, or transfer of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials from or across the territory of one State Party to that of another State Party, if any one of the States Parties concerned does not authorize it.” This would not seem to affect any of these things happening exclusively within the domestic market.

It requires states to destroy seized firearms. “States Parties shall adopt the necessary measures to ensure that all firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials seized, confiscated, or forfeited as the result of illicit manufacturing or trafficking do not fall into the hands of private individuals or businesses through auction, sale, or other disposal.”

It would seem to require some vague requirement for transport: “States Parties, in an effort to eliminate loss or diversion, undertake to adopt the necessary measures to ensure the security of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials imported into, exported from, or in transit through their respective territories.”

Here are the licensing requirements:

States Parties shall establish or maintain an effective system of export,
import, and international transit licenses or authorizations for transfers of
firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials.

States Parties shall not permit the transit of firearms, ammunition,
explosives, and other related materials until the receiving State Party issues
the corresponding license or authorization.

States Parties, before releasing shipments of firearms, ammunition,
explosives, and other related materials for export, shall ensure that the
importing and in-transit countries have issued the necessary licenses or
authorizations.

The importing State Party shall inform the exporting State Party, upon
request, of the receipt of dispatched shipments of firearms, ammunition,
explosives, and other related materials.

It’s hard to say how they expect this to be implemented. It could, if interpreted strictly, make traveling internationally with a firearm impossible or next to impossible without expensive licenses. We already have licenses required for commercial import or export, but personal import, export, or international transit has always been considered a separate matter.
It would seem to regulate carriage of weapons:

1. States Parties shall exchange among themselves, in conformity with their
respective domestic laws and applicable treaties, relevant information on
matters such as:

a. authorized producers, dealers, importers, exporters, and, whenever
possible, carriers of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related
materials;

This means your concealed carry records would be subject to being shared with foreign nations. “Carriage” in this CIFTA sentence seems to imply carry permit information. “To the extent possible” means that if the records exist, it must be delivered. Registration leads to confiscation — in this case, confiscation by foreign criminals breaking into your house to steal the guns that they know you have. Could this bring about gun-control through crime? Do you trust the Mexican government with information about you? I believe that that “list” would have about a 30 second life before some international enemy successfully bribed a Mexican official for it…” hmmm… let’s see which Americans we take out first.” And once it’s out, it’s out everywhere, so the threat of security doesn’t just lie in “official circles.” It can easily make its way into the hands of our own neighbors.

This treaty will clearly result in establishing national gun registration. The treaty requires signatories to establish and maintain records of all firearms manufactured and transferred to allow participating nations to trace back a weapon found in their nation to its manufacturer and owners (Article XI). This also addresses issues of extradition to other nations for "offenders" (think gun makers and dealers), and establishment of international oversight committees.

The Washington Post article today clearly points out that Obama wants to push CIFTA through the Senate ASAP! This is an end-run around our rights associated with the Second Amendment! Entering into this treaty will make illegal the acts of hand loading your own ammunition, adding attachments to your own firearms, etc! This is clearly a back door attempt all the way, to get serious gun control implemented in our nation. Obama pushes the treaty like he’s fighting a wildfire. The Senate then ratifies it based on the Democrat agenda. The Dems then use treaty as an excuse to pass a variety of legislation to register and track arms. All of which aids Heller et al…

This is the WP article about Obama’s discussion of CIFTA with Calderon while in Mexico.

We absolutely MUST make sure that our US Senate does not ratify and enter us into this treaty.

Silence is Concession, folks.

Copyright 2009 Kellene Bishop. All rights reserved.
You are welcome to repost this information so long as it is credited to Kellene Bishop.

Do You Have Enough Ammo to Last You 4 Years?

3/18/09 Update: While we're ecstatic to hear that the NRA-ILA and a couple of good politicians have rectified this wrong, there's still merit to this particular blog below in showing just how vulnerable we are to the minds and wills of a select few.

I would suspect that there are very few readers who do. And that’s a huge problem with the latest twist in the government soap opera.

As you may know, Obama previously proposed as a Senator that ammunition would receive a 500% tax hike. He did so as a crafty way to essentially take away our guns. Obviously, without ammunition, gun owners had better get good at throwing our firearms at an assailant or using them as batons without ammo. You and I both know that with his penchant for taxing the American people worse than any president ever (even through the liability of his spending packages), he’s not likely to get past a deaf and moot Congress this proposal for a 500% tax hike on ammo. So what does he do? Nothing. He doesn’t have to do anything because his Secretary of State is interpreting a Department of Defense directive to favor this new administration’s distaste for guns. And it’s done without Congress having any say in it. As of June 11, 2008, the Department of Defense is to no longer allow the military to sell fired casings to ammunition remanufacturers until they have been “mutilated”, aka shredded into scrap brass.

Let’s break this down a little bit.

In order for you to shoot, you have to have ammo. Duh, right? Bear with me here. When you practice shooting, you will typically use remanufactured ammunition because it’s less expensive. For example, 1,000 rounds of 9mm ammo (115 grain) which is remanufactured costs $207, while new ammo, 9mm (115 grain) costs $269 at a bargain price. So the savings can be substantial. The key to the pricing advantage of remanufactured ammunition is that the remanufacturers are able to buy their once-fired casings primarily from the military. As you can imagine, the military uses a LOT of ammo and due to their rules they can only use new ammo. This makes them an ideal source from which to purchase used casings. However, now that the DOD has determined that they are only permitted to sell their ammo casings AFTER they have been shredded, this means a whole lot to your wallet.

1) Yes, the “remanufactured” ammo will be more expensive (as if the past year of price increases haven’t been bad enough.) The reason being is now there is an extra step in the process in order for the remanufacturers to have foundries turn the shredded brass (and other metals) into the casings they need. The reason why I put the “remanufactured” in quotation marks is that it’s doubtful to me that the new product should be called “remanufactured” as opposed to new since this additional process entails what new-ammo manufacturers have to do to produce their ammo.

2) Your tax dollars now pay for the shredding of the casings which the military will now perform on all of their casings prior to selling it.

3) The remanufactured ammo represents approximately 65-75% of the ammunition market among civilians AND law enforcement. Law enforcement regularly uses remanufactured ammo for their target practices. Thus, now law enforcement is paying a higher price either for the remanufactured ammo, or a higher price to buy new ammo. Guess whose tax dollars pay for that?

4) Due to the interpretation of this DOD directive, there are a great deal of ammunition remanufacturers who will have to lay off a sizeable portion of their employees. Hello, unemployment. Hello, extra foreclosures. Hello, extra bankruptcies.

5) This all presumes that since the casings are being shredded they will still be sold to the remanufacturers. This is doubtful as China is the largest buyer of such metals from us in its shredded condition. Don’t think for a second that they won’t get first crack at buying this shredded brass. After all, we owe them for buying up so much of our debt, right? This means that we may have put out of business ALL of the remanufacturers in the U.S. with this one strategic directive. If the remanufacturers go out of business, then we have the small number of new-ammo manufacturers to provide all the rest of us with ammo. And the military gets first shot in front of any buyer to obtain their ammo. Now think about this economically. You have what used to represent about a third of the ammo sales in the U.S. and now they are the primary source to handle nearly all of the ammo manufacturing. That’s called a serious supply-and-demand problem. If you talk to anyone who buys ammo, you will undoubtedly hear stories of empty shelves, and hard-to-find ammo. Are you starting to see why ammo is so hard to obtain now and why prices have increased substantially? Expect an even greater supply-and-demand imbalance as the dominos continue to fall, folks.

So why do I ask if you have enough ammo for 4 years? Because if you don’t, that situation is not likely to change unless this administration reigns-in how the directive is being interpreted, or an administration change occurs four years from now. It won’t matter how much money you have. You simply won’t be able to buy enough with the military standing in line in front of you. NOW some of you may know why I predicted that there would come a time when a bucket of ammo would be worth more than a bucket of gold…on so many levels. (see http://www.preparednesspro.wordpress.com/)

Clearly the economists who thought this one through are on the same team as those who are running Wall Street and are devoid of much in the form of patriotism or intellect.

See the link below the draft of this directive.
www.dla.mil/j-6/dlmso/Archives/JSACG/meetings/11Jun08/ADC_220_Small%20ArmsDefinition_DRAFT_JSACG_11June2008.doc

Copyright 2009 Kellene Bishop. All rights reserved. You are welcome to repost this information so long as it is credited to Kellene Bishop.

Today's Woman and Firearms

Are you part of the startling 49% INCREASE of gun sales that occurred in November 2008? (over the previous year of the same month) Chances are, if you’re female, you actually represent the majority of those purchases. That’s right. The majority.

If I were to state that this is an important time in history, many of you may think that I’m referring to the political shift in power. However, I’m actually referring to the undeniable shift in interest of the expert use of firearms. Over the last 12 months, women have been coming out of the woodwork in record droves and declaring their independence by taking part in firearm safety and use. Women are starting to feel like they can no longer stay in the dark when it comes to firearm safety and usage. After all, the best safety measure anyone can have when it comes to firearms is knowledge.

In Caitlin Kelly’s 2004 book, Blown Away: American Women and Guns, she points out that today’s women realize that they simply aren’t as well protected as they need to be. Their levels of knowledge and self-defense protection simply aren’t keeping up with the rate of violent crimes against women. Thus they are searching for more effective means of providing that necessary protection. Women today understand that the power of a competent marksman is a great equalizer against violent crime, and they are refusing to become the next victim statistic.

Lest we forget, shooting is also fun. It’s not unusual to see women joining in dirt bike racing, camping and hiking, fishing, hunting, and other activities that have been predominantly occupied by men. A feminine touch on a rifle or handgun is just one more expression of women’s exploration for new, fun, and exciting. And it gives women a great outlet for their inherent hand-eye coordination talents. Skeet and target shooting make for a great stress reliever worthy of today’s challenges.

And lastly, it’s no secret that women are nurturers by nature. With the growing number of single mothers in our nation, women are beginning to take sole responsibility for soundly protecting their families as well. It’s simply not enough in today’s society to remind the children not to talk to strangers. This has led a dramatic increase in the number of single moms clamoring for firearm training classes. Unfortunately, these classes are lacking in one critical component.

With as many women who are seeking training, the number of females who are sufficiently trained and willing to offer such training has a long ways to go to merit the equal amounts of support that women gun owners are now in search of. More of these capable women need to come out of their proverbial closets and show a sister how to make strides in competently ensuring safety and use without regrets of her firearm.

Experienced females need to help our society shed the warped image of women and firearms as well. We need to demand more fashionable and female minded options for firearm carrying and sports. We need to counter the notion that a firearm somehow strips a woman of her femininity and show that it does not negate her instinct to nurture and care. A firearm does not make a woman a brash warrior. In fact, a firearm in the properly trained hands brings an abundance of confidence and peace. (And yes, I do mean “peace” in more than one way.)

Given all of the images that are flashed on television and in magazines which attempt to make us feel like we’re not doing enough, not skinny enough, or just plain not enough, it seems to me that we could use a lot more women gun owners in this nation. So if you’ve got the talent for competent firearm usage, share it. If you have an interest burgeoning for more knowledge in this regard, act on it. There’s plenty of “sistas” willing to join you.

Bring on the Confidence and the Peace.

Kellene

Copyright 2009 Kellene Bishop. All rights reserved. You are welcome to repost this information so long as it is credited to Kellene Bishop.