Monday, May 17, 2010

One City Where Citizens Will Not Assist (Karl Denninger)

One City Where Citizens Will Not Assist

We all hear about "police brutality" and other similar incidents.

Then there are incidents that aren't so clear.

Or are they?

DETROIT - Seven-year-old Aiyana Jones was asleep on the living room sofa in her family's apartment when Detroit police searching for a homicide suspect burst in and an officer's gun went off, fatally striking the girl in the neck, family members say.

Her father, 25-year-old Charles Jones, told The Detroit News he had just gone to bed early Sunday after covering his daughter with her favorite Disney princess blanket when he heard a flash grenade followed by a gunshot. When he rushed into the living room, he said, police forced him to lie on the ground, with his face in his daughter's blood.

This isn't a case where the cops barged into the wrong house: The suspect they were looking for, who was wanted for murder, was in the house and was arrested - on a lawful warrant drawn for the property they entered.

"This is any parent's worst nightmare. It also is any police officer's worst nightmare," Godbee said.


Then perhaps you might consider your tactics in serving such warrants.

Let's remember that while a suspected murderer that was being sought, the key word here is suspected.  Until tried and a judgment is entered of "guilty", he's a suspect, not a convicted murderer.

Needless to say someone suspected of murdering another is presumed dangerous.  But from reports it was obvious there were children in the house (there were toys in the front yard), the raid happened at 12:30 in the morning, and a "stun grenade" or "flash-bang" device (basically a big firecracker) was tossed in a window first.

One word comes to mind: Why?

What sort of insane definition of "police work" leads a department to do this?  Isn't this pretty much like David Koresh?

Remember, at Waco, rather than waiting for Koresh to leave the compound and arresting him in town or in his car (which would have almost certainly been a peaceful arrest), they instead stormed the compound at Waco and many people, including innocent children who had no connection to the crimes alleged, died.

In this case instead of performing police work (that is, staking out the property and arresting the suspect when he attempted to leave - as he eventually almost certainly would - without incident) the cops decided to use their "flashy SWAT tools" and storm the house, despite apparent obvious and clear knowledge, just as at Waco, that there were known-innocent persons inside.

The militarization of "police response" at times and during events when it is unnecessary and excessive is a dangerous step, and not only for the obvious reason that there is now a dead girl who did nothing wrong.

No, the more serious problem comes if and when order degenerates generally in society.

Logical and reasonable police forces and officers, of which they are many, will find themselves allied with the citizens of the area against the gang-bangers and common thugs who would otherwise seek to play "Zombieland" in our nation's cities and towns.

But in places where the gendarme has chosen to play "Big Balls" instead of acting with logic and reason they will find that the citizens will defend only themselves and not the institutions and officers of law and order. 

And let's be clear, simply on the numbers: There are more bad guys than there are cops; only the general trappings of polite society keep them from deciding to go on human hunting expeditions with seriously-destabilizing results for the public at large.

If you doubt this then read some news, such as the LA task force that has had apparent gang-bangers try to blow up their offices by diverting a gas line!  To say that the trappings of "polite society" are getting stretched a bit thin these days is not an overblown conclusion.

"No-knock" warrants are almost always abusive.  If you know the person you want is inside, there's no reason to go in with guns blazing or in a military-style raid - unless you intend to kill.  Does it matter if you catch the person you're after right this instant or the next morning when they step out for a pack of smokes - or some food? 

There is no difference if your primary intent is to arrest and displaying your flashy hardware and tactics as a device to intimidate the population is not part of your agenda.

Are there instances where a raid as occurred in this case is justified?  I can come up with a few.  An active hostage situation where the assailant has demonstrated the will to kill hostages is one.

But a duplex where the sought person is believed (by, as it is alleged, observation of a vehicle registered to him) to be inside along with persons known to be uninvolved and innocent, such as the girl who is now dead, is not one of those circumstances until and unless said suspect barricades himself and threatens in some form to injure or kill the family, which obviously was not the case here.

The test should not be "can we get this guy if we storm the place" - it should be if we don't storm the place is someone likely to be injured or worse as a consequence of doing police work and arresting the suspect when he emerges, since by definition the use of these tactics has a high probability of injuring or killing someone innocent of any wrongdoing.

If I engage in conduct that has a high probability of killing an innocent person, I do so on purpose, and an innocent person dies, I face a near-certainty of being charged with some form of manslaughter - as I should.

Justice in this case cannot simply extend to the officer whose weapon went off via a negligent discharge or some sort of "I'm sorry." (As an aside there is no such thing as an "accidental discharge"; an unintended discharge of a firearm happens due to negligence, not accident.)  Rather, it must extend to the preference of manslaughter charges against everyone involved in the planning and execution of this raid, without exception, up to and including those in the department who authorized this "show of force."

Trust and partnership between law enforcement and law-abiding citizens has, in many cases, become something that law enforcement no longer values.

Sadly, by the time law enforcement in these areas recognize the foolishness of their militaristic approach to serving warrants and enforcing the law it will be too late for them to change their mind and rebuild the trust that they will need.

If you live in such an area and cannot change your law enforcement agency's approach to the community via peaceful means you must leave now for a village, town or area where law enforcement recognizes the essential marriage between public policy and law enforcement.  Such areas, if and when the gang bangers decide to try to serve "Zombieland" upon your area, will find both you and law enforcement standing shoulder-to-shoulder in your effort to resist - and you will be successful in doing so.

Cities like Detroit, on the other hand, will most likely literally burn to the ground.

Your choice to stay or go may, in the not-so-distant future, turn into the difference between life and death.

Choose wisely.

Thursday, May 6, 2010

Leadership (by Dr. Tim Ball Canada Free Press)


By Dr. Tim Ball Thursday, May 6, 2010

imageIt is characteristic of all movements and crusades that the psychopathic element rises to the top. Robert Lindner

Various definitions of leadership exist and they are all vague as is the concept. “Leadership, a critical management skill, is the ability to motivate a group of people toward a common goal” or “The ability to lead skillfully.” The first seems to confuse management and leadership while both smack of manipulation. Neither hints at morality but assumes the people are being led in the right direction.

History shows that demagogues gain power when the people believe the society is drifting toward collapse and feel powerless. The demagogue is the siren of salvation, but the price is always disaster. Economic conditions in Germany created by the disastrous Treaty of Versailles provided Hitler with all the ammunition needed to seize power. Apparently we are now in a new situation where the disaster was knowingly and falsely created. As the 1974 report of the Club of Rome titled, “Mankind at the Turning Point” said, “It would seem that humans need a common motivation…either a real one or else one invented for the purpose…” Couple this with vicious attacks by the media and the use of legal intimidation on anyone in leadership and the vacuum for demagoguery is created.

There is a crisis of leadership at all levels of our society. It is most obvious in politics, but also true in business, religion, bureaucracies, and social institutions. Several events over my life have given clues about what is happening. A very well respected person was within three weeks of becoming university Dean with wide support. He withdrew and explained he was not assured of support and did not think the cost to him and his family was worth the price. By this he meant the continued attacks on anyone who dared to try and lead. Orchestrated by a small group who could not get power because their policies were rejected in the democratic process they simply undermined all leaders by finding minor flaws, which always exist, and inflating them beyond all reason.

I later served on a committee to find a new President for the University. We all made opening comments on the type of person we sought. Typically almost everyone, without realizing it, used the current situation as the measure; this is what we have now so we need the opposite. And so the pendulum continued its swing without consideration of any long-term strategy or needs. It is crisis management all the time. My comment drew ire because I said the person I wanted was too smart to apply for the job. In response to challenges I pointed out the budget was being cut, the buildings needed extensive and expensive repairs, the faculty were talking strike, the students were protesting fee increases, yet demands on services were exploding. Despite this many applied for the job, but what you get are people with only one goal, personal ambition and aggrandizement. It appears this is the environment that allows the element Lindner talks about to become leaders. How often do people interview well only to become disasters in the job?

Many executives and leaders of various segments of society are called before government committees in most nations, none with such regularity and vigor as in the US. Ostensibly it is a good idea to disclose the truth. Unfortunately, that is increasingly not the purpose. I’ve appeared before Canadian and US committees and the experience was very similar. My appearance and testimony was not used to understand or resolve an issue, but to make political points to advance a career. Regardless of your view about the issue and despite all the false niceties it is a bruising, bullying, nasty experience. Who would take executive positions knowing you could end up before such a committee. The answer is too often people with nothing but ambition. Ironically, this is also true of the politicians who participate in the hearings.

A well-known political commentator and author once told me there are only two types of people in political office. Those who say they have ideas to help the country and those who have ideas to help themselves. The ratio is the only thing that changes and right now we have a predominance of the latter.  But who would run for political office today other than those who see great personal financial gain? More important, why would anyone put their head on the media chopping block?

The media has become the leader maker and the leader breaker. All of us have faults and it is not difficult to ignore them when they are promoting their choice. It is equally easy to find and expand them into career destroying issues. Thomas Carlyle quotes Edmund Burke saying, “There were three Estates in Parliament: but in the reporter’s gallery yonder, there sat a fourth Estate more important than all of them.” Today the fourth Estate controls what we hear about leaders in all parts of society, nobody is beyond their desire to make a career, sell a newspaper or achieve a rating. Manjoo talked about a Post-Fact society where proponents of an idea go out and find experts and evidence that provide support. This applies to the mainstream media in two ways. They report the ideas and expert evidence created by those seeking or holding power. They also produce their own expert evidence to support their stories. There is no other way to explain the mainstream media failure to report on the Climategate fiasco – indeed, as the emails revealed, reporters at major newspapers and media outlets were actively involved.

On November 11, 2008 I wrote,

“Will Obama continue his opportunistic populism? Was it merely a ploy to assure election? Will he pursue his goal of cap and trade and control of the economy as part of his historical views? The answer to the last question is likely yes because of ideology and the attractiveness of climate and environment to achieve control. As Walter Williams puts it, “The thirst to wield massive control over our economy helps explain the near religious belief in manmade global warming”. Maybe David Broder was correct when he said, “Anybody that wants the presidency so much that he’ll spend two years organizing and campaigning for it is not be trusted.” If you add the phrase “compromising for it”, he is almost certainly correct.”

The orchestrated disaster that has rapidly and deliberately undercut the credibility of each segment of society shows Obama’s populism was opportunistic. He is not alone, other governments who used the climate issue to take control have driven their economies in to disaster. Who would step in as leaders to deal with the massive debts and deficits they inherit? A brief window into what they face is provided by the riots of mostly bureaucrats in Greece who were employed to perpetuate the government control. Whoever wins elections in these countries and replace existing governments face the almost impossible task of forcing austerity on the people? Leaders know what needs to be done, but they also know when it can’t be done.

Tuesday, May 4, 2010

More Than Just Government (American Thinker)


By Bruce Walker

What vexes conservatives most? We often think our only foe is too much government, but that is a mistake. The leftist giants of privately owned media, almost en masse, advance a cultural and moral agenda utterly at odds with what conservatives believe. Private colleges indoctrinate young adults with hateful propaganda. The entertainment industry coarsens our morality, savages our faith, and mocks our patriotism.

We want limited government -- and we should want limited government -- because more government means less liberty. But even the most manifest modern versions of vile malice, like Hitler's Third Reich or Stalin's empire, were not so much sins of "statism" as sins of "partyism." Nazis and Bolsheviks saw government as a hand puppet of the Party. In 1942, enemies of Nazism were writing of the "Nazi system, with its .. .absolute claim to the precedence of the Party over the whole State" (The Persecution of the Catholic Church in the Third Reich, London: 1942). The very term "Nazi" refers to a party, not a government.

Those familiar with the grim saga of Soviet power know that the Communist Party, a completely voluntary organization, wielded real power. Stalin, virtual dictator of the Soviet Union, did not even have a government job until May 1941, when he became premier. By that time, Stalin had managed to murder millions, purge many thousands, and terrorize everyone in the Soviet Union -- how? He was General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party. The Party, Nazi or Communist, ran the state, and not the other way around.

Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, and our other great founders grasped this. They constructed in our system of government safeguards for little states against big states, separation of legislation and execution of laws, sovereign states to limit the federal government, and so on. Without party trumping government, "checks and balances," "separation of powers," and "federalism" are self-correcting mechanisms. The toxin the founders dreaded was "factions."

We saw this dysfunction during the health care debate. The legislative branch adopted, without reading or understanding it, a massive bill that Obama wanted. State governments, whose interests lay in opposing this federal power grab, instead responded to ObamaCare along predictably partisan lines. Six of twenty-six Democrat governors, all from conservative states, voiced concerns about ObamaCare. Nearly all Republican governors -- Arnold being an exception -- opposed ObamaCare. Democrat state attorneys general were much more reluctant to file lawsuits against ObamaCare than their Republican counterparts. It is party driving the state, and not the other way around.

But it is more than just "political parties" which threaten us. Not all parties are the same. Some are based upon philosophies of governance; others are based upon "interest group" advocacy. Those of us called "conservatives" simply want an impartial government. That is why we favor proportional taxes, oppose affirmative action as bigotry, and want government to do what it rationally can do best. The Republican Party supported equality for blacks when that principled stand cost them one-third of the nation and huge numbers of white votes outside the South.

The left, by contrast, is an interest group movement, just like the Nazis and just like the Bolsheviks. It embraces Nazi themes like "social justice" -- consigning whites, males, Christians, the affluent, patriots, and others into a leftist-patrolled ghetto. The KKK also supported "social justice" -- so did Father Coughlin, Juan PerĂ³n, Fidel Castro, and all those sibling interest-group parties or movements. The state can be used by these odious types, but it is the social justice thugs, not the state per se, which are the problem. In the current immigration firefight, what do conservatives want? More government! We want the federal government to rigorously enforce the law. The left wants the state to vanish and our borders to become meaningless. 

This sort of bigotry against certain citizens in favor of others is so common now that we forget that the prostitution of government to the needs of only some Americans is the opposite of what Washington, Jefferson, and Franklin wished to leave us. Whatever structure of government is bequeathed to a people, political parties which champion particular interests will, inevitably, destroy the worth of that structure.  Interest-group parties are poison to ordered liberty. 

Nominal parties -- Republicans, Democrats, Federalists, etc. -- can also be corrupted. While certain parties, like the Democrats today, seem to be in the belly of the beast that is interest-driven government, certainly Republicans like McCain and Crist can be just as debased. That is why the Tea Party resonates so well. Far from championing any particular factions of America like Obama, who plans to reinvigorate his party by enthusing the young, African-Americans, Latinos, and women, the Tea Party champions simply ordered liberty. 

This elevating and ennobling view of American government means that the rights of greedy, creepy leftists in Wall Street firms are just as sacred to us as our own rights are. The process of freedom is our cause. We view government as we view juries: Verdicts should not be based upon group interest, and laws should not, either. When government acts, it should be only in the general welfare, and those words of Article I are in direct conflict with the toxin of "our group's interest." We defend Wall Street not because Wall Street likes or helps us, but because it is right.

Government has a role only as an unbiased arbitrator of those parts of life which the marketplace cannot mediate. When government acts this way, as it should, then parties and factions still remain, and they still quarrel and feud -- but if government is robust, then the mischief of parties is controlled. So when the KKK lynches a black, more government is required, and when Storm Troopers terrorized German streets or Mafia internecine wars decimate Sicily, more government is required. Factions are the infection, and when these infect government, we are lost. The abuse of government for special interests, not just government itself, is the mortal blow to liberty.

Bruce Walker is the author of two books: Sinisterism: Secular Religion of the Lie, and his recently published book, The Swastika against the Cross: The Nazi War on Christianity.

Page Printed from: at May 04, 2010 - 06:52:41 AM CDT

Palin and the Leftist Elites


By Mark W. Hendrickson

Sarah Palin is one of the most intriguing (and polarizing) personalities to emerge on the national political stage in a long time.  The way that many conservatives embrace her and many liberals vilify her illustrates in microcosm the yawning political divide in America today.

We can draw insights about Palin's significance in America today from a trio of three markedly disparate historical figures: Ronald Reagan, the late Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises, and the Gospel of Matthew's King Herod.  The connection between Sarah Palin and Ronald Reagan is fairly simple and straightforward.  They share conservative convictions and a special gift of communication.  Palin is reminiscent of Reagan in the way she resonates, inspires, and energizes conservatives. 

Less apparent are the links that may be drawn between Palin and the long-departed Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises -- and Palin and the much-longer-ago-departed King Herod.

The connection between Palin and Mises occurred to me while rereading Mises' 1944 book Bureaucracy.  Mises wrote, "...the educated strata are more gullible than the less educated.  The most enthusiastic supporters of Marxism, Nazism, and Fascism were the intellectuals, not the boors."  Indeed, Marx, Lenin, et al., were intellectuals, and the leaders of socialism have been relatively well-to-do educated folks like Bill Ayers, not salt-of-the-earth blue-collar folks.

Mises continued this insight with a penetrating passage that is uncannily relevant today:

The champions of socialism call themselves progressives, but they recommend a system which is characterized by rigid observance of routine and by a resistance to every kind of improvement.  They call themselves liberals, but they are intent upon abolishing liberty.  They call themselves democrats, but they yearn for dictatorship.  They call themselves revolutionaries, but they want to make the government omnipotent.  They promise the blessings of the Garden of Eden, but they plan to transform the world into a gigantic post office. 

And what is the antidote to the grim utopian schemes of leftist intellectuals and politicians?  According to Mises, "Just common sense is needed to prevent man from falling prey to illusory fantasies and empty catchwords."  In other words, people as down-to-earth and common-sensical as Ronald Reagan and Sarah Palin.

Indeed, the fury directed against Palin by leftists is so overwrought, and at times maniacal, precisely because her innate common sense is so powerful and effective when she dares to declare that the emperor of government economic planning has no clothes.  Like Mises and Reagan, Palin understands with utter (and to leftists, frightening) clarity that leftist utopias have no practicality or viability, but are, in Mises' words, "illusory fantasies."

Like most people, self-important intellectuals don't like their cherished dreams and aspirations dismissed as fantasies.  What really agitates them, though, is that they remember how effective that attractive, winsome fellow from non-elite Eureka College was in explaining how counterproductive, inefficient, and ultimately destructive Big Government is.  Now intellectuals on the left are scared to death that the attractive, winsome gal from the non-elite University of Idaho has the same convictions as Reagan and the same common sense that Mises identified as the antidote to socialist nostrums.

The left can't stand the fact that Palin, like Reagan, isn't one of them.  Like Reagan, she is not an "intellectual."  She doesn't share what Thomas Sowell dubbed "the vision of the anointed" -- progressive elitists' unshakable faith in their grandiose plans for regimenting our lives.  To leftist intellectuals, it's okay to have a president who thinks he visited 57 states, a vice president who has claimed that Franklin Roosevelt went on television to calm the people after the stock market crash of 1929 (no TV yet, and Hoover was president) and a Speaker of the House who has insisted that we must switch from fossil fuels to natural gas.  All ignorance, error, and mental dullness can be forgiven as long as one subscribes to the political catechism, "The government must control economic activity."  What is unacceptable, even evil, to them is someone like Palin who doesn't subscribe to the same catechism, who just doesn't "get it."

Here is where Herod the Great enters the story.  We read in the Gospel of Matthew that Herod feared any threat to his power; thus his vile order to slaughter male babies in the hope of killing off the one with the potential to mature into a leader who would threaten his hegemony.  The political left is a modern Herod, desperate to halt Sarah Palin's political career now, before she can grow more formidable and possibly develop into her generation's Reagan.

Indeed, it has been amazing to see the scorn, vitriol, and even hatred, directed toward this woman who dares to defy the left's narrow, preconceived notions of what political positions a female politician should be allowed to hold.  It was comical to see how Democrats fell all over each other to distort Palin's autobiographical Going Rogue as an attack on John McCain.  Why would Democrats rush to defend one Republican from an (alleged) attack by another Republican?  Might it have something to do with the fact that they perceive McCain as a "good Republican" -- one who will compromise and cuts deals -- where Palin would not? 

I have no idea what the future holds for Sarah Palin.  It is indisputable, though, that the left regards her as their worst nightmare -- an articulate, attractive, effective communicator and advocate of conservative principles with Misesian common sense and Reaganesque potential.  That is why she is the object of their Herod-like verbal thrusts today.

Mark Hendrickson teaches economics at Grove City College and is Fellow for Economic and Social Policy at the College's Center for Vision & Values.

Page Printed from: at May 04, 2010 - 06:43:47 AM CDT

Monday, May 3, 2010

The Left Has Lost Their Mind Over Guns

Posted by Karl Denninger in Editorial at 13:09

Given that it's a rather slow news day with the Euro slowly slipping into the abyss as the ECB will now accept used dog food as collateral, I find time to take on Nancy Dewolf Smith who opined in the WSJ this last Friday:

Like a fly on a birthday cake, the subject of open carry—legally wearing a gun in public—keeps landing in the news and nobody can swat it down. Those who would like to be rid of it range from some of the most ardent gun-controllers to some of the fiercest believers in the Second Amendment right to bear arms. Many of the latter live in the 43 states where it already is legal to openly wear a handgun (although rules vary about whether it can be loaded, etc.). That the majority of people who could walk around outfitted for the OK Corral choose not to do so ought to be a hint that the minority who are most eager to force open carry on the rest of us might belong in a special category of bozos.

The "most ardent" supporters of the 2nd Amendment are in support of getting rid of open carry?  Says who Nancy - and if so, why is it legal in 43 states in one form or another?

Consider the case of James Goldberg, who walked up to the counter of a Glastonbury, Conn. Chili's restaurant in 2007 costumed in camouflage and wearing a pistol. Police were called and Mr. Goldberg was arrested, only to be cleared after it was determined that since he had a permit for the weapon he was not breaking a law.

Yes, let's consider Mr. Goldberg.  He broke no law and thus was falsely arrested.  In a nation of laws one would call the imprisonment of a person without valid cause kidnapping, no matter how brief said imprisonment might be, and the so-called "law enforcement officers" would be facing a sentence of 20-to-life, not to mention being permanently ineligible to own firearms.  This, of course, would make them ineligible to be a police officer.

That is, to question Mr. Goldberg as to the lawful nature of his exercise of a 2nd Amendment right seems perfectly appropriate. But arresting him without probable cause to believe he had committed a criminal offense is legally equivalent to kidnapping.

Nancy seems to have no problem with this, so long as the person doing the kidnapping is a peace officer.

I disagree.

Equally unimpressive were the armed types who gathered in a Virginia Park this month to demonstrate support for open carry and their opposition to government in general and the Obama administration in particular. Like the characters who now make a practice of wearing handguns into Starbucks and other places of business, such demonstrators may yet turn out to be a godsend for the antigun crowd.


I wrote on this protest, incidentally, having spoken by email with one of the organizers.   There was nothing "anti-Obama" about its intent.

Said demonstration was simply a proper and lawful exercise of Constitutional Rights.

Nancy would seem to be acquainted with the general principle of these rights, given that she has the right to spout off absolute nonsense about firearms in general and the lawful keeping and bearing of them in particular.

But like so many on the left, Nancy only believes in Constitutional Rights when she is the one exercising them.  When someone else whom she disagrees with wants to exercise them, that very same Constitution and those very same words on the page suddenly disappear and the paper upon which they were written is to be used in the commode.

Speaking of serious shooters, I don't know a soul among gun owners who is itching to prance around showing everybody what is in their holster. Most of the time, citizens who carry weapons in public places are doing it for protection, and that means concealment. They don't want their handgun easily grabbed by some idiot in a checkout line, and they don't want a potential aggressor to know what they have on them or where it is. If flashing an armory were anything but a stunt, our air marshals would be strapped like Pancho Villa.

Really Nancy?

Have you seen a cop walking around your leftie havens in NYC lately? 

Was his or her firearm concealed, or was it carried openly?

Let me guess - their openly-carried firearm is neither a stunt or intended to intimidate, but rather is intended only for lawful use.

Hmmmm.... why do I smell a double-standard here?

Let me make a few things clear to you and ask a question or two besides Nancy, since you seem to have a problem with reality - and The Constitution:

  1. One does not ask permission to exercise a right, nor does one need to buy a license to do so.  Would you accept a full background investigation, fingerprinting, and payment of a license fee before you can publish anything in The Press - or merely speak where anyone other than you can hear your words?  Why not Nancy?  You seem to think that standard is just fine when it comes to the keeping and most particularly the bearing of arms!  Yet both rights are numbers 1 and 2 in the Bill of Rights.

  2. Have you ever been to a range?  I ask in all sobriety, because I have never seen any place in society where people are nicer - that is, more polite.  Of course at a gun range everyone is armed, since the entire point of being there is to practice and maintain one's skill in the use of firearms.  There are many who have said "an armed society is a polite society" and one need only step foot on a gun range for a few minutes to notice the marked difference in attitudes compared to, for instance, your local grocery store.

  3. Firearms are not scary.  They are tools and have both lawful and unlawful uses.  Likewise the 5-gallon can of gasoline in your garage can be used lawfully to mow your lawn, and unlawfully to light your neighbor's house on fire.  Yet I do not need a license to purchase 5 gallons of gasoline to go in that can - I only need the $15 or so necessary to pay for my purchase.  The keeping and bearing of gasoline is not a Constitutional Right.  The keeping and bearing of firearms is.

  4. The police cannot be everywhere, and in the 2, 3, 5 or 20 minutes it takes for a police officer to arrive should you be assaulted your assailant can easily rape, rob or murder you - or all three, for that matter.  A firearm is, as Samuel Colt said, the "great equalizer."  In an unarmed assault a 220lb 6'2 man is going to do whatever he wants to a 90lb 4'10 woman.  A pistol makes the woman the precise equal of that man in terms of her ability to defend against that assault.  Seeing as you're a woman I would expect you would be very interested in yourself (and your daughter(s), if you have any) being able to defend against that possible assault, should the need arise.

  5. Guns don't work the way you see them on the Idiot Box (that's "TV" for the lefties.)  Specifically, when one is shot they do not go flying backward through plate-glass windows and firearms do not fire bullets that have homing devices causing them to automatically strike and kill any human within 300'.  In fact an awfully large percentage of the time goons who are unskilled at arms (the majority of goons never go to the range, being criminals and all) miss with every shot they fire.  A prime example can be seen in a Youtube video in a Toledo Bar where a couple of goons emptied their weapons and yet shot nobody.  You would think from the (intentionally) inaccurate view put forward in the media that everyone in that bar would be dead.  You'd be wrong.

  6. Openly-carried firearms convey a high degree of deterrence against crime that anyone in the vicinity might otherwise think about committing.  How many times does a mugger, purse snatcher, or rapist commit an offense within eyesight of a police offer with a publicly-displayed firearm on his hip?  Essentially never!  Have you ever wondered why?

It would be nice if there were no firearms in the hands of criminals.  If that was the case then nobody would need to carry a weapon in public, and the "bearing" of arms could be relegated to the first purpose that The Founders envisioned for the 2nd Amendment - a day that all sane Americans, myself included, pray nightly never comesWhat day is that, Nancy and other lefties might ask?  The day a latter-day Hitler decides to try to gas all the lefties might fit into the criteria of founder's intent, as one of the more-obvious examples (Yes, Nancy, some Americans, myself included, would attempt to prevent even you from suffering such a fate if it became necessary, God forbid.)

But we don't live in such a world.  Specifically, we live in a world where history has shown over more than twenty years of ever-tighter gun laws in certain jurisdictions, including Chicago, NY City and Washington DC, that the bad guys don't give a damn about the law.  After all, that's what criminals do - they ignore the law.  They thus will procure firearms through whatever means they find necessary, including by importing them across a southern border those very same lefties refuse to secure and make damn sure remains closed!

It is my considered opinion that everyone should be able to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights without interference, licensure or prior restraint.  That is, if I wish to carry a pistol for lawful self-defensive purposes in public there should be no restraint on my doing so.  I should neither have to declare to the government that I intend to do so, or that I am doing so, as that redefines said right as a privilege, and our Constitution says this is not a privilege - it is a Constitutional Right.

I fully support and believe in laws such as Florida's 10/20/Life, as they bear on conduct.  That is, if you use a firearm in the commission of a crime, you get 10 years.  Discharge one, 20 years.  Shoot someone, 25 to life.  No ifs, ands or buts, and you serve every single day of that sentence, as you should.

Now cut the crap and for those law-abiding citizens who wish to carry firearms, either concealed or in the open, leave them alone.  Laws requiring one to register with the government to singly and peaceably exercise a constitutionally-protected right are in and of themselves unconstitutional.

If and when someone commits a criminal offense with a firearm, lock 'em up immediately and for a long enough period of time that they won't be doing that again.

But until an offense is committed, let those who are not as physically able lawfully defend themselves against the predators that, to a large degree, lefty liberal policies have both created in the first place and provided the means to acquire their own weapons, which they then use to commit violent felonies upon the public at large!

In the left's utopia nobody should have a reason to own firearms because there would be no bad guys who have and use them against the law-abiding citizens of the world.  In their fantasy-laced minds Adolph Hitler, Pol Pot and dozens of other dictators and criminal thugs did not wind up in positions of political power where they murdered their (first rendered defenseless through disarmament) citizens.  These visions of utopia make for great children's stories and hopes for the future, but they do not reflect the reality of our world and never have - not now and not ever through human history, and as such one must be careful to accept the prescriptions of people who have for decades put forward their beliefs and expectations that have been proved to be akin to drug-induced illusions.

This much I'm sure of - should Nancy be beset upon by a rapist or mugger in an alley one fine spring evening, she won't be refusing the help of an armed passerby who can stop the rape or beating that she is about to suffer.

If I'm wrong, I'm sure Nancy would not object to a little First Amendment exercise outside her home in the form of a sign posted by her neighbors similar to this (click for a larger copy):