Please close this window
Domestic violence myths
What Islam is Not, a video
Dec 26, 2008
Pobre México…: Last year, around 2,500
Mexicans died in the twin wars drug cartels are waging against each other and
against the Mexican state, using weapons smuggled in from the United States. In
the first 11 months of this year, the death toll was 5,367, according to the
Mexican attorney general. Next year? …Weak Mexican border controls rarely
feature in official or academic reports on a problem that has prompted some
experts and U.S. publications to wonder whether Mexico is a “failing state”.
That’s the headline over a cover story on Mexico in the latest edition of the
business magazine Forbes. Mexican officials reject the label. But privately,
they concede that Mexican authorities are doing a less-than-thorough job in
searching and monitoring north-south traffic. They tend to point in the other
direction, to the easy availability of guns in the United States, the armory of
Mexico’s criminal mafias… (A popular quotation in Mexico translates as “Poor
Mexico! So far from God and so close to the United States.” Mexico has a long
tradition of pointing fingers to the north, to divert attention from the
systematic rape of the nation by its own corrupt politicians and functionaries.
Full-auto AK-47’s abound in the hands of Mexican drug gangs; these are much more
likely to have come in from the south than the north, as does the cocaine that
is trans-shipped to the US. Mexican army armories contain virtually every modern
firearm of potential military use and the drug gangs routinely subvert members
of that army. How is infringing on the RKBA in the US going to deprive those
gangsters of firearms? At best, from Mexico’s standpoint, it would only shift
1 Dec 08 from John Farnum and Stephen Wenger
Just talked with friends at SA this morning. Backlogs for M1As are running four
to twelve weeks, depending on the flavor. Most in demand is, not surprisingly,
is the sixteen-inch-barreled SOCOM. Next in line is the "Scout," which is
essentially the same thing with an eighteen-inch barrel. The twenty-inch
"Standard" version is next. We've had a number of SOCOMs in Urban Rifle
Courses, and they've all run just fine! 20-round magazines are in good supply.
XDMs are also in short supply. Standard XDs, less so. There are no plans to
gradually phase-out the XD in favor of the XDM. Both pistols will remain in
production. The XD is "plain-vanilla," while the XDM represents the
more-expensive premium pistol with extra features and increased capacity. Both
run and run!
SA, since its inception, has had some rocky periods, but they are currently
producing excellent products, and customer service is also very good.
The Garand-inspired, M14 platform is hard to beat!
(I was in the last cycle to take Basic Combat Training with the M14 at Ft.
Lewis, the end of 1969 and the beginning of 1970. Except for it quirk of having
to “hook in” the magazine, I always considered it a fine rifle and was
surprised, decades later, to find historians knocking it. I am told that with
the last of the M14’s in Navy stock wearing out, the government has contracted
for a few runs of M1A’s from Springfield Armory.)
Friends at FA tell me they are backlogged, like everyone else:
Most in demand is their standard M14, similar to SA's "Standard" M1A. Backlog
is twelve weeks, and growing!
Next in line is the M1 Carbine, with a backlog of eight weeks.
Their wonderful Garand rifle, available in 30-06, 308, and 270, is also eight
weeks out, longer for those who want the shorter "Tanker" version.
Magazines are in good supply.
The owner of Fulton Armory is a perfectionist, and all his rifles are exquisite,
albeit pricy! Customer service is second to none.
2 Dec 08
Fire extinguishers are now considered a "hazard" in the UK!
All fire extinguishers may be forcibly removed from apartment buildings, and
individual residences, throughout the UK! Government eggheads have decided that
fire extinguishers represent a threat, because their presence encourages
"untrained people" to take (God forbid!) personal initiative and actually
extinguish a fire, rather than simply fleeing the building!
"Risk assessors" further pontificated that typical citizens (aka: "idiots")
might point fire extinguishers in the wrong direction, or use the wrong
extinguishers. They just can't be trusted to do anything right! Besides, they
add, with new building regulations, every escape route "should be" fireproof.
I am left to wonder about those confronting small fires in their kitchens.
Do you suppose there is even a slight chance they might just figure out how to
actually use a fire extinguisher for its intended purpose? They're awfully
complicated, you know!
I also wonder if all those who are trapped and subsequently burned to death in
"fireproof" escape routes will find these risk assessors' assurances comforting!
Comment: Among ordained collectivists, every possibility of personal initiative
must be suffocated! This is the same thinking that underpins anti-gun
politics in this country. They only want victims. Being a "good victim" is
thus one's ultimate civic responsibility!
(If memory serves, this is the same nation that created the unsinkable
2 Dec 08
Bombay, India, 2008
Since throwing off British occupation in the last century, India has rabidly
tried to rid itself of everything that so much as smells British, even changing
names of cities (Bombay to Mumbai, for example)!
Unfortunately, one British legacy to which succeeding generations of cowardly
politicians have held fast is anti-gun fanaticism, the black curse Britain
inflicted upon all her colonies. Today, the licensing process for an Indian
citizen to legally acquire a firearm is so complex and bewildering that few even
make the effort (kind of like NYC, eh?). In addition, guns cannot be legally
imported for non-government consumption, so there isn't much of a selection
Accordingly, India has no "gun-culture," which means there are no competent
instructors who are able to teach even those few police who are ostensibly
"armed." The resultant incompetence of Indian police was on public display last
week. As terrorist sieges of hotels proceeded unabated, and innocents were
being mercilessly gunned down left and right, arriving police, even though
armed, milled about aimlessly and did nothing, for hours and hours! They were
more afraid of their own firearms than they were of terrorists. The only
activities at which they showed any real acumen was cowering and hiding!
As a result, a team of armed, foreign terrorists went about their deadly
program, with virtually no interference from police, nor anyone else, because,
in India, good people are, by law, unarmed! The city, indeed the entire nation,
was paralyzed, for days. Bodies piled up!
Even Gandhi cursed the British, and the gutless Indian politicians who followed
"Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the
act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."
Well, this evil "black curse" is still alive and well today, and it still
arouses power-mad politicians (not too much of a redundancy!) in every corner of
In the aftermath, predictably, the current gallery of entrenched Indian
politicians and bureaucrats will scurry about, trying desperately to convey the
false impression that they are actually doing something. Of course, they will
accomplish nothing, and, in a week or two, everything will be back to normal, as
if nothing had ever happened.
However, foreign visitors have taken notice! India, and many other countries,
are no longer attractive as places to do business, nor even visit! So long as
west-hating terrorists can expect little interference, much less active
opposition, from the local "government," Westerners and western business
interests will stay away, and should!
Indian politicians, British politicians, indeed most politicians, prefer dead
victims to live heroes, and always will. Well, they were granted their wish
In 2009, we can expect more episodes like the one in Bombay, and, in view of the
foregoing, there is scant reason to hope for different results!
Once again: You're on our own. Dress appropriately!
3 Dec 08
Stay put, or get out?
During the terrorist attack of a building, those caught inside need to make a
decision immediately. Should I stay put, or attempt to escape?
Of course, there is no risk-free option! Indeed, either option is fraught with
danger, but here are lessons from recent events:
1) "Rescue" is a lot further off than you think! It will take several days for
authorities and tactical teams to arrive, assemble, get organized, make a plan,
and begin actively seeking out terrorists and innocent victims. You'll have to
hold out all that time. When captured, you probably won't! Those wounded, when
they remain where they are, will likely bleed to death long before any
possibility of their being rescued. Bottom line: "rescue" is mostly myth!
2) Escape is likely to be successful sooner, rather than later. At the
beginning of the event, confusion is king! Everyone is bewildered, shocked, and
disorganized, including terrorists. No terrorists plan ever goes exactly as
anticipated, and, in the beginning, terrorists are at the weakest and least
ordered. Eventually, terrorists will consolidate their gains, cut off all
escape routes, murder, tie up, or otherwise incapacitate hostages, and rig
the building with explosives. Thus, the longer you delay, the less likely that
your escape attempt will be successful.
3) A "lock-down" does little more that herd people into coffins! When
instructed by "authorities" to stay put, get out immediately! Don't worry about
venturing into "unauthorized" areas. Get out of and away from the building any
way you can, and as quickly as possible.
4) Avoid upper floors of hotels. Stay on the first or second floor. That way,
you can escape out a window without being confronted with a suicidal fall. Tie
bed-sheets together to make a descent rope, when necessary
5) When staying in a hotel, never unpack! Keep everything packed-up and ready
for instant departure.
6) In foreign hotels, the registration system is linked to passports and can be
used by terrorists (who know exactly how it works) to identify you as a US
Citizen. Accordingly, find a reason to change rooms, even floors, every few
days. The tactic will throw the system into confusion. It will be difficult
for anyone to know exactly where you are.
7) Likewise, switch cabs often. Notice when the driver talks on his
radio/cell-phone the moment you depart the vehicle. All drivers are suspect!
None can be trusted.
8) Likewise, keep note of behavioral and routine changes on the part of hotel
staff and endemic locals. Terrorist plans are hard to keep secret, and the word
often leaks out among locals. When you notice significant alterations in their
routines, it's time for you to depart!
9) Get to know folks at the Marine Detachment associated with the US Embassy.
They can tell you, in real time, what is going on locally, without the heavily
filtered/sanitized "official" State Department party line.
10) If not a gun, locally acquire several good blades and have them with you
always. Dispose of them prior to departure.
11) Most importantly, act at the critical moment! Don't become a victim of the
"paralysis-of-analysis." Avoid capture at all costs! Don't wait to be
rescued. Stay in motion. Keep your head up. Watch your back. Don't relax too
soon! Kill without hesitation, when necessary.
