School & Church Shootings, FIGHTING BACK!

Opinion
by Richard D. Turnquist

Defenseless Students And Teachers
Bullets Both Ways supports the armed defender – those who are willing and able to take responsibility for the defense of themselves and others.

Colorado – -(AmmoLand.com)- On the evening of November 7, 2018, a gunman armed with a legally purchased weapon and several “high capacity” magazines (illegal under California law) walked into a country western nightclub in Thousand Oaks, California and shot several security guards and patrons before killing himself.

When the incident was over, twelve people lay dead, including a police officer who was killed by a shot fired by another officer. This tragedy highlights two critical concepts about mass shooting events. First, armed self-defenders were unable to be present at the scene [disarmed by CA's laws], and second that gun control laws fail to prevent gun violence.

California law prohibits concealed carry in establishments that derive the majority of their revenues from the sale of alcoholic beverages, effectively making the Borderline Bar and Grill a “Gun Free Zone.” Unfortunately, the security guard outside was unarmed, making him the first defenseless target. Once the shooter entered the building full of unarmed people, he commenced shooting other guards and patrons, stopping to reload several times.

Because the Borderline Bar and Grill was a gun free zone, it was a few minutes before armed responders – the police – could get to the scene. Hearing gunshots coming from the building, the officers heroically went inside and engaged the shooter. In the ensuing gunfight, Ventura County Sheriff’s Deputy Ron Helus was shot and fatally wounded.

After more police arrived and worked to secure the building, the shooter was found dead in the kitchen of a self-inflicted gunshot wound, another coward who took his own life when confronted with armed resistance.

When misguided laws prevent armed defenders from being in a location, that location becomes exponentially more dangerous. This is why Bullets Both Ways supports the armed defender – those who are willing and able to take responsibility for the defense of themselves and others.

This shooting occurred in the state of California, which has some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. Here are several gun control laws California has enacted that failed to prevent this mass shooting:

  • State permit required to purchase. Purchasers must have a Firearms Safety Certificate.
  • Firearms are required to be registered.
  • “Assault weapons” ban
  • 10 round magazine capacity restriction
  • Open carry is restricted
  • Ten day waiting period
  • Universal background checks
  • Extreme Risk Protection Orders, aka “Red Flag” law

One could say that the Thousand Oaks shooting was an outlier, but sadly there have been many mass shootings in California in recent years. The fact is: if gun control laws worked, there would be no mass shootings in California or anywhere else.

In a world where armed self-defense is necessary to preserve life against tyrants, criminals, jihadists and the mentally ill, it is immoral to prevent legally qualified citizens from exercising the right of armed self-defense.

While Bullets Both Ways is not a political organization, politics do matter. We encourage our followers and customers to be active in defense of our right to keep and bear arms, and to recognize that additional infringements on our rights in the form of California-style gun control laws will not only fail to prevent future tragedies, they could severely impair your ability to defend yourself and your loved ones.


Bullets Both Ways

About Bullets Both Ways

Bullets Both Ways supports and promotes the protection of our nation’s schools, churches, and communities.

We want to convince Americans and our legislatures that new protective security initiatives and additional school climate measures (quality of relationships among the students and the adults in a school) need to be enhanced and implemented within our nation’s schools.

Bullets Both Ways helps generate funds needed to assist with this task. Also, a generous portion of profits is donated to fund further protection measures within our schools and communities. www.bulletsbothways.com/

  • 13 thoughts on “School & Church Shootings, FIGHTING BACK!

    1. Yup, like a guy bent on killing would take time to read the laws or even care about them. There are laws that enslave man and laws that set men free. The laws mentioned above are in direct violation of the constitution and amendments thus they are illegal. Those who would enforce them are also criminally responsible. People have a GOD given right to be armed. This right is also guaranteed here in the U.S. I run a security detail for a Church. Think about that. Things have got so bad. The people who wrote and the people who enforce those laws are in fact criminal-end of story. Turn in your guns? Turn in your mags and ammo? If they want to go unarmed let them but don’t pis down my back and tell me it’s raining. Calif. may be so corrupt that they can’t be voted out. Too bad. There have to be some good people left there–I hope. Arm up, carry on. It’s coming.

    2. I lived in kommiefornia and left because of gun laws, criminals ruling the land and running the state. I cannot continue to say how many ways kommiefornia is messed up. It is easier to just say “Kommiefornia, a perfect example of what you shouldn’t do”.

    3. The only solution to an armed aggressor is being ready to respond with an equally deadly deterent. History has proven this to be true.
      When you disarm the people, you send them to the slaughter.
      These victims were killed by an insane gunman aided by politicians and bureaucrats with their gun free bullshit.

    4. Having a gun free zone most likely is a recipe for one to shoot others. If we support a PO, then the same should be for the RFL. To ignore one who poses a real threat to others, and we ignore it? I want my law enforcement agency to have the option to protect others in harms way!

      1. You’re on your own GWD. No we don’t have to support RFL

        Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone.

        WASHINGTON, June 27 – The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.
        https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html

    5. I finally got around to reading this article. I have said this before on this site and I am going to say it again: I carried for over 20 years without the blessing of the State. Was there a risk? Sure there was but I figured the reward outweighed the risk. Those people were unarmed because they decided to go unarmed. That is the bottom line for me. Would it have been nice if the State gave them it’s blessing to be armed? Yes it would have been; but, it was not necessary. Now if you have to pass through a metal detector that is another kettle of fish but we are not talking about that in the case above and in most cases. YMMV.

          1. @WILD BILL I am so afraid that you are right. However, before we are made felons we should continue to vote against the anti-Americans,specifically Democrats.

            1. @JM, I was just repeating a wise ass joke, Not even my own material. I hope that I am not right, also.

    Leave a Comment 13 Comments

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *