Colorado Recalls Two Anti-Self-Defense politicians and forces another one to resign to avoid Recall.

Colorado Democrat Resigns to Avoid Recall Fight

Remember that third recall effort out in Colorado, targeting two-term Democrat Evie Hudak? It is now moot.

State Sen. Evie Hudak has decided to resign rather than risk facing a recall election that, should she lose, would flip control of the senate to Republicans, FOX31 Denver was first to report Wednesday.

Later Wednesday morning, Hudak made her resignation letter public.

“In the interest of preserving the progress made over the last year, I am resigning as State Senator for District 19, effective immediately,” Hudak wrote.

By resigning before the signatures are turned in, she assures that a Democratic vacancy committee will appoint her replacement, keeping the seat — and the senate — in the party’s hands, at least through November, when her successor will be forced to win reelection.

While the Republicans won’t have an opportunity to win the seat until Election Day, Hudak’s departure is a welcome development. You mayrecall Hudak telling a rape victim that her statistics were incorrect during a hearing on Colorado’s gun laws. The Denver Post later found that Hudak’s statistics were incorrect, declaring, “the episode made Hudak look like she cared not a whit for a rape victim,” and Hudak apologized for “insensitivity.”

Obama’s CDC study on Gun Control fails and is hidden away,


Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence is the name of the Center for Disease Control’s new Gun Control study commissioned by President Obama in January of this year after the Newtown school murders in December of 2012.

That study was just one part of the Obama Executive Order tsunami of 23 different “gun violence reducers” he was going to railroad without going through Congress.  Many political experts think that use of Executive Orders to enact something that the Congress would reject is an improper and un-Constitutional use of Executive Powers, since executive orders were usually used in the past to take care of minor issues that the Congress simply wasn’t interested in handling.  Compare that to this issue of Gun Control which is one of the hottest and most involving issues among the entire American polity.

Unfortunately for Obama and the Democrats/Progressives in politics and the Media, the study released in June, 2013 provided almost no support for new gun control laws, and a lot of support for the advocates of armed self-defense.  

The study notes with astounding understatement that, “Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals,” and that there were “about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008,” compared to more than a dozen studies showing that the estimated number of defensive uses of guns ranges “from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year.”

The CDC/Obama study also admitted that, “Whether gun restrictions reduce firearm-related violence is an unresolved issue.”  In fact, numerous studies including the 2004 National Academies of Science report “Firearms and Violence” found ZERO evidence that “gun restrictions reduce firearm-related violence”, in direct contradiction of the CDC study.  And that NAS research group was, like the CDC committee, composed almost entirely of Democrats, Leftists, and liberals who certainly had an ardent desire to prove that gun owners are evil and guns must be banned.  Even criminological and historical facts rarely impress them; but in this instance the evidence was so overwhelming that they didn’t dare to make the liberals’ usual claims that “gun control = crime control”.

The CDC study also cited several studies including another government study, the National Crime Victimization Survey, conceded that “Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”  That concession must have really caused them severe angst.

Even some of the seemingly benign and most popular gun control policies proved to be a bad idea,”There is empirical evidence that gun turn-in programs are ineffective.”

Since the study was so detrimental to Pres. Obama’s contrafactual claims, the study had to be covered up as thoroughly as possible, so the Establishment Media and the Democrat Party did everything possible to try to make that study disappear down The Memory Hole.  That’s why there has been almost no news coverage of the CDC study and most people don’t even know it exists.


Read More At Investor’s Business Daily:


Shall-Issue Concealed Carry gaining momentum all across the U.S.

More states adopting “Shall-Issue” Concealed Carry while others relax their existing Shall-Issue laws.

There are now more than 40 states that have either “Shall-Issue” CCW permit laws OR “Constitutional Carry” which allows concealed carry without a permit, at least within that state.

The number of states that have “Constitutional Carry” has now expanded to four: Arizona, Alaska, Wyoming, and Vermont.  In these states, if you pass the Federal “instant” background check, you can receive your gun immediately over-the-counter, load it, conceal it or wear in openly, and walk out the door without further ado.  No tests, no classes, no permits required.  On the other hand, if you wish to take advantage of multi-state reciprocity, you can apply for a written CCW permit in addition to your in-state open or concealed carry without a permit.

Many states are also making it easier on their permit holders, by either lengthening the duration of the permit, making it cheaper, or reducing the amount of class time needed to meet the state requirements.  These relaxations or rational changes have occurred because most states have found that the CCW permittees are not a crime problem so there is less reason to try to set a high bar to jump over.  Some states were originally somewhat skeptical about issuing lots of CCW licenses due to exaggerated fears of crimes or accidents, but after the laws were in place for a few years, they realized that their original obstructionism was an excessive reaction that was inappropriate.

Is there a good source of randomly collected evidence to use in the gun control debate?

How can we find evidence that may not be completely compromised by Media prejudice and selective reporting?

The first thing to do is figure out if there is information that is not collected or edited by people primarily on either side of the self-defense vs. gun control debate.

Clearly, anything that is published or broadcast in the Mainstream Media will probably reflect their personal prejudices or pre-existing emotions.  The days of responsible, neutral reporting have been largely extinct since 1970 at the latest.  Numerous studies and books have been produced in that interval and they consistently show that 65-90% of the Editors, Managers, Reporters, Investigators, and Researchers are liberals, Democrats or even farther Left, and those groups almost always favor gun control and oppose self-defense by law-abiding citizens.  To expect neutral reporting from such an unbalanced sample is largely a fantasy, despite the few reporters who actually report all the facts, and just the facts.  This can be self-verified by simply examining the expansive, hostile, long-term repetitive way that news outlets report crimes compared to the almost non-existent coverage of acts of self-defense, which are typically covered, if at all, in the inner pages and not followed up beyond two days after the incident.  Have you ever seen an “Anniversary Special” story on any incident of self-defense?  How many “Anniversary Specials” have you noticed on crimes committed with firearms?  Q.E.D.

Wouldn’t it be difficult and expensive to collect a broad range of stories on self-defense incidents?  Well, there are several such sites that try to do exactly that, but they largely suffer from their own dependence on the Mainstream Media to provide the original article.  And if it isn’t reported in the first place, or hidden in the inner pages, who is going to find the story?  Remember that many ordinary citizens who defend themselves, their loved ones, or their businesses have strong, valid reasons not to share their stories or make their names or faces known.

Luckily, the miracle of the Internet has made the collection of self-defense incidents easier for people to do, and then share with others.  We are talking about YouTube (™) and other such online websites and personal blogs.  There are now millions of local surveillance video cameras and tens of millions of private cameras that can catch fleeting, unplanned incidents.  Best of all, the postings on YouTubs (™) are, as far as we can tell, rarely censored by politically correct editors.  Most such incidents occur in public places and there is little legal “expectation of privacy”.  It seems that the main restriction is that the websites may remove an identifiable crime victim if the victim requests the video’s removal for safety or privacy reasons, or remove a video that is too gory. Since most self-defense incidents do not result in gory fatalities, it seems that most videos can be posted.  Even if the original story is reported by the Mainstream Media, sites like YouTube (™) and blogs preserve the evidence much longer, so it doesn’t fall into the “memory hole of history”.

So go ahead and do some searches in YouTube (™), Yahoo (™), and other sites, using search terms like “CCW holder saves cop” or “11 year old girl drives away 2 armed home invaders” or “Citizen saves woman from attacker” or “Colorado church attacked by gunman” or “Jeanne Assam” or “15 yr old boy uses AR-15 to shoot intruder” or “14 yr old shoots armed home intruder while protecting siblings” or “Teen Mom Sarah McKinley Kills Intruder while on phone with 911” or “Child shoots Intruder — Port Allen, LA” or “Carjacker killed by gun permit holder” or “armed samaritan shoots attacker, saves woman” or “security guard shoots AR-15 at gun-wielding couple…” or “gunfight caught on tape: store owner vs. 2 armed robbers” or “caught on tape: armed homeowner fights off armed gunmen” or “Police: store owner shoots would-be robber” or “Video: Senior citizen wins shootout with crooks”  or “robber shot to death when off-duty cop pulls in for gas” or “security guard with the mindset and skill” or “watch robbers run for the door after woman shoots at them” or “armed robbery goes wrong, shootout in Texas convenience store” or “Good guy 1, Bad guy 0, CCW in action unedited” and a hundred other variants on those themes.

We’ve found hundreds of these incidents and remember that many places do not have surveillance cameras, so the vast majority of self-defense incidents undoubtedly go unrecorded.

Nationwide Study of Gun Control finds No Laws that Reduce Violent Crime

National Academies of Science conducts nationwide gun control study and finds no laws that actually reduce violence.

The 2004 report, “Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review” conducted by the National Academies of Science returned a result that the 20 researchers found largely unexpected.  Unexpected because all but one of the 20 researchers apparently believed the long-standing Media claim that “guns equal crime and violence” and that the solution is simply “more gun control laws and an eventual ban”.

The researchers studied all 20,000+ gun control laws in the United States; examining 253 professional or academic journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, a survey that covered 80 different gun-control measures and the committee’s own empirical work.  Despite the vast amount of information available to the committee, from all over America and going back a full century, the committee as a whole could not find ONE SINGLE GUN CONTROL LAW OR AGGREGATION OF LAWS that had any noticeable success in reducing violent crime.  However the one pro-self-defense committee member found that gun control laws can sometimes be counterproductive, while outside researchers also found similar counterproductive effects.  This might cause curious observers to ask whether the committee was somewhat predisposed to only publish results that matched their unexamined prejudices and emotions.  How did the committee handle their undesired result?  Despite the vast amounts of prior research, the NAS committee deduced that the problem was a lack of research, so they recommended more research!  Presumably they think that reality will change if they simply study it long enough.  But as Albert Einstein said, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, while expecting a different result.”

This report was released on Dec. 16, 2004 in a 328 page report that can be accessed for page-by-page reading on-site, or for paid download at the NAS website:

It is also available for sale in Hardcover edition at

Note: this is not the first or likely the last nationwide study that reaches the same “counterintuitive” conclusion.