Little girls... with GUNS!

 Is this a trend?  If it is then I hope it's a growing one!

In the past few months I've found a number of young ladies - these are girls under twelve - who are not only gun enthusiasts but are also very adept with firearms.  In every way pertaining to guns, from responsible gun handling to describing various ammo, each of these girls possesses more knowledge and expertise with firearms than most adults.

Here are a couple of examples.  And as you can tell, these ladies also command extremely authoritative and articulate voices.  No doubt a result of the confidence that they have gained from their gun ownership and use.

This first young woman, I discovered on Facebook from the ads for her father's VERY clever invention StopBox (note: I do not own a StopBox, but I do think it's pretty cool).  Meet Emma Ervin, from the state of Washington.  Current age: ten.  Emma has been owning and using guns for most of her life.  When she was seven she saved her allowance up to buy her first rifle.  She has since gone on to be a much admired and respected competitive shooter.  Emma is well versed in pistols (she currently packs a Glock as her gun of choice), rifles, carbines... pretty much anything short of a bazooka.  Emma has a page devoted to her life and shooting career at the official StopBox site and her dad maintains an Instagram page with more videos of Emma in action.

Wait, did we say videos?  Here is one of Emma, circa 7-8, explaining the four rules of handling guns safely:

 Thank you for being you Emma!

This next young woman, I discovered her this week.  Autumn Fry hails from Florida.  She is presently eleven and a half.  In another five or six years she may be dating.  If that happens the guy taking her out had better come to her door with his hat in his hands, his hands in plain sight, and a TOTALLY cheerful disposition.  Autumn is in her happy place with guns.  She understands and appreciates their designs and mechanics more than most grown-ups.  If you want a true education in firearms, you will find few instructors with as much expertise and pep as Autumn.  She has a website called Autumn's Armory along with an Instagram page.  And then there is the Autumn's Armory YouTube channel which as of this date has more than a quarter million subscribers.  For a taste of what you're in for, here is Autumn's latest video, in which she demonstrates her love for a 44 Magnum:

Autumn, when the zombie apocalypse happens, I want to be wherever you and your family are.

And to the families of Emma and Autumn and every other young girl being taught to use firearms respectfully and responsibly: this blogger salutes you.  You aren't only showing your little ladies how to protect themselves, their loved ones, and their property.  You are raising them up to have confidence and consideration.  These girls are going to go far in life, and their parents have every right to be supremely proud of them.

Y'all know of any other girls with guns?  E-mail me at theknightshift@gmail.com and I'll post about them too!

Read More

A proposal for armed teachers in the classroom

Several years ago as a college student, I was minoring in secondary education.  The intended plan was since I couldn't hack it in computer programming (with visions of being a millionaire like the guys who made Doom in my head) that I should focus on something I was actually good at: history, and teaching it.

The discussion in class one day turned to student discipline and keeping order in the classroom.  Naturally it went on a tangent about school shootings.  And I suggested arming the teachers with taser weapons.

It's a wonder I didn't get banished from Elon University right then and there, the notion was so radical and attacked.  But this was before Columbine.  Now?  The thought of a non-lethal stun device seems almost quaint.

Under no circumstance is the Second Amendment to be violated.  Some may not like it, but the right to keep and bear arms is the absolute final deterrent against government becoming all-powerful and consuming, and that is what the Founders intended.  But schools, whether public or private, are special environments where immediate accessibility to a firearm may not universally be for the best.  And yet, armed attacks on students and teachers continue.  I could deviate a bit about the true cause of such atrocities, but that's for another post.

So... what is to be done?  Because advertising that a school is a "gun-free zone" does not work, has not worked and will never work to deter a bad guy from storming the premises with a firearm and the intent to hurt and kill others.

Here, then, is my proposal:

• Give those teachers who opt to be armed the right to do so, provided that they pass extensive background check and pass a mandatory training program tailored to address school violence and the responsibilities that will come with having a loaded weapon on standby in the classroom.
• Install a lockbox in each classroom.  Secured with a real key, not a combination lock.  Only the teacher of that room and the principal will have a copy of the key, with another copy kept at the main office and retrievable by authorized personnel or law enforcement requesting the key through proper channels.
• Teachers who choose to bring their firearms to school will be required to check them in at the office every morning, retrieve the key for their classroom's lockbox, and upon arrival at their classroom will immediately secure the gun in the lockbox.
• At the end of the day each teacher opting to have a firearm available will remove the gun from the lockbox, sign the gun out at the office, and return the key.
• The gun is kept out of ready reach but in a worst case scenario will still be within immediate grasp of the teacher.  There is also a log kept of which members of the faculty are armed for that particular day.

