Maryland has passed a law that will offer the state’s 10 electoral votes to the winner of the national popular election rather than let its slate of Electoral College delegate cast their votes. Of course, they’ll do no such thing unless a majority of other states follow suit, so this isn’t the brave act its played up to be.
Buried in the story, however, is the shocking admission by the AP that George W. Bush actually won the 2000 elections:
Other states are considering the change to avoid an election in which a candidate wins the national popular vote but loses in the Electoral College, as in 2000 when Democrat Al Gore lost to George W. Bush.
Yes, you’re reading that right. The AP is actually going on record as saying that Al Gore lost the 2000 election to Bush. Not that Bush stole it or that Bush was appointed. He won the election.
Only took 7 years.
In a story over on FoxNews.com, the recent spate of murders in Florida of women who had restraining orders filed against abusive boyfriends and ex’s has people wondering whether restraining orders are worth the paper they’re printed on. The authors of the story take a stance I’m rather shocked to find published on an outlet of the MSM, even Fox News:
But restraining orders often aren’t worth the paper on which they’re written, even when they are served.
For a stalker intent on killing his victim or committing suicide after the attack, the penalty for violating a restraining order is irrelevant. With Seattle police’s response time of seven minutes for the highest-priority emergency calls, the police simply can’t be there to protect you even with a restraining order. Seven minutes can seem like an eternity.
With such rampant failures in the system, there is one piece of advice that could have saved Rebecca’s life: Practice self-defense and a get a gun.
Indeed, the University of Washington goes in the opposite direction and tries to protect people by declaring the campus a “gun-free zone,” with the school’s code of conduct banning the “possession or use of firearms … except for authorized university purposes.”
Gun-free zones may be well-intentioned, but good intentions are not enough. It is an understandable desire to ban guns; after all, if you ban guns from an area, people can’t get shot, right? But time after time when these public shootings occur, they disproportionately take place in gun-free zones.
It is the law-abiding good citizens who would only use a gun for protection who obey these bans. Violating a gun-free zone at a place such as a public university may mean expulsion or firing and arrest, real penalties for law-abiding citizens. But for someone intent on killing others, adding on these penalties for violating a gun-free zone means little to someone who, if still alive, faces life in prison.
Unfortunately, instead of gun-free zones ensuring safety for victims, ensuring that the victims are unarmed only makes things safer for attackers.
Absolutely, 100%, hands-down correct. The authors go on to report their findings from research they conducted at the University of Chicago. From 1977 through 1999 they found that multiple-victim public shootings in the US dropped by 60% when in a given state when that state passed right-to-carry laws. Deaths and injuries from those attacks dropped by 78%. That’s stunning. Not the statistic, which is well-known to anyone who bothers to do just a few moments of study on the matter. No, it’s stunning that a major media outlet is carrying that story. It’s Fox, of course. (I haven’t looked yet but I’m betting the story won’t appear anywhere near the New York Times, the Washington Post, or any of the other notoriously-leftish news outlets.)
You should read it all. Then you should make an appointment for yourself at the local gun range and take a gun safety course followed up by a few test-drives of weapons that fall within your interest and need range. You’ll be glad you did.