By Tom Rhodes, 3/1/2018
There is a Great Divide in America. It is the real divide in the USA, and it isn't Democrat vs Republican, nor Right vs Left. The real divide in the USA is elitist vs populist. About two centuries ago, the populists did something the elitists never dreamed could happen. They said We The People will Establish a Government and organize its powers in such form, that We the People deem most likely to effect our safety and happiness. This was a slap in the face of elitists all over the world. “How dare mere peasants assume they can govern themselves!”
The elitists are those in positions of authority, and those who want and depend on experts to provide and take care of them. The populists, here in the USA, are Normal Americans who want to be self-reliant, and self-ruling, who accept government as a necessary evil instituted to protect their liberty. There are many, who do not want, and fear, liberty and freedom; hey prefer the security of having an elite dictate what they should do and take care of them (aka. Slavery). They are elitists just as much as are those in authority who want to control the masses.
We the People specifically prohibited the government from infringing on our rights, which are natural, pre-political, and exist outside of the auspice of any government. Again the idea that peasants have rights that aren't controlled and granted by the elites is a slap in the face. Elites think by virtue of their position that they know better what rights the common man should be allowed to exercise. Elitists believe in a top-down approach where professional bureaucrats rule the country and dictate cultural norms and what is acceptable dialogue and what is not, while populists believe the people are self-governing and ultimately determine the course of our politics and culture.
Elitists for over 2 centuries have been working to fundamentally transform America, to the historic norm for all of mankind, which has total elite control over the population and where dissent from their views is vilified. The gun debate is simply another battle in the all-out war elites are waging on the American people’s right to even have an opinion, let alone speak out about it and not be punished for it. "How dare you bitterly cling to your religion and guns!"
Elitists want you silenced, controlled, and disarmed. They want you, the populist, the Normal American, to be disempowered; you! not the insane, not the criminals, not the terrorist, not the illegal aliens. You. Why? Because they hate you.
Elitists are appalled at the fact that in even in statist and compliant New York, where they mandated the registration of certain weapons and outlawed high capacity magazines, only a mere 10% of the people obeyed their law. Elitists hate that you won't submit. Elitists hate that you won't obey. Elitists hate that you think you should be able to share ideas and beliefs they don't approve. Elitists especially hate that you refuse to give up your only means of protecting yourself and preserving your rights. Elitists believe that they should control you, thus they should be the only ones with access to the tools of violence that can stop them, because they hate you.
Ask them, elitists openly say that you are deplorable, if you don't agree with their call to be disarmed you're a terrorist, if you express opinion they don't believe or they want silenced your insane, or too stupid, or whatever. They openly try to dehumanize those who don't accept their right to rule and not be questioned. They want you dehumanized so that you don't have rights, so that they can kill you. Look on social media, elitists openly and repeatedly call on violence and killing those who express and hold views they don't approve.
Understand that elites doesn't hate the NRA. They hate you. Elitists understand the power of the NRA is really the power of millions of populists (aka. Normal Americans), coming together to defend their right to protect themselves, their families, their communities and their Constitution. That’s why they fear it. That’s why they attack it. That’s why they can't abide its existence. Because of the Second Amendment, their power to limit the First is diminished. They want your voices silenced. They want the very idea of a self-governing people eliminated. Why else would they bar the use of Foundational Documents like the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, be used in public schools.
Elitists have openly come out in favor of cowardice, they are attacking the right of self-defense. Their argument is you don't need guns to protect yourself. In fact in other countries where elites have more power, self-defense is outlawed. But Parkland demonstrates you certainly can't expect an elitist-run law enforcement agency like the Broward Sheriff’s Office to protect you, there duty is to go home safe and protect the elites from the people. They believe the life of government workers is more important than your child’s life. Those hired by the elites to enforce their will have no duty to protect you. Elitists hate that in the two most recent rulings on the right to self-defense, the Supreme Court characterized that right as "pre-political." That means it pre-existed the government. The damn populist Constitution and Bill of Rights, continues to thwart elitist power and control. If the elitists succeed in disarming you, where does that leave you? You can't protect yourself, and in return, no one from the government will protect you either.
On the subject of elitists vs populists, Frank Cannon, president at American Principles Project, recently wrote; “Fortunately, the American people are fully cognizant of what is taking place, which is why they voted for Donald Trump in 2016. Instead of looking at Trump and Clinton through the two lenses voters typically use, moral character and issue positions, voters applied a third lens: would their views be allowed to be articulated at all without dire consequences under a Clinton administration? “
The reality is the elitists, have had enough of uppity populists and are openly attacking individual liberty and the rights of the common man. We the People can no longer ignore the encroachment of the elites on our fundamental, pre-existing rights, and must act. Frank Cannon also noted that, “We cannot keep pretending, like so many Never Trumpers do, that we are operating in an environment of normal political give-and-take on issues. That time has passed. We are instead operating in a country now where elites demonize the populist position with such ferocity that many are afraid to voice their opinion at all, which is, of course, the entire point of their strategy. Our fight is no longer just over political issues — it is a battle against the very tactics being used by elites to stifle debate and destroy the essence of what makes America great.”
Showing posts with label gun rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gun rights. Show all posts
Thursday, March 1, 2018
Friday, February 16, 2018
Why Liberty Is Dangerous
By Tom Rhodes 2/16/2018
There has been another violent tragedy in the USA leaving 17 innocent children dead. Once again leftists are using it as an excuse to try and take away the rights we cherish. Because as a nation we established a government that valued individual liberty over security, preventing mad men who’ve committed no prior crimes from heinous acts is impossible, PERIOD!
The USA is unique among all the nations, our Preamble is a slap in the fast to every ruling elite who has ever lived. Saying: We The People … to secure the blessings of liberty … do ordain and establish our government. Creating a government with divided powers and very limited powers and specifics defining fundamental rights the government was prohibited from infringing upon.
Three keys to the USA that don’t exist in the rest of the world and are the basis for our government are the Rule of Law, Presumption of Innocence, and Fundamental Rights. To talk about gun laws, arresting the mentally ill, and what we can do, we must first understand and define these principles.
Because we all are endowed by our creator with Fundamental Rights, and we insist and restrict our government to follow the Rule of Law, and are all considered Innocent Until Proven Guilty; we are all in danger of mad or evil people committing gross acts of violence. Due Process given to all to protect their liberty, means that the government must prove, before a jury, where the accused can present witnesses and bring on experts, before any fundamental right can be restricted.
The USA is unique, We the People do not have to seek permission from the government to exercise our rights, rather the government must first prove individuals, through their actions, should have those rights restricted. Being reasonable some restrictions on the means of exercising our fundamental rights serve a compelling interest to We the People. Your fundamental right to travel, doesn’t obligate the government to supply you with the means of travel, nor does it grant you the right to operate a 2 ton rolling motorized carriage without demonstrating your ability to do so. The requirement for a driver’s license is not restriction is not on your right to travel, only on the means you choose to travel. It is reasonable to restrict operating a motor vehicle to those old enough to do so safely, and those who understand how to do it safely, and who have demonstrated the ability to do so.
We the People specifically included the Fundamental Right to keep and bear arms in the Bill Of Rights, not to allow pioneers to have a rifle to shoot deer, and protect themselves from brigands. Rather the government was purposefully restricted from infringing upon that right so that We the People had the tools to stand up against and overthrow our government should it become tyrannical. We’ve already allowed the government to restrict individuals far more than the purpose of the second amendment allows.
We have a choice. Be free and enjoy Liberty, or be secure. History has repeatedly shown that those who sacrifice liberty for security, end up with neither. Unfortunately there is evil in this world, and there will always be a few who will abuse their rights. The idea that we should give up due process, have to prove we are innocent to exercise a Fundamental Right; the idea that there should be laws for people in the government and different laws for mere citizens; the idea that we should sacrifice our Fundamental Rights for the security of the state, or for individual safety; should all make us cringe in horror.
Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death, doesn’t mean except for access to XXXXX because it might scare others or somebody thinks it dangerous. The freedom to access guns, drugs, fast cars, bicycling without a helmet, etc. comes with accepting the fact that Liberty is Dangerous. The alternative is to give up our Fundamental Rights for the appearance of security. As the mass shooting in France at the Bataclan theater clearly demonstrate, laws restricting fundamental rights don’t keep us safe from mad or evil men.
Those calling for “gun control” are fear mongers who want to be taken care of and don’t value their liberty, they believe that it is better to be safe and secure. They hate the idea that the average person should, without the approval of their betters, be allowed to own guns, choose to ride a bike without a helmet, smoke, eat red meat, own a big truck, sell lemonade from their front lawn before the big game, feed the poor in their neighborhood, scares them. They believe others should dictate how the masses should live. That is tyranny and evil. Statists, as exemplified by the Democrats, will use every evil act that occurs as an excuse to exercise more control and attack liberty. As for the Republicans, they will always sacrifice rights after whining, as they are cowards and won’t stand for anything, the past 50 years have proven they won’t conserve anything.
If you want to further restrict arms for the average citizen, there is an easy process. You can have the limits placed on government from infringing upon our right to keep and bear arms removed. Just pass an amendment. But know if you try, there are 100,000,000 gun owners who will fight you and that process. We prefer Dangerous Liberty Over Peaceful Slavery.
There has been another violent tragedy in the USA leaving 17 innocent children dead. Once again leftists are using it as an excuse to try and take away the rights we cherish. Because as a nation we established a government that valued individual liberty over security, preventing mad men who’ve committed no prior crimes from heinous acts is impossible, PERIOD!
The USA is unique among all the nations, our Preamble is a slap in the fast to every ruling elite who has ever lived. Saying: We The People … to secure the blessings of liberty … do ordain and establish our government. Creating a government with divided powers and very limited powers and specifics defining fundamental rights the government was prohibited from infringing upon.
Three keys to the USA that don’t exist in the rest of the world and are the basis for our government are the Rule of Law, Presumption of Innocence, and Fundamental Rights. To talk about gun laws, arresting the mentally ill, and what we can do, we must first understand and define these principles.
Fundamental Rights
Fundamental rights are a group of rights that have been recognized by the Supreme Court as requiring a high degree of protection from government encroachment. These rights are specifically identified in the Constitution (especially in the Bill of Rights), or have been found under Due Process. Laws encroaching on a fundamental right generally must pass strict scrutiny to be upheld as constitutional.
The Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment are considered Fundamental Rights. These rights include:
The right to due process
The right to freedom of speech
The right to freedom of religion
The right to privacy
The right to marry
The right to interstate and intrastate travel
The right to equality
The right to assemble
And the right to keep and bear arms
Presumption of innocence
The presumption of innocence, sometimes referred to by the Latin expression Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies), is the principle that one is considered innocent unless proven guilty. One of the most sacred principles in the American criminal justice system, holding that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty. In other words, the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, each essential element of the crime charged.
Rule of Law
The rule of law is the legal principle that law should govern a nation, as opposed to being governed by arbitrary decisions of individual government officials. It primarily refers to the influence and authority of law within society, particularly as a constraint upon behavior, including behavior of government officials.
Because we all are endowed by our creator with Fundamental Rights, and we insist and restrict our government to follow the Rule of Law, and are all considered Innocent Until Proven Guilty; we are all in danger of mad or evil people committing gross acts of violence. Due Process given to all to protect their liberty, means that the government must prove, before a jury, where the accused can present witnesses and bring on experts, before any fundamental right can be restricted.
The USA is unique, We the People do not have to seek permission from the government to exercise our rights, rather the government must first prove individuals, through their actions, should have those rights restricted. Being reasonable some restrictions on the means of exercising our fundamental rights serve a compelling interest to We the People. Your fundamental right to travel, doesn’t obligate the government to supply you with the means of travel, nor does it grant you the right to operate a 2 ton rolling motorized carriage without demonstrating your ability to do so. The requirement for a driver’s license is not restriction is not on your right to travel, only on the means you choose to travel. It is reasonable to restrict operating a motor vehicle to those old enough to do so safely, and those who understand how to do it safely, and who have demonstrated the ability to do so.
We the People specifically included the Fundamental Right to keep and bear arms in the Bill Of Rights, not to allow pioneers to have a rifle to shoot deer, and protect themselves from brigands. Rather the government was purposefully restricted from infringing upon that right so that We the People had the tools to stand up against and overthrow our government should it become tyrannical. We’ve already allowed the government to restrict individuals far more than the purpose of the second amendment allows.
We have a choice. Be free and enjoy Liberty, or be secure. History has repeatedly shown that those who sacrifice liberty for security, end up with neither. Unfortunately there is evil in this world, and there will always be a few who will abuse their rights. The idea that we should give up due process, have to prove we are innocent to exercise a Fundamental Right; the idea that there should be laws for people in the government and different laws for mere citizens; the idea that we should sacrifice our Fundamental Rights for the security of the state, or for individual safety; should all make us cringe in horror.
Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death, doesn’t mean except for access to XXXXX because it might scare others or somebody thinks it dangerous. The freedom to access guns, drugs, fast cars, bicycling without a helmet, etc. comes with accepting the fact that Liberty is Dangerous. The alternative is to give up our Fundamental Rights for the appearance of security. As the mass shooting in France at the Bataclan theater clearly demonstrate, laws restricting fundamental rights don’t keep us safe from mad or evil men.
Those calling for “gun control” are fear mongers who want to be taken care of and don’t value their liberty, they believe that it is better to be safe and secure. They hate the idea that the average person should, without the approval of their betters, be allowed to own guns, choose to ride a bike without a helmet, smoke, eat red meat, own a big truck, sell lemonade from their front lawn before the big game, feed the poor in their neighborhood, scares them. They believe others should dictate how the masses should live. That is tyranny and evil. Statists, as exemplified by the Democrats, will use every evil act that occurs as an excuse to exercise more control and attack liberty. As for the Republicans, they will always sacrifice rights after whining, as they are cowards and won’t stand for anything, the past 50 years have proven they won’t conserve anything.
If you want to further restrict arms for the average citizen, there is an easy process. You can have the limits placed on government from infringing upon our right to keep and bear arms removed. Just pass an amendment. But know if you try, there are 100,000,000 gun owners who will fight you and that process. We prefer Dangerous Liberty Over Peaceful Slavery.
Monday, February 24, 2014
Media ignores Massive Civil Disobedience
by Tom Rhodes, 02/24/2014
It what may be the biggest act of civil disobedience since the Revolutionary War, somewhere around 100-300 thousand Connecticut Citizens are giving the middle finger to the State. Told they must register scary looking guns and standard sized magazines by Jan. 1, 2014 massive numbers of gun owners just ignored the law. Bigger and better than some protest, massive numbers of people simply said, “no.” In general the main stream media has ignored this.
The reason, it shows the government as weak and powerless against the people. Connecticut has a choice, it can arrest and imprison hundreds of thousands of citizens, or lose in court for unequal enforcement of the law if it tries to make “examples” of a few people. The idiot statist politicians assumed that because they would, and the people they know (fellow statists) would follow the law, that the good citizens of Connecticut wouldn’t dare ignore they dictates.
They were wrong. Seeing guns getting confiscated on a whim in New York and California. Not trusting the State to not change the rules, which history shows will happen. Looking at the now commonplace abuse by State law enforcement. The citizens of Connecticut justly told the state that it has no business tracking their guns any more than the state has a right to track our hands; our hammers; or our baseball bats. The right to life and the right to defend it are natural inalienable, owning the tools to do that are not any of the State’s business.
Connecticut cannot do anything about it either. The State doesn’t have the resources to hire the lawyers it would need to prosecute hundreds of thousands of people, much less jail them, especially if they simply refuse to pay the fines. Debtors prison is illegal. The ruling elite has ignored and flouted the Rule of Law, this has undermined the States authority to the point where the people can and will simply ignore it. Mike Lawlor, the state’s top official in criminal justice said, “A lot of it is just a question to ask, and I think the firearms unit would be looking at it. They could send them a letter.”