It's as responsible and accountable a system as I've been able to conceive.  Maybe more learned and wiser minds in regard to school safety can come up with something better.  If so, I for one would appreciate knowing what it is.

But merely announcing that a school doesn't allow guns, with nice neat placards announcing as much to visitors entering the building, isn't going to save lives.  Not from a lunatic whose only thought is to wipe out as many innocent lives as possible before the cops or deputies finally arrive.  In this imperfect world, seconds count when help is still minutes away.

And people like David Hogg (whose fifteen minutes of fame are WAY past finished) need to recognize the reality of the situation.  If they want completely safe schools, then "good feelings" aren't going to accomplish anything.  Knowing that there are armed teachers and other staff on campus, who will fire back with deadly force if absolutely need be...

The psychological value alone in that merits considering arming teachers with appropriate weaponry, to be used as a last resort.

Read More

Department of Defense has 3D printed gun yanked... but I got it anyway (and so can you!)

The Liberator: Coming soon to
a desktop near you!

Defense Distributed has made a lot of headlines lately about the Liberator: a firearm which is completely fabricated by "3D printing", apart from the firing pin.  I think the success of this gun already is that it's got politicians like Charles Schumer and Steve Israel all steamed-up about it.  Schumer wants 3D printed guns to be outlawed completely.

The thing is, politicos like Schumer can't figure out how to pull that off.  3D printing will soon be a household implement and if it can be drawn up on a computer, anyone will be able to produce a fully-functioning model right on their desktop.  The computer doesn't care if it's a replacement part for a kitchen appliance or an action figure or a real working handgun.  The barn door has been thrown wide open and there's no getting that horse back inside.

Never let something like common sense stop the government from trying.  Earlier today the Department of Defense requested that Defense Distributed remove all its 3D weapons-related files from its website.   Defense Distributed's founder Cody Wilson is laying the blame on the doorstep of Secretary of State John Kerry.

As of this writing, Defense Distributed's site has "gone dark".

But less than five minutes after reading about the government having the Liberator pulled from the web, I had downloaded the gun.  And not once, but twice.

Here's how I did it, and how anybody else can as well:

Download µTorrent if you don't have it already (it's a free download) and run the install.  Any other torrent client should work too.  I found the Liberator files on The Pirate Bay.  There are two torrents for it so far: here's #1 and here's #2.  If either of those can't be found just do a search for "liberator" and "gun": I got those two results at once.  The file size is 2.02 megabytes (such a tiny thing for something so much fuss about).

And then... just download your Liberator files!  If you possess a 3D printer you can start making your Liberator pistol immediately.

I downloaded the file from each of those two torrents.  It is on my hard drive.  It is also on at least two USB drives that I've copied it too.  I can e-mail the file to anyone, anywhere in the world.  I could even set up a torrent on my own and allow people to download it from me directly.

In fact, it is happening right now.  Not by me, but by other people.  Lots and lots of other people.

Shutting down the Defense Distributed website was just about the worst thing that the United States federal government could have done, if it didn't want the Liberator to get into the wild.  By trying to outlaw it, the feds have made it so that practically everyone can want it.  Defense Distributed could not have asked for better publicity for and dissemination of its product!

Anyhoo... "Annie get your gun!" :-)

Read More

"Senator" Feinstein wants violent video game control

Somebody educate me: how do people like Dianne Feinstein get elected to anything whatsoever? Feinstein shouldn't be trusted with city sanitation manager, much less United States Senator.

Having failed in her bid to ban "assault weapons" (there is no such thing, incidentally) Demented Dianne has now decided that violent video games must be controlled and regulated by act of Congress.

From the article at VentureBeat...

Speaking to an audience of 500 people in her hometown of San Francisco, U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said that game publishers need to make voluntary actions to avoid glorifying guns and violence following the Newtown elementary school massacre in December.

She noted that Congress would take action if the industry didn’t do something, according to the Associated Press.

“If Sandy Hook doesn’t [make game publishers change] … then maybe we have to proceed, but that is in the future,” said Feinstein.

She went on to claim that video games play “a very negative role for young people, and the industry ought to take note of that.”

Uhhhhh... somebody should inform Senator Feinstein that ever since the introduction of first-person shooters and other violent video games in the early Nineties, mass killings HAVE BECOME MUCH LESS COMMON!  There is no correlation at all... none... between the pervasiveness of violent games and increase in crime.  If there is any relation between them at all, it could in fact be argued that such games have decreased crime, not intensified it.

For levity's sake, here is that pic of Feinstein in place of Doom's Marine guy from that Photoshop job I made of Obama two months ago...

 DOOM 2013: Where the insanest place is behind a Senator from California.

This is the same woman who last month claimed that all veterans of the United States military are "mentally ill" and thus should not be allowed to own firearms.

I would also be remiss in my duty as a blogger if it were not noted that earlier this year Feinstein expressed a desire to deprive the American citizenry of all their guns except for her own and those of other government officials (and yes, she owns a gun folks).

I am going to posit something: that the Founding Fathers had exceedingly prescient foresight when they wrote the Second Amendment.  If nothing else it is a last resort deterrent against the machinations of the power mad and the direly insane.  The latter of which is represented by Dianne Feinstein and too many others in the halls of Congress.

No, I'm not suggesting anything.  Just stating that We The People are our own best scare tactic that should give pause to the truly evil.

EDIT 11:35 p.m. EST:  It's not about Dianne Feinstein per se, but Kotaku has posted a terrific and timely piece by Christian Allen.  Allen has worked on the Ghost Recon franchise as well as Halo: Reach and many other successful video game projects.  Titled "I'm a Game Designer. I'm a Gun Owner. It's Time To End All This 'Us vs. Them'", his essay delves into his life-long experience with firearms and his involvement with producing many violent video games.  There's some harsh language so be warned.  Interestingly, much of it is aimed (no pun intended) at the National Rifle Association...

Read More

Bias in mainstream press? WHAT bias?! (anti-gun vs. pro-life)

The apparently big story right now is about the estimated fewer than 1,000 who marched in Washington D.C. today against the Second Amendment. I understand that this has made all of the major evening new broadcasts: CBS, NBC, CNN etc.

To the very best of my understanding, there was NO such coverage at all of yesterday's March for Life, which many have calculated drew more than 500,000 to the Mall to protest abortion -the premeditated murder of unborn children - on the fortieth anniversary of Roe v. Wade.

Now, applying some logic here, you would think that a story regarding half a million people would dwarf that of an event which drew, at most, several hundred.

But I suppose when it comes to stories and their coverage from big media, some of them just don't fit the expected narrative...

Read More

Gun control lunacy: Feinstein would take YOUR weapon but keep hers, and the modern cost of saving a life

Senator Dianne Feinstein - a person who exemplifies the absolute worst that an elected official could possibly be - is trying to ram through another gun control bill on Capitol Hill. It would take away dang nearly every firearm that We The People have as articulated in the Second Amendment... EXCEPT for her own and those of other government officials.

So lemme get this straight: Feinstein, who owns a pistol or two herself, wants legislation that will prohibit the "little people" from having guns but also wants to keep her own.

I am trying to be a man of polite society so I will refrain from using the word that many will be tempted to use in describing Feinstein. I can at least say with no small degree of accuracy "rank hypocrisy".

And then from the D.C. area there is the story of a man who several days ago came across a pack of pit bulls trying to maul a little boy to death.

The man fired his handgun at the dogs, saving his young neighbor's life.

And for his valiant act of courage the man is now facing an "illegal weapon" charge because of Washington D.C.'s insane gun control laws. He faces a year in prison and $1000 in fines.

Let's get this straight: the D.C. prosecutors would rather this guy not have a gun at the cost of a dead eleven-year old. Am I getting that right?

If a jury convicts this dude, I will have lost most of the hope that's still there for America.

But not all hope, if more local sheriffs vow to refuse to comply with federal gun laws that would deprive citizens of their Second Amendment rights. Read the new piece by Chuck Baldwin at the link for the encouraging words from people across the fruited plain to those inside the Beltway.

And the words are: "Hell no."

Read More

When firearm magazines are outlawed...

Handgun and rifle magazines are selling out at Wal-Mart and other retailers and the prices for them are soaring on eBay and other sites. One gun shop in Charlotte did more than $1 million in sales yesterday: the most it's had in over half a century of business. With the increasing likelihood that the Obama Administration and too much of Congress are going to attempt restrictions on guns and magazines, people are gettin' it while the gettin's good.

