Fred Thompson

isn't perfect (no politician is) but he's the one candidate I can actually support without abandoning my principles.

Read what he says here

I've long believed that politics attracts the scum of mankind. Holding political office is a position of power and influence and it tends to attract those with evil intentions, who are morally corrupt, elitist, and who wish to rule over those they see as "subjects." Government has almost unlimited authority to such people, in part because they exude an aura of moral superiority which is reflected in the policies they seek to enact. They further their authority by perverting the Constitution to grant themselves regulatory power rather than restrict their power over individual citizens. They believe the word "regulate" in the 2nd Amendment GRANTS them the power to restrict the individual rights deemed inalienable by that very same Amendment.

The beliefs of such politicians run counter to the very principles underlying the foundation of this nation. These "elites" believe they have the authority to take property from the people and use it for their own interests, including giving to those they deem "needy." They see us not as citizens, but as unruly, ignorant subjects who must be told how to live by a benevolent and omnipotent government. They must "protect us from ourselves."

It is they, the political elite who know what is best for us. Everyday we are told of a new problem or injustice that must be solved for the common good. They must exaggerate and even invent said problems because if the nanny state is to persist they must have something to "fix." More importantly they must convince the ignorant masses that things need fixing and that they are the only ones capable of doing so. Like Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson, they must keep problems at the forefront so that they may remain relevant. God forbid we be simply left alone to live our lives as we see fit. That would be simply unconscionable.

Their "government fixes" pervade into all areas of the private sphere. Why? because the concept of an individual having the liberty to do as he pleases is dangerous. They despise the very idea that the individual is sacrosanct and freedom, liberty, and self-determination are inviolate and inherent in his very being. and thus to achieve their utopia they must destroy that idea in the hearts and minds of the citizenry.

The religious right is guilty of this as well, since their special brand of Christian morality must be thrust upon us "for our own good." The plea invoked on both sides is one of "necessity." This is demonstrably true of all governments that wish to rule rather than serve. (and ALL governments do. ) Government is a minimally necessary evil with a seemingly insatiable appetite for power. It never limits itself to only that for which it was intended.

William Pitt once said, " Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants, it is the creed of slaves."

Pitt is correct, which is why it's so important for the electorate to educate themselves, do the research, and reason for themselves whether these "necessary infringements" are in fact necessary. Too bad I have little faith that many voters are willing, or even able to do this. So many have had the tenets of liberty and freedom indoctrinated away and replaced with a trusting, loving, "Uncle Sam's gonna give me something" mentality.

All of that being said, I find someone who doesn't have a great desire to become President extremely refreshing. Thompson is a man who left politics for one of the most noble reasons I can think of. He wanted to spend more time with his family. Thompson isn't afraid to say what he means, bluntly at times. He has no qualms about pointing out the leftist liberal bias of the media and they hate him for it. His attitude is far from the elitist attitudes I see in most of the candidates. That's why I like him so much.

Evil Pt. 1 (re-posted from my LJ)

Tam has a great post up regarding a misinterpreted quote by Will Smith. I think what she's said is dead-on, though I'd add that I think evil men like Hitler almost certainly didn't see themselves as evil. I think that's human nature, to rationalize beliefs, behaviors and actions in ones own mind, though that certainly doesn't excuse evil acts.

In fact, one of the things that makes Hitler so pertinent as an example is the very fact that most Germans rationalized what he was saying and doing until their fellow citizens were being herded into railway cars. They didn't see him as evil, just as he himself didn't consider his actions inherently evil. They didn't recognize evil until it smacked them in the face, and I think that's telling because some of the men considered most "evil" by history were in fact immensely popular during their time because those evils were committed with "good intentions." Keep in mind that I'm not saying Hitler isn't evil, nor am I attempting to excuse what he did.

I think most of the worlds worst atrocities are carried out by governments with the support of at least some honest citizens. If you look at the worlds best politicians, they are able to sell themselves and their policies no matter how misguided they may be. They can look you right in the eye, tell you a bold-faced lie, and do it in such a way that you'll actually believe it. Bill Clinton is good at this. His wife tries but isn't as successful. I can't remember his name, but the head of Hitler's propaganda machine said something along the lines of " if you tell the public a lie long enough, and with enough conviction, they will eventually believe it." And the bigger the lie the more this is true. ( I can't believe I can't remember his name)

I believe that all men are capable of committing evil acts if they have rationalized such actions in their own minds. Do you really believe that every German soldier, every German man or women who went along with Hitlers "final solution" was truly evil? Of course not, they allowed themselves to believe that their actions were necessary given the circumstances.

It brings to mind the phrase "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

The "Public Safety" argument for gun-control

My debates with two of my families diehard liberals over the holidays have made me think of several topics I want to write about.

One such topic is the notion that gun control is permissible, or worse, "necessary" because it's the responsibility of government to ensure "public safety."

This is serving as a placeholder till for now till I can actually write this post.

Some people deserve death

Family of 6 murdered in Washington

"McEnroe shot 5-year-old Olivia Anderson in the head "at very close range," said Prosecuting Attorney Dan Satterberg. Then he turned to 3-year-old Nathan Anderson, the last survivor in the home.

The boy had picked up the batteries McEnroe had torn from the phone and held them up in one hand. McEnroe told detectives the child gave him "... the look of complete comprehension ... as if he understood." McEnroe then shot him in the head as well"

I'm all for this guy being publicly drawn & quartered, but I guess that'd be cruel & unusual punishment. My personal opinion is that cruel & unusual crimes deserve cruel & unusual punishments conducted in public.

Quote of the Day

"Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but where, I trust in God, it will always remain, in the hands of the people."

-Tench Coxe

social constructs and the meaning of "rights"

After my post about the definition of "evil" and recent discussions with my Opa about rights and the Constitution I thought of the 10th Amendment and the actual meaning of "rights" I was going to embark on an essay into the topic, but as I was reading Kevin Baker's blog yesterday I perused his archives and found that he'd already tackled the subject eloquently and in great detail.

What is a "right?"

I may write on the subject anyway, but I doubt there's anything I could say that Mr. Baker hasn't already said.

Quote of the Day

“It is usually futile to try to talk facts and analysis to people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance.”

— Thomas Sowell

The Idiots in Charge in DC

... Must really think gun buybacks work.

That makes two this month. If they keep going at this rate they'll have bought back all the bad guns and the streets of D.C. will once again be safe.

Evil Pt 2 (Pt. 1 is in my livejournal and will be posted here)

What is evil? Like most terms in the english language that are not tangible objects (persons, places, things) evil is an abstract concept. Meaning is attributed to the word as a result of values and social interactions of the members of a society. The meaning of the term is socially constructed, and all words referring to abstract concepts have only the meaning given by society. Furthermore, those meanings can morph based on the context in which the word is used.

Justice Stewart said of obscenity in Miller " I know it when I see it." Can the same not be said for evil? We can't actually see evil, but we can see evil acts. Such acts are the type which society has deemed so heinous, so morally reprehensible that their perpetrators must not be allowed to co-exist with the rest of society. No one has compiled a complete list of "evil acts" but yet we recognize such acts because of their deviation from those actions which society considers "normal."

The people who commit these actions do not see them as "evil." The Manson's, Daumer's etc. have explanations for their actions. To the rest of us they seem twisted beyond belief, but the men committing these evils don't see their actions in the same way. Despite the fact that society considers their crimes "evil" these men have justified their actions.

The fact is that Will Smith's comments are not ridiculous. Those who are bashing his words are oversimplifying what he is saying.

christmas recap

My brother had to work a half shift on Christmas Day so we stopped by his new house to celebrate for a bit. Everyone got to exchange presents, get a tour of the new place, and hang out with the nephews for a while. Josh liked his gift and we talked guns. His duty weapon is chambered for .357 SIG which is an interesting looking round. The front half looks like a 9mm round, then there's a bit of a "hump" and the back half is larger. It seems more and more cops are moving away from the 9mm. My dad was clearly annoyed both by what we were discussing and by my gun-related gift. He was especially bothered by the fact that my 11 year old nephew now has his own gun for hunting season.

Christmas was good, albeit a bit crazy with all the people and kids running around. The weather was amazing. I played football outside with Tylor for about an hour in a T-shirt and wasn't cold. Further Christmas details will come later since I'm at work.

the whole "banning lightbulbs" issue

I guess all the hippie liberals out in California want to reduce our energy consumption to help the environment. The sad thing is they're too dumb to realize they'll actually be causing more harm to mother earth by switching to fluorescent bulbs. I'll explain later when I have time to finish this post.

But of course omnipotent politicians know whats best for us lowly commoners.

common sense is so very uncommon

Westroads mall in Omaha, Nebraska has put their "No-Guns Signs" back up.

They took them down following the shooting that took place there and now for some reason that I can't begin to comprehend, they've put them back up.

I find it funny that the last rule on the sign prohibits "unlawful behavior." Wouldn't that cover the bad guys bringing in guns and shooting people?

I really can't find words to express how I feel about this. The stupidity of the mall administrators astounds me, yet at the same time I can't say I'm surprised. Anti-gun people are so out of touch with reality on the issue that nothing they say or do surprises me much anymore.

liberals love guns

I found an article entitled "Liberals Actually Love Guns" via Nikki at The Liberty Zone
(A great blog by the way) The article and Nikki's commentary are spot-on. Anyway, the article has inspired what will eventually be a long post. So I'm putting this here as a reminder for now.

_________________________________________________________

At a fundamental level every involuntary interaction that occurs between individual citizens and the government carries with it the implicit condition of coercive force. The role of government is supposed to be limited to protecting citizens from outside invasion and protecting the individual rights of citizens. Ideally the government has no power other than that which is specifically delegated to it by the text of the Constitution. That means no ridiculous excuse for the government to grab power through the all encompassing "commerce clause." Unfortunately the government has far more power than was ever intended by the framers.

Marko said in his piece "Why the Gun is Civilization" that people have only two ways of dealing with one another, reason and force. I believe the same can be said of dealings between citizens and their government. Every law, every restriction, every tax, decry, mandate etc. levied by the government on it's citizens inevitably has the threat of force attached. As Mao said "All political power comes from the barrel of a gun," and he is right, at least at some level.

If I decide I no longer want to pay my federal (unconstitutional) income tax I can choose to do so. The government, acting via the IRS will inform me of my non-compliance with the tax code, likely through both writing and telephone calls. If I continue to repeatedly refuse payment and tell the government to "fuck off" they're not going to reason with me and say "well how about you pay 10% of what we asked?" They're not going to send a man in a suit and tie my door and politely ask for taxes. No, at some point in my interaction with them they will send armed federal agents to break into my home, forcefully arrest me, and seize my assets as payment.

The same can be said for "eminent domain" policies. If the government uses eminent domain to kick me off my land / out of my house and I refuse they will eventually send armed agents to kick in the door and force me out. If this were not the case government could largely be ignored with impunity.

If the government declares something "mandatory" they must be implying that their will be consequences for those who refuse to comply. Take Clinton or Edwards' universal healthcare for example. Edwards was quoted as saying "they don't have that choice" when asked about individuals who might choose not to be enrolled in government healthcare. In order to force healthcare upon the unwilling they must use force, delivered by men with guns to arrest anyone giving and /or receiving private care when other means of coercion have failed. A gun pointed at a person is the ultimate coercive force and it would be naive to think the government doesn't understand this and use it to their advantage.

Liberals and politicians don't want to admit it, but they want guns. Not just want, they need guns to force their utopia on those who wish to live free. This is true of liberals, communists, socialists and fascists alike. This is why any government who's philosophy is predicated upon common good and forced compliance must disarm the populace before it can attain its goals. Just as guns are the ultimate coercive force in the hands of the government, they can be equally coercive in resistance when held by citizens.

Vladimir Lenin was once quoted as saying,

“One man with a gun can control 100 without one.”

Lenin was correct in his observation, which is why it is a truism of history to say that armed men are citizens who must be reasoned with, while unarmed men are subjects who can be disregarded, trampled upon, and even slaughtered without fear of reprisal.

legislating everything (fuel economy)

As you may have heard on the news, the government is adopting new CAFE standards (fuel economy standards) and many politicians are lauding this as a major accomplishment towards fighting global warming and decreasing our oil consumption. As with gun control, universal healthcare, and other issues they seem to think that passing a law and having the government mandate standards will magically change things. The problem is that a little thing called the free market usually gets in the way.

When the AWB was signed in 94' you could still buy a pre-ban AR-15 and high-cap mags if you wanted, only they cost twice as much as they did pre-ban. Why? Because we now had no new production of pre-ban guns AND higher demand for pre-bans. When you have a finite supply of a commodity and increased demand people don't stop buying. Those that sell that commodity just charge more, and those willing to shell out the dough still get what they want.