They Statists in government are now scared, they realize that they have a problem and don’t know what to do. Connecticut State Sen. Tony Guglielmo, R-Stafford, , the ranking GOP member of the legislature’s public safety committee, said, “I honestly thought from my own standpoint that the vast majority would register. If you pass laws that people have no respect for and they don’t follow them, then you have a real problem.”
The reality is, sending a letter to gun owners suspected of owning guns that the law required them to register or dispose of their weapons, will be as effective as the law to register them has been. We the People have quite simply nullified the law. The Hartford Courant Editorial Board suggests that Authorities should use the background check database as a way to find assault weapon purchasers who might not have registered those guns in compliance with the new law. That is exactly why gun groups have opposed background checks, the fears that the statists and anti-gun crowd said were baseless are true.
The main stream press covered Connecticut’s December gun registration drive. Now that the results show that massive civil disobedience, they are silent. The press is silent because it demonstrates to all lovers of liberty that the state can be defeated, without a shot, without the press, just by ignoring their laws. That is scary for the statists and the press. The reason you won’t see trials of citizens with un-registered weapons is that juries can and will refuse to convict. The people know that gun owners aren’t felons for refusing to make it easier for the state to confiscate their weapons. All that has to happen is 1 juror refuse to convict. Look at Philly now, they don’t even bother to take to trial most pot possession charges, they know the defendant even if proven guilty will not be convicted.
Connecticut has around 3.5 million people, and the state estimates that there are around 350,000 assault weapons only about 12% registered. That means that the chances of any member of a jury being an owner of an assault weapon are good, and would probably refuse to convict. You can’t enslave a free man who loves liberty, all you can do is kill them. Lots of Americans hold in their hearts, the sentiment, “Give me Liberty or give me Death.” What the state didn’t consider was that people in mass would not obediently comply. Their Hubris will be their undoing. We the People will only suffer their oppression to a point. We’ve reached that point as the good citizens of Connecticut have demonstrated. A few people ignoring a law can be written off as criminal kooks but a hundred thousand plus giving the government the finger is a clear message to the State. A message they don’t like and don’t want to accept.
Connecticut now has a massive number of people with assault weapons who have clearly said, “We will not comply!” What’s it going to do about hundreds of thousands of armed citizens refusing to obey? The last time a government tried to send in troops to confiscate weapons from Yankees in that part of the country didn’t fare so well for the troops or government. It resulted in a long drawn out guerrilla war where the people refused to play by the rules, and ultimately ending in the people being self-governing and not under the thumb of the ruling elite. They then gave the ruling elite of the world the finger, daring to start their new constitution with the words “We the People.” Then going so far as to restrict the State from infringing on the mere people’s right to keep and bear arms. Statists have been working for over 200 years to try and put the people back in their rightful place. They forget one very important fact, massive amounts of people in the USA would rather Live Free, or Die
Live Free, or Die not as eloquent as Thomas Paine’s famous Give me Liberty or Give me Death, but a reality for more people than the state would believe. Obama now famously refused to negotiate on the budget and won. We the People, even in “liberal” Connecticut, are equally as intransient concerning our guns. Our answer to laws of registration and confiscation is simple, ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ (Molôn Labé!)
It what may be the biggest act of civil disobedience since the Revolutionary War, somewhere around 100-300 thousand Connecticut Citizens are giving the middle finger to the State. Told they must register scary looking guns and standard sized magazines by Jan. 1, 2014 massive numbers of gun owners just ignored the law. Bigger and better than some protest, massive numbers of people simply said, “no.” In general the main stream media has ignored this.
The reason, it shows the government as weak and powerless against the people. Connecticut has a choice, it can arrest and imprison hundreds of thousands of citizens, or lose in court for unequal enforcement of the law if it tries to make “examples” of a few people. The idiot statist politicians assumed that because they would, and the people they know (fellow statists) would follow the law, that the good citizens of Connecticut wouldn’t dare ignore they dictates.
They were wrong. Seeing guns getting confiscated on a whim in New York and California. Not trusting the State to not change the rules, which history shows will happen. Looking at the now commonplace abuse by State law enforcement. The citizens of Connecticut justly told the state that it has no business tracking their guns any more than the state has a right to track our hands; our hammers; or our baseball bats. The right to life and the right to defend it are natural inalienable, owning the tools to do that are not any of the State’s business.
Connecticut cannot do anything about it either. The State doesn’t have the resources to hire the lawyers it would need to prosecute hundreds of thousands of people, much less jail them, especially if they simply refuse to pay the fines. Debtors prison is illegal. The ruling elite has ignored and flouted the Rule of Law, this has undermined the States authority to the point where the people can and will simply ignore it. Mike Lawlor, the state’s top official in criminal justice said, “A lot of it is just a question to ask, and I think the firearms unit would be looking at it. They could send them a letter.”
They Statists in government are now scared, they realize that they have a problem and don’t know what to do. Connecticut State Sen. Tony Guglielmo, R-Stafford, , the ranking GOP member of the legislature’s public safety committee, said, “I honestly thought from my own standpoint that the vast majority would register. If you pass laws that people have no respect for and they don’t follow them, then you have a real problem.”
The reality is, sending a letter to gun owners suspected of owning guns that the law required them to register or dispose of their weapons, will be as effective as the law to register them has been. We the People have quite simply nullified the law. The Hartford Courant Editorial Board suggests that Authorities should use the background check database as a way to find assault weapon purchasers who might not have registered those guns in compliance with the new law. That is exactly why gun groups have opposed background checks, the fears that the statists and anti-gun crowd said were baseless are true.
The main stream press covered Connecticut’s December gun registration drive. Now that the results show that massive civil disobedience, they are silent. The press is silent because it demonstrates to all lovers of liberty that the state can be defeated, without a shot, without the press, just by ignoring their laws. That is scary for the statists and the press. The reason you won’t see trials of citizens with un-registered weapons is that juries can and will refuse to convict. The people know that gun owners aren’t felons for refusing to make it easier for the state to confiscate their weapons. All that has to happen is 1 juror refuse to convict. Look at Philly now, they don’t even bother to take to trial most pot possession charges, they know the defendant even if proven guilty will not be convicted.
Connecticut has around 3.5 million people, and the state estimates that there are around 350,000 assault weapons only about 12% registered. That means that the chances of any member of a jury being an owner of an assault weapon are good, and would probably refuse to convict. You can’t enslave a free man who loves liberty, all you can do is kill them. Lots of Americans hold in their hearts, the sentiment, “Give me Liberty or give me Death.” What the state didn’t consider was that people in mass would not obediently comply. Their Hubris will be their undoing. We the People will only suffer their oppression to a point. We’ve reached that point as the good citizens of Connecticut have demonstrated. A few people ignoring a law can be written off as criminal kooks but a hundred thousand plus giving the government the finger is a clear message to the State. A message they don’t like and don’t want to accept.
Connecticut now has a massive number of people with assault weapons who have clearly said, “We will not comply!” What’s it going to do about hundreds of thousands of armed citizens refusing to obey? The last time a government tried to send in troops to confiscate weapons from Yankees in that part of the country didn’t fare so well for the troops or government. It resulted in a long drawn out guerrilla war where the people refused to play by the rules, and ultimately ending in the people being self-governing and not under the thumb of the ruling elite. They then gave the ruling elite of the world the finger, daring to start their new constitution with the words “We the People.” Then going so far as to restrict the State from infringing on the mere people’s right to keep and bear arms. Statists have been working for over 200 years to try and put the people back in their rightful place. They forget one very important fact, massive amounts of people in the USA would rather Live Free, or Die
Live Free, or Die not as eloquent as Thomas Paine’s famous Give me Liberty or Give me Death, but a reality for more people than the state would believe. Obama now famously refused to negotiate on the budget and won. We the People, even in “liberal” Connecticut, are equally as intransient concerning our guns. Our answer to laws of registration and confiscation is simple, ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ (Molôn Labé!)
Friday, October 25, 2013
Who's Responsible?
By Tom Rhodes, 10/24/2013
Some Libertarians were in uproar over recent news about a school that had the police come into the house and search every student's locker, screaming about abridging the student's civil liberties. There are several, clearly libertarian, reasons that this uproar is unjustified. One, the lockers are not the students property, they belong to the school, and as the owner of the lockers, the school has the right to set the rules to their use, including reserving the right to search/inspect them for prohibited items as the school sees fit. Second, based on legal liability and legal obligations the schools have concerning their charges, look up the term in loco parentis, just as a parent has the right to look in their kids dresser drawers and discipline them accordingly.
More importantly, students do not have all the legal rights and civil liberties of adults. Contrary to what some libertarians think, this is a good thing. We don't let 6 yr olds kids drive, we let 10 yr olds vote, and don't allow 12 yr olds to buy guns. Why? Because they don't have physical abilities, emotional abilities, mental abilities, or experience, to do everything an adult does. Not to say that they are incapable of many adult tasks, experience has shown that many a 6 year old can operate heavy equipment, just look at small family farms.
In times past we allowed any kid who wanted to go to the local hardware store and buy guns and ammo without restrictions. Today you must be an adult to exercise that right, the wisdom of this is clear, today with enough guns in private hands to arm every man, woman, and child, we have a fewer accidental gun deaths than in the past, and accidental gun deaths continues to drop. Restricting the decision and right to purchase arms to adults, who have all their civil rights and have reached an age where they can be held legally responsible for their actions, has proven to be a wise decision, and reasonable. Not the NRA, GOA, nor any reasonable adult thinks that 12 yr old boys shouldn't be allowed to buy guns and ammo. Those in the LP who think children should have all the rights of adults are idiots, ignore human history, and give the LP a bad name. Yes some 10 yr olds are mature enough to own guns, vote, etc. and some 40 yr olds are not mature enough to vote, or drive, and certainly shouldn't own a gun; but individual extremes don't justify either granting kids adult rights nor taking away rights from all adults.
On whole the maturity to assume the responsibility of many adult decisions does not exist in children. That is why parents have both legal and moral authority over their children. Parents as adults are responsible for both the provision and protection of children. But who's responsible for adults?
The anti-gun crowd today bases almost every argument they have against guns on the idea that the state is in loco parentis of every person regardless of age. Their arguments assume that nobody is an adult and that the state is responsible for everybody. Just as a parent can decide which of their kids is allowed to play what video games, or even if their child can own a video game, the anti-gun crowd wants the state to determine which of its children is allowed to own a gun and what types of guns that child can own. Liberal anti-gunners believe the state is every citizen's parent.
Working on the assumption of the state being in loco parentis to every person, they assume the state has (or should have) the legal authority to control what people do, just as parents have the legal authority to control their children. They disregard the fact that with in loco parentis comes not only the legal authority to control the actions and possessions of those you are charged but the legal obligation to protect those you are charged. This is a big problem. The courts have consistently and repeatedly ruled that "government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen."
"The duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists."
Those were the decisions of our courts in specific response to a suit against Washington DC police by three young women who had been raped and beaten during a home invasion. During their 14 hour nightmare of repeated rape and assault, two of the women had repeatedly called the D.C. police. They even saw a police car drive by their townhouse after their first call for help. They were told help was on its way in subsequent calls, but the police never showed up. In Warren v. District of Columbia, it was decided that the police have no legal obligation to protect individuals, emphatically saying that individuals not the government are responsible for their own individual safety.
This decision was made at the same time there was ban on firearms in the home for self-defense in Washington DC. Part of the reasoning of both the Heller and McDonald decisions is that individuals not the government are responsible for their own self defense. Thus the law of the land is that all adults have the legal right to arms to defend themselves. This is based on the fact that the only person responsible for any individuals self defense is that individual.
Any liberal anti-gun hoplophobic statist that infers that you have no need of a gun and that the police are there to protect you is either totally ignorant and uninformed or purposefully lying to you. If you depend upon law enforcement to protect you, then you are a self deluded fool. No you don't "have" to own a gun, you can choose not to go where there are high levels of violent crime, choose to live in a safe neighborhood, and choose to take other security precautions. In fact those simple precautions will probably mean that in your entire life you'll never actually need a weapon to protect yourself.
If even one of the women in the Warren v. District of Columbia had been armed, they might not have had to endure 14 hours of rape and assault, and we may not have had the courts remind us that the government is not responsible for our safety. Take the liberal hoplophobe advice and pee your pants when confronted by a rapist; but according to the results of an Obama directed research by the CDC, "Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was 'used' by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies."
What does this mean and how does it answer the question, "Who's Responsible?" Simple, the government is not in loco parentis of every person, thus you and nobody else has the Duty to Protect you and your family; the government has no legal or moral Duty to Protect, and in assuming the responsibility of being an adult, responsible for your own security and safety, it is important that you know that nothing is more effective for you and your families protection than being armed.
Obama's CDC research confirms the wisdom of our fore fathers, NOTHING, has been found to consistently lower injury rates among crime victims than the victim being armed and using such arms in self defense. The Second Amendment is Pro-Choice, your choice to be armed or not, the government shall not infringe upon your choice. If you remember the old 70's TV Series Kung Fu, then you'll take Po's advice "choose wisely grasshopper."
Some Libertarians were in uproar over recent news about a school that had the police come into the house and search every student's locker, screaming about abridging the student's civil liberties. There are several, clearly libertarian, reasons that this uproar is unjustified. One, the lockers are not the students property, they belong to the school, and as the owner of the lockers, the school has the right to set the rules to their use, including reserving the right to search/inspect them for prohibited items as the school sees fit. Second, based on legal liability and legal obligations the schools have concerning their charges, look up the term in loco parentis, just as a parent has the right to look in their kids dresser drawers and discipline them accordingly.
More importantly, students do not have all the legal rights and civil liberties of adults. Contrary to what some libertarians think, this is a good thing. We don't let 6 yr olds kids drive, we let 10 yr olds vote, and don't allow 12 yr olds to buy guns. Why? Because they don't have physical abilities, emotional abilities, mental abilities, or experience, to do everything an adult does. Not to say that they are incapable of many adult tasks, experience has shown that many a 6 year old can operate heavy equipment, just look at small family farms.
In times past we allowed any kid who wanted to go to the local hardware store and buy guns and ammo without restrictions. Today you must be an adult to exercise that right, the wisdom of this is clear, today with enough guns in private hands to arm every man, woman, and child, we have a fewer accidental gun deaths than in the past, and accidental gun deaths continues to drop. Restricting the decision and right to purchase arms to adults, who have all their civil rights and have reached an age where they can be held legally responsible for their actions, has proven to be a wise decision, and reasonable. Not the NRA, GOA, nor any reasonable adult thinks that 12 yr old boys shouldn't be allowed to buy guns and ammo. Those in the LP who think children should have all the rights of adults are idiots, ignore human history, and give the LP a bad name. Yes some 10 yr olds are mature enough to own guns, vote, etc. and some 40 yr olds are not mature enough to vote, or drive, and certainly shouldn't own a gun; but individual extremes don't justify either granting kids adult rights nor taking away rights from all adults.
On whole the maturity to assume the responsibility of many adult decisions does not exist in children. That is why parents have both legal and moral authority over their children. Parents as adults are responsible for both the provision and protection of children. But who's responsible for adults?
The anti-gun crowd today bases almost every argument they have against guns on the idea that the state is in loco parentis of every person regardless of age. Their arguments assume that nobody is an adult and that the state is responsible for everybody. Just as a parent can decide which of their kids is allowed to play what video games, or even if their child can own a video game, the anti-gun crowd wants the state to determine which of its children is allowed to own a gun and what types of guns that child can own. Liberal anti-gunners believe the state is every citizen's parent.
