_________

_________

NRA

  HOME

  contents

   classes

  firearms

   ammo

  holsters

accessories

    more

    links

   portal

 contact us

 ________

 ________

 Gunthorp

  Volume

      I

 ________

 ________

 

Provoking Thoughts

Please close this window to return.

 

 

7-06-09

Domestic violence myths

 

Feb 9,2009

What Islam is Not, a video to watch

 

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 their sources.

1 Dec 08 from John Farnum and Stephen Wenger

Springfield Armory:

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!

/John

(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.)

Fulton 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.

/John

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!

/John

(If memory serves, this is the same nation that created the unsinkable Titanic.)

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 anyway.

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 them:

"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 the globe.

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 last week!

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!

/John

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. 

/John

 

 

Why Liberals Love Gun Control

by Justin Darr

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 government approval.

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 ignoring them.

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.

 

 

9-29-08

“Under [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 Coulter

 

Bailout Basics

By Mark Alexander

“For 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 whole.” —John McCain arguing for passage of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act (S. 190) which he co-sponsored in 2005.

While 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.”

While 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 in Congress, 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...

The 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.

This 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.

These 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.

This 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.)

The 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.

The 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 underway.

The 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.

Perception v. Reality

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.

To 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.

For two 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 that!)

However, 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.

While 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.

Thus, the 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.

Moreover, 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.

This combination of events creates the perfect economic storm, and it has dire consequences for all Americans.

Consequences of cascading confidence

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.

If the indices indicate significant instability of investor confidence, that instability can cause the financial markets to collapse in a single day. (See: “Great Depression.”)

Here, 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.

Thus, the 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.

It is 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.

President Bush addressed the nation Wednesday evening with a concise explanation of the current crisis:

“This is 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 free-market solution?

I concur, 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.

But I 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.”

Further, 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.”

It is 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 taxpayers.”

While 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 ludicrous.

Congress is going to serve as the “watchdog” over the dispensing and recovery of these funds? Can you say, “fox in the henhouse”?

Even if 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.

No doubt, 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.

To pay 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.”

And, of 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 politicians played?

One 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 fodder.

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.

Footnote: 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.

 

 

6-30-08

 

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 courts.

"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 presidents.

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 intent.

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 aborted.

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 marriage.

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 earth.

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 dougpatton@cox.net.

 

 

04-23-08

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…

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,352006,00.html

 

03-31-08

"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
Will (http://PatriotPost.US/opinion/entrylist.asp?source_id=50)
 

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 disfigurement/disablement."

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!

/John

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 steps away.)


 

 

2-24-08

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 warriors.

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 responses:

"... 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, don't they?)

"... 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 problem!


 

 

2-18-08 GOVERNMENT 

"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
Stossel (http://PatriotPost.US/opinion/entrylist.asp?source_id=29)

 

15 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 unemployed, bureaucrats.

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!

 

 

2-15-08

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.

 

 

2-12-08

Who 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 defend.

http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2008/02/the_quintessenc.php

 

The Brady 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 1976:

"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 illegal."

 

Spiking crime statistics show how well this ban, implemented by the UK and Australia, has emboldened scofflaw criminals.

 

 

10-19-07

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...
 

http://media.www.dailycampus.com/media/storage/paper340/news/2007/10/18/Commentary/Allowing.Concealed.Weapons.Poses.Danger.To.Campus-3041238.shtml

 

 

"Flawed Laws Help Stalkers Victimize Women"
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 serve him.

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 http://johnrlott.blogspot.com.

*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

 

 

10-18-07

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.
 

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58200
 

 

10-11-07

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.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lott/lott57.html

 

 

 

8-11-07

Metal and Wood by Dennis Bateman

8-10-07

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
http://www.gunlaws.com

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 territory.

I 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 it.

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 have merit.

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 safeguard.

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 bottom.

--

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 biased sources.

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.

Alan.

 

 

 

4-20-07

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.

4-18-07

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 prevent
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 poll
shows that most people believe that these attacks cannot be prevented.  I
disagree.

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
eliminated.

I believe we have similar resources that should be taken seriously at this
time.  We have hundreds of active military service personnel coming home that
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 in
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 would be
slightly older than the average college population but would easily fit in with
that group, and applicants must pass a thorough screening program.  Then they
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 one
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
incident.

College Marshals should serve until they graduate.  Their only "pay" would be
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 lives!

Grant E. Kemp
 

 

3-26-07

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.
 

 

2-22-07

Collateral damage in a defensive shoot.

 

12-06

50 shots in the big apple

 

10-3-06

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 children.
 

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 book.
 

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 here: http://www.gunlaws.com/GFZ/index.htm
 

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: http://www.gunlaws.com/Gun_Free_School_Zones.htm
 

###
 

[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 rules."
 

 

Contact:
Alan Korwin
Bloomfield Press
"We publish the gun laws."
4718 E. Cactus #440
Phoenix, AZ 85032
602-996-4020 Phone
602-494-0679 Fax
1-800-707-4020 Orders
http://www.gunlaws.com
alan@gunlaws.com
Call, write, fax or click for free full-color catalog
 

9-9-06

Even in a wheel chair you don't have to be a victim.

 

8-9-06

Her reasons for seeking a license to carry

7-7-06

How the United Nations will deal with world arms ownership

Teddy Jacobson, one of the greatest gunsmiths, has some interesting thoughts

 

11-18-05

Subject: Info from IRAQ.........a must read.

 

This was 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
returning to Iraq.

Jordan spent 7 months at Camp Blue Diamond in Ramadi. Aka: Fort Apache.
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. Jordan says
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
in-theater.

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
operations. Jordan carried a $34 Surefire G2 on a neck lanyard and loved
it.

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 Jordan's
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 terrorists (Hezbollah
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 Jordan's NCOs
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.

Violence. 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 them alone.

Why?

As one example: is the Brady response a rational response in grief or injury, or it is a normal, but irrational response to 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 lasts.

We all feel anger and injustice, but where you take it from there is everything.

I understand the Bradys' anger - most liberal thought comes from anger alone.

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 a 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 of it.

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 against it.

"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 this page.

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 Yes.

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.)

Projection..?

Beyond question.

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 anger.

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 enabling.

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 intellectualization they 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 thinking.

And feeling.

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 John@nationwideconcealedcarry.com and he welcomes all correspondence.
 

 Please close this window to return

 Web Pages:   HOME - Contents - Classes - Permit - Advanced - Expert - Reloading - Schedules - Firearms - Safety - Pistol - Rifle - Shotgun - Black Powder - Pneumatic - Ammo - Basics - Specifications - Pricelist - Holsters - Styles - Badges - Accessories - Gun Cases & Safes - Cleaning Tips -  Knives - Reloading & Casting - Black Powder - Optics & Lights - More - Anatomy, tactics, drills - Carry Permit Info MN - Relevant MN Statutes - Carry Permit Info UT - Carry Permit Info FL Carry Permit Info WI - Q and A's  - Quotes - Late Breaking News - Links - Portal

    Arm the republic with dependable quality, value, and knowledge.  

Gunthorp  Duluth, MN email: info@gunthorp.com