Tag Archive: guns


Gun Control?

I hear lots of people saying we need to have “common sense” laws to keep the bad guys from getting guns. But, the laws they call for only control law-abiding citizens.

Will criminals go for background checks? No, because they wouldn’t pass them.

Would a criminal take the time to wait for a “waiting period”? Nope. Illegal weapons are much faster.

How about just limiting the types of scary looking guns that people can buy? People have used all manner of weapons to hurt others, so this makes no difference.

So, if gun control laws will make it to where the bad guys can’t get guns, we should be able to look at other laws that accomplish the same things. I should be ashamed, here, because, obviously, outlawing murder has made it to where zero murders occur…wait, what? There are STILL murders? Oh. Okay, how about making stealing things illegal. Now, THAT has worked like a charm, right? No? Hmmm…

It seems as if all these other laws punish the bad guys once they’ve done wrong, while not keeping innocent citizens from going about their lives. On the other hand, gun control laws just punish everyone BEFORE they commit crimes. Huh. Weird.

Well, if anyone can tell me a law that works like the rest of them – namely, punishing the guilty once they’ve done bad things – and does not limit the actions of innocent people, I’m all ears.

Gun Pic

If you were a criminal and you wanted to hold someone up, would you go try to rob someone who is just as likely armed as not, OR would you go to a place where all the law-abiding citizens would be almost assuredly unarmed?

Duh.

This is why all but 1 (ONE) mass shootings in the last 30 years have taken place in “gun free zones.” Does this mean there are no shooters other places? There are not as many occurrences of ATTEMPTED shootings, to be sure…but in those places, there are other people with guns who stop it from becoming a mass shooting when it does happen.

Personally, I’d rather have the shooters stopped cold without having to wait the 30 minutes for the cops, but maybe that’s just me.

To the argument where people say there is a “pipeline” of guns from the states that allow guns to the states and cities that don’t, this begs a question. Why, then, do the mass shootings happen in the places where the gun laws are very strict instead of those where the gun laws are more in keeping with the US Constitution? The answer? See above.

Gun control laws do not disarm anyone except the law-abiding and keep no one but the criminals safer. This has been known since forever, demonstrated in this country (well, colonies, more accurately) when Cesare Beccaria (born in 1738) said this,

“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.”

Jefferson quoted him on this in his Commonplace book. This same theme is seen from every founder and framer who discussed the issue. John Lott did a study and wrote a book about this called More Guns, Less Crime. It’s been peer-reviewed over 40 times, and no one can debunk his premise.

I’ve seen lots of laws proposed that will disarm law-abiding citizens, but none that disarm criminals. That’s why we are supposed to have laws where crimes are punished, not punish the innocent who the government thinks COULD commit a crime.

That’s the kind of thinking they have in France where you have to prove yourself innocent of any crime the cops charge you with. One more reason to be thankful to live in America. Now, if we could get the politicians to follow the US Constitution…

Check out my book (to the right), and get a copy today! If you have kids, hate history because it’s boring, or just love the founding documents, this book is for you!

The Second Amendment. It’s a statement of a natural right that each human possesses. It’s not a human right. Those are given and taken away by other humans. No, fundamental rights are rights that are endowed to us by our Creator, and we shaped the government around them. These rights existed BEFORE the government of the nation that became known as The United States was formed.

We have other rights like that. The right to move about, to speak, to write, to not be found guilty of crimes without proof, etc. We cherish our rights, but don’t seem to give the same level of credence to all of them.

I’m going to say something that will shock even those who support a person’s right to keep and bear arms. There should be NO CONCEALED CARRY LICENSE LAWS. I mean it, and here’s why.

Gun Pic

Do we press for laws that make it necessary for a person to obtain a license before they speak, lest they commit slander?

No.

Do we press for laws that make is necessary for a person to get a license before they write, lest they commit libel?

No.

Do we press for laws that make it necessary for a person to obtain a license before they walk from one place to another, lest they jay-walk or walk into someone else’s private property?

No.

Then, why do we require a permit for a person to carry a gun?

Some of the arguments are that a person might not know how to use it, they might hurt someone, or they might be a criminal.

1. If a person doesn’t know how to use a gun, they might make a mistake. That’s true. Does anyone here believe that a 4 hour course is going to make a person an expert. If you believe that, I have some land for sale I’d like to talk to you about later. For more on this, by an expert that will “out-expert” just about everyone reading this, read here.

Also, in this, I might point out that people can do considerable damage to a person’s life with slander and/or libel. A person could be ruined, made destitute, and end up dying on the street with slanderous statements, if enough people believe. That’s why there are laws against it. Just like there are laws against reckless discharges of a gun, yada, yada. Next!

2. Of course they might hurt someone. It’s called risk. You might get hit by a bus when you walk outside your front door. Do you risk it? Yes, because it’s a low risk. There are plenty of states that allow open carry without a permit. Do you hear about these states having gargantuan numbers of random people randomly shooting? Nope. You hear of mass shootings in “gun free zones.” Next!

3. They might be a criminal. Well, yeah. If they are, do you think they give a lick about laws anyway? What else ya got?

This is the bottom line: We are being charged BY THE STATE to exercise a fundamental right. They take finger prints. They charge a fee. They keep tabs on us.

If we had to register our editorials with the state and show our license to write, would you feel the same as you do about concealed carry laws?

Here is my radical proposal – allow people to exercise their right to defend themselves, and THEN, if they commit a crime with the weapon, they get punished. We’ll call it “due process of law.” Pretty snazzy title, right? I may have borrowed it from somewhere…

My sister is a cop. She told me open carry laws are a joke because you want to keep the criminals guessing who’s armed, always unsure, never bold like where they know all law-abiding citizens are unarmed. I agree. But, let’s not make people bow to the State to get the license that would allow them to defend themselves.

So, I restate my premise – the only concealed carry law I want to see is one that states that people have the right to exercise their Second Amendment right WITHOUT having to get a license to do so.

First things first. We must read the text of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. Simple enough:

Text of the 2nd amendment

 

There has been some confusion about who can infringe on rights and under what circumstances.

 

For example, in the First Amendment, we find that only CONGRESS is prohibited from restricting free speech. That is pretty specific. The decisions on which speech must be restricted are left to the states (see Amendment #10 in the Bill of Rights for clarification). Before you get your panties in a bunch about “free speech,” you must understand what the founders meant by the Congress being restricted, but not the states.

 

Let me ask you this: Do you understand that there are laws against slander and libel? I’m sure you do. You can’t just go around slandering a person’s good name!

 

Who decides what constitutes slander and libel? The state governments do, that’s who. They RESTRICT speech, when the speech consists of lies with intent to harm another with those lies.

 

On the other hand, do you see anyone, specifically, listed that is restricted from infringing on arms ownership? Nope. It just reads, “shall not be infringed.” This means NO ONE is allowed to infringe on the law-abiding citizen’s right to keep and bear arms…not states, not the federal government, not individuals. Law abiding citizens have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. Period.

 

IF someone uses a gun to commit any crime, then, through due process of law, that right can be removed. That’s how it goes with ANY right! You have the God-given right to liberty, unless, through due process of law, you are sent to jail. Easy peasy and straightforward. You are free unless you commit a crime…then you give up your right to walk around unimpeded. Check.

 

This business of prohibiting gun ownership before ANY crime has been committed goes directly against this principle. For instance, do we have to get permits to speak? Or do we speak, and then pay the consequences if we commit slander? Do we get permits to move about freely in these United States? Or do we get extradited if we commit a crime in one state and have a warrant out for our arrest but are currently in another state? Do we have to get a license to peacefully assemble, aside from permits for using land? Or do we just pay the consequences if we get rowdy and destructive?

 

But, somehow, we’ve even gotten to the point that it’s logical to infringe on the rights of law-abiding citizens (even make them take classes and fill out paperwork) instead of just doing a background check (to make sure they are not convicted felons) before carrying concealed. The proposed legislation for outlawing certain types of arms are flowing like the booze at most family gatherings…and will end up causing more of a train wreck.

 

Really? This is what we’re doing as a nation?

 

The plan is to take a FUNDAMENTAL right that was outlined specifically by the founders – the right of self-defense against ANY enemy, to include a tyrannical government – that was given to us by our Creator and flush it down the toilet. Bravo.

 

I won’t even get into the statistics of gun control  leading to more violent crime. I won’t go into how the mass shootings happen in areas with tight gun control already. I won’t go into how the only law that has made ANY positive difference in the amount of violent crime is making concealed carry legal. I won’t go into any of that. It’s about our RIGHTS! Our real, God-given rights.

 

So, are you going to buy into the idiotic rhetoric the gun control advocates are spewing? Or are you going to get informed (start with buying my book by clicking on the picture of it to the right) and arm yourself with the truth (and maybe a .45)? C’mon! We have a country to save!

The “Power” of Words!

There are some who are under the impression that words, in and of themselves, have power. Let’s test that.

 

I am going to tell you to do something: Send me all your money, right now.

 

Did it work? Are you going for your checkbook right now? Wait…no? Huh. If words are powerful, then you MUST do what I say, what anyone says, right?

 

It’s the same lack of logic that dictates that guns have power. Nope. I have had guns for years and years and, I’ll tell ya, NONE have just up and shot someone by themselves. I know, this is shocking to gun control advocates.

 

Here’s the deal. Words only have the power that we attribute to the speaker/writer. The words, as you saw before when you laughed in my face about my “order” to send me money, are powerless. Now, if I were a force to be reckoned with…say, the IRS, backed by the full might and force of the US Federal Government…and I said, “Send me money,” the effect would be totally different. Sucky, but different.

 

Also, keyboards cannot misspell words, forks don’t make a person fat, and words are powerless, by themselves. We all knew this in grade-school, didn’t we? “Sticks and stones…” ring a bell? The words only hurt if we give power to those who say them.

Two kids arguing0002

So, don’t assign power to the wrong people. The words? They are just a tool…like guns, knives, forks, keyboards, etc. Use them well! 🙂

 

Artwork submitted by Katie Carter (age 12)

Some people seem to think that the money the government spends comes from some random magical place like unicorn butts. They talk about “the government” as if it’s a person, and it’s a nice one at that.

 

“OH, look,” people say, “that nice government is giving money to the poor!”

 

Well, that would be nice, if the money DID come out of thin air…or angel ear wax…or whatever, but the reality is, it comes from YOU and ME.

 

Now, it comes from you and me in the form of many, many, many types of taxes, and at many levels of government (state, local, federal), but in this post, we shall deal only with federal and only the income tax, for simplicity’s sake.

 

You have to realize that the money the feds take arrives to them because if you don’t pay, you will go to jail and they will come for you with guns.

 

Even if you owe a smallish amount, but don’t fork it over, they will take ALL your stuff. Your house, your car, your furniture…and sell it at auction to get their money. They are not kidding around. They are like the mob, but legalized.

 

Okay, so we know where the money comes from. Frederic Bastiat was a French writer who told us how to check and see if the government is doing right or wrong with the money it squeezes out of you this way:

But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them and gives it to the other persons to whom it doesn’t belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.

To translate: if a law allows those in government to take what belongs to one and give it to another, and it would be illegal for a regular citizen to do it, then it’s theft. Let’s do an example.

 

Let’s say I see some poor people on the street. I want to give them money but I have none to give. So, I take my gun and hold up someone on the street, take that money and give it to the poor people. Is that illegal? (Hint: YES) Then, it’s illegal for the government to do it, too.

 

Now, some (I can hear you saying it!) will say, “That’s like Robin Hood!” No, no, dear reader, it’s not. Remember, Robin Hood was taking back the taxes the evil king had squeezed out of his subjects  and giving them BACK to the peasants. Once again, it was the government that did the plundering!

 

Let’s go back and look at the initial scenario of the government taking money from YOU and giving it to ME because I make less money than you. Uh-oh. Looks like plunder…

 

So, the next time you hear on the news that the federal government will “help” by giving money to some “cause” or “invest” money in something, aside from national defense or one of the other things listed in the US Constitution that they are allowed to do, understand that they only got it by stealing it.

%d bloggers like this: