This is the latest indoctrination video courtesy of the marketing geniuses paid by Michael Bloomberg:

I think the part that pissed me off the most is the 911 caller “Do you have a restraining order?” Paper does not beat abusive ex-boyfriend, OK?

Unfortunately for Everytown/Moms Demand, we had a counter-video long before they came up with this Lifetime Original piece of crap:

Refuse to be a victim..shoot the bastard.

Hat tip to Bob Owens

We heard & read this kind of rant before.

Did Martin deserve to die for the crime of residential burglary?
No, she did not.
Under the California penal code, the penalty for that crime is up to six years in prison. It does not call for the death sentence.
Miller and her accomplice allegedly jumped on the homeowner, so the pair was also guilty of simple assault, a misdemeanor in California punishable by a fine up to $2,000 and/or up to six months in jail. Greer never mentioned that either assailant had a weapon and since neither used one, it is unlikely.
Again, there’s no mention of the death penalty for a simple assault.
But this is where it gets complicated.
While the penalty for burglarizing a home could be six months to six years depending on the judge’s ruling, the “castle doctrine” is in effect in California.
Under the state penal code, if someone forcefully or unlawfully enters your residence, it is presumed they are there to do physical harm, KSBY6, an NBC affiliate, reported, adding that it is also presumed the resident has the right to use deadly force against an intruder.
In other words, it’s “stand your ground,” California style.

via California case more reason to outlaw ‘stand your ground’-type defenses.

I will always presume that whomever sides with this asinine argument has never been the victim of a home invasion or any time of violent crime.  I figure that they would rather see a family leave the house or be passive or even better: poll the criminals as to what their intentions are before committing to a course of action.  But the stupidest of all is to put the burden of responsibility on the victim as if it is his fault that some jackass decided to break into his house and steal their things. Pretty much like blaming rape victims for the actions of the rapist…if she had not worn that dress or even had a vagina…

And maybe the jackass breaking into a home is really not a bad guy but somebody in a bad moment who made a bad decision. But unfortunately we have no way of knowing this and we have way too many of the following to be giving free passes:

They tied the 33-year-old dialysis patient to a chair with cables and extension cords and hog-tied his 27-year-old roommate and threw him naked into the bathtub.

The victims say the men wanted money and kept repeating: “You’re gonna die tonight. You’re gonna meet your maker!”

The two roommates begged for their lives as the robbers ransacked their home looking for money and valuables.

“I really thought that they were gonna kills us,” one said.

via In KCK, robbers force gun into victims’ mouths, point them at their heads to steal electronics, money | fox4kc.com.

I am not willing to gamble my life or the life of my loved ones betting on that I will get the “nice” kind of Home Invaders. That is why the law gives people such a latitude when it comes to defending a home. That is why we have a Castle Doctrine in this country.

So when somebody asks you if you are willing to kill somebody because they want to steal your TV, you can ask in return “Why would anybody risk their lives in order to steal a TV”?

A topless counter demonstration. Unfortunately gravity has not been kind to these ladies.

Somewhere in Texas there are some heavily drunk husbands or some very happy ex-husbands.

In a rare legal move, county detectives sent a victim to jail Thursday to ensure she will participate in a trial for a man accused of kidnapping and beating her.

Faith Bronson isn’t under arrest. But she will remain in Lackawanna County Prison until she can post $25,000 bail set by Judge Michael Barrasse or until Ross Bonaddio’s trial, scheduled to begin Sept. 7.

Ms. Bronson, 34, told police in January that Mr. Bonaddio, her boyfriend, held her captive and beat her to remove the aliens he believed were inside of her. Scranton police said he screwed the doors of his home shut, so she could not leave. After three days, she escaped and a neighbor called police.

When officers arrived, Ms. Bronson was back inside the home with Mr. Bonaddio, 45, 1210 Swetland St. After breaking down the door, officers found her covered in bruises.

via County detectives take witness into custody so she shows at trial – News – The Times-Tribune.

Can anybody tell me how in the hell anybody could think this was a good idea? Is there a difference (other than “color of law”) between what her boyfriend made her go through and what the Justice System is doing to her now?