Why Liberals Love Gun Control
If there is one thing
liberals love more than banning Christianity from public schools it is creating
ineffective gun control laws. Despite centuries of evidence that gun control
laws do not lower crime, stop violence, or make society safer in any way,
liberals keep plugging away at our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
I am not going to weary you with a regurgitation of all the well known
statistics showing how strict gun control laws are followed by sharp spikes in
violent crime rates or with arguments asking the left to explain its
intellectual consistency behind their view that the only remedy to a failed gun
control law is the creation of another gun control law just like it. The real
question in the gun control debate is not the statistics or the nuances of the
law but why in the first place liberals are so preoccupied with making it harder
for law abiding citizens to carry a gun.
Gun control laws are as old as America, stretching far back into the early
Colonial period. As far as the United States as a political entity is concerned,
the first gun control law came less than one year after the ratification of the
2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights with the “Uniform Militia Act of 1792.” In
the Act, every “able bodied white male citizen” between the ages of 18 and 45
was to be enrolled in the state militia and was required to “provide himself
with a musket or firelock, a bayonet, and ammunition.” In early America, it was
not a question of “if” you had the right to bear arms, but whether or not you
would be “required” to own a gun. This Act is significant for two reasons. First
it shows the intent of the Framers was that every citizen was considered part of
the militia, therefore, no citizen could have their right to bear arms curtailed
by the government. Second, with the Act designating “white males” as citizens
and part of the militia, it effectively deigned slaves and even free
African-Americans their newly declared Constitutional rights.
It is quite obvious that there were many in early America who did not want
slaves, or those sympathizing with their suffering, from having access to guns.
Why? Well, it is pretty simple. If slaves had guns, then they would not have
been slaves for much longer. Firearms would be used by slaves as a tool to
overthrow their oppressors just as the American Colonists had done against the
British and demand their full rights and dignity as citizens. The “Uniform
Militia Act of 1792” opened a door that was used by many states to pass follow
up legislation that made it illegal not just for African-Americans to carry or
own a gun, but to even use one unless under orders from their “master.” From its
inception, gun control was a vehicle to deny basic rights, prevent self defense,
and oppress citizens.
Gun control laws still disproportionately regulate the African-American
community, but now our benign liberal leaders want to spread the oppression
about a bit more fairly. But the goal is the same. Gun control does nothing but
oppress a population, deny them basic rights, make them subservient to the
government, and prevent them from changing their collective conditions at the
time of their choosing, rather than at the sanction of the State. Liberals do
not want you making your own decisions anymore than they did the slaves. That is
their job. How can they possibly restructure society so a Republican is never
elected President again if people are running around not doing what they are
told? Liberals love gun control for the simple fact that it directly impacts the
most independent, self reliant, and free thinking of us as demonstrated by our
refusal to proxy our personal protection out to an unaccountable government.
The goal of gun control is not to actually control guns and make the world a
safer place, but to control people. It is not as important for you can pass a
criminal background check so much as it is that you feel obligated to ask the
state for permission to buy a gun. Liberals know gun control laws will not stop
criminals, but it will erode the sense of independence and self reliance of
regular people until they feel that they can do nothing that does not meet
Gun owners choose to protect themselves, thank you very much. They do not need
government protection anymore than any of the other ill conceived plans of the
left. And that is why the liberals want to control their guns. It is the only
means they have to directly control the lives of those who would otherwise go on
The opinions expressed
in this column represent those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the
opinions, views, or philosophy of TheRealityCheck.org, Inc.
[Bill] Clinton, the entire federal government put massive pressure on banks to
grant more mortgages to the poor and minorities. Clinton’s secretary of Housing
and Urban Development, Andrew Cuomo, investigated Fannie Mae for racial
discrimination and proposed that 50 percent of Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s
portfolio be made up of loans to low- to moderate-income borrowers by the year
2001. Instead of looking at ‘outdated criteria,’ such as the mortgage
applicant’s credit history and ability to make a down payment, banks were
encouraged to consider nontraditional measures of credit-worthiness, such as
having a good jump shot or having a missing child named ‘Caylee.’ Threatening
lawsuits, Clinton’s Federal Reserve demanded that banks treat welfare payments
and unemployment benefits as valid income sources to qualify for a mortgage.
That isn’t a joke—it’s a fact. ... In 1999, liberals were bragging about
extending affirmative action to the financial sector.
Los Angeles Times reporter Ron
Brownstein hailed the Clinton administration’s affirmative action lending
policies as one of the ‘hidden success stories’ of the Clinton administration,
saying that ‘black and Latino homeownership has surged to the highest level ever
recorded.’ Meanwhile, economists were screaming from the rooftops that the
Democrats were forcing mortgage lenders to issue loans that would fail the
moment the housing market slowed and deadbeat borrowers couldn’t get out of
their loans by selling their houses. A decade later, the housing bubble burst
and, as predicted, food-stamp-backed mortgages collapsed. Democrats set an
affirmative action time-bomb and now it’s gone off.” —Ann
years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac... and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role
they play in the housing market... If Congress does not act, American taxpayers
will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a
McCain arguing for passage of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory
Reform Act (S. 190) which he co-sponsored in 2005.
Sen. McCain is being pilloried by his opponent,
Barack Hussein Obama, for asserting (correctly) last week that the
fundamentals of most U.S. economic sectors are sound, clearly, Sen. McCain has
understood for years that irresponsible lending practices for U.S. housing posed
“enormous risk... to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the
economy as a whole.”
Obama was out politicking this week, ostensibly itching for a debate that he’d
been avoiding all summer, McCain suspended his campaign to work with Republicans
outlining conditions for an agreement that would both protect the American
taxpayer and thwart a meltdown of the U.S. economy. So, “Country First” is not
just a campaign slogan...
enormous risk that Sen. McCain warned of in 2005 has now become a financial
crisis of staggering proportions. That crisis can trace its roots to Bill
Clinton’s signature on legislation making it easier for minority constituents
with bad credit to obtain mortgages. In 1995, he had his Treasury Secretary,
Robert Rubin, rewrite the lending rules for the Community Reinvestment Act,
opening the flood gates of mortgage lending to unqualified borrowers.
legislation, in effect, applied affirmative action to the lending industry,
which is to say that the current crisis is NOT a “free market failure” but the
result of socially engineered financial policy by the central government. The
financial markets welcomed their new customers with open arms, fueling a real
estate boom across the board.
so-called “subprime mortgages,” which were offered at variable interest rates,
were widely perceived as good investments. Investors used the high-risk
instruments to secure assets in other markets fueling profits for investment
banks and mortgage lenders. The subprime market thus expanded rapidly and the
mortgage instruments were used by other firms as collateral for investments in
stocks, commodities and the like.
Unfortunately, no one questioned the pell-mell regulatory system of oversight
for these transactions until large cracks appeared in our economy’s foundation,
the first being the collapse of Countrywide, the nation’s largest subprime
lender. Then banks and mortgage lenders large and small began downsizing,
dumping assets and closing their doors. Bear Stearns filed for bankruptcy.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, holders of trillions of dollars in mortgages, were
bailed out with 200 billion taxpayer dollars. Lehman Brothers filed for
bankruptcy, and insurance giant AIG was given an $85-billion taxpayer prop to
keep it solvent.
morning, as Congress is debating whether to implement the Democrat-backed
“bailout plan” or the Republican-backed “workout plan,” Washington Mutual Inc.
has been seized by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) after
collapsing under the weight of reams of bad mortgages. WaMu, listing $307
billion in assets, becomes the largest bank failure in U.S. history. The FDIC
sold WaMu’s assets for $1.9 billion to JPMorgan Chase & Co., which bought Bear
Stearns Cos. earlier this year.
(Congressional Republicans might also consider repeal of Sarbox, the
Sarbanes-Oxley Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act of
2002, which has maintained a choke hold on financial institutions and is high on
the list of proximate causes for the failure of Countrywide and Bear Stearns.)
serious economic calamity confronting our nation, and the world, is being
labeled a “credit crisis.” But we are on the verge of a crisis of cascading
confidence in the U.S. economy, which, in the absence of aggressive
intervention, could, no, will
result in a dramatic recession affecting every sector of the U.S. and,
eventually, world economy.
catastrophe looming just over the horizon is indeed that big, and we must all
hope that the solution is big enough to interrupt the domino effect already
question that must be asked, however, is whether the people’s confidence in
their government is sufficient to thwart this cascading effect. Far more often
than not, in the inimitable words of
Ronald Reagan, “Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is
the problem.” Of course, the only institution big enough to address a problem of
this magnitude is the government.
Essentially, perception defines value, and the shared confidence in our
perception of the value of one major sector of our economy, the housing market,
has eroded dramatically.
understand the notion of perceived value, consider all that paper we call
currency. If I walk into a store and pull out one of these pieces of paper with
Ben Franklin’s picture handsomely printed upon it, the store proprietor will
accept that paper in trade for some of his products or services because he
believes it to have intrinsic value (which it once did, when it was backed by
hard assets—gold and silver). But make no mistake: The value of that piece of
paper is nothing more than it is perceived to be. Thus, if the proprietor’s
confidence in that perception becomes diminished, he may begin to think such a
piece of paper is worth only half its face value, or perhaps nothing at all.
And if my
paper is perceived to have no value, I will not be able to do commerce in this
or any other store.
decades, our confidence in the perceived value of pieces of paper called
mortgages has been growing rapidly, and because the prevailing perception has
been that a house will be worth more tomorrow than it is today, financial
institutions have aggressively enabled buyers to assume mortgages to purchase
houses. (Actually, mortgages are now traded electronically as binary data—value
in recent years, confidence in the perceived value of real estate has outpaced
reality, as mortgage defaults have trended upward. That realization has resulted
in what now has become a precipitous erosion of confidence in the value of real
estate, and consequently, housing market values have collapsed in many areas of
the country where they were unduly inflated.
perception can be shaped and molded, reality is finite. The reality, in this
case, is that a house and its outstanding mortgage are worth not a nickel more
than a buyer is willing to and capable of paying for it.
devaluation of mortgages has had an enormous financial impact on institutions
that trade in “packaged mortgages,” and consequently, on other institutions that
trade with them, and, well you get the picture. The dominos have begun to fall.
in an effort to keep their domino standing, because of the potential that any
new lending would result in additional foreclosure exposure if the housing
market continues to decline, banks have tightened lending in order to preserve
the capital necessary to cover the cost of a growing number of foreclosures.
This constriction of the money supply extends far beyond the housing markets, as
loans for business development and expansion are also drying up.
combination of events creates the perfect economic storm, and it has dire
consequences for all
Confidence in the perceived value of financial instruments, which are the
foundation of our economy, is calculated minute by minute by indices such as Dow
Jones, Standard and Poor’s, and other measures of financial markets. These
measurements amount to investor confidence indices, polls of investor perception
about the strength and stability of the economy. The stability and direction of
these indices are a good indication of investor confidence.
indices indicate significant instability of investor confidence, that
instability can cause the financial markets to collapse in a single day. (See:
it’s important to note that the vast majority of Americans are among the
“investor class.” This isn’t just about “the rich.” Whether you trade millions
of dollars in securities daily or like cream in your coffee, you are a
shareholder in our economy.
plan proposed by President George W. Bush and Treasury Secretary Henry
Paulson—waiting for majorities in Congress to determine the details—is an effort
to stabilize investor confidence by authorizing up to
$700 billion in guarantees for
institutions holding mortgages. In effect, this will relieve lenders of
liability for mortgages considered to be at risk of default—about five percent
of all mortgages.
hoped that Republicans can succeed in crafting legislation that is more workout
than bailout, the former requiring much more market accountability, as proposed
by Sen. McCain and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.
addressed the nation Wednesday evening with a concise explanation of the
an extraordinary period for America’s economy. Over the past few weeks, many
Americans have felt anxiety about their finances and their future. I understand
their worry and their frustration. We’ve seen triple-digit swings in the stock
market. Major financial institutions have teetered on the edge of collapse, and
some have failed. As uncertainty has grown, many banks have restricted lending.
Credit markets have frozen. And families and businesses have found it harder to
borrow money. We’re in the midst of a serious financial crisis... So I’ve
proposed that the federal government reduce the risk posed by these troubled
assets, and supply urgently needed money so banks and other financial
institutions can avoid collapse and resume lending. This rescue effort is not
aimed at preserving any individual company or industry—it is aimed at preserving
America’s overall economy. It will help American consumers and businesses get
credit to meet their daily needs and create jobs. And it will help send a signal
to markets around the world that America’s financial system is back on track.”
What about a
of course, with the principled objections from free-market advocates and hope
that free-market solutions will be re-implemented in conjunction with the
necessary mortgage backup. If not, the cure may be worse than the disease. After
all, it was the suspension of free-market principles that got us into this mess.
agree with President Bush’s comments regarding the necessity of intervention:
“I’m a strong believer in free enterprise. So my natural instinct is to oppose
government intervention. I believe companies that make bad decisions should be
allowed to go out of business. Under normal circumstances, I would have followed
this course. But these are not normal circumstances. The market is not
functioning properly. There’s been a widespread loss of confidence. And major
sectors of America’s financial system are at risk of shutting down.”
he is correct in this assessment: “More banks could fail, including some in your
community. The stock market would drop even more, which would reduce the value
of your retirement account. The value of your home could plummet. Foreclosures
would rise dramatically. And if you own a business or a farm, you would find it
harder and more expensive to get credit. More businesses would close their
doors, and millions of Americans could lose their jobs. Even if you have good
credit history, it would be more difficult for you to get the loans you need to
buy a car or send your children to college. And ultimately, our country could
experience a long and painful recession.”
worth noting that $700 billion is a bargain compared to the implications for
taxpayers if the economy spirals into a severe recession—or worse.
Can any of this
colossal expense be recovered?
Fortunately, there are real assets backing up these mortgages—bricks and mortar,
and the land upon which the foundations rest—but this is no “deal for
much of this mortgage backing may be recovered, as was the case with the savings
and loan bailout of 1989, to suggest that the “taxpayers will be paid back” is
is going to serve as the “watchdog” over the dispensing and recovery of these
funds? Can you say, “fox in the henhouse”?
Congress sets up a “trust fund” in order to use recovered funds to pay down the
debt incurred to back financial institutions, we should consider that “lockbox”
to be as safe as the Social Security Trust Fund lockbox. Every dime paid into
Social Security has been spent on government programs, leaving that fund with a
bunch of IOUs.
every dime recovered from the private sector will be treated as revenue to
expand government programs, and the debt will be left on the books.
for the bailout, Democrats are sure to demand higher taxes from “the rich Wall
Street fat cats who got us into this mess.” While this mess clearly ended on
Wall Street, it didn’t start there, but, undeterred, the Democrats will always
bank on this observation from George Bernard Shaw: “A government which robs
Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.”
course, if the current plan to restore economic confidence does not succeed, you
know the Demos have “Plan B.” Don’t ask...
What role have
staple of the Democrats’ political playbook is the use of scare tactics to rally
constituencies. Indeed, Obama and other Demos have been dishing out a steady
stream of dire economic rhetoric in order to keep their constituents in line.
Undoubtedly, all that economic hyperbole has influenced public perception of our
economy and confidence in our economy. High on the list of issues President Bush
discussed with candidates McCain and Obama Thursday was a request that they
(read: “Obama”) cease and desist using the economic problems as political
It is our
hope that the candidates will, indeed, arrive for debate in Oxford, Mississippi,
this evening and begin the debate with a unified statement on economic recovery;
then Sen. McCain can proceed to eviscerate Obama on foreign policy.
There are significant, albeit unspoken, national security implications of a
precipitous economic decline in the U.S. Where the our economy goes, the world
economy follows, and their will be significant national security consequences.
For example, if China’s economy contracts more rapidly than at present, keeping
pace with U.S. economic decline, the consequences will likely be some
significant internal and external “mischief” scripted by the Communist Party. As
for India and Pakistan...you get the picture.
New Oversight Of Supreme Court Needed
By Doug Patton
June 30, 2008
My old boss, U.S. Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, one of the few
non-lawyers on the House Judiciary ommittee, used to tell me
about how Congress has the power to regulate the federal
"Constitutionally, we could reduce the Supreme Court to
the Chief Justice sitting in his chambers at a card table if
we wanted to," he would say.
I thought of that unused congressional authority as I
pondered why it is that the Supreme Court tends to pull its
members to the left.
In recent decades, from Abe Fortas and Thurgood Marshall,
appointed by Lyndon Johnson in the 1960s, to Clinton
appointees Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the
1990s, liberal Democrats are rarely disappointed in the
left-wing positions of their appointees on virtually every
issue. Not so with justices appointed by Republican
Certainly there are reliable minds on the court that can
be trusted with the strict interpretation of the
constitution. Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas have proven
themselves worthy of our respect in that regard. Similarly,
Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel
Alito are slowly building a reputation for eschewing
judicial activism and for defending the concept of original
But Republican nominees frequently fail to live up to the
hopes of those who believe in strict adherence to the
Founders' constitutional intentions.
In modern times, perhaps the biggest disappointments
began with former California Governor Earl Warren, a
Republican appointed by President Dwight Eisenhower to serve
as Chief Justice.
Richard Nixon's appointments of Warren Burger and Harry
Blackmun were a disaster. Both men voted in the majority on
the most infamous Supreme Court ruling of the 20th Century,
1973's Roe vs. Wade, with Blackmun writing the
majority opinion. The result is forty million Americans
David Souter, appointed by President George H. W. Bush,
has so abandoned any semblance of conservative jurisprudence
that he is now counted consistently with Ginsburg, Breyer
and John Paul Stevens on the left end of the court.
Two Reagan appointees, Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony
Kennedy, turned into two of the biggest disappointments of
the era. O'Connor's left turn culminated two important
recent cases, Carhart vs. Stenberg and Lawrence
vs. Texas. The Carhart case struck down
Nebraska's ban on partial birth abortion. Lawrence
created a constitutional right to sodomy, thereby throwing
the door open wide for the movement to legalize same-sex
With O'Connor now retired, Kennedy is widely considered
to be the court's "swing vote." But increasingly, Kennedy's
decisions are viewed as activist liberal votes. He wrote the
majority opinion in the aforementioned Lawrence vs. Texas
sodomy case. He voted with the liberal majority in the
outrageous ruling of Kelo vs. City of New London, in
which the Connecticut town was allowed to use eminent domain
laws to seize property from one private owner and hand it
over to another simply because the new owner could pay more
in property taxes.
In two of his most recent votes, Kennedy sided with the
leftists on the court in Boumediene vs. Bush and
Kennedy vs. Louisiana. In Boumediene, the court
granted habeas corpus rights to prisoners captured on
foreign battlefields, thereby potentially extending the
protections of the U.S. Constitution to every human being on
In the Louisiana case, a defendant, Patrick O. Kennedy,
was convicted of raping an eight-year-old girl. Louisiana
law permits a sentence of death for such a crime, and the
assailant was so sentenced. But in a 5-4 decision, the U.S.
Supreme Court ruled that such a sentence constituted "cruel
and unusual punishment."
Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Connor are both
extremely enamored with foreign law. This is a problem
Congress should address. Kennedy spends his summers in
Salzburg, Austria, teaching international law at the
University of Salzburg. He attends a yearly international
judges' conference there.
Why should international law have any bearing on
decisions supposedly based on the U.S. Constitution? Perhaps
this type of activity should be curtailed or banned by
Congress. Perhaps the size of the court should be reduced.
Perhaps John Roberts reading briefs at a card table in his
chambers isn't such a bad idea.
