We don't want what you are selling
By John D. Turner
6 Feb 2013

It seems that it is that time again in our nation’s history when a serious attempt is being mounted to divest its citizenry of their constitutional right to keep and bear arms; an attempt mounted, ironically, by the very elected representatives in the House and Senate who swore an oath to uphold and defend that very same constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. An attempt, again ironically, supported and facilitated by the President and Vice-President of the United States, both of whom also put their hand upon scriptures and swore to uphold and defend the constitution, despite their stated desire to totally shred the second amendment to that same document.

Pardon me. I said their stated desire was to totally shred the second amendment. I stand corrected. Both have publically stated how much they adore that amendment, and how they have absolutely no intention of “infringing” on American’s right to keep and bear arms. Why the administration even posted a picture this weekend of President Obama firing a rifle whilst engaging in skeet shooting, a practice that it is now claimed he engages in “often.”

Well, color me skeptical. In my opinion, the picture of President Obama with a rifle looks about as awkward as the one I saw two decades ago with Michael Dukakis sitting in the turret of a tank. But I could be wrong you know.

Over the past four years we have heard numerous stories about the President shooting a round of golf, (he has played more golf in the last four years than any other president I have ever heard of) or playing basketball, or going on vacation to Hawaii; this is the first one I have ever heard of involving him shooting anything but hoops. Perhaps it is an activity that he engages in frequently that he is secretly ashamed of (like smoking cigarettes), so he doesn’t publicize it much. Perhaps. Or then again, perhaps we haven’t heard about it before because there has never been a political reason to be photographed doing it before. At least now the skeet shooters of America can rest assured that he has no nefarious designs on their second amendment right to shoot skeet.

But be that as it may, when it comes to politicians, you need to pay less attention to what they say and more attention to what they do. When I speak of the President, Vice-President, and various congresscritters stated desire, I speak not only concerning what they say, but what they actually do. With politicians, it seems, there is always a “but;” in this case the “but” is, “but we have to do something about gun violence.”

Funny thing is, all the proposals I have seen to date penalize the law-abiding gun owner and do nothing at all to actually prevent gun violence.

I could go on and on about this; in fact the two previous articles I wrote were also about the current gun grab attempt going on by our elected elite. However, I came upon an article recently by a man named Larry Correia. Larry is a favorite author of mine.

I have many favorite authors as I happen to read quite a bit. In addition to being an upcoming writer of really good contemporary fantasy, Larry is also extremely familiar with weapons, having owned a gun store dealing in pretty much everything except explosives and has qualified thousands of people to carry guns in the state of Utah as a Concealed Weapons instructor. He has been a firearms instructor as well, and a competition shooter, competing in IPSC (International Practical Shooting Confederation), IDPA (International Defensive Pistol Association), and 3gun competitions. And he is a nationally published expert on topics relating to gun law and use of force. When it comes to gun credentials, Larry has them; both the expertise in the hardware and the expertise in putting words down on paper.

So when I came across this article by him, I read it. He covers the topic of gun control so thoroughly, authoritatively, and eloquently that I knew right then that there was no point in my writing anything more on the subject. Better instead just to put in a link to his article and let you read that instead. So that is what I have done. In fact, I am including two links, one to his blog site, and another because his blog site is blocked where I work. Please read it – it is very informative, comprehensive, and a good read on top of that. What’s more, it allows me to continue in a different direction. Want to hear him as well? Here is a video of his recent appearance on Huckabee.

The President keeps telling us that “Americans want” the gun control he is peddling. And yet, I keep seeing data to the contrary. For example this article states that 60 percent of high school and college students say that they plan to purchase (or are contemplating purchasing) firearms at “a later stage in life” when they own their own households, according to a nation-wide poll conducted by professor Jennifer L. Lawless of the School of Public Affairs at American University in Washington D.C., and professor Richard L. Fox of Loyola Marymount University.

