Can’t Sleep? Post…

Yes, it’s true. Time Change Sunday caught me prepared for a change…don’t everybody fall over dead at once, now. Instead of feeling dead to the world, tired, and ready for a good night’s sleep, I’m wide awake and suffering a mild case of insomnia. 😛

So, not wanting this time to be a complete waste I hop on the ‘net and find…..

A refreshing dose of sanity.

South Dakota is now my favorite state. Well, almost. NC is still my favorite.

Image
Go on…you know you want to…

Oh, and by the way, South Dakota Legislature? I came up with the idea.

Now, about those royalties….

That's right. I'm gonna ". . . make you an offer [you] can't refuse."
That’s right. I’m gonna “. . . make you an offer [you] can’t refuse.”
Advertisements

Piers Gets Angry (and Incoherent)

Piers Morgan has done more harm than good to the anti-gun cause with his logically bankrupt tantrums. Now, he strikes again, trying to take on two women who had the nerve to disagree with him on the issue of gun control.

Notice how Morgan repeatedly tries to personify the weapons (and notice how Dana Loesch doesn’t let him slide). This is the classic argument of the left: Guns kill people. Well, no, Mr. Morgan, they don’t.

Also notice how Morgan takes a page from the Biden playbook and constantly interrupts and disrupts his opponents’ speech. And the headline dares to call this a debate? This is a shouting match, and if volume is the indicator of a poor performance, Piers is losing handily.

"I just don't like what you're saying, so shut up, shut UP, SHUT UP!"
“I just don’t like what you’re saying, so shut up, shut UP, SHUT UP!”

“It makes me sick.” What? Who cares how it makes you feel? Why are we supposed to accept that as a substitute for fact in believing your argument?

Sorry, Piers, I’m not convinced.

The Other Side of the History of Gun Control

1890 -- The Wounded Knee Massacre
1890 — The Wounded Knee Massacre

I know I’ve said a lot about the issue of gun control over the last few months. I’m also aware the news is full of stories about gun violence and the need to “do something” about it. Usually, the ones feeding us these reports are the ones lecturing us that the government really needs to do something about this important issue.

There are two things to remember. The first is that the Second Amendment was not drafted to give Americans the right to own guns for hunting or other sporting purposes. The Second wasn’t even drafted to give Americans the right to own weapons for self-defense. Freshly released from the bondage of tyranny, the men who founded this country wrote the Second Amendment to give the people the right to own weapons to defend themselves from any tyrants. This, of course, extended to the government, should those in charge forget their office as public servants of the people, and begin to attempt to run rough-shod over the personal property and rights of the people under them.

The second thing to remember is that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. The Bill of Rights encapsulates several of those “…certain, inalienable rights…” that each of us has been “…endowed [with] by [our] Creator…” The Constitution clearly spells out the process for amending its provisions. Until such a process has been followed on this matter, any “law” that is passed to ensure we take the “morally defensible” “high road” is neither law nor morally defensible nor the high road to anywhere. Except perhaps The Pit. Or possibly Europe.

Of course, there are many things that these statements skim right over, including the redefinition both of the Constitution’s meaning (think “original intent”) and the rights of the American people (think “universal health care,” “too big to fail,” and “welfare.”) . I don’t want to get bogged down with a technical discussion of these matters now…look for more in later posts.

What I do want to do is share an important bit of history with you, my readers. Some of you may not be aware of the event to which I refer. I know I wasn’t before I read about it on a friend’s Facebook wall. While I know that not everything on Facebook is true, I verified this and it is an actual historical event. A Google search renders several good entries, including this excellent article at History.com:

History.com–Wounded Knee Massacre

The following originally shared on Facebook by Jerry Howe

A LITTLE HISTORY TO THINK ABOUT:

December 29, 2012 marked the 122nd Anniversary of the murder of 297 Sioux Indians at Wounded Knee Creek on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota. These 297 people, in their winter camp, were murdered by federal agents and members of the 7th Cavalry who had come to confiscate their firearms “for their own safety and protection”. The slaughter began after the majority of the Sioux had peacefully turned in their firearms. The Calvary began shooting, and managed to wipe out the entire camp. 200 of the 297 victims were women and children. About 40 members of the 7th Cavalry were killed, but over half of them were victims of fratricide from the Hotchkiss guns of their overzealous comrades-in-arms. Twenty members of the 7th Cavalry’s death squad, were deemed “National Heroes” and were awarded the Medal of Honor for their acts of [cowardice] heroism.

We hear very little of Wounded Knee today. It is usually not mentioned in our history classes or books. What little that does exist about Wounded Knee is normally a sanitized “Official Government Explanation”. And there are several historically inaccurate depictions of the events leading up to the massacre, which appear in movie scripts and are not the least bit representative of the actual events that took place that day.

