Our rights do not originate with government, but they are to be "secured" by government.
Formerly: Libertarian Party of Citrus county

Thursday, December 27, 2012

It's a Matter of Roots

By Tom Rhodes, 12/27/2012

There is a name for people who rely on the police and the justice system to keep them safe: Victims. Even Michael Moore recognizes this fact. In a recent blog entry I find myself agreeing with Moore on the facts, not his conclusions. The conclusion is simple but scary as a population reflects our roots.

Moore blogs: "These gun massacres aren't going to end any time soon. I'm sorry to say this. But deep down we both know it's true." ... more gun laws "won't really bring about an end to these mass slayings and it will not address the core problem we have. Connecticut had one of the strongest gun laws in the country. That did nothing to prevent the murders of 20 small children on December 14th."

He continues saying, "In fact, let's be clear about Newtown: the killer had no criminal record so he would never have shown up on a background check. All of the guns he used were legally purchased. None fit the legal description of an "assault" weapon. The killer seemed to have mental problems and his mother had him seek help, but that was worthless. As for security measures, the Sandy Hook school was locked down and buttoned up BEFORE the killer showed up that morning. Drills had been held for just such an incident. A lot of good that did."

He even admits liberals won't address the core of the problem saying, "And here's the dirty little fact none of us liberals want to discuss: The killer only ceased his slaughter when he saw that cops were swarming onto the school grounds - i.e, the men with the guns. When he saw the guns a-coming, he stopped the bloodshed and killed himself. Guns on police officers prevented another 20 or 40 or 100 deaths from happening. Guns sometimes work."

"I am sorry to offer this reality check on our much-needed march toward a bunch of well-intended, necessary - but ultimately, mostly cosmetic - changes to our gun laws. The sad facts are these: Other countries that have guns (like Canada, which has 7 million guns - mostly hunting guns - in their 12 million households) have a low murder rate. Kids in Japan watch the same violent movies and kids in Australia play the same violent video games (Grand Theft Auto was created by a British company; the UK had 58 gun murders last year in a nation of 63 million people). They simply don't kill each other at the rate that we do. Why is that? THAT is the question we should be exploring while we are banning and restricting guns: Who are we?"

Michael Moore goes on to rant that America is Racist and it is our Racism causing the problem. What he fails to note when comparing Canada and England and Japan to the USA is our demographics; blacks and latinos make up very miniscule percentages of their populations. It's not that the US is racist, government statistics show that murder between different raced people in the USA is statistically tiny, people almost always murder people of their own race. If you normalize for race and compare murder rates in the USA to other countries of similar races of the demographic that is murdered, the analysis is scary, but politically incorrect. This chart is of homicide rates in the USA by race and comparisons.



You can do your own research at the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

One fact that liberals and the main stream media won't examine is the fact that peoples roots better reflect homicide rates in the USA then just about any other predictor. People whose roots are from third world countries closer to the equator murder each other at far greater rates than people with northern European roots. Michael Moore hint's at looking at murder and racism in the USA, but he can't go where the data leads, even for him it's too politically incorrect. So he will blame whitey for wanting to have the means of self protection for the massive murder rate in the USA that is skewed by Black on Black and Latino on Latino murders.

Michael Moore is right in recognizing that race is an issue concerning murder in the USA. But the press won't look at the data in any meaningful way because the conclusions are unpalatable for their agenda. Just like Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg's remarks about abortion law are trying to be scrubbed from history, the Press cannot expose racial differences if they aren't supportive of minorities.

Justice Ginsburg talking about Medicaid funding for abortions for poor women, because of a 1980 Supreme Court decision called Harris v. McRae. She said, "The ruling surprised me. Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion." Her meaning was plain and clear, but liberals have been trying to clean up those remarks for years. If you look at the places Planned Parenthood puts their abortion clinics, it's clear they have targeted Blacks and minorities for population control using abortion.

Right now you are seeing a lot of comparisons between different states and homicide rates and the amount of guns in those states, what those comparisons ignore is the demographics of those states. If you look at US homicide rates by state and compare that to racial diversity the data is clear and shows that the more Blacks and Latino's in a state the higher the murder rate. Although not a perfect correlation, the relationship is quite clear. Compare race by state to Gun Violence by State.

