Ammoland has a very good summary of child fatality statistics in an article entitled More Children Killed by Pillows than by Firearms. According to the article, in 2010, only 65 children (those aged 14 and under) were killed by firearms. That same year, 1,210 were killed by suffocation, and 739 were killed by drowning. Should we ban assault pillows and assault pools?
Every few years, the gun grabbers bring up the idea that thousands of "children" are killed every year in drive by shootings, and from finding their parent's gun and shooting themselves or others. I hate to be harsh, but the far greater number of these "children" are ages 15 through sometimes as old as 20, who are involved in criminal gangs, selling drugs, running prostitution and guns. I feel genuinely sorry for the mothers who come on television and sob that their boy was a good boy, but the facts usually say otherwise. By the age of 18, many have a long record of crimes.
Please make a copy of the chart included with the article. The next time someone starts yammering on about the number of children killed with a firearm, pull out the chart.
Sunday, November 27, 2011
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Was Ted Stevens Really Guilty?
I carry no water for former Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska. But, this is interesting: according to USA Today, Inquiry Finds Misconduct by Prosecutors in Ted Stevens case. Such misconduct was also present in, among other cases, the Olafson case. What I find remarkable is that no prosecution of the prosecutors is recommended because the judge didn't issue a "clear and unequivocal" order that they "follow the law."
Huh?
Now it is necessary to state that the proceedings will follow the law, otherwise you don't know under what set of rules the prosecution may be conducted? Really? As officers of the court, aren't they supposed to automatically follow the law, or be disbarred?
As I said before, I carry no water for Stevens, but he should have been tried under the rule of law, giving him the full benefit of the doubt. Exculpatory evidence should have been revealed to him. The purpose of prosecuting people is not to find them guilty and send them to jail, but to find justice, or as close as we can get in this world. Sometimes that means jail, sometimes that means letting a bad guy go free. Was Stevens guilty? We will never know because of these prosecutors shenanigans.
Huh?
Now it is necessary to state that the proceedings will follow the law, otherwise you don't know under what set of rules the prosecution may be conducted? Really? As officers of the court, aren't they supposed to automatically follow the law, or be disbarred?
As I said before, I carry no water for Stevens, but he should have been tried under the rule of law, giving him the full benefit of the doubt. Exculpatory evidence should have been revealed to him. The purpose of prosecuting people is not to find them guilty and send them to jail, but to find justice, or as close as we can get in this world. Sometimes that means jail, sometimes that means letting a bad guy go free. Was Stevens guilty? We will never know because of these prosecutors shenanigans.
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Only a 40% Chance the Supreme Court will Rule Individual Mandate Unconstitutional
In Trade is a predictions market, that lets people bid on predictions of the outcomes of real world events. The markets give probablilities of future events happening, for example, Barack Obama being elected President in 2012. People either buy "yes" shares or "no" shares. Obviously, chance that an event will happen is reflected in the price of the shares, which range from $0 to $10. For instance, if the price of the share is $7.00 dollars, the event is predicted to have a 70% chance of happening. As of this writing, the odds of Barack Obama winning the election is 52% The odds of Romney running against him is 70%.
All of this is very interesting, but it seems a little bit like betting on whether or not the Cubs will in the World Series next year. Strangely, though, In Trade has a pretty good record of predicting the outcome of events correctly. So, it was diappointing to see that trading is going on for a prediction "The U. S. Supreme Court to rule individual mandate unconstitutional before 31 December 2012" and that the odds of this event are only 40%. If the Supreme Court can torture the language enough to find this horrible law "Constitutional" then we are well and truly done as a nation.
The individual mandate in ObamaCare relies on the dubious notion that the Commerce Clause grants to Congress near universal authority to regulate any activity it wants on the grounds that it has a tangential effect on interstate commerce. (It also relies on a clause, known only to Representative John Conyers, called the "Good and Plenty" clause, but I digress.) This was not the original meaning of the Commerce clause. Remember that the States are sovereign. So, one State, Ohio for example, could enact a "Buy Ohio" law that made it illegal to sell anything made or grown in another State if that product was also made or grown in Ohio. Or, the States could have erected tariffs against products from out of State. Congress could therefore regulate how commerce was to be conducted among the several States. They were given authority to create a framework for trade and commerce internal to the United States that enhanced the general welfare. Then, under President Franklin Roosevelt, the Court began taking a more expansive view of the Commerce Clause, notoriously ruling in Wickard vs. Filburn that even grain that a farmer raised on his own property, and which never left his farm, none the less affected interstate commerce. With this view of the Commerce clause powers of Congress, it is hard to see that any activity could not be regulated. It was put very well at the Volokh Conspiracy:
There is a bright spot in all this however, the Court has begun trimming the sails of Congress just a bit. In 1995, in Lopez the courts began ruling that some things simply do not meet the test of interstate commerce.
All of this is very interesting, but it seems a little bit like betting on whether or not the Cubs will in the World Series next year. Strangely, though, In Trade has a pretty good record of predicting the outcome of events correctly. So, it was diappointing to see that trading is going on for a prediction "The U. S. Supreme Court to rule individual mandate unconstitutional before 31 December 2012" and that the odds of this event are only 40%. If the Supreme Court can torture the language enough to find this horrible law "Constitutional" then we are well and truly done as a nation.
The individual mandate in ObamaCare relies on the dubious notion that the Commerce Clause grants to Congress near universal authority to regulate any activity it wants on the grounds that it has a tangential effect on interstate commerce. (It also relies on a clause, known only to Representative John Conyers, called the "Good and Plenty" clause, but I digress.) This was not the original meaning of the Commerce clause. Remember that the States are sovereign. So, one State, Ohio for example, could enact a "Buy Ohio" law that made it illegal to sell anything made or grown in another State if that product was also made or grown in Ohio. Or, the States could have erected tariffs against products from out of State. Congress could therefore regulate how commerce was to be conducted among the several States. They were given authority to create a framework for trade and commerce internal to the United States that enhanced the general welfare. Then, under President Franklin Roosevelt, the Court began taking a more expansive view of the Commerce Clause, notoriously ruling in Wickard vs. Filburn that even grain that a farmer raised on his own property, and which never left his farm, none the less affected interstate commerce. With this view of the Commerce clause powers of Congress, it is hard to see that any activity could not be regulated. It was put very well at the Volokh Conspiracy:
For example, not everyone eats broccoli. But everyone does participate in the market for food. Therefore, a mandate requiring everyone to purchase and eat broccoli would be permissible under the federal government’s logic, as would any other purchase requirement. As the Eleventh Circuit puts it, “the government’s position amounts to an argument that the mere fact of an individual’s existence substantially affects interstate commerce, and therefore Congress may regulate them at every point of their life.” Whatever we do, we are always implicitly making decisions not to purchase some product or other, and those choices all have economic effects.
There is a bright spot in all this however, the Court has begun trimming the sails of Congress just a bit. In 1995, in Lopez the courts began ruling that some things simply do not meet the test of interstate commerce.
Only a 40% Chance the Supreme Court will Rule Individual Mandate Unconstitutional
In Trade is a predictions market, that lets people bid on predictions of the outcomes of real world events. The markets give probablilities of future events happening, for example, Barack Obama being elected President in 2012. People either buy "yes" shares or "no" shares. Obviously, chance that an event will happen is reflected in the price of the shares, which range from $0 to $10. For instance, if the price of the share is $7.00 dollars, the event is predicted to have a 70% chance of happening. As of this writing, the odds of Barack Obama winning the election is 52% The odds of Romney running against him is 70%.
All of this is very interesting, but it seems a little bit like betting on whether or not the Cubs will in the World Series next year. Strangely, though, In Trade has a pretty good record of predicting the outcome of events correctly. So, it was diappointing to see that trading is going on for a prediction "The U. S. Supreme Court to rule individual mandate unconstitutional before 31 December 2012" and that the odds of this event are only 40%. If the Supreme Court can torture the language enough to find this horrible law "Constitutional" then we are well and truly done as a nation.
The individual mandate in ObamaCare relies on the dubious notion that the Commerce Clause grants to Congress near universal authority to regulate any activity it wants on the grounds that it has a tangential effect on interstate commerce. (It also relies on a clause, known only to Representative John Conyers, called the "Good and Plenty" clause, but I digress.) This was not the original meaning of the Commerce clause. Remember that the States are sovereign. So, one State, Ohio for example, could enact a "Buy Ohio" law that made it illegal to sell anything made or grown in another State if that product was also made or grown in Ohio. Or, the States could have erected tariffs against products from out of State. Congress could therefore regulate how commerce was to be conducted among the several States. They were given authority to create a framework for trade and commerce internal to the United States that enhanced the general welfare. Then, under President Franklin Roosevelt, the Court began taking a more expansive view of the Commerce Clause, notoriously ruling in Wickard vs. Filburn that even grain that a farmer raised on his own property, and which never left his farm, none the less affected interstate commerce. With this view of the Commerce clause powers of Congress, it is hard to see that any activity could not be regulated. It was put very well at the Volokh Conspiracy:
There is a bright spot in all this however, the Court has begun trimming the sails of Congress just a bit. In 1995, in Lopez the courts began ruling that some things simply do not meet the test of interstate commerce.
All of this is very interesting, but it seems a little bit like betting on whether or not the Cubs will in the World Series next year. Strangely, though, In Trade has a pretty good record of predicting the outcome of events correctly. So, it was diappointing to see that trading is going on for a prediction "The U. S. Supreme Court to rule individual mandate unconstitutional before 31 December 2012" and that the odds of this event are only 40%. If the Supreme Court can torture the language enough to find this horrible law "Constitutional" then we are well and truly done as a nation.
The individual mandate in ObamaCare relies on the dubious notion that the Commerce Clause grants to Congress near universal authority to regulate any activity it wants on the grounds that it has a tangential effect on interstate commerce. (It also relies on a clause, known only to Representative John Conyers, called the "Good and Plenty" clause, but I digress.) This was not the original meaning of the Commerce clause. Remember that the States are sovereign. So, one State, Ohio for example, could enact a "Buy Ohio" law that made it illegal to sell anything made or grown in another State if that product was also made or grown in Ohio. Or, the States could have erected tariffs against products from out of State. Congress could therefore regulate how commerce was to be conducted among the several States. They were given authority to create a framework for trade and commerce internal to the United States that enhanced the general welfare. Then, under President Franklin Roosevelt, the Court began taking a more expansive view of the Commerce Clause, notoriously ruling in Wickard vs. Filburn that even grain that a farmer raised on his own property, and which never left his farm, none the less affected interstate commerce. With this view of the Commerce clause powers of Congress, it is hard to see that any activity could not be regulated. It was put very well at the Volokh Conspiracy:
For example, not everyone eats broccoli. But everyone does participate in the market for food. Therefore, a mandate requiring everyone to purchase and eat broccoli would be permissible under the federal government’s logic, as would any other purchase requirement. As the Eleventh Circuit puts it, “the government’s position amounts to an argument that the mere fact of an individual’s existence substantially affects interstate commerce, and therefore Congress may regulate them at every point of their life.” Whatever we do, we are always implicitly making decisions not to purchase some product or other, and those choices all have economic effects.
There is a bright spot in all this however, the Court has begun trimming the sails of Congress just a bit. In 1995, in Lopez the courts began ruling that some things simply do not meet the test of interstate commerce.
Obedience to God May Mean Disobedience to Government
Anthony Martin has an excellent post today at the Martin Christian Ministries entitled Obedience to God May Mean Disobedience to Government. Go read. This is truly important.
Sunday, November 13, 2011
H.R. 822 Revisited
I recently wrote about H.R. 822, the National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act here. I was decidedly underwhelmed by this bill, feeling that it would never receive the support of both houses of Congress and the President. Several other articles have appeared about H.R. 822 at Keep and Bear Arms. The first of these appeared in the Washington Times under the bipartisan byline of Heath Schuler and Cliff Stearns, both Congressional Representatives, entitled The Nation Needs Right to Carry Reciprocity on Friday, November 11, 2011. They write:
The Seattle Gun Rights Examiner has an article entitled Showdown Looming on National Right to Carry again on Friday.
Update: The Gun Owners of America has some important information that you should read.
H.R. 822 would allow any person with a valid state-issued concealed-firearm carrying permit or license to carry a concealed weapon in any other state. It would not create a federal licensing system but merely would require states to honor one another’s carry permits, just as states recognize one another’s driver’s licenses. Concealed-carry permit holders would have to obey the concealed-weapon laws of the state they enter, just as drivers must obey speed limits and basic safety laws of whichever state they are driving in, regardless of where they are from.For once, Congress would be fulfilling a Constitutional role, enforcing, among other things, the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution, as well as strengthening the Second Amendment. As a concealed carry license holder, I appreciate the simplicity of this requirement. It might have prevented this man from being arrested in New Jersey and serving 7 years for possession of guns he owned legally. Then again, if you are carrying hollow points in your defensive weapon, as many of us do, you might just go to jail anyway. Or this from the Blaze. New Jersey is a State that has concealed carry provisions, but not for ordinary "citizens" who must face armed criminals with their bare hands and hope for the best.
The Seattle Gun Rights Examiner has an article entitled Showdown Looming on National Right to Carry again on Friday.
That is, the right to keep and bear arms applies to all citizens in all states equally, and this right is a civil right that crosses all state borders and city limits. This – at least in theory – means that all law-abiding citizens who choose to go armed have that right within the borders of the United States, subject to local regulations, which change from state to state. Therein may lay a dilemma, but reasonably intelligent gun owners should be able to understand the basics about where firearms are prohibited and where they are allowed.I agree. Unfortunately, however, some States feel that their role is to tell their subjects how they may defend themselves, rather than let citizens decide such things for themselves. If this passes, I see New Jersey laws becoming even more draconian as a counter to it. These collectivist bastards will not give up power easily.
Update: The Gun Owners of America has some important information that you should read.
The War on Guns: ‘Conservative’ case for Mitt Romney no case at all
The War on Guns: ‘Conservative’ case for Mitt Romney no case at all
Go read the post, and the link to the post, which takes you to David Codrea's National Gun Rights Examiner page. Go ahead, I'll wait.
Read it? Good.
Just in case the "Republican establishment" is reading this post, let me be clear. I will not vote for Romney. It doesn't matter if that means Obama gets a second term. I am tired of holding my nose to vote for the lesser of two evils. Enough. David is right, let the "establishment" hold their collective noses for a change.
Of course, David is correct, that Romney has a terrible record on guns. If a gun control bill reached his desk, do you think he'd sign it? No matter what he says now, once elected he will probably go with his natural inclinations. Romney seems to be another one who thinks because he doesn't "need" an "evil black rifle," nobody else does either. Of course, the Second Amendment spells out a right, not a need. He also has a terrible record on health care, signing in to law in Massachusetts RomneyCare, which was the basis for ObamaCare. He hasn't repudiated it, even though it has done none of what was promised. Now, I realize that it is Constitutional at the State level, while it is not Constitutional at the Federal level. But even if it is Constitutional at the State level, there remains the fact that it is a massive collectivisation of Americans that seeks to enslave others to provide for a few who can not, or will not provide for themselves. And I know he promises now to repeal ObamaCare. But how anxious do you think a President Romney will be to repeal ObamaCare if it comes to his desk? Frankly, I just don't trust him to keep his word. We've seen this before with candidates from both sides of the aisle, so there is plenty of precedent. For instance, remember that candidate Bush promised to veto campaign finance reform, but President Bush signed it.
Then there is his plan to handle the economy: a 59 point plan. Really? I like some of his ideas, like requiring Congress to approve major regulations before they take effect. But what about small ones, like the ATF imposing reporting requirements on dealers who sell more than 5 long guns to the same buyer in a week along the Southwestern border. What about making Congress actually write those regulations, rather than delegate the job to the executive branch. Indeed, there is so much that the Government is doing now that is Unconstitutional, and therefore illegal. What will he do about those things? But then, Romney, protestations aside, is not a conservative, much less a Constitutionalists. Of course, he can not simply abolish agencies like Education and Energy, as woeful as those agencies are, but he could put it before Congress. But I don't see him doing that either.
A vote for Romney is a vote for more big government, and more deficit spending. We need less, not more.
Go read the post, and the link to the post, which takes you to David Codrea's National Gun Rights Examiner page. Go ahead, I'll wait.
Read it? Good.
Just in case the "Republican establishment" is reading this post, let me be clear. I will not vote for Romney. It doesn't matter if that means Obama gets a second term. I am tired of holding my nose to vote for the lesser of two evils. Enough. David is right, let the "establishment" hold their collective noses for a change.
Of course, David is correct, that Romney has a terrible record on guns. If a gun control bill reached his desk, do you think he'd sign it? No matter what he says now, once elected he will probably go with his natural inclinations. Romney seems to be another one who thinks because he doesn't "need" an "evil black rifle," nobody else does either. Of course, the Second Amendment spells out a right, not a need. He also has a terrible record on health care, signing in to law in Massachusetts RomneyCare, which was the basis for ObamaCare. He hasn't repudiated it, even though it has done none of what was promised. Now, I realize that it is Constitutional at the State level, while it is not Constitutional at the Federal level. But even if it is Constitutional at the State level, there remains the fact that it is a massive collectivisation of Americans that seeks to enslave others to provide for a few who can not, or will not provide for themselves. And I know he promises now to repeal ObamaCare. But how anxious do you think a President Romney will be to repeal ObamaCare if it comes to his desk? Frankly, I just don't trust him to keep his word. We've seen this before with candidates from both sides of the aisle, so there is plenty of precedent. For instance, remember that candidate Bush promised to veto campaign finance reform, but President Bush signed it.
Then there is his plan to handle the economy: a 59 point plan. Really? I like some of his ideas, like requiring Congress to approve major regulations before they take effect. But what about small ones, like the ATF imposing reporting requirements on dealers who sell more than 5 long guns to the same buyer in a week along the Southwestern border. What about making Congress actually write those regulations, rather than delegate the job to the executive branch. Indeed, there is so much that the Government is doing now that is Unconstitutional, and therefore illegal. What will he do about those things? But then, Romney, protestations aside, is not a conservative, much less a Constitutionalists. Of course, he can not simply abolish agencies like Education and Energy, as woeful as those agencies are, but he could put it before Congress. But I don't see him doing that either.
A vote for Romney is a vote for more big government, and more deficit spending. We need less, not more.
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Getting All Lathered Up Over Nothing
So, according to Opposing Views, Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts will not vote for H. R. 822, the National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011. Yawn. This is hardly news. Frankly, I don't get lathered up over bills like this anymore.
But I should explain.
I used to get worked up over such things. Thinking logically, I couldn't see the difference between a gun permit and a driver's license. Different States have varying requirements for obtaining a driver's license, but once I have it, I can drive in any State of the union I want. The same can not be said of my Concealed Handgun Permit. While North Carolina has extensive reciprocity with other States, I can not carry in all of them. Both cars and guns can be used to kill, and thus require their owners to use them responsibly. Approximately 12,000 people are killed as a result of gun homicides. In that same year, 2004, there were 38,444 fatal car crashes. It seems like there should be more emphasis on drivers than on gun owners. Others, apparently, do not see things the same way.
Look, this bill has very little chance of actually being passed and signed into law. Even if it is passed by the House, it is likely dead on arrival in the Senate. Indeed, what the bill is designed to do is allow normally anti-gun Congresscritters to burnish their street cred with the NRA ahead of an election that is sure to upset some Congresscritters' apple cart. Jeff Knox has a great piece on the issue over at World News Daily. Jeff Knox:
It is unfortunate that for once the Congress would be performing a Constitutional act by passing this bill. But there is real danger as well. As soon as the House finds itself back in Democrat control, perhaps with the next election (after all, the Republicans haven't exactly covered themselves in glory so far) the bill would then be used as a basis to add all kinds of restrictions on guns nationally. And we have seen how little the Democrats care for our opinion with the passage of Obamacare. So, in many ways, I think I would rather let the issue rest where it is.
Meanwhile, we'll be pushing for Restraunt carry here in NC. We've come so close twice before.
But I should explain.
I used to get worked up over such things. Thinking logically, I couldn't see the difference between a gun permit and a driver's license. Different States have varying requirements for obtaining a driver's license, but once I have it, I can drive in any State of the union I want. The same can not be said of my Concealed Handgun Permit. While North Carolina has extensive reciprocity with other States, I can not carry in all of them. Both cars and guns can be used to kill, and thus require their owners to use them responsibly. Approximately 12,000 people are killed as a result of gun homicides. In that same year, 2004, there were 38,444 fatal car crashes. It seems like there should be more emphasis on drivers than on gun owners. Others, apparently, do not see things the same way.
Look, this bill has very little chance of actually being passed and signed into law. Even if it is passed by the House, it is likely dead on arrival in the Senate. Indeed, what the bill is designed to do is allow normally anti-gun Congresscritters to burnish their street cred with the NRA ahead of an election that is sure to upset some Congresscritters' apple cart. Jeff Knox has a great piece on the issue over at World News Daily. Jeff Knox:
What will probably have the greatest impact on whether the "full faith and credit" concealed weapons permit bill (H.R. 822) gets voted out of the House is its prognosis in the Senate. If Harry Reid and Senate Democrats make it clear to their House colleagues that the bill would be dead on arrival in the Senate, the House will consider it a freebie and pass it in a heartbeat. If, on the other hand, Reid and company suggest that locking up the bill would be difficult and politically inconvenient, there will be much more resistance to passage in the House – from Democrats and Republicans.
It is unfortunate that for once the Congress would be performing a Constitutional act by passing this bill. But there is real danger as well. As soon as the House finds itself back in Democrat control, perhaps with the next election (after all, the Republicans haven't exactly covered themselves in glory so far) the bill would then be used as a basis to add all kinds of restrictions on guns nationally. And we have seen how little the Democrats care for our opinion with the passage of Obamacare. So, in many ways, I think I would rather let the issue rest where it is.
Meanwhile, we'll be pushing for Restraunt carry here in NC. We've come so close twice before.
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Bill Engvall Should Stick to Comedy
David Codrea, writing as the National Gun Rights Examiner, takes Comedian Bill Engvall to task for statements made about the Second Amendment on Bill Maher's show. You can find it at Bill Engvall Owes Gun Owners and Apology. Kurt Hoffman, writing as the St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner has this to say:
Second, the Bill of Rights is notably not a Bill of "Needs." Under the Second Amendment, one does not have to demonstrate a need for particular weapon in order to keep and bear it. I would note that while Engvall apparently hunts with traditional bolt or lever action guns, many people are now taking their "evil black rifles" afield to hunt with. In the Eastern part of the country, there is little need for a long distance rifle because the forests are so thick, one can usually only see no more than 100 yards, perfect for an AR-15 platform weapon.
Katie Pavlich has some interesting points at Townhall.com. Pavlich points out that in every case throughout history, tyrants have always disarmed the people first, to gain control of them. She cites the Nazi use of the gun registration lists to confiscate the weapons Jews prior to launching Kristallnacht, the night of broken glass. It is a lesson worth remembering.
Of course, Engvall is a celebrity comedian, who can probably afford armed security wherever he makes a public appearance. Now, I like Bill Engvall's comedy routines. He makes you laugh without resorting to fowl language and overt sexuality. But Engvall is terribly ignorant about the reasons why the Framers included the Second Amendment. First, Engvall feels that he doesn't "need" an AK-47. That is fine and dandy, but what Bill Engvall needs or doesn't need hardly defines what the other 300 millions of Americans may "need." The Framers wisely left that open to each person to decide. Frankly, having studied the biographies of a few of the Founding Fathers, I would be very wary about second guessing these erudite students of history. Just sayin'. Now, it happens that I don't "need" an AK-47 either, having no place to practice with the weapon. But I know plenty of people who do feel a "need," and I wouldn't second guess these people. On the other hand, I am currently looking for a good pump action shot gun in 12 ga. Others may not feel the same. Thus the gun market provides guns for every purpose imaginable for just that reason.
Comedian Bill Engvall then disagreed--to an extent--saying he could not support giving up protection of the right to hunt and to defend one's family, but said, "I don't think there's any reason for a person like myself to own an AK-47." Maher interjected, "Can we have just one gun?" on the theory, perhaps, that the First Amendment protects the right to publish just one article. Meanwhile, Engvall offered to meet Wagner halfway, and ban guns on which, "You can just pull the trigger, and 60 bullets fire out." The oppressive laws on machine guns are apparently not oppressive enough for Engvall.
Second, the Bill of Rights is notably not a Bill of "Needs." Under the Second Amendment, one does not have to demonstrate a need for particular weapon in order to keep and bear it. I would note that while Engvall apparently hunts with traditional bolt or lever action guns, many people are now taking their "evil black rifles" afield to hunt with. In the Eastern part of the country, there is little need for a long distance rifle because the forests are so thick, one can usually only see no more than 100 yards, perfect for an AR-15 platform weapon.
Katie Pavlich has some interesting points at Townhall.com. Pavlich points out that in every case throughout history, tyrants have always disarmed the people first, to gain control of them. She cites the Nazi use of the gun registration lists to confiscate the weapons Jews prior to launching Kristallnacht, the night of broken glass. It is a lesson worth remembering.
Sunday, November 6, 2011
In 2012, the Cry needs to be Repeal!