So I can't help but think: a magazine isn't much more than a metal box with a spring. Come to think of it, that's all a magazine is. I could very easily manufacture a rough but working magazine - holding as much ammo as I wish - in a machine shop. Apart from the spring, EVERYTHING that I'd need to produce a magazine in an hour or so's time is within ready reach of me.

Hey, I've made knives. Making parts for guns would be the next logical step. And there are many with far greater skills who could produce not just the magazines but full-working guns, and possibly mass-produce them at that.

Not to mention that rapid-prototyping - AKA "3D printing" - is already allowing for production of magazines and other gun parts on your desktop. Before very long if you want a gun, you'll be able to download one from the Internet. Literally.

I'm guessing that if government restrictions are placed on firearms and magazines, that there will be a vast underground market for those produced in home shops etc. And every one of them will be unregistered and untraceable.

I'm just sayin', is all...

Read More

You are your own best protection

A few days ago, roughly a mile or so from where I'm writing these words, there was a home break-in. A husband and wife were murdered. They are being laid to rest today.

I did not know the family, but I know lots of people who do. I have heard nothing but very good things about Doug and Ladonna French. They leave behind two children, including one who was at home during the robbery and barely escaped. As of this writing, no one has been arrested.

In light of this, I'm feeling led to say something that really shouldn't have to be said...

You really are your own best protection. No offense to the men and women serving in law enforcement, but in the real world they can't possibly be a 100% effective safeguard against criminal wrongdoing. Call 911 and it's going to be at least 5 minutes, in the vast majority of situations, before a sheriff's deputy or police officer can arrive at your house. A lot can happen in that time. A lot of bad. Happening toward you.

A person who is breaking into your house will not care about legal niceties. A person breaking into your house will not care about how much money it will cost you to defend yourself in court. A person breaking into your house will not care how many attorneys you will have to hire. A person breaking into your house will not care that you might get arrested for a firearms charge. A person breaking into your house will not care that you might be in jail for a day or so.

And neither should you.

You can always replace money. You can never replace a loved one. You can never replace your own life either.

It sounds cliche, but it's true: an armed society is a polite society. It's a documented fact that places with higher gun ownership by those with property enjoy statistically and considerably lower crime rates.

If anyone breaks into my house, I will defend myself and my loved ones, with deadly force. And I don't give a flying rat's ass how much it will personally cost me.

Remember folks: it is better to be judged by twelve than to be carried out by six.

Read More

Bev Perdue - AKA "Worst Governor EVER" - suspends gun rights STATEWIDE ahead of Hurrican Earl (what the?!?)

Just got the word from Matt Mittan that North Carolina Governor Bev Perdue - also known on this blog as "Worst Governor EVER!" - has suspended the rights of North Carolina residents to "to use or carry firearms outside their premises" during the state of emergency declared for Hurricane Earl, currently taking aim at our coast.

Here's what really raised my eyebrows: this is apparently a STATEWIDE suspension, and not merely along the North Carolina coast. In other words, folks around Sylva, Waynesville and other fine places waaay out in the North Carolina mountains are also affected by the gun rights suspension... even though it's extremely doubtful that they will be affected by Earl in the least bit.

What the hell is Governor Perdue thinking?!

I would like for someone to show me where this is just a matter for the coastal areas. But even if that were the case, it does not make me feel the least bit comfortable that Perdue has taken it upon herself to say that the Second Amendment no longer applies, regardless of how big or small an area is affected by Earl.

And then the woman has the gall to say that those who decide to ride it out are "on your own". So what are they supposed to use to defend themselves against potential looters? Like the guy in Aliens suggested: "harsh language"?

This woman hasn't a clue. Like too damn many other elected officials in this country.

Read More

Supreme Court rules on what most of us already knew...

...and decided that the Second Amendment really DOES apply to EVERY part of the United States. In other words, it affirmed that citizens do have a basic right to keep and bear arms for purposes of self defense (and, I dare say, as an incentive against government getting too big for its britches).

Glad to see the Supremes finally nodding toward something that's been public knowledge only since the Bill of Rights was ratified.

But in any case, this is a major victory for gun rights. Perhaps the tide is turning after all in this land.

Read More

Why are gun sales banned because of snow in King, North Carolina?

