Image 01 Image 03

Judge Jeanine Pirro on Boston lockdown: “You want me to believe I’m safer without a gun?”

Judge Jeanine Pirro on Boston lockdown: “You want me to believe I’m safer without a gun?”

At the time of the lockdown of Boston after the bombing, I noted that the Boston lock-down exposes gun culture divide over the issue of whether citizens hold up in their homes would be safer if armed.

That suggestion caused a vehement reaction from liberals on Twitter, including the now infamous suggestion from one Bostonian that they didn’t need to own guns because they were “educated, wealthy, and pay taxes” to have police protect them (ending with a rather colorful suggestion).

At the NRA convention, Judge Jeanine Piro gave a rousing speech on the very subject of owning a gun at home in time of crisis:

Here’s the full speech:


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Gots to love the ladies who understand the right to self-defense!

When seconds count, the police are ten minutes away. Good luck!

Excuse my cursing,

but DAMN! I love this lady! I usually never watch her show, but I have such respect for her, and thanks Professor for posting this video!

Everyday, I realize how much the dems have lied to people like me, former dems, thankfully now with the internet, the dems and the marxist liberals (I’m a classical liberal), are losing their grip on people who are independent minded and fell for their lies in the past. They can no longer control the narrative! and oh yeah, they will try to hold on to that power, the MSM “news” will try their hardest!

The police do not protect individuals from harm unless the officer is present at the time the harm is to occur. The police investigate after the fact. They can prevent harm only in special circumstances like when somebody is planning to bomb a race and they have a way to know about it.

Each individual must protect himself/herself because he/she is the one who is present when the harm is about to occur.

I speak as a former city police officer. We take good reports and conduct good investigations after the fact but we do not prevent individuals from harm except in rare circumstances. The judge is on the mark.

    Ragspierre in reply to ralphm27. | May 6, 2013 at 9:22 am

    Or…as I say…

    “To Protect And Serve” is false advertising.

    It should be…

    “To SOMETIMES Avenge And Tidy Up”

God bless that woman!!!

centaurhunter | May 6, 2013 at 5:07 pm

A friend and I were talking about the people who videoed the gunfight from across the street. There is no doubt in my mind what red-blooded Southerners would have done in that circumstance. And the SOBs would’ve been lucky to only take fire from one balcony.