We can ignore the data because it doesn't point in a direction we find emotionally or politically acceptable. Or you can accept the fact that with diversity you get not only the good things diverse cultures can bring but ALL of what a culture brings, including a cultures violent character. When melting cultures from equatorial third world nations into our own, we will add ALL aspects of those cultures, including their murder rates. If we as a nation are being diverse and accepting the poor tired masses of the world and giving them a chance at the American dream, then we must accept that increased percentages of our population with origins from more murderous and violent cultures will cause our culture to reflect that and be more murderous and violent. We cannot expect to have the same murder rates as Canada or England when we don't have a similar population demographics.

In England whites make up 90.1% of its population. Blacks make up only 3.4% of it's population, and Latino's are so few they are grouped with "other." In Canada whites make up 80% of its population. Blacks make up only 2.5% of its population, and a mere 1.0% are Latino. In the USA whites make up 72.4% of the population. Blacks comprise 12.6%, and Latinos 16.4%.

Michael Moore, hints around the edges at the problem, but don't expect any liberal to dig or report based on the facts, the facts destroy their narrative. Ask yourself, do the advantages of what diversity brings to the USA outweigh the negative effects that accompany that same diversity? I believe as a society we have decided that the benefits of a diverse population outweigh the costs, but that doesn't mean there are not costs, including our society having patterns of behavior that look more like the third world and less like the old world. It just goes to prove the old adage, blood is thinker than water. When normalized for demographic origins, our murder rate like many other measurable indicators reflects the populations of our roots.

Stop the Madness

By Rand Simberg, 6/18/2003


This biting satire was stolen from Transterrestrial Musings

In as much as the hoplophobes are beating the logical fallacy Reductio ad Absurdum to death with mountains of "what if" extreme unreasoned arguments concerning firearms in America, let's see what hapens when their reasoning is applied to our other rights. On FB, I posted "When a hoplophobe tells you the second amendment was about muskets not assault rifles, ask him if he posted that opinion with a bottle of ink and a quill. This satire expands that notion, and the statists view of our rights in general.




I often disagree with Bill O'Reilly, but I want to defend him.


A lot of smart people are bashing him on line,

particularly in the blogosphere, but I think that this just proves his point. I think that he's spot on with this erudite and well-reasoned editorial. This "Internet" is just too powerful.


When the Founders wrote the First Amendment, they could never have conceived a technology that would allow anyone to publish anything at any time, at almost no cost, and have it readable by millions instantaneously.


In fact, inspired by this work, I'm working on a book, tentatively titled "Publishing America: Origins Of The Free-Speech Myth," in which my thesis is that very few people had access to printing presses in colonial times, and this notion of a long American tradition of a free press and individual freedom of expression is simply propaganda of First Amendment extremists. I've painstakingly gone over old probate inventories, and can show statistically that very few homes traditionally had means of printing and, such few as there were, they had mostly fallen into such a state of disrepair as to be useless.

Unfortunately, my pet iguana ate all of my notes, so you'll just have to take my word for it. I'm sure the print nuts will employ their usual ad hominem tactics, and call me a fraud.


Anyway, it's one thing to have free speech when the most effective means of communicating ideas is with a printing press that few can afford, and has to have the type carefully set by hand, and they have to be printed on expensive paper, and transported no faster than a horse can run, and distributed by walking door to door.


Such a laborious and expensive process as colonial-era printing ensured that potentially dangerous ideas were more thought out, and well edited, and could usually be easily traced to their author. So, given that the investment in publishing was so high, it made it much more likely that only responsible people would be publishing things, and that you wouldn't have wackos running around spewing crazy or confused, even false or misinformed notions at innocent and naive passers by.


In that environment, it made perfect sense to grant an individual right to print things (to bear presses, as it were), because there was little danger of it getting out of hand.


But surely the Founders never intended for every single citizen to be able to exercise such a right--in their wisdom, they would have known it would lead to chaos and unfettered thought. They couldn't possibly have imagined the rapid-fire distribution of dangerous ideas made possible by twenty-first-century technology. Why, some people might have even put forth the absurd notion that free speech is the right of everyone.


Had they actually anticipated the possibility that the cost of publishing could drop so dramatically, they would surely have made the First Amendment a much more explicitly collective right (like the Second), in which people would only have a right to free speech in a well-regulated state newspaper.


Let's be reasonable--of course it's fine to let people have typewriters, and copiers, as long as they don't have a paper magazine of more than a quarter-ream capacity, and can't print more than two pages per minute in high-density color. There are legitimate uses for such things--printing up book reports for school, making PTA meeting notices and party invitations, and the like. We respect the rights of those who wish to indulge in such innocuous, if pointless activities, long a part of the American cultural tradition (though it would certainly make sense to register such devices, in case they're stolen, or lest they're used to express some untoward or scandalous thought).