Doug Patton is a freelance columnist who has served as a
political speechwriter and public policy advisor. His weekly
columns are published in newspapers across the country and
on selected Internet web sites, including Human Events
Online, TheConservativeVoice.com and GOPUSA.com, where he is
a senior writer and state editor. Readers may e-mail him at
John Lott – More
Guns on Campus:
…In cases from the church shooting in Colorado Springs,
Colo., last December, where a parishioner who was given
permission by the minister to carry her concealed gun into
the church quickly stopped the murderer, to an attack last
year in downtown Memphis, to the Appalachian Law School, to
high schools in such places as Pearl, Miss., concealed
handgun permit holders have stopped attacks well before
uniformed police could possibly have arrived. Twice this
year armed Israeli citizens have stopped terrorist attacks
at schools (once by an armed teacher and another by an armed
student). Indeed, despite the fears being discussed about
the risks of concealed handgun permit holders, I haven’t
found one multiple-victim public shooting where a permit
holder has accidentally shot a bystander…
"Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University,
published 'Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate
Conservatism.' The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable
than conservatives. If many conservatives are liberals who have been
mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer
of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They
include these findings:---Although liberal families' incomes average 6
percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed
households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average
liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).---Conservatives
also donate more time and give more blood.---Residents of the states
that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their
incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George
Bush.---Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above
average.---In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent
majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was
3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent,
donated just 1.9 percent.---People who reject the idea that 'government
has a responsibility to reduce income inequality' give an average of four
times more than people who accept that proposition." ---George
5 Mar 08 From John Farnum
When opportunity meets unpreparedness! From a friend in WA:
"A local resident was brutally beaten here Saturday
afternoon. He owns a house that he uses as an office. It
is in the high-rent district!
Saturday, he was working alone when a man knocked on his
front door. The moment he opened the door, the man pushed
his way in and immediately starting striking the resident in
the head the beck with a metal tool, probably a hammer or
wrench, all the time screaming, 'Where's the money!'
The resident, unarmed and untrained, put up no effective
resistance and, as a direct result, suffered several severe
cuts to his face and head and well as broken facial bones.
The suspect ultimately threw him out of the house and onto
the front lawn, closed the door, and then ransacked the
house, apparently looking for valuables.
When the suspect came back out, he took the resident's watch
and wallet, and abruptly left. The resident had called the
police via his cell phone, but they did not get there for
over twenty minutes, and, even when first beat car arrived,
he waited anther ten minutes for the second car to arrive,
before either approached the bleeding resident, ultimately
rendering aid and summoning an ambulance.
As of today, no arrests have been made. The resident did
not know the suspect personally.
The resident sustained significant injury, but he is
expected to recover, to the degree that he can.
Here is yet another example of a naive, clueless, unprepared
VBC, “Victim By Choice,” who could not bring himself to
believe that anything like this could ever happen to him.
He is lucky to have lived through it, but he is going to
have to endure months of hospitalization and painful
recovery and, in addition, is likely to suffer permanent
Lesson: "Bad luck" is what happens when unpreparedness
collides with opportunity!
Every police department in the nation puts out three patrol
shifts every day (sometimes two). There are only so many
police cars, and so many officers, available at any given
moment, and we prioritize calls for police services as best
we can. Even with the best-funded departments, the notion
that a beat car will arrive at your doorstep within seconds,
or even minutes, of being summoned, is largely delusional!
Bottom line: We'll get there as soon as we can, but our
"response-time" is always largely outside of our control.
In the interim, you had better have some personal capacity
for dealing effectively with threatening circumstances, or,
like the self-deceptive VBC in the foregoing, accept
"victim-status," with all that implies!
Comment from S.P.Wenger (When I look back at the lessons
I have retained from all the training I took from Ayoob’s
Lethal Force Institute, I believe that most of them reflect
the experiences of Jim Cirillo and the NYPD Stakeout Unit.
One that has always stood out in my mind was Mas recounting
when he started getting invited to go home with SOU members
and wondering, after they had walked inside, when do the
guns come off? They didn’t. Mine stay holstered until I go
to bed, at which time they are close at hand, as is a .223
carbine. Before I shower in the morning, as I assemble these
mailings, one is in a pocket holster and the carbine is two
From John Farnam:
This telling note from a university senior professor, and
one of our students:
"With regard to the NIU campus shooting last week...
'Response Plans' by college administrators are dedicated
solely to averting litigation, not keeping innocent people
from being victimized. I have read through hundreds of
"response plans" for dealing with armed VCAs who invade the
sheep-herd, and not one involves arming the sheep!
Conversely, all begin with the unchallenged assumption that
police cannot arrive in time to save a single life.
Therefore, the 'plan' continues, a massacre of innocents
will invariably take place and cannot be prevented. Not
surprisingly, that part of the 'plan' is routinely kept from
public scrutiny, particularly scrutiny from parents!
THE TRULY TERRIFYING ASPECT OF THIS INSTITUTIONALIZED
CHARADE IS THAT EVERYONE: CAMPUS ADMINISTRATORS, POLICE,
PROFESSORS, STUDENTS, LAWYERS, POLITICIANS, AND JUDGES,
APPARENTLY ACCEPT THIS MENDACIOUS ASSUMPTION AS SOMEHOW
DIVINELY-REVEALED, AND THEREFORE BEYOND DEBATE AND
IRREFUTABLE. Who dare suggest that consenting to the
fundamental American right of armed self-defense might make
a positive difference, are resentfully, venomously labeled
fanatics, heretics, and are dismissed out of hand without
ever being allowed to make their case. Only those proposing
to debate global warming get a colder reception!
As far as the University is concerned, lambs may be
slaughtered, just as long as the Institution survives
lawsuits, and administrators all keep their cushy jobs!
Students, faculty, the whole lot, are, of course,
expendable. It as much as says that right in the 'plan.'
As a professor, LEO, and War Veteran, I have, many times,
confronted this fraudulent dogma head-on in our graduate
school. When students and other faculty discover that I am
covertly armed, they become upset that a gun is even in the
same room with them. They have allowed themselves to become
drunk on the Kool-Aid of learned-helplessness to the point
of mass delusion. They are irrationally fearful of guns,
even those under the direct control of police!
This is the same pathetic herd-mentality that produced
sanguine lines to the showers to sedately form, on command,
day-after-day, at Auschwitz! And,with few exceptions, this
is what has become of the descendants of once-mighty
It makes me crazy!"
21 Feb 08
I talked with a friend today who is directly involved with
the investigation of the recent shooting episode at NIU.
Actually, as he pointed out, there is not much to
investigate. The Case is closed! All details subsequently
discovered only serve to assist CNN in finding something to
jam between male-impotence-drug ads. That is also the sole
function of "surveillance" cameras.
As part of the investigation, my friend attended
interminable meetings with members of the campus
administration. Here is what he was treated to, and his
"... its about 'incident-management' and the 'mental-health
crisis'.." (How is any of that psycho-babble going to keep
YOU from being murdered, today?)
"We need to improve our ability to respond to and mitigate
these events" (How much "better" do you think it is ever
going to get?)
"... statistically, there is still only a small chance any
one individual will be harmed" (However, when that "one
individual" is YOU, all those statistics become so much BS,
"... what we need is strict enforcement and maximum jail
time for those who commit felonies with weapons" (Don't you
idiots think we're already doing that?).
"...I am personally against guns. Hopefully I'll never be
forced to own one for my own protection. (By the time you
honestly confront your own self-deception, Bud, it will be
too late. You'll be dead, and you'll no longer have to
worry about any of this, eh?)
"... Those identified as 'mentally ill' (whatever that
means) need to be closely monitored..." (You're describing
half the population! What are you going to do? Herd them
all into gulags?)
A noted sociologist became visibly irritated with me and my
smart-ass responses to their predictably, knee-jerk drivel.
She finally said, "So, you're telling me there is nothing
substantive we can do to prevent something like this from
happening again, tomorrow?
I responded, "There is nothing you, nor any of us, can do to
'save' what victims there may be. There is something you
can do to save yourself."
"... and what would that be?"
"Get a gun!"
Comment: I'm a simple soldier. As such, like my friend in
the foregoing exchange, I see things simply... apparently
far too simply for my academically-sophisticated brethren.
However, I'm unsophisticated enough to plainly see that the
omnipresent culprit with all these incidents is cowardice...
personal, intellectual cowardice. I wish there were a more
polite way to put it.
These people have no sense of duty to themselves, their Art,
their families, nor their nation. They would rather face
certain death than be compelled to candidly confront their
own (professed) principles, ie: admit they're wrong.
Like my friend, I can have neither personal nor professional
respect for any of them. They're Victims, by Choice.
They're not just "part of the problem." They ARE the
"Supporters of the stimulus only consider its 'seen' affects. If government
takes or borrows money from Jones and gives it to Smith, Smith's spending
will be visible for all to see. Not so visible is the 'unseen' affect: What
Jones would have done with the money but didn't because it was transferred to
Smith. Economists call this the 'broken window fallacy.' In the 19th century,
French economist Frederic Bastiat illustrated it with the story of a boy
who breaks a shop window. At first the townspeople lament the loss, but then
someone points out that the shopkeeper will have to spend money to replace the
window. What the window maker earns, he will soon spend elsewhere. As that
money circulates through town, new prosperity will bloom. The fallacy, of
course, is that if the window had not been broken, the shopkeeper would have
'replaced his worn-out shoes... or added another book to his library.' The
town gains nothing from the broken window. This logic is lost on the stimulus
promoters. I'm surprised they don't suggest that we prevent recessions by
breaking lots of windows... I'm not saying the government can do nothing about
the economy. The best thing it can do is get itself out the way. Economies boom
when governments remove impediments to production: high taxes, regulations,
subsidies, trade barriers, manipulation of the money supply, etc. Removing
those should be permanent---not temporary---measures." ---John
Feb 08 from John Farnum
Same circus, different clowns!
