SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : How Quickly Can Obama Totally Destroy the US? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Shoot1st who wrote (8031)2/15/2014 1:09:44 PM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
NYT Runs Profile of 'Progressive' Wendy Davis on Day She Supports Abortion Ban






by Frances Martel 13 Feb 2014 42 post a comment

Wendy Davis has become a ticking time bomb for the Democratic Party.


Raising a third of the funds her Republican opponent has and cornered into supporting stances unpopular to the left, Davis abandoned her pet issue--support for abortion--on the day The New York Times ran an effusive feature on the up-and-coming "progressive."

The timing is uncanny and deeply unfortunate for the narrative The New York Times sought to drive home about Davis.

With the headline, "Can Wendy Davis Have It All?"-- an ode to the irritating meme that first surfaced with news that Yahoo! CEO Marissa Mayer was pregnant--author Robert Draper attempts to tell the full, accurate narrative of Davis's life story while still holding her up as the liberal icon she was when the media believed she had been a single teen mother who paid her way through law school. Neither, of course, is true.

As for the half-truths, Draper tries to paint them as a strength in itself that Davis lied so openly and refuses to back down from those who demand a correction of her life story, at least on her website. The lies, he argues, are " politically exquisite" and serve to create a very desirable candidate. (Never mind that that candidate does not actually exist.) Draper sticks close to the triumphant image of Davis in the Times last June: the "overnight sensation" who "put herself through law school" and has a "stellar record" among "powerful women, organizations, and advocates."

Central to that image is the ideology that the Times believes Wendy Davis to possess. "Her positions," Draper writes, "are in keeping with progressive ideology and are inherently at odds with a state where a low-taxes-low-services economic model carries the day." He cites same-sex marriage and abortion among the top of the list, but immigration and education, as well.

The timing for such a declaration of ideological fealty could not have been worse.

On February 12th, the Dallas Morning News reported that the Democratic candidate revealed in an interview that she had entirely abandoned the issue that made her a national star.

Davis told the paper that she supports a ban on abortions after 20 weeks, despite her filibustering specifically to prevent such a law from entering the books. While she opposed that particular bill, she claimed she could support a bill that "had tightly defined the ability for a woman and a doctor to be making this decision together and not have the Legislature get too deep in the weeds of how we would describe when that was appropriate.”

She also threw out a couple of bizarre new political opinions, like support for marijuana decriminalization and yet another comment in favor of gun rights.

To those following Davis's career arc, such an about-face would be no surprise. Davis did not make a name for herself by standing for what she believed in in Fort Worth; after all, her first political position was a non-partisan one on the city council. As Draper notes in his piece, to his credit, Davis is still a big fan of George W. Bush, calling him a uniter and having donated to his presidential campaign when she was still a Republican. Davis had previously discussed the tension between herself and many establishment Democrats in the state, and she calls it a "compliment" that people could not figure out whether she had any core beliefs. She " was not driven by" ideology, she claimed.

But the news must come as a shock to Democrats and progressives who only saw the powerful image of a woman in pink shoes standing up for what she was supposed to believe in. It does little to deter any feeling that Davis is out for herself and will say anything to win.

breitbart.com

credit brumar



To: Shoot1st who wrote (8031)2/16/2014 12:11:12 PM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
*Which 46 Senators Voted to repeal the Second Amendment? Well, let their names become known!! See below *



*In a 53-46 vote, the Senate narrowly passed a measure that will stop the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. The Statement of Purpose from the Bill reads: "To uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty." The U.N. Small Arms Treaty, which has been championed by the Obama Administration, would have effectively placed a global ban on the import and export of small firearms. The ban would have affected all private gun owners in the U.S. and had language that would have implemented an **international gun registry, now get this, **on all private guns and ammo.*



*Astonishingly, 46 out of our 100 United States Senators were willing to give away our Constitutional rights to a foreign power.*



*Here are the 46 senators who voted to give your rights to the U.N.:



*Baldwin (D-WI)*

*Baucus (D-MT)*

*Bennett (D-CO)*

*Blumenthal (D-CT)*

*Boxer (D-CA)*

*Brown (D-OH)*

*Cantwell (D-WA)*

*Cardin (D-MD)*

*Carper (D-DE)*

*Casey (D-PA)*

*Coons (D-DE)*

*Cowan (D-MA)*

*Durbin (D-IL)j*

*Feinstein (D-CA)*

*Franken (D-MN)*


*Gillibrand (D-NY)*

*Harkin (D-IA)*

*Hirono (D-HI)*

*Johnson (D-SD)*

*Kaine (D-VA)*

*King (I-ME)*

*Klobuchar (D-MN)*

*Landrieu (D-LA)*

*Leahy (D-VT)*

*Levin (D-MI)*

*McCaskill (D-MO)*

*Menendez (D-NJ)*


*Merkley (D-OR)*

*Mikulski (D-MD)*


*Murphy (D-CT)*

* Murray (D-WA)*

*Nelson (D-FL)*

*Reed (D-RI)*

*Reid (D-NV)*

*Rockefeller (D-WV)*


*Sanders (I-VT)*

*Schatz (D-HI)*

*Schumer (D-NY)*

*Shaheen (D-NH)*

*Stabenow (D-MI)*

*Udall (D-CO)*

*Udall (D-NM)*

*Warner (D-VA)*

* Warren (D-MA)*

*Whitehouse (D-RI)*

*Wyden (D-OR)*



*Folks: This needs to go viral. These Senators voted to let the UN take OUR guns. They need to lose their next election. We have been betrayed.*

*46 Senators Voted to Give your 2nd Amendment Constitutional Rights to the U.N.*



To: Shoot1st who wrote (8031)2/17/2014 5:18:51 PM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
Remington Arms to open new facility in Huntsville

................................................................................................................
WAFF48 TV (Huntsville) via website ^ | Feb 17, 2014 | Sarah Broadway



To: Shoot1st who wrote (8031)2/18/2014 9:53:03 AM
From: joseffy1 Recommendation

Recommended By
Shoot1st

  Respond to of 16547
 
Gun Companies Continue to Abandon North for Pro-Gun South

...................................................................................
Breitbart.com ^ | 2/17/2014 | AWR Hawkins




To: Shoot1st who wrote (8031)2/19/2014 6:03:11 PM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
Baseball bat attacks against bicycle riders
...........................................................................................
22 minutes before the 32 year old cyclist was attacked, a 25 year old cyclist was attacked (basically at the same location).

In the first attack, the 32 year old had his jaw broken.

In the second attack, the 25 year old ended up with a skull fracture.

NOPD releases sketch, description of assailants wanted in bicyclist attack


New Orleans police on Wednesday (Feb. 19) released this composite sketch of one of two men wanted for attacking two cyclists with baseball bats in separate incidents last Friday along Esplanade Avenue. (NOPD)

By Ken Daley, NOLA.com | The Times-Picayune February 19, 2014
nola.com



New Orleans police on Wednesday (Feb. 19) released descriptions of two teenagers wanted in connection with one of the two reported baseball bat attacks against bicycle riders early last Friday.

A composite sketch was provided for one of the suspects, whom police described as a man around 18 years old, approximately 6 feet tall and weighing 170 pounds, with an athletic build and dark complexion. He was last seen wearing a grey hooded sweatshirt and grey sweatpants.

The second suspect was described as perhaps 16 years old or younger. He was estimated to be 5-feet-5 to 5-feet-7 inches tall, weighing about 170 pounds, with a stocky build, dark complexion and dressed in a black hooded sweatshirt with grey trim around the hood and sleeves. He also wore grey sweatpants and was armed with an aluminum baseball bat covered in black paint.

Police said the suspects are wanted for aggravated battery in connection with an attack reported shortly before 2:30 a.m. last Friday. A 32-year-old cyclist told police he was riding northbound on Esplanade near N. Robertson Street when the subject now pictured in the sketch stepped off the neutral ground to impede his path. The second suspect then stepped from behind a parked car and swung the bat, striking the cyclist in the face and breaking his jaw.

Police said as the wounded cyclist attempted to ride away, the suspect with the bat ran beside him for a short distance.

A second similar attack was reported against a cyclist on Esplanade near Rampart Street just 22 minutes after the first. Police have not confirmed the same two suspects are wanted for that attack that left a 25-year-old cyclist with a skull fracture.

Authorities ask anyone with information about the suspects or this crime to call the NOPD's 1st District at 504.658.6010 or Crimestoppers at 504.822.1111.




nola.com



To: Shoot1st who wrote (8031)2/19/2014 7:45:14 PM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
Why is the Obama Administration Putting Government Monitors in Newsrooms?
..........................................................................................................
By: Matthew Clark ( Diary) | February 18th, 2014
redstate.com



The Obama Administration’s Federal Communication Commission (FCC) is poised to place government monitors in newsrooms across the country in an absurdly draconian attempt to intimidate and control the media.

Before you dismiss this assertion as utterly preposterous (we all know how that turned out when the Tea Party complained that it was being targeted by the IRS), this bombshell of an accusation comes from an actual FCC Commissioner.

FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai reveals a brand new Obama Administration program that he fears could be used in “pressuring media organizations into covering certain stories.”

As Commissioner Pai explains in the Wall Street Journal:

Last May the FCC proposed an initiative to thrust the federal government into newsrooms across the country. With its “Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs,” or CIN, the agency plans to send researchers to grill reporters, editors and station owners about how they decide which stories to run. A field test in Columbia, S.C., is scheduled to begin this spring.

The purpose of the CIN, according to the FCC, is to ferret out information from television and radio broadcasters about “the process by which stories are selected” and how often stations cover “critical information needs,” along with “perceived station bias” and “perceived responsiveness to underserved populations.”

In fact, the FCC is now expanding the bounds of regulatory powers to include newspapers, which it has absolutely no authority over, in its new government monitoring program.

The FCC has apparently already selected eight categories of “critical information” “that it believes local newscasters should cover.”

That’s right, the Obama Administration has developed a formula of what it believes the free press should cover, and it is going to send government monitors into newsrooms across America to stand over the shoulders of the press as they make editorial decisions.

This poses a monumental danger to constitutionally protected free speech and freedom of the press.

Every major repressive regime of the modern era has begun with an attempt to control and intimidate the press.


As Thomas Jefferson so eloquently said, “our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.”

The federal government has absolutely no business determining what stories should and should not be run, what is critical for the American public and what is not, whether it perceives a bias, and whose interests are and are not being served by the free press.

It’s an unconscionable assault on our free society.

Imagine a government monitor telling Fox News it needed to cover stories in the same way as MSNBC or Al Jazeera. Imagine an Obama Administration official walking in to the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal and telling it that the American public would be better served if it is stopped reporting on the IRS scandal or maybe that reporting on ObamaCare “glitches” is driving down enrollment.

It’s hard to imagine anything more brazenly Orwellian than government monitors in newsrooms.


Is it any wonder that the U.S. now ranks 46th in the world for freedom of the press? Reporters Without Borders called America’s precipitous drop of 13 places in its recent global rankings “one of the most significant declines” in freedom of the press in the world.

Freedom of the press is proudly extolled in the First Amendment, yet our nation now barely makes the top fifty for media freedom.

We cannot allow the unfathomable encroachment on our free speech and freedom of the press to continue.

We’ve seen, and defeated, this kind of attempt to squelch free speech before in the likes of the Fairness Doctrine and the Grassroots Lobbying Bill (incidentally one of my first projects at the ACLJ). Each one of these euphemistically named government programs is nothing more than an underhanded attempt to circumvent the Constitution and limit free speech – speech that the government finds inconvenient. They’re equally unconstitutional, and they each must be defeated.