One county to the west of my position in King, North Carolina, the authorities have banned the sale of guns and ammunition during the "state of emergency" there caused by the winter storm of the past few days.

From the story at the WXII.com website...

Authorities lifted a curfew and alcohol restrictions in King on Sunday, but said a state of emergency declaration remained in effect until Monday.

Authorities said the state of emergency declaration would continue until Monday 9 a.m., barring any unforeseen circumstances or severe changes.

Effective Sunday afternoon, alcohol restrictions and a curfew were lifted. All other remaining restrictions would continue until Monday, said Paula May, King police chief.

Other restrictions include a ban on the sale or purchase of any type of firearm, ammunition, explosive or any possession of such items off a person's own premises.

King is a rather small town. If people are inclined to own a gun there, they're more likely than not probably already in possession of one.

Just don't understand what the point of this restriction is.

Read More

Pastor tells congregation: Bring your guns to church!

A Kentucky minister plans to celebrate the Fourth of July next month along with the Second Amendment... by inviting church members to bring their guns to Sunday service.

New Bethel Church is welcoming "responsible handgun owners" to wear their firearms inside the church June 27, a Saturday. An ad says there will be a handgun raffle, patriotic music and information on gun safety.

"We're just going to celebrate the upcoming theme of the birth of our nation," said pastor Ken Pagano. "And we're not ashamed to say that there was a strong belief in God and firearms — without that this country wouldn't be here."

The guns must be unloaded and private security will check visitors at the door, Pagano said.

He said recent church shootings, including the killing Sunday of a late-term abortion provider in Kansas, which he condemned, highlight the need to promote safe gun ownership. The New Bethel Church event was planned months before Dr. George Tiller was shot to death in a Wichita church...

I love it! This pastor has the right idea: freedom never came without the price of vigilance. Good to see that being acknowledged, 'cuz there's nothing wrong with it in the first place.

Blast here for the rest of the story.

Read More

"No Fly, No Buy Act": New York congressb*tch conspires to deprive citizens of Second Amendment without due process

(I soooo wanted to put an "i" in that word, but as it's a Sunday I'm trying to restrain myself.)

Longtime readers of this blog already know that I loathe, loathe, LOATHE the Department of Homeland Security, the Transportation Security Administration, and damn nearly everything else that George W. Bush implemented in the name of "national security" when he was President. I have never liked them for a very many reasons: that these were measures that were rushed into becoming enacted with little consideration or even seriously reading the language of the associated bills, for one thing. Because there are numerous fascist connotations surrounding it all. And because the Department of Homeland Security and everything connected with it has proven to be the most abused, corrupt and inefficient example of government bureaucracy to have come along in a VERY long time.

But most of all: because I have never doubted that the purpose of the Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Administration has never been to protect us from "the terrists".

The real, albeit unstated goal of the DHS and the TSA, has been to "protect" the federal government from the American people.

I defy anybody to tell me that I'm a "kook" or "crazy" for saying that, in light of the bill that Carolyn McCarthy, Representative from New York's Fourth District in the U.S. House, is now sponsoring...

The "No Fly, No Buy Act", if passed and signed into law, would automatically deprive EVERYONE on the federal government's No Fly List from being able to legally purchase a firearm.

Pardon me for saying this but: What. The. Fvck...?!?

(Came perilously close that time. I'm trying hard, folks.)

In other words: If this become law, the government will be able to take away anyone's right, guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, to purchase and possess a gun (and possibly anything else deemed to be a weapon)... by merely putting that person's name on the No Fly List. There will be no due process. A person will not have to first be found guilty of committing a felony. All it will take is a single asshole practically anywhere in government and accountable to no one, entering your name onto the Transportation Security Administration's No Fly List. A thing that we as citizens have no right to easily and swiftly contest or even to know how one's name came to be on the list to begin with.

So the federal government has already been at work to unjustly deprive many of the right to travel freely. McCarthy's bill seeks to now deprive us - at the whim of any politician or bureaucrat - of the right to self-defense WITHOUT ANY DUE PROCESS!

We don't have to be worried about "the terrace over there", my friends. People like Carolyn McCarthy do far worse damage to the United States than any terrorist could possibly dream of pulling off.

And at the risk of sounding cliched: if stuff like this does not bother you, then you are not paying enough attention!

Read More

Gun-loving teacher's Facebook photo gets her suspended by Stasi-ish school officials

Betsy Ramsdale of Wisconsin apparently likes guns. Nothing wrong with that. And she likes them so much that she posted a picture of herself aiming a rifle on her Facebook page. Nothing wrong with that either: it's her own account, she gets to do with it on her own time whatever she likes and if Facebook doesn't think it violates the terms of service, nobody else should hassle her about it.

Except that Betsy Ramsdale is also a teacher employed by what is all too often the modern monstrosity of public education. And when officials at Beaver Dam Middle School were "alerted" to the photo, they immediately placed Ramsdale on administrative leave.

So what it all comes down to is that Betsy Ramsdale is being punished for practicing her freedom of speech and right to privacy, by her implied advocacy of the Second Amendment. That's a heckuva civics lesson to be teaching the kiddies, ain't it?

Some of the comments in the linked article are downright hysterical. One parent says that "With the way things are going these days, with the kids bringing guns to school and bomb threats, (photograph) is something to be concerned about."

Funny thing: I used to go to a private school and the head of its board of education once put a picture of himself with a shotgun in our yearbook 'cuz he was an avid hunter. To the best of my recollection, nobody from that school ever killed anyone with a shotgun. And I'm also kinda reminded of what Dick Cavett once remarked: there's more comedy on television than there is crime... so how come comedy isn't breaking out in the streets?

This kind of harassment of teachers, parents and students for asserting their Constitutional rights, on the part of public school administrators, has got to stop! All it's doing is breeding more - I'm not sorry for saying this - cowards who are now intimidated by even the suggestion of a thing!

Read More

Disney has new business: munitions!

Walt Disney World has declared that its employees will be exempt from a new Florida law allowing citizens of that state to keep personal firearms locked in their cars while at work.

And how exactly does a company like Disney - which is Florida's largest single-site employer - get around law like that?

By taking advantage of a loophole that was added to the bill just as it was approved as legislation that "creates an exception for companies whose primary business is to manufacture, use, store or transport explosives regulated under federal law."

Since Walt Disney World has a permit for the vast arsenal of fireworks it keeps on its grounds for its famous pyrotechnics shows, the company is construing that this exception can apply to them and is thus legally declaring their company to be a munitions dealer!

Maybe Disney can transfer John Locke from its Buena Vista division to oversee its new operations. After all, "You never know when a little C4 might come in handy." :-P

Read More

Supreme Court rules that individuals have right to own guns

The decision was 5-4. Which is why I'm not happy about it. That's still too close. In a saner day and age, the decision would have been 9-0 in favor of gun ownership.

Being one vote away from tyranny is still tyranny, in my book.

And then there are those of us among the citizenry who hold to the notion that this ruling has no real meaning at all, because we already know that the individual has the right to defend himself or herself. I sure as hell wasn't waiting with baited breath as to what nine justices in some marble building in D.C. had to say about it.

Here's the text of the ruling (in Adobe Acrobat format) if you're inclined to check it out for yourself.

Read More

Supreme Court to hear Second Amendment case today

Today the Supreme Court of the United States is going to hear arguments in a case regarding the interpretation of the Second Amendment. Namely, whether possession of a gun is the right of an individual or whether it's a "collective" one.

I would like to report that I am cautiously optimistic about how they will decide on this, but I can't even muster up that much.

This is the same Supreme Court that a few years ago that effectively destroyed the security of owning personal property by way of the Kelo decision. They ruled in favor of "the community" then and against the rights of the individual. Why should we believe that they will do any differently this time, on this issue?

Actually, I must confess that part of me is secretly hoping that the Supremes will attack individual rights on this one. Maybe then some of the Christians in this country - who I am still angry toward regarding their sheepish complacency - will wake up and realize what's going on with this country. Maybe they would... but again, knowing what I do about them I can't be very hopeful on that one.

But I'm not terribly worked-up about this, however it turns out. Because I know enough about why the Founding Fathers included the Second Amendment to understand that they no doubt fully anticipated something like this happening eventually. The Second Amendment is written confirmation that the individual has the right to protect himself or herself... but that's not the main reason why the Founders made such prominent note of it. They were people who were plenty wise about human nature and its capacity for corruption and destruction in the pursuit of power.

So it is that the primary purpose of the Second Amendment is a temporal guarantee that government in America is derived by the consent of We The People, and that the People have the right and responsibility of overthrowing that government if and when government becomes abusive without restraint.

In other words, the Second Amendment is there not because we can shoot the bad politicians dead in the streets, but so the bad politicians will know that we can shoot them, if they get out of line.

Thus, the Second Amendment is the final "checks and balance" of government in the United States. It is a bulwark against human nature... because without that, this country will become something that few of us want to see.

No wonder why many who enjoy exercising the power of the state are hoping the Supreme Court will quash individual rights again in this case.

No, I am not a violent man. I just understand enough of humanity's capacity for violence to know not to trust it.

Read More

Bush Administration claims public is "threatened" by gun ownership

So says U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement, speaking on behalf of the Bush White House, which is supporting the District of Columbia's ban on personal ownership of handguns.

Clement also claims that the Second Amendment supports "reasonable regulation" on gun ownership.

They do all of this in the name of the "public".

But let's get real here...

Anytime the government takes more power unto itself, it will always excuse it by saying it's "for the good of the people". But it always, always, does it for itself.

American government long ago ceased being something of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Government in America... and I believe that the Bush Administration and the current Congress have exemplified this more so than at any other time in this nation's history... has long been about raw, naked, unforgiving power for sake of power. Government in America is now unbridled force without moral authority. It does what it will, without worry of retribution or consequence.

Of course this government will not want the people of this country to be armed!

I've said this before, and I will say it again, and I don't care if it does land my name in a database somewhere (which it probably will): the Founding Fathers showed profound wisdom in writing the Second Amendment. They knew fully well that human nature was corrupt and that human nature coupled with collective might was the worst element of our long history. And so there is the Second Amendment, as a last-ditch measure against that...

The Second Amendment is there so that the common American citizen will be empowered to overthrow his or her government, if and when that government becomes a tyranny... as all human government eventually does.

Let me put it another way: the Second Amendment is there to scare those in government with the fact that there really might be someone out there ready to shoot them, if they ever get out of line.

I know that there are no doubt a lot of people who are uncomfortable with that notion, but it's not my own, my friends. That was the belief of the Founders. And they weren't so arrogant as to believe that the government they were establishing was a perfect one by any stretch. They knew that someday, it too would become the very thing that they had already fought and even died fighting against.

Is that time, indeed, drawing near to us?

When government begins telling the people that they are to be limited in how they can defend themselves, then you have to wonder.

I don't think it's the American citizenry who should feel threatened at all. I do believe that the politicians and lackeys in this government should feel threatened, however. That's not too unreasonable a price to expect of them, if they truly wish to be entrusted with the power that comes with government.

Read More

So what do I believe about law enforcement?

Earlier today I received an e-mail from a fella named John, who is a law enforcement officer in a major metropolitan area. John has been a supporter of the Transformers score (out today!) but he mainly wrote to share some concerns he had with things I've written here lately about law officers abusing their power.

It was a very good letter that he wrote me. And I absolutely listened to him and took his words to heart. And it made me realize that maybe I haven't adequately shared my beliefs regarding law enforcement. So I wrote back to him, explaining more about my position. And I thought that maybe it would be well if I shared those thoughts here, also.

So here's my reply to John:

Please understand that at no time have I wanted to imply that I have "something against" law officers, because I don't. There are several who are very good friends of mine. Are family, even. I've never known any of them to have anything but a sober mind toward their profession. In that respect this entire county has been blessed: we really do seem to have the kind of police and sheriff's office personnel who hearken back to Andy and Barney of Mayberry: "peace officers", not "law enforcement officers", in that they try to create peace rather than impose it.

The stance that I write from is based on a long study of human history in general and human nature in particular. The biggest observation I have made is that given power and the authority to use it, all of us - absent the humility that comes with a never-ceasing seeking and chasing after God and fully understanding our place before Him - *will* abuse that power. I do believe we need law officers in our society. But just as they stand to counter the people being overwhelmed by a sense of power, so too do they require a counter... as does everything regarding our government.

It's a very delicate balance between too much power given individuals, and too much power given the government. One way leads to utter chaos, the other leads to imposed order. Anarchy or a statist government. I'd rather we not have either.

So a measure of constant vigilance is called for on the part of all individuals in a society: citizens and government alike.

This goes back to something that you referenced: Romans 13. Yes, we are to respect the authority of government. But here's the question: WHO exactly is in authority in America? Because we have two documents written by the Founding Fathers - the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution - which clearly delineate that all government and authority in the United States derive from the people. It is not government for sake of government, but government of the people, by the people and for the people. If we believe that government is an authority unto itself and that dictates that authority and wields power on its own terms, then we have already become something far different than what the Founders envisioned and intended.

By the way, here's an interesting historical note: "the sword" that Paul writes about in verse 4 of that chapter was not something that Roman soldiers used in the line of duty like a pistol or a taser. It was actually a fairly small sword that all soldiers charged with keeping the peace were issued as a visible indication of their job: more like a badge than a serious weapon. These were rarely, if ever, actually used. But from these came the tradition that eventually gave you the badge that you wear in the line of duty.

Where do law officers fit in all of this?

If the people cannot live in the understanding that there is something above them (as with your beliefs, I hold that this is God) then it does fall to government to establish that, however inadequately it can do so. But that's still better than doing nothing at all. Law officers are a material, tangible reminder of something higher than man and if need be, they work to actively establish that fact. Along with not only the rest of our judicial system but everything of government that we have in our society, from the voting booth on up to the White House.

I think that at their best, law officers do remind is that this is still a government of our own making, and that each of us has a role in that, whether paid or unpaid. Police and sheriff's deputies have taken this a step further: it's not just a matter of personal responsibility but something that they have chosen to make a full-time profession of, and this is quite admirable. In a perfect society, every citizen would be just as serious about upholding the rule of law.

It's the rule of man that worries me though. And I've read too much of history to know what happens when man becomes too inebriated with power and authority.

John, I must run for now but I do thank you for taking the time to write to me about your concerns. Please know that I *have* taken what you have written to heart. And please know that at no time have I meant to encourage harm or anything other than respect to your and your fellows in your profession. I'm just trying to do right by *everyone* - law officers and citizens alike - per the big picture... 'cuz I'd rather like to have a country still worth passing down to my own children someday.

Remember folks: this government doesn't belong to itself. It belongs to you. And this country is what you choose to make of it, whether by your action or your apathy. I'd rather we take that responsibility seriously, so that good men and women like John who do serve in law enforcement (or as "peace officers" as I prefer to call them) won't have to shoulder that burden any more than they really should have to.

Read More

Sheriff's deputy goes "berserk" and kills 6 innocent teenagers

And the death toll might be 7, if another hospitalized victim loses the fight for his life.

Here's one story that I've found so far about Tyler Peterson, a 20-year old off-duty sheriff's deputy in Wisconsin who, overcome with anger after an argument with his girlfriend, stormed her house with a gun and opened fire on ten teenagers, who were having a party with movies and pizza. At least seven were hit, with six dead including Peterson's girlfriend.

I'm hearing some reports that in spite of his age, Peterson was already a member of the sheriff's department's SWAT team. Which if true would add an even worse angle to this story. Nobody that young and inexperienced needs to be put into the situation of being a SWAT member. Personally, I think that SWAT teams are something that lend themselves toward tremendous abuse anyway: the trend is that we see these ninja-suited thugs with way too much weaponry, who don't think anything about shooting first and asking questions later. A lot of innocent people have died at the hands of these goons in the past few years ("rack 'em stack 'em", some SWAT types call it) during supposedly "official" business.

It just comes with the nature of being given too much power: something that most people can't adequately handle without being corrupted by it. So giving it to a 20-year old kid - if Peterson indeed was a SWAT member - who lacks the self-discipline to understand not only how to use that power but how not to use it, is only asking for trouble.

Sadly, this reinforces my arguments from a few days ago, when I wrote that without law enforcement officers (another thing that is wrong: calling them "law enforcement" officers, which automatically suggests that an empowered government is of utmost priority over all else) being as much in fear of common citizens as the citizens have been led to be in fear, then there becomes something worse than a state of anarchy. There is no reason at all why Peterson shouldn't have been made to wonder if any of his intended victims might be able to strike back at him. As it is, it took another law officer to take him down (Peterson is now dead also).

Either we are all equal, or we are not. Either we have the right to defend ourselves, or we are forced to rely on officers of the law who cannot guarantee that they will be able to immediately heed our call for assistance. Either we depend on our own ability and initiative, or we depend on a government which in spite of its promises cannot possibly provide for our safety and well-being.

As I said in that earlier post, there is a role for duly-sworn officers of the law in our society. And the ones who understand that role and the responsibilities that come with it do deserve our full respect. But the fact remains that we can't depend on them to keep us entirely safe. And to expect that would be no more fair to them than it would be to ourselves.

Read More