At a news conference today in IL, NIU officials talked interminably about the
campus shooting incident yesterday and spent virtually every available second of
air time repeatedly justifying themselves and the wonderful "Emergency Plan"
they had in effect. This is, of course, the "Plan" that saved no lives and had
no effect on the outcome! NIU is, or course, yet another "Gun-Free Zone!"
As is the usual case, police arrived on the scene as fast as humanly possible.
The incident was long-since over, ending when the lone perpetrator fatally shot
himself, after shooting a number of unarmed and defenseless university students
and faculty in a campus auditorium. Police never confronted the VCA, never
fired a shot.
On network news, we were then treated to a parade of driveling "experts" who
talked about the deceased perpetrator (that, of course, none of them had ever
met) and predictably cited all the usual suspects: "He played violent video
games," "He was a loner," "His mother didn't breast-feed him as a child," "His
underwear were too tight," ad nauseam.
The ultimate outcome is easy to predict: Campus officials will scurry about in
an effort to appear as if they're actually accomplishing something. No one will
lose their job. Nothing will change. And, a week from now, the campus will be
functioning normally, as if nothing had happened. And, the next armed VCA will
encounter no more difficulty than did the last one!
Nothing is so difficult to see as the obvious, particularly when it flies in the
face of Leftist dogma that dominates virtually all college campuses and that can
never be questioned! More cameras, more reams of "plans," more
"prayer-assemblies," and more hand-wringing will accomplish nothing, any more
than the last layer did, save providing employment for a few more, erstwhile
So long as Americans are taught, from birth, that "being a good and cooperative
victim" is their ultimate civic duty, and that they must never even think of
individual initiative or (Heaven forbid!) using force to defend themselves,
we'll continue to be awash in victims, and all the "plans" in the world will
avail us nothing Helpless, defenseless sheep will never derive effective
protection from well-meaning, but clueless, "shepherds," who ultimately regard
sheep as expendable anyway!
Accordingly, as Americans, we must maintain our own personal, individual state
of readiness, no matter where we are. This decision is yours, and your life
depends on it! Risk attaches to maintaining a reasonable state of readiness,
but, as we see from recent events, it pales in comparison to being unprepared.
As this incident so poignantly illustrates, YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN. Be ready!
Federal law (18
USC § 922(q)(2)(B)(ii)) already provides an exception, for concealed weapons (CCW)
permit holders, on the restriction regarding the possession firearms on school
property. SB 1214 complies with Federal law by removing the current
restrictions in ARS 13-3102.
The presence of armed, law-abiding citizens is a crime deterrent. Decades ago,
after terrorists repeatedly attacked their schools, Israel adopted a policy of
allowing adults to carry firearms in schools. Terrorist attacks diminished
greatly. Recently, Thailand
adopted a similar approach. Closer to home, Utah has allowed CCW permit holders
to carry concealed handguns on college campuses since 2006. Since this was
implemented there has not been a single act of gun related violence.
Where law-abiding adults have access to firearms, violence ends quickly. In
2002, at Virginia's Appalachian Law School, a shooting spree ended when two
armed adult students confronted the attacker, and persuaded him to surrender.
In 1997, the vice-principal of a high school in Pearl, Mississippi, armed
himself and ended a shooting rampage without firing a shot.
Restrictive laws, not access to firearms, have led to a rise in school
shootings. Prior to 1968, any child could buy a gun through the mail. Most
schools had shooting clubs and it was common for students to bring their rifles
into classrooms. Yet, school shootings were almost unheard of. Now, with
irrational gun bans in place everywhere, anyone determined to do a lot of harm
knows that they can literally get away with murder on school grounds, because no
one will stop them until it's too late. On
April 16, 2007, twenty-seven students
and five faculty members at Virginia Tech lost their lives to a madman who
possessed one distinct advantage over his victims – he wasn't concerned with
following the "gun free zone" rules. Nineteen of his thirty-two victims were
over twenty-one, the legal age for obtaining a concealed handgun permit in
Virginia (and Arizona).
In addition to satisfying State mandated firearms training requirements, which
include a written and skills test, CCW permit holders must be 21 years old and
undergo routine background checks by the Department of Public Safety (DPS) to
verify that they are the most law-abiding of the citizenry. Statistically,
studies have shown that CCW permit holders are the most law-abiding individuals.
Would Have Guessed?:
Josh Sugarmann, head of Violence Policy Center, has a Federal Firearm Dealer's
license. The business address is VPC's headquarters in D.C. Which, if I
recollect DC law correctly, means VPC is exempt from the handgun ban they
Campaign’s original name was Handgun Control Inc. The founder, the late Pete
Shields, made his goals clear in an interview in with the New Yorker Magazine in
"We'll take one
step at a time, and the first is necessarily -given the political realities -
very modest. We'll have to start working again to strengthen the law, and then
again to strengthen the next law and again and again. Our ultimate goal, total
control of hand-guns, is going to take time. The first problem is to slow down
production and sales. Next is to get registration. The final problem is to make
possession of all handguns and ammunition (with a few exceptions) totally
Spiking crime statistics show how well this
ban, implemented by the UK and Australia, has emboldened scofflaw criminals.
Is This Our Next Generation?: The UConn chapter of Students for Concealed
Carry on Campus wishes to hold a protest against the seemingly wise choice of
not allowing any weapons on the UConn campus. It comes down to personal safety,
they say. You never know when the next massacre may occur, and as such people
need to be prepared to defend themselves...However, I think it is quite apparent
that had people been allowed to discharge concealed weapons at Virginia Tech at
the time of the tragedy, it would have only resulted in more deaths and more
chaos. Students, as well as cops and those carrying concealed weapons, would
have not been able to reliably discern the criminal from the vigilante...
"Flawed Laws Help Stalkers
By John Lott and Sonya Jones
What do you do when the police can't protect you? Police may be the single most
important factor for reducing crime, but there is something the police
themselves understand: They almost always arrive at the crime scene after the
crime has occurred.
Expecting people to trust the police to protect them and to
behave passively is a recipe for disaster.
The last couple of weeks have seen a couple prominent murders where restraining
orders did women little good. Numerous news organizations, such as ABC News,
have run headlines asking "How Do You Stop a Stalker From Killing You?"
Unfortunately, despite acknowledging that "many women find themselves on their
own," the media are drawing the wrong lessons. To simply advise that women "Get
the hell away him" often doesn't go anywhere near far enough.
With her tragic murder on Monday on the campus of the University of Washington,
Rebecca Griego learned this the hard way. Twice she had filed for restraining
orders against her abusive and physically violent former boyfriend, Jonathan
Ghulam-Nabi Rowan, but the police didn't know where he lived and could never
It wasn't like they didn't try, for in January they couldn't even locate Rowan
for an outstanding warrant for a drunk driving conviction.
Rowan made Rebecca's life hell. In police reports as well as her request for a
restraining order, she described Rowan as a "suicidal alcoholic" who had
"punched," "slammed," and "thrown" her to the ground.
To no avail, she moved a couple of times and changed her cell phone number.
Nevertheless, on March 7th and 14th, Rowan called her at work, threatening both
her and her dog. He then called and threatened Rebecca's older sister.
But restraining orders often aren't worth the paper on which they're written,
even when they are served.
For a stalker intent on killing his victim or committing suicide after the
attack, the penalty for violating a restraining order is irrelevant. With
Seattle police's response time of seven minute for the highest-priority
emergency calls, the police simply can't be there to protect you even with a
restraining order. Seven minutes can seem like an eternity.
With such rampant failures in the system, there is one piece of advice that
could have saved Rebecca's life: self-defense, get a gun.
Indeed, the University of Washington goes in the opposite direction and tries to
protect people by declaring the campus a "gun free zone," with the school's code
of conduct banning the "possession or use of firearms . . . except for
authorized university purposes."
Gun free zones may be well intentioned, but good intentions that is not enough.
It is an understandable desire to ban guns. After all, if you ban guns from an
area, people can't get shot, right? But time after time when these public
shootings occur, they disproportionately take place in gun free zones.
It is the law-abiding good citizens who would only use a gun for protection who
obey these bans. Violating a gun free zone at a place such as a public
university may mean expulsion or firing and arrest, real penalties for
law-abiding citizens. But for someone intent on killing others, adding on these
penalties for violating a gun free zone means little to someone who, if still
alive, faces life in prison.
Unfortunately, instead of gun free zones ensuring safety for victims, ensuring
that the victims are unarmed only makes things safer for attackers.
One of us conducted research with Bill Landes at the University of Chicago that
examined all the multiple-victim public shootings in the United States from 1977
to 1999. We found that when states passed right-to-carry laws, these attacks
fell by 60 percent. Deaths and injuries from multiple-victim public shootings
fell on average by 78 percent.
To the extent that attacks still occurred, they overwhelmingly happened in the
special places within right-to-carry states where concealed handguns were
banned. The University of Washington is a good example of this.
There is no evidence that there are any more accidental gun deaths that occur
from right-to-carry laws. Permit holders also tend to be extremely law-abiding.
Ironically, earlier this year University of Washington President Mark Emmert
began consideration of making the school's ban somehow apply to students living
off campus as well. Students are sitting ducks on campus, but the change would
make them vulnerable off campus as well.
Not only did the gun free zones fail here, but it is extremely unlikely that
Rowan could even legally own a gun. As a non-resident alien Rowan needed an
alien firearms license to even own a gun, something that rarely granted.
There is an even simpler point to make. It is the physically weakest, women and
the elderly, who benefit the most from having a gun to protect themselves. The
U.S. Department of Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey has shown for
decades that resistance with a gun is by far the safest course of action when
one confronts a criminal.
