Campus Trash

There are times when I read an article that makes me wonder just where we went wrong as a country, why our children think as they do. This is one such article:

From The Daily Campus: (University of Connecticut)

By Chris Donnelly

America's Gun Culture Must Change

If there is one thing anyone can be sure of in this country, it is that Americans love guns. Not a day goes by when you don't see a fine American citizen killing some poor, defenseless person/animal with a .50 caliber hand cannon on television, or you hear about some random act of violence (a bank robbery, a homicide, or a crazed postal worker) which involves a gun in some respect. Therefore, being a proponent of living in general, I think it's about time we as a country threw in the towel when it comes to the whole "I'm from America, and I have a God-given right to kill and spread carnage whenever I feel like it" gig and adopt a platform of life.

Nothing is more ironic than your average conservative Republican who vehemently cares about not using a couple of cells for stem cell research (that just get thrown out anyways) and claims that they care about life, but yet they have a large enough arsenal in their cellar to single-handedly occupy Paris (for purely hunting purposes only, mind you). If we are going to take this approach as a country, then every time I get a nose bleed I better call an ambulance to save the thousands of cells from dying.

The simple fact is that guns serve no tangible purpose anymore. The main reason why we created the whole Second Amendment was something along the lines of protecting ourselves back in the 1700s from the people we stole our land from; aka Native Americans, who, in my book, we should still be paying reparations to as an apology for the numerous instances of rape, theft and murder that occurred at the hands of 'true' Americans. Oh, and we can never forget the necessity of a firearm to protect your log cabin from being invaded by bears.

But wait, if we stopped having guns and if we even took it to the level of decreasing our military arsenal as well, it would be much harder for us to start wars, the classic American past time. Forget baseball, nothing makes a real American man happier than a beer in one hand, the controls to a flat screen LCD TV in the other, and the latest front line report from Fox News in front of him, fresh with depictions of carnage and massed destruction brought to you live from some country in the Middle East that we can't (or don't bother to learn to) pronounce anyways.

This diatribe is not even worth fisking, it is just trash. This kid goes on for another page of nonsense, but you get the picture from what I posted. This kid has absolutely no concept of history, responsibility, or life outside academia. The perfect liberal politician in training.

Was this a letter to the editor, printed to maintain some sort of political equilibrium in an otherwise decent newspaper? I am afraid not:

Staff Columnist Chris Donnelly is a 5th-semester sociology and political science double major.

This was written by a paid columnist for this college paper.

One has to wonder if this is the way Chris was raised, or has he gone all loopy since he left home?

Another Newspaper Exceeds the Bounds of Common Sense

The Sandusky Register of Sandusky Ohio has joined the ranks of news organizations that have placed citizens lives in jeopardy. They have published a listing of local CHL holders.

This time, they did not post addresses, just a list of names. That is still an abuse of their privilege. CHL holders have many reasons for obtaining a CHL. Some get a CHL due to a direct threat, others just because it is the right thing to do. This paper has just notified an offender that the potential victim is armed, they have just escalated the violence of the attack by the goblin.

Many, if not most, CHL holders have not told their friends, acquaintances and co-workers that they carry a firearm. The decision to protect yourself is a private one, unless you happen to live in Sandusky Ohio. There is a possibility that being on this list will get a person fired. An anti gun supervisor reading the name of an employee on this list, even if the employee does not carry at work, can take action against the employee.

Publishing this list of CHL names is just plain wrong. This paper has made a conscious decision to endanger the lives and livelihood of the folks it pretends to service.

A very large thanks to The Liberty Sphere for bringing this latest bit of journalistic malpractice to our attention.

For a more in depth discussion, check out LIBERTY ALERT! Paper Publishes Names of Gun Owners

Also commenting:

Say Uncle

Update -

Thanks to an anon commenter, we have a link to the Buckeye Firearms Association article on this mess. Sandusky Register Editor Matt Westerhold Declares War on Gun Owner Privacy. This is an in depth article that includes a bit of history on the editor who decided to run this story (this is not his first attack on CHL privacy) and how it came to be that state law allows this to happen. This article is well worth the read.

The article also led to this political cartoon, from the very paper that published the list of CHL holder names:

It seems the paper's cartoonist has a better handle on the bag of worms that was opened with this story than the editor does.

And some people wondered why we (Texas) needed HB 991, a bill to ensure CHL confidentiality.

Fun With the Brady Bunch

Marsha McCartney, the leader of the Brady Bunch in Texas, is staging another anti gun protest. This time the protest is in DeSoto, a suburb of Dallas. They will be doing the 32 people dressed in black laying down in a parking lot protest that seems to be all the rage these days.

A Brady Bunch protest is not something I would normally comment upon, but the layout person at Pegasus News has a great sense of humor.

This image and caption was next to the article:

"Someone needs to put a waiting period on these guns"

Now that is some funny "editorializing".

If you are interested in reading the article:

Demonstration to be held Saturday in Desoto to protest gun laws

Dig unearths Americas' first gun victim

Those dastardly guns, claiming victims as long as 475 years ago.

The whole story here.

Update on H.R. 1022

It has been awhile since I have posted anything on H.R. 1022, The Federal Assault on Our Firearms. Most folks who keep an eye on anti-gun legislation seem to think that this bill is a non-issue, that it will not make it to the house floor. I hope these folks are correct.

I am still concerned about the potential of this bill being passed out of committee. H.R. 1022 currently has 49 cosponsors. The last two signed as cosponsors on June 6th, just two days ago. The bill has moved from The House Judiciary Committee to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. I honestly do not know what this move signifies, or how it affects the odds of the bill making it to the house floor. I do know that four of the sixteen members of this subcommittee are cosigners of the bill.

These are the committee members who also cosigned H.R. 1022:

Representative William Delahunt
(D) Massachusetts, 10th

Representative Sheilia Jackson Lee
(D) Texas, 18th

Representative Martin Meehan
(D) Massachusetts, 5th

Representative Jerrold Nadler
(D) New York, 8th

This committee is made up of 10 Dems and 6 Republicans. If the Democrats decide to push H.R. 1022, it would make it out of committee very easily.

This has just been a friendly reminder that H.R. 1022 is not dead. If you have a spare moment to send an email or a fax to your representative concerning this bill, it would be appreciated.

The text of H.R. 1022

More on H.R. 1022 here.

Is This Sarcasm, or a Recommendation?

This first time I read the following letter to the editor, I thought "Wow, this guy is an idiot". The second time I read it I thought maybe he was being sarcastic. Now I'm just not sure, but leaning towards my first reaction. This guy is an idiot.

Make gun possession illegal in city limits

From the Journal Gazette:

By Jerome A. Welch

Congratulations to the city of Fort Wayne on the smoking ban that took effect June 1. Think of all the lung cancer that will be prevented.

Now let’s take on the gun problem. Make it illegal to possess a handgun within the city limits. Law enforcement personnel initially could be allowed to carry guns, but eventually even that would be unnecessary. Think of the homicides that will be prevented. Britain and Japan have very strict gun laws. Their homicide rates are a small fraction of ours.

Three cheers for Councilman John Crawford for persevering in a noble cause. And three cheers for former mayor Paul Helmke for his efforts to control guns.

First, smoking bans have never been about public health. Smoking bans are about property rights and the right of a business owner to allow the consumption of a legal product on the premises of a business establishment.

As to his recommendations about firearms. His idea is not even worth fisking, hence my thought that he may be attempting sarcasm. In the even he is not, I will make one little comment.

All I have to say to this:

Think of the homicides that will be prevented.

is - Think of Washington D.C.

The War on Gun Shop Owners Continues

Yesterday I commented upon the abuses by the BATF in their vendetta against Red's Trading Post.

Today we get work that the BATF has submitted a letter to Judge Edward Lodge requesting the termination of the preliminary injunction that was granted to Red’s Trading Post on April 30th by Judge Lodge.

The crimes committed by Red's Trading Post? Keeping records in an alpha/chronological order (as recommended by a previous BATF auditor) vs strict alphabetical order. There are other similar clerical items such as that. Not a single public safety issue. The BATF wants to close down this multi-generational family business just because they can.

It was not that very long ago when you could purchase a firearm in any department or hardware store. Even Sears had their own branded firearms for sale. At that time, firearms did not have a mystique, they were just guns. These days even the big box stores are succumbing to the pressure of the regulatory morass and the bullying of petty bureaucrats. The most recent example is WalMarts decision to pretty much stop selling firearms. The smaller shops are becoming few and far between. The only place many people see firearms are in the movies and on the news. No wonder they become ambivalent about the right to keep and bear arms.

And while there are less and less FFL dealers to audit, the BATF continues to grow. Why is that?

Ryan Horsley, the manager of Red's Trading Post, has started his own blog to help keep us informed of what all is going on in that neck of the woods and with this case. The name of this new blog? Red's Trading Post of course.

Head on over and see what he has to say.

h/t to The War on Guns

Controversial Gun Bill Getting Roadside Attention

I have to admit that I smiled when I saw that image. Too bad that it does not reflect the policy of the local leadership of the GOP.

From Fox Carolina:

By Lidia St. Mark

Controversial Gun Bill Getting Roadside Attention

...A sea of signs once polluted a median on Interstate 26 and Highway 221 in Spartanburg County. Now, only one sign remains. The sign reads: "Vote Yes - Make guns legal in public schools - Vote Republican."

Although the sign insinuates Republicans are in favor of a controversial gun bill moving through the state legislature, Spartanburg Republican Chairman Rick Beltram said most Republicans are against the idea. "I think the signs are ugly. I think we also found that they are illegal, immoral and unethical," Beltram said. "They're trying to send a message that the Republican party is endorsing these issues."

This is just one more example of why the GOP is no longer grand. The bill that is alluded to in this article is H.3964. This bill, as originally written, would allow a CHL holder to carry a firearm on school property. The bill was recently amended to only authorize a CHL holder to carry a firearm on school property while the CHL holder remained in his or her vehicle.

So, according to Mr. Beltram, the Spartanburg Republican Chairman, most Republicans in S. Carolina are against the idea of a CHL holder carrying a firearm when dropping off or picking up their children from school. Mr. Beltram would have free citizens, parents, continue to make a decision between protecting their children, and breaking the law.

If you are wondering about my views on this issue, read these posts:

32 And Counting...

Mass Slaughter in our Schools: The Terrorists' Chilling Plan

Thanks to Grassroots Gun Rights for the update on S. Carolina law.

The War on Gun Shop Owners

One of my earliest post concerned an agenda by a government entity to close gun dealers and limit the accessibility of firearms to law abiding citizens. That title of that post was Another gun shop closes due to minor clerical errors.

As successful as the BATF has been in the past, they get a bit arrogant when a free citizen stands up to them and uses the courts to hinder actions. Worse yet, they get down right pissy when that free citizen uses the news media and the internet to expose the agenda driven bureau for the anti American establishment that it is.

Of course I am talking about Ryan Horsley and Red's Trading Post.

