View Full Version : Ohio Rep Becomes Pro-Gun after Armed Attack
Tuesday, 15 May 2007
The Cleveland Plain Dealer is reporting that State Representative Michael DeBose (D-Cleveland) is seeking an Ohio Concealed Handgun License after twice voting against the concealed carry laws that were passed in 2004.
Unfortunately, like many people, it took the survival of a violent attack for Rep. DeBose to understand the importance of the innate right guaranteed by the Ohio Constitution: "The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security."
The loud muffler on a car that slowly passed as he was finishing the walk caught his attention, though. When the car stopped directly in front of his house - three houses from where he stood - he knew there was going to be a problem.
"There was a tall one and a short one," DeBose said, sipping on a McDonald's milkshake and recounting the experience Friday.
"The tall one reached in his pocket and pulled out a silver gun. And they both started running towards me."
"At first I just backed up, but then I turned around and started running and screaming."
It is a terrible fact of life that we live in a society that includes dangerous people willing to rob and murder law-abiding citizens. Thankfully, this criminal chose not to fire and take Representative DeBose's life as he was running away.
Hopefully, more and more people throughout our state and in our Statehouse will realize the importance of self-defense and follow in the footsteps of Representative DeBose in supporting Ohio's very successful concealed carry laws so that others may have the chance to not have their life ended by the whims of a crazed, armed robber.
Representative DeBose now realizes that:
"I was wrong," he said Friday.
"I'm going to get a permit and so is my wife.
"I've changed my mind. You need a way to protect yourself and your family.
"I don't want to hurt anyone. But I never again want to be in the position where I'm approached by someone with a gun and I don't have one."
DeBose said he knows that a gun doesn't solve Cleveland's violence problem; it's merely a street equalizer.
"There are too many people who are just evil and mean-spirited. They will hurt you for no reason. If more people were packing guns, it might serve as a deterrent.
http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/phillip_morris/index.ssf?/base/opinion/1179218274175560.xml&coll=2
CoLawman
05-15-2007, 12:27
What a weasel! This argument has been made for years and had no impact on his stance. Now when it becomes personal he changes his mind. Egocentric elitist.
This weasel, not only turned and ran screaming, he was probably screaming in a high shrill voice!
dr. mabuse
05-15-2007, 13:19
*
5POINT56
05-17-2007, 11:43
And amazing how many of those who vote against concealed carry have armed security themselves.
No objections to the guns protecting them....just the gun I carry for my own safety.
This weasel, not only turned and ran screaming, he was probably screaming in a high shrill voice!
Not funny but you still cracked me up. I got a mental flash of you calling after him "Hey, your shoes untied." and him stopping to look.
The crooks broke off their chase as a result of this guy screaming like a girl, or does he run a 4.3 40?
must be one of those "runs faster scared than you do angry" types...
longrange1947
05-18-2007, 17:31
Personnally I do not care why he changed, he changed and that is a good thing. Now he has an expeience that he can relate to the other "protected" liberals and say "this s**t ain't a game, we need to be armed." If anything will change a hide bound liberals' mind it is another liberal "all shook up."
We just need more of them to change their BB brains. :D
skeeter8654
05-18-2007, 21:36
Representative DeBose now realizes that:
"I was wrong," he said Friday. ]
I think that's commendable. Gotta give him credit for publicly admitting that, rather than apply for the permit on the sly and claim that he has special needs as a public figure, like Rosie O'Donnell, Charles Schumer, and Diane Feinstein.
Yesterday, the Cleveland PD ran 3 letters to the editor regarding this issue. All Anti-Gun, and all slamming his change of attitude. True to form, no letters of a Pro-Gun nature were printed.
Personnally I do not care why he changed, he changed and that is a good thing. Now he has an expeience that he can relate to the other "protected" liberals and say "this s**t ain't a game, we need to be armed." If anything will change a hide bound liberals' mind it is another liberal "all shook up."