Now, I don’t know much about CampusReform.org, where the article was published. And I don’t know anything at all about the poll, how it was conducted, or the actual people who conducted it, other than the bio on professor Lawless that was linked from one of the articles.

It seems apparent to me, from reading the list of “key findings” from the poll that the pollsters lean at least a little bit to the left. Why do I say this? Because the leading finding is that “~50% of young people who self-identify as ‘depressed,’ ’stressed out,’ and/or have ‘difficulty making friends’ plan to have a gun in their household.” The second “key finding” is that high school and college students who regularly play video games for more than 4 hours per day are 50% more likely than those who don’t typically play video games to plan to own a gun. Both of these “findings” are in keeping with the left’s narrative on gun ownership.

The poll shows also that Democrats are nearly twice as likely as Republicans to fear gun violence and less likely to report planning to own a gun in the future (probably why they fear gun violence more), with a similar trend showing up in girls vs. boys. The latter is an interesting statistic, since the fastest growing demographic in gun ownership these days is females. One can but conclude that once they get out of college and into the real world, their views on gun ownership change remarkably.

I can say, anecdotally, that my six children, ranging in age from 13 to 28, express the same opinion; that is, they plan to own one or more guns at some point in the future; some in fact already do. Unless the sorts of guns they and others like them want to own are pre-1898 black powder rifles and blunderbusses, their stated desires would seem to me to be in direct conflict with what Democratic lawmakers, including the President, are proposing. Certainly if Senator Feinstein has her way, they will never, in their lifetime, have the opportunity to own a “modern” firearm. They can’t even inherit mine; Feinstein’s bill would require my estate to turn in my firearms to the federal government upon my death. Nor would I be able to sell them or give them away. No need to worry about possible government confiscation in the future; this bill is a confiscation bill – it will just take a few decades is all.

For some, apparently, being “very worried” about gun violence translates into a desire to own a gun to protect them from “gun violence.” This is not an irrational response, despite how it might be portrayed by the President, vice-President, Senator Feinstein, and by pundits on the left on CNN and other MSM news outlets.

Another example which illustrates that legal immigrants to the US, who have achieved US citizenship, understand our constitution and the purpose of the second amendment better than most Americans appear to. Why might that be? Perhaps immigrating here from some third world hell-hole where dictators reign, the rule of law is flouted, and armed thugs belonging to said government roam the streets doing whatever they please, with no ability to do anything to protect one’s self might have helped them gain an appreciation of what many here in the US can’t seem to wrap their minds around; that the second amendment is a protection against such things happening here. That self-defense is a basic right, one of the “inalienable” that our founders referred to. A right that all human beings have as part of their basic endowment from their creator, but one that is and has been, regrettably, taken away by governments on a regular basis throughout human history.

But don’t take my word or the word of the author of the article on this one. Play the video of Mr. Ong’s testimony before a “gun prevention” hearing in Hartford, Connecticut and hear his actual words. And lest you think he is alone in this viewpoint, the same has been expressed by other immigrants that I have heard on TV and the radio. I don’t have links, so you are free to believe or call me a liar as you wish.

Heck, even Pravda has written articles warning us not to go down this path. And if anyone should know about such things it would be the Russians. China thinks it would be a fine idea for Americans to give up their arms, but then again, they are still a Communist dictatorship, aren’t they, despite all the happy face we put on them in the media. Can’t say anything bad about China; they hold us by the financial gonads. And it won’t be too long before their military is powerful enough to be telling us what to do – at least in the Pacific.

Not all native born Americans are so blind. Here is a parent, whose child attended Sandy Hook Elementary, the place where the shooting that has sparked the majority of all this took place. He too testified at the Working Group Public Hearing in Connecticut. His child was one of those in “lock down” during the shooting and after it. He read from the Connecticut State Constitution, section 15, which reads “Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state,” noting that “there is no registration, there is no permitting, there is no background checks. It is quite clear.” He made a lot of clear and valid points, as documented in this article. He is clearly a man who understands the right to keep and bear arms, the right to self-defense, and why these words were written into both the constitution of his state and of his nation. Is anyone out there listening to him? I heard none of this reported in the MSM either.