The number of Federal crimes is estimated to be 4,450 according to a Heritage Foundation report Revisiting the Explosive Growth of Federal Crimes. This number has been growing by 56.6 per year at least since 1980. And of course, this doesn't even begin to count the causes of Federal civil action against individuals and companies for various environmental and other actions resulting in fines. For instance, there is the case of the Dollarhites at BigGovernment.com. Dollarhite is being threatened with a $4 million fine for selling more than $500 dollars worth of rabbits. The follow up to the story can be found here. But this is not an isolated incident. This happens thousands of people across the country almost daily, most of them under the radar. Ayn Rand had it right in her book Atlas Shrugged: "There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. When there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws." We are probably at that point.
As a Christian, I know the Ten Commandments. I understand that I break one or more of these commandments daily. In a perfect world, I would love the Lord with all my heart, and sole, and mind, and thus be able to keep every one of the other nine, but this is not a perfect world. But throwing myself on the mercy of my God is a different matter than depending on the kind mercies of a random policeman, or a Federal Agent, not to mention Federal Prosecutors, Judges, and juries. Any time someone wants to go after an individual, they can usually find something for which to hang them. If not for the actual crime itself, then they can use your varying statements to law enforcement over a long investigation as proof that you lied, itself a crime.
I have long called for the repeal of laws now on the books. So, it was with some comfort that I see others now calling for repeal of laws. 500magnum writing in Gunleaders blog that it is time for gun rights activists to begin asking politicians which Unconstitutional gun laws they are willing to repeal. I think it is a good idea. But why stop there? There are so many laws, rules and regulations that are either out and out Unconstitutional, or of dubious Constitutionality, that whole Federal departments could be eliminated, saving millions, or billions of dollars. Further, the Courts do us a grave disservice by presuming that the any law passed by the Congress, and signed by the President is Constitutional on its face. With all the shenanigans that go on today in Congress, such a presumption is wholly unwarranted.
Many people think that Martha Stewart was convicted of insider trading, itself a vague law that should put fear into anyone who regularly trades in the stock of industries that they well understand. In fact, as Tibor Machan notes the charges of insider trading were dismissed. In fact, Martha Stewart was convicted of lying to Federal Agents, obstruction and conspiracy. But one has to wonder what it was she was guilty of obstructing, or what crime the conspiracy was guilty of committing, absent the actual crime? Martha Stewart's case was a reminder to the world that if the Federal government wants to get you, it will.
As a Christian, I know the Ten Commandments. I understand that I break one or more of these commandments daily. In a perfect world, I would love the Lord with all my heart, and sole, and mind, and thus be able to keep every one of the other nine, but this is not a perfect world. But throwing myself on the mercy of my God is a different matter than depending on the kind mercies of a random policeman, or a Federal Agent, not to mention Federal Prosecutors, Judges, and juries. Any time someone wants to go after an individual, they can usually find something for which to hang them. If not for the actual crime itself, then they can use your varying statements to law enforcement over a long investigation as proof that you lied, itself a crime.
I have long called for the repeal of laws now on the books. So, it was with some comfort that I see others now calling for repeal of laws. 500magnum writing in Gunleaders blog that it is time for gun rights activists to begin asking politicians which Unconstitutional gun laws they are willing to repeal. I think it is a good idea. But why stop there? There are so many laws, rules and regulations that are either out and out Unconstitutional, or of dubious Constitutionality, that whole Federal departments could be eliminated, saving millions, or billions of dollars. Further, the Courts do us a grave disservice by presuming that the any law passed by the Congress, and signed by the President is Constitutional on its face. With all the shenanigans that go on today in Congress, such a presumption is wholly unwarranted.
Many people think that Martha Stewart was convicted of insider trading, itself a vague law that should put fear into anyone who regularly trades in the stock of industries that they well understand. In fact, as Tibor Machan notes the charges of insider trading were dismissed. In fact, Martha Stewart was convicted of lying to Federal Agents, obstruction and conspiracy. But one has to wonder what it was she was guilty of obstructing, or what crime the conspiracy was guilty of committing, absent the actual crime? Martha Stewart's case was a reminder to the world that if the Federal government wants to get you, it will.
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Spartanburg County Sheriff Speaks the Truth
It is a rare occurrence these days to hear a Sheriff utter the truth in such a plain fashion. For doing so, I understand the Sheriff Wright is taking some flak as a result of remarks he made during a news conference to the effect that women should walk in pairs, and get and carry a handgun. A discussion of Sheriff Wright's remarks can be found at Opposing Views and at WYFF Channel 4.