Working on the assumption of the state being in loco parentis to every person, they assume the state has (or should have) the legal authority to control what people do, just as parents have the legal authority to control their children. They disregard the fact that with in loco parentis comes not only the legal authority to control the actions and possessions of those you are charged but the legal obligation to protect those you are charged. This is a big problem. The courts have consistently and repeatedly ruled that "government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen."
"The duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists."
Those were the decisions of our courts in specific response to a suit against Washington DC police by three young women who had been raped and beaten during a home invasion. During their 14 hour nightmare of repeated rape and assault, two of the women had repeatedly called the D.C. police. They even saw a police car drive by their townhouse after their first call for help. They were told help was on its way in subsequent calls, but the police never showed up. In Warren v. District of Columbia, it was decided that the police have no legal obligation to protect individuals, emphatically saying that individuals not the government are responsible for their own individual safety.
This decision was made at the same time there was ban on firearms in the home for self-defense in Washington DC. Part of the reasoning of both the Heller and McDonald decisions is that individuals not the government are responsible for their own self defense. Thus the law of the land is that all adults have the legal right to arms to defend themselves. This is based on the fact that the only person responsible for any individuals self defense is that individual.
Any liberal anti-gun hoplophobic statist that infers that you have no need of a gun and that the police are there to protect you is either totally ignorant and uninformed or purposefully lying to you. If you depend upon law enforcement to protect you, then you are a self deluded fool. No you don't "have" to own a gun, you can choose not to go where there are high levels of violent crime, choose to live in a safe neighborhood, and choose to take other security precautions. In fact those simple precautions will probably mean that in your entire life you'll never actually need a weapon to protect yourself.
If even one of the women in the Warren v. District of Columbia had been armed, they might not have had to endure 14 hours of rape and assault, and we may not have had the courts remind us that the government is not responsible for our safety. Take the liberal hoplophobe advice and pee your pants when confronted by a rapist; but according to the results of an Obama directed research by the CDC, "Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was 'used' by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies."
What does this mean and how does it answer the question, "Who's Responsible?" Simple, the government is not in loco parentis of every person, thus you and nobody else has the Duty to Protect you and your family; the government has no legal or moral Duty to Protect, and in assuming the responsibility of being an adult, responsible for your own security and safety, it is important that you know that nothing is more effective for you and your families protection than being armed.
Obama's CDC research confirms the wisdom of our fore fathers, NOTHING, has been found to consistently lower injury rates among crime victims than the victim being armed and using such arms in self defense. The Second Amendment is Pro-Choice, your choice to be armed or not, the government shall not infringe upon your choice. If you remember the old 70's TV Series Kung Fu, then you'll take Po's advice "choose wisely grasshopper."
Saturday, October 5, 2013
CDC Reported the Truth about Guns
By Tom Rhodes, 10/5/2013
Obama ordered the CDC to do research on gun violence in America. What the CDC’s first major gun research in 17 years reveal, is not what Obama and anti-gun advocates expected. Considering the CDC’s was restricted by law from doing gun research because it got caught doctoring and doing poor studies with an agenda instead of reporting actual facts, you’d be surprised by the extent with which the new research refutes some of the anti-gun movement’s deepest convictions. The truth about guns doesn’t support most anti-gun claims.
The truth which hopolophobes even when faced with the clear evidence refuse to accept can be found in the findings from the CDC report, “Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence,” released in June 2013:
1. Armed citizens are less likely to be injured by an attacker:
“Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”
2. Defensive uses of guns are common:
“Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year…in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”
3. Mass shootings and accidental firearm deaths account for a small fraction of gun-related deaths, and both are declining:
“The number of public mass shootings of the type that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School accounted for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths. Since 1983 there have been 78 events in which 4 or more individuals were killed by a single perpetrator in 1 day in the United States, resulting in 547 victims and 476 injured persons.” The report also notes, “Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century. The number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents accounted for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.”
4. Gun buyback/turn-in programs are “ineffective” in reducing crime:
“There is empirical evidence that gun turn in programs are ineffective, as noted in the 2005 NRC study Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. For example, in 2009, an estimated 310 million guns were available to civilians in the United States (Krouse, 2012), but gun buy-back programs typically recover less than 1,000 guns (NRC, 2005). On the local level, buy-backs may increase awareness of firearm violence. However, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for example, guns recovered in the buy-back were not the same guns as those most often used in homicides and suicides (Kuhn et al., 2002).”
5. Stolen guns and retail/gun show purchases account for very little crime:
“More recent prisoner surveys suggest that stolen guns account for only a small percentage of guns used by convicted criminals. … According to a 1997 survey of inmates, approximately 70 percent of the guns used or possess by criminals at the time of their arrest came from family or friends, drug dealers, street purchases, or the underground market.”
6. The vast majority of gun-related deaths are not homicides, but suicides:
“Between the years 2000-2010 firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearms related violence in the United States.”
As reported by the CDC in the report created in response to Obama’s executive order, the truth, as a hole, is a hammer blow to Obama’s anti-gun agenda. The CDC report supports the wisdom of the second amendment and clearly contradicts common anti-gun arguments.
Let’s repeat the most telling conclusion:
The actual use of guns in self defensive consistently lowers the injury rate of crime victims compared to other self-protective strategies.
To every parent out there, the message from the CDC is clear, if you want your college aged daughter to be safe and survive without injury if the victim of some crime, get her a gun, get her a permit to carry it, and teach her to use it. NOTHING! not martial arts, not pepper spray, not peeing her pants, not screaming, not even running, according to our federal government, NOTHING consistently as effective in improving her chances of getting through a crime than using a GUN in self defense.
What did we hear from the main stream press, or Obama -- crickets chirping --
Obama ordered the CDC to do research on gun violence in America. What the CDC’s first major gun research in 17 years reveal, is not what Obama and anti-gun advocates expected. Considering the CDC’s was restricted by law from doing gun research because it got caught doctoring and doing poor studies with an agenda instead of reporting actual facts, you’d be surprised by the extent with which the new research refutes some of the anti-gun movement’s deepest convictions. The truth about guns doesn’t support most anti-gun claims.
The truth which hopolophobes even when faced with the clear evidence refuse to accept can be found in the findings from the CDC report, “Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence,” released in June 2013:
1. Armed citizens are less likely to be injured by an attacker:
“Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”
2. Defensive uses of guns are common:
“Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year…in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”
3. Mass shootings and accidental firearm deaths account for a small fraction of gun-related deaths, and both are declining:
“The number of public mass shootings of the type that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School accounted for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths. Since 1983 there have been 78 events in which 4 or more individuals were killed by a single perpetrator in 1 day in the United States, resulting in 547 victims and 476 injured persons.” The report also notes, “Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century. The number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents accounted for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.”
4. Gun buyback/turn-in programs are “ineffective” in reducing crime:
“There is empirical evidence that gun turn in programs are ineffective, as noted in the 2005 NRC study Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. For example, in 2009, an estimated 310 million guns were available to civilians in the United States (Krouse, 2012), but gun buy-back programs typically recover less than 1,000 guns (NRC, 2005). On the local level, buy-backs may increase awareness of firearm violence. However, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for example, guns recovered in the buy-back were not the same guns as those most often used in homicides and suicides (Kuhn et al., 2002).”
5. Stolen guns and retail/gun show purchases account for very little crime:
“More recent prisoner surveys suggest that stolen guns account for only a small percentage of guns used by convicted criminals. … According to a 1997 survey of inmates, approximately 70 percent of the guns used or possess by criminals at the time of their arrest came from family or friends, drug dealers, street purchases, or the underground market.”
6. The vast majority of gun-related deaths are not homicides, but suicides:
“Between the years 2000-2010 firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearms related violence in the United States.”
As reported by the CDC in the report created in response to Obama’s executive order, the truth, as a hole, is a hammer blow to Obama’s anti-gun agenda. The CDC report supports the wisdom of the second amendment and clearly contradicts common anti-gun arguments.
Let’s repeat the most telling conclusion:
The actual use of guns in self defensive consistently lowers the injury rate of crime victims compared to other self-protective strategies.
To every parent out there, the message from the CDC is clear, if you want your college aged daughter to be safe and survive without injury if the victim of some crime, get her a gun, get her a permit to carry it, and teach her to use it. NOTHING! not martial arts, not pepper spray, not peeing her pants, not screaming, not even running, according to our federal government, NOTHING consistently as effective in improving her chances of getting through a crime than using a GUN in self defense.
What did we hear from the main stream press, or Obama -- crickets chirping --
Wednesday, October 2, 2013
Root Cause Analysis
Root Cause Analysis
By Tom Rhodes, 10/2/2013
You've probably heard of Root Cause Analysis (RCA), in its most simple terms it is an attempt to use the scientific method to find the truth about the cause of some problem. RCA is an attempt to find objective truth, regardless of the emotional and consequential reactions. Business use RCA to improve safety, production, quality, processes, and to reduce failures and risk. Applying systematic RCA has proven to be an effective tool. What Liberals won't allow is to perform an RCA on guns, violence and crime. They say gun violence is a problem and eliminating guns and more government is the solution but refuse to do Root Cause Analysis.
Wikipedia has a decent description of the general principles of Root Cause Analysis:
The one thing effective RCA isn't is Politically Correct. I've been part of industrial and other RCA teams. The reality is, on a few occasions, management accepted the validity of an RCA but refused to publish or act on the results because of point 8, the cultural change required to correct the root cause was unacceptable to management. That is the same reason RCA on gun violence in the USA is not something the statist controlled media nor liberals will tolerate.
But to piss off statists and liberals let's do a little preliminary work for an RCA on gun violence in America. Their responses will be an exercise in proving that they work on emotion and desire not reason and facts. Working with the above RCA general principles let's start with the definition of the problem. Obama and the liberals in the press claim an epidemic of gun violence and that the cause is the easy availability of guns to the general public.
1st failure in an RCA, the problem is falsely identified, at least according to the FBI.
Gun violence is a problem but that problem is location specific, and defining the location where the problem occurs is one of the primary aims of doing an RCA. Here is one non-PC fact that if ignored makes RCA of violent crime in America much less than accurate: If you exclude black on black violence in our biggest cities, the actual rate of violent crime in the USA is very low, comparable to the least violent nations in the world.
History also crushes the premise that gun availability is a cause of gun violence. In the USA restrictions on gun ownership is relatively new. Advertisements were directed to children and parents in Catalogs and magazines until the 70's. The 1902 Sears catalog had over 30 pages of firearm advertisements. Anybody could simply send in their money and a firearm, including machine guns, and a firearm was shipped to their door, no government tracking, paperwork, no background check, not even age restrictions. Any 12 year old boy could walk into the local hardware store in virtually anywhere and buy a gun and ammo. Schools had and promoted gun clubs and shooting teams. The frequency of gun violence was less than the peek we saw in 1991 (when bad gun laws started to be removed and gun rights started to be restored to the people), and was less than we see today with far more restrictive gun laws. Clearly availability is not a root cause. A gun is a tool it has no behavior, gun violence and crime are behavior, so the RCA of gun violence needs to look at behaviors not inanimate objects. Good gun laws have made modern guns safer, fewer accidental injuries and deaths bear this out, and contrary to what liberals would have you believe, guns are not exempt from product liability laws, and like other products are routinely recalled for the most minor of flaws.
As Dr. Walter Williams notes, "Customs, traditions, moral values and rules of etiquette, not just laws and government regulations, are what make for a civilized society, not restraints on inanimate objects. These behavioral norms -- transmitted by example, word of mouth and religious teachings -- represent a body of wisdom distilled through ages of experience, trial and error, and looking at what works. The benefit of having customs, traditions and moral values as a means of regulating behavior is that people behave themselves even if nobody's watching. In other words, it's morality that is society's first line of defense against uncivilized behavior."
Evidence that it our culture not tools have resulted in lawlessness can be seen in the actions of parents to NFL star Brian Holloway. Over labor day 300 teens broke into his upstate NY summer home, held a kegger and did $20K of damage to his private property, these people proceded to post on FB images of themselves and their friends partying and trashing the place and stealing his stuff. Holloway created a web page posting the pictures and names of the vandals offering them an opportunity to make things right without being arrested. Only four of 300 responded. Culture not the tools used to commit crime is the culprit. The fact that not only did the thieving vandals not show any remorse, but some of their parents have gone so far as to threatened to sue Holloway for posting their teen's photos from the party, even though it was the teens who made the images public.
Not teaching our children that trashing, stealing, and abusing other people's private property is morally wrong is one of multiple root causes to crime and violence in the USA. Teaching our children not to judgmental, that one lifestyle or value is just as good as another, results is lower and lower moral standards for society. Being non-judgemental results in accepting the a value set that includes "might makes right" as equal to any other value set. Laws and police enforcement are the last stand of civilization not the first, if our culture accepts violence and disregards property rights, more and more police intervention will be required. How can we teach our children that Islam is as valid a culture as any modern western culture, and wonder at them beating women, committing honor killings, and thinking those who don't think like them are second class citizens, all values of Islam.
The mindless cures for gun violence offered by statists and liberals don't work. Idiocy "zero tolerance" for playing cops and robbers during recess, doodling guns, eating your pop tart into a gun shape, imaginary grenades, is unadulterated insanity. It attempts to put the focus on an inanimate object, instead of addressing morality, character, respect, virtue, and mental illness. No systematic rational examination of the evidence could ever produce an RCA on violence in America and conclude that the problem and solution is to restrict access to firearms.
They won't even consider other solutions, like laws requiring the head of every household to be armed. That solution reduced crime in Kennesaw Georgia by 80%. Discounting solutions, especially solutions that have proven to work is a clear violation of basic RCA principles. Statists and liberals dismiss and ignore any data regardless of how honest and truthful that doesn't support their emotionally driven goals. The most recent Harvard Study concluded from looking at all the research available that more gun laws don't have a beneficial effect on behavior. Even anti-gun scientists who are honest agree with the research that shows more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens result in less crime and suffering for those law abiding citizens. The data is clear, our own government has found that nothing reduces the chances of being killed or injured if the victim of a violent crime better than being armed with a gun. All these results are counter the politically correct wants, desires, and emotions of the state and liberal media; hence an accurate RCA on guns, violence, and crime is not permitted.
We will never have a true comprehensive RCA on guns, violence, or crime in America because the root causes that would be exposed won't support more power to the state and will offer stark conclusions about the culture and specific subcultures in America that are too politically incorrect to be talked about honestly. Such an RCA would be a threat to statism and modern liberal ideology.
Author's Note: I don't expect this op-ed will have much effect, especially on liberals, it is dialectic not rhetorical. Because self esteem and how you feel about something has become more important than objective truth, measurable facts, and honest debate. Replies from liberals to this article with be a litany of logical fallacies and could be used as examples in the Illustrated Book of Bad Arguments. Not to discount the emotions of people, they are valid and have value, but when emotions override objective observable truth, then the conclusions reached using emotions rather than reason can and should be discounted as irrelevant. Emotions can and should be used to derive the importance and significance of factual evidence, and evaluate how effective possible solutions may be, but not to discount or ignore evidence that doesn't agree emotional desires for a specific outcome.
By Tom Rhodes, 10/2/2013
You've probably heard of Root Cause Analysis (RCA), in its most simple terms it is an attempt to use the scientific method to find the truth about the cause of some problem. RCA is an attempt to find objective truth, regardless of the emotional and consequential reactions. Business use RCA to improve safety, production, quality, processes, and to reduce failures and risk. Applying systematic RCA has proven to be an effective tool. What Liberals won't allow is to perform an RCA on guns, violence and crime. They say gun violence is a problem and eliminating guns and more government is the solution but refuse to do Root Cause Analysis.
Wikipedia has a decent description of the general principles of Root Cause Analysis:
1) The primary aim of RCA is to identify the factors that resulted in the nature, the magnitude, the location, and the timing of the harmful outcomes (consequences) of one or more past events in order to identify what behaviors, actions, inactions, or conditions need to be changed to prevent recurrence of similar harmful outcomes and to identify the lessons to be learned to promote the achievement of better consequences. ("Success" is defined as the near-certain prevention of recurrence.)
2) To be effective, RCA must be performed systematically, usually as part of an investigation, with conclusions and root causes that are identified backed up by documented evidence. Usually a team effort is required.
3) There may be more than one root cause for an event or a problem, the difficult part is demonstrating the persistence and sustaining the effort required to determine them.
4) The purpose of identifying all solutions to a problem is to prevent recurrence at lowest cost in the simplest way. If there are alternatives that are equally effective, then the simplest or lowest cost approach is preferred.
5) Root causes identified depend on the way in which the problem or event is defined. Effective problem statements and event descriptions (as failures, for example) are helpful, or even required.
6) To be effective, the analysis should establish a sequence of events or timeline to understand the relationships between contributory (causal) factors, root cause(s) and the defined problem or event to prevent in the future.
7) Root cause analysis can help transform a reactive culture (that reacts to problems) into a forward-looking culture that solves problems before they occur or escalate. More importantly, it reduces the frequency of problems occurring over time within the environment where the RCA process is used.
8) RCA is a threat to many cultures and environments. Threats to cultures often meet with resistance. There may be other forms of management support required to achieve RCA effectiveness and success. For example, a "non-punitive" policy toward problem identifiers may be required.
The one thing effective RCA isn't is Politically Correct. I've been part of industrial and other RCA teams. The reality is, on a few occasions, management accepted the validity of an RCA but refused to publish or act on the results because of point 8, the cultural change required to correct the root cause was unacceptable to management. That is the same reason RCA on gun violence in the USA is not something the statist controlled media nor liberals will tolerate.
But to piss off statists and liberals let's do a little preliminary work for an RCA on gun violence in America. Their responses will be an exercise in proving that they work on emotion and desire not reason and facts. Working with the above RCA general principles let's start with the definition of the problem. Obama and the liberals in the press claim an epidemic of gun violence and that the cause is the easy availability of guns to the general public.
1st failure in an RCA, the problem is falsely identified, at least according to the FBI.
Gun violence is a problem but that problem is location specific, and defining the location where the problem occurs is one of the primary aims of doing an RCA. Here is one non-PC fact that if ignored makes RCA of violent crime in America much less than accurate: If you exclude black on black violence in our biggest cities, the actual rate of violent crime in the USA is very low, comparable to the least violent nations in the world.
History also crushes the premise that gun availability is a cause of gun violence. In the USA restrictions on gun ownership is relatively new. Advertisements were directed to children and parents in Catalogs and magazines until the 70's. The 1902 Sears catalog had over 30 pages of firearm advertisements. Anybody could simply send in their money and a firearm, including machine guns, and a firearm was shipped to their door, no government tracking, paperwork, no background check, not even age restrictions. Any 12 year old boy could walk into the local hardware store in virtually anywhere and buy a gun and ammo. Schools had and promoted gun clubs and shooting teams. The frequency of gun violence was less than the peek we saw in 1991 (when bad gun laws started to be removed and gun rights started to be restored to the people), and was less than we see today with far more restrictive gun laws. Clearly availability is not a root cause. A gun is a tool it has no behavior, gun violence and crime are behavior, so the RCA of gun violence needs to look at behaviors not inanimate objects. Good gun laws have made modern guns safer, fewer accidental injuries and deaths bear this out, and contrary to what liberals would have you believe, guns are not exempt from product liability laws, and like other products are routinely recalled for the most minor of flaws.
As Dr. Walter Williams notes, "Customs, traditions, moral values and rules of etiquette, not just laws and government regulations, are what make for a civilized society, not restraints on inanimate objects. These behavioral norms -- transmitted by example, word of mouth and religious teachings -- represent a body of wisdom distilled through ages of experience, trial and error, and looking at what works. The benefit of having customs, traditions and moral values as a means of regulating behavior is that people behave themselves even if nobody's watching. In other words, it's morality that is society's first line of defense against uncivilized behavior."
Evidence that it our culture not tools have resulted in lawlessness can be seen in the actions of parents to NFL star Brian Holloway. Over labor day 300 teens broke into his upstate NY summer home, held a kegger and did $20K of damage to his private property, these people proceded to post on FB images of themselves and their friends partying and trashing the place and stealing his stuff. Holloway created a web page posting the pictures and names of the vandals offering them an opportunity to make things right without being arrested. Only four of 300 responded. Culture not the tools used to commit crime is the culprit. The fact that not only did the thieving vandals not show any remorse, but some of their parents have gone so far as to threatened to sue Holloway for posting their teen's photos from the party, even though it was the teens who made the images public.
Not teaching our children that trashing, stealing, and abusing other people's private property is morally wrong is one of multiple root causes to crime and violence in the USA. Teaching our children not to judgmental, that one lifestyle or value is just as good as another, results is lower and lower moral standards for society. Being non-judgemental results in accepting the a value set that includes "might makes right" as equal to any other value set. Laws and police enforcement are the last stand of civilization not the first, if our culture accepts violence and disregards property rights, more and more police intervention will be required. How can we teach our children that Islam is as valid a culture as any modern western culture, and wonder at them beating women, committing honor killings, and thinking those who don't think like them are second class citizens, all values of Islam.
The mindless cures for gun violence offered by statists and liberals don't work. Idiocy "zero tolerance" for playing cops and robbers during recess, doodling guns, eating your pop tart into a gun shape, imaginary grenades, is unadulterated insanity. It attempts to put the focus on an inanimate object, instead of addressing morality, character, respect, virtue, and mental illness. No systematic rational examination of the evidence could ever produce an RCA on violence in America and conclude that the problem and solution is to restrict access to firearms.
They won't even consider other solutions, like laws requiring the head of every household to be armed. That solution reduced crime in Kennesaw Georgia by 80%. Discounting solutions, especially solutions that have proven to work is a clear violation of basic RCA principles. Statists and liberals dismiss and ignore any data regardless of how honest and truthful that doesn't support their emotionally driven goals. The most recent Harvard Study concluded from looking at all the research available that more gun laws don't have a beneficial effect on behavior. Even anti-gun scientists who are honest agree with the research that shows more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens result in less crime and suffering for those law abiding citizens. The data is clear, our own government has found that nothing reduces the chances of being killed or injured if the victim of a violent crime better than being armed with a gun. All these results are counter the politically correct wants, desires, and emotions of the state and liberal media; hence an accurate RCA on guns, violence, and crime is not permitted.
We will never have a true comprehensive RCA on guns, violence, or crime in America because the root causes that would be exposed won't support more power to the state and will offer stark conclusions about the culture and specific subcultures in America that are too politically incorrect to be talked about honestly. Such an RCA would be a threat to statism and modern liberal ideology.
Author's Note: I don't expect this op-ed will have much effect, especially on liberals, it is dialectic not rhetorical. Because self esteem and how you feel about something has become more important than objective truth, measurable facts, and honest debate. Replies from liberals to this article with be a litany of logical fallacies and could be used as examples in the Illustrated Book of Bad Arguments. Not to discount the emotions of people, they are valid and have value, but when emotions override objective observable truth, then the conclusions reached using emotions rather than reason can and should be discounted as irrelevant. Emotions can and should be used to derive the importance and significance of factual evidence, and evaluate how effective possible solutions may be, but not to discount or ignore evidence that doesn't agree emotional desires for a specific outcome.
Sunday, September 29, 2013
Public Schools are Cruel and Unusual.
By Tom Rhodes, 9/29/2013
Let’s start with the first example, Schools claim students have no civil rights and that even their actions on private property, not during school hours, are under the schools jurisdiction. Fox News Reports the following: .
Government schools say your child can be expelled for playing with toy guns in their own yard. “The school’s so-called “zero-tolerance” policy on guns extends to private property, according to the report.”
One of the suspended (soon to be expelled) boys’ mother said, “My son is my private property. He does not become the school’s property until he goes to the bus stop, gets on the bus, and goes to school,”
Don’t confuse the fact that the boys, are not totally innocent, they are guilty of acting like boys. Some say they may have shot at some kids who weren’t part of their play. That’s something that should be punished, but not without due process, or by the school which clearly has no jurisdiction on the boy’s parents private property.
Don’t thik this is a isolated incident, Public schools now have a pattern of trying to dismiss students civil rights, especially recognition of the second amendment. Don’t take my word for it Google these absurd actions over the past couple years.
Bureaucrats suspended a little boy for taking bites out of a pop tart in such a way that it was shaped like a gun.
Bureaucrats suspended a 7-year boy for pretending to throw a non-existent grenade on the playground.
Bureaucrats suspended a 6-year old boy in Maryland for making a gun shape with his finger.
Bureaucrats busted a 5-year old girl in Pennsylvania for having a pink plastic gun that shoots bubbles.
A teacher in Rhode Island caught an 8-year old boy with some plastic toy army men.
Bureaucrats evacuated a school because an 11-year old boy made a motion detector for his science experiment.
Bureaucrats in Florida kicked an 8-year old boy out of school for a year because he had a plastic gun in his backpack.
In Virginia, not only did bureaucrats suspend a 10-year old boy for a toy gun, called the cops and had the kid arrested.
A third-grader got in trouble for having toy army men on his birthday cupcakes.
Two second-graders got suspended for holding pencils like they were guns.
Bureaucrats suspended a kindergartener for having a lego-sized toy gun.
Bureaucrats wanted a deaf child to change his sign-language name because it required him to shape his fingers in a way that resembled a gun.
Clearly the schools are making a concerted effort to indoctrinate through excessive punishment the children of America to undermine our Second Amendment. Many of these punishments are clearly disproportionate, to the point of being cruel and unusual.
Let’s start with the first example, Schools claim students have no civil rights and that even their actions on private property, not during school hours, are under the schools jurisdiction. Fox News Reports the following: .
Natural Born Killers
Two seventh-grade students in Virginia Beach, Va., were handed long-term suspensions Tuesday that will last until the end of the school year for playing with an airsoft gun in one of their front yards while waiting for the school bus. WAVY-TV reports that 13-year-old Khalid Caraballo and Aidan Clark will face an additional hearing in January to determine if they will be expelled for “possession, handling and use of a firearm” because the guns were fired at two others playing in Caraballo’s yard. …Khalid claims he never took the toy gun to the designated bus stop or Larkspur Middle School, according to the report. Two other students who fired guns were also suspended.
Government schools say your child can be expelled for playing with toy guns in their own yard. “The school’s so-called “zero-tolerance” policy on guns extends to private property, according to the report.”
One of the suspended (soon to be expelled) boys’ mother said, “My son is my private property. He does not become the school’s property until he goes to the bus stop, gets on the bus, and goes to school,”
Don’t confuse the fact that the boys, are not totally innocent, they are guilty of acting like boys. Some say they may have shot at some kids who weren’t part of their play. That’s something that should be punished, but not without due process, or by the school which clearly has no jurisdiction on the boy’s parents private property.
Don’t thik this is a isolated incident, Public schools now have a pattern of trying to dismiss students civil rights, especially recognition of the second amendment. Don’t take my word for it Google these absurd actions over the past couple years.
Clearly the schools are making a concerted effort to indoctrinate through excessive punishment the children of America to undermine our Second Amendment. Many of these punishments are clearly disproportionate, to the point of being cruel and unusual.
Wednesday, September 11, 2013
Fitting News for 9/11
By Tom Rhodes 9/11/2013
Twelve years ago today thousands of Americans were killed by Islamists, it was just the excuse our government needed to stomp out the Bill of Rights. No it wasn't a false flag conspiracy by the some secret society of ruling elite to prime the people of the USA to allow massive restrictions on their liberty. But it provided an excuse for the Patriot Act which resulted in the blatant abuse of our rights as described in the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, and even Third Amendments to our constitution. All these rights restrict the federal government; none of them grant the government the authority to ignore them in case of Terrorism or other compelling government interest.
But today we wake up to the fact that in the USA it is still true that the ruling elite govern at the consent of the people. In Colorado two of the ruling elite were clearly told, "You Don't Have Our Consent," and fired. The issue was fundamental, State Sen. John Morse and Sen. Angela Giron, rejected the will of the citizens of Colorado and pushed through anti-Second Amendment laws in Colorado that the people Colorado made clear they didn't want. For that they were fired. We The People have sent a loud and clear message. ENOUGH!! We do not consent!
Since 9/11 the people of the united states have been on a spending spree, we have been arming ourselves. 9/11 made things clear, the world is dangerous and our government cannot protect us all the time in every instance. We see what massive immigration has and is doing to Europe. We see governments either unable or inept to protect average citizens from the effects of allowing massive numbers of people to immigrate from third world nations. We have and are taking responsibility for our own security and arming ourselves. The result is that outside of our most violent inner cities with severe restrictions on gun ownership, violent crime in the USA has diminished. The truth be told we are finding that Heinlein was right and in actuality "An armed society is a polite society."
The actions of our government have also made one other thing perfectly clear. Our government fears We the People, more than it does radical Muslim terrorists. For the very reasons our military chooses to use the AR platform, We the People have purchased AR's in prodigious volumes. Millions of private citizens own an AR type rifle for a huge number of reasons; the AR15 and its variants are today's Musket. Although so few have been used in any type of crime that they are statistically insignificant, this is the type of weapon the ruling elite want restricted. Why??? Look at the damage caused and resources it took government forces in California to stop one man armed with an AR who targeted the police. They had SWAT teams with military grade weapons and tactics, they had helicopters, and they had numbers. Still it took days and disproportionate casualties to stop one determined man. Consider how many people own AR's, if a small number of them, shall we say 3%, chose to take up arms against law enforcement; it could and would cripple the nations law enforcement agencies. The ruling elite want more restrictive gun control because they fear the people; as well they should and with good reason.
Today on 9/11 we heard the news and so did the ruling elite. We the People will not be disarmed. It's not a Democrat/Republican thing. In Sen. Angela Giron's district, Pueblo Colorado, 43% of the registered voters are Democrats and only 23% Republicans, yet 57% voted to recall her. A massive amounts of money from outside Colorado was spent, the overwhelming majority of that money was spent to stop and fight the recall of Morse and Giron. The results of the recall scare the crap out of the Ruling Elite.
The news on this 12 anniversary of 9/11 gives us hope that the ideas which formed this nation still exist and stand strong. As Thomas Jefferson said, "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." The news today is a clear message that the We the People will not tolerate tyranny.
Twelve years ago today thousands of Americans were killed by Islamists, it was just the excuse our government needed to stomp out the Bill of Rights. No it wasn't a false flag conspiracy by the some secret society of ruling elite to prime the people of the USA to allow massive restrictions on their liberty. But it provided an excuse for the Patriot Act which resulted in the blatant abuse of our rights as described in the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, and even Third Amendments to our constitution. All these rights restrict the federal government; none of them grant the government the authority to ignore them in case of Terrorism or other compelling government interest.
But today we wake up to the fact that in the USA it is still true that the ruling elite govern at the consent of the people. In Colorado two of the ruling elite were clearly told, "You Don't Have Our Consent," and fired. The issue was fundamental, State Sen. John Morse and Sen. Angela Giron, rejected the will of the citizens of Colorado and pushed through anti-Second Amendment laws in Colorado that the people Colorado made clear they didn't want. For that they were fired. We The People have sent a loud and clear message. ENOUGH!! We do not consent!
Since 9/11 the people of the united states have been on a spending spree, we have been arming ourselves. 9/11 made things clear, the world is dangerous and our government cannot protect us all the time in every instance. We see what massive immigration has and is doing to Europe. We see governments either unable or inept to protect average citizens from the effects of allowing massive numbers of people to immigrate from third world nations. We have and are taking responsibility for our own security and arming ourselves. The result is that outside of our most violent inner cities with severe restrictions on gun ownership, violent crime in the USA has diminished. The truth be told we are finding that Heinlein was right and in actuality "An armed society is a polite society."
The actions of our government have also made one other thing perfectly clear. Our government fears We the People, more than it does radical Muslim terrorists. For the very reasons our military chooses to use the AR platform, We the People have purchased AR's in prodigious volumes. Millions of private citizens own an AR type rifle for a huge number of reasons; the AR15 and its variants are today's Musket. Although so few have been used in any type of crime that they are statistically insignificant, this is the type of weapon the ruling elite want restricted. Why??? Look at the damage caused and resources it took government forces in California to stop one man armed with an AR who targeted the police. They had SWAT teams with military grade weapons and tactics, they had helicopters, and they had numbers. Still it took days and disproportionate casualties to stop one determined man. Consider how many people own AR's, if a small number of them, shall we say 3%, chose to take up arms against law enforcement; it could and would cripple the nations law enforcement agencies. The ruling elite want more restrictive gun control because they fear the people; as well they should and with good reason.
Today on 9/11 we heard the news and so did the ruling elite. We the People will not be disarmed. It's not a Democrat/Republican thing. In Sen. Angela Giron's district, Pueblo Colorado, 43% of the registered voters are Democrats and only 23% Republicans, yet 57% voted to recall her. A massive amounts of money from outside Colorado was spent, the overwhelming majority of that money was spent to stop and fight the recall of Morse and Giron. The results of the recall scare the crap out of the Ruling Elite.
The news on this 12 anniversary of 9/11 gives us hope that the ideas which formed this nation still exist and stand strong. As Thomas Jefferson said, "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." The news today is a clear message that the We the People will not tolerate tyranny.
Tuesday, July 9, 2013
Results of Obama’s Edict to Research Gun Violence are In
By Tom Rhodes, 7/8/2013
Earlier this year in response to the tragedy at Sandy Hook, Obama issued an edict (Executive Order) commanding the CDC to do a comprehensive survey of studies regarding guns and gun violence in the United States. The clear goal was to produced the hard evidence that the US was a violent nation of wild-west shootouts, so that he could garner support of the American People, based on fact, fund future research while embracing strict gun control legislation. This preliminary survey is out, you haven’t read about it in the Lame Stream Press because the results aren’t what liberal statists wanted. In fact the results pretty much back up what Pro-Gun Americans have been saying.
The study, which was compiled by the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council under the CDC's direction, was recently completed and released. Read it yourself HERE. The CDC’s research and numbers pretty much justify of pro-gun rights arguments made over the past couple years.
First and most importantly the overwhelming majority of gun deaths are not a result of crime. The CDC numbers report < 39% of firearm deaths are crime related, and those include deaths of the bad guy by cops or private citizens. Most firearm deaths, 61%, are suicides, a tragedy, but there is no epidemic of gun crime. In fact the survey notes that overall gun related deaths have decreased dramatically.
The results note that “there is empirical evidence that gun turn in programs are ineffective,” saying that the guns turned in during gun by backs are not typical of guns used in crimes. So much for the effectiveness of using tax payers money to “get guns off the streets.”
Here is some big news that the Press and Government aren’t shouting about; guns “are effective in preventing injury to the gunwielding crime victim. Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.” This conclusion pretty much destroys hoplophobe arguments that there are better ways than a gun for self protection. Based on gun sales over the past few years, it is safe to say that the public is well aware of this fact.
The survey goes on to note “Defensive uses of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed. Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”
The data is clear, self defense using firearms by ordinary citizens is both effective and common. Excluding the benefits of self defense in future studies on gun violence would clearly diminish the credibility and acceptance of any such studies results.
Why Obama, Biden, Congress, and the Press aren’t shouting about the results of Obama’s Edict to the CDC to do a comprehensive survey of studies regarding guns and gun violence in the United States, it’s because the results support pro-gun arguments. Our founding Fathers were right when they restricted the government, not the people, in regards to keeping and bearing arms.
Earlier this year in response to the tragedy at Sandy Hook, Obama issued an edict (Executive Order) commanding the CDC to do a comprehensive survey of studies regarding guns and gun violence in the United States. The clear goal was to produced the hard evidence that the US was a violent nation of wild-west shootouts, so that he could garner support of the American People, based on fact, fund future research while embracing strict gun control legislation. This preliminary survey is out, you haven’t read about it in the Lame Stream Press because the results aren’t what liberal statists wanted. In fact the results pretty much back up what Pro-Gun Americans have been saying.
The study, which was compiled by the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council under the CDC's direction, was recently completed and released. Read it yourself HERE. The CDC’s research and numbers pretty much justify of pro-gun rights arguments made over the past couple years.
First and most importantly the overwhelming majority of gun deaths are not a result of crime. The CDC numbers report < 39% of firearm deaths are crime related, and those include deaths of the bad guy by cops or private citizens. Most firearm deaths, 61%, are suicides, a tragedy, but there is no epidemic of gun crime. In fact the survey notes that overall gun related deaths have decreased dramatically.
The results note that “there is empirical evidence that gun turn in programs are ineffective,” saying that the guns turned in during gun by backs are not typical of guns used in crimes. So much for the effectiveness of using tax payers money to “get guns off the streets.”
Here is some big news that the Press and Government aren’t shouting about; guns “are effective in preventing injury to the gunwielding crime victim. Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.” This conclusion pretty much destroys hoplophobe arguments that there are better ways than a gun for self protection. Based on gun sales over the past few years, it is safe to say that the public is well aware of this fact.
The survey goes on to note “Defensive uses of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed. Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”
The data is clear, self defense using firearms by ordinary citizens is both effective and common. Excluding the benefits of self defense in future studies on gun violence would clearly diminish the credibility and acceptance of any such studies results.
Why Obama, Biden, Congress, and the Press aren’t shouting about the results of Obama’s Edict to the CDC to do a comprehensive survey of studies regarding guns and gun violence in the United States, it’s because the results support pro-gun arguments. Our founding Fathers were right when they restricted the government, not the people, in regards to keeping and bearing arms.
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
Liberal Logic . . . NOT!
By Tom Rhodes, 5/22/2013
Liberals consistently use the mantra "If it will only save one life" to promote the idea that guns in the hands of private citizens is bad. This is not based on logic or reason, but an excuse to disarm the public so that tyrannical liberal government can flourish. Kind of like Michael Bloomberg who campaigns and promotes the idea that that adults aren't capable of making sound decisions concerning guns, cooking oil, sugar, salt, and the size of soda containers, but insist that teenagers should have free choice on making decisions about terminating the life of their babies through abortion without parental consent or even awareness. Logic and reason are not properties of liberal thought.
Theodore Beale wrote a great piece on public schools, noting that by amassing our children into schools results in far more deaths of children than if schooling were dispersed, like maybe into everybody's home; noting, " in the past four months, we have seen multiple incidences of multiple fatalities due to acts of Man and Nature, but the thought that perhaps it is not wise to congregate large numbers of vulnerable children together never seems to enter the national discourse." Considering the proven fact that as a group, by every measurable standard, homeschooled children out perform government schooled children his logic is sound.
Liberals consistently use the mantra "If it will only save one life" to promote the idea that guns in the hands of private citizens is bad. This is not based on logic or reason, but an excuse to disarm the public so that tyrannical liberal government can flourish. Kind of like Michael Bloomberg who campaigns and promotes the idea that that adults aren't capable of making sound decisions concerning guns, cooking oil, sugar, salt, and the size of soda containers, but insist that teenagers should have free choice on making decisions about terminating the life of their babies through abortion without parental consent or even awareness. Logic and reason are not properties of liberal thought.
Theodore Beale wrote a great piece on public schools, noting that by amassing our children into schools results in far more deaths of children than if schooling were dispersed, like maybe into everybody's home; noting, " in the past four months, we have seen multiple incidences of multiple fatalities due to acts of Man and Nature, but the thought that perhaps it is not wise to congregate large numbers of vulnerable children together never seems to enter the national discourse." Considering the proven fact that as a group, by every measurable standard, homeschooled children out perform government schooled children his logic is sound.
Homeschool or Die vol. XXXLVI
I can't help but notice the difference between the way fatalities are treated depending upon whether the children killed are being educated at home or at public school. If seven children were killed by a demented homeschool mother, this would spark a national media outcry and demands for more restrictions on homeschooling.
And yet, in the past four months, we have seen multiple incidences of multiple fatalities due to acts of Man and Nature, but the thought that perhaps it is not wise to congregate large numbers of vulnerable children together never seems to enter the national discourse.
According to Wikipedia, there have been 278 tornado-related deaths at school since 1885. That is nearly 2.2 deaths per year, which is a trivial percentage of the 48 million or so children attending the public schools. And yet, they are entirely avoidable deaths; under the oft-cited "if just one life can be saved" metric, it cannot be denied that children who are not forced to congregate en masse at school cannot be killed by tornadoes there.
Two tornado-inflicted deaths per year isn't much, but add to them the 26 schoolbus deaths per year, the 600 school-automotive deaths per year, and the 34 violence-related deaths, and it soon becomes readily apparent that school cannot reasonably be considered a safe place for children.
Forget the superior education received by homeschooled children. Doesn't saving the lives of more than 662 children every year make banning school a moral imperative?
Especially in light of the fact that 119 children under the age of twelve, (and 565 under the age of 18), were killed by guns. School is literally more lethally dangerous than guns; something you might want to remind your average pro-public school, pro-gun control left-liberal.
Guns secure freedom at a lower cost in children's lives than the public schools manage to deliver inferior educations. We don't need gun control, we need school control.
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
Out Of Control
By Tom Rhodes, 5/7/2013
Whether the ruling elite like it or not, whether utopian thinking liberals like it or not, controlling who has guns is beyond their control. Totally Out of Control. Unless they advocate an openly tyrannical government that is not subject to elections by the people, and totally do away with the bill of rights there is no longer any way they can institute "gun control." Period. Not just because of the hundreds of millions of guns already in our country, and wont' voluntarily give them up, or because sheriffs across the nation are refusing to honor or enforce more gun restrictive laws, but because without doing away with the first amendment, it is now impossible to get rid of the ability of the people to acquire arms. Correct! Like it or not the first amendment clearly enables every person to obtain firearms without going through any government controlled entity. This week the 'Liberator' was test fired by VideoDefense Distributed founder Cody Wilson; it is the world's first 3D printed gun. It used a nail for a firing pin, and to keep it legal, a piece of metal was added so it would be detected by metal detectors. So for the price of 2 good AR15's you can purchase what you need to print your own firearm without any government interaction.
For a while now people have been able to create their own firearms that don't have serial numbers, and are not traceable by the government. About a year ago all you needed to do is rent a CNC machine, and machine the receiver of an AR15 or similar gun, purchase the trigger, barrel, and other parts, and assemble your own AR15 from the parts. The receiver is the component that has the serial number and is tracked by the government when manufactured by a ATF approved gun manufacturer. ATF without any direction from your elected officials has made this illegal unless you personally own the machine; but . . . liberty loving people in the US have already found a way around that. Austrian Anarchy Heavy Industries, can and does sell AR15 Blanks that are incomplete and legal. Thanks to the Free press they also point to a video that shows you how to take an already made lower receiver blank, a template, and a drill press to make your own AR-15 style rifle. If you're interested, you can go down to your local Home Depot, Lowes, Sears, or Harbor Freight and purchase a drill press with cash and no government paperwork.
The Genie is out of the Bottle, and we the people are "Out of Control." You as an individual are free to make a gun yourself; that pesky constitution protects your right to do that. Formerly this wasn't a big deal because to have the skills to create a receiver, or entire gun, took training and was way too costly to be realistic for the vast majority of people. Not anymore.
All you need is the raw materials, and computer program, and a computer controlled machine. The computer program to build your own receiver, and now an entire firearm, are freely available on line. Download the program run it on your computer hooked to a CNC machine or 3D printer and you can make a gun. OK, you will need to put in some time learning to run the CNC machine, but if the guys at Orange County Chopper can do it chances are you can. All it takes is money, and not that much; for less than $10K you can purchase a CNC mill to make all the AR15 receivers you want. Unless you're willing to outlaw the ownership of computers and machining tools by private individuals you have already lost control.
Why is it so easy for anybody to get the program and designs to build their own weapon? Because transferring ideas is called speech, and in the USA the government is prohibited from creating laws that infringe upon people exchanging ideas. Computer programs are speech. A series of court cases; including Bernstein v. United States, Junger v. Daley, and Universal City Studios v. Corley establishing that computers source code counts as free speech. The Courts rightly concluded "Computer programs are not exempted from the category of First Amendment speech simply because their instructions require use of a computer. A recipe is no less "speech" because it calls for the use of an oven, and a musical score is no less "speech" because it specifies performance on an electric guitar. Arguably distinguishing computer programs from conventional language instructions is the fact that programs are executable on a computer. But the fact that a program has the capacity to direct the functioning of a computer does not mean that it lacks the additional capacity to convey information, and it is the conveying of information that renders instructions "speech" for purposes of the First Amendment. The information conveyed by most "instructions" is how to perform a task ... programmers communicating ideas to one another almost inevitably communicate in code, much as musicians use notes. Limiting First Amendment protection of programmers to descriptions of computer code (but not the code itself) would impede discourse among computer scholars, just as limiting protection for musicians to descriptions of musical scores (but not sequences of notes) would impede their exchange of ideas and expression. Instructions that communicate information comprehensible to a human qualify as speech whether the instructions are designed for execution by a computer or a human (or both)"
Cory Doctorow wrote a book Titled: Makers
which creates and focuses on a near-future imagining of members of a Maker subculture, a group Doctorow characterizes as being composed of "people who hack hardware, business-models, and living arrangements to discover ways of staying alive and happy even when the economy is falling down the toilet." The ability to "Print" products, be they cups, plates, toys, or even guns, is going to change our society. Just as the Gutenberg press radically changed society, and just as the internet has radically changed society, so too will 3D printing and CNC Machining.
The ruling elite are trying to desperately put the genie back into the bottle. Soon after Gutenberg made it so that ideas could be affordably changed between people, we saw a time called "the age of enlightenment" resulting in the formation of a nation like no other, where the people restrained the government, rather than the government rule the people. Liberty and it's ideas and the plainly obvious benefits resulting in the most prosperity for the most people ever in world history is not going to go away. The internet exploded what the printing press did. No longer can the ruling elite by monopolizing the press control the ideas people are exposed, thus the liberal ruling elite are routinely exposed. In 1934 they successfully used the news and controlled the message to exploit rare but tragic gang violence to crush part of the second amendment and outlaw machine guns. Today they cannot control the news, as it is no longer expensive to reach millions of people, with the internet the people could and did successfully thwart the ruling elite from further disarming the people using the tragic but rare event at Newton as an excuse. That's why Hillary Clinton wants a gatekeeper on the news, to control what information is available to the people; the people are "Out of Control."
The 3D printer is going to do the same in ways the government can't fathom. My prediction is that they are going to try and control access to all raw materials and destroy property rights. Soon you won't be able to buy aluminum or steel or plastic without government approval because you might make something they don't like, or worse yet create something that carries a high tax. Imagine if people could print a toilet that used more than 1.6 gallons and effectively flushed instead of having to purchase the prescribed, crappy, government mandated toilet design. The horrors that would occur if people could make their own stuff without government control. Big corporations are going to try and put the 3D printing genie back into the bottle, like the idea of liberty and the benefits it has bestowed upon the people, this too will fail. The people are Out of Control (of the ruling elite) and that is a good thing.
Whether the ruling elite like it or not, whether utopian thinking liberals like it or not, controlling who has guns is beyond their control. Totally Out of Control. Unless they advocate an openly tyrannical government that is not subject to elections by the people, and totally do away with the bill of rights there is no longer any way they can institute "gun control." Period. Not just because of the hundreds of millions of guns already in our country, and wont' voluntarily give them up, or because sheriffs across the nation are refusing to honor or enforce more gun restrictive laws, but because without doing away with the first amendment, it is now impossible to get rid of the ability of the people to acquire arms. Correct! Like it or not the first amendment clearly enables every person to obtain firearms without going through any government controlled entity. This week the 'Liberator' was test fired by VideoDefense Distributed founder Cody Wilson; it is the world's first 3D printed gun. It used a nail for a firing pin, and to keep it legal, a piece of metal was added so it would be detected by metal detectors. So for the price of 2 good AR15's you can purchase what you need to print your own firearm without any government interaction.
For a while now people have been able to create their own firearms that don't have serial numbers, and are not traceable by the government. About a year ago all you needed to do is rent a CNC machine, and machine the receiver of an AR15 or similar gun, purchase the trigger, barrel, and other parts, and assemble your own AR15 from the parts. The receiver is the component that has the serial number and is tracked by the government when manufactured by a ATF approved gun manufacturer. ATF without any direction from your elected officials has made this illegal unless you personally own the machine; but . . . liberty loving people in the US have already found a way around that. Austrian Anarchy Heavy Industries, can and does sell AR15 Blanks that are incomplete and legal. Thanks to the Free press they also point to a video that shows you how to take an already made lower receiver blank, a template, and a drill press to make your own AR-15 style rifle. If you're interested, you can go down to your local Home Depot, Lowes, Sears, or Harbor Freight and purchase a drill press with cash and no government paperwork.
The Genie is out of the Bottle, and we the people are "Out of Control." You as an individual are free to make a gun yourself; that pesky constitution protects your right to do that. Formerly this wasn't a big deal because to have the skills to create a receiver, or entire gun, took training and was way too costly to be realistic for the vast majority of people. Not anymore.
All you need is the raw materials, and computer program, and a computer controlled machine. The computer program to build your own receiver, and now an entire firearm, are freely available on line. Download the program run it on your computer hooked to a CNC machine or 3D printer and you can make a gun. OK, you will need to put in some time learning to run the CNC machine, but if the guys at Orange County Chopper can do it chances are you can. All it takes is money, and not that much; for less than $10K you can purchase a CNC mill to make all the AR15 receivers you want. Unless you're willing to outlaw the ownership of computers and machining tools by private individuals you have already lost control.
Why is it so easy for anybody to get the program and designs to build their own weapon? Because transferring ideas is called speech, and in the USA the government is prohibited from creating laws that infringe upon people exchanging ideas. Computer programs are speech. A series of court cases; including Bernstein v. United States, Junger v. Daley, and Universal City Studios v. Corley establishing that computers source code counts as free speech. The Courts rightly concluded "Computer programs are not exempted from the category of First Amendment speech simply because their instructions require use of a computer. A recipe is no less "speech" because it calls for the use of an oven, and a musical score is no less "speech" because it specifies performance on an electric guitar. Arguably distinguishing computer programs from conventional language instructions is the fact that programs are executable on a computer. But the fact that a program has the capacity to direct the functioning of a computer does not mean that it lacks the additional capacity to convey information, and it is the conveying of information that renders instructions "speech" for purposes of the First Amendment. The information conveyed by most "instructions" is how to perform a task ... programmers communicating ideas to one another almost inevitably communicate in code, much as musicians use notes. Limiting First Amendment protection of programmers to descriptions of computer code (but not the code itself) would impede discourse among computer scholars, just as limiting protection for musicians to descriptions of musical scores (but not sequences of notes) would impede their exchange of ideas and expression. Instructions that communicate information comprehensible to a human qualify as speech whether the instructions are designed for execution by a computer or a human (or both)"
Cory Doctorow wrote a book Titled: Makers
which creates and focuses on a near-future imagining of members of a Maker subculture, a group Doctorow characterizes as being composed of "people who hack hardware, business-models, and living arrangements to discover ways of staying alive and happy even when the economy is falling down the toilet." The ability to "Print" products, be they cups, plates, toys, or even guns, is going to change our society. Just as the Gutenberg press radically changed society, and just as the internet has radically changed society, so too will 3D printing and CNC Machining.The ruling elite are trying to desperately put the genie back into the bottle. Soon after Gutenberg made it so that ideas could be affordably changed between people, we saw a time called "the age of enlightenment" resulting in the formation of a nation like no other, where the people restrained the government, rather than the government rule the people. Liberty and it's ideas and the plainly obvious benefits resulting in the most prosperity for the most people ever in world history is not going to go away. The internet exploded what the printing press did. No longer can the ruling elite by monopolizing the press control the ideas people are exposed, thus the liberal ruling elite are routinely exposed. In 1934 they successfully used the news and controlled the message to exploit rare but tragic gang violence to crush part of the second amendment and outlaw machine guns. Today they cannot control the news, as it is no longer expensive to reach millions of people, with the internet the people could and did successfully thwart the ruling elite from further disarming the people using the tragic but rare event at Newton as an excuse. That's why Hillary Clinton wants a gatekeeper on the news, to control what information is available to the people; the people are "Out of Control."
The 3D printer is going to do the same in ways the government can't fathom. My prediction is that they are going to try and control access to all raw materials and destroy property rights. Soon you won't be able to buy aluminum or steel or plastic without government approval because you might make something they don't like, or worse yet create something that carries a high tax. Imagine if people could print a toilet that used more than 1.6 gallons and effectively flushed instead of having to purchase the prescribed, crappy, government mandated toilet design. The horrors that would occur if people could make their own stuff without government control. Big corporations are going to try and put the 3D printing genie back into the bottle, like the idea of liberty and the benefits it has bestowed upon the people, this too will fail. The people are Out of Control (of the ruling elite) and that is a good thing.
Friday, April 12, 2013
It's about Honesty
By Tom Rhodes, 4/12/2013
Barack Obama demanded a "national conversation" about gun control. What he didn't demand was an "honest" conversation about gun control. The reason he left off the word "honest" is because he has proven again and again to use lies to promote his irrational hatred for those who would be self reliant and not depend on the largess of government for protection.
Lets start with the Fast and Furious lie that 90% of the guns recovered in Mexico were from US gun dealers. In sworn testimony before congress, Bill McMahon, deputy assistant director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, swore that only eight percent of the arms recovered in Mexico were from licensed gun dealers, noting: Of the 100,000 weapons recovered by Mexican authorities, only 18,000 were determined to have been manufactured, sold, or imported from the United States, and of those 18,000, just 7,900 came from sales by licensed gun dealers. Considering 2500 were known to have been smuggled into Mexico by the Obama administration as part of Fast and Furious it's clear the 90% number was a known lie propagated by Obama and company.
Now the more recent 40% lie. Obama claimed that 40 percent of the gun purchases in the nation are conducted without a background check. It is another outright knowing lie. The Statistics he used were not only 20 years out of date but included all transfers not purchases. The survey he used was started before the Brady Bill became law and background checks were required. Even the generally supportive of Obama, Washington Post had to report on this lie, giving Obama three Pinocchio's .
So Obama wants a national conversation, but his actions clearly dictate he wants the conversation not to be based on logic, reason, and practical solutions. His actions clearly demonstrate he wants the conversation to be one sided, based on lies and emotional rhetoric to the exclusion of truth and substantial debate.
When the President has deliberately chosen to distort facts, and lie to the people to promote and instill further restrictions on fundamental rights he has in fact destroyed the ability of "moderates" to effect any meaningful discussion much less change. The clear exposure even by liberal supportive media, of the lies and distortions by the government make any honest debate impossible. Obama's brief 5 years in office is so filled with clearly demonstrated lies and deceptions that no rational person could reasonably consider the arguments he or his representatives present on any topic as truthful or trustworthy. Not just on Gun Control but on oil, healthcare, immigration, spending, in fact virtually every major issue, the default position of the Obama and his Whitehouse is to lie, and distort the facts. The reason compromise is so difficult with Obama, is because he and the entire Democrat party have proven that they are not trustworthy.
Having been caught in multiple lies, especially concerning gun control, how can anybody reasonably work with the Democrats in an honest conversation?
Barack Obama demanded a "national conversation" about gun control. What he didn't demand was an "honest" conversation about gun control. The reason he left off the word "honest" is because he has proven again and again to use lies to promote his irrational hatred for those who would be self reliant and not depend on the largess of government for protection.
Lets start with the Fast and Furious lie that 90% of the guns recovered in Mexico were from US gun dealers. In sworn testimony before congress, Bill McMahon, deputy assistant director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, swore that only eight percent of the arms recovered in Mexico were from licensed gun dealers, noting: Of the 100,000 weapons recovered by Mexican authorities, only 18,000 were determined to have been manufactured, sold, or imported from the United States, and of those 18,000, just 7,900 came from sales by licensed gun dealers. Considering 2500 were known to have been smuggled into Mexico by the Obama administration as part of Fast and Furious it's clear the 90% number was a known lie propagated by Obama and company.
Now the more recent 40% lie. Obama claimed that 40 percent of the gun purchases in the nation are conducted without a background check. It is another outright knowing lie. The Statistics he used were not only 20 years out of date but included all transfers not purchases. The survey he used was started before the Brady Bill became law and background checks were required. Even the generally supportive of Obama, Washington Post had to report on this lie, giving Obama three Pinocchio's .
There are two key problems with the president's use of this statistic: The numbers are about two decades old, yet he acts as if they are fresh, and he refers to "purchases" or "sales" when in fact the original report concerned "gun acquisitions" and "transactions." Those are much broader categories of data.
As we noted before, the White House said the figure comes from a 1997 Institute of Justice report, written by Philip Cook of Duke University and Jens Ludwig of the University of Chicago.
This study was based on data collected from a survey in 1994, the same year that the Brady Act requirements for background checks came into effect. In fact, the questions concerned purchases in 1993 and 1994, and the Brady Act went into effect in early 1994 - meaning that some, if not many, of the guns were bought in a pre-Brady environment.
Digging deeper, we found that the survey sample was just 251 people. (The survey was done by telephone, using a random-digit-dial method, with a response rate of 50 percent.) With this sample size, the 95 percent confidence interval will be plus or minus six percentage points.
. . . .
The Police Foundation report did not break out gun purchases, so in January we asked Ludwig to rerun the data, just looking at guns purchased in the secondary market. The result, depending on the definition, was 14 percent to 22 percent. That's at least half the percentage repeatedly cited by Obama. (In a recent article for National Review, Cook and Ludwig wrote "we don't know the current percentage - nor does anyone else." But they say if the percentage is lower it actually strengthens the case for expanding background checks because it would be less expensive to implement.) Since our initial report on this statistic appeared, The Washington Post in February included a question on background checks on a survey of Maryland residents, asking whether they went through a background check during a gun purchase in the past 10 years. The result? Twenty-one percent say they did not.
Coincidentally or not, 21 percent falls within the 14-to-22 percent range for gun purchases without background checks in the 1994 survey.
So Obama wants a national conversation, but his actions clearly dictate he wants the conversation not to be based on logic, reason, and practical solutions. His actions clearly demonstrate he wants the conversation to be one sided, based on lies and emotional rhetoric to the exclusion of truth and substantial debate.
When the President has deliberately chosen to distort facts, and lie to the people to promote and instill further restrictions on fundamental rights he has in fact destroyed the ability of "moderates" to effect any meaningful discussion much less change. The clear exposure even by liberal supportive media, of the lies and distortions by the government make any honest debate impossible. Obama's brief 5 years in office is so filled with clearly demonstrated lies and deceptions that no rational person could reasonably consider the arguments he or his representatives present on any topic as truthful or trustworthy. Not just on Gun Control but on oil, healthcare, immigration, spending, in fact virtually every major issue, the default position of the Obama and his Whitehouse is to lie, and distort the facts. The reason compromise is so difficult with Obama, is because he and the entire Democrat party have proven that they are not trustworthy.
Having been caught in multiple lies, especially concerning gun control, how can anybody reasonably work with the Democrats in an honest conversation?
Monday, April 8, 2013
Gun Control Realities
By Tom Rhodes, 4/8/13
The reality is the current gun control debate is about controlling the people, not guns, and the clear desire of statists in the Democrat party to the incremental disarmament of the American People. Although they try to say they believe in the Second Amendment, and "Nobody want to take away your guns," both their actions and words betray their intentions. Worse yet they don't even know what they are talking about.
Colorado Congress woman, Diana DeGette, showed the true intentions of Obama and the statists in the Democrat party when not once but three times demonstrated she's clueless about guns and accidentally let out their true desire. She is the lead sponsor of the cornerstone to proposed gun control legislation, the bill to ban high capacity magazines.
DeGette was soundly trashed and ridiculed across the internet (main stream media only reports statist approved stories) for her clear performance at the Denver Post forum on gun control. DeGette exposed the true intentions of gun controllers while simultaneously demonstrating she's totally ignorant of what she wants to legislate and restrict. She explained the genius behind banning high capacity magazines: "These are ammunition, they're bullets, so the people who have those now, they're going to shoot them, so if you ban them in the future, the number of these high-capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot and there won't be any more available."
If you're reading this you probably know a magazine is a reloadable metal tube with a spring to feed bullets into a firearm, you'd think one of the primary sponsors of a bill legislating magazines would at least know the basics of what they are and how they are used. DeGette didn't, but once the firestorm on the net exploded over her "gaff" she quickly attempted damage control. Her spokesperson asserted the Representative meant to refer to "clips" not magazines. Now it's understandable for a non-gun person to confuse a clip and a magazine. A clip holds bullets for quick re-loading of magazines. But for a Congress woman who has "taken the lead on" this issue for years, this is arrogant ignorance at its finest. Not only are clips generally reusable like magazines, they are not the subject of DeGette's bill. Why on earth would she be referring to clips to correct her ignorance on magazines?
Now for strike three. At that same Denver Post Forum, when a senior citizen asked DeGette about having to rely on police response, rather than self defense, she reassured him noting that Denver police will be there within minutes, but "You'd probably be dead anyway." She made it clear that disarming or rendering the arms Americans have as useless because they don't have bullets is more important than the safety and well being of individual citizens.
Current law is clear, to prevent a backdoor gun registrations system, the law expressly prohibits the creation of "any system for the registration of firearms, firearm owners, or firearm transactions or dispositions." all it is supposed to do is verify that a purchaser is legally allowed to purchase a firearm, not track who has purchased what firearms, or even track if a person has purchased a firearm. The truth is the only loophole closed in the Leah-Schumer-Reid proposal for a "universal" background check, is the one that prohibits a national firearm registry. The loose language of the bill would allow the Department of Justice itself to keep centralized records of who received what guns and where, by sale or gift from one individual to another. It's gun registration no matter what they try to tell us.
Saying that the proposed universal back ground checks aren't a gun registration, is a lie. Without keeping track of the purchases, transfers, and components of hundreds of millions of guns and gun owners, they could never enforce their desires; they want and will keep permanent records of all firearm sales. This is a defacto gun registration system. What we are asked to believe is that our government can't keep track of its own borders or the 12 million people who live here illegally, but can keep track of the purchases, transfers, and components of hundreds of millions of guns and gun owners without registering all guns.
Why the fear of gun registration? Because not just in Europe but right here in the USA gun registration has led to gun confiscation. Not only could it happen here in the USA it has. In California after passing a law requiring registration of assault weapons, it then changed the law informed registered owners to turn them in. Letter from Calf. telling you to turn in your gun.