Of course, we do need to outlaw the cheap Sunday-night specials, old manual machines still available in pawn shops, with sticky keys, that cause ink stains, and from which a large number of late term papers are produced by the criminal procrastinating class during the witching hours. But really, folks, chill--no one wants to take away your typewriters.


But the Founders would realize also, just as Bill O'Reilly and I do today, that no one, other than the police and politicians, needs the kind of "idea assault" publishing capability offered by word processors, blogging software, and even fifteen-page-per-minute ink-jet printers, which really have no legitimate use--they only propagate calumny and wrong-headed notions, tragically damaging innocent celebrities' egos, sometimes permanently.


This past weekend, just to demonstrate how easy it is to lay hands on such dangerous equipment, I exploited the notorious "computer show loophole," and went out to the big show in Pomona, California. There, I saw entire halls filled with purveyors of high-speed idea processors, rapid-fire printers, and even modems capable of transmitting thoughts at frightening rates, up to gigabytes per second. For only $4.99, with not so much as an ID requirement, let alone a background check, I was able to purchase an "assault keyboard," with several internet hotkeys. It was fully automatic--holding down any key would result in a torrent of characters being spit out, hundreds per minute. I even saw teenaged children buying them.


Yet, when people propose sensible regulations over this, we hear hysterical cries about "freedom of expression," and "from my cold, dead fingers." But surely the far-fringe First Amendment absolutists are misreading it--there is a hint of a shadow of an umbra of a penumbra in there, easily accessed by referencing the Second Amendment. Bearing this in mind, it is more properly read with the following implicit preface: "A well-regulated press being necessary for the security of the State and self-important talk-show hosts, Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble..."


Clearly, viewed in the light of that implicit purpose clause, these were not intended to be individual rights, any more than they were in the Second Amendment, because obviously, the Founders wouldn't have meant one thing by the words "the right of the people" in the one case, and a different thing in the other, particularly in two adjacent amendments.


Accordingly it is equally clear that we need to implement what would obviously have been the Founders' intent had they foreseen the Internet, and immediately pass some laws to get this thing under control. Let's do it for the children.


Particularly Bill O'Reilly.

Monday, December 24, 2012

NBC Newsman Violates Law on TV

Washington DC Law states, “No person in the District shall possess, sell, or transfer any large capacity ammunition feeding device regardless of whether the device is attached to a firearm. A ‘large capacity ammunition feeding device’ means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition,” and carries a $1000 fine and/or 1 year in prison.

In the Washington Studios during “Meet the Press”, David Gregory held and was in possession of a 30 round AR magazine, in clear violation of the law. When are the DC police going to arrest David Gregory? Did some NBC producer give it to him at the studio and transfer it to Mr. Gregory? Obviously the law was broken at least once but probably many times? Why is there no outcry from the loony hoplophobes on the left for the arrest of Mr. Gregory? Or is the law only meant for the “little people.”


Friday, December 21, 2012

Diversity and a Culture of Violence

By Tom Rhodes, 2/21/2012

Piers Morgan of CNN is screaming and yelling and raving but not thinking, and definitely not looking at any data in his emotional but irrational gun rants this week. Comparing England's murder rate to the US's while ignoring the overall violent crime in England being far worse than the USA's is a start. England has 1/5 the population of the USA, so you would expect at least 5 times the number of violent crimes. England by comparison is not very a very diverse population. Canada the other country he used to compare to the USA is similarly a tiny homogenous population. The key component ignored is the USA's diversity, our population's origins and racial makeup. Normalizing for race and origins, the data looks a lot different.

In England whites make up 90.1% of its population. Blacks make up only 3.4% of it's population, and Latino's are so few they are grouped with "other."

In Canada whites make up 80% of its population. Blacks make up only 2.5% of its population, and a mere 1.0% are Latino."

In the USA whites make up 72.4% of the population. Blacks comprise 12.6%, and Latinos 16.4%.

Considering the fact that regardless of gun ownership countries with primarily black African and Latino populations have far greater rates of murder, specifically gun murders, the USA having a greater murder rate than England or Canada should be expected. Our crime and murder rates as a nation reflect an amalgamation of the cultures that make up our population. We have accepted and allowed massive numbers of people to bring their cultures into the USA, this melting doesn't result in them changing their culture, but our acceptance of "diversity" results in our culture becoming more like those we accept.

According to the FBI, there were about 3100 white murderers in the USA in 2011. If you exclude murders committed by blacks our murder rate is 1.3 per 100,000 people. Canada's is 1.6 and the United Kingdom's murder rate is 1.4. The numbers are clear, normalized for race and ethnic origin the murder rate is consistent for those of similar Heritage.

Chicago, has vastly more restrictive gun laws than the rest of the USA. Over 400 school age children where shot there this year. Almost as many as total children murdered in Chicago as all murders in England. But because the virtually all these innocent children are black, and the murders occurred in the city with some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation, the press ignores it. The murder culture of third world immigrants is the problem, not the tool used to murder. Third world cultures that take justice into their own hands, and use murder to solve problems, rather than the courts and rule of law, and those cultural values brought to the USA contribute to our higher murder rate. Since 1965 our immigrants have not been European, but from third world, and our change in culture and violence reflect the influx of people from more violent cultures.

If you want homicide rates in the USA to be similar to England's or Canada's the solution is not acceptable to the Melting Pot of America. What it would take to morph our population to similar demographics as England's and Canada's is contrary to the very idea of America. How long a melting pot can remain a viable civilized country has yet to be determined, but since Babel, the history of man has not been kind to diverse mixed populations. The artificial acceptance of those who are not like us, is a unique unproven idea that runs contrary to history. It is difficult for people to trust others who are not like themselves. Hell, the British even classify Irish separately from other whites and the peace with Northern Ireland is tenuous at best. Because of human nature, America, and our election of Obama, may be as good as diversity ever gets, or can get. But comparing the USA's murder and any other attributes to far smaller more homogenous societies is at best an ignorant comparison, and at worst purposefully disingenuous. Some say our diversity accounts for our greatness, but that diversity is accompanied by a whole slew of problems and differences that cannot be ignored or discounted.

This paragraph, is so politically incorrect, even if you do the research yourself you won't believe it.
If you look at US homicide rates by state and compare that to racial diversity the numbers are scary. Although not a perfect correlation, the relationship is quite clear. Less white population as a percent of population and the greater the murder rate. More white population and less murders. Compare race by state to Gun Violence by State.

If you accept diversity as a desirable goal and outcome, then you must accept the fact that diverse populations will bring merge the evil parts of their culture not just the good. Are we better off as a nation being diverse and accepting the poor tired masses of the world and giving them a chance at the American dream? If so we must accept that increased percentages of our population with origins from more murderous violent cultures will cause our culture to become more murderous and violent. Do the advantages of that diversity outweigh the negative effects that accompany such diversity? I believe as a society we have decided that the benefits of a diverse population outweigh the costs, but that doesn't mean there are not costs, including our society looking a bit more like the societies our immigrant's origins and less like England.

Logic and Reason are not PC


You cannot use logic and reason discussion guns in America, the conclusions, evidence, and truth, so encite rage and emotional turmoil in liberals that they cannot speak or think rationally when exposed to objective facts that are so contra to their internal paradymes the litterally blow a gasket. (check out CNN's Morgan's irrational hatefull outbursts over this past week)

The below articeby Voxday, is not politically correct, it uses logic, reason, and data to explain why violence is higher in the US than other industrial countries. The conclusions will make liberals scream, and call those who actually recognize imperical evidence all kinds of names, because the truth will expose them as irrational and over emotional not reasonable.

Not mentioned in this article is the fact that if you exclude black on black murders, the US murder rate is about the same as Canada's.

We don't have a gun problem, we have a greater part of our population that has third world mentality for solving it's problems rather. But You can't say that in public regardless of the evidence and objective truth.
Why US gun deaths are high
By VoxDay
Friday, December 21, 2012

One of the questions often asked by those supporting gun control and those who are merely uninformed alike is why the US has so many gun deaths, especially in comparison with other Western, industrialized countries.

The first reason is obvious. There are nearly five times more people in the United States than there are in the largest European countries. This may seem ludicrously obvious, but most people really are that stupid and don't take population sizes into account. The fact that the news media covers all the crimes across the country it deems noteworthy means that the 310 million people in the USA are going to produce about five times more big crime stories than the 63 million in the UK.