Good intentions don't necessarily make good rules. What counts is whether the
rules ultimately save lives. Unfortunately, too many rules primarily disarm
law-abiding citizens, not criminals.
See this article at
*John Lott is the author of the forthcoming book, Freedomnomics and the Dean's
visiting Professor at the State University of New York at Binghamton.
Sonya Jones is a lawyer
Do Gun-Free Zones Encourage School Shootings?: ...This raises a question. Do
shooters consider schools "gun-free zones"? Do they consider it unlikely that
any authority figure - whether teachers or, in some cases, security guards -
poses an armed threat? But in some school shooting cases, guns helped to end
shooting sprees and minimize loss of life and injury...Israel gets it. Since the
1970s, on school campuses in Israel, policy requires teachers and parent aides
to arm themselves with semi-automatic weapons. The result? School shootings have
plummeted to zero.
John Lott On Kids And Guns: ...Convincing patients not to own guns or to at
least lock them up will cost more lives than it will save. It also gives a
misleading impression of what poses the greatest dangers to children. Accidental
gun deaths among children are fortunately much rarer than most people believe.
Consider the following numbers. In 2003, for the United States, the Centers for
Disease Control reports that 28 children under age 10 died from accidental
shots. With some 90 million gun owners and about 40 million children under 10,
it is hard to find any item as commonly owned in American homes, as potentially
as lethal, that has as low of an accidental death rate.
Metal and Wood by Dennis
A perspective of isms from
the Patriot Post
Alan Korwin Responds to JPFO:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 28, 2007
Contact info at end
HB 2640 Gun Ban Worse Than Originally Thought
Illegal Aliens Exempt If Amnesty Bill Passes
Rights Restoration Clause Died In 1992
Attorney General Would Get Arbitrary Control
Any Database Manager Can Issue "Procedures"
Undefined "Determination" Can Add You To The Ban List
Still time to fix it
Associated Press takes typical biased swipe at NRA
by Alan Korwin, Author
Gun Laws of America
In a sensational national email alert, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms
Ownership (jpfo.org) incorrectly stated yesterday:
"Is the NRA just another 'gun control' group? Alan Korwin, author of 'Gun Laws
of America' seems to think so." JPFO is using my name to promote a belief they
hold that I do not.
The NRA is the most powerful gun-rights group in the world, even if other groups
(like Jews for the Preservation and others) don't think so, or believe they
outperform NRA in some fashion. Like Hillary Clinton or any big dog, the NRA
must endure a certain level of attack from their own side, it comes with the
don't know why NRA is supporting the McCarthy NICS expansion bill as it is
currently written, but it doesn't make them the enemy. I think they have misread
certain passages, or hold mistaken beliefs about how BATFE and the Justice Dept.
will perform under the bill if enacted.* Reasonable people will differ. There is
still time for a fix.
This has prompted me to reexamine the bill, and unfortunately, it seems worse
than I originally believed. To the NRA, media and others who disagree with my
assessment of HB 2640:
1. Not Just Adjudications
Bill supporters have expressed that "adjudicated" mental incompetence, which
implies action by a proper court of law, is a fair standard for gun denial, and
with an appeals process in place is a reasonable line in the sand. I generally
agree. But the bill says "adjudications" can come from any federal "department
or agency," not just courts.
And HB 2640 isn't limited to adjudications. It speaks throughout of people with
"adjudications, determinations and commitments," and not even "involuntary
commitments." The word "determination" scares me most -- it isn't even defined.
Who can make "a determination"? The law doesn't say. An agency with even a
narrow view could read that to mean almost anything. You're comfortable with
that? Does it subject people's rights to a bureaucrat's whim? Where are the
controls on "a determination"? There aren't any apparent.
It's true that the adjudications, determinations and commitments must include a
finding that the person is "a danger to himself or to others or that the person
lacks the mental capacity to manage his own affairs." However, BATFE is already
on record that any level of "danger" is enough, and it does not have to be
imminent, or substantial. Name some sort of mental issue that doesn't have some
sort of danger attached -- you can't. Call me a skeptic, go ahead, I can take
2. Funding Denied for Restorations
Restoration of rights is subjected to 18 USC 925(c). I don't know how I missed
this the first time around. That's the statute Congress has refused to fund
since 1992. No one can get rights restored under that statute. We know that. Why
would gun-rights supporters place faith in that as a valid appeals route? More
than anything else, that item makes me wonder what's going on. It's a legitimate
worry. Either the NRA missed that and must fix it, or their critics' worst fears
3. Arbitrary Control by Attorney General
Even if 18 USC 925 were valid (i.e., funded), as currently written it gives the
U.S. Attorney General absolute and arbitrary control over restoring gun rights
to a person who applies. It doesn't require any action by the AG. It says, "the
Attorney General may grant such relief if it is established to his satisfaction
that... the applicant will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public
safety and that the granting of the relief would not be contrary to the public
interest." A politician (unelected in this case) who doesn't think the public
should have guns in the first place would never restore rights under that
language. Does that seem like a fair and reasonable approach to you? Do you
trust that as a baseline standard?
4. Doctors Issuing Gun Rights?
The mental health community is entrusted with the ability to restore a person's
rights by declaring them fit (I'm paraphrasing a lot of legalese here). Doctors
are by-and-large among the most anti-gun-rights groups in society (check the med
journals, AMA, CDC, etc., but I know you know that). What are the chances that
anyone within that community will be certifying former mental cases as competent
to keep and bear arms? What would give you hope that this part of the bill will
be any help at all? Will doctors take the time to make a distinction between
real mental cases and people wrongly listed in the official FBI mental case
database? If doctors or shrinks make a single mistake, will the feds pull their
license to practice, encouraging all of them to keep in line and take no action?
Maybe just fear of lawsuits will do the trick.
5. Illegal Aliens Exempt
Another giant one I missed: Under 18 USC 922 it's clear that illegal aliens
cannot legally have guns in this country (and most can't have guns in their
native Mexico or elsewhere). But they're not in the NICS denial files because,
as newspapers put it, they're "undocumented," so there's no way to get the 20
million of them in there. So here's another blockbuster hidden in HB 2640 --
anyone who loses their "illegal alien" status is exempt from NICS (under Sec.
101 (b)(1)(B)). In other words, if the Amnesty Bill removes the illegal status
from the people here illegally, they cannot be put in the NICS denial list! Did
I read that wrong? It is deliberately convoluted, but it does single out 18 USC
925(g)(5), the illegal-alien gun ban.
6. Legislation by Database Management
Getting a person on or off the NICS list depends on "laws, regulations, policies
or procedures governing the applicable record systems." That applies to every
database and set of records everywhere that NICS draws from. Are those database
"procedures" and "policies" a) known, b) available for review, c) open to public
comment, d) subject to challenge, e) fair, f) subject to time frames, g) subject
to change at whim, and h) are the people who make those rules known or subject
to any jurisdiction we can identify? What about database "rules" mentioned in
the bill? Curious minds want to know -- before this bill becomes law and grants
that much power to data geeks in some deep dark isolated windowless data
processing center somewhere.
OK, so the swift and irregular passage raised eyebrows everywhere, this you
know. The NRA made some of its most devout supporters wonder what's going on.
News media everywhere called it gun control, the NRA insists it's not. It seems
to many observers that something's not right.
And it's not too late to make corrections, demand changes before giving any
further support, and answer the questions that gun owners are asking. When I was
consulting I learned the adage: Don't bring me problems, bring me solutions. So
here are some solutions (in plain English... would need translation into
legalese) to add to the bill:
(a) Failure to act on a request for a correction to NICS in a specified short
time frame shall incur fines, paid by the agency, to the aggrieved party (a
sweet addition many laws could benefit from; why would a diligent bureaucrat
intent on obeying the law object?).
(b) Failure to act on requests in a specified short time frame shall subject the
agency itself to budget cuts based on the length of delay and the number of
people whose rights are held in limbo. If delays exceed a specified limit, the
head of the agency is subject to sanctions (another sweet feet-to-the-fire
remedy for many rampant abuses at federal and local levels -- activists should
start adding related language to bills as standard procedure).
(c) Delete the words "determination" and "commitment" as grounds for rights
denial, and remove "any legal authority" as a player, replacing it with "court
of competent jurisdiction."
(d) Any person whose civil rights are wrongly denied in any way by the NICS
system may seek damages, attorney fees, and court costs. Why would an honest
person object? To reduce the risk of hefty costs to government, make careful
determinations before adding names to NICS, instead of allowing the innocent to
appeal after their rights are denied. It's just a reasonable, common-sense
There's more, but that's enough for starters. Will our side act to fix it or run
with it as is? Respond to membership's concerns or increase their confusion?
Let's get this bill on track -- no one wants nut cases buying guns, and no one
wants people with prescription meds or a group-therapy appointment denied. Kids
forced onto Ritalin because of a schoolyard scuffle shouldn't permanently lose
their rights. And we sure don't want people avoiding medical attention because
they fear it might abrogate their rights forever.
Sure, government functionaries and McCarthy's side will howl that they can't
possibly live up to these solutions, for a dozen really good reasons. Let's hear
the howls now, not when the country is thrown into a rights-denial pit with no
In other news, the Associated Press today placed prominent stories in more than
1,000 U.S. newspapers implying the NRA is working in Congress to support serious
felony crimes committed by, "corrupt gun dealers and illegal gun traffickers," a
complete distortion promoted without a disclaimer by the Brady anti-gun-rights
lobby. The AP ran the virtually libelous comments, as it always does, from known
The NRA is actually working to protect lawful gun owners' privacy from,
"anti-gun activists, headline-hungry politicians and opportunistic trial
lawyers," all worthy goals mentioned near the end of the story. No other
gun-rights group is mentioned in the protective effort at the Senate
Appropriations Committee, where leading Democrats are working to weaken or
eliminate existing protections gun owners currently enjoy.
Gun-free nations are safer—at least for folks like Hitler, Mussolini,
Stalin, Mao, Idi Amin, Castro, Pol Pot and Saddam, all of whom disarmed their
detractors before slaughtering them by the tens of millions.
You should hope to
have a good lawyer after the shooting stops.
Letter To The Editor:
What should we do to prevent college massacres like what happened at Virginia
Tech? Beefing up campus police will be expensive and still will not
these kinds of disasters. More campus police will enhance traffic law
enforcement and response to complaints, but will not stop a madman bent on
killing many innocent students and professors. A Minneapolis Star-Tribune
shows that most people believe that these attacks cannot be prevented. I
The Air Marshal program, which came into being to stop plane hijackings, has
been very successful because of outstanding personnel and training. No one
knows if the person seated near you is an armed Air Marshal ready to act on a
moment's notice or not. As a result, hijackings have been virtually
I believe we have similar resources that should be taken seriously at this
time. We have hundreds of active military service personnel coming home
have already received, at taxpayer expense, the kind of high quality training
that could be used at the time of need in a Rapid Response Unit at any college
in our nation. For example, I have a son who is now completing four years
the US Marine Corps as a garrison military police officer. He'll leave the
Marines with a degree in law enforcement and criminal justice and will also be
enrolling in a university to further his higher education. Where could his
training and experience continue to help his fellow man?
The answer is -- he should be allowed to apply and qualify for the
yet-to-be-created College Marshal program. These ex-service personnel
slightly older than the average college population but would easily fit in with
that group, and applicants must pass a thorough screening program. Then
should be admitted to the college of their choice - incognito, but be further
trained to engage those who would kill innocent students and faculty. No
would know that they are armed, carry alert pagers and cell phones. In
addition, they would have a police identification card and badge worn on a
chain around their necks - to be displayed only during and after a major
College Marshals should serve until they graduate. Their only "pay" would
free books and tuition.
The College Marshal program needs to be implemented at the national level and
Congress should pass legislation to establish it.
The program is workable, cost effective, and efficient. It will save
Grant E. Kemp
Militia Versus Standing Army, The Biblical View: David Kopel presents a
summary of the experience of ancient Israel with war and governance and how the
Biblical account influenced the Founding Fathers' preference for a militia
system over a standing army.
in a defensive shoot.
shots in the big apple
From Alan Korwin:
GUN-FREE-SCHOOL FRAUD COSTS LIVES AGAIN
Pennsylvania Is Latest State to Suffer
Another armed murderer has used the so-called Gun-Free-School-Zones law to
simply walk onto school grounds and with impunity begin killing innocent
These dangerous criminals rely on the fact that no one on campus will be able
to offer resistance. Congress passed the law in 1990, renewed it in 1995, and
though it cannot stop murderers it has enabled many, experts say.
"The Gun-Free-School law is a cruel hoax that costs lives," said Alan Korwin,
author of Gun Laws of America. "Time and time again, these killers are using the
law to provide a safe haven, where they are the only people with guns." It's no
surprise these madmen never attack gun stores, police stations, or other places
where people are known to be armed, he says, and news reports consistently
overlook this point.
Hoplophobic teacher's unions, school administrators and legislators project
their fears onto the system and disarm honest people, instead of taking prudent
steps to protect the kids. Hoplophobia is a poorly understood morbid fear of
weapons that afflicts millions. It is one of the greatest undiagnosed and
untreated sources of harm in the country, Korwin and other experts believe.
People who are terrified of guns give themselves a good feeling but false
sense of security by passing such dangerous laws. "All they have done is create
target-rich, no-risk environments for monsters who have no fear of encountering
an armed teacher or administrator, or a legally-armed private citizen who might
happen to be in the building," says Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Second
Amendment Foundation. The Pennsylvania attack comes less than a week after a
similar attack in Colorado.
"Gun-control extremists will use this incident to claim we have not done
enough," Gottlieb predicted, and in the past, the harm caused by gun-free laws
has lead to calls for more of the same. This is irrational, which is a sign of
hoplophobic behavior. "They have disarmed the wrong people and left our
schools, and the children inside, vulnerable to this kind of atrocity."
"We need empowerment, not avoidance," Korwin says, who believes that properly
trained and prepared teachers are at least one prudent step to take against a
rash of homicidal maniacs preying on schools.
Hundreds of thousands of FBI-certified individuals, who routinely use
personal firearms for crime deterrence and safety, but are kept out of the news,
are also banned from school grounds under many states' laws. They can provide
little help against the criminals who simply ignore the words in a distant law
Several states have introduced Gun-Free-Zone Liability laws, which allow
people to make the arbitrary and unenforced gun-free zones, but would hold them
liable for any harm the zones cause. It is believed this would make people think
twice about making the dangerous and negligent zones. Sample bill language is
Gottlieb categorizes gun-free zones as a myth, since they stop no one,
leaving victims defenseless.
An unintended consequence of the federal gun-free-school-zones law, 18 USC
922(q), is to criminalize millions of citizens who travel near schools. Because
the law stipulates a 1,000-foot gun-free perimeter around schools, virtually all
private travel with firearms in American cities violates the law.
This creates tens of millions of federal felonies, of unsuspecting citizens,
with no enforcement, but no actual harm done. The law is a travesty needing
repeal. See maps and details here:
[Backgrounder: Phoenix-based Bloomfield Press, founded in 1988, is the
largest publisher and distributor of gun-law books in the country. Our website,
gunlaws.com, features a free national directory to gun laws and relevant
contacts in all states and federally, along with our unique line of related
books and DVDs. Gun Laws of America for news-media review is available on
request, call 1-800-707-4020. Our authors are available for interview, call to
schedule. Call for cogent positions on gun issues, informed analysis on proposed
laws, talk radio that lights up the switchboard, fact sheets and position
papers. As we always say, "It doesn't make sense to own a gun and not know the
"We publish the gun laws."
4718 E. Cactus #440
Phoenix, AZ 85032
Call, write, fax or click for free full-color catalog
Even in a wheel chair you don't have to be a victim.
Her reasons for seeking a license to carry
How the United Nations will deal with world arms ownership
one of the greatest gunsmiths, has some interesting thoughts
Subject: Info from
sent to me by a Semper Fi, UAL retired, east coast type.
Hello to all my fellow gunners, military buffs, veterans and interested
guys. A couple of weekends ago I got to spend time with my son Jordan,
who was on his first leave since returning from
Iraq. He is well (a
little thin), and already bored. He will be returning to
Iraq for a
second tour in early 06 and has already re-enlisted early for 4 more
years. He loves the Marine Corps and is actually looking forward to
Jordan spent 7 months at Camp Blue
Diamond in Ramadi. Aka:
He saw and did a lot and the following is what he told me about weapons,
equipment, tactics and other miscellaneous info which may be of interest
to you. Nothing is by any means classified. No politics here, just a
Marine with a birds eye views opinions:
1) The M-16 rifle : Thumbs down. Chronic jamming problems with the
talcum powder like sand over there. The sand is everywhere.
you feel filthy 2 minutes after coming out of the shower. The M-4
carbine version is more popular because its lighter and shorter, but it
has jamming problems also. They like the ability to mount the various
optical gunsights and weapons lights on the picattiny rails, but the
weapon itself is not great in a desert environment. They all hate the
5.56mm (.223) round. Poor penetration on the cinderblock structure
common over there and even torso hits cant be reliably counted on to put
the enemy down. Fun fact: Random autopsies on dead insurgents shows a
high level of opiate use.
2) The M243 SAW (squad assault weapon): .223 cal. Drum fed light machine
gun. Big thumbs down. Universally considered a piece of shit. Chronic
jamming problems, most of which require partial disassembly. (that's fun
in the middle of a firefight).
3) The M9 Beretta 9mm: Mixed bag. Good gun, performs well in desert
environment; but they all hate the 9mm cartridge. The use of handguns
for self-defense is actually fairly common. Same old story on the 9mm:
Bad guys hit multiple times and still in the fight.
4) Mossberg 12ga. Military shotgun: Works well, used frequently for
clearing houses to good effect.
5) The M240 Machine Gun: 7.62 Nato (.308) cal. belt fed machine gun,
developed to replace the old M-60 (what a beautiful weapon that was!!).
Thumbs up. Accurate, reliable, and the 7.62 round puts em down.
Originally developed as a vehicle mounted weapon, more and more are
being dismounted and taken into the field by infantry. The 7.62 round
chews up the structure over there.
6) The M2 .50 cal heavy machine gun: Thumbs way, way up. Ma deuce is
still worth her considerable weight in gold. The ultimate fight stopper,
puts their dicks in the dirt every time. The most coveted weapon
7) The .45 pistol: Thumbs up. Still the best pistol round out there.
Everybody authorized to carry a sidearm is trying to get their hands on
one. With few exceptions, can reliably be expected to put em down with a
torso hit. The special ops guys (who are doing most of the pistol work)
use the HK military model and supposedly love it. The old government
model .45s are being re-issued en masse.
8) The M-14: Thumbs up. They are being re-issued in bulk, mostly in a
modified version to special ops guys. Modifications include lightweight
Kevlar stocks and low power red dot or ACOG sights. Very reliable in the
sandy environment, and they love the 7.62 round.
9) The Barrett .50 cal sniper rifle: Thumbs way up. Spectacular range
and accuracy and hits like a freight train. Used frequently to take out
vehicle suicide bombers ( we actually stop a lot of them) and barricaded
enemy. Definitely here to stay.
10) The M24 sniper rifle: Thumbs up. Mostly in .308 but some in 300 win
mag. Heavily modified Remington 700s. Great performance. Snipers have
been used heavily to great effect. Rumor has it that a marine sniper on
his third tour in Anbar province has actually exceeded Carlos Hathcocks
record for confirmed kills with OVER 100.
