For many years, proponents of strict gun control have been locked in a pitched battle with those who support the Second Amendment as an individual right. Events over the last several years have created a body of facts that has now neutralized most of the gun control "what if" arguments.
It is now time to develop a new set of hypotheticals. The old game plan has wilted under the bright light of fact.
The event that have relegated most of the gun control arguments to the dust heap has been the passage of "concealed carry" laws in most of our states and the resulting body of data that factually proves the value of an armed citizenry.
In short, these laws allow law-abiding citizens who have passed background checks by the state and FBI to carry a firearm for personal defense. Many states allow open carry and each state limits places where the permit holder can carry his firearm.
Years of data from these states have shown that violent crime has been reduced, and there has been almost no evidence of permit holders using their side arms for illegal purposes. In fact, permit holders 5.7 time less likely to be arrested for a violent crime than the general public.
A recent study estimates that more than 2 million violent crimes in America each year are prevented by legally-armed citizens. The number could be much greater because most crimes that are thwarted by the permit holder just displaying his gun are never reported.
Lives have been saved, violent criminals have been deterred, and the cry of "Blood will run in the streets" has been proven to be unfounded hysteria.
As good as our law enforcement officers are, they cannot protect every individual every day. In fact, the courts has ruled that law enforcement has no obligation to personally protect individuals.
Gun control advocates need to come up with much better reasons for why honest, law abiding citizens should not have the right to protect themselves from violent criminals. The tired, old histrionics need to be replaced with cold facts.
For more facts, visit: Gun Facts
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Monday, February 18, 2008
Our Militia is Dangerously Underarmed
When the Founding Fathers of this great nation created the Constitution, they included a system of checks and balances to ensure that our system of government would survive.
In addition to the distribution of powers among the three branches of government, they gave protections to the citizens so the governed could ultimately maintain control over those who governed. The First Amendment gave the people a powerful tool by guaranteeing the freedom to assemble freely, speak freely and publish their thoughts.
With an understanding that free governments can be, and had been, overthrown by enemies both foreign and domestic, the Founding Fathers backed up the powers of the First Amendment with the Second Amendment.
In addition to the distribution of powers among the three branches of government, they gave protections to the citizens so the governed could ultimately maintain control over those who governed. The First Amendment gave the people a powerful tool by guaranteeing the freedom to assemble freely, speak freely and publish their thoughts.
With an understanding that free governments can be, and had been, overthrown by enemies both foreign and domestic, the Founding Fathers backed up the powers of the First Amendment with the Second Amendment.
A study of the writings of the framers of the Constitution will quickly reveal their collective mindset for including the Second Amendment. They believed that, in addition to a standing army, the security on this nation depended on it's citizens being armed - in the words of the Constitution - a "militia."
Alexander Hamilton summed it up quite well in the Federalist Papers No. 28 when he wrote: "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State."
While Hamilton felt that such an event was unlikely, he, along with others, saw how important it was to ensure that citizens were armed and prepared for self defense.
During World War II, both the German and Japanese military leaders expressed how difficult it would be to invade the United States because the ordinary citizens were so well armed. Tojo expressed the fear that Japanese invaders would encounter armed citizens "behind every blade of grass."
So, what is the state of our nation's militia today?
There is a good core group of former active military, hunters, and citizens who have spent their own money on firearms, ammunition and, in many cases, training and practice. Are their numbers large enough and their weapons adequate enough to step up to the plate as our forefathers envisioned?
As long as our enemies think so, then maybe. The problem is, there are forces at work within our own borders who want to strip our militia of all it's weapons and remove from our weaker brothers and sisters the ability to defend themselves.
Instead of having our people armed to defend themselves against everything from the violent street thug to an insurrection, these people want us to be helpless - protected only by the military on some distant shore or by law enforcement in some distant patrol car.
Why are there so many individuals and organized groups determined to deny the mandate set down by the Founding Fathers? Why are they so intent on stripping us of our individual right to self-protection?
Why is it that organizations like The Brady Campaign will not be happy until free Americans are reduced to being subjects of the Federal government?
Alexander Hamilton summed it up quite well in the Federalist Papers No. 28 when he wrote: "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State."
While Hamilton felt that such an event was unlikely, he, along with others, saw how important it was to ensure that citizens were armed and prepared for self defense.
During World War II, both the German and Japanese military leaders expressed how difficult it would be to invade the United States because the ordinary citizens were so well armed. Tojo expressed the fear that Japanese invaders would encounter armed citizens "behind every blade of grass."
So, what is the state of our nation's militia today?
There is a good core group of former active military, hunters, and citizens who have spent their own money on firearms, ammunition and, in many cases, training and practice. Are their numbers large enough and their weapons adequate enough to step up to the plate as our forefathers envisioned?
As long as our enemies think so, then maybe. The problem is, there are forces at work within our own borders who want to strip our militia of all it's weapons and remove from our weaker brothers and sisters the ability to defend themselves.
Instead of having our people armed to defend themselves against everything from the violent street thug to an insurrection, these people want us to be helpless - protected only by the military on some distant shore or by law enforcement in some distant patrol car.
Why are there so many individuals and organized groups determined to deny the mandate set down by the Founding Fathers? Why are they so intent on stripping us of our individual right to self-protection?
Why is it that organizations like The Brady Campaign will not be happy until free Americans are reduced to being subjects of the Federal government?
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
The Economic Stimulus Package Is a Bad Idea
So Bush and the Congress are considering putting this nation another $150 billion in debt to "stimulate" the economy. Maybe China's economy as people spend their $600 at Wal-Mart.
That's assuming the taxpayers don't use the money to pay rent or their credit card bills.
This is little more than political maneuvering designed to get votes in the upcoming election. An increase in the national debt will do more harm than a few hundred dollars in each taxpayer's pocket will do good.
Our government needs to stop the political insanity and do something really meaningful like making the tax cuts permanent and eliminating the capital gains tax.
That's assuming the taxpayers don't use the money to pay rent or their credit card bills.
This is little more than political maneuvering designed to get votes in the upcoming election. An increase in the national debt will do more harm than a few hundred dollars in each taxpayer's pocket will do good.
Our government needs to stop the political insanity and do something really meaningful like making the tax cuts permanent and eliminating the capital gains tax.
Monday, December 24, 2007
ESPN Has Ruined Monday Night Football
Looking back on this season's coverage of Monday Night Football, I am saddened to report that ESPN did a terrible job.
While the quality of MNF has deteriorated since the days of Dandy Don and Howard Cosell, the latest crew of announcers has made it impossible to follow the game. Instead of a play-by-play announcer and a color man, ESPN has hired a crew intent on discussing everything but the game at hand.
Running a current events topic into the ground, conducting long-winded interviews in the booth and doing sideline interviews while the game is in progress demonstrate ESPN's philosophy that MNF is is little more than background noise for their latest variation of Sports Center.
The NFL powers should either force ESPN to cover the game like it was the main event, of find another network.
While the quality of MNF has deteriorated since the days of Dandy Don and Howard Cosell, the latest crew of announcers has made it impossible to follow the game. Instead of a play-by-play announcer and a color man, ESPN has hired a crew intent on discussing everything but the game at hand.
Running a current events topic into the ground, conducting long-winded interviews in the booth and doing sideline interviews while the game is in progress demonstrate ESPN's philosophy that MNF is is little more than background noise for their latest variation of Sports Center.
The NFL powers should either force ESPN to cover the game like it was the main event, of find another network.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