I got C's in my college economics classes, and even I know these new CAFE standards won't work. Until the price of gasoline is high enough to cause a drastic change in consumption habits such laws will never work as intended. People are going to drive just as much as they usually would, regardless of the mileage standards the EPA puts on the window sticker of the car they're buying. People who are driving SUV's and V8 sportscars will continue driving them, and people who choose to drive small cars and hybrids will continue driving them. Why? because they'll drive what the choose to drive unless they are forced to change because of personal cost constraints. Demand for gasoline is for the most part inelastic.

And what happens when you force manufacturers to make cars that get better fuel mileage? I could just re-post my 20 page policy paper I wrote on CAFE standards my sophomore year of college, but it was a boring paper. Well one consequence is that automakers now have to spend more money either developing brand new vehicles, or changing existing models to adhere to the new standards. Anyone who thinks the cost of doing this won't be passed onto American consumers obviously slept through ECON 101. Look at ammo prices. The price of lead rose, and the price us shooters pay for ammo rose accordingly. Why? Cost offsetting. Businesses exist to make profits. If the government imposes a new cost burden on them they find a way to offset those new costs. Generally they're offset from the wallets of consumers. Another thing that happens is that automakers make existing cars lighter, since less weight = better mileage. Why do you think the "bumpers" on your car are plastic, thin as hell, and weigh maybe 2 pounds? This may save a bit in fuel economy, but it costs us far more in repair costs for fender benders. You can't even tap things with modern bumper covers without cracking or gouging them (just ask my mother, who's gone through 5 in as many years)

this is the biggest threat to the U.S.

Student arrested for cutting steak with *gasp* a steak knife!

I truly believe that the single biggest long-term threat to our nation is not an outside force, but destruction from within. The entire far-left liberal mindset and resulting policy that allows these types of things to happen are a huge threat. Why? because of what such policies teach today's children. No ideology could be more at odds with those this country was founded under than those of contemporary liberalism. If children are indoctrinated with this type of BS the concepts of "liberty" and "freedom" will be gone in a few decades, if not sooner.

interesting thought

Anti-gun liberals say that the U.S., with the most advanced army in the world, can't defeat an insurgency armed with IED's and small arms. These same liberals say that the "defense of tyranny" argument of pro-2nd Amendment folks is ridiculous because millions of armed gun owners would never stand a chance fighting against the U.S. government / military.

So which is it? Can the best equipped military in the world not defeat untrained insurgents armed with small arms, or would insurgents be crushed immediately by such a military?

It seems to me that guerrilla warfare type insurgencies have a fairly good track record against large armies.

Why some people are afraid of guns.

As Sebastian over at Pro Gun Progressive just explained

"I think people who fear law abiding people with guns do so because of what they themselves might do, not what John Q. Permit-Holder is up to."

Yup. I'm damn sure that's why my dad is so vehemently anti-gun. I'm not even sure I'd trust him to responsibly handle and shoot a loaded gun, even at the range.

A little Christmas list....

Of guns of course. Just a little list of guns I'd like to own

Sig P225 (I have a P6)
Sig P228
.22lr rifle (don't know what)
RRA 9mm AR-15
7.62 Tokarev upper for AR-15
CZ-52
CZ-50
AK-74
Swiss K31
Star Modelo B
Remington 870 (everyone should own one shotgun right?)
CZ-82
East German Makarov
Walther P99C

That's a short enough list. No doubt it will grow. Funny that I have several long guns on the list but have never shot anything but handguns.

The Unpossible happening in DC...

Looks like they're having a gun buyback Can someone please tell me how that's possible when DC has some of the most stringent and blatantly unconstitutional gun laws in the U.S?

First off, how can DC "buy back" property they never owned in the first place? I'd love to see D.C. Police Chief Rainer answer that. Another thing, how do people get the guns to the buyback site? It's illegal for anyone to carry a gun in D.C. so are they granting amnesty to anyone carrying a gun to the buyback? If I'm caught carrying in D.C on the day of the buyback and I tell the police I'm just heading to the buyback can I avoid criminal possession charges?

It's laughable that they're having a buyback in a city where guns aren't allowed in the first place and they're using taxpayer money to fund it. It's even worse that they're telling people they won't charge anyone who brings a gun to the buyback with illegal possession of a firearm. They're giving them a free pass for the day I suppose.

Also, gun buybacks might be the stupidest programs ever devised to combat crime. Ignoring the fact that guns don't actually cause crime, consider this; criminals have guns in order to intimidate and live their life of crime. Why would they voluntarily give up the key tool they use for their criminal enterprise? Only three types of people are going to bring guns to these buybacks. The first are criminals looking to bring in a junk gun or broken gun in order to make a quick buck so they can go out and buy a better gun out on the street. The second are criminals looking to dump a gun that's just been used in a crime. A buyback is the perfect way for them to easily dispose of the evidence. The third are law-abiding folks with grandpa's old gun that they never used and just want out of the house.

Stupidity runs rampant in D.C.

Evil is not stopped by submission.....

Nor is it stopped by banning guns, knives, or samurai swords as they've just done in the UK. Sadly acts of violence will never be stopped by such bans because evil in the mind of a killer is all that's necessary. What are we going to do, ban matches and gasoline? ban anything combustible?

this is an example of such evil

You cannot stop evil men hellbent on killing innocent people unless such men are behind bars or dead. The ONLY appropriate response to truly evil men is force. No amount of reasoning, laws, or signage proscribing objects or illegal acts could have stopped this man. Even if we could ensure that nothing could ever be used as a weapon evil men would still kill with their bare hands. If killing is their intent they will find a way to kill.

Many people like to encourage the idea that victims should "just give them what they want." The problem with this approach is that it requires the victim to determine the intent of the aggressor. This is impossible. If what they want is not your property, but to harm you, then such an approach will only ensure victimization. Furthermore, "giving them what they want" requires submission. When the media and law enforcement preach submission they only serve to enable and embolden criminals by training people to be easy prey. Submission is also counterintuitive to our natural flight or fight instincts.

(this makes me think of Delaware's deadly force laws, but I'll save discussion of those for another post)

In the case of the man in the link I posted submission did not work. Two women were set on fire because they gave him the money and he wasn't happy with the amount. (do a search on youtube and you'll find many video's where victims acquiesced to the demands of their attackers and were killed anyway.)

And then we have this guy, who killed two people and was happy about it. Courtesy of Sharp as a Marble

"He found Jason Wenger, 27, a graduate student at the University of Alaska Anchorage. According to the documents, Rogers told police he shot Wenger a few hours later during a carjacking at Wenger's West Anchorage home. When he wasn't able to get Wenger's body out of his Bronco quickly enough, Rogers fled on foot to a wooded spot, where he took a nap, he told police.

At that point, he told police he was no longer concerned about getting caught and "just wanted to kill a few more people," court papers say.

After buying some cigarettes and beer"

How are gun laws, or any laws going to stop someone who nonchalantly kills two people, then takes a nap, buys some beer and smokes and is totally unconcerned with being caught? The best place for evil like this is six feet under.

The next time someone asks you "Why do you own a gun?" just tell them "There are evil people in the world." If they're one of those people who can't grasp this reality, then they do so at their own peril.

Chicks and Guns

A Girl and a Gun Film

If you see a gunman shooting people

Be a sheep, only worse. Sheep wouldn't fight back, but at least they'd run.

h/t to David Codrea - The War On Guns for the link

Alvin Police Chief Mike Merkel said there are three things shoppers need to know if they are trapped in a chaotic shooting situation inside a mall.

First, stand still.

"They're going to pick out individuals who are running to or away from them," Merkel said. "Standing still may keep you from becoming a victim."

Second, make yourself as small a target as possible.
"Get as close to the ground as you can," said Merkel. "Try to get behind a solid object."


STAND STILL?! yeah thats a great idea, since it's so much easier to hit a running target than it is to hit a stationary one. Is that how he trains his officers to respond to a threat? Stand still? This guys advice is on par with the idiot recommendations on the Illinois State Police website regarding what to do if someone tries to rape you.

Making yourself a smaller target is fine, but it's useless if you're standing still. You may as well kneel down against the wall and wait for the shooter to put a bullet in your head. If you're stationary it's not going to matter how small you make yourself or how close to the ground you get.

Clinton.....

I cannot believe Hillary Clinton is trying to call Obama "unelectable" because he's called for gun bans in the past. To me they're equal gun-grabbers and Clinton actually scares me more from a general anti-liberty standpoint. Hillary is just doing what she always does, trying to paint herself as "moderate" when she's actually a far left socialist. Now that hillary has called out Obama on guns he's trying to backpedal as well. They both have NO respect for the 2nd Amendment, and anything they say to the contrary is just political pandering.

Heres the article

But it's safe here...

I always hear people say things like "that doesn't happen here, not in MY town." I hear it quite a bit from people around here. They live in denial. They leave doors and windows unlocked, keys in cars, even with the cars running (I've seen cops do this as well) and most are generally oblivious to the world arouond them. Where I live we used to have a tiny county police station within walking distance from my house. It's since been closed and now the closest State police headquarters are maybe 10 miles away.

The thing is, bad things DO happen here. More often than you might think. In Newark where I go to school there is an armed robbery or home invasion in the student newspaper almost weekly, yet our school administration doesn't consider it necessary to allow campus police to carry their weapons. Instead they must radio the station if they're responding to a call and think they might need a gun.

Things like this do happen. The woman in the article was carjacked not half a mile from my house.

An elderly couple not too far away from me was murdered a year or two ago by a man with an Axe who had broken into their home. I don't understand how people can expect that "the cops will get here in time to save me." or worse, they realize that the cops can't protect them and still convince themselves that they're insulated from the violence in the world and that owning a gun will only increase, not decrease that violence. They see only violence, unable (or unwilling) to see the difference between the predatory violence of criminals and the protective violence of their fellow citizens. They don't understand, as Sir Robert Peel explained, that the duties of the police and citizens are intertwined. In a general sense, citizens are the police, and the police are citizens. It doesn't matter whether an armed citizen already at the scene stops a threat, or whether a responding police officer does. Marko explained that perfectly in a recent post and I think his words are worth quoting.

"I've said it before, but it bears repeating: the only thing that will stop an armed attacker on the spot is a person with a gun of their own. Gun haters realize this as well, which is why they rarely ever suggest disarming the police. They, too, rely on the gun to protect themselves from harm--they just feel all high and mighty because they outsource the task.

The number of casualties at the site of an attempted mass shooting is usually determined by whether the gun used to stop the killer is already at the site, or whether it must be carried there in the holster of a police officer."

straight from my mothers mouth

She said that with all these shootings she's starting to "come around to my kind of thinking" on guns. It seems that Ms. Assam's actions and my discussions with her about these shootings are actually having an impact.

If only I could get my dad to come around as well.......

In other news, the price of 5.56/.223 sucks right now.

Visual Aids

Two very good posters given recent events

One by concealedcampus.org and another by the incredibly talented Olek Volk

Something I emailed to my grandpa a while back

-------

I am not sure where you read that the U.S. Supreme Court upheld any state laws regarding certain types of firearms as being "outside the boundaries of the 2nd Amendment." I personally believe that the term "Arms" in the 2nd Amendment encompasses only firearms, but that ALL firearms are protected and that most gun laws are an infringement. I do have to disagree with this statement however,

"for the purposes of preserving the common welfare and the protection of our police and military against weapons more powerful and designed for the sole purpose of killing human beings without just cause."

The 2nd Amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with the protection of the police and military. In fact, it was explicitly meant be a counterbalance to a "standing army." If anything, the writings of the founders bear out that they believed an armed militia was necessary because of the threat that a standing army may someday come into power. The Amendment's purpose was never to protect the police and military, who are armed agents of the State, but rather to protect ordinary citizens from those very armed agents should they become the armed thugs of a tyrant. Our founders came to this nation with a radical idea never before tried by any European government. Their radical idea was of course to trust and grant power to individual citizens not the government. Now I see liberals not only trusting the government, but expecting government assistance (intrustion) into all areas of life. These same liberals who don't trust their fellow citizens to carry guns, and who clearly mistrust the Bush Administration inexplicably believe that the very government they claim to mistrust should be the only ones armed.

You talk of automatic and / or semi-automatic weapons being outside the boundaries of the 2nd Amendment. If the intent of the founders was to draft the 2nd Amendment as a protection against tyranny (as is undoubtedly the case) then couldn't one logically conclude that it would be necessary for citizens to own military equivalent arms that are in common usage? What good would the right to bear arms be if those arms were so outdated as to be ineffective against the government? I can't image that the founders intended for the citizenry to own arms far inferior to those held by the government. If that were the case then the 2nd Amendment would have no "teeth" and would be rendered useless for defending against tyranny.

Surely you understand that "semi-automatic weapons" are protected by the 2nd Amendment. On what logical grounds should they not be protected? They fire a round with each pull of the trigger. Furthermore, legally owned fully automatic weapons have only ever been used in ONE documented crime, and that was committed by a police officer with access to such weapons.

In my opinion the type of firearm a citizen may own is irrelevant. As a law-abiding U.S. citizen I should be allowed to own a fully automatic weapon, a semi-auto AK47 or AR15, a semi-auto shotgun, pump shotgun, semi-auto handgun, or antique musket, flintlock etc. The government should not place an a priori restriction on what type of firearm I may own because of the presumption that I may commit an illegal act with it. Instead government should punish those who actually commit violent crimes. We don't govern all cars to 65 mph under the assumption that the moment someone gets behind the wheel they are going to break the speed limit. We don't ban high powered "assault" sports cars for "public safety" or claim that the average citizen "non-professional driver" doesn't have the training or maturity needed to operate said vehicle. Unfortunately I see this exact kind of arrogance when people discuss firearms.

Furthermore, the purpose of firearms that you state is also irrelevant. The fact remains that firearms deaths account for very few deaths in this country. They are not designed "Solely to kill" anymore than a kitchen knife is designed to kill. They are used in a predatory means by violent criminals, and in a protective means by the thousands of law-abiding gun owners in this country. More children are killed by drowning in swimming pools than are killed by someone with a gun, yet pools are not designed with the purpose of killing children. Heart disease is the #1 killer in this country yet the government doesn't restrict peoples choice of what they can eat. Automobile accidents kill more than firearms each year, yet we don't try to ban them, and any idiot with half a brain can get a license to propel thousands of pounds of metal at speeds high enough to easily kill a person. Hell, mothers against drunk driving doesn't try to place innumerable restrictions on adults who like to drink. They don't blame the alcohol, or the car, they blame the person and his choice. It should be the same for firearms. Punish the actor for his actions, not the object.

I'm going to cut this short with one last thought that is somewhat crude. Anti-gun people assume that I might kill someone at anytime and that I am a threat if I simply carry a gun in public. They're unable to even consider the advantages of owning and carrying a gun. Do I have the means to take a life or commit a crime if I'm carrying a gun? yes, but I also have the means to protect lives. By the anti's logic I'd also be a constant threat because I possess the equipment between my legs with which to commit rape, and women everywhere are prostitutes simply because they have a vagina.

I could say much more on this topic, but I think this is good for now.

Anti's really do live in their own little fantasy world

via www.saysuncle.com

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2007/12/11/mika-church-shootings-inane-think-armed-citizen-can-make-differenc

Here we have Ms. Jeanne Assam, a civilian CCW holder stopping a killer. It's impossible to deny that Ms. Assam made a difference, and yet people in the media still want to downplay the impact of her actions.

BRZEZINSKI: "Alright. Police say it appears that shot only wounded Murray, that she only wounded him, and then he possibly took his own life."

How is that relevant? Whats important is that Ms. Assam stopped the threat and no one else was killed as a result of her actions. The alternative, had she not shot him, would have been far worse.

SCARBOROUGH: "One person with a gun can make a big difference."
BRZEZINSKI: "Oh gosh, no! No, no, no"

Given the facts of what happened Brzezinski still can't accept the fact that yes, a civilian with a GUN made a difference.

And then Ms. Brzezinski exclaims that "You know, that is the most inane statement I have ever heard."

She can think it's the most inane statement she's ever heard, but it doesn't change the truth. The truth is that it did happen. A civilian with a gun DID make a difference and killed a madman.

Switching over from Livejournal

Considering how much I write on the subject, I've decided it's time for me to join the ranks of the gun bloggers. I apologize in advance to those who read my livejournal, but I'll probably be reposting much of my gun-related ramblings to this blog.

And yes I know "Another Gun Blog" is a terribly uncreative title, but nothing good came to mind.