Tag: John McCain

Montagnard: Another Home Run

Montagnard just received another 5-Star review

One thought behind Serpents Underfoot and Montagnard …

Over the past years, it became “fashionable” to bash US service members serving worldwide while making saints out of the other side. Nowhere was this more apparent than during the war in Vietnam, when we had Hanoi Jane posing for pictures with North Vietnamese artillery units and passing a POW’s hopeful message home on to the commander of the Hanoi Hilton prison, a place where so many American servicemen (including John McCain) were imprisoned and tortured. That was a national disgrace!

And it is not always intentional. The Vietnam War film by Ken Burns and Lynn Novick, in my opinion, tried to give a truthful picture of the Vietnam War. However, we can rarely escape inserting our own views into what we create. While most who viewed this film praised it for its neutrality and fairness, and accurate portrayal of the war, many Vietnam Veterans I have spoken with, are still left with a bad taste in their mouths when watching this film because, at least in their view, it still portrays the American servicemen in a somewhat undeserved negative light.

Yes. Bad things happen in war. We all (well, at least those who bother to learn a little history) remember the My Lai Massacre. Unfortunately, war can bring out the worst in people as well as the best. But I would venture to say that at least 95 percent of American servicemembers serve their county honorably. That fact seems to get lost.

It was my intention, starting with Serpents Underfoot and continued in Montagnard, to write stories that would portray American servicemembers in a positive light because that is what the vast majority of them deserve. Being an old veteran myself, it still upsets me to hear some schmuck bad-mouth the very same people who fought for that schmuck’s right to bad-mouth them. And, far more often than not, the bad-mouthing is undeserved. Anyway, that was my goal. Readers will notice, I included all branches of service in Serpents Underfoot and several of them in Montagnard. There are even references to the British SAS, SBS, and the Israeli Defense Force. These are those who fight to preserve freedom around the globe.

I am happy when readers pick up on this …

And several of them have. There are comments in reviews like …

  • This story gives insight into the bravery of men like these who risk their lives to save others. (Montagnard)
  • You will find an astounding emotional impact as you walk beside men like JD and his K9 partner, Ajax, risking their lives to protect other people. (Montagnard)
  • A good job of describing the real Vietnam war and the inhuman crimes committed, not by US servicemembers but by the Vietcong and North Vietnam army. (Serpents Underfoot)

That is why a review like this one from DeeDee means so much to me!

Great story; very well written. Loved all the characters. This book, like your last one, had me from the beginning. JD is amazing and is an Isshin-ryu expert to boot. This book has it all. It makes you proud to be an American, has believable love stories and great action throughout. Loved it.


Feel free to check out some of my other blog posts by clicking here, and please, check out my books on my Amazon Author’s Page! They do get great reviews!

Want to learn more? Sign up for my monthly author’s newsletter …

Sign up by clicking the button below and receive a free gift! And, I promise, no spam! You can easily unsubscribe at any time.

The Real Threat to Minorities is the Ultimate Inversion!

Constitution of the United States of America
Constitution of the United States of America (Photo credit: The U.S. National Archives)

The way I see it, the smallest and most endangered minority in America is the individual. It clearly follows then that, those who work to deny an individual’s rights cannot truly claim to be defenders of minorities!

Individual rights (or inalienable rights) are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the inalienable rights of a minority; the political function of “a right” is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities … and as I stated earlier … the smallest minority on earth is the individual.

These days, liberals make a concerted effort to obliterate this point, so it cannot be repeated too often that the Constitution is a limitation on the power of the government, not on private individuals.  The Constitution does not restrict the conduct of private individuals, it only restricts the conduct of the government.  The Constitution is not a charter for government power, but a charter for the citizen’s protection against the abuse of government power.  In my opinion, this is the driving force behind the progressive-liberals discussions of the Constitution needing to be a “living document”, the continuous attacks on the 2nd Amendment, willingness to overlook NSA abuses of power, and even the statements that the Constitution is obsolete and should be thrown out … it stands in opposition to their goals!  If the 2nd Amendment can be removed … how long before other amendments will also be removed?

Obama’s administration assured Americans that the NSA scandal was a non-issue and that there were minimal instances of spying on “innocent” Americans.  Obama stated that over 50 terrorist attempts have been thwarted because of these same NSA spying efforts.  However, a document leaked by Snowden to the Washington Post proves that this is far from an accurate portrayal  Actually, since 2008 (which coincides nicely with the Obama presidency … coincidence?), thousands of incidents of the NSA spying on innocent Americans occur yearly and the “secret” FISA Court, in reality, … has no control over the NSA.  Can you name any of the 50 thwarted terrorist plots?  Senator Patrick Leahy, a Democrat, expressed real concern that he sees no evidence of any terrorist plots being thwarted by spying on innocent Americans.  Isn’t it odd that while Bush was in office, the liberal minions were screaming hysterically about abuses of government power over the very same type of NSA activities.  These activities have been greatly increased under the Obama administration, yet now these minions are strangely silent. Snowden, in spite of the fact  that what he did was wrong and illegal, may turn out to be a hero.

Progressive liberals know that there is no real way to “rule” innocent men. The only real power any administration has is the power to crack down on criminals.  So, when there aren’t enough criminals to make controlling their subjects feasible, a corrupt government will simply make innocent men criminals by declaring so many things to be a crime that it becomes virtually  impossible for men to live without breaking some law.

The goal of the progressive-liberals, as history clearly shows us, is to force this country into big government welfare by a series of slow working, barely discernible, yet specific measures:  enlarging the power of the government a step at a time, never permitting these steps to be summed up into stated principles, never permitting their true goal to be identified, and ridiculing or demonizing free Americans who stand up and called them on it. Their plan is for a socialist big government nanny-state to prevail … but not by choice (as in votes) or by violence.  They are quietly working to achieve their goals by a long process of deceit, evasion, and epistemological corruption; leading to an eventual  “done deal.”  ObamaCare, Fast and Furious, Benghazi,  assaults on the Second Amendment, and the current NSA scandals are perfect examples of this plan in action.  Obama lives like Joseph Stalin while freedom-loving individuals, labeled “deniers,” are ridiculed, spied upon and made targets of government oppression.   The sad thing is that many Republicans, like John McCain, Chris Christie, and John Boehner, are party to the plan because they actually see themselves as part of the new American Aristocracy … and not as freedom loving individuals!  The goal of every freedom loving American must be to stop them … period!

I asked a liberal co-worker once, “what my fair share of his pay check was!”  He laughed it off, but clearly was not happy with my question.  Hard-working “A” student were once asked if they would share their A’s with those that got C’s … so everyone could get a B.  They were not to happy with the idea!  Seems it never hurts when it is someone else’s money in question!

Obama and his cronies’ political ideology survives by looting (spun as “taxing the rich” and “getting your fair share”), but a free country truly survives on production.  Look at our history objectively!  America’s great abundance was not created by public sacrifices to “the common good.” This is simply a silly fairy tale!  America’s success and greatness  was created by the productive genius of free men who pursued their own personal interests and made their own private fortunes. They did not starve the people to pay for America’s industrialization like Obama is doing.  They gave the people better jobs, higher wages and cheaper goods with every new machine they invented, with every scientific discovery or technological advance created.  Because of this, the whole country moved forward and profited … and we were not suffering, every step of the way under burdensome taxes and regulation.  Yes … some people were richer than others and some were even down right poor!  Can you point to any other nation were that situation does not exist?  Can France, Russia, Sweden, China say they have no poor people?  Did they ever achieve the economic greatness of the United States?  No … they did not!

We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the  government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by  permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the  stage of rule by brute force.

~ Ayn Rand

Freedom is truly  the first necessary requirement of “the common good”  … America’s real achievements rested solely on that foundation in the past and could not have existed without it. We need to restore real freedom if we are going to have a future!

John McCain Shows Some Uncommon Sense!

John McCain

John McCain says he wants to leave the door open to discuss and consider any viable proposals to address the troubling situation in home financing.McCain stated, “I will not play election-year politics with the housing crisis …. I will evaluate everything in terms of whether it might be harmful or helpful to our effort to deal with the crisis we face now.”

With that statement, Senator McCain suggested that he would also be open to potential solutions that did not originate on the Republican side of the isle. McCain went on to say that he would, “consider any and all proposals based on their cost and benefits” and that he “will not allow dogma to override common sense.”

That being said, Senator McCain also stated there were limits on how far he was willing to go.

“I have always been committed to the principle that it is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they are big banks or small borrowers,”

Thank you John McCain … couldn’t have said it better myself!

McCain also stated that, “Government assistance to the banking system should be based solely on preventing systemic risk that would endanger the entire financial system and the economy.”

John McCain is seeking to show his grasp of the country’s economic troubles — and counter the notion that he’s not up to the task of leading a nation on the brink of recession.

Senator McCain has acknowledged, perhaps honestly, in the past that he knows less about economics than he does about national security and foreign policy … and of course, Democrats have gleefully seized on such remarks to argue that McCain is inexperienced with the domestic issues that voters care about most.

Frankly, I must admit that I fail to see how Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton’s stated plans to spend billions upon billions of dollars to provide more social welfare services and bailouts shows any real keen understanding of the nations economy either, but perhaps I am just slow on the uptake. I do not need a crystal ball, though, to see drastic tax increases needed to fund this “nanny state” nonsense should either of them get elected. Hillary Clinton stated herself, that America could not afford her many projects.

While Senator John McCain is quietly seeking to prove his economic credentials and to continues to generate a healthy buzz in the media about his candidacy …

Hillary Clinton

… Democratic candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton continue to ratchet up the racism, hate, and mud-slinging, while fighting tooth and nail … by hook or by crook … for their party’s nomination.

Barack Obama

Senator McCain opened a recent meeting with a nuts-and-bolts explanation of the conditions that caused the housing crisis and financial market problems.

“A lot of Americans read the headlines about credit crunches and liquidity crises and ask: ‘How did we get here?”, Senator McCain said.

He answered that question in simple yet accurate terms that show a real common sense understanding of American economics and domestic issues.

McCain stated that lenders became complacent as housing prices continued to rise and lowered their standards. They began lending money to people who couldn’t afford to pay it back. Some buyers, McCain said, bought homes they couldn’t afford, hoping they would reap the benefits later of higher home prices. Meanwhile, he said, the housing market lacked accountability and transparency, and “the initial losses spawned a crisis of confidence in the markets.”

Looking toward the future, McCain stated that any government assistance to alleviate the housing crisis must be temporary and must be accompanied by reforms designed to make the system more transparent and accountable.

We do need to prevent a repeat of this crisis. This is simply a replay of the Savings & Loan crisis of the 1970s. Unethical Americans make bad choices out of greed, when the inevitable happens they blame the president, and then seek a bailout from the government … we cannot, as a nation, afford to have this happen again and again!

McCain also stated, and I agree, that no assistance of any kind should be given to speculators, or people who bought houses to rent or as second homes.

In the short term, he called for the country’s top accounting experts to meet to discuss current the accounting systems and stated that the country’s top mortgage lenders should pledge to do everything possible to help their cash-strapped but credit-worthy customers.

“They’ve been asking the government to help them out,” McCain said of lenders. “I’m now calling upon them to help their customers, and their nation, out.”

Its about time we got some plain truth and common sense from one of our candidates!

Democratic Death Knell

Sen. Barack Obama’s use of the phrase “typical white person” on a Philadelphia radio station has drawn waves of criticism. Is his use of such a phrase really shocking or surprising … given the flavor of the church Obama has been a member of the last twenty years? Not to me!

In the speech, the Democratic presidential hopeful spoke of his white grandmother “who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street” and who voiced stereotypes “that made me cringe.” Obama said his grandmother is simply “a typical white person who, if she sees somebody on the street that she doesn’t know, there’s a reaction that’s been bred into our experiences that don’t go away, and that sometimes come out in the wrong way, and that’s just the nature of race in our society.”

Seriously, folks … Barack Obama basically called all white people racist! Who is this presidential hopeful trying to fool? The Rev. Jeremiah Wright would be proud of his protege!

Just think … Hillary Clinton can’t even mention the word ‘black’ in the same paragraph with Barack Obama without being labeled a racist … and Obama gets away with calling all white people racist!

This just keeps getting better and better.

Inclusiveness and Diversity?


Wait … which party like to categorize by race? … Which party still pushes affirmative action policies that continue to promote hiring decisions or college entrance decisions based on race, gender, sexual preference, religion and/or ethnicity rather than skills and qualifications?

Maybe the “democratic” chickens have come home to roost!

I wonder what Bill Cosby, Sir Charles Barclay, Allen Keyes, Justice Clarence Thomas, or Halloran Hilton Hill think about all this?

Diversity – Because we can’t call it “Racism” anymore!

It is interesting that 37% of Hillary Clinton’s supporters say they will not vote for Barack Obama should he win the nomination, and 26% of Barack Obama’s supporters say they will not vote for Hillary Clinton should she win the nomination. That seems to be a big boost in numbers for McCain, which ever of the two win the nomination!

Is the Democratic Party self-destructing?

Obama / Clinton

Some claim that the Democrats did that back in 1972, when George McGovern and his left-wing hippies took control of the party. There have been nine presidential elections since then … and the Democrats have lost 6 of them. They are out there on the far left fringe and simply out of touch touch with the real American people of this country … and they have been for years.

Historically, the Democratic Party has always made the wrong moral choices. Before the Civil War, it favored slavery and … after the Civil War, it supported racial segregation (which is why I have always wondered why so many Black Americans tend to vote for democrats). Now … the Democratic Party supports abortion, homosexual marriage, and politically correct racism (termed diversity).

Many Democrats are beginning to fear that the increasingly bitter battle between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton could bring real trouble for the Democrats in November. They are especially concerned that the primary contest is creating deep rifts that will divide the party no matter who wins the nomination. This is evidenced by the fact that among those polled, 37% of Hillary Clinton’s supporters say they will not vote for Barack Obama should he win the nomination, and 26% of Barack Obama’s supporters say they will not vote for Hillary Clinton should she win the nomination.

For some unknown reason, African Americans do constitute a key voting bloc for the Democratic party. By launching personal attacks on Obama, the Clinton campaign does run a real risk of alienating black voters in the fall. That could be fatal in a close race against the Republican nominee, John McCain.

On the other hand, if Barack Obama hits back, he runs the risk of alienating women voters who make up over half the Democratic base. Any lack of turnout among women voters would be devastating to the Democrats’ chances for success in November.

A new Zogby International poll released last week showed Republican candidate, John McCain leading both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in trial heats of the race.

Also surprisingly, that same poll found that independent voters believe that McCain is better equipped to deal with the economy, an issue that many observers thought would benefit Democrats.

And that poll was taken before Obama gave his speech on race.

While the speech is playing to rave reviews from the liberal media commentariat; cooler political heads are waiting to see how it plays with voters who have had time to re-think t their views on Obama’s candidacy. Polls taken after Obama’s speech still show Clinton is widening her lead over Obama in Pennsylvania.

Another sign is that the Democratic Party failed to reach a resolution over seating the delegates from Florida and Michigan last week. This failure will help ensure that the matter will continue to fester and that may, in fact, jeopardize the Democratic Party’s chance of carrying either state in the November election.

The Zogby’s poll, taken on March 13 and 14, shows John McCain leading Hillary Clinton, 47 % to 39 %. Independent spoiler, Ralph Nader, gets 6 %. The rest are still undecided or voting for non-viable candidates.

The same poll also shows John McCain ahead of Barack Obama, 45 % to 39 %, with Nader getting 5 %, and the rest similarly scattered.

This poll has a margin of error of 3.2 percentage points.

When asked which of the candidates would be best able handle the nation’s economy, independent voters gave the stamp of approval to John McCain; 29 % of them said McCain would be better, 21 % said Hillary Clinton would be better, and 21 % said Barack Obama would be better.

“There’s a lot going on here,” said pollster John Zogby in an interview. “The question reveals what happens when the Democratic Party is badly split.”

John Zogby also said McCain hasn’t spelled out much of an economic-recovery plan, other than saying the Bush tax cuts should be made permanent. John Zogby also said that McCain once joked that he didn’t know much about the economy.

While what Zogby says about McCain may be true, must of us realize that economically speaking, all Clinton and Obama really know how to do is … raise taxes and spend more of our hard earned money! We cannot afford either of them!

John McCain As The Alternative Choice?

John McCain does, for the time being, seem to have the upper hand with independent voters and, it looks like … at least in this election … whoever wins the independent voters wins the election.

This primary contest is taking a huge toll among Democrats. Hillary Clinton’s ad attacking Obama over national security may have, in fact, hurt both Democrats. When Zogby asked voters the question: Which candidate do they want to answer the phone in the White House at 3 a.m.?

Their answer was: John McCain.

Specifically, in a McCain-Obama race, the Zogby poll shows that 56 % say they want McCain to pick up the phone, while only 35 % say Obama. Similarly, in a McCain-Clinton match-up, the poll shows that 55 % want McCain to answer that phone, and only 37 % want Clinton to answer.

And, as mentioned earlier, polls also indicate a growing number of Democrats would be dissatisfied if their candidate lost. Back during the Iowa caucus campaign, many Democrats in the state said they liked all their choices and were having a hard time deciding. Now, there are about a fifth of the Democrats who support one of the two finalists who say they’d be dissatisfied if the other won the nomination.

And … the collapse of Hillary Clinton’s push to hold do-over primaries in Florida and Michigan means the issue could go to the floor of the national convention for what would be a highly emotional battle. And … that would also mean that the superdelegates are likely to be the ones who pick the Democratic nominee.

The loser’s supporters will have real trouble accepting that turn of events.

The Democratic party should have learned its lesson in 1968! Because American voters do understand that a party that can’t run its own affairs … can’t run the country, either.

UT Concealed-Carry, Howard Dean … and Oscar Who?

The Oscars?

In a word …. who cares?

The Oscar Gowns

Why do so many Americans want to watch a bunch of Hollywood elitist, predominantly left-wing secular-progressive airheads pat each other on the back for getting paid obscene amounts of money to do something they love to do … pretend to be somebody else?

I don’t! In fact, I think it’s one of the most narcissistic … genuinely patronizing … “look how wonderful we are” … in your face bunch of nonsense there is; especially in light of the quality (or lack there of) of the movies released over this last year.

And … once a year is not enough. These Hollywood folks are so insecure and so lacking in self-esteem, that they have to hold a huge self-love fest several times a year; The Academy Awards (Oscars), the Golden Globe awards, and the Screen Actors Guild Awards, and the MTV Movie Awards. Thats one per quarter … can we shoot for one per month?

The Crack Awards

I think trades-people should also have their award nights, and we could broadcast them as well! I mean, lets be truthful here; we can live without actors … but can we live without plumbers? We could call it the “The Crack Awards” and pay homage to some real working class Americans who work very hard as true unsung hero’s … taking care of all our crap!

Howard Dean strikes Again!

Howard Dean

Howard Dean is claiming that Sen. John McCain is engaged in the “height of hypocrisy” by reversing his decision to take public financing during the primary season. The Democratic National Committee officials say they plan to file a complaint Monday with the Federal Election Commission.

“The crucial issue here is John McCain’s integrity. John McCain poses as a reformer but seems to think reforms apply to everyone but him,” DNC Chairman Howard Dean stated during a media conference call Sunday. “He used taxpayer money to guarantee a loan so he could raise money from lobbyists and special interests – it’s the height of hypocrisy. This is just the latest example of his do as I say, not as I do double standard, and it’s unlikely to be the last. McCain financially benefited from this legally binding contract – he got free ballot access, saving him millions of dollars, and he secured a $4 million line of credit to keep his campaign afloat by using public financing as collateral. He should follow the law.”

In response, the McCain campaign is calling Dean’s criticism as “absurd,” arguing there is precedent for their decision and also disputing his assertion that they used their existing request for FEC funds as collateral for a loan.

The McCain campaign is also pointing out what they call “Howard’s Hypocrisy,” noting that Dean also pulled out of the FEC system after initially applying for public funds during his 2004 presidential bid.

Are we surprised … not really … hypocrisy is a hallmark trait for progressive liberal democrats.

“Howard Dean’s hypocrisy is breathtaking given that in 2003 he withdrew from the matching funds system in exactly the same way that John McCain is doing today,” McCain Spokesman Brian Rogers said in a statement.

When asked about the issue at a press conference Friday, McCain said his campaign is proceeding with their decision to return to private financing, noting that a 2003 FEC ruling allowing former Rep. Dick Gephardt’s to opt out of the FEC system gives his campaign confidence to move forward.

McCain stated during an Indianapolis press conference that, “We have a precedent for it so we will proceed.”

Howard Dean’s Hypocrisy

  1. Howard Dean first entered, and then pulled out of, public financing in 2003. Now he is attacking John McCain for doing exactly the same thing. In March of 2003, Howard Dean committed to public financing, and promised to attack any opponent who opted out: stating that “It will be a huge issue”
  2. Then in August 2003, Howard Dean backed away from his pledge by saying “Could we change our mind? Sure.” “Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean backed away from his pledge to adhere to spending limits, saying some advisers want to explore opting out of the Watergate-era public financing system because of his sudden fund-raising success. … ‘Could we change our mind? Sure,’ he said.” (Ron Fournier, “Dean Pulls Back On Spending Limits Pledge,” The Associated Press, 8/15/03)
  3. Dean stated: “I think public financing is a good thing. The question is what do you do with an opponent who can murder you from March to December?” (Ron Fournier, “Dean Pulls Back On Spending Limits Pledge,” The Associated Press, 8/15/03)
  4. In November 2003, became the first Democrat to opt out of the presidential public financing system in 30 years, striking a severe blow to the Watergate-era program. Dr. Dean, who has raised $25 million to become the best-financed Democrat in the race, will rely on private contributors to fuel his campaign in the primaries, turning away almost $19 million in taxpayer financing and avoiding the spending limit of about $45 million that comes with it.” (Glen Justice, “Dean Rejects Public Financing In Primaries,” The New York Times, 11/9/03)

Craig Smith, a spokesman for Joe Lieberman stated that, “It’s a shame that Howard Dean has broken his word and abandoned his earlier pledge never to bypass the public financing system …” (Ronald Brownstein, “Dean Won’t Accept Public Financing,” Los Angeles Times, 11/9/03)

John Edwards stated, “It sends exactly the wrong signal to voters in this country …” (Jim Drinkard and Jill Lawrence, “Dems Decry Dean Move,” USA Today, 11/10/03)

McCain answers these wild and absurd charges by pointing to the following:

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) has repeatedly held that candidates who enter the Presidential Primary Matching Funds System have a right to withdraw, provided they do so before the United States Treasury pays them the funds and provided they do not use the matching fund certificates they hold as collateral for a loan. The campaign has been paid no funds by the United States Treasury and never used the certificates issued by the FEC as collateral for its bank loan.

Previous candidates in this same situation included Democratic National Committee Chair Howard Dean, who entered and then withdrew from the primary funding system in the 2004 election. The right to withdraw from the system is a constitutional right, which prevents the FEC from blocking Senator McCain’s withdrawal without cause. Of course … we all know how left-wing liberal democrats fee about Constitutional rights … just look at their collective stance on the Second Amendment!

Senator John McCain notified the FEC and the United States Treasury of his withdrawal from the system in a letter dated February 6th. The only dispute is simply over whether the FEC has to take any action in response to the withdrawal notice.

It is clear to the McCain campaign, as it is to most FEC experts, that no FEC action is necessary in response to Senator McCain’s notice of withdrawal given the constitutional nature of the right. In most expert’s view, the Senator’s letter is all that is legally required to exit from the system.

Nevertheless, the campaign is fully responding to Chairman Mason’s request for information and is confident that the new commissioners, when appointed and confirmed, will take whatever action they conclude is necessary to confirm Senator McCain’s withdrawal from the system as of February 6, 2008.

UT Concealed Carry

Gun Free Zones

Tennessee state representative, Stacey Campfield, has proposed a bill that would allow full-time faculty and staff who are licensed with concealed-carry permits to carry handguns for self-protection purposes on college campuses. Campfield stated that the recent shootings and Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University happened because campuses are “kill easy” zones. And he is right! Illinois has some of the strictest gun control laws in the United States … right up there with Washington, D.C.; the violent crime capital of the U.S.

If the proposed law is passed by the state government, those who wish to carry weapons on campus must complete annual firearms training and be a full-time employee of the University. This is a proposed bill that is past its due, and hopefully will make it into law.

Disarming law-abiding citizens has, and never will, stop criminals, killers, or psychopaths from carrying or using guns. A “gun free” zone basically creates a pool of helpless victims who, according to Campfield, can be shot “like fish in a barrel.”

Officially, the UT Police Department is opposed to the bill, but stated it will abide by any changes in the law if they occur. However, several UT police Officers … on the condition of anonymity … stated that they supported the idea, stating that they simply cannot be everywhere. Armed, responsible, law-abiding citizens could make the difference in having a bad situation turn into another Virginia Tech type of massacre.

The state of Utah has already passed similar legislation, and to the dismay of the liberal anti-gun nuts … and despite their dire predictions, Utah’s universities and colleges have not disappeared in a wild blaze of gunfire!

The following FAQS are from the Students For Concealed Carry on Campus’ website. They are thoughtful, direct, and based in fact … and not simply the same old emotional, fear-based tirades anti-gun nuts like to resort to:

Argument: “Guns on campus would lead to an escalation in violent crime.”

Answer: “Since the fall semester of 2006, state law in Utah has allowed licensed individuals to carry concealed handguns on the campuses of all public colleges. Also, concealed carry has been allowed for several years at both Colorado State University (Fort Collins, CO) and Blue Ridge Community College (Weyers Cave, VA). This has yet to result in a single act of violence at any of these schools. Numerous studies*, including studies by University of Maryland senior research scientist John Lott, University of Georgia professor David Mustard, engineering statistician William Sturdevant, and various state agencies, show that concealed handgun license holders are five times less likely than non-license holders to be arrested for violent crimes.”

Argument: “Guns on campus would distract from the learning environment.”

Answer: “Ask anyone in a concealed carry state when he or she last noticed another person carrying a concealed handgun. The word ‘concealed’ is in there for a reason. Concealed handguns would no more distract college students from learning than they currently distract moviegoers from enjoying movies or office workers from doing their jobs.

Argument: “Colleges are too crowded to safely allow the carry of concealed weapons.”

Answer: “Colleges are no more crowded than movie theaters and office buildings, where concealed handgun license holders are already allowed to carry their firearms. The widespread passage of concealed handgun laws has not let to a spate of shootings or gun thefts at movie theaters and office buildings.”

Argument: “A person with a gun could ‘snap’ and go on a killing spree.”

Answer: “Contrary to popular myth, most psychiatric professionals agree that the notion of a previously sane, well-adjusted person simply ‘snapping’ and becoming violent is not supported by case evidence. A person’s downward spiral toward violence is usually accompanied by numerous warning signs.”

Argument: “A dangerous person might jump someone who was carrying a gun, take the gun, and use it to do harm.”

Answer: “Even assuming this hypothetical dangerous person knew that an individual was carrying a concealed handgun, which is unlikely, there are much easier ways for a criminal to acquire a firearm than by assaulting an armed individual.”

Argument: “It’s possible that a gun might go off by accident.”

Answer: “Accidental discharges are very rare—particularly because modern firearms feature multiple safety features and because a handgun’s trigger is typically not exposed when it is concealed—and only a small fraction of accidental discharges result in injury. SCCC feels that it is wrong to deny citizens a right simply because that right is accompanied by a negligible risk.”

Argument: “It’s unlikely that allowing concealed carry on college campuses could help prevent a Virginia Tech-style massacre because most college students are too young to obtain a concealed handgun license.”

Answer: “Nineteen of the thirty-two victims of the Virginia Tech massacre were over the age of twenty-one (the legal age limit for obtaining a concealed handgun license in Virginia).”

Argument: “Self-defense training is as effective as a handgun against an armed assailant.”

Answer: “If you’re going to try to manually disarm an assailant, you’d better be within an arm’s length of him, be standing on firm ground, not have any obstacles between you and him, and be in relatively good physical condition. If the assailant is standing four feet away, you’re probably out of luck. If you’re sitting in a chair or lying on the floor, you’re probably out of luck. If there is a desk between you and the assailant, you’re probably out of luck. And if you’re elderly or disabled, you’re probably out of luck. Even a well-trained martial arts expert is no match for a bullet fired from eight feet away. Why should honest, law abiding citizens be asked to undergo years of training, in order to master an inferior method of self-defense?”

Argument: “Colleges are emotionally volatile environments. Allowing guns on campus will turn classroom debates into crime scenes.”

Answer: “Before concealed handgun laws were passed throughout the United States, opponents claimed that such laws would turn disputes over parking spaces and traffic accidents into shootings. This did not prove to be the case. The same responsible adults–age twenty-one and above–now asking to be allowed to carry their concealed handguns on college campuses are already allowed to do so virtually everywhere else they go–office buildings, shopping malls, movie theaters, grocery stores, banks, etc. They clearly do not let their emotions get the better of them in other environments; therefore, no less should be expected of them on college campuses.”

Argument: “The college lifestyle is defined by alcohol and drug abuse. Why would any sane person want to add guns to that mix?”

Answer: “This is NOT a debate about keeping firearms out of the hands of college students. This is a debate about allowing licensed individuals to carry their concealed firearms into campus buildings, the same way they carry them virtually everywhere else they go. College students can already legally purchase firearms, and every state that provides for legalized concealed carry has statutes prohibiting license holders from carrying while under the influence. Legalizing concealed carry on college campuses would neither put guns into the hands of more college students nor make it legal for a person to carry a firearm while under the influence.”

Argument: “In an active shooter scenario, like the one that occurred at Virginia Tech, a student or faculty member with a gun would only make things worse.”

Answer: “What is worse than allowing an execution-style massacre to continue uncontested? How can any action with the potential to stop or slow a deranged killer intent on slaughtering victim after victim be considered ‘worse’ than allowing that killer to continue undeterred?”

Argument: “The last thing we need is a bunch of vigilantes getting into a shootout with a madman, particularly since it’s been proven that trained police officers have an accuracy rate of only about 15%, in the field.”

Answer: “Citizens with concealed handgun licenses are not vigilantes. They carry their concealed handguns as a means of getting themselves out of harm’s way, not as an excuse to go chasing after bad guys. Whereas police shooting statistics involve scenarios such as pursuits down dark alleys and armed standoffs with assailants barricaded inside buildings, most civilian shootings happen at pointblank range. In the Luby’s Cafeteria massacre, the Columbine High School massacre, and the Virginia Tech massacre, the assailants moved slowly and methodically, shooting their victims from pointblank range. A person doesn’t have to be a deadeye shot to defend himself or herself against an assailant standing only a few feet away. It is highly unlikely that an exchange of gunfire between an armed citizen and a deranged killer would lead to more lives lost than would simply allowing an onslaught of execution-style murders to continue unchecked. Contrary to what the movies might have us believe, most real-world shootouts last less than ten seconds*. Even the real Gunfight at the O.K. Corral, a shootout involving nine armed participants, lasted only about thirty seconds and ended with only three of the participants being killed. It is unlikely that an exchange of gunfire between an armed assailant and an armed citizen would last more than a couple of seconds before one or both parties were disabled. And if the assailant were disabled, he would be unable to do any more harm.”

Argument: “How are first responders supposed to tell the difference between armed students and armed assailants?”

Answer: “This hasn’t been an issue with concealed carry license holders in other walks of life for several reasons. First and foremost, real-world shootouts are typically localized and over very quickly. It’s not realistic to expect police to encounter an ongoing shootout between assailants and armed civilians. Second, police are trained to expect both armed bad guys AND armed good guys–from off-duty/undercover police officers to armed civilians–in tactical scenarios. Third, concealed handgun license holders are trained to use their firearms for self-defense. They are not trained to run through buildings looking for bad guys. Therefore, the biggest distinction between the armed assailants and the armed civilians is that the armed civilians would be hiding with the civilians, and the armed assailants would be shooting at the civilians.”

And if you are still not convinced:

“I lobbied against the law in 1993 and 1995 because I thought it would lead to wholesale armed conflict. That hasn’t happened. All the horror stories I thought would come to pass didn’t happen. No bogeyman. I think it’s worked out well, and that says good things about the citizens who have permits. I’m a convert.” — Glenn White, president of the Dallas Police Association, Dallas Morning News, 12/23/97

“I … [felt] that such legislation present[ed] a clear and present danger to law-abiding citizens by placing more handguns on our streets. Boy was I wrong. Our experience in Harris County, and indeed statewide, has proven my fears absolutely groundless.” — Harris County [Texas] District Attorney John Holmes, Dallas Morning News, 12/23/97

“Some of the public safety concerns which we imagined or anticipated a couple of years ago, to our pleasant surprise, have been unfounded or mitigated.” — Fairfax County, VA, Police Major Bill Brown, Alexandria Journal, 7/9/97

“I was wrong. But I’m glad to say I was wrong.” — Arlington County, VA, Police Detective Paul Larson, Alexandria Journal, 7/9/97

“The concerns I had – with more guns on the street, folks may be more apt to square off against one another with weapons – we haven’t experienced that.” — Charlotte-Mecklenburg, NC, Police Chief Dennis Nowicki, The News and Observer, 11/24/97

Concealed Carry Campus

Every day millions of licensed Americans legally carry concealed handguns in movie theaters, office buildings, shopping malls, banks, churches, etc.

Numerous studies show that concealed handgun license holders are five times less likely than non-license holders to commit violent crimes.

Campus “gun free zones” may make some people feel safer, but as recent events demonstrate, feeling safe is not the same as being safe.


Every day millions of licensed Americans legally carry concealed handguns in movie theaters, office buildings, shopping malls, banks, churches, etc.

Numerous studies show that concealed handgun license holders are five times less likely than non-license holders to commit violent crimes.

Campus “gun free zones” may make some people feel safer, but as recent events demonstrate, feeling safe is not the same as being safe.

ery day millions of licensed Americans legally carry concealed handguns in movie theaters, office buildings, shopping malls, banks, churches, etc.

Numerous studies show that concealed handgun license holders are five times less likely than non-license holders to commit violent crimes.

Campus “gun free zones” may make some people feel safer, but as recent events demonstrate, feeling safe is not the same as being safe.