The statists have let it slip, the want total control of civilian gun ownership, the start is to identify where and who has the guns. Have no fear they won't send SWAT teams to your house to confiscate your gun, you'll just get a letter saying ". . . . our records indicate that you own a Bushmaster Model AR15 SN: 123456780, purchased 1/1/2013 from Joe's Gun Shop. Please turn this weapon in to your local Police dept. Should you fail to do so within 30 days an APB for your arrest will be issued, and the IRS will freeze all your bank accounts, and the Department of Transportation will revoke your driver's license. . . . "
The reality is the current gun control debate is about controlling the people, not guns, and the clear desire of statists in the Democrat party to the incremental disarmament of the American People. Although they try to say they believe in the Second Amendment, and "Nobody want to take away your guns," both their actions and words betray their intentions. Worse yet they don't even know what they are talking about.
Colorado Congress woman, Diana DeGette, showed the true intentions of Obama and the statists in the Democrat party when not once but three times demonstrated she's clueless about guns and accidentally let out their true desire. She is the lead sponsor of the cornerstone to proposed gun control legislation, the bill to ban high capacity magazines.
DeGette was soundly trashed and ridiculed across the internet (main stream media only reports statist approved stories) for her clear performance at the Denver Post forum on gun control. DeGette exposed the true intentions of gun controllers while simultaneously demonstrating she's totally ignorant of what she wants to legislate and restrict. She explained the genius behind banning high capacity magazines: "These are ammunition, they're bullets, so the people who have those now, they're going to shoot them, so if you ban them in the future, the number of these high-capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot and there won't be any more available."
If you're reading this you probably know a magazine is a reloadable metal tube with a spring to feed bullets into a firearm, you'd think one of the primary sponsors of a bill legislating magazines would at least know the basics of what they are and how they are used. DeGette didn't, but once the firestorm on the net exploded over her "gaff" she quickly attempted damage control. Her spokesperson asserted the Representative meant to refer to "clips" not magazines. Now it's understandable for a non-gun person to confuse a clip and a magazine. A clip holds bullets for quick re-loading of magazines. But for a Congress woman who has "taken the lead on" this issue for years, this is arrogant ignorance at its finest. Not only are clips generally reusable like magazines, they are not the subject of DeGette's bill. Why on earth would she be referring to clips to correct her ignorance on magazines?
Now for strike three. At that same Denver Post Forum, when a senior citizen asked DeGette about having to rely on police response, rather than self defense, she reassured him noting that Denver police will be there within minutes, but "You'd probably be dead anyway." She made it clear that disarming or rendering the arms Americans have as useless because they don't have bullets is more important than the safety and well being of individual citizens.
Current law is clear, to prevent a backdoor gun registrations system, the law expressly prohibits the creation of "any system for the registration of firearms, firearm owners, or firearm transactions or dispositions." all it is supposed to do is verify that a purchaser is legally allowed to purchase a firearm, not track who has purchased what firearms, or even track if a person has purchased a firearm. The truth is the only loophole closed in the Leah-Schumer-Reid proposal for a "universal" background check, is the one that prohibits a national firearm registry. The loose language of the bill would allow the Department of Justice itself to keep centralized records of who received what guns and where, by sale or gift from one individual to another. It's gun registration no matter what they try to tell us.
Saying that the proposed universal back ground checks aren't a gun registration, is a lie. Without keeping track of the purchases, transfers, and components of hundreds of millions of guns and gun owners, they could never enforce their desires; they want and will keep permanent records of all firearm sales. This is a defacto gun registration system. What we are asked to believe is that our government can't keep track of its own borders or the 12 million people who live here illegally, but can keep track of the purchases, transfers, and components of hundreds of millions of guns and gun owners without registering all guns.
Why the fear of gun registration? Because not just in Europe but right here in the USA gun registration has led to gun confiscation. Not only could it happen here in the USA it has. In California after passing a law requiring registration of assault weapons, it then changed the law informed registered owners to turn them in. Letter from Calf. telling you to turn in your gun.
The statists have let it slip, the want total control of civilian gun ownership, the start is to identify where and who has the guns. Have no fear they won't send SWAT teams to your house to confiscate your gun, you'll just get a letter saying ". . . . our records indicate that you own a Bushmaster Model AR15 SN: 123456780, purchased 1/1/2013 from Joe's Gun Shop. Please turn this weapon in to your local Police dept. Should you fail to do so within 30 days an APB for your arrest will be issued, and the IRS will freeze all your bank accounts, and the Department of Transportation will revoke your driver's license. . . . "
Friday, April 5, 2013
It's about Honesty
By Tom Rhodes, 4/12/2013
Barack Obama demanded a "national conversation" about gun control. What he didn't demand was an "honest" conversation about gun control. The reason he left off the word "honest" is because he has proven again and again to use lies to promote his irrational hatred for those who would be self reliant and not depend on the largess of government for protection.
Lets start with the Fast and Furious lie that 90% of the guns recovered in Mexico were from US gun dealers. In sworn testimony before congress, Bill McMahon, deputy assistant director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, swore that only eight percent of the arms recovered in Mexico were from licensed gun dealers, noting: Of the 100,000 weapons recovered by Mexican authorities, only 18,000 were determined to have been manufactured, sold, or imported from the United States, and of those 18,000, just 7,900 came from sales by licensed gun dealers. Considering 2500 were known to have been smuggled into Mexico by the Obama administration as part of Fast and Furious it's clear the 90% number was a known lie propagated by Obama and company.
Now the more recent 40% lie. Obama claimed that 40 percent of the gun purchases in the nation are conducted without a background check. It is another outright knowing lie. The Statistics he used were not only 20 years out of date but included all transfers not purchases. The survey he used was started before the Brady Bill became law and background checks were required. Even the generally supportive of Obama, Washington Post had to report on this lie, giving Obama three Pinocchio's .
There are two key problems with the president's use of this statistic: The numbers are about two decades old, yet he acts as if they are fresh, and he refers to "purchases" or "sales" when in fact the original report concerned "gun acquisitions" and "transactions." Those are much broader categories of data.
So Obama wants a national conversation, but his actions clearly dictate he wants the conversation not to be based on logic, reason, and practical solutions. His actions clearly demonstrate he wants the conversation to be one sided, based on lies and emotional rhetoric to the exclusion of truth and substantial debate.
When the President has deliberately chosen to distort facts, and lie to the people to promote and instill further restrictions on fundamental rights he has in fact destroyed the ability of "moderates" to effect any meaningful discussion much less change. The clear exposure even by liberal supportive media, of the lies and distortions by the government make any honest debate impossible. Obama's brief 5 years in office is so filled with clearly demonstrated lies and deceptions that no rational person could reasonably consider the arguments he or his representatives present on any topic as truthful or trustworthy. Not just on Gun Control but on oil, healthcare, immigration, spending, in fact virtually every major issue, the default position of the Obama and his Whitehouse is to lie, and distort the facts. The reason compromise is so difficult with Obama, is because he and the entire Democrat party have proven that they are not trustworthy.
Having been caught in multiple lies, especially concerning gun control, how can anybody reasonably work with the Democrats in an honest conversation?
Barack Obama demanded a "national conversation" about gun control. What he didn't demand was an "honest" conversation about gun control. The reason he left off the word "honest" is because he has proven again and again to use lies to promote his irrational hatred for those who would be self reliant and not depend on the largess of government for protection.
Lets start with the Fast and Furious lie that 90% of the guns recovered in Mexico were from US gun dealers. In sworn testimony before congress, Bill McMahon, deputy assistant director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, swore that only eight percent of the arms recovered in Mexico were from licensed gun dealers, noting: Of the 100,000 weapons recovered by Mexican authorities, only 18,000 were determined to have been manufactured, sold, or imported from the United States, and of those 18,000, just 7,900 came from sales by licensed gun dealers. Considering 2500 were known to have been smuggled into Mexico by the Obama administration as part of Fast and Furious it's clear the 90% number was a known lie propagated by Obama and company.
Now the more recent 40% lie. Obama claimed that 40 percent of the gun purchases in the nation are conducted without a background check. It is another outright knowing lie. The Statistics he used were not only 20 years out of date but included all transfers not purchases. The survey he used was started before the Brady Bill became law and background checks were required. Even the generally supportive of Obama, Washington Post had to report on this lie, giving Obama three Pinocchio's .
There are two key problems with the president's use of this statistic: The numbers are about two decades old, yet he acts as if they are fresh, and he refers to "purchases" or "sales" when in fact the original report concerned "gun acquisitions" and "transactions." Those are much broader categories of data.
As we noted before, the White House said the figure comes from a 1997 Institute of Justice report, written by Philip Cook of Duke University and Jens Ludwig of the University of Chicago.
This study was based on data collected from a survey in 1994, the same year that the Brady Act requirements for background checks came into effect. In fact, the questions concerned purchases in 1993 and 1994, and the Brady Act went into effect in early 1994 - meaning that some, if not many, of the guns were bought in a pre-Brady environment.
Digging deeper, we found that the survey sample was just 251 people. (The survey was done by telephone, using a random-digit-dial method, with a response rate of 50 percent.) With this sample size, the 95 percent confidence interval will be plus or minus six percentage points.
. . . .
The Police Foundation report did not break out gun purchases, so in January we asked Ludwig to rerun the data, just looking at guns purchased in the secondary market. The result, depending on the definition, was 14 percent to 22 percent. That's at least half the percentage repeatedly cited by Obama. (In a recent article for National Review, Cook and Ludwig wrote "we don't know the current percentage - nor does anyone else." But they say if the percentage is lower it actually strengthens the case for expanding background checks because it would be less expensive to implement.) Since our initial report on this statistic appeared, The Washington Post in February included a question on background checks on a survey of Maryland residents, asking whether they went through a background check during a gun purchase in the past 10 years. The result? Twenty-one percent say they did not.
Coincidentally or not, 21 percent falls within the 14-to-22 percent range for gun purchases without background checks in the 1994 survey.
So Obama wants a national conversation, but his actions clearly dictate he wants the conversation not to be based on logic, reason, and practical solutions. His actions clearly demonstrate he wants the conversation to be one sided, based on lies and emotional rhetoric to the exclusion of truth and substantial debate.
When the President has deliberately chosen to distort facts, and lie to the people to promote and instill further restrictions on fundamental rights he has in fact destroyed the ability of "moderates" to effect any meaningful discussion much less change. The clear exposure even by liberal supportive media, of the lies and distortions by the government make any honest debate impossible. Obama's brief 5 years in office is so filled with clearly demonstrated lies and deceptions that no rational person could reasonably consider the arguments he or his representatives present on any topic as truthful or trustworthy. Not just on Gun Control but on oil, healthcare, immigration, spending, in fact virtually every major issue, the default position of the Obama and his Whitehouse is to lie, and distort the facts. The reason compromise is so difficult with Obama, is because he and the entire Democrat party have proven that they are not trustworthy.
Having been caught in multiple lies, especially concerning gun control, how can anybody reasonably work with the Democrats in an honest conversation?
Friday, March 1, 2013
Is VP Responsible?
By Tom Rhodes, 3/1/2012
Does Brian Szymanski living in Green Acres Delaware have a case against VP Joe Biden. Taking Delaware's Favorite Son and Vice President Joe Biden's advice Mr. Szymanski discharged his shotgun outside his back door. The result was the New Castle County Police arresting him and charging him with reckless endangering in the first degree and discharging rifles or other explosives. No injuries or property damage were reported.
While explaining that you don't "need" and assault weapon, and are better off with a double barreled shotgun, Joe Biden publicly said he had advised his wife, Jill, "if there's ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony here, walk out and put that double-barrel shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house." Joe Biden is part of the ruling elite; he knows that if he or his wife had done as he recommended she would not face any criminal charges. What he and the other ruling elite in Washington forget is that unlike them, everybody else is expected to follow the law.
Not only was Biden's advice bad advice, he recommended something that is clearly illegal. In Joe Biden's home state, Delaware, the law is clear; it is only legal to use deadly force if there is reason to fear imminent loss of life. As Mr. Szymanski found out shooting a gun in the air results in felony reckless endangering and other charges. Mr. Szymanski is obviously not all there, he probably didn't even know that his actions were the exact actions Vice President Joe Biden advised his wife and all of America to take. Biden has once again proven himself to be a gaff prone idiot, unless of course he's a sneaky cunning Machiavellian manipulator who is trying to dupe law abiding gun owners into illegal in order to forfeit their gun rights. . . . Can't be; you know the old expression, if it walks like an idiot, talks like an idiot, then it must be an idiot; Biden's an idiot.
Shooting anytime you don't know exactly what you're shooting at is irresponsible and a clear violation of the most fundamental firearm safety rules. These rules are part of every set of rules at every shooting range, or rules recommended by any gun organization, or any group that uses guns for any reason. Nobody who owns a gun and has bothered to read any owner's manual or taken any concealed weapons course hasn't heard or read them in some form or another.
Joe Biden's recommendation was not only ill advised and contrary to the most basic gun safety rules, and illegal in his home state, they clearly demonstrate his ignorance. His ignorance makes him dangerous, as are most of the ignorant ideas uneducated anti-gun leftists spew regularly.
Too bad we don't actually hold politicians accountable. If we did then Brian Szymanski would have a case against VP Joe Biden. But the reality is that both the rule of law and equality under the law are dead in the USA. The laws that apply to you, me, and most everybody else do not apply to the elitists in Washington. Follow the advice of the ruling elite at your own peril.
Does Brian Szymanski living in Green Acres Delaware have a case against VP Joe Biden. Taking Delaware's Favorite Son and Vice President Joe Biden's advice Mr. Szymanski discharged his shotgun outside his back door. The result was the New Castle County Police arresting him and charging him with reckless endangering in the first degree and discharging rifles or other explosives. No injuries or property damage were reported.
While explaining that you don't "need" and assault weapon, and are better off with a double barreled shotgun, Joe Biden publicly said he had advised his wife, Jill, "if there's ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony here, walk out and put that double-barrel shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house." Joe Biden is part of the ruling elite; he knows that if he or his wife had done as he recommended she would not face any criminal charges. What he and the other ruling elite in Washington forget is that unlike them, everybody else is expected to follow the law.
Not only was Biden's advice bad advice, he recommended something that is clearly illegal. In Joe Biden's home state, Delaware, the law is clear; it is only legal to use deadly force if there is reason to fear imminent loss of life. As Mr. Szymanski found out shooting a gun in the air results in felony reckless endangering and other charges. Mr. Szymanski is obviously not all there, he probably didn't even know that his actions were the exact actions Vice President Joe Biden advised his wife and all of America to take. Biden has once again proven himself to be a gaff prone idiot, unless of course he's a sneaky cunning Machiavellian manipulator who is trying to dupe law abiding gun owners into illegal in order to forfeit their gun rights. . . . Can't be; you know the old expression, if it walks like an idiot, talks like an idiot, then it must be an idiot; Biden's an idiot.
Shooting anytime you don't know exactly what you're shooting at is irresponsible and a clear violation of the most fundamental firearm safety rules. These rules are part of every set of rules at every shooting range, or rules recommended by any gun organization, or any group that uses guns for any reason. Nobody who owns a gun and has bothered to read any owner's manual or taken any concealed weapons course hasn't heard or read them in some form or another.
RULE I: ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED
RULE II: NEVER LET THE MUZZLE COVER ANYTHING YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO DESTROY
RULE III: KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER UNTIL YOUR SIGHTS ARE ON THE TARGET
RULE IV: BE SURE OF YOUR TARGET
Joe Biden's recommendation was not only ill advised and contrary to the most basic gun safety rules, and illegal in his home state, they clearly demonstrate his ignorance. His ignorance makes him dangerous, as are most of the ignorant ideas uneducated anti-gun leftists spew regularly.
Too bad we don't actually hold politicians accountable. If we did then Brian Szymanski would have a case against VP Joe Biden. But the reality is that both the rule of law and equality under the law are dead in the USA. The laws that apply to you, me, and most everybody else do not apply to the elitists in Washington. Follow the advice of the ruling elite at your own peril.
Thursday, February 28, 2013
Self Defense; Liberals Don't Get It
By Tom Rhodes, 2/28/2013
Liberals simply don't understand self defense. Period. Take VP Biden's latest gaff where he truly demonstrated both his ignorance. Saying we don't "need" "assault weapons," and we should "buy a shotgun" is both dumb and dangerous. Biden argued that double-barreled shotguns are easier to use than modern sporting rifles like the AR15, which they aren't. He then went on to recommend, when you suspect a dangerous situation, you should simply walk outside and fire a couple of shotgun blasts into the night. Not only is he recommending criminally negligent actions his recommendations violate fundamental firearm safety.
If you are dumb enough to follow Biden's recommendation you are screwed. You are now standing outside, with an unloaded shot gun that is slow to reload, slow to maneuver, and hot to the touch. If you actually hit what you weren't aiming at you may have murdered an innocent person and endangered your neighbors or bystanders. How would you explain to a jury that you didn't know what you were shooting at, or near, or what you were going to hit?
A double barreled shotgun is not suitable for self-defense; it is an antique technology barely more modern than a muzzle loader. Reloading with speed takes lots of practice, and room. Their break action, shell removal and replacement, is far more difficult than pressing a button and inserting a magazine. They are light and generally have a massive "kick" that makes them unsuitable for smaller people with less upper body strength. If there is more than 1 or 2 criminals, you are in real trouble. Considering most of the violent crime in the US is in cities, and associated with gangs, where a person is most likely to need self defense a large cumbersome 2 shot weapon that is slow to re-load is not a good choice for self defense.
The abject ignorance of leftists concerning self-protection and preservation is not just their absence of understanding the technology of self-defense, but their claimed expertise. It is sad what qualifies as an "expert" by liberals. Not just the continued mis-naming of automatic weapons, but the general mis-characterization of weapons in general. When the leftists in the press bring out people who obviously have no idea what they are talking about to most of gun toting redneck America, their invariable ignorance of firearms, is so blatant that one can only assume they are driven by emotions not facts. Considering the intelligence and knowledge they claim the only assumption that can be made is when a liberal is making such obvious "errors" in discussion on firearms they are doing so purposefully. Most of America calls that lying.
ABC covering up for Michelle Obama's gaff on saying teens had access to "automatic" pistols is just another example of the fact that either the left is totally ignorant or believes most of the people are stupid. In either case it's a lie.
Obama's desire to fundamentally change America can be summed up in the actions of his Secretary of State,John Kerry, who on foreign soil called Americans and American freedom "stupid." That is all you need to know about liberals attitude toward this nation, the Constitution, and the average American.
Liberals talking about firearms are lying. Period. The leaked internal Justice Department memo noted that the proposed assault weapons ban would have no effect on gun crime or gun violence. They know the truth, they want to confiscate guns because they fear an armed people. They think you're too ignorant and gullible to realize the truth. They are using emotions not reason, facts, or logic to attack the Second Amendment. Why, because it works. Just like they did in New Orleans after Katrina, the government will come and take your weapons. They think you'll willingly give them up, I think they are wrong. Just like for self defense AR15's not double barreled shotguns and semi-automatic pistols not antique revolvers, are the self-defense weapons of choice for most Americans; We the People are not stupid, and will not willingly give up our individual rights without a fight. If Washington DC does like the ruling elite tried to do in 1776, they too will start a war with the people that they cannot win.
As equality under the law, and the rule of law, are relegated to mere anachronisms of the past, We the People will abandon any compulsions, morals, or customs to obey the dictates of the ruling elite in Washington. Already the duly elected sheriff's of the country are pledging to the people, and the ruling elite in DC to not only not enforce further restrictions on the Second Amendment, but arrest federal agents who attempt to do so. We the People can and will simply ignore the dictates of DC. We do so concerning drugs, we do so concerning speed limits, we do so concerning seat belts, we do so concerning a huge variety of the hundreds of thousands of pages of regulations and laws that the ruling elite dictate through unelected "regulators." The willful ignorance of the ruling elite may cause repercussions they can't fathom.
We've compromised enough, no more; the evidence can be seen in every sporting goods store in America, where the shelves are bare and AR15's and ammo fly off the shelf as soon fast as it can be shipped. Americans are arming themselves and will not give up those arms; Period! The government need not fear the armed citizen, unless of course they become too oppressive. Not all of America is the wussified liberals of the big city; much of America is fiercely independent and doesn't depend on government or want government to take care of us, we can and will do that for ourselves. We believe the job of government is to protect our rights, from those who would use force or fraud to infringe upon them. You see most Americans are truly libertarian, unwilling to use force against others but equally willing to use force in self defense.
In our history the turning point that changed a people trying to work with the ruling elite to get fair treatment from government into a war, our American Revolution, was when the government tried to take away and control the weapons of the people. Paul Revere's ride was not simply to warn that the "British are coming" but to warn that the government is here to take our weapons. All experience has shown that We the People are disposed to suffer the evils of oppressive government, while such evils are sufferable, than to right ourselves and abolishing the forms to which we are accustomed. But when the government abuses and usurpation of our rights, invariably evinces a design to reduce us to absolute despotism, it is not only our right, but our duty, to throw off such government. It's called self-defense and liberals don't get it.
Liberals simply don't understand self defense. Period. Take VP Biden's latest gaff where he truly demonstrated both his ignorance. Saying we don't "need" "assault weapons," and we should "buy a shotgun" is both dumb and dangerous. Biden argued that double-barreled shotguns are easier to use than modern sporting rifles like the AR15, which they aren't. He then went on to recommend, when you suspect a dangerous situation, you should simply walk outside and fire a couple of shotgun blasts into the night. Not only is he recommending criminally negligent actions his recommendations violate fundamental firearm safety.
If you are dumb enough to follow Biden's recommendation you are screwed. You are now standing outside, with an unloaded shot gun that is slow to reload, slow to maneuver, and hot to the touch. If you actually hit what you weren't aiming at you may have murdered an innocent person and endangered your neighbors or bystanders. How would you explain to a jury that you didn't know what you were shooting at, or near, or what you were going to hit?
A double barreled shotgun is not suitable for self-defense; it is an antique technology barely more modern than a muzzle loader. Reloading with speed takes lots of practice, and room. Their break action, shell removal and replacement, is far more difficult than pressing a button and inserting a magazine. They are light and generally have a massive "kick" that makes them unsuitable for smaller people with less upper body strength. If there is more than 1 or 2 criminals, you are in real trouble. Considering most of the violent crime in the US is in cities, and associated with gangs, where a person is most likely to need self defense a large cumbersome 2 shot weapon that is slow to re-load is not a good choice for self defense.
The abject ignorance of leftists concerning self-protection and preservation is not just their absence of understanding the technology of self-defense, but their claimed expertise. It is sad what qualifies as an "expert" by liberals. Not just the continued mis-naming of automatic weapons, but the general mis-characterization of weapons in general. When the leftists in the press bring out people who obviously have no idea what they are talking about to most of gun toting redneck America, their invariable ignorance of firearms, is so blatant that one can only assume they are driven by emotions not facts. Considering the intelligence and knowledge they claim the only assumption that can be made is when a liberal is making such obvious "errors" in discussion on firearms they are doing so purposefully. Most of America calls that lying.
ABC covering up for Michelle Obama's gaff on saying teens had access to "automatic" pistols is just another example of the fact that either the left is totally ignorant or believes most of the people are stupid. In either case it's a lie.
Obama's desire to fundamentally change America can be summed up in the actions of his Secretary of State,John Kerry, who on foreign soil called Americans and American freedom "stupid." That is all you need to know about liberals attitude toward this nation, the Constitution, and the average American.
Liberals talking about firearms are lying. Period. The leaked internal Justice Department memo noted that the proposed assault weapons ban would have no effect on gun crime or gun violence. They know the truth, they want to confiscate guns because they fear an armed people. They think you're too ignorant and gullible to realize the truth. They are using emotions not reason, facts, or logic to attack the Second Amendment. Why, because it works. Just like they did in New Orleans after Katrina, the government will come and take your weapons. They think you'll willingly give them up, I think they are wrong. Just like for self defense AR15's not double barreled shotguns and semi-automatic pistols not antique revolvers, are the self-defense weapons of choice for most Americans; We the People are not stupid, and will not willingly give up our individual rights without a fight. If Washington DC does like the ruling elite tried to do in 1776, they too will start a war with the people that they cannot win.
As equality under the law, and the rule of law, are relegated to mere anachronisms of the past, We the People will abandon any compulsions, morals, or customs to obey the dictates of the ruling elite in Washington. Already the duly elected sheriff's of the country are pledging to the people, and the ruling elite in DC to not only not enforce further restrictions on the Second Amendment, but arrest federal agents who attempt to do so. We the People can and will simply ignore the dictates of DC. We do so concerning drugs, we do so concerning speed limits, we do so concerning seat belts, we do so concerning a huge variety of the hundreds of thousands of pages of regulations and laws that the ruling elite dictate through unelected "regulators." The willful ignorance of the ruling elite may cause repercussions they can't fathom.
We've compromised enough, no more; the evidence can be seen in every sporting goods store in America, where the shelves are bare and AR15's and ammo fly off the shelf as soon fast as it can be shipped. Americans are arming themselves and will not give up those arms; Period! The government need not fear the armed citizen, unless of course they become too oppressive. Not all of America is the wussified liberals of the big city; much of America is fiercely independent and doesn't depend on government or want government to take care of us, we can and will do that for ourselves. We believe the job of government is to protect our rights, from those who would use force or fraud to infringe upon them. You see most Americans are truly libertarian, unwilling to use force against others but equally willing to use force in self defense.
In our history the turning point that changed a people trying to work with the ruling elite to get fair treatment from government into a war, our American Revolution, was when the government tried to take away and control the weapons of the people. Paul Revere's ride was not simply to warn that the "British are coming" but to warn that the government is here to take our weapons. All experience has shown that We the People are disposed to suffer the evils of oppressive government, while such evils are sufferable, than to right ourselves and abolishing the forms to which we are accustomed. But when the government abuses and usurpation of our rights, invariably evinces a design to reduce us to absolute despotism, it is not only our right, but our duty, to throw off such government. It's called self-defense and liberals don't get it.
Thursday, January 31, 2013
Constitutionality of the Sporting Rifle Ban
By Tom Rhodes, 1/31/2013
The is good reasoning to think that the proposed ban on modern sporting rifles, mis-named "assault weapons," will not meet constitutional muster. Modern sporting rifles, shooting relatively low powered .223 caliber rounds, including Armalite's Model 15 rifle and other manufactures versions are not assault weapons, they do not use high powered rounds, do not shoot automatically, and Homeland Defense considers them to be "personal defense weapons." That said, Feinstein's proposed ban of AR-15 and similar weapons if passed will probably be defeated on constitutional grounds.
The right to arms is a pre-existing right that our constitution declares the government shall not infringe. In the Miller case, the SCOTUS decision justified limitations on some weapons, specifically sawed off shotguns, because the sawed-off shotgun served no military purpose and was not in common use. The SCOTUS declared that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time." The AR-15 is in common use by our police departments and the people, and the full automatic version the M16 and its variants are the common weapon of our military at this time.
The Heller decision, the SCOTUS overturned the District of Columbia's ban on handguns, noting that are overwhelmingly chosen by American society for the lawful purpose of self-defense. "The enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home."
In addition to a detachable magazine, the following features are what Feinstein says make a rifle an "assault weapon:" threaded barrel, barrel shroud, folding stock, telescopic stock, thumbhole stock, pistol grip, flash suppressor, etc. None of these features changes the performance or ability of the rifle, all they do is subjectively make the rifle more comfortable for the user. How does any of these features make a rifle more dangerous? What of these features overwhelming chosen by Americans and in common use today grants the government the authority to restrict their ownership? Even the liberal members of the SCOTUS are logical people, the so called assault weapons ban proposed by Senator Feinstein even if passed will not survive legal challenges.
Traditionalists my not like the look of modern sporting weapons, but like the bolt action hunting rifle so popular today was based on military assault weapons of WWI and WWII, the AR-15 style modern sporting rifle is what a modern rifle looks like. The M1 was a popular civilian rifle after WWII. Springfield's M1A civilian variant of the Korean War M14 is popular today. Today shooters use semi-automatic civilian version of the military's M16, for recreation, hunting, and self defense. Civilian rifles do not have the same capabilities that the military versions have, period.
Nearly 5 million modern sporting rifles have been sold in the past 20 years, and current manufactures aren't accepting new orders because they have more than a one year back log. Obviously the modern sporting rifle is in common use at this time. The data is clear AR-15 style weapons meet both the SCOTUS Miller and Heller decisions, they are "overwhelmingly chosen by American society" and "in common use at the time."
All Supreme Court of the United States rulings to date make it clear that banning modern sporting rifles is clearly unconstitutional.
The is good reasoning to think that the proposed ban on modern sporting rifles, mis-named "assault weapons," will not meet constitutional muster. Modern sporting rifles, shooting relatively low powered .223 caliber rounds, including Armalite's Model 15 rifle and other manufactures versions are not assault weapons, they do not use high powered rounds, do not shoot automatically, and Homeland Defense considers them to be "personal defense weapons." That said, Feinstein's proposed ban of AR-15 and similar weapons if passed will probably be defeated on constitutional grounds.
The right to arms is a pre-existing right that our constitution declares the government shall not infringe. In the Miller case, the SCOTUS decision justified limitations on some weapons, specifically sawed off shotguns, because the sawed-off shotgun served no military purpose and was not in common use. The SCOTUS declared that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time." The AR-15 is in common use by our police departments and the people, and the full automatic version the M16 and its variants are the common weapon of our military at this time.
The Heller decision, the SCOTUS overturned the District of Columbia's ban on handguns, noting that are overwhelmingly chosen by American society for the lawful purpose of self-defense. "The enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home."
In addition to a detachable magazine, the following features are what Feinstein says make a rifle an "assault weapon:" threaded barrel, barrel shroud, folding stock, telescopic stock, thumbhole stock, pistol grip, flash suppressor, etc. None of these features changes the performance or ability of the rifle, all they do is subjectively make the rifle more comfortable for the user. How does any of these features make a rifle more dangerous? What of these features overwhelming chosen by Americans and in common use today grants the government the authority to restrict their ownership? Even the liberal members of the SCOTUS are logical people, the so called assault weapons ban proposed by Senator Feinstein even if passed will not survive legal challenges.
Traditionalists my not like the look of modern sporting weapons, but like the bolt action hunting rifle so popular today was based on military assault weapons of WWI and WWII, the AR-15 style modern sporting rifle is what a modern rifle looks like. The M1 was a popular civilian rifle after WWII. Springfield's M1A civilian variant of the Korean War M14 is popular today. Today shooters use semi-automatic civilian version of the military's M16, for recreation, hunting, and self defense. Civilian rifles do not have the same capabilities that the military versions have, period.
Nearly 5 million modern sporting rifles have been sold in the past 20 years, and current manufactures aren't accepting new orders because they have more than a one year back log. Obviously the modern sporting rifle is in common use at this time. The data is clear AR-15 style weapons meet both the SCOTUS Miller and Heller decisions, they are "overwhelmingly chosen by American society" and "in common use at the time."
All Supreme Court of the United States rulings to date make it clear that banning modern sporting rifles is clearly unconstitutional.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