A quick review for those who may be coming to this story late:

On March 5th, the BATF revoked Red's license to acquire firearms due to minor clerical findings in a 2004 audit. More information here.

On April 9th, David Codrea interviews Ryan Horsley on the blog "The War on Guns". The complete text of the interview is posted here.

May 1st, Red's Trading Post is granted an injunction to continue operations:

Judge Lodge noted in making his decision that “the ATF speaks of violations found during the inspections of 2000 and 2005, but fails to reveal that additional investigations in 2001 and 2007 revealed no violations or problems.” He also notes Red’s statement that ATF is exaggerating Red’s conduct by “double counting” certain violations. Also noted was the balance of the ATF’s hardship compared to Red’s hardship. The judge found “that granting the preliminary injunction would not place the public safety in jeopardy” and “that that the relative hardships tip sharply in favor of Red’s.”

Great news, not only for Red's, but also for the rest of us. The BATF needs a muzzle, and the only branch of our .gov willing to supply that muzzle is the judicial.

Friday, June 1st, Red's announces that they will host the premiere of "The Gang":

Red's Trading Post is pleased to announce the JPFO's decision to premiere their latest documentary The Gang in Twin Falls Idaho. The Gang exposes the abuses of the BATFE, this truly is a movie they do not want you to see.

This will be shown FREE OF CHARGE and Red's Trading Post will also be raffling off a Ruger 10/22 Rifle and other prizes to those who attend.

Winning a small battle in court, bringing to light some of the abuses of the BATF, and then joining forces with JFPO. What a country. We have the freedom to be free and to speak out against .gov abuses. Or do we?

Following the JPFO Alert of my interview with "Talkin to America" we were greeted by 3 ATF Agents, one of which was the Area Supervisor who traveled from Spokane, Washington to inspect us.

Heavy sigh. It appears the JBT's do not like to be opposed.

BATFU Revenging Itself on Red's


To read more about this whole bit of jack booted thuggery, visit The War on Guns commentary on Red's here.

A Reminder for our Friends in Illinois!

An email from Dallas Tactical Supplies:

Dear Illinois Firearms Dealer:

Thank you for your help in the fight against Illinois SB 1007.

This bill is a serious threat and would ban the possession, sale, or manufacture of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, driving several good firearms manufacturers out of the state. This bill has ALREADY PASSED THE SENATE and has a VERY GOOD CHANCE of passing in the House and becoming law.

For your reference, the text of the bill is here: Read Bill

Please print out the attached PDF flyer, copy it and distribute it to your customers. Click Here to Print flyer

Please place it RIGHT IN THEIR HANDS and don't wait for them to pick it up off your counter.

As of today, the vote will be VERY, VERY CLOSE.

A complete listing of Illinois Legislators can be found by clicking "Legislator Lookup" at: www.ilga.gov

If I understand Illinois legislation procedures correctly, SB 1007 would now require a super majority in the house to get passed due to the fact that it was not voted on prior to midnight on May 31st. Even if there is only a slim chance this bill will be passed, it is still a very good idea to contact your representative and remind them of your stance on this bill.

The Quisling is Back

Earlier this month I commented on an editorial by John Hansel, my commentary was titled "From One Gun Owner to Another (yeah... right)". It seems that Mr. Hansel had sent his letter off to quite a few papers, and many of the smaller ones published it. I read the responses to this letter in a few of those online versions of the paper, and to say that the response was overwhelmingly against Mr. Hansel's ideas would be an understatement.

It seems that Mr. Hansel has followed up that first effort with another that is even further out of focus with the facts that I feel Mr. Hansel has become delusional, or is just shilling for the anti's under the banner of being a gun owner.

The pistolero has done an excellent job of fisking this latest bit of quisling commentary here.

I would add just one thing to the pistolero's fisking, Mr. Hansel is a provable lier.

He states:

The response to my recent Letter to the Editor has been overwhelming. It proves that there is a growing sentiment to ban the manufacture of repeating arms of all types - rifles or pistols.

A simple google news search of his first letter proves this to be very false.

Head on over and see how the pistolero takes this quisling to task.

A Crazed Liberal Zealot

To what lengths will the anti's go to disarm the free citizens of America? How many other unalienable rights will they be willing to push aside to take our guns? Will there ever be a time when they have imposed enough laws upon the citizenry, or will this onslaught continue until we live in a truly Orwellian society?

Consider this, one anti's plan to disarm America.

From the Toledo Blade:

By Dan Simpson

The disarming of America

LAST week's tragedy at Virginia Tech in which a mentally disturbed person gunned down 32 of America's finest - intelligent young people with futures ahead of them - once again puts the phenomenon of an armed society into focus for Americans.

The likely underestimate of how many guns are wandering around America runs at 240 million in a population of about 300 million. What was clear last week is that at least two of those guns were in the wrong hands.

When people talk about doing something about guns in America, it often comes down to this: "How could America disarm even if it wanted to? There are so many guns out there."

Because I have little or no power to influence the "if" part of the issue, I will stick with the "how." And before anyone starts to hyperventilate and think I'm a crazed liberal zealot wanting to take his gun from his cold, dead hands, let me share my experience of guns.

As a child I played cowboys and Indians with cap guns. I had a Daisy Red Ryder B-B gun. My father had in his bedside table drawer an old pistol which I examined surreptitiously from time to time. When assigned to the American embassy in Beirut during the war in Lebanon, I sometimes carried a .357 Magnum, which I could fire accurately. I also learned to handle and fire a variety of weapons while I was there, including Uzis and rocket-propelled grenade launchers.

Remember this sentence: "And before anyone starts to hyperventilate and think I'm a crazed liberal zealot wanting to take his gun from his cold, dead hands, let me share my experience of guns." We will come back to it in a bit.

Once again an anti attempts to gain credibility through the fact that he has some experience with firearms. Up to this point in the editorial, this is just a copy of the fill in the blank Brady Bunch letter for editorials. This anti takes it one giant step further.

Now, how would one disarm the American population? First of all, federal or state laws would need to make it a crime punishable by a $1,000 fine and one year in prison per weapon to possess a firearm. The population would then be given three months to turn in their guns, without penalty.

It is that simple, just pass a law and confiscate private property from the citizenry. Forget all about that pesky little Fifth Amendment, the .gov is not taking private property for public use, they are going to destroy it.

Oh no... what about the hunters?

Hunters would be able to deposit their hunting weapons in a centrally located arsenal, heavily guarded, from which they would be able to withdraw them each hunting season upon presentation of a valid hunting license. The weapons would be required to be redeposited at the end of the season on pain of arrest. When hunters submit a request for their weapons, federal, state, and local checks would be made to establish that they had not been convicted of a violent crime since the last time they withdrew their weapons. In the process, arsenal staff would take at least a quick look at each hunter to try to affirm that he was not obviously unhinged.

It would have to be the case that the term "hunting weapon" did not include anti-tank ordnance, assault weapons, rocket-propelled grenade launchers, or other weapons of war.

Whew, that is good. We will still be able to hunt. What is a little inconvenience if it will save just one life?

This guy has thought of everything. He even has an answer for the "What about our historical and collectible firearms?"

All antique or interesting non-hunting weapons would be required to be delivered to a local or regional museum, also to be under strict 24-hour-a-day guard. There they would be on display, if the owner desired, as part of an interesting exhibit of antique American weapons, as family heirlooms from proud wars past or as part of collections.

There would even be a place in this brave new world for gun dealers:

Gun dealers could continue their work, selling hunting and antique firearms. They would be required to maintain very tight inventories. Any gun sold would be delivered immediately by the dealer to the nearest arsenal or the museum, not to the buyer.

Now comes the hard part. What about those of us who decide that we are not going to hand over our firearms, who still believe in the concepts of freedom and liberty that are the very foundation of our republic? What to do with us?

The disarmament process would begin after the initial three-month amnesty. Special squads of police would be formed and trained to carry out the work. Then, on a random basis to permit no advance warning, city blocks and stretches of suburban and rural areas would be cordoned off and searches carried out in every business, dwelling, and empty building. All firearms would be seized. The owners of weapons found in the searches would be prosecuted: $1,000 and one year in prison for each firearm.

Oh boy, Special Squads. I think I have seen that acronym before, now who was it that used SS as a designation for a special branch of police enforcers? I'm sure it will come to me at some point.

It would take an old school SS force to trample the Fourth Amendment as proposed.

This is the point where the author reaches the wrong conclusion:

Clearly, since such sweeps could not take place all across the country at the same time. But fairly quickly there would begin to be gun-swept, gun-free areas where there should be no firearms. If there were, those carrying them would be subject to quick confiscation and prosecution. On the streets it would be a question of stop-and-search of anyone, even grandma with her walker, with the same penalties for "carrying."

The author honestly thinks that just because a law such as this is passed, that Americans will comply. I am happy to say that we will not. Legislation such as this will be the line in the sand for millions of Americans. How many of the more than 240 millions firearms in American households does he really think will be turned in during the three month "amnesty" period? 10%? 20%? I would be very surprised if more than 15% or so were turned in to the .gov during this time. Even if half of the firearms in America were turned in, that is still 120 million firearms in the hands of folks who will not easily give them up. If (and this is a very big if) the .gov could muster a SS force large enough to perform these "sweeps", they would be met with very heavy resistance and would suffer major casualties.

Where would Dan Simpson be during all this? Would he be on the front lines, confiscating firearms by force? Or, will he be hiding behind those who are willing to do his dirty work for him? How many American lives is he willing to take to reach this gun free utopia? Or more accurately - How many Americans is he willing to murder to achieve his goals? The dead will number in the thousands, but I guess to Dan Simpson, it would be worth it. Dan Simpson really is one "crazed liberal zealot wanting to take my gun from my cold, dead hands."

Who is Dan Simpson? Is he just some nobody who got published so the paper could get exposure?

Dan Simpson

Dan Simpson retired from the U.S. Foreign Service after 35 years of assignments to countries in Africa, the Middle East and Europe, including as U.S. ambassador to the Central African Republic, ambassador and special envoy to Somalia, and ambasssador to the Democratic Republic of Congo.

He has been associate editor and member of the editorial board of the Post-Gazette and The Toledo Blade since 2001.

It appears that we may owe Dan a bit of thanks, thanks for giving us a look at how the leftest see us, and the lengths they will go to achieve their goals.

So what do we do? Do we fight the soft war here and now. Fight each and every attack upon our liberty though the political area while we can? Or do we stockpile ammo and weapons for the day that the .gov decides it is strong enough to disarm us?

Me, I much prefer the soft war. Fighting battles with faxes and emails, supporting those of like mind with money and time.

The need to get involved becomes more urgent every day. If you doubt me, do a Google News search on "gun". The anti's are in full force and filling the editorial pages with tripe such as this. On the bright side, more and more pro-liberty commentary is reaching the papers and being published, so give it a shot.

Write letters, send faxes, and take a friend shooting.

Now may be a good time to recommend one of my favorite books, Unintended Consequences by John Ross. Unintended Consequences provides an inclusive history lesson of gun control laws, and the abuses of the BATFE over the years. It is a piece of fiction that goes right to the heart of the matter of gun control.

Also commenting on this editorial:

Live from the (upper) Texas Gulf Coast

The War on Guns here and here.

Hell in a Handbasket

And likely every other gun blogger out there.

H.R. 1022, Assault Weapon Ban Update

Just a quick FYI

HR 1022 now has 41 cosponsors.

For more on HR 1022, go here.

Between Gun Lovers and Targets

You do not have to go very far to find anti gun propaganda in the editorial pages of the nations news papers, but today we will head on out to the capitol of California and the Sacramento Bee.

Between gun lovers and targets

By Jonathan Safran Foer

Knives also cut bread and carve wood and aid surgery, but guns only shoot bullets. That's what they are designed to do, and that's what they do.

When we talk about protecting our right to have guns, we are talking about protecting our right to shoot bullets. So what is it that's so important to shoot at?

His ignorance of proper terminology indicates an ignorance of firearms in general. As we shall see, this ignorance continues throughout his dissertation on why firearms are not necessary in American society.

The principal defense of guns is constitutional. The Second Amendment ensures, "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It's used as the final authority, to be deferred to even if not agreed with or understood. But the Constitution isn't the Bible. (The Second Amendment, being an amendment, is a testament to the Constitution's ability to correct itself.) And the Founding Fathers were neither infallible nor divine.

And times change.

Until changed, the Second Amendment is the final authority. That is just the way it is, and no amount of whining and hand wringing will change that one fact. Our Founding Fathers may not have been infallible, but they did construct the foundation of the best form of government the world has yet to experience.

No, the Constitution is not the Bible, but Mr. Foer may be surprised to learn that the Bible does give man not only the authority, but the responsibility to protect himself and his family.

"And times change" - Times may change, but people do not. Rogues and highwaymen and corrupt, power hungry politicians are as dangerous today as they were more than 200 years ago.
The editorial continues:

Does anyone any longer believe that a well-regulated militia is necessary for a free state? Why do those who fall back on the constitutional defense so often avoid the terms "militia" and "state"?

And why, after the massacre at Virginia Tech -- hours after -- did Sen. John McCain proclaim, "I do believe in the constitutional right that everyone has, in the Second Amendment to the Constitution, to carry a weapon"?

Just what is it, precisely, that he believes in? Is it the Constitution itself? (But surely he thinks it was wise to change the Constitution to abolish slavery, give women the vote, end Prohibition and so on?) Or is it the guns themselves that he believes in?

It would be refreshing to have a politician try to defend guns without any reference to the Second Amendment, but on the merits of guns. What if, hours after the killings, McCain had stood at the podium and said instead, "Guns are good because ... "

I honestly do not know about Senator McCain, he has authored and supported legislation in the past that would lead one to believe that he is not an ardent supporter of liberty and individual rights, but I do know many who are.

Those of us who are vocal supporters of the Second Amendment do not just support an individuals right to keep and bear arms, we support all unalienable rights. Mr. Foer, we support your right to freely express yourself and disagree with all we hold dear. We also support your right to be secure in your own home, free from unwarranted invasions of your privacy by the government. We believe that we can not pick and choose, that for liberty to prevail, freedom must be supported.

I will stand at my podium and complete your challenge "Guns are good because..."

Guns are good because they allow the weak to defend themselves from the strong and the few to defend against the many. Tools are what set humans apart from the creatures. We do not have fangs, claws, speed or an exoskeleton to protects us from violence. What we do have is our ability to create and use tools. For most folks, a firearm is the most efficient and effective tool for this purpose. A firearm will allow my daughters to protect themselves from rapist or violent thugs, as well as my getting old (Dad, just be glad I didn't call you "elderly") father from muggers and thieves. Oh wait... Dad lives in CA, a state that protects muggers and thieves by disarming it's free citizens, so scratch that.

Mr. Foer does not agree with the "self defense" argument:

But what would have followed? Guns are good because they provide the ultimate self-defense? While I'm sure some people believe that having a gun at their bedside will make them safer, they are wrong. This is not my opinion, and it's not a political or controversial statement. It is a fact. Guns kept in the home for self-protection are 43 times more likely to kill a family member, friend or acquaintance than to kill an intruder, according to a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine. Guns on the street make us less safe. For every justifiable handgun homicide, there are more than 50 handgun murders, according to the FBI. The expanding right to carry concealed guns makes us even less safe.

Well Sir, your numbers are not factual. As a matter of fact they are pretty much fictitious. The study that you quote has been discredited. The fact of the matter is that accidental firearm related fatalities are at almost a 92% decrease in accidental/negligent firearm-related fatalities since 1930. You also failed to mention the more than 1,000,000 times each year that firearms are used by free citizens to protect themselves from violence.

Next, Mr. Foer takes on the hunters. I'll not spend any time on that, as the "right to hunt" is not constitutionally affirmed. I will post one quick quote for those hunters who feel they are on the side of the anti's:

But something else is going on. Something that sounds as bad as it is. Hunters love death. Can someone explain to me why that's acceptable, or why that love of death should be more important than the safety of the 94 percent of us who don't have hunting licenses and don't hunt?

And then the final quote, bringing in the children and more fractured facts:

In 2004, more preschoolers than law enforcement officers were killed by firearms, according to the Children's Defense Fund. The number of children killed by guns in the United States each year is about three times greater than the number of servicemen and women killed annually in Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, more children have been killed by guns in the past 25 years than the total number of American fatalities in all wars of the past five decades. It's possible that the upcoming election will be decided by the war in Iraq. But what about the far deadlier war at home?

I will have to admit that I did not go over to the CDF to check out their "facts" but I understand that these are also padded with the inclusion of gang bangers up to the age of 21 and rely heavily upon inner city gang related homicide.

If Mr. Foer were truly interested in saving the lives of children, he would be spending much more time editorializing about the dangers of swimming pools than firearms.

They're pulled from backyard pools and bathtubs each year, tiny limp bodies, blue and not breathing.

A young life can vanish quickly under water. A survivor can endure a lifetime of disabilities. Either way, families are torn apart by an almost always preventable tragedy.

Standard summer companions in our desert climate, swimming pools can be deadlier for children than guns. A child is 100 times more likely to die in a swimming accident than in gunplay, writes Steven D. Levitt, University of Chicago economics professor and best-selling author.

Levitt analyzed child deaths from residential swimming pools and guns and found one child under 10 drowns annually for every 11,000 pools. By comparison, one child under 10 each year is killed by a gun for every 1 million guns, according to his research, outlined in a new book "Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side to Everything," which he co-wrote with journalist Stephen J. Dubner.

At it's heart, the gun control debate is not just a debate about our right to keep and bear arms, it is a debate about individual freedoms and liberty. Are we free citizens, grabbing our piece of the American Dream and making our own destinies? Or are we becoming subjects to the State, living how we are told to live and trading freedom for a fleeting feeling of safety? An abstract feeling of safety is indeed fleeting and will evaporate during the next natural or man-made disaster. It will be proven false when a goblin decides he wants your wallet, or car, or to rape and defile you. As proven at Virginia Tech, the facade of safety is just that, a facade.

I would email the author of this editorial, but can not find an address. Even his website has no contact information. Well Mr. Foer, if you happen to be the sort that does a search for your name, you will find your way here. I welcome any comments you may have.

The End Result of a Public Education

Sometimes the anti's make it too darn easy.

From the Las Vegas Review Journal:

Lax gun laws to blame for Virginia shooting

By Andrea Eidenier

To the editor:

I am a full-time community college student. The Virginia Tech shooting doesn't scare me -- it just makes me sad. If the gunman hadn't had such ample access to either guns or ammunition, the death toll probably would have been lower or possibly nonexistent.

Every time a school shooting happens, the media, the victims' families and the general public look for reasons and people to blame. We should all start by blaming ourselves.

There's no reason for a person to carry a gun unless he is a government official, a hunter in a rural area or a criminal. There is no reason a person should be able to buy as much ammunition as he wants, especially for weapons such as pistols. These lax laws are keeping this country in danger of its own citizens.

I know that people would still have guns if they were banned. But if they were harder to get, people who are in desperate situations would seek other methods to remedy their situations.

In this country, we are so afraid of not being able to protect ourselves that we make it easier to put guns in the hands of people who will harm us. It makes me sad.

Andrea, what makes me sad is that 12+ years of a public education have done nothing to develop your critical thinking skills. This is an area in your life that you must improve upon. Life is going to throw a vast array of situations at you that require some semblance of logic to navigate. At this moment in your life, you do not have the tools necessary to make the crucial decisions that await you. I highly recommend that you seek out someone to be your mentor, someone who could help you develop your critical thinking skills.

Another Quisling Turns on His Own

The repetition is getting boring, yet we must continue to refute the anti's and the anti's with guns at every turn.

From the Houston Chronicle:

Self proclaimed hunter and advocate of sport shooting, and individual gun rights, Bob Cavnar pens the following to the Letters to the Editor.

Quail-hunter understands now

AS a gun owner who enjoys South Texas quail hunts and my annual pilgrimage to Georgia to shoot with old friends, I have always been an advocate of sport shooting and individual gun rights. However, the shocking reports from Virginia Tech, along with the searing memories of what happened at Columbine High School eight years ago, have crystallized my own thinking on this issue.

Perhaps it is time for us to acknowledge that unregulated open access to firearms through gun shows, private sales and other means encourages those who have no business owning a gun to get one. We need to establish a clear distinction between sporting arms and assault-style weapons meant only for killing people.

Proper registration, securing these weapons and even banning some would be a small price to pay if it saves lives. In this day of values-voters and culture-of-life rhetoric continuously streaming from elected officials, surely this issue is as important.

It is almost as if they use a form letter or guide to write these missives.

First establish gun owning credentials by stating you are a hunter and a supporter of gun rights. Then express shock and horror at the latest news topic concerning a violent use of firearms, and finally share the fact that you now believe that reasonable gun laws may be necessary to save lives.

Bob (I shall not call you Mr., as that is a sign of at least some small bit of respect), you sir are a quisling of the worst sort. Some would call you a Judas Goat, both terms are fitting descriptions of a man with your moral turpitude towards fellow firearm owners.

You use the fact that you hunt quail to give your opinion some validity. Many would say that in this day and age hunting is not necessary. If you would like to have quail for dinner, head on down to your local grocery store and purchase a few that have been humanely slaughtered for you by a subsidiary of ConAgra Foods. I am sure that there are quite a few "value-voters" and folks who believe in the "culture of life" who would agree that killing birds and animals for sport is a savage ritual that needs to be outlawed.

Who exactly are these folks who "have no business owning a gun"? You give no examples and leave it up to the reader to decide who exactly you are talking about. Do you mean minorities? How about folks who live in a poor neighborhood, can they be allowed firearms? It appears that anyone who is not like you should not have a firearm. You make it clear that you believe only the firearms that you personally own should be available to the general public. What an arrogant piece of work you are there Bob.

You state "We need to establish a clear distinction between sporting arms and assault-style weapons meant only for killing people." Bob... I understand that many Americans do not have much of a grasp of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I will be nice and explain the Second Amendment to you in small words and short sentences. The Second Amendment has nothing to do with "sporting arms". Read it carefully, meditate upon it for awhile, and you will figure it out. I think I will leave the figuring to you. Most of the readers of this blog do understand the intent of the Second Amendment, they also understand what "shall not be infringed" means.

Back to quail hunting. If I recall correctly, it was not that long ago that a famous quail hunter was in all the news broadcasts. Didn't someone get shot in the face while quail hunting? Hmmm... maybe banning quail hunting "would be a small price to pay if it saves lives".

If you register, the Chron does accept commentary on their letters page.

(Um.. that was a hint, get on over there)

Paintball Guns, The Menace in Rhode Island

Do folks run for office for the sole purpose of writing laws? All the good laws were written a few thousand years ago, so now they come up with piddly crud like the following:

From the Pawtucket Times:

By: David Casey

Paintball gun bill modeled after C.F. law

...Doyle's bill, S-204, is designed to exert more state control over the use of paintball guns by including them in the state's "Weapons Law."

According to the bill: "Paintball guns shall only be used in areas designated for recreational paintball use...Protective clothing and eyewear shall be worn...Paintball guns shall not be transported at any time in the passenger compartments of motor vehicles...(and) shall be unloaded, with the gas cylinder separated from the gun...and carried in closed cases when being transported by an individual on foot."

Why is such a bill necessary?

"A lot of paintball injuries occur outside of the safe paintball arena, (when the guns are used) with criminal intent," said Policastro.

According to a fact sheet provided by RISNA, there were 1,200 paintball-related eye injuries in 2000 (nationally), almost double the amount reported in 1998.

Just for the record, it is already illegal to shoot someone maliciously with a paintball gun. Every state in the union, including Rhode Island have laws against assault.

The RISNA (Rhode Island State Nurses Association) is behind this bill, supposedly because of 1200 paintball-related eye injuries. I have some potentially shocking news for the fine nurses of Rhode Island. If you are a Rhode Island nurse, please take a seat. I would hate for you to faint and crack your head open when you read the next statistic I have to offer.

Ready?

According to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), there were more than 547,000 ladder-related injuries, nearly 12,000 raking-related injuries and approximately 221,000 lawn mowing-related injuries treated in hospital emergency rooms, doctors’ offices and clinics in 2004. Frequent injuries include cuts, bruises and fractured bones.

That's right folks. Ladders, rakes and lawnmowers accounted for almost three quarters of a million injuries in 2004. I am a bit surprised that these nurses who work in "hospital emergency rooms, doctors’ offices and clinics" did not notice that injuries caused by tools sold by Home Depot and other hardware stores are much more prevalent than those caused by paintball guns. I am sure that once they have this information, the good folks of Rhode Island will be protected by laws criminalizing the use and sale of these household tools.

The above quote on ladder, rake and lawnmower injuries was found here.

Do American Citizens Have a Right to Own a Gun?

John Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute has written a commentary on Parker v District of Columbia that started out well, then confused me with his conclusions. As many of you know, I can be easily confused. Maybe one of you can connect the dots for me.

Do American Citizens Have a Right to Own a Gun?

By John W. Whitehead

Mr. Whitehead opens his commentary with a brief history of the D.C. gun ban:

For the past 30 years, residents of the District of Columbia have been threatened with conviction and imprisonment simply for having a gun in their homes.

In keeping with a District-wide law, all handguns were prohibited, unless they were registered before 1976. Even pistols registered prior to the ban could not be carried from room to room within a home without a license. Furthermore, licensed guns had to be kept locked up or disassembled.

The draconian and repressive anti gun laws of D.C. are well documented and known to those who are interested in Second Amendment issues. These are the very same laws that many legislatures and the anti gun groups would like to see established nation wide.

Next Mr. Whitehead describes the case of Parker v District of Columbia. It is a quick and informative description that should be read if you are not familiar with that case.

Now to the heart of the matter. Mr. Whitehead does an excellent job of explaining why the Second Amendment is an individual right, and why it is included in the Bill of Rights:

History is on Tribe’s side. With the despotism of a tyrannical king fresh in their minds, the Framers knew they had to provide a means for the people to defend themselves against a tyrannical government. They believed the right to keep and bear arms enabled a citizen to stand up to the government. If the government got out of hand, you could defend yourself—you could rebel. After all, that’s what happened in 1776.

The Framers wanted to ensure that if the government had control of the military, as it does today—including the National Guard—citizens would have a means of protecting themselves. Thus, they specifically added the Second Amendment to the Constitution to ensure that individuals—ordinary Americans—had a means of protecting themselves not only against their own government but against intruders. Furthermore, early Americans relied on ordinary weapons for many things, often keeping them in their homes.

There is nothing more solidly embedded in the Constitution than the right to bear arms. As Congressman Ron Paul (R-Tex.) has said, “Can anyone seriously contend that the Founders, who had just expelled their British rulers mostly by use of light arms, did not want the individual farmer, blacksmith, or merchant to be armed? Those individuals would have been killed or imprisoned by the King’s soldiers if they had relied on a federal armed force to protect them.”

“Our Founders, having just expelled the British army, knew that the right to bear arms serves as the guardian of every other right,” continued Paul. “This is the principle so often ignored by both sides in the gun control debate. Only armed citizens can resist tyrannical government.”

There it is, in black and white. "Only armed citizens can resist tyrannical government". At this point in the commentary I am really liking what Mr. Whitehead has to say and thinking that this is a nice bit of light in this day full of anti gun propaganda. Then the confusion begins.

While it must be conceded that the individual citizen could not hope to defend him or herself against local and federal law enforcement dressed in military gear, armed to the teeth with armored vehicles and weapons of mass destruction, shouldn’t Americans at least be able to protect themselves, their families and their homes against criminals?

One armed citizen would have a hard time defending against our militarized police, but a community would not. Unless of course they were disarmed.

As George Mason declared, “To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” While Congress can, of course, reasonably regulate certain types of weapons such as assault rifles, banning law-abiding citizens from having handguns in their own homes for self-defense or owning hunting rifles goes far beyond anything the Framers contemplated.

"While Congress can, of course, reasonably regulate certain types of weapons such as assault rifles" This one sentence ruins the entire article. Mr. Whitehead.. John, did you not read what you wrote in regards as to why we even have a Second Amendment? When you wrote "Thus, they specifically added the Second Amendment to the Constitution to ensure that individuals—ordinary Americans—had a means of protecting themselves not only against their own government..." didn't it cross your mind that it was so called assault weapons that were protected by the Second Amendment, not just handguns? By allowing for the "reasonable regulation" of the very weapons that can provide adequate protection for "the people" from the government, you nullify the entire purpose of the Second Amendment.

Yes, the people have the right (some would say the responsibility) to protect themselves from criminals and intruders into their homes, they also have the right to protect themselves from a criminal government. The Second Amendment affirms this right. Take that last small step John, consider what the founders intended, look at the world of today, and try to take a peek into the future. Do you honestly think that there will not become a time when "the people" will need to take up arms to protect themselves? If you can not imagine this happening in our future, then look to the past. It was not that long ago that the Deacons for Defense had to take up arms against the police to protect civil rights workers. If you can see the potential need for free citizens to take up arms against the government, you have to concede that those arms must be adequate to the task at hand.

From the Anti's

After taking a few days off for camping, I did a quick news search for a firearm related topic to comment upon. Is it me, or have the anti's redoubled their efforts in publishing anti gun propaganda, misrepresentations and outright lies?

It would take a month of Sundays just to fisk the current batch of blabber from the anti's.

A few examples:

Hawai'i part of study linking suicide, gun ownership

Twice as many people committed suicide from 2000 to 2002 in the 15 states with the highest rates of gun ownership, compared with the six states where guns are least common, according to the study published in the April issue of the Journal of Trauma. The population in both groups was about the same, the study said.

Hawai'i was among the six states where gun ownership is least common. Suicide is the eighth leading cause of death among U.S. men, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Web Site. The higher suicide rates in the Harvard study were found in men, women and children of all ages in states where more households have guns.

NRA Gathers as Gun Ownership Has Declined Dramatically Over Past 35 Years

VPC Executive Director Josh Sugarmann states, "Society is leaving the gun culture behind. Nearly two thirds of American homes are gun free, and more than three quarters of Americans do not personally own a gun. Yet our nation remains hostage to the gun industry's lethality-at-any-cost mentality as measured by nearly 30,000 gun deaths per year and tens of thousands of additional wounded."

Gun owners up in arms over Pa. bill

House Bill 760 has outraged gun owners across the state because it would require annual registration of every weapon they possess other than antiques -- guns manufactured before 1898 -- certain collector's items, and law-enforcement duty weapons.

These are just a few of the articles that could have been included. This is quite the reminder that even though we have had our recent successes in the courts (Parker) and in the legislature (Texas Castle Doctrine for one), we have to remain vigilant. The anti's are not letting up, they are increasing the rhetoric and lies in an attempt to turn the public against us and regain ground. The soft war is a daily battle.

A Not Very Thin Tissue of Lies

James Dark is the Executive Director of the Texas State Rifle Association. I have seen Jim at Friends of NRA banquets, but finally got to meet and talk with him at the House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee public hearing on the then proposed Castle Doctrine Bill. Following that very successful public hearing, Jim wrote an editorial for the TSRA website commenting upon the lies and deceit of the Brady Bunch.

A Not Very Thin Tissue of Lies:

The Brady Campaign in Texas

By James Dark

British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli once sagely pointed out that there were three types of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics. Proof of this wisdom could be easily found in the rhetoric, press releases, and even testimony of the miniscule and ineffective Texas anti-gun movement in their feeble attempts to derail the Texas Castle Doctrine bill.

Derisively calling this self-defense measure “Shoot First,” they rallied on February 12 at the Capitol, attempting to sway legislators away from supporting the bill. They must not have realized that stopping the Castle Doctrine steamroller in Texas in one day with a handful of volunteers would be akin to fending off a charging grizzly with a plastic flyswatter. But you can’t fault them for trying.

The 133–13 thumping in the Texas House was ample evidence that the anti-gun efforts were futile beyond debate. The only point of contention really was what portion of their arguments comprised, respectively, lies, damned lies or statistics...

The editorial goes through the President of the North Texas Chapter of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Marsha McCartney's testimony point by point. Jim does a very good job of dismantling the hype with facts.

To read the entire editorial, head on over to the TSRA website.

If you live in Texas, and you own a firearm, consider joining the TSRA. Alice Tripp, James Dark and the rest do a great job of standing in for your gun rights in Austin. To join the TSRA, go here.