Wounded Knee was among the first federally backed gun confiscation attempts in United States history. It ended in the senseless murder of 297 people.

I don’t normally break up a block-quote, as you know, but let that sink in. Nearly THREE HUNDRED PEOPLE. Murdered. For obeying the law.

Before you jump on the emotionally charged bandwagon for gun-control, take a moment to reflect on the real purpose of the Second Amendment, the right of the people to take up arms in defense of themselves, their families, and property in the face of invading armies or an oppressive government. The argument that the Second Amendment only applies to hunting and target shooting is asinine. When the United States Constitution was drafted, “hunting” was an everyday chore carried out by men and women to put meat on the table each night, and “target shooting” was an unheard of concept. Musket balls were a precious commodity and were certainly not wasted on “target shooting”. The Second Amendment was written by people who fled oppressive and tyrannical regimes in Europe, and it refers to the right of American citizens to be armed for defensive purposes, should such tyranny arise in the United States.

As time goes forward, the average citizen in the United States continually loses little chunks of personal freedom or “liberty”. Far too many times, unjust gun control bills were passed and signed into law under the guise of “for your safety” or “for protection”. The Patriot Act signed into law by G.W. Bush, was expanded and continues under Barack Obama. It is just one of many examples of American citizens being stripped of their rights and privacy for “safety”. Now, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is on the table, and will, most likely be attacked to facilitate the path for the removal of our firearms, all in the name of “our safety”.

This is the crux of the matter. Once we elevate safety as king, above freedom, we will always, always, ALWAYS surrender our freedom and our rights so that we can be “safe.” In reality, however, this is like the appeaser in Churchill’s famous illustration. He “…feeds the crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.” Safety, as it turns out, isn’t really all that safe. Back to the text:

Before any American citizen blindly accepts whatever new firearms legislation that is about to be doled out, they should stop and think about something for just one minute-

Evil does exist in our world. It always has and always will. Throughout history evil people have committed evil acts. In the Bible one of the first stories is that of Cain killing Abel. We cannot legislate “evil” into extinction. Good people will abide by the law, and the criminal element will always find a way around it.

Evil exists all around us, but looking back at the historical record of the past 200 years, across the globe, where is “evil” and “malevolence” most often found? In the hands of those with the power, the governments. That greatest human tragedies on record and the largest loss of innocent human life can be attributed to governments. Who do the governments always target? “Scapegoats” and “enemies” within their own borders…but only after they have been disarmed to the point where they are no longer a threat. Ask any Native American, and they will tell you it was inferior technology and lack of arms that contributed to their demise. Ask any Armenian why it was so easy for the Turks to exterminate millions of them, and they will answer “We were disarmed before it happened”. Ask any Jew what Hitler’s first step prior to the mass murders of the Holocaust was- confiscation of firearms from the people.

Wounded Knee is the prime example of why the Second Amendment exists, and why we should vehemently resist any attempts to infringe on our Rights to Bear Arms. Without the Second Amendment we will be totally stripped of any ability to defend ourselves and our families. [emphases mine]

Don’t tell me. I’m not crazy; I’m not demented; I’m not a bitter, clinging gun owner; I’m not a sociopath. I’m one of 280,000,000 gun owners who didn’t kill anybody yesterday.

So don’t tell me any of that.

Stop....Just Stop.
Stop….Just Stop.

I’m a peaceable, law-abiding citizen who believes that I’m commanded by God to follow the rules that the government lays down. However, I also believe that when the government lays down laws that contradict the supreme law of the land (the Constitution), and my life (the Bible), I must obey God rather than man.

The facts are in, and they are clear. The gun control presently in effect is neither controlling guns nor reducing crime. It is simply increasing the likelihood that a law-abiding citizen will become the next victim of a homicidal maniac with a gun. This is because criminals (hope you’re sitting down) don’t follow laws. That’s why we call them criminals. Okay?

One more thing: The criminals that commit gun crimes? Most of them use guns stolen or otherwise acquired illegally. This renders null and void the argument that registration will make it easier to locate the criminal in a firearms-related incident. It will simply enable law enforcement to trace the weapon back to the (often-unsuspecting) legal owner. This means more headache for the law official and the law-abiding citizen.

Gun control is pawned off on us as the moral high ground. A baser lie has never been told! I’ll put it to you simply: Advocacy for gun control is the belief that a woman being found in an alleyway, brutally raped, and strangled with her own pantyhose, is somehow morally superior to that same woman explaining why her would-be attacker is lying dead on the pavement with seven (or eight) bullets from a large-caliber handgun lodged in his chest. In other words, the murder of this lady is more justifiable (or more appealing?) than that lady shooting the sicko who would seek to debauch her.

Before you accuse me of being vile or using reprehensible imagery to promote my point, let me remind you that we are talking about criminals and violent crimes, two vile and reprehensible subjects if there ever were any.

Two parting thoughts:

One. If the leftists control the moral high ground, as they repeatedly claim, why do they use morally reprehensible language and tactics to defend it? (After all, the conservatives aren’t the ones stealing elections, overturning cars, throwing pies, and taking baseball bats to those who disagree with their views.)

Two. Gun control is not legislation to make it more difficult to own and use guns in self-defense against attackers (be they rapists, home invaders, common burglars, or government agents). Gun control is using two hands, taking time to practice and prepare, knowing your weapon and your capabilities with said weapon, and consistently hitting your target.

Gun control is you. In control of your weapon.

That says it all.
That says it all.

Candor and Truth in the Midst of Propaganda

A refreshing dose of candor from some of the many men who hold the office of county sheriff in the United States of America. In the midst of all the furor and propaganda surrounding the gun control debate, these men bring words of wisdom to the table of the “national discussion on firearms” that President Obama unwittingly ignited by his executive order/to-do list item.

Who would you trust? A man who’s never held a real job, or been called upon to exercise his own strength to defend his life? Or a man who spends countless hours every year patrolling the streets and protecting the lives of other citizens?

3:23 and 3:30…two clips where two different sheriffs say two very powerful things concerning this debate. The entire video is only 4 minutes long.

Think about it, and then speak up about it. After all, freedom of speech is an American right.

Just like the freedom to bear arms.

Shall NOT be infringed.
Shall NOT be infringed.

Retired Marine Absolutely Owns CNN Anchor on 2nd Amendment: Unconstitutional Laws Aren’t Laws

This Mr. Boston has seen more of the world and more combat than I, and he says it so well. With the impregnable calm of one who has been into a live-fire zone and walked away from it, Joshua destroys the appeal to authority argument that the anchor tries to bring into the discussion, and then (4:08), the bombshell: “Unconstitutional laws aren’t laws.”

Pin-drop silence; then, predictably: “Ok, we’ll leave it at that.”

I’m sure you will try to “leave it at that.” But I, for one, want to be sure this story gets out.

People are starting to wake up. To read the documents framed by the Founders of this country, and to read them with eyes open to the original original intent. To interpret the laws, not according to the prevailing vision of the day, but according to what they actually say. This is not what the intelligentsia want, and they are scrambling to maintain their stranglehold on the intellect of the American people.

But a sleeping giant awoken is impossible to contain.

Folks, the media is not all that they would have us to believe. The Senators, Representatives, and others in Washington are not the anointed class they fancy themselves. They are not god-like, and their authority can and will be challenged if they do not follow the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the ultimate law of the land to which all other laws must be subservient.

There is no reason why ordinary citizens cannot do what Mr. Boston has and challenge the assumptions of statists. Civil disobedience is not un-American; it is ingrained in our DNA from the very beginning. If you don’t know that, or if you think I’m blowing smoke, go read the REAL version of the Revolutionary War (and, for that matter, the Civil War). As you will see from this historical excursion, tyranny will not last long with an informed and armed population to oppose it.

Obama: “Newtown…Deserves a Vote!”

The following is not based on a real conversation….it’s what I’d like to say to President Obama, based on his executive order to “establish a meaningful national dialogue on the subject of gun control” or however he worded the item on his Imperial To-Do List. Picture if you will the President listening–actually listening–to what I have to say. Unfortunately, that probably never will happen; but, I can dream, can’t I?

Kudos to Jeff Rutherford for the photo edit!
Kudos to Jeff Rutherford for the photo edit!

Mr. President, we need to talk. No, really….please hear me out. Using your State of the Union Address as a platform for demagoguery, you declared that the families of Newtown, Aurora, Oak Creek, Tuscon, and etc. deserve a vote. You also mentioned former Congresswoman Gabby Gifford, stating that she too, deserves a vote.

Don’t quite recall that? It’s on camera, you saying all this in front of God and everybody:

Mr. President, let’s look at this for a moment.

Former Congresswoman Gabby Gifford is a US citizen. So, too, are the parents of the children from Newtown. That means that they HAVE a vote, which they are free to exercise in this nation. Did they vote? Did they exercise their right to elect a representative that stands for the things in which they believe? Or are they waiting for you to use the bully pulpit of the White House to ram some monster, unconstitutional bill through Congress and down the throats of those who disagree? This isn’t an accusation or projection…I’m just inferring what will probably happen, based on past experience and observation.

The families of those killed in the shootings in Oak Creek, Tuscon, Aurora, etc., are US citizens, and they HAVE a vote. Have they exercised their right to vote? If not, why are they complaining? Yes, it’s tragic that this happened, but let’s not make the mistake of letting emotion interfere with meaningful action. As it stands, your attitude toward guns, your visceral despisement of these vicious assault weapons are setting this nation up for some very foolish choices.

Your policies, darling bosom friends that they are to you, are the reason that these shootings are happening. Yes, even a cursory examination of the objective studies on this issue will reveal that gun-free zones–and stand by for this….don’t prevent gun crimes. In fact, they dramatically enhance the possibility of those within this “safe zone” becoming victims to the next homicidal maniac with a firearm.

To add to that objective fact, the citizens of Newtown have ratified new legislation that makes provision for two school resource officers, one armed and one unarmed, to be on the campus of every school in town. This new legislation simply extends the protection that was already in place at the local high schools to include all schools. This, then, indicates the will of the people of this jurisdiction, and should not be overturned in your usual imperious manner.

Do some disagree with this approach? Fine….it’s still a free country, Mr. President. They are more than welcome to “vote with their feet,” in the popular phrase of the day. Let them move to your old neighborhood, which features both gun laws among the strictest in the nation, and an unparalleled homicide rate. Incidentally, do you suppose that one factor there does not affect the other? Surely you’re smarter than to think that….

Across the nation, communities, cities, counties are not waiting for your top-down edict on how to handle the current “gun crisis (falsely so-called, I add).” They are quietly, efficiently taking action at the local level to implement laws and regulations that they believe will best serve the interests of the community in which they live, and protect the ones they love. They have voted, used the legislative process, and decently and in order instituted new legislation to further their desired end. It would be unwise (and extremely petty) for you to overturn this by top-down, gangster-style government overreach. This isn’t Chicago, after all.

In short, Newtown doesn’t deserve a vote anymore. Your speech’s tendentious argument on this point indicates the premise is founded on dated information. You really should talk to those folks in WHCA, Mr. President….they’re not keeping you current.

You should have listened during that meeting, Mr. President. Newtown has already TAKEN a vote.

Gun Owners Not Progressives, Refuse to Be Cowed By Psychological Campaign

[Owning] A smoking gun could be as bad for your social image as a smoking cigarette, if liberals have their way.

The Christian Science Monitor, the far-out publication of the Christian Scientists, has muddled the facts once again on an important cultural issue. The magazine, which recently classed Palestinian-funded terrorist attacks against Israel as “military action,” now insists that the way to curb gun violence is a public perception campaign designed to stigmatize gun ownership, much akin to the campaign that successfully stigmatized smoking.

Image
Cogitating Duck’s Profile Graphic

(Visit Stigmatize gun ownership like smoking? on Cogitating Duck to read another interesting article on this subject.)

Recent surveys, however, may indicate that such attempts are doomed to dismal failure. According to Dr. Rob Spurgeon, holder of the chair of Aristotelian Professor of Logic and Co-chair of the Department of Farming (yes, really) at Real Life University in Western North Carolina, gun owners belong to the group of people who still evaluate any line of reasoning according to the logical merits of its arguments, rather than its emotional impact. “Those who advocate this line of reasoning aren’t thinking clearly,” Dr. Spurgeon explains. “The gun owners the progressives seek to embarrass about their guns are much more emotionally robust than their liberal counterparts. What the stigmatizers fail to admit is that many of those same gun owners are employed in professions that bring them face to face with the harsh realities of real life and the real world.

“Not every animal that is born on the farm lives to see the next spring,” Spurgeon continues. “There are many factors that contribute to a high mortality rate among the animal population of the average agrarian establishment: storm, disease, fire, predators, and yes, some of them are slated to give up their lives to feed the humans that maintain the grange.” But what does this have to do with the argument he posits against a “public shaming” campaign targeting gun owners? He explains:

“Because of the high investment in the animals in terms of time, an unavoidable emotional attachment will form as a result. Furthermore, a farmer’s great compassion for animals–despite the stereotype to the contrary–gives him a desire to see all prosper under his care. He is not overly concerned with his animals’ comfort, but neither does he neglect them. Instead, he looks most solicitously after them, for their well-being is directly tied to his own success. Thus the death of a six-week-old lamb due to complications of pneumonia is not an event which takes place in a vacuum. Unlike city-dwellers, whose primary concern is that the animals from whom the meat they purchase derives did not suffer during the ‘manufacturing’ process, these folks have deep ties to their animals. When one dies, it’s a very real and significant event in the lives of its caretakers. However, the real world dictates that the farmer–after an appropriate interval–must dry his tears, bury the dead, and get back to work.”

Nor is farming the only profession which requires a realistic, grin-and-go-on mentality. Dr. David Crain, Sr., Vice Chancellor of Real-Life University, explains:

Our student body is unique. It’s diverse. There are many different backgrounds and origins represented. Many of our students are preparing for careers in business. Some spend their time volunteering in various non-profit organizations. Others feel the call to full-time vocational ministry. Whatever the course of study in which a student is enrolled, the core curriculum is the same…

We don’t discriminate, but we don’t worry about active recruiting (affirmative action) procedures either. We believe that the students who desire to study here will come of their own volition. If they don’t want to be here, telling them how great our campus is won’t change their mind, and neither will our curriculum. Does this mean that we don’t promote the University when people ask? Certainly not! That’s half of the mission of RLU…to engage with the culture and convince others of the truth of our beliefs and practices.

Basic Economics, Politics 101, Public Speaking, English Grammar, Critical Thinking, Logic, and The Fine Art of Growing Thick Skin are courses that are non-negotiable. Here at RLU, we believe that if our graduates are to succeed, then they must learn and apply to their everyday lives the principles imparted by the dedicated staff in these departments. Our purpose is not to educate people into uselessness, but to educate them in useful disciplines that will make them profitable citizens, informed voters, critical thinkers, rational parents, and stable adults…

Dr. Crain founded Real Life University in early 1997, at the time that his oldest son, David Crain, Jr. was in the 7th grade. “I knew,” he later reminisced, “that I didn’t want my boys going out into the world without understanding where the progressive professors in the state-run education system got their ideas, and how patently false the assumptions behind accepted modern thought really are.”

Operating on a shoe-string budget, and in spite of overwhelming disapproval from his peers, Dr. Crain hand-selected his own textbooks, supplemental reading, and spent countless hours writing and re-writing tests, quizzes, and course notes, many of which are still used today in the core classes at RLU. “Despite the many hours of sleep I lost,” he said in a recent interview, “the ultimate reward was in seeing my boys grow up to be clear-eyed, level-headed thinkers who, actively refusing to imbibe the pleasant (but mind-numbing) wine of progressive socialism, entered into debate with those who espoused the progressive worldview. Above all, it was a joy to see them do so–not arrogantly–but fearlessly, regardless of the academic or political stature of their opponent.”

On hunting down one of these boys, we found young Mr. Crain, a lanky six-footer with a ready grin and a shock of curly brown hair, to be as ready a commentator as his father. He took a full two hours in the middle of mowing a pasture to answer our questions and talk politics. Wearing faded Wranglers that were dark stonewashed when new, a Ford ball cap,  and a plaid flannel shirt, he jumps off the tractor and grips the author’s hand like a steel trap gripping a coyote’s paw.

“I grew up on the farm, and it’s easy to forget that not everybody shakes hands with country folk everyday,” he offers apologetically as Scribens rubs his tingling digits. A clear speaker, his voice is nevertheless tinged with an authentic Southern burr that softens the pronunciation of some words. His years of public speaking experience are evidenced by the overemphasis of certain syllables when he’s making a point, however.

“I loved living out in the country…still do,” he continued in our January 24th interview. “There’s an atmosphere of peace and safety that’s refreshing and comforting, and I’ve yet to be in a city where that same sense of security prevails. Of course, there are things that happen out here from time to time in the way of crime, but nothing like the big cities where people are stacked up in cracker-box penthouses and apartments. Out here, there’s a little more space between houses, and people are more relaxed.”

Broach the subject of politics as it relates to logical thought, and you’ll get a glimpse of what makes this young man tick. He sits up a little straighter, his voice grows a little stronger, and his eyes gleam, not with the wild light of the lunatic but the passion of an to informed man eager to guide others on the road to truth.

“Eisenhower said it, and he said it well: ‘Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.’ Granted, he was talking specifically about the military-industrial complex, but America has ignored the deeper and broader implications to her own peril.

“We live in a nation today that is convinced that truth is something that can only be obtained by a renunciation of all that has gone before, and a disinterested search through the uncharted wilds of the relativistic ether for an equally elusive concept of relevant truth for this postmodern world,” he elucidates. “The classic interpretation of truth as objective and relevant to all ages is a concept that is no longer embraced by the culturally enlightened. Objective truth has gone the way of the dinosaur, and they hope it stays there. But only by a return to this paradigm, now a pariah in the very society that gave it its greatest expression, can we hope to turn this country back to its founding principles and documents.”

At this point I mentioned the Christian Science Monitor article, and asked him what he thought of the suggested “public perception” campaign to “stigmatize gun ownership.”

He laughed. “You’re kidding, right?” Then his grin disappeared and he looked thoughtful. “It’s going to take a lot more than that, quite honestly. I mean, they compare it to smoking, but that’s just foolish. Do I agree with the stigmatization of smoking and smokers? No. I believe there’s enough evidence to convince people of the harmful effects of smoking. I have personal reasons for abstaining that include (but are not limited to) the health concerns, but I don’t believe that the government should tell anyone: ‘Thou shalt not smoke,’ or, ‘Thou shalt smoke only here, and only under these circumstances.'”

“Before you stone me as being anti-health, stop and think about it for a moment. How consistent would it be for me to lobby for the government to restrict the choice of some folks to engage in activities that I don’t like, but don’t necessarily harm others, and then scream when those same people use that same government to take away certain of my rights with which they do not agree?”

“Now, I’m not equating smoking to bearing arms as a right; I’m just drawing a parallel. A much more equal comparison would be between free speech and bearing arms; or between right to protection from unreasonable search and seizure and bearing arms. These are all rights as granted by the Constitution and the Amendments thereof, and they are not, as the Second Amendment states, to be infringed.”

“So do I think the progressives will be successful in their campaign to stigmatize guns? No, I don’t. The people they seek to bully into cowering submission are largely well-educated, familiar with real life, accustomed to hardship, and are pretty set in their convictions on these matters. They’re not doing something that is harmful to their health, something that they took up years ago because everybody thought it was cool…that’s what smoking is for many people. But gun ownership is different, and ingrained in the DNA of every conservative father is the drive to pass on the safe use of, and love for, guns.”

“Despite any attempts to stigmatize the owners, guns are part of the American way of life. Their ownership is protected by our Constitution, their safe and responsible use is encouraged by countless thousands of conservative parents, and their presence–in the hands of well-trained civilians who know where and how to use them–is part of the reason my home town has a relatively low crime rate. Yes, evil men use them to commit evil deeds…but good men use them just as often to prevent evil deeds. In a gun-crime situation, the problem isn’t the gun…it’s the man behind the gun.”

“That’s the central message behind our stance on weapons and the Second Amendment.”

Text for this article is taken from interviews with the gentlemen listed and is the  proprietary intellectual property of Excogitatoris Scribens™.

Excog Profile Pic

(graphic credit)

Š 2013, all rights reserved according to the copyright policy of The Southern Voice.

A Real Problem, A Real Solution

Shootings are a real problem in America. I’ve never denied it, and I don’t want to risk alienating readers–current and potential–by acting as though there isn’t a problem.

However, when it comes to solutions, men and women who are out of touch with reality are everywhere to be seen.

For starters, the men and women the President has tapped to provide answers to the knotty problem of how to solve this dilemma are firmly rooted in the prevailing vision of government as savior, solution, and supreme. They refuse to admit that the federal government could be the problem.

Also, the “solutions” these people loudly acclaim and proclaim are not solutions. They are non-solutions.

Stricter gun-control laws. Universal background checks. Tighter restrictions on handgun and ammo sales. More numerous gun-free zones.

None of these measures, enacted in cities across the country, has reduced gun-related crimes in those jurisdictions. In fact, almost universally, crime has gone up in the wake of these measures.

In keeping with my recent decision to speak my mind, to add my voice to the debate surrounding current issues, I have come to the table today with an alternative solution to this very real problem. A very real, workable solution. A very simple solution.

Let’s bring guns back into schools.

We’ve seen conclusively over the past several years that the only thing removing guns from schools does is ensure that criminals like Adam Lanza are capable of maximum damage when the shooting begins.

So, how would guns in schools prevent another tragedy like Sandy Hook?

Well, they wouldn’t. Before we go any further in this discussion, we need to establish once and for all that guns do not kill people. People kill people, and they use many things to do it: guns, knives, hammers, baseball bats, letter openers, tire irons, and a host of other objects that have other purposes, but become lethal weapons in the wrong hands.

Another truth you won’t hear from those lusting after absolute power is that criminals don’t always use guns to kill large amounts of people.

Timothy McVeigh used fertilizer, gasoline, and box trucks. The terrorists who created the major disaster of 9-11-2001 used airplanes.

Yet no one is screaming for fertilizer to be banned. No one is suggesting that gasoline be eliminated because it can be used as a weapon. No one is decrying the widespread distribution of airplanes throughout our nation.

Furthermore, in the great debate surrounding guns and their availability to criminals, what many people fail to admit is that often, “…the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun.”

Wayne LaPierre, the president of the NRA, had it right.

So, let’s put guns back in the hands of those who are closest to the children: the teachers.

Teachers already have to pass a pretty stringent string of tests before they can begin their career in a classroom. They have to have a degree in education from a qualified institution. They have to pass a criminal background check and drug screening. In many states, a person convicted of a felony cannot receive a teacher’s license.

When looking at the above requirements for a teacher, something should be pretty clear.

The people who qualify to teach also qualify to acquire a concealed carry permit.

My thoughts on the concealed carry issue will be forthcoming in a subsequent post, but for now, let’s go with the above line of reasoning.

Licensed teachers qualify to be licensed concealed carriers. Let them carry their firearms to school. But don’t stop there: let’s start a program that offers training in counter-terrorism tactics, similar to that which police and SWAT team forces receive. There’s no reason to expect these people to be as highly-trained as those in the military special forces. Then again, there’s no reason to expect them to go to work unarmed every day, bound hand and foot by government regulations that leaves them as defenseless as sheep before a butcher.

We’ve seen the result of that sort of legislation. It’s time for some [healthy] change.

If a person contemplating a shooting of the type that happened in Newtown knows that he is likely to be met with a hail of well-placed bullets from armed teachers instructed in the proper use of deadly force, it’s almost a guarantee he’ll call off the operation. If he further knows that these same teachers have been instructed in unarmed combat techniques that enable a person to use his or her own hands as a lethal weapon, the probability of his abandoning the scheme increases exponentially.

I would not be so naive to expect schools across the nation to universally adopt this type of policy overnight. However, as more and more schools implement a plan similar to the one outlined above, criminals will adapt. It is possible that school shootings will continue, but only in those places where the retrogressive system remains in force. Before long, however, people will catch on to the simple truth:

If we put guns back into the hands of trained personnel in school zones, criminals will stop targeting these zones. The ease of access and guarantee of a successful massacre will be significantly reduced.

Do I think this will work? Yes, I do, but not simply because I came up with the solution. The truth is, criminals prefer unarmed victims. That’s why all of the mass shootings we’ve experienced over the last year have occurred in places where federal regulations stipulate that no one–not even a concealed carry permit holder–is to have a gun.

Criminals are dangerous. Not all criminals, however, are stupid. Taking guns from the hands of those who obey the laws is a non-solution, because we all know that criminals are considered criminals because they do not obey the laws of the land. Continue to take guns away from law-abiding citizens in certain jurisdictions and situations, and you may be certain that gun-related crime rates will not go down in those places.

As we’ve seen already, the rates will only go in one direction: up.

New Ideas? Not hardly…

“We need more gun control.”

No one has said this sentence in so few words, so concisely. That’s because politicians make a living by pretending to speak clearly when they’re really using the words they utter to obfuscate and confuse their listeners. But the above sentence has been screamed by bloggers. Tearfully promised by our President. Slavered by news anchor-men and -women, driven berserk by their insatiable lust for the blood of that most hated of all enemies of the retrogressive vision that fuels the raging fire in their souls:

The conservative, law-abiding, independently-minded, self-educated gun owners of this country.

But the slavering, eye-rolling, arm-flailing diatribe in which they specialize is filled to the brim with specious hatred, personal attacks on the character of those who dare to disagree, and flagrant appeals to the emotions of the uninformed masses, who view these delusional guttersnipes as their political saviors. Demagoguery has risen to the level where people from both sides of the political divide look to the chosen few to explain the 200-year-old documents that no common man can read properly. Those who promulgate this preposterous nonsense fail to point out to the constituents they patronize that these documents were written by common men, not “experienced politicians” such as themselves.

Then again, the era in which these documents were written was a different time, as they are quick to point out. This point is conceded: the common man in the 18th century would be highly uncommon in today’s world. The reasons for this are as multitudinous as the symptoms that our country is suffering from a terrible disease; indeed, they are the symptoms of this horrible disease.

Americans are running headlong into the arms of those who would snatch their liberties in order to promote their idea of a better world.

Huge bills, too long to read before they are brought to a vote, are rammed through Congress, and political death threats–though left unspoken–are bathed unmistakably in the light of inferential speeches, should any of those not in the circle of the anointed consider himself intelligent enough to breathe the barest monosyllable of dissent.

To anyone who has read Orwell’s 1984, the similarities are astounding.

Yet, Orwell did not cover the whole spectrum of events now unfolding in America.

Not all Americans have not been forced to surrender these liberties, per se. One who would claim to be able to document these reasons in a few short paragraphs would do so at the risk of becoming a reductionist, so two that intertwine as one example will suffice.

Education has gone to the dogs in this country.

Nearly 47% of Americans survive without rendering any productive service. While this author does not subscribe to the notion of “social responsibility,” only one who totally ignores our national history would be unable to see that this country was not built by those who rely on handouts from the government to provide incentive for life. That’s because handouts don’t provide incentive to succeed.

This country was built by those who worked their fingers to the bone to succeed. It was built by those who scrimped, saved, and–often–educated themselves with the necessary skills to become a productive member of society. It was built, not by those who demanded the respect of their fellow-men because of an imagined intellectual superiority, but by those who earned the respect of their fellow-men by working hard.

Millions of people, besotted by the pleasure of receiving something for nothing, fearing nothing but an unsafe situation, and “educated” in a system that is a shameless front for indoctrination into the new cult of socialistic humanism, quiver with a blind, all-consuming rage when any dare challenge the methods of the plutocrats who have taken charge of the reins of government, snatching them away from the ignorant plebeian wretches who fancy themselves intelligent enough to get involved in the governmental process.

If you don’t believe that the government should control the every breath and moment of John Q. Public’s life, then this means you. If you dare to dissent, even verbally, with the prevailing vision of the elitists in Washington, this means you. If you dare to retain for yourself the power of autonomous decision-making and–ultimately–the power to form your own opinions, this means you. And you are a domestic terrorist.

This, in bold-faced terms, is the self-anointed intelligentsia’s view of you. And me.

No, they wouldn’t dare say that. Not today; such words in today’s political climate would be tantamount to political suicide. But it is what is behind every piece of legislation that takes away the final word from the people. It is the mindset that drives our political leaders in today’s America.

And it is why America is changing. Rapidly. Fundamentally. Perhaps…irrevocably.

As I’ve said, today’s politicians wouldn’t dare say that. But tomorrow?

If only the people who agree with these pueristocrats (men and women in positions of authority who consider themselves vaunted sources of all wisdom and knowledge, and yet behave like spoiled children in office) have the guns, your head will spin to see the rate at which they change their tune. If only those who agree with the government’s “progressive” view, those who wholeheartedly embrace the socialistic gospel of envy, those who drink deeply at the fountain of knowledge and yield themselves completely to the cult of the leader have a voice, this country will die.

And for the past one hundred years, the strategy of the leftist elite has been the same.

Do–or say–whatever necessary to discredit your opponent’s character. No matter what the cost in broken lives, shattered reputations, or sunken careers, do–or say–whatever necessary to stay in power. Coupled with the purposeful emasculation of the education infrastructure of this country, this approach has succeeded beyond the elitists’ wildest hopes.

The reason for the retrogressives’ desperate lust for maintaining the stasis of power among those who subscribe to the vision of the elite is two-fold.

First, power always corrupts. And absolute power still corrupts absolutely. Lord Acton’s words from so long ago still hold true, and cannot be improved upon.

The second reason is as simple as the first. If, by a chance so remote as to border on the mythological, the reins of power ever fell to true conservatives, the high-sounding, pleasant rhetoric of the leftist autocrats would be shown for what it is.

Empty castles in the air. A world that sounds good, and where costs are unimportant, but is impossible to achieve. A fleeting mirage. A non-existent Utopia.

In fact, such a shift in power would not be necessary to illustrate this point. Countless times–throughout human history–these “new ideas” preached by the statists have been tried. Countless times, the policies the self-anointed gods of the Potomac now seek to put in place have been implemented.

Each and every time, these policies have led to the destruction of the most powerful nation on earth.

Communal sharing of privately produced resources, “need-based” distribution of government assistance, price controls, and forcible disarming of civilians have all been previously implemented. With disastrous results. In times as far back as ancient Babylon. In times as recent as Nazi Germany under Hitler in the late 1930’s.

This proves two other old, trite-sounding phrases that have been around for centuries. The first is the Biblical statement, “There is nothing new under the sun.” The second is the old adage, “The only thing we learn from history is that we don’t learn from history.”

What does all this have to do with gun control? In this present age in which we live, government cannot be considered part of the solution to the problem. It must be established, firmly, clearly, and unequivocally, that government is the problem. President Reagan’s words are still true today, and again, cannot be improved upon.

I realize that this is a free country, and that there are people in this country who do not like guns. That is their right. But again, in the words of another old aphorism, “My right to swing my fist ends where your chin begins.” In other words, I am only free to exercise my rights to the extent that they don’t interfere with yours. What are these rights? The Declaration of Independence states that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” (Pursuit of happiness was framed after a far more common phrase of the day, “pursuit of property.”) The Bill of Rights states others: freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of religion, and the right to keep and bear arms.

I lump all these together for two good reasons. First, they are contained in subsequent amendments in the Constitution. The second is, if one of these rights is compromised or taken, or declared to be null and void, all may be declared null and void. They are of equal importance.

Those who do not like guns are free to refrain from purchasing them. They should not try to use the government, however, to tell me that just because they don’t like guns, I may not own them.

Many men–and more recently, women as well–have fought and died so that I have the right to exercise my freedom of speech by criticizing those in public office. Soldiers in our Armed Forces, countless thousands in World War I and II particularly, paid the ultimate price to protect the world from the machinations of a man who embraced many of the same ideological principles preached by those who consider themselves the “progressive” element of American society and government. Yet conservatives sit wringing their hands, afraid to exercise their right to speak their mind because the left has them convinced that no one agrees with them, anyway.

I agree with far more of the points on the conservatives’ side of many issues than the liberals’. And I, for one, intend to speak out while I still can.

Who am I? I’m just an average citizen, smart enough to understand the documents upon which this country was founded, but not smart enough to question the Founders’ intent the way many of the self-aggrandizing elitists do. Smart enough to know that, no matter how long and how loudly the retrogressives preach their gospel of disarming the populace, it will never be true. Smart enough to know that, if I speak my mind, others may be emboldened to do the same. And smart enough to know that, unless the average voter reengages in the governmental process as the Founders originally intended, this country will never be the same.

In fact, this country may not survive.