To: Shoot1st who wrote (8031)2/21/2014 4:24:59 PM
From: joseffy  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 16547
 
ALL GUN CONTROL MEASURES FAILED IN THE 2014 NEW MEXICO LEGISLATIVE SESSION

.......................................................................................................
netwmd.com ^ | Feb. 2, 2014 | netWMD Staff



To: Shoot1st who wrote (8031)2/23/2014 11:14:51 PM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 

BRIT HUME QUITS

AMERICA TURNED ON ME




To: Shoot1st who wrote (8031)2/23/2014 11:31:57 PM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
CNN Cancels 'Piers Morgan Live'


.............................................................................................
Newsbusters.org ^ | February 23, 2014 | NB Staff




To: Shoot1st who wrote (8031)2/24/2014 3:54:52 PM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
Extraordinary wartime service of one of Britain's greatest-ever fighter aces who shot down 23 planes in career spanning Battle of Britain, North African campaign and Normandy landings
  • Billy Drake's haul of wartime medals is set to go under the hammer
  • Includes Distinguished Service Order and US Distinguish Flying Cross
  • The collection is expected to fetch £30,000 when sold at Bonham's
By Daily Mail Reporter 24 February 2014



The extraordinary wartime service of one of Britain's greatest ever fighter aces has come to light, as his haul of wartime medals is set to go under the hammer.

Squadron leader Billy Drake downed at least 23 enemy planes in a career which saw the 'outstanding' WWIII pilot decorated with ten medals and a bar group which includes both the Distinguished Service Order (DSO) and the US Distinguish Flying Cross (DFC) for his skill in air combat.

The medal collection from his military service - which saw him serve in the battle of France, the battle of Britain, North Africa, Italy and Normandy - is expected to fetch up to £30,000 when it is sold.



+5

The extraordinary wartime service of one of Britain's greatest ever fighter aces, Billy Drake, has come to light, as his haul of wartime medals is set to go under the hammer


Mr Drake, born in London in 1917 to an English father and Australian mother, was educated in Switzerland after several schools in England failed to cope with his lively temperament.

He joined the RAF before his 18th birthday after spotting a recruitment advert and learnt to fly the Fury biplane fighter from Tangmere.

After war broke out he saw action in the battle of France, the battle of Britain, North Africa, Italy and Normandy.


More...
Flying Hurricanes he had many skirmishes with the Luftwaffe over the skies of France before his first 'enemy kill' was on 19 April 1940 when he downed a Messerschmitt Bf 109 fighter while providing air cover for the British Expeditionary Force.

When the Blitzkreig was launched in May, Drake shot down three Dornier 17s and shared in the destruction of another in just three days.

Three days later he had just succeeded in setting a Dornier on fire when he was attacked from the rear and wounded in the back bailed out of his blazing Hurricane.

After a spell in a French hospital he returned to his squadron now back in England and spent much of the Battle of Britain training fighter pilots but, after badgering old friends, he was allowed to join No 213 Squadron, flying out of Tangmere.




+5

Squadron leader Billy Drake downed at least 23 enemy planes in a career which saw the 'outstanding' WWIII pilot decorated with ten medals and a bar group which includes both the Distinguished Service Order (DSO) and the US Distinguish Flying Cross (DFC) for his skill in air combat




On October 10 he probably shot down a Bf 109 before heading to Gravesend to join a reconnaissance flight whose job was to fly over the English Channel looking for incoming German raids.

Flying a Spitfire, he shared in the destruction of a bomber and damaged a number of others. In December he was awarded a DFC.

He earnt his silver gilt and enamel DSO in 1942 during his time as a fighter pilot in charge of squadron No 112 in North Africa where he destroyed over 17 enemy aircraft with two others shared, including two Stuka dive bombers and two transport aircraft on the ground.

His north Africa kills were only exceeded by one other pilot, the Australian born Group Captain Clive 'Killer' Caldwell.




+5

The haul from his military service - which saw him serve in the battle of France, the battle of Britain, North Africa, Italy and Normandy - is expected to fetch up to £30,000 when it is sold





The heroic Drake, a distant relative of Sir Francis, now promoted to Wing Commander was then posted to Malta in charge of a Spitfire wing.

He was credited with destroying six enemy aircraft and collected an American DFC (Distinguished Flying Cross) in the same year for his 'courage and audacity' protecting USAAF bombers attacking Sicily.

Back in wartime Britain, he commanded a Typhoon Wing and attacked German V-1 Doodlebug launch sites in Pas de Calais, and went on to become a respected instructor at the RAF Fighter Leader’s School.