We hear a lot about those who perpetrate violence with a gun; the more gruesome the more we hear. The news is all over stories like that these days; it furthers their agenda. But the MSM and our elected officials are strangely silent when it comes to instances where someone used a gun to stop violence or a potential mass shooting. Like this one in Detroit; a city with so much violence that it was named the most dangerous city to live in in America; a city with a violent crime rate of 2,137 per 100,000 residents, where 386 criminal homicides were committed in 2012; the highest homicide rate in 20 years, up 12% over 2011. The good news is that that violent crime rate, high as it is, actually fell 10% last year despite the murder rate increasing. Still it’s more than five times the national average. Detroit has led the list of America’s Most Dangerous Cities for four years in a row now.

Yet strangely, Detroit is a city with strict gun control laws as well. The criminals just don’t pay attention to them. The police chief blamed it on “The increased prevalence of individuals choosing to use acts of violence to settle disputes between friends, acquaintances and more disturbingly family members.” So what do you do if you happen to get caught up on one of these “senseless acts of violence?” Just say “it sucks to be me, I guess,” and die?

If you are waiting for the police to protect you in Detroit, keep on waiting. The population of Detroit has been shrinking for years. This coupled with industries moving out or closing up shop has put a lot of pressure on Detroit’s city budget. Their police force is shrinking right along with the population; they lost another 200 police officers last year due to budget cuts.

Detroit is a city that visually looks like a war zone, with entire neighborhoods being abandoned and falling into ruin – so much so that one company wants to open a Zombie apocalypse theme park there! And they don’t really have to build any fake structures to do so. But, once again, don’t take my links as gospel, Google the subject yourself! There are a plethora of articles on this, including, predictably, one by Time that asks the poignant question, “Does Detroit Need a Zombie Apocalypse Theme Park?” The answer to that is, “probably not.” Detroit has survived thus far without one. But again, that question of “need” that crops up so frequently on the left, particularly in conjunction with the question of so-called “assault rifles,” where one of the “arguments” is that no one in America “needs” one.

Does San Antonio “need” a Sea World? We are a long way from the coast. Probably not; and yet we have one. Probably Detroit doesn’t “need” a Zombie Apocalypse Theme Park either; does that mean that it shouldn’t happen? Should the Federal “Department of Wants and Needs” step in to regulate this?

What about the recent incident in Georgia I mentioned in my last article, where a woman fired six rounds at an assailant in her own home, five of which hit the perp in the face? How about the off-duty police officer here in San Antonio who stopped a potential mass shooting in a theater here in December 2012? It made the local news (and the conservative internet sites carried it), but little else on it appeared nationwide. And for the skeptical, here is the Snopes link to boot.

How about the concealed carry license holder who stopped a potential mass shooting in a shopping mall in Clackamas, Oregon, also in December of last year? The perp ran into the mall wearing tactical gear and carrying a Bushmaster AR-15 and started shooting off rounds. Two people were killed and one wounded before the concealed carry holder drew his Glock 22 and took aim. Just exposing his weapon was enough – once the perp saw it he left the scene and committed suicide with no other shots being fired. Not a whole lot of coverage on this one either. In fact, the Reuters report on the incident omitted mention of the CCL holder entirely, merely mentioning that the perp “moved downstairs and shot himself.”

Then there is this article, talking about how the governor of Maryland is urging state lawmakers to pass legislation requiring residents to obtain a license before purchasing a handgun. Maryland already has strict rules on “self-defense”. In Maryland, a homeowner must retreat to the furthest corner of the house, informing the perp the entire time that they have a gun and will shoot. And if he or she follows you and you do have to shoot, you darned well better kill the perp because if you don’t he or she can file suit for damages in civil court and pretty much rape you financially. In addition, you could find yourself facing criminal charges yourself should any “irregularities” in your behavior be noted.