We just need more of them to change their BB brains. :D
Well said Longrange. If they that have the power to vote would come out of their protective bubbles, it would be real easy for them to see the rational of reponsible armed citizens.
It kind of reminds me of the time when rosie was on her soapbox against people having the right to defend themselves with a handgun, and then facts came out about her bodyguard.
NRA-ILA FAX ALERT
Vol. 7, No. 22 6/2/00
"ROSIE THE HYPOCRITE" OR "ROSIE THE PARANOID"?
Rosie O'Donnell, fast becoming the nation's most outspoken anti-gun extremist, has been having a tough time with the media lately. Last week, it was revealed in the press that one of the beleaguered talk-show host's bodyguards has applied for a permit to carry a concealed firearm in Connecticut (see FAX Alert Vol. 7, No. 22).
In light of her past statements that only the police should be allowed to own firearms, and that gun owners should be jailed, this latest revelation had many in the media calling O'Donnell a hypocrite. Now Rosie is trying to defend her anti-gun, and thus anti-personal protection, views while also defending her employment of bodyguards most Americans simply cannot afford.
She started with her on-line newsletter, where she claimed to speak for all "gun control advocates," stating "[o]ur mission is NOT to prevent law abiding citizens...from owning a licensed and registered gun.... We are not trying to take away your gun...."
Her newsletter then went on to criticize the newspaper that reported the story, and then claimed that the local police were "politically motivated" when they investigated whether or not the bodyguard O'Donnell had stationed outside her son's school was illegally carrying a firearm.
Either Rosie does not believe that the police should investigate possible criminal acts when they involve celebrities, or she has simply convinced herself that she is the target of some conspiracy. She also doesn't seem to want people to think that she is responsible in any way for her having professionals hired to protect her and her family, as her newsletter closes by stating her bodyguard "works for a security firm" (a rather pointless assertion, as most bodyguards do), and that the firm was hired by Warner Bros., which employs O'Donnell. However, she earlier stated "I chose to have a ‘bodyguard' for my children." So is it her decision or Warner Bros.?
Rosie's next attempt to defend her hypocrisy and paranoia came on Thursday, when she appeared on NBC's Today with Katie Couric. O'Donnell reiterated her claim that a local Connecticut police department has targeted her for political reasons, and implied that the media has treated her unfairly by reporting her "do as I say, not as I do" attitude.
Rosie did reveal to Couric, however, that she has had armed security protecting her home from time to time while at the same time she continues to promote restrictions on Americans who wish to provide for their own protection. O'Donnell even made the outrageous implication that NRA has somehow attempted to scare and threaten her.
But some efforts to further her gun control agenda actually made some of our points. She complained that the article about her security guard exposed the fact that he was currently unarmed, and that she felt the illusion that he might be armed added to his effectiveness as a deterrent to violent, criminal attacks. Of course, advocates of Right to Carry laws have been saying for years that if criminals don't know who is armed, but know that virtually any of their potential victims might be armed, then they will be less likely to attack anybody.
This view is supported by extensive research, including that done by Yale senior research scholar John R. Lott, Jr., which evolved into the 1998 book More Guns, Less Crime, the seminal work on the benefits of fair, non-discretionary Right to Carry laws. As stated last week, though, we doubt Rosie is about to support the Right to Carry movement and help lobby for the passage of laws establishing such systems -- especially considering rumors circulating that the talk-show host is being groomed as the new spokesperson for HCI.
With O'Donnell's television future in question (there are rumors that her TV show will not be back next year because of sagging ratings), and Sarah Brady apparently looking to step down from HCI's helm, Rosie would appear to be ready to step into a role for which she has been rehearsing.
Col:
I gotta agree with Longrange1947 on this one. Sorry Bro. I am just glad he changed his mind too. Maybe I should run around the neighborhood with a mask and a gun. Might change some minds too!:eek:
With NEO being a very large "Metroplex" and most every newspaper run by Liberals, I wouldn't expect anything different from them. You want to see a very large, Liberal newspaper, try reading the Akron Beacon Journal once. It will make you sick and/or angry.:mad: