Discernment

Discernment

In this day and era, conflicts can acculumate abruptly. I will not be apt to agitate for conflicts, but I have every right to outline discernment in my life. Discernment deals with understanding the truth with keen ingith. It is also about applying about what you know (that's authentic) to hlep out our neighbors. Our times are leading into a world filled with hope and challenges. As human beings, it is precisely our responsibility to help others (plus make our lives plus other more tranquil or better). We have the right to fulfill our legitimate dreams and aspirations. I won't become dismayed by propagandists like Bill O'Reilly, Keith Olbermann, Glen Beck, Chris Matthews, Adrianna Huffington, Sean Hannity, and others. Living life much more fulfilling than seeing these pundits executing the typical Left/Right Paradigm deception upon the American people. Seeking wisdom, fighting for the truth, and never giving up in life are quintessential aims to live by for me. A lot of developments in the world are existing from George Tiller's murder to President Barack Obama's Supreme Court pick of Sonia Sotomayor.

This is one of the most controversial stories in the year of 2009. George Tiller was murdered by an evil gunmen. The suspect of the murder is named Scott Roeder. Tiller was killed outside of his own church called the Reformation Lutheran Church in Wichita, Kansas. He was murdered just after 10 am. Roeder has no connection with the mainstream media at all, yet some in the mainstream media is trying to equate what Scott did to pro-lifers. That's a lie since being pro-life isn't about murdering people even someone like Tiller. Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards, Vicki Saporta (who is the president of the National Abortion Federation), and others have collectively blamed pro-lifers in general for Tiller's death. DailyKos had an article saying that Scott was a pro-life activist when he wasn't. Ex-CIA agent Markos Moulitsas, of the DailyKos, compared O'Reilly's and Beck's views to the Murder of Tiller (and that they incide Scott to kill Tiller. That was wrong and I don't even agree with O'Reilly or Beck on every issue. O'Reilly just exposed how George Tiller murder babies in partial birth abortion on demand, which is immoral). The truth is that George Tiller was a murderer of the unborn during late term. Under his watch, over 60,000 unborn babies were murdered. He was accused of performing illegal late term abortions also. NBC is trying to link O'Reilly's words to Tiller's death, which is a lie. See, abortion is about murdering an innocent baby. Abortion isn't having some simple surgery. Lives are involved. On MSNBC, Dr. Warren Hern, a fellow abortionist and friend of Tiller, compared pro-lifers to the Taliban. Hern is a liar since the Taliban killed innocent people, threw acid into women's eyes, and formed a theocracy. Real pro-lifers don't advocate none of these things at all. Real pro-lifers enact real debate and peaceful protests worldwide to outline their positions. Tiller also kept many women in ill conditions to be murdered of their babies. He did abortions on women who hadn't given consent, at the behest of their parents or boyfriends. He left a baby blind, paralyzed, and mentally retarded by injecting formaldehyde into her brain. On July 8, 2003, Tiller performed an abortion on a 28-weeks pregnant woman without determining fetal viability. There was no note of any medical condition of the mother. Christin Gilbert was a 19 year-old mentally disabled girl from Texas who was killed in a botched legal abortion done at Tiller's abortion business in Wichita in January 2005. Murdering Tiller is wrong, but George Tiller's evil genocide was equally wrong as well. Local prosecutors had charged Roeder days ago. According to the Kansas City Star, the FBI suspected Roeder of having ties with the Montana Freemen, a militia group, which had standoffs with authorities. Investigators believe that he had ties to anti-government militia groups, yet even true militias don't advocate randomly murdering people at all. Roeder is 51 years old and he is charged with George Tiller's murder. Some believe that Scott may have some mental illness according to his ex-wife. He held extremist views. Pro life groups worldwide (even Operation Rescue) have condemned the murder as evil. Tiller certainly murdered the unborn. So, the pro-life movement will have to fight back even harder since those that love death will exploit Tiller's death to promote their nefarious agenda.