Sheriff Wright is absolutely correct in everything he is saying here, even if what he says is not "politically correct." What the critics of Sheriff Wright do not apparently understand is the difference between vigilante justice, and self defence. If a woman is able to stop a rape herself because she carries a gun, or if someone with a carry permit is able to stop a rape, that is legitimate defence of self, or of others. The police can not be everywhere all the time, and when they do stop a crime, it is usually their good fortune to be at the right place at the right time. The unfortunate fact is that the police usually come to the scene after the crime has been committed, document the evidence, and find the perpetrator. Only someone with a gun can possibly hope to stop the criminal in his tracks at the point where he commits his crime. Sheriff Wright was just acknowledging these facts.
Also, keep in mind that when the criminal chooses to break the law (and it is a choice) he takes the risk that someone may well try to stop him. He can only hope that the person who does try to stop him will not kill him in the process. But that's a risk he takes of his own accord. Still, we know that criminals do evaluate the risks they are taking, and Sheriff Wright is correct that if more people carried guns routinely, there would be less of this type of crime.
Vigilante justice, on the other hand, occurs when someone decides to seek revenge after the crime has been committed, either because there is no system of justice, of because justice has failed. While our courts continue to work, the vigilante is as much an outlaw as the perpetrator he pursues. But, in a state of nature, or in a state of lawlessness, vigilante justice is the only kind there is. Indeed, many criminals engage in vigilante justice because the kind of business they pursue is outside the law, and they can not rely on the police or courts for justice.
Some years ago, during the Bush administration, men gave up some of their time to go to our Southern border and observe illegals coming across from Mexico. These men were called "vigilantes" by the liberal press and the President. But they were not. Much as a neighborhood watch, which observes and reports to authorities, so were these men acting to observe and report to Customs and Immigration. President Bush did a great disservice to these men in calling them "vigilantes."
Finally, I would note for the North Carolina legislature, that this woman's rape occurred in a park. You can cry all day long about the danger to "the children" from having guns around them, but which is more traumatizing to kids: to have their mother assaulted and raped in front of them, or to have concealed handguns around them protecting them? I know from personal experience that my grand kids never even notice the concealed gun on my hip. They just aren't paying attention, which is why we have to.
Sheriff Wright is absolutely correct in everything he is saying here, even if what he says is not "politically correct." What the critics of Sheriff Wright do not apparently understand is the difference between vigilante justice, and self defence. If a woman is able to stop a rape herself because she carries a gun, or if someone with a carry permit is able to stop a rape, that is legitimate defence of self, or of others. The police can not be everywhere all the time, and when they do stop a crime, it is usually their good fortune to be at the right place at the right time. The unfortunate fact is that the police usually come to the scene after the crime has been committed, document the evidence, and find the perpetrator. Only someone with a gun can possibly hope to stop the criminal in his tracks at the point where he commits his crime. Sheriff Wright was just acknowledging these facts.
Also, keep in mind that when the criminal chooses to break the law (and it is a choice) he takes the risk that someone may well try to stop him. He can only hope that the person who does try to stop him will not kill him in the process. But that's a risk he takes of his own accord. Still, we know that criminals do evaluate the risks they are taking, and Sheriff Wright is correct that if more people carried guns routinely, there would be less of this type of crime.
Vigilante justice, on the other hand, occurs when someone decides to seek revenge after the crime has been committed, either because there is no system of justice, of because justice has failed. While our courts continue to work, the vigilante is as much an outlaw as the perpetrator he pursues. But, in a state of nature, or in a state of lawlessness, vigilante justice is the only kind there is. Indeed, many criminals engage in vigilante justice because the kind of business they pursue is outside the law, and they can not rely on the police or courts for justice.
Some years ago, during the Bush administration, men gave up some of their time to go to our Southern border and observe illegals coming across from Mexico. These men were called "vigilantes" by the liberal press and the President. But they were not. Much as a neighborhood watch, which observes and reports to authorities, so were these men acting to observe and report to Customs and Immigration. President Bush did a great disservice to these men in calling them "vigilantes."
Finally, I would note for the North Carolina legislature, that this woman's rape occurred in a park. You can cry all day long about the danger to "the children" from having guns around them, but which is more traumatizing to kids: to have their mother assaulted and raped in front of them, or to have concealed handguns around them protecting them? I know from personal experience that my grand kids never even notice the concealed gun on my hip. They just aren't paying attention, which is why we have to.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)