+5

He joined the RAF before his 18th birthday after spotting a recruitment advert and learnt to fly the Fury biplane fighter from Tangmere



Yet despite being in a training appointment, he frequently absconded for a day to take part in attacks against targets in France.

His wartime operational career only came to an end in August 1944 where he was sent to the USA on special duties.

On his return to the UK he was made Deputy Commander at Biggin Hill and later went to HQ SHAEF to serve in the Operations Room. He took part in the 1945 Battle of Britain flypast.

He retired in July 1963 with ten medals under his belt.

The other medals included in the lot are a Distinguished Flying Cross from 1941, a 1939-45 star with Battle of Britain bar, and Air Crew Europe Star with France and Germany bar, an Africa Star with North Africa bar.

The sale also includes an Italy Star, and a General Service War Medal from 1918-1962 and will take place on 12 March.

John Millensted, head of medals at Bonhams said: 'We’ve already had some interest. Anything that has a historical association is very popular at the moment with the approaching WW1 100 year anniversary.

'Billy Drake lived his life in a way that wasn’t exactly live fast and die young, but he certainly knew how to live for the moment.

'Not too many British Pilots earnt the DFC, it only crops up from time to time.

'The rest of the medals are standard, ones that that people would have been awarded for WW2.

'Obviously the order would have been the most expensive medal to make, as it was made out of silver gilt and enamel.'

After his retirement in 1963 Mr Drake went on to become a lecturer and teacher at the RAF Fighter Leaders’ School.

He was also stationed in Japan and Singapore.




+5

After his retirement in 1963 Mr Drake went on to become a lecturer and teacher at the RAF Fighter Leaders'School




However Mr Drake, who was married and separated twice, is known to have said of his career: 'By God, we had a good time. That’s not to say we behaved the way Hollywood likes to portray Battle of Britain pilots.

'Of course, there were a few randy ruffians who would chase any girl. But generally we all had girlfriends, and we didn’t use the war as an excuse to sleep with them. We were gentlemen.'

After his retirement he went on to open 'Billy’s Bar' in the Algarve, and eventually passed away on August 28 2011 in Teignmouth at the age of 93.

The Medals will go on sale in Bonhams under Lot 132 on 12 March under the sale titled 'Military Medals: The Property of a Gentleman.'

Read more: dailymail.co.uk



To: Shoot1st who wrote (8031)2/25/2014 2:18:11 PM
From: joseffy1 Recommendation

Recommended By
The1Stockman

  Respond to of 16547
 
MILLER: Prosecution rests in trial for D.C. man charged for one shotgun shell

..............................................................................
washingtontimes.com ^ | 2/23/2014 | Emily Miller

The District of Columbia has finished presenting its case on why Mark Witaschek is a danger to society for possessing a single shotgun shell and muzzleloader sabots in his home. This outrageous legal battle shows how far unelected, anti-gun liberals will go to attempt to destroy a man’s life.

When Attorney General Irvin Nathan’s prosecutors rested on Tuesday, they established simply that Mr. Witaschek did not have a registered gun in the city, so he violated the firearms laws by having ammunition.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...



Defense should call David Gregory, who will explain that it’s OK to violate DC gun laws if it’s for “education”.



Some ambitious Machiavellian seeks to boost his own career by ruining a law-abiding man’s life.

Very nice.



4 posted on Tuesday, February 25, 2014 10:33:01 AM by Jack Hammer
Unregistered ammunition?

Insanity.





Trying this guy has cost how many millions of tax dollars spent? Our court systems are backed up to the hilt, and they are doing this? Even the judge is in on it. He should have tossed out this stupid case. Since he did not, then he is of the same mind as the prosecutors. Only the jury can stop this madness.



8 posted on Tuesday, February 25, 2014 10:48:02 AM by RetiredArmy

Seems there are far worse criminals in D.C., many of whom ‘work’ in buildings with large columns out front...



10 posted on Tuesday, February 25, 2014 10:53:33 AM by Smokin' Joe



To: Shoot1st who wrote (8031)2/25/2014 3:37:30 PM
From: joseffy  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 16547
 
Piers Morgan’s Revealing Rancor
...............................................................................
National Review Online ^ | FEBRUARY 24, 2014 | John R. Lott Jr.