There are new developments in the military now. There are still tons of patriotic military people in America. The problem is that the policies of the government have turned bad on many levels. Sometimes, The Clinton and both Bush administrations forced American G.I.s to serve under foreign or United Nations commanders. Now, it's been found that the U.S. military has been destroying some Bible belonging to an American soldier serving in Afghanistan. They are doing this, because the U.S. military forbids its members on active duty to try to convert people to another religion. This is wicked of course. Not only this violates the religious liberty rights of these Christians. It is also anti-religious and hateful to destroy Bibles like this. Reuters News says the Bibles were confiscated and destroyed after Qatar-based Al Jazeera television showed soldiers at a Bible class on a base with a stack of Bibles translated into the local Pashto and Dari languages. There is absolutely nothing wrong with voluntary conversion of Muslims into Christians at all. A source says that: "Reuters quotes Maj. Jennifer Willis at the Bagram Air Base, north of Kabul, who said 'I can now confirm that the Bibles shown on Al Jazeera's clip were, in fact, collected by the chaplains and later destroyed. They were never distributed.'" (Source: OneNewsNow.com, 5/5/09). Jesus Christ made the commandment clear for all Christians to "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature." You can't spread the Gospel if the military bans religious liberty in this regard. Jesus Christ has redeeming grace. I rather follow God than submit to an immoral military order like that. Burning Bibles is one of the most disrespectful acts anyone can do. Notice, that the military will never burn Korans or other religious books in a massive level. The rights of religious and non-religious people are being violated all of the time in the world.

You have an innocent pastor beaten in the streets, FBI agents use the Patriot Act to seize an obviously innocent teen-age boy from his home, and then afford him no constitutional rights, the U.S. military personnel are required to wear U.N. blue and take orders from foreign commanders, and the U.S. military personnel are used as international policemen. There are military chaplains being ordered to not pray in Jesus' name and to confiscate and destroy Bibles. Soldiers are commanded to not witness for Christ or share their faith. These facts prove that the role of both the U.S. military and law enforcement are being dramatically altered--and not for the better. That is why the military is in serious need of reform like our society and government. The good news is that in the end, God who is the TRUTH will win.



HR 1913 is a bill that is called the Hate Crimes Bill. It's supported by Barack Obama and many liberals. Many liberals support the bill since they want to protect the rights of certain minorities like homosexuals, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered people. Some conservatives oppose it, because they feel that the bill creates a special class of citizens to be protected above people who are not in an alternative lifestyle (plus it could violate the religious liberty rights of some Americans). Hate Crimes Legislation are being opposed by Southern Baptist leaders. The head of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission has written to Sen. Jeff Sessions, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, calling on him to battle approval of a "hate crimes" bill, which critics have called "The Pedophile Protection Act." Critics of the bill want the GOP Senate Judiciary Committee leader to fight the bill. The bill of course has been supported by the Masonic ADL and the Masonic B'nai B'rith Lodge. Both groups are known for their far left politics (i.e. Their leadership are anti-gun and pro-abortion). Richard Land (who is apart of the Southern Baptist Church) is a CFR member and has ties to the U.N., so he isn't to be trusted 100%. He may interesting points on the bill. He disagreed with the S. 909 (or the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act), because it would add new categories of violent crimes. In other words, it would punish people harsher who assault those of a specific sexual orientation (or gender identity) than people who assault a heterosexual (or those without gender identity issues). President Barack Obama supports the hate crimes legislation. The reality is that laws already exist the prosecute individuals who enact violence against anyone for any reason. The hate crime legislation gives special protections to certain citizens, which is contrary to the 14th Amendment (which grants equal protection under the law). Hate crime laws gives judges the right to determine what the perpetrators are thinking, which is difficult to do at times. Some believes that hate crimes legislation can violate religious liberty rights (because similar laws in other countries violated religious liberty rights of Christians in the UK, Sweden, and Canada. I've known this for years). As WND has reported, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 would provide special protections to homosexual people but leave Christian ministers open to prosecution should their teachings be linked to any subsequent offense, by anyone, against a homosexual person. An analysis by Shawn D. Akers, policy analyst with Liberty Counsel said the proposal, formally known as H.R. 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act bill in the House and S. 909 in the Senate, would create new federal penalties against those whose "victims" were chosen based on an "actual or perceived ... sexual orientation, gender identity." Some have called the bill a pedophile protection act since the bill doesn't explicitly ban pedophilia and other phillas as apart of a protected sexual class. Of course, homosexuality is different from pedophilia since pedophiles exist in many sexual orientations. The bill exists when hate crimes based on bias and prejudice are decreasing than 10 years ago. Yet, this fact doesn't mean we should take a blind eye to violence against anyone though. The majority of Democrats refused to ban pedophilia in the hate crimes bill. Richard Land said that leaves the definition up to a standard definition in the medical field, which includes hundreds of "philias" and "isms" that would be protected. Porter cited the amendment offering from King in committee that was very simple: "The term sexual orientation as used in this act or any amendments to this act does not include pedophilia." But majority Democrats refused to accept it. Critics also have expressed alarm because in committee hearings Democrats admitted that a Christian pastor could be prosecuted under the law if he spoke biblically against homosexuality, someone heard the comments and then committed a crime. Rep. Artur Davis, D-Ala.,said during a hearing on the bill it could be used to prosecute pastors merely for preaching against homosexuality under the premise that they could be 'inducing' violence in someone ... Under the specifications of the law, a Christian needn't touch a homosexual to face charges, he noted. 'If the homosexual merely claims he was subjectively placed in 'apprehension of bodily injury' by the Christian's words then, again, the Christian can be thrown in prison for a felony 'hate crime,' he said, Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Fla., a "hate crimes" supporter, confirmed that worry, saying: "This bill addresses our resolve to end violence based on prejudice and to guarantee that all Americans regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability or all of these 'philias' and fetishes and 'ism's' that were put forward need not live in fear because of who they are. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule…" The reality is that we don't need hate crimes legislation. We need is more enforcement of laws against violence (for any reason whatsoever), education about varied lifestyles in a mature way, and the promotion of true individual liberty for all people (regardless of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability, or gender identity). All humans deserve equal rights, but not special rights. Homosexuality like adultery in the Word of God is called a sin. We can agree to disagree on lifestyle choices as apart of Freedom of Speech, but we have no right to be violent toward anyone. Also, we shouldn't promote hatred against anyone regradless of their background or sexual orientation. With all of the craziness in the world, it's certainly a positive thing that we can call upon the Lord for the forgiveness of our sins As long as we have a life, anyone can be saved and go into Heaven by God's grace.

Sonia Sotomayor is the first Hispanic America to be proposed to be a Supreme Court Justice in American history. Barack Obama's pick was very historic indeed. Sonia has been witnessed to experience a lot of controversy in her statements and belief system. She certainly has a wide ranging judicial experience. She was a federal appeals judge.

She is an intelligent woman who is from New York City. She is 54 years old. She is rather young as compared for the other Justices on the Supreme Court.

If she is elected to the Supreme Court, Sonia will replace the retiring Justice David Souter. Sonia Sotomayor claimed that she will promote objectivity, discernment, and a great deal of intellect if she is on the bench of the Supreme Court. Her accomplishments of being elected to numerous judicial offices, her possessing great legal intelligence, and she overcoming huge obstacles in her life should be commented. Barack Obama proclaimed that Sonia is the ideal choice on the Court because of her life experience, legal temperament, and her being a trial judge. Her parents moved to New York from Puerto Rico. So, Sonia is a Puerto Rican American. From age 8, she has dealt with Type 1 diabetes. Sonia Sotomayor desired to be a judge in her career, because she watched the Perry Mason television show as a girl. She graduated from Princeton University in 1976 and Yale Law School. Sonia certainly claims bipartisan influence by first being appointed by Republican President George H. W. Bush and then named an appeals judge by President Bill Clinton in 1997. Certainly, her views will be securitized heavily, especially by folks that disagree with her.

Sonia's views will be investigated heavily in the world. Her views on affirmative action, abortion, economics, foreign policy, civil liberties, and other issues are going to talked about indeed. Some of her critics believe her saying that courts are where policy is made is indicative of judicial activism. On March 30, 1995, as a district judge, Sotomayor issued the preliminary injunction against Major League Baseball, preventing MLB from unilaterally implementing a new Collective Bargaining Agreement and using replacement players. Her ruling ended the 1994 baseball strike after 232 days, the day before the new season was scheduled to begin. Sonia Sotomayor surprisingly ruled in favor of upholding the Mexico City Policy. The Mexico City Policy banned our taxpayer dollars to fun abortions overseas. Yet, prolife citizens criticize her as possibly supporting Roe v. Wade, which allows the federal government to legalize abortions. Certainly, Sonia Sotomayor has the perfect right to outline her views to be expressed for the public to see. Likewise, we have right to analyze her views in a fair and accurate format. Wendy Long of the Judicial Confirmation Network previously told WorldNet Daily that Sotomayor is an activist judge, who likely agrees with Roe v. Wade and would prefer that the courts make abortion laws. New developments about Sonia keeps on going forward. Sonia Sotomayor said these controversial words of: “…I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." I don’t believe that she is a racist, but certainly people have a right to know what does she mean by these words. The remark was actually made during a 2001 speech at the University of California's Berkeley School of Law. The lecture was published the following year in the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal. Sonia is a member of La Raza. The National Council of La Raza claims to reject racial seperatism and the motto of Fuera de La Raza nada (or For the race everything, outside the race nothing in Spanish. That is racist of course). I don’t agree with every single view of La Raza though. If I were a Latino person, I would never say those words at all. Yet, it’s interesting to note that the hypocrites and neo-cons like Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich are calling her racist when Rush said really hardcore racist words on his radio show for decades. Newt and Rush aren’t even real conservatives, but they are criticizing people for being racist (when they falsely tell people of color to get over racial issues. They are hypocrites). Sotomayor, a member of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, has not directly issued any rulings on abortion but she has been involved in abortion cases. Unfortunately, it seems that Sonia Sotomayor doesn’t believe that individual citizens have the right to the Second Amendment. Some are pushing the claim that as a graduate student at Princeton University, Sotomayor wrote a these entitled “Deadly Obsession: American Gun Culture.” In the text, Sotomayor is claimed to make the argument that the Second Amendment does not actually afford individual citizens the right to bear arms. She believes only the military has this right. According to her critics, Sotomayor believes that it has been illegal for individuals to own firearms since the passing of the Bill of Rights. Now, other supporters of Sotomayor believe that the thesis doesn't exist since Sonia Sotomayor wasn't a graduate student in Princeton at all. In 2004, in U.S. v. Sanchez-Villar, a three-judge panel that included Sotomayor wrote that the right to own a gun isn’t a fundamental right (She also ruled in another case that it is illegal for citizens to keep nunchakus in their homes). Judge Sotomayor's record suggests hostility, rather than empathy, for the tens of millions of Americans who exercise their right to keep and bear arms. Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, said that her views reflect Obama’s views on the Second Amendment. Sotomayor even ruled this year (Maloney v. Cuomo) that states don’t have to obey the Second Amendment’s proclamation of the citizens’ right to keep and bear arms. I don‘t agree with Sonia on the 2nd Amendment at all. I believe in gun rights for individuals. Sonia is Roman Catholic and Bill Donahue of the Catholic League supports her even though Bill is more conservative than Sonia Sotomayor. This is strange, because Bill supports her for her religious beliefs (when he has a fundamentally different political philosophy than her). So, the truth is that Sonia Sotomayor should be respected for her accomplishments in her life, but there are still questions on what she really believes on political issues. Sotomayor seems to have a good record on the First Amendment and a mixed record on the Fourth Amendment.

The War on Gun Rights





The war on gun rights is real. The 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution perfectly says that citizens have a right to bear arms as exposed by these words: "..A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The Founding Fathers uniformly believed that the people had the individual right to bear arms. According to the writings cited in "That Every Man Be Armed." "Mr. Madison has introduced long-expected amendments…It contains a bill of rights…the right of the people to bear arms." -Trench Coxe (p. 76). Even the Supreme Court in the Heller vs. D.C. case says that the Second Amendment pertains to individual gun rights. People may deny that some people want to take away our guns, but some do. One example is how Diane Feinstein desired to ban firearms from citizens. The Violence Policy Center group says that: "...“gun] Licensing systems are very expensive to administer ... licensing and registration in America would have little effect on the vast majority of gun violence.” “[We are] the largest national gun control advocacy group seeking a ban on handgun production.” (“Politics, paranoia fuel war of words over guns”, The Times Union, October 18, 2004). Janet Reno said: "The most effective means of fighting crime in the United States is to outlaw the possession of any type of firearm by the civilian populace." (Addressing a 1984 B'nai B'rith gathering in Coral Gables, Florida, per affidavit written by Fred Diamond of Miami). Barack Obama may not want to do it, but he supports so much anti-gun restrictions that even innocent citizens will be greatly restricted on how they possess a firearms. There are stories where those with guns have saved other people's lives.






Some dissent with that anti-gun agenda of the elite so much that some states are trying to take action. Montana wants to stop federal gun control laws. Montana's proposed gun laws may have the basis for a court showdown over states' rights (if the governor signs a bill to release some firearms in the state from federal regulation). The proposed law aims to exempt firearms, weapons components and ammunition made in Montana and kept in Montana from federal gun laws. The bill wants to prevent federal gun laws from effecting Montana, because Montana already has gun laws there. This can allow gunowners and seller to not be bound under federal regulations, license requirements, and background checks completely. "We'd like to just be able to make our own guns here in Montana and have the feds stay out of it," said Gary Marbut of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, which helped draft the bill. House Bill 246 sailed through the Montana Legislature, but Democratic Gov. Brian Schweitzer has not yet offered a position on the measure, which awaits his action. The federal ATF hadn't made a firm position on the issue. "ATF is not going to take a position on this because we don't make any of the laws, we just enforce the laws that Congress makes," said Carrie DiPirro. DiPirro is the spokeswoman for the Denver field division, which oversees Montana. Congress can regulate interstate commerce as the Constitution says. This is why some promote gun regulation in America. In essence, those in Montanta want the House Bill 246 to pass, because it promotes state's rights. The Second Amendment or gun rights is great to promote. Barack Obama may not want to ban all guns in America, but some of his allies do. Even Eric Holder supported the D.C. gun ban. That's all the more reason to promote the truth and perserve the right of self defense (even using arms if necessary). There are a record number of people owning guns now. According to Ammoland.com, data released by the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) reported 1,225,980 checks in April 2009. This figure is a 30.3 percent increase from the 940,961 reported in April 2008.







Anti-Gun people are coming out in force. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand is a Democrat. She acts like she is apart of the so-called Blue Dog Coalition, but she plans on introducing an assault weapons ban weeks ago. Kirsten is a junior Senator from NY that the NRA at one time rated her high (because of her supposed advocacy of the 2nd Amendment when she isn't now). She even posed with fellow gun grabber Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Even Newsday said that Gillibrand transformed into an anti-gun zealot over the course of 3 months. Rep. Caroyln McCarthy brainwashed her to support many anti-gun policies like closing the gun show loophole, etc. Polls indicate a large percentage of voters strongly support the Second Amendment. McCarthy's new bill called H.R. 6676 wants to utilize the National Instant Criminal Background Check System for background checks on all gun store employees and dealers. This is a violation of individual privacy of course. The federal government has no right to know your gun records without due process at all. There are 3 other bills that would make it illegal for known or suspected terrorists to buy guns. See, "suspected" doesn't mean you're a terrorist. It means suspected, so potentially innocent citizens can be illegally deprived of their gun rights for just being classified as "suspected terrorists" by the government. The House is currently working on H.R. 2159, The Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009, which is being sponsored by Republican Rep. Peter King of New York. The bill would “increase public safety by permitting the Attorney General to deny the transfer of a firearm or the issuance of firearms or explosives licenses to a known or suspected dangerous terrorist.” Larry Pratt said that people who are advocates of the 2nd Amendment are called terrorists by the DHS "Rightwing Extremism" report, so they could be deprived of their gun rights. Senator Gillibrand is working closely with gun-grabbing organizations, including New Yorkers Against Gun Violence and the Brady Campaign, according to Matt Canter, Gillibrand’s spokesman. She sold out to anti-gun special interest groups. Of course, the NYC Police Commissioner Ray Kelly love this. This comes under the back drop of the lie that 90% of the guns used to commit crimes in Mexico comes from America. The truth is that only 17 percent of guns found at Mexican crime scenes have been traced to the U.S. Statistics reveal that most of the guns flowing into Mexico come from the black market, Russian crime organizations, South America, Asia, Guatemala, and the Mexican Army. Some want the assault weapons ban despite of it having no effect on crimes using guns virtually. Democrats are fearful of backlash have told the Obama administration they would “actively oppose” any renewal of the assault weapons ban. Democrat senators Jon Tester and Max Baucus warned they would “strongly oppose any legislation that will infringe upon the rights of individual gun owners.” The government regularly exploits gun violence as an excuse to target innocent law abiding citizens instead of solving moral issues in the right way. Solutions are teaching moral principles in society, education, build up communities, don't allow criminals to own a gun, and have concealed carry laws among citizens. It's imperative for us to learn about the tactics of politicans in trying to destroy the Second Amendment completely.