But it seems reasonable, some may say. Does it? How is it reasonable to require a law-abiding citizen to obtain a license to purchase a handgun, but not reasonable to require identification before someone queues up at a voting booth to cast their ballot? I am told by many on the left that requiring identification to elect, among other things, the leader of the most powerful country in the world is an “infringement” on a person’s “right to vote.” I am told that in this day and age, it is somehow still impossible for some citizens to obtain picture ID and so requiring it would deprive them of their right to vote. That to require such would amount to a “poll tax” and hearken back to the days of Jim Crow.

You need a picture ID to do many things in this country, like drive a motor vehicle legally on the nation’s highways, buy alcohol or tobacco, fly on an airplane, cash a check, use a credit card (I have frequently been asked for picture ID when doing this), receiving prescription medications, purchasing OTC medicine that contains pseudoephedrine (such as Sudafed), making cash transactions of $5000 or greater, and I bet you can think of others as well. And yet, asking for ID to engage in one of our most important civic duties is somehow beyond the pale.

So how is it that we can’t ask to see ID to vote, or even require a voter to be a legal US citizen (how would you make that determination), but it is somehow OK to require a license to buy a gun – something that I and others like me see as an infringement on our right to keep and bear arms, guaranteed by the second amendment to the constitution? What if I don’t have the money? What if some local law enforcement gendarme doesn’t think I should be allowed to have a gun for whatever reason? Article and video here of a local cop in Florida who apparently feels this way and went out of his way to harass a concealed carry holder who was legally carrying.

There are places in the US right now where a person cannot obtain a concealed carry license, state law to the contrary, because the law requires them to get it signed off by the head of law enforcement in their county, and said head refuses to do so for anyone because he doesn’t like the idea of citizens carrying concealed. What if issuing said license is left up to some bureaucrat who doesn’t think I or anyone else should have a gun. Or doesn’t like the particular gun I want to own?

But you say, I am required to have a license to drive a car, get married, sell alcohol in a restaurant, and for many other things in this country. True. But none of those things is a constitutionally protected right specifically mentioned in the US Constitution. There is no “right” to drive a car; driving is a privilege. There is no “right” to sell alcohol in a restaurant. Heck, there isn’t even a “right” to get married mentioned anywhere in the document.

The list goes on. And yet, the Congress, the President, and most of the mainstream media seems hell-bent on disarming law abiding Americans and preventing them from defending themselves rather than trying to address the real sources of the problem. Questions need to be answered, questions other than “should Americans be allowed to own certain types of guns.”

What is causing this recent spate of violent encounters? Why are mass shootings occurring? Why is Detroit (and Chicago, and other cities) beginning to resemble a war zone? Why are people resolving their differences increasingly with violence instead of more traditional, peaceful means? What has changed in our culture that may be causing these problems? Can the causes be fixed? Are we willing to fix them, or have they become so engrained in popular culture that we can’t see the forest for the trees? What effect do violent video games and blood steeped motion pictures have on people anyway? We claim that watching people smoke in the movies and TV leads to people smoking, and for that reason you don’t see it so much anymore. But somehow graphic violence is OK and has no effect?

It isn’t the guns themselves. Americans have had guns since the founding of the country. A gun is a tool, like a hammer. And like a hammer it can be used for good or ill. It isn’t the gun or the hammer that commits the act; it is the person wielding them.

We need to step back and take a good long look at what is going on instead of being stampeded into doing something by people with a political agenda; something that ultimately won’t solve the problem, but which will make us less safe and turn millions of Americans in to criminals when they refuse to give up their arms. We tried this with prohibition, and that worked out well, didn’t it? Take a breath America; take a big, deep breath and think for a change instead of acting on knee-jerk, emotional, flawed responses.

 >Ļ€ current.txt ‘ ¼   !  ž  7  7’’’’ 4y @ ū @Ż£WE³ 7 @ ü @Ż£WE³  ż  0 current.txt  ś  7 ž ’  7 current.txt  7  .txt ¾"