Is getting a conviction so important that there is a need to re-victimize the victim?

Hat Tip Barron B.

DC filed motion to stay #Palmer ruling on gun carry until appeal is filed or 180 days to write a licensing scheme.

— Emily Miller (@EmilyMiller) July 28, 2014

Will they be willing to take it to SCOTUS or just go the Chicago Way and write May Issue regulations that will make the process a pain in the ass?

It can go either way, specially on an election year.

At the time of this writing (3:10pm) only one of all the major Gun Control players had anything to say about the ruling striking down the ban on carrying guns in the District of Columbia being CSGV the only exception with 18 words:

Brady Campaign, Moms Demand, Everytown, Violence Policy Center, etc. none have commented or even acknowledged the ruling and the subsequent decision by Washington PD of not arresting anybody who is legally able to carry in DC.

Although most of them do Office Hours Activism, (Mon-Fri. 9-5) they have been known to actually step out of their comfort zone (and recliners) if the new were good enough to exploit and gather money. My guess is that finding out that finding out that the last bastion of pure Gun Control was breached by the Barbarians has them shocked beyond words. I also bet the phones are burning between calls and text messages from and to their political mascots trying to figure out an angle to counter this cataclysm.

We know it is not the final word, not by a long measure, but it is fun to smell the fear. The opposition has been strident and downright abusive in its rhetoric before this, get ready to see the volume go to eleven after this.

And smile…

CSGV should have not touched this one if for nothing more than the comments of its followers:

Eric Martin It’s just swell that doctors have to carry guns around. I know we will be hearing about this one from gun nuts for years to come, but a society in which a doctor shoots patients in his hospital is nothing to be proud of.

Marilyn Decker For the gun proponents to jump on this one would be ludicrous. That doctor’s gun wasn’t enough to save the caseworker. But if we had stricter gun laws, that patient wouldn’t have gotten the gun in the first place. Because of weak backgroiund checks and non-enforcement of illegal straw purchases, it’s too easy to get hold of a gun, whether legally or illegally.

Reia Barber the doctor had a gun because he’s a Republican

Sandy Browder Ummmm, if I recall correctly the good doctor was carrying in a gun free facility…yes, he is alive possibly because of it, but he should be fired. He alone is responsible for any issues arising from it. And of course a mentally ill person absolutely should not have a gun. How did he get it? Should be interesting.

Guy L W Hardy The doctor was clearly aware of the facility’s policy regarding guns. He HAD to be – with all of the publicity the issue has received over the last few years, and considering his level of responsibility in the facility, there can be no conclusion other than that HE KNEW THE POLICY. It must also be concluded that he flouted that policy for reason of his own. For purposes of the argument, he “broke the law” with regards to the hospital, and must now be punished for his transgression. It was grossly irresponsible for him to disregard facility policy—ESPECIALLY in this area—and so he should lose his job at the very least.

William Wesling Nagel Well I guess occasionally a Good Guy with a Gun actually Shoots a Bad Guy with a Gun but it sure seems to be the exception than the rule. Statistically Speaking a Good Guy with a Gun turns into a Bad Guy with a Gun and uses it on the rest of us. A Good Guy with a Gun lets it fall into Unqualified Hands or Criminal Hands and it is used against the rest of us or the Good Guy with a Gun gets depressed and uses it on himself.

Christine Stensrud I think the “war on drugs” should be changed to “war on illegal guns”. The war on drugs is not working. Maybe focusing on all the illegal weapons instead of drugs should happen before the drugs. What is wrong about getting background info. You have to get one to get a job and also submit to a drug screen. If you have nothing to hide then why should you care.

We have people, allegedly members of the Human race who are basically saying that the doctor should have been a victim and that would be better than having survived  the attack. That a hospital policy (mind you a hospital, not even the law of the state) trumps the basic human right of self-defense. What sick & twisted mind chooses corpses over life?

Imagine one of these idiots in a Legislature passing laws that fit their ideologies and absolute lack of respect for your life.