Some in the LAPD are at it again. There is a CBS news clip in California. It was featured prominently on the front page of Yahoo.com. It talked about how the LAPD are melting down 40,000 lbs. worth of "illegal weapons." They are doing this in their claim of preventing criminals from owning them. Yet, the catch is that most of these guns that are being destroyed are perfectly legal and were handed in by law abiding citizens (they kept them in their own home). The propaganda about this situation is staggering for those who know about firearms. The CBS clip gives the impression that all guns are illegal and owned by criminals. This is despite of the fact that the vast majority of the guns shown to be melted down are rilfes and pistols. These weapons are perfectly legal. “We’re taking illegal weapons off the streets and putting them to better use,” states the LAPD officer at the end of the clip, failing to mention the fact that most of the guns being destroyed are perfectly legal (and were handed in by law-abiding citizens who had kept them at home). The anchor believes that the weapons could of ended up in the hands of criminals, which is a lie since some law abiding citizens gave up their own guns to be destroyed. The media is implying that the LAPD is going us a favor by destroying legal firearems. Only fully automatic firearms can be deemed “illegal,” yet most of the guns shown in the clip, which include a M1 carbine, used in deer hunting, a Walther PPK pistol, as well as a Winchester Ranger Model 120 shotgun. These weapons are completely legal to own. One officer showed a street sweeper Tommy gun, which is legal. The new anchors say that guns are delievered off the streets. The LAPD admits that they actually want legal guns destroyed by saying: “It’s not just criminals but people who have them in their homes that really didn’t want them - that’s where you get the kids accidentally shooting themselves.” The reality is that hardened criminals who want to commit more criminal actions in the future could care less about sending their guns to the police. Law abiding citizens giving up their guns could be defenseless from a home invasion by a real criminal. It's Orwellian doublespeak to assume that legal firearms are "illegal weapons." The good news is that more and more people understand that the Second Amendment is about individuals having the right to own guns if they want to. If you are an innocent citizen, the government has no right to steal your guns at all. The police have done worse by stealing weapons from innocent people in the world before from Chicago to New Orleans.



There has been some good news with gun rights. This story is found in the link of: http://www.abcactionnews.com/news/local/story/Tampa-woman-stops-armed-carjacker-with-her-own-gun/lzk5OlbYpkC5occGcyQP_w.cspx. A Tampa woman stops an armed carjacker with her own gun. She refused to be a victim. A person gun on her car in May of 2009. The woman wanted to identify herself as "Adrianna." "I just leaned forward and punched him in the forehead with my gun," she said. The man "screamed like a girl and almost dropped his gun" as he ran away, she added. The Tampa police have arrested one suspect so far in what they see a pattern of carjackings. A-Keem Carr was arrested on related charges, but 2 others are believed to be preying on motorists in the Westshore area. Adrianna was pulling into the International Mall when the armed man jumped in her car. She talked about defending herself. "I didn't want to have to shoot...anyway over a car. But if it was going to be him or me..." Tampa Police warn the suspects are becoming more aggressive and may be prone to violence. Adrianna did the right thing to protect herself from a criminal. Now, the Second Amendment has been a key law that saved tons of lives throughout America for centuries.


By Timothy