Some people realized he only needed to be as rude as he was to me if he was wrong.

Sunday’s announcement that Piers Morgan had lost his show at CNN was hardly unexpected.

The ratings for the coveted 9 p.m. time slot were abysmal, dropping last week to just 270,000 viewers — about one-eighth of what Fox News’s Megyn Kelly got in the same time slot.

Some, such as Variety magazine, have speculated that the low ratings are due to Morgan’s single-minded push for gun control. That might have something to do with it, but much more is going on.

In all the thousands of television and radio interviews that I have done over the years, my appearances on Morgan’s show have generated more immediate e-mails than any other show that I have ever been on.

The response made one thing immediately obvious: Only the most diehard gun-control advocates watched his show. But even some of them were unwilling to listen to his abuse.

Americans like a lively debate, but Morgan failed one basic rule: to debate the issue itself rather than make everything personal.

For instance, he yelled at Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America: “You’re an unbelievably stupid man, aren’t you?”

He has referred to me as a “ liar” and a “ clown” and attacked the shape of my “ weird pointy bushy eyebrows” that are deformed because of surgery that I had as a kid to remove a tumor. He has encouraged guests such as Alan Dershowitz to make such bizarrely false claims as the idea that my “conclusions are paid for and financed by the National Rifle Association” or that my work “is junk science at its worst. Paid for and financed by the National Rifle Association.”

Among my various appearances, Morgan invited me on his very first shows after the Aurora, Colo., movie-theater shooting, the Newtown massacre, and the Navy Yard shooting. But with emotions running high after these tragedies, his strategy was clearly to inflame emotions still further, not attempt to solve the problems.

The Washington Post’s Erik Wemple described Piers’s interviewing style this way:

Morgan interrupted Lott enough times to short-circuit the Erik Wemple Blog Interrupto-Meter.

He interrupted Lott when Lott was trying to make a point about mass shooting tallies;

He interrupted Lott when Lott was trying to make a point about weapons types;

He interrupted Lott when Lott was trying to make a point about evidence for the effectiveness of weapons bans;

He interrupted Lott several times when Lott was trying to make a point about mass shootings overseas.

And then he interrupted Lott when Lott complained that he was being interrupted. “I’m going to keep talking, so I suggest you keep quiet,” Morgan said, determined, apparently, to win this face-off not on the merits but via verbal thuggery.


Many others reacted negatively to Morgan’s heavy-handedness. While hundreds of the e-mails that I received from his viewers would engage in long diatribes filled with swear words, threats, and claims that I was guilty of murder, there were also a lot of sensible e-mails, such as this one:Dear Dr Lott,


I am rather liberal, and, with no real knowledge or facts, am a proponent of gun laws.

I was very interested in hearing what you had to say this evening on Piers Morgan. Unfortunately, that did not happen because of Mr. Morgan’s near childish behavior and disrespect he showed you this evening. You should be extremely proud of the composure you demonstrated on his show. In my opinion, you were by far the better man this evening.

As noble as he thought he was, Piers did a disservice to his cause. I will buy your book and read it, and if I find your conclusions credible by my own standards, I will write Mr. Morgan and let him know.

I may end up disagreeing with you, but tonight, you have certainly won my respect.


During one show I joked that Piers had an unusual interviewing style, where he would ask the questions and then answer them himself. When several of the camera crew started laughing out loud while we were still on the air, Piers shot them an incredibly angry look and they stopped laughing.

So why keep appearing on his show? I kept at it in part because of e-mails such as the one above. Morgan’s yelling was doing far more damage to himself than he did to his guests. And while Piers might have been doing 80 to 90 percent of the talking, such a diehard gun-control audience would possibly hear a couple of facts during my appearance that they had never heard before.

Support for gun control has been plummeting, reaching its lowest level since such poll questions began. Part of it is that Americans are realizing gun control doesn’t work and may actually make things worse. But Piers Morgan did his part too: Americans know that the better argument doesn’t require his behavior.



— John R. Lott Jr. is the president of the Crime Prevention Research Center and the author of More Guns, Less Crime (University of Chicago Press, 2010, 3rd edition).