11) The new body armor: Thumbs up. Relatively light at approx. 6 lbs.
and can reliably be expected to soak up small shrapnel and even will
stop an AK-47 round. The bad news: Hot as shit to wear, almost
unbearable in the summer heat (which averages over 120 degrees). Also,
the enemy now goes for head shots whenever possible. All the bullshit
about the old body armor making our guys vulnerable to the IEDs was a
non-starter. The IED explosions are enormous and body armor doesn't make
any difference at all in most cases.
12) Night Vision and Infrared Equipment: Thumbs way up. Spectacular
performance. Our guys see in the dark and own the night, period. Very
little enemy action after evening prayers. More and more enemy being
whacked at night during movement by our hunter-killer teams. Weve all
seen the videos.
13) Lights: Thumbs up. Most of the weapon mounted and personal lights
are Surefires, and the troops love em. Invaluable for night urban
Jordan carried a $34 Surefire G2 on
a neck lanyard and loved
I cant help but notice that most of the good fighting weapons and
ordnance are 50 or more years old!!!!!!!!! With all our technology, its
the WWII and
Vietnam era weapons that everybody
wants!!!! The infantry
fighting is frequent, up close and brutal. No quarter is given or shown.
Bad guy weapons:
1) Mostly AK47s . The entire country is an arsenal. Works better in the
desert than the M16 and the .308 Russian round kills reliably. PKM belt
fed light machine guns are also common and effective. Luckily, the enemy
mostly shoots like shit. Undisciplined spray and pray type fire.
However, they are seeing more and more precision weapons, especially
sniper rifles. (Iran,
again) Fun fact: Captured enemy have apparently
marveled at the marksmanship of our guys and how hard they fight. They
are apparently told in Jihad school that the Americans rely solely on
technology, and can be easily beaten in close quarters combat for their
lack of toughness. Lets just say they know better now.
2) The RPG: Probably the infantry weapon most feared by our guys.
Simple, reliable and as common as dogshit. The enemy responded to our
up-armored humvees by aiming at the windshields, often at point blank
range. Still killing a lot of our guys.
3) The IED: The biggest killer of all. Can be anything from old Soviet
anti-armor mines to jury rigged artillery shells. A lot found in
area were in abandoned cars. The enemy would take 2 or 3 155mm artillery
shells and wire them together. Most were detonated by cell phone, and
the explosions are enormous. You're not safe in any vehicle, even an M1
tank. Driving is by far the most dangerous thing our guys do over there.
Lately, they are much more sophisticated shape charges (Iranian)
specifically designed to penetrate armor. Fact: Most of the ready made
IEDs are supplied by
Iran, who is also providing
types) to train the insurgents in their use and tactics. Thats why the
attacks have been so deadly lately. Their concealment methods are
ingenious, the latest being shape charges in Styrofoam containers spray
painted to look like the cinderblocks that litter all Iraqi roads. We
find about 40% before they detonate, and the bomb disposal guys are
unsung heroes of this war.
4) Mortars and rockets: Very prevalent. The soviet era 122mm rockets
(with an 18km range) are becoming more prevalent. One of
lost a leg to one. These weapons cause a lot of damage inside the wire.
Jordans base was hit almost daily
his entire time there by mortar and
rocket fire, often at night to disrupt sleep patterns and cause fatigue
(It did). More of a psychological weapon than anything else. The enemy
mortar teams would jump out of vehicles, fire a few rounds, and then
haul ass in a matter of seconds.
5) Bad guy technology: Simple yet effective. Most communication is by
cell and satellite phones, and also by email on laptops. They use
handheld GPS units for navigation and Google earth for overhead views of
our positions. Their weapons are good, if not fancy, and prevalent.
Their explosives and bomb technology is TOP OF THE LINE. Night vision is
rare. They are very careless with their equipment and the captured GPS
units and laptops are treasure troves of Intel when captured.
Friday, May 20, 2005
Sarah And James Brady - The Anger From Another Time.
iolence. Conflict. As if these were useless and
undesirable societal dynamics.
As a matter of fact, without them, we would be stomped by those who use
coercion as an everyday tool to get their way. Perhaps that's why there's
a worldwide movement to discourage resistance to issues in general. It's
made its way here, and we're feeling it big time. One of the pressure
tactics we're experiencing is disinformation in both facts and attitude,
and this one comes from The Brady Bunch in the news again lately.
Since the attempt on the life of President Reagan, where James Brady was
shot also and suffered permanent brain injury, Sarah and James Brady have
devoted their lives to the elimination of handguns, and in so doing, they
seek to destroy Liberty for all. Though there is a big connection between
guns and liberty, there is an even more significant connection between
resistance and liberty. People want to be left alone. Some cannot leave
As one example: is the Brady response a rational
grief or injury, or it is a normal, but irrational
grief and injury?
An irrational response can be normal. Often, we see news releases of
individuals who are victims of violent crime, and who announce publicly
their position against weapons instead of being against volitional
criminality that hurt them. The Bradys are no different. They, too, can be
emotionally hurt and exhibit an irrational reaction at first: they are
attacking the machine instead of its operator. To appreciate that an
irrational response can be normal for coping with any given trauma is not
the same as giving the imprimatur of normalcy to the irrational when it
We all feel anger and injustice, but where you take it from there is
I understand the Bradys' anger - most liberal thought comes from anger
But my objection to liberal thought - or the lack of thinking things
through - has always been that the anger they exhibit is merely a
compounding of a single event such as theirs onto much earlier wounds, and
that it can be misdirected, blind and - most important - lasting.
I often refer to it as the anger
from another time.
At most any time in a person's life, there is a perception of justice and
injustice, even as we come to learn the very concept. Such old wounds
become old because they have been held for so long; others who can let go
tend to grow up with less baggage, more self-confidence and tend to work
without a net.
Our war is between the self-confident and the forever-wounded. This is why
the difference between Liberal and Conservative is only a relative one.
Liberal anger is from old wounds, and anything can symbolize some older
wound or sensitive contusion sensing objective danger about to be hurt
them all over again. Anxiety is the anticipation, the perceived imminence
of reliving that pain, and the Bradys are certainly a poster child for it.
The problem is that such irrational, emotional views can spill over into
our governance, as such hurt persons try to change politically
what they can change only internally
To protect oneself from reliving their anxiety, people commonly erect a
reality distortion device. We all do it. But where we all share this
trait, many of us triumph over our anxieties of old and get past the
injustice. If one can, another can, too.
Others cannot, and they hang onto the old injustices and hang on and hang
on. They then see them everywhere, and why not? They're sensitive to them,
alert to them, over-reacting to them, certainly. The injustice collectors
they are called.
And Americans are getting it. Observers are noticing Projection
great deal lately and commenting on it more and more. I base the thesis of
my book on the total spectrum of defense mechanisms - reality distortion
devices to ward off anxiety.
And, as in the case of most liberal anxiety, it reacts not to the actual
trauma, but to symbols
In short, the Gun Control Movement isn't even about Guns.
In a May 19th press release, Sarah Brady issued over the U.S. Newswire:
"It would be
obscene for Congress to eliminate District of Columbia gun laws. The Mayor
is against it. The Police Chief is against it. The Washington D.C.
business community is against it. And the people who live there are
"Revoking D.C.'s gun regulations is like
pouring gasoline on smoldering coals. Anyone who follows the gun violence
problems that Washington D.C. has struggled with can't possibly, honestly
believe that the answer is a lot more guns."
This is, of course, heated and irresponsible rhetoric when an NBC poll
actually shows something else: for the results of NBC4.com's ongoing poll
on the D.C. gun ban, visit
At the time of this writing, on the question of "Do you think it's
time to change D.C.'s handgun law?",
88% of those responding said
No, maybe the answer isn't more guns, Sarah, but it certainly is more
Liberty, or the decriminalization of lawful response. Untie the hands of
the constituent so that the sovereign individual, the nation's greatest
asset, is not in such great danger. They are, after all, the community's
first line of defense.
The significance of it all is this: while our schools, workplaces and
other venues try to discourage responses which they want to
mischaracterize as in anger
it is the left who is in fact responding in anger societally and
immensely. Against family, predominantly. (Unhappy children of three
generations of broken homes explains a lot there.)
The Left's old anger from another time is reacting to symbols in a free
society that is fabulously symbol-rich. It is they who are responding in
For generations now, and mounting with every broken home.
Are we to have compassion for these people?
No. I would advise against it. Not all situations require compassion, and
though we might feel compassion for the Left's hurting and in such large
numbers, the firm approach is needed. Reality check. Anything else is
Because they are not so impaired as to be entirely
out of touch
with reality, they are simply impaired because they are partially
out of touch through erecting any combination of reality distortion
devices with which they can cope.
As they operate to destroy symbols that make them anticipate more anxiety
coming, they operate on the misinformation input of their reality
distortion device. One example is the
exhibit; an isolation mechanism to ward off pain and which makes them
believe they are smarter or that we are stupid. This doctrinaire attitude
is irksome and destructive to dialogue. The snotty remarks in confirmation
hearings is a perfect example of off-topic rhetoric that betrays an
underlying, long-standing anger. It tells us what they are really
This is why liberal policy has always failed and will continue to fail: it
is conceptualized on misinformation input through the filtration of their
reality distortion device to protect them.
Hang-ups can be nothing more than simple excess baggage in everyday life,
but when it's forced on us, spilling over into our governance, then we
stand to surrender the country for an injustice that was in fact never
there in reality.
John Longenecker is author of
The Battle We Fight - Battling Potomac Fever
To Recapture Our Homes And Communities, available at
online booksellers and as an e-book. He can be reached at
and he welcomes all correspondence.
Please close this window to return