The second reason is also related to demographics. The specific question that was asked was why the USA has a higher rate of gun homicides, 2.97 per 100,000 population than Canada, at only 0.51 per 100,000. After all, the USA and Canada are very similar countries, are they not? No, they are not. Only 3.5 percent of the Canadian population is African and Latin American. 28.9 percent of the US population is African and Latin American. Does this make a difference? The chart below demonstrates that this demographic difference is not only significant, but conclusive.

As per The Guardian article of July 12, 2012, the USA had 9,146 gun homicides, the fourth-most of the reporting countries. That was considerably more than Canada or any of the European nations; Canada had only 173. Even if one accounts for the much smaller Canadian population, it is obvious that Canadians were much less likely to shoot and kill other Canadians. Was this because there are fewer guns in Canada, only 30.8 percent compared to the 88.8 percent in the United States? No, it was because there are fewer African-Canadians and Latin-Canadians, as should be obvious from looking at the chart.



There were even fewer guns per capita in the two Latin countries, 11.5 percent, and in the two African countries, 8.3 percent, than Canada's 30.8 percent, France's 31.2 percent, or Germany's 30.3 percent. And yet, the gun deaths per capita in all four African and Latin countries were much higher than either Canada or the USA; on average, they were four times higher than the US rate despite there being far fewer guns, and guns per capita, in all of them. Nor did I cherry-pick any outliers; most African nations don't even report these figures, and based on the news reports, countries such as Congo and Nigeria are even more murderously violent than South Africa and Zimbabwe. In Latin America alone, there are six countries with higher per capita gun death rates than Brazil, which is six times higher than the USA.

The low rate of gun ownership in these violent countries not only make it clear that the prevalence of guns cannot possibly explain the relatively high US gun death rate in comparison with other European countries, they clearly indicate that gun deaths are a predominantly racial and/or cultural phenomenon. Since the US is on the track to become a European minority country, it should be readily apparent that as it becomes browner and blacker, it will also become more violent, naturally reflecting the more violent tendencies of the nations from whence the post-1965 immigrants have come instead of those of the European nations who originally populated the country.

If lower gun death rates are a goal, it is clear that reducing the amount of guns will not help, and may even make the matter considerably worse by disarming the law-abiding population and rendering it helpless against the lawless population. The only way to significantly reduce the amount of gun deaths is to repatriate the immigrants who come from countries where people are disproportionately inclined to shoot other people dead. Since most Americans presently appear to prefer higher violent crime rates to stopping immigration, much less reducing the percentage of the non-European/Asian/Arab population through deportation, logic dictates that if gun control proponents are successful in their attempts to reduce the guns per capita rate, the gun homicides per capita rate will rise in proportion to the percentage of the African/Latin population in the general population.

Tuesday, December 18, 2012

Truth - Casualty of Newton Tragedy

By Tom Rhodes, 12/18/2012

The biggest casualty of the Newton tragedy is the truth. Liberal statist hoplophobes are using the actions of a psychotropic drug addled madman to eviscerate the truth and the bill of rights. They are playing on the emotional turmoil that such an evil act created to attack any who would laud the truth about guns in the USA.

One month ago, the Congressional Research Service released a 113-page report titled, "Gun Control Legislation," authored by William J. Krouse, a "specialist in domestic security and crime policy." The report cites the National Institute of Justice, which indicates that by 2009, the estimated total number of firearms available to civilians in the United States had increased to approximately 310 million, approximately one gun for each person in the country: 114 million handguns, 110 million rifles, and 86 million shotguns. The fact that we have seen a dramatic increase in firearms ownership accompanied with an equally dramatic decrease in violent crime, is ignored by gun control zealots. The objective truth is that our "gun culture" has resulted in less violent crime and a safer society.

Basically we've doubled the number of guns posses in our culture and decrease the number of murders by half. Guns are used regularly by victims of crime to defend themselves. Mass murders happen in "Gun Free Zones," The Aurora Colorado shooter chose the only theater in his area that posted signs prohibiting the lawful carry of concealed weapons, as his preferred shooting gallery. Compare that to the number of mass shootings at gun ranges.

The truth about laws restricting arms is self evident and long recognized. "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." ~ Thomas Jefferson

The most devastating and massive murder at an American School happened in Bath, Michigan, where 38 children and 7 adults were murdered on May 27, 1927. The school district's treasurer, Andrew Kehoe, detonated a series of improvised explosive devices. At this time the murderer could order a variety of fully automatic machine guns by mail. Obviously readily available guns were not the cause. Both Newton and Bath mass murders of children were the result of the actions of evil men. Lanza and Kehoe are solely responsible for those mass murders, not the tools they chose to do their evil deeds, explosives or guns.

Gun control nuts, are totally disingenuous, the let their hoplophobia and desire to disarm the general public, cloud them from reality. They ignore the other causes of death, or accept other methods of murder, but single out guns not based on empirical evidence but on emotional fear. The cries and wailings of gun control nuts and their objective silence on the two deaths of others recently committed by professional football players is a prime example. Belcher of the Chiefs murdered his girl friend and then shot himself, and the statist left demanded more gun restrictions, but when Price-Brent committed manslaughter using both his car and alcohol killing Jerry Brown Jr. they remain silent. No call to ban booze or cars. You see those same statist lefties like their booze and their cars, but are scared of guns.

When more people drink and drive, more people die. But as the newly released Congressional Research Service report, "Gun Control Legislation", clearly shows as Americans have increased gun ownership, and increased the number of concealed weapons we carry, actual violent crime and murders has gone down. So it is plain that Gun Control Zealots don't actually care about people dying, what they care about is any excuse to increase the scope of government and reduce Americans ability to be self reliant, which depends on their ability to defend themselves.

John Lott, author of "More Guns = Less Crime", has issued a challenge to hoplophobes who are calling for more gun control laws; put a sign on your lawn or in a window of your home: "This is a gun-free zone." To date nobody has taken up his challenge, why?

The truth is rural America has more guns and less violent crime than urban America. Cities like Chicago with severe restrictions and prohibitions on having a gun and using it for self defense, have murder rates higher than many third world countries; even Mexico City has a lower murder rate than Chicago. Gun Control Zealots have no respect for the facts. There have been too many peer reviewed factual studies over the years to leave any serious doubt. Gun control laws are not only futile, but have proven to produce problems and more difficulties instead of helping to achieve a goal.

Here is a fact that the press won't cover and is very politically incorrect. White America owns guns at a far greater rate than Black America, but the murder rate is higher among blacks. If you exclude black on black crime, the crime and murder rate in the USA is amongst the lowest in industrialized nations. If you seriously want to address violent crime in the USA, then the place to look is at inner city black culture which is responsible for the majority of violent crime in the USA. Hundreds of black youth have been murdered with guns in Chicago this year alone, the city where laws already prohibit anybody from having a gun. Drive by shootings don't happen in Kennesaw GA, where every head of household is required by law to have a gun. They happen in inner city black neighborhoods, where the community won't rat out black thugs, and vigilante justice not the rule of law reigns. Another ignored fact is that more people have been murdered in the past year without any weapon but with the murder's bare hands than with any rifle, much less a so called "assault" weapon. Where is the call to outlaw people's hands.

Dr. Kleck did some peer reviewed research that showed that regular people use firearms 80 times more often to protect themselves and stop violent crime than firearms are used to commit crime. Gun Control zealots ignore those results, when even their fellow gun haters who are honest about the facts and don't don't like the conclusions, agree with the findings that Dr. Kleck reached. They cannot argue with his impeccable research and methodology. In "A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed," Marvin E. Wolfgang writes that, "What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator. . . . I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research. Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence." Wolfgang wrote that in an article of The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology titled, "A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed."

Of the more than a dozen national polls, including one conducted by The Los Angeles Times,that have found figures comparable to the Kleck-Gertz study. Even the gun hating Clinton Justice Department found there were as many as 1.5 million defensive users of firearms every year. Those studies are over a decade old, newer studies are finding trouble getting funding because those controlling the purse strings, big government statists, won't fund them unless they guarantee pro-gun control results. So unless researchers are willing to suffer the fate of Michael Bellesiles, the Professor of History at Emory University who was forced to resign, when his anti-gun book, "Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture," was found "willingly misrepresented the evidence," they no-longer conduct gun research with pre-conceived conclusions. A three-person committee, composed of scholars from Princeton University, Harvard University and the University of Chicago, concluded that Mr. Bellesiles' work showed "evidence of falsification," "egregious misrepresentation" and "exaggeration of data." Bellesiles' work is evidence that statist left hoplophobes promoting more gun control not only ignore the truth, but will lie to get their desires.

Yes we should keep guns out of the hands of the criminally insane. But the same people who want to disarm America, refuse to lock up crazy people. The perpetrators of 90% of the mass shootings in recent history are known or reasonably suspected to have been prescribed and using psychotropic drugs for mental illness. The research and warnings show that the side effects of psychotropic drugs can be violent unpredictable behavior. The increase in the use of psychotropic drugs on young developing adolescent males closely correlates with the increase in that same group committing evil acts of violence. The side effects of these drugs are known to induce thoughts of suicide, and increased impulsive behavior, yet we continue to use them on our youth. Uninhibited violent behavior is a known and proven side effect of psychotropic drugs. If the goal was less mass murder behavior, and less children murdered, then this not guns, would be the subject of the press and those who care.

More than any other issue, gun owners have proven that they will vote out those in office who attack our right to keep and bear arms. To all our elected officials, remember more gun control laws will result in a loss at the poles regardless of your party. The best example of that is Al Gore, whose anti-gun record cost him his home state of Tennessee, and probably the 2000 election.

Israel's response to terrorism and mass murder directed at schools, was to make sure that there were people voluntarily armed at schools, not every teacher, but enough teacher's, admins, and other private volunteers, so that terrorists and madmen know that they will be confronted with deadly force. Thus Israel eliminated the safe shooting gallery that "gun free schools" create. The truth is, the evil actions of Lanza, do not justify disarming or further restricting guns in America. A determined evil person planning on and willing to take their own life, cannot be stopped by mere laws. Lanza, continued his murder spree until he was confronted by armed law enforcement, where he then killed himself. If he'd been confronted when he first shot his way into the school, not much later when law enforcement finally arrived, he'd have either killed himself or been shot then, not after being given the time to kill 20 innocent children. The truth is "Gun Free Zones" are responsible for the effectiveness of mass murderers who routinely choose these places to commit murderous evil.

The facts don't justify more gun control laws. But then the hoplophobes don't care about truth, and they are supported by statists as their goal is a dependent society who doesn't have the means of self reliance or defense. This country was created by rebels who went to war because the Government actively tried to take away their guns. That's right the first shots fired in the American Revolution were a direct result of the British trying to take away our arms, not taxes, not freedom of religion, not freedom of speech, not the right to vote, but the active assault on private and community arms. This country has attracted and been expanded by people who wanted to be self reliant, and exercise their right to succeed on their own, not on the dictates of some government official. Gun control zealots are horribly mistaken if they think they can legislate away American guns. The people of this country will not willingly relinquish the 310 Million guns we own.

Sunday, December 2, 2012

Unintended Consequences of ObamaCare

By Tom Rhodes, 12/2/2012

The Huffington Post reports that Wallmart changing it's Health Care Policy and shifting the burden to Medicaid.. Who'd a Thunk.

Because of the increase in costs associated with Obamacare, companies are taking legal means to reduce their costs. Nothing illegal about WallyWorlds actions. But since they can no longer offer insurance with limits on total pay outs and limited coverage which costs less than the full blown government approved insurance they are being forced to offer, they are adjusting their work practices, increasing the number of workers and giving each less work so that they avoid bigger government induced costs.

How is having low wage earners getting less hours, and having now insurance, better than having more hours and limited insurance? The unintended consequences will be fewer full time employees across a wide variety of businesses. So unemployment will go down as part time jobs explode.

Again another example of more government regulations makes the problem they were trying to fix worse not better. The actual result of Obamacare is less wages and no insurance for more people, not exactly what was promised.

Saturday, December 1, 2012

Florida Sen. Rubio Votes Against Bill of Rights.

By Tom Rhodes, 12/1/2012

No thanks to Republican Statist Sen. Marco Rubio, who again voted against individual rights and for more government power. Why Republicans think that their party is the party of conservative principles and freedoms, when their leaders continue to prove they have no principles, and only believe in their and their buddies increased power.

Senate Amendment 3018 was create to clarify provisions in to S. 3254 - National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013. The purpose of this amendment is to clarify that an authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or any similar authority shall not authorize the detention without charge or trial of a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States.

Republican Statist Marco Rubio has clearly rejected the ideas of the TEA Party that got him elected. He voted against protecting your right to Habeas Corpus and a Jury Trial.

According to the Senate Record, including Rubio the following Republicans also voted against the Bill of Rights

Ayotte (R-NH)
Brown (R-MA)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coats (R-IN)
Cochran (R-MS)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (R-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lugar (R-IN)
McConnell (R-KY)
Portman (R-OH)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Toomey (R-PA)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)

No wonder the GOP had their ass handed to them last month.