Category Archives: Congress
When I first came across this article this morning I had some trepidations to read another article on Gun Control using another Tragic school shooting, and it wasn’t just the push for more gun control laws, but it’s always hard to read about children being senselessly murdered! Within a few minutes, I realized, I remembered this tragedy all too well and how it affected me in 1989, even though I was only 23 and childless. I had spent many summer’s earlier working as a summer camp counselor with children close to their ages. I went ahead and read the article and then the surprise near the end, Rob Young.
Rob Young was a victim and a survivor of the Stockton, Ca., Cleveland Elementary School playground shooting, when a disturbed person by the name of Patrick Purdy walked onto the playground and proceeded to commit a heinous crime. Rob Young was 6 years old when he was shot in the foot and had bullet wounds from bullet fragments in his chest. Rob Young, also known as ‘Robbie’ still today to some of his teachers though is what some consider the “wildcard” in this community, he is opposed to gun control, at least more gun control laws.
Rob Young has stepped forth, away from those in his community that are supporting more gun control laws to advocate for there to be properly trained, armed school teachers and principals as well as armed security guards at schools. Rob Young felt that he needed to speak out against gun control and gun free zones so he joined Gun Owners of America, this organization is supporting legislation introduced by Texas Republican Congressman Steve Stockman that repeals “gun-free zones” on school campuses. I should also mention that Mr.Young is also referred to as Officer Young, he is a police officer and has stated,
“I deal with gang members all the time,” Young said. “I’ve arrested people in the past who have been arrested more than once for unlawfully carrying firearms. A lot are convicted felons, they’re carrying guns that were stolen or that have the serial numbers scraped off. These are criminals. They’re not supposed to be carrying guns, anyway.”
Patrick Purdy the man who committed this heinous crime on January 17, 1989, was a drifter and had an extensive criminal record that dated as far back to this teen years in 1977. Purdy, had a record for running away, narcotics usage, drinking, violence, armed robbery, white supremacy, and had been diagnosed with slight mental retardation in to be considered, “a danger to himself and others” by a psychiatric evaluation while in prison in 1987. Not only that but a female friend of Purdy’s, Kelley Riley stated that, “his clothes and guns bore radical Islamic slogans“. Kelley goes on to state in the article how, “nice” most of the time Purdy was, but in the same interview for the Prescott Courier she goes on to state how often he was prone to moodiness and his paranoia. Patrick Purdy had also attended Cleveland Elementary school in his troubled youth.
Gun control laws dating back to 1968 (the federally mandated Gun Control Act of 1968) are supposed to prohibit firearms from those that:
- is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year
- is a fugitive from justice
- is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802))
- has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution
- who, being an alien – (A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or (B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26))
- who (!2) has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions
- who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship
- is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that – (A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate; and (B)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or (ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury
- has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
I personally question still, why Purdy wasn’t banned from purchasing firearms considering that in 1982 he was arrested for possession of marijuana and drug dealing?
Rob Young has stated on several occasions in several articles that, Gun control would not have saved me or any of my classmates that day.” Officer Young clearly states it’s the person behind the violence and the choice of weapon, that is to blame for that day at his school and in other instances of these tragedies. Rob Young also states something that those who believe in the right to bear arms for self-defense know too,
Excessive gun control laws and “minimum staffing levels,” Young believes, leads police forces to be “reactive” rather than “ proactive” so that police officers often feel more like “coroners” rather than officers of the law.
The police cannot be everywhere all the time, many times they are acting in response to a crime that has already been committed or in the process of being carried out.
I personally stand with school shooting survivor/Officer Rob Young in agreement that gun control and gun free zones are not the answer! I hope if you weren’t familiar with this tragic event in Stockton Ca., and/or have never heard of Rob Young that you’ll take the time to go back and click on some of the highlighted links to read the more detailed interviews and statements with Rob Young and the background on Patrick Purdy. I shall add Rob Young personally to my evening prayers as well as those for all our service providers that are sworn to serve and protect while putting their very own lives in jeopardy every day.
In the end I keep thinking back to a statement made by a criminologist and Florida State Professor that I had written a blog based on his research being used in the Heller v Washington Supreme Court case. Professor Gary Kleck had read that blog as I submitted a copy to him and he even provided me with some newer research of his by taking the time to scan and email significant sections of his research to me, a very kind and generous act that is so very much appreciated. Prof. Gary Kleck states:
Probably fewer than 2% of handguns and well under 1% of all guns will ever be involved in a violent crime. Thus, the problem of criminal gun violence is concentrated within a very small subset of gun owners, indicating that gun control aimed at the general population faces a serious needle-in-the-haystack problem.
For those of you who don’t know who Dr. Orly Taitz Esquire “ is a leading figure in the “birther” movement, which challenges whether Barack Obama is a natural-born citizen eligible to serve as President of the United States. She has also run for state-wide office in California twice and is a dentist, lawyer, and former real estate agent. She also promotes a number of other allegations both related and unrelated to Obama, and has initiated a number of lawsuits on behalf of the “birther” movement.” According to Wikipedia.
Her legal actions against Obama started in November of 2008 with Keyes v. Bowen. She Filed on behalf of the independent presidential candidate Alan Keyes suing California’s secretary of state for allegedly failing to ascertain Obama’s eligibility for president before placing him on the ballot. She ended up losing that case as it was dismissed on May 4, 2009.
She went on to file similar cases such as:
Lightfoot v. Bowen (http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/08a524.htm)
Barnett v. Obama (http://www.scribd.com/collections/2942847/Barnett-v-Obama)
Rhodes v. MacDonald (http://dockets.justia.com/docket/georgia/gamdce/4:2009cv00106/77605/)
She challenged many Primary races as well. The primaries challenged were the 2012 New Hampshire primary, the 2012 Georgia primary, the 2012 Alabama primary, the 2012 Indiana primary, and the 2012 Mississippi primary. She also challenged several General Elections. Those challenged were the 2012 Indiana general election, the 2012 Kansas general election, and the 2012 Mississippi general election.
Orly Taitz has a website where you can follow her endeavors located at:
“The case in question is Edward Noonan, et al v. Deborah Bowen, California Secretary of State, and the Justices are finally looking at it thanks to the dogged determination of Orly Taitz. The case calls into question many of the documents Obama (Bounel, Soetoro, Soebarkah, etc.) has used and/or released as authentic since he came on the national scene. The case contends that the documents — birth certificate, Social Security number, Selective Service registration, etc. — are fakes or forgeries. If that’s the case, Obama should not have been on the California ballot in 2008 and, therefore, should not have received the State’s electoral votes.”
I have been following this case for some time now and asking the people on my Facebook Page if they think this will change anything or anything will be done. The majority of people think that this case won’t matter at all. They think that the case will be thrown out like all the other cases that have been brought against the Teflon POTUS. I would have to tend to agree.
I think the Supreme Court (even if all the proof were up in their faces laid out on a silver platter) would protect the Democrat Messiah. Even though it seems that the Supreme Court has agreed to expedite the decision in this case, I think they did it more so just to give the people false hope in the hopes it would show that they know we are watching them, rule against it, and get it off the table quicker.
If the Supreme Court were to rule in favor of Obama being ineligible, it would be a fantastic thing for the American People. After all, everything he’s done to this Country and every order he has given would indeed be overturned. It would also give “We the People” the chance to start over from scratch and get this Country back to where it needs to be.
However, what people have to understand is that this would be a first for our Country. We would be without representation as a Country until we could get all of this mess straightened out. If I am not mistaken, should we actually get the chance to clean house, the highest ranking Military General would be the one to assume the responsibilities of POTUS, until we could have elections to replace an entire administration.
If the Supreme Court were to rule Obama ineligible, that would open the door to a whole new can of worms that they (the Supreme Court Justices) may view this Country to be not ready for. If they did rule in favor of Obama being ineligible, that would open the door for the entire Administration and our Elected Officials of Congress (including some of our own Republicans) to lose their seats and be sued as well, for playing apart in the cover-up of Obama’s eligibility. That would mean we would be without representation of a Congress until new elections could occur as well.
Do I think we are ready for such a task?? YES! But I alone, am not the entire Country! I myself think that we need to start from scratch if we are to save this Country.
Sit back and think about it for a minute yourselves.
Do you think we are ready for such a task as a Country?
There has been a report of documents being with-held by Supreme Court Staff. You can read about that here: