Archive

Monthly Archives: December 2012

I can’t believe that I am saying this, but the seed of the devil has been planted within the heart of the Republican Party.  A conservative congressman has decided that to prevent shootings like the one at Sandy Hook and the movie theater in Auroa there must be a ban of the freedom of speech. According to this congressman it is our First Ammendment rights that have created the culture of violence that has allowed for madness that we have seen over the last couple of years. The violent video games, tv shows, and movie that all promote mass shootings and torture have brainwashed countless young people into believing that murder is okay. So this congress man has proposed that we not ban free speech, but rather we just control it.  He wants to ban certian types of video games, such as:
     Any game with a gun,
     Any first person prospective game
     Any multi-player game aimed at attacking other players
     Any game where the player tries to kill or attack computer generated characters

He is also pushing for a ban on certian types of movies:
     Horror Movies showing the mutilation of victims
     Action movies using guns to shoot people
     Slap Stick commedy
     Any cartoon where a character has a gun,
     Any cartoon where a character attacks another character
     Any movie where the character attacks another character

The list goes on and on I am afraid, basically he wants to make it all but impossible to make a tv show, movie, or video game in this country.  He has even targeted the news media. According to him, they are one of the primary causes of violence in this country.  They constantly air the face and names of mad men who go on shooting sprees and murder innocent lives. This gives the mentally ill, or those who feel as though the world has ignored them, a way to express themselves, and make their vengance known.  So this congressman has decided that we need to create a government agency tasked with managing the news media, its jobs include, but are not limited too:

     Setting a cap on the number of reporters allowed in the country
     Establishing standardized news programing times
     Monitering and restricting activity on cable news programs
     Establishing standard times where violent crimes are allowed to be covered
     Establishing a standard timelimit for news networks to be allowed to discuss the stories they air
     Establishing national criteria for becoming a reporter, or news anchor
     Establishing a national criteria for what is allowed to be published in print media
     Finger printing, and conducting background checks of all news media employees,
     Creating a database and montier all of the activities of all news media employees

The insanity must not be allowed to happen, our First Ammendment rights are going to be trampled by this radical response to the recent tragedies in our country.

THIS IS NOT ACTUALLY HAPPENING, their is no vast right wing conspiracy theory trying to strip us of our first ammendment rights.  I made this up. I wrote this to show you the danger in allowing the federal government to use a tragedy to create a precedent where it is acceptable for them to steal our rights, in the name of the greater good.  Thankfully the scenerio I spelled out above is not actually happening, but radicals within the Democrat party are moving to do something just as damaging, just as radical, in response to the recent shootings within this nation.

As we are all aware, progressives hate to ever let a tragedy go to waste. They like to exploit hardship and sorrow to push radical agenda items.  Well of course they have decided that the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementry School is a perfect tragedy to exploit to set a president for stealing our God given rights, all in the name of the greater good. 

Diane Feinstien, a hard core progressive, is dead set and determined to end private gun ownership in this country.  She has pushed congress to pass her radcial “Assualt Weapons Ban”.  Her bill would ban ownership of all most all semi-automatic firearms, all handguns, most types of shotguns, requires all fire-arms to be registared, and treats gun owners like common criminals. Yes Ms. Feinstien wants all those vile monsters who dare exercise their God given rights to be treated like the demons they are. She wants all law abiding individuals who are exercising their God given rights to be finger printed and photographed.

Now in a previous post I highlighted the futility of the efforts being proposed by Ms. Feinstien. Gun Control does not have a record of lowering crime. Time and time again gun control efforts are passed by radical progressives, and time and time again crime rates go up after they go into effect. This is nothing more than an attempt by the radical leftests to set a precedent of stealing our rights in the name of the greater good. They want to condition us to assume that the government is allowed to take our rights from us. They want us to see the government as all powerful, as a body there to protect us simple minded country folks. If you think that they will stop here, stop with just making us give up the majority of our fire arms and registaring what they don’t steal from us, you are saddly mistaken. There is a reason for creating a gun owner registery, and it isn’t for monitering crime rates.

The purpose of this registary is so that they have a tool to complete their ultimate goal of disarming the American People. Let us look to history for guidence.  As I have said countless times, gun control does not work.  Banning guns, villainizing gun owners, does not stop criminals from being criminals. All it does is make us law abiding citizens easy targets. But progressives don’t opperate on facts and logic, they work off of emotions and fear. They ignore facts, and go off what feels rights. I feel that guns are scary, so we must ban them.  So lets just say that Ms. Fienstien radical bill becomes law, (not to hard to imagine, the only hurdel is the House, and President Obama will just paint devil horns and hittler mustauches on GOP members until they cave). The government will come in and steal most of the guns owned by law abiding citizens. Criminals continue to smuggle guns a crossed our open boarder with Mexico, or keep guns hidden from the ATF.  They are now able to feed much more easily on the un-armed law abiding masses.  Crime rates and Murder Rates shot up through the roof.  The progressives will now say, clearly all of these murders and crimes are being commited by law abiding citizens with bolt action rifles.  So using the registry that they created when they passed the unconsitutional gun ban, they can easily round up the few remaining fire arms from the hands of private citizens.  Think I am crazy? Well they did just that in the United Kingdom of Great Britian.  Problem is even after they  stole the guns from their citizens, crime rates still went up.

So now lets think for a little bit. They ban guns, and as we all know that plan goes down in flames, resulting in higher crime rates than before. What then will they take from us to prevent violent crimes? Will they go to a plan like the one I highlighted above? What will we do to stop them? What if they decided that the right to vote has become to dangerous, we might elect a radical who will abuse us.  What is to stop them? We would have no way to fight back, now way to protect our rights. They took the one final check we have on our government, the fact that we are an armed people.

Here is a thought that I had on the subject,  Moore, Feinstein, President Obama, Hollywood nut jobs… I mean actors, are all against the private ownership of firearms. Why would they need a gun to protect themselves they have an armed gaurd. So If Ms. Feinstein is so dead set and determined to steal our right to defend ourselves, then I would like to add an ammendment to her bill.  If the private citizens of this nation are not allowed to possess fire arms, then here is what I want to see happen:
     Disarm every police officer in the nation: they don’t need guns, the criminals couldn’t possibly have
     any guns, sense guns are illegal. And the police having firearms, is only an opprotunity for criminals to
     steal one to use against the people of this country.
     Disarm every federal agent in the nation: Same reason as the police, the EPA, and the Department of
     Agriculture don’t need armed agents
     Ban all private security firms: There is no reason to have vigilanties taking the law into their own
     hands, just to protect private property and the lives of Hollywood actors. There is no more crime sense
     there are no more guns, so these brutes are no longer needed and should be banned.
     Disband the Secret Service: The elected officals of this country will no longer need protecting sense
     criminals will have no way to kill them, now that guns are illegal.

If we the private citizens, and true rulers of this land, are not allowed to defend ourselves, then those who stripped us of that right have no need nor right to be able to defend themselves.  Why would we need armed police officers, or private security, or a secret service if criminals can’t kill people anymore sense they couldn’t possibly have a gun to do it. They are just costly expenses that this country just can’t afford.  We can cut the deficit and wipe out crime all at once. 

Of course the power hungry progressives will call this a radical plan, say I am crazy, say that I am evil, call me stupid, racists, or any other assortment of names. I expect that, and I know that it is coming. They don’t like it when people reveal their schemes to the world.  Nor do they like it when you use facts to debate an issue rather than feelings.  We have to stand up for our rights now, or we will lose them.  This is not about whether or not we should be allowed to have guns, that issue was decided when the second ammendment was ratified.  This issue is about whether or not the government should be able to steal our rights when it is convient for them.  This is about whether or not the government should be all powerful, whether or not we should be servants to the whims of tyrants, or invidiual citizens free to live our own lives.  This the debate that will determine whether or not we remain masters of our own fate, or if we become a mindless conglomerate subject to the iron fisted rule of an unaccountable body of tyrants.   You choose.

Advertisements

Well its been a while sense my last update, hope everyone’s holiday’s have gone well. Now on to the long over due update on the Obama Administration.

656.) President Obama is a hard core leftest progressive, we all know that, we have lived for four years under his progressive agenda. I remember back during the Bush Administration how everything President Bush did was subject to endless public critisim, as it should have been. One such critisim was the warrentless wiretap program that President Bush put into place. The program was designed to moniter overseas activity between suspected terrorist and spies.  This was met with uproar by the left, President Bush abusing federal power, and trampling our consitutional rights. Whether you agree with the program or not is not the issue being discused here. The issue being discussed here is the hypocrisy of President Barack Obama.

At the begining of President Obama’s five year campaign for a second term, way back in January of 2008 he gave a speech in Hanover New Hampshire where he said, “My job this morning is to be so persuasive…that a light will shine through that window, a beam of light will come down upon you, you will experience an epiphany, and you will suddenly realize that you must go to the polls and vote for Barack.” To help create this epiphany, to help summon this beam of light within the hearts and minds of the ivy league students gathered to see the Great One speak, he invoked many progressive idea’s, from magically saving the planet, to ending the war in Iraq. Of course no Obama speech would be complete without an attack on either Republicans, Fox News, Conservatives, or George W. Bush. To make sure he got his jab in he brought up the issue of the Warrentless Wiretaps.  Then Senator Obama said, “For one thing, under an Obama presidency, Americans will be able to leave behind the era of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and wiretaps without warrents.” Strong stance, the man is standing up for the Consitution, and the rights of the American People, and sense we had no real record to judge the man on, many of us were nieve enough to believe that he was going to restore rule of law to the nation.  Of course now, we have many examples of President Obama’s complete disregaurd of the law we can see through these hollow campaign lies. Yes President Obama came into office claiming he was going to end Warrentless Wire Taps, he also claimed that he was going to have the most open administration in history. Why then did he use the fog of chaos to conceal the fact that he, President Barack Obama, Champion of the progressive left, signed a five year extension to the Warrentless Wire Taping program?  I guess this is just another example of how everything is illegal and criminal untill President Obama does it.

President Obama called President Bush’s spending un-american. He then spends all most one trillion dollars within his first 100 days in office, and thanks to his unwillingness to compromise, and the magic of baseline budgeting, that trillion dollars is the gift that keeps on giving at an ever growing rate of 3 to 10 percent. 

President Obama blasted President Bush for the use of executive orders,  he then proceeded to issue 144 of them in his first term.

President Obama blasted President Bush for issuing signing statements. He then issued 20 of them.

President Obama blasted the Bush Administration for the warrentless wire tapping program. He then signs a five year extension of the program while the nation is focused on the fiscal cliff.

More politics as usual I am afraid from President Barack Obama. 

 

Michael Moore, the progressive propagandist, said that the reason that Americans buy guns is because “we’re a very frightened people” with a “unresolved race problem”.  Why is it that almost everything seems to comedown to a race issue with the most faithful of the progressive faith?  He stated “ think we’ve been frightened ever since we landed on these shores.We were frightened of the native people, we were frightened of the slaves we brought over — as we should have been. And those in power have known how to manipulate us with fear.

In one of his of propaganda films, Bowling for Columbine, he wanted to examine “How fear is used to the point where everybody feels like they’ve got to have a gun in the house“.  He then said, “We’ve got over a quarter-billion guns in people’s homes. And they’re mostly in the suburbs and rural areas where there is virtually no crime and no murder. So why is that? What are they really afraid of? What do they think of — who’s going to break into the house?” “Do they think it’s little freckled-face Jimmy down the street? I don’t think so. I don’t think that’s who they’re afraid of. And it cuts down to the heart of our race problem that we still haven’t resolved,” So what I find interesting is that Moore is trying to tell us that those in power are manipulating us with fear. Yet here he is spreading the fear of racism, and all but calling supporters of the second amendment racists.  More of the same from progressives, divide the nation with fear and by race.
I have a question though, does anyone actually take this guy seriously?   

665.) We all know how thin skinned President Obama is. He is doesn’t handle critisim very well. When met with a tough question he either chooses to belittle the person who asked it, behind their back of course, or to change the subject, ignore what the question was about, and go off on an tangent.  Well we had a great example of the thin skinned President Obama when he gave a press conference calling for more gun control.

President Obama announced a special task force to look into “real reforms” to reduce gun control. A reporter from that radical right wing news organization ABC, a man by the name of Jake Tapper asked President Obama “This is not the first issue, the first incident of horrific gun violence of your four years.Where have you been?” 

President Obama responded in traditional form, he dodged it and then went back to bragging about his failed record. “Here’s where I’ve been Jake. I’ve been president of the United States dealing with the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, an auto industry on the verge of collapse, two wars, I don’t think I’ve been on vacation. I think all of us have to do some reflection on how we prioritize what we do here in Washington.”

This brings up a good point, why has he not called for gun control measures after other mass shootings? Five of the top 12 worst shootings.Why didn’t he call for real reforms after Congress Woman Giffords was shot? Why didn’t he call for real reforms after the Binghamton Immigration Center Shooting. Why didn’t he call for real reforms after the shooting in Geneva County in 2009 that left 10 people dead. Why didn’t he call for real reforms after the Portland Mall Shooting? What about the shooting in the Sikh Temple that left six dead?

There have been many shootings in his 1,425 days in office that President Obama could have used as a starting point to work on “real reforms” to end gun violence. The problem with using them as a starting point to work on “real reforms” is that all of those past attacks took place during his five year presidential campaign.  In the attacks listed above 56 people died, their deaths were not worthy of discussing real reforms, because they could hurt President Obama politically.   He remained all but silent during his first term about gun control, the question is why? The reason is that there are many people out there who own guns, who understand that guns are important to the safety of American Citizens, and that do not want the government to take more from them then they already have. Bascially President Obama didn’t feel that the death of 56 people was worth losing a political race.  However, now that he has been re-elected he is free to exploit any tragedy, regaurdless of how it makes him look to the public. As I said, President Obama is a radical left wing progressive, he has kept the majority of his radical views well hidden in the first four years of his term, but now that he is not up for re-election he is free to be as radical as he wants.

So sense President Obama won’t answer Mr. Tapper’s question, I will. President Obama did nothing after any of the mass shootings in his first term because it was not convenient for him. His job was more important than doing something to stem gun violence. I truely beleive he did not ban guns for much the same reason he didn’t raise taxes. He knows that both of these actions would only do harm to the nation, and as such hurt his chances of being re-elected. He did nothing after the previous attacks because he knew that gun control would not help, and he  is only pushing for it now because he doesn’t think the people should have the right to defend themselves. Why else would he have ignored the violence before?

664.) President Obama has finally exposed his radical progressive views on gun control. As I expected he has decided to use this tragedy as a way to promote his progressive agenda.  He announced today that he is assigning his administration with coming up with a solution to reduce the gun violence in this country. He is using the shooting in Connecticut as a way to push for the reinstatement of the assault weapons ban, limiting the sale of high capacity magazines, and more background checks, as a start.  He made hardly a mention of Gun Control in his first term, now he is pushing hard for more, funny how that works after he is re-elected he can be as radical as he wants. It won’t be long before we start hearing for stricter gun laws than this.  Anyways, President Obama had this to say “The fact that this problem is complex can no longer be an excuse for doing nothing. The fact that we can’t prevent every act of violence doesn’t mean we can’t steadily reduce the violence.” Yes Mr. President you are right, there is no excuse for doing nothing. However doing something as ignorant as banning guns is a horrible proposal, one that his progressive forbears have tried many times, and has caused massive increase in crime rates every time.   Banning guns has never worked to reduce crime rates. The issue is deeper than that, we have a cultural problem, not a gun problem.  The break down of the American Family, and the vilification of the firearm are the cause of the problem, banning them will do nothing to stop the violence.  It is nothing more than an attempt to disarm the American People. It will only succeed in making us victims, not saving us from monsters. 

Now there are many who will claim that I am no different than President Obama as I am trying to promote some political agenda. In a way you might be right, if trying to prevent a progressive thug from exploiting a tragedy to take away our rights is promoting a political agenda, I guess I am guilty.   I don’t see it that way, I am not using this as a call to undo gun laws, I am not trying to push for a loaded gun in every school, I am merely trying to prevent the progressives from taking yet more of our rights, by exploiting the death of small children.   It would be different if there was any evidence to back up their claims, but there just isn’t.  They are not trying to protect the American People, they are trying to disarm the American People, turn us into servants rather than masters.  It truly frightens me when the government starts taking my guns. 

I find myself in an interesting position. On one hand I want to go to war, on the other I find myself wanting to find common ground, to educate.  That is probably why I am having such a hard time writing an introduction to this post.  I have written on this subject many times in the past, so I am not without previous works upon which to draw inspiration. The problem that I have is that none of them really strikes the proper tone that I wanted for this post.  There is enough anger and hatred out there in our country to spark a second civil war.  Tempers are flared,and emotions are high so anything written on this subject must be able to convey my message, and at the same time not enflame an already divided nation. 

America is a special nation, a nation that at the time of its founding had no contemporary.  It was based on a concept that had not been seen in over a thousand years.  It was a nation striving to achieve the goal that all men are created equal, that a government should be set up so one man need not fear another.  We are not a nation under a king, but rather a nation of kings.  A government of the people, for the people, by the people, a strange concept in a world of monarchs.  Our founders wrote the constitution over 200 years ago, and the fact that it is still in effect is a testament to their intelligence, and the will of the American People. When asked what sort of government the founders had given to the American People, Benjamin Franklin responded “ A Republic, if you can keep it.” I think that we have met this challenge. America was and still remains a grand experiment.  It remains a golden example to the world that a man can rule himself, that man does not be of noble birth to leave a mark on history.

The founders understood that an elected legislator can trample an individual’s rights as easily as a monarch can, so they created a federal system with checks and balances. Then with the addition of the 10th Amendment they limited the government’s powers to those outlined in the Constitution.   That brings me to the point that I want to discuss. The 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution denies the government the ability to rob the American People of their right to own and bear arms.  For the majority of this country’s history this has been an assumed of life, that we have the right to own and bear arms.  Recently however, there has been a movement that has challenged many of the traditional values of our nation.  One of their targets has been the right of the people to own and bear arms. We are far removed now from the founding of the Republic so it is easy for people to lose sight of the reasons behind the way the founders set up our nation. So it has become easy for people to give up on rights, for the greater good. We must understand that once we lose a right, it is almost impossible to get it back. So before we rally behind a banner to surrender our rights, I feel it is important that we examine the issue fully.

I am without a doubt certain that all of us have heard about the recent shooting in Connecticut.  27 lives, many of them young children snuffed out by a mad man.  There exists nothing in the global vocabulary for this sort of insanity.  In this time of sorrow, those who seek to do away with our right to own and bear arms have once again reared their heads and are using this tragedy to fan the flames of the gun control debate once more.   When this tragedy first took place I asked for both sides to hold off, to wait for the dust to settle before they began the inevitable debate.  To allow for time to grieve before they muddied the waters with their political squabbling.  I will admit that I am not a perfect man, and that it is not all that hard to push my buttons.  I am sorry to say that I have been involved more than I should have been in this debate up until now.  It has become clear to me that the two sides of this debate will not wait, will not avoid trying to politicize the death of these people.  So I have decided it is time to wade into the fray, make my opinion known, and hopefully bring some sanity to this debate.   I doubt that my words will reach any deeply entrenched in this battle. Most of them will just write off what I have to say and continue their assaults any ways.  This post is not for them, but rather for those out there who are trying to make up their minds, trying to make sense of which way to go. I hope this debate can get information out before the narrative is established. I cannot, nor do I want to force you to believe as I do.  All I can do is spell out my beliefs and show you the reasoning for them.

To begin, I fully understand why some would think that gun control is the answer. It is easy very easy to see the reasoning behind it. In the case of the Connecticut massacre, 20 innocent children’s lives were just snuffed out by a monster wielding a gun. In this time of high stress, anger, and sorrow we tend to look for something to place the blame on. In today’s day and age of quick fixes, and the desire for instant satisfaction naturally people look for the answer to be right there in front of them. We sane minded human beings find it impossible to believe that someone could just massacre 27 innocent lives. So we look past the human element and look for something that is easy to blame. The man shot his victims with a gun;we all think we know what guns can do, so it is easy for us to understand how a gun killed a person. So many of us support the quick fix that gun control will prevent not only these massacres, but murders and violent crimes as well.

The problem however is that the idea that gun control will reduce crime rates is a conclusion looking for facts,rather than facts forming a conclusion. There is no evidence to support the claim that gun control will reduce gun violence.  There is actually more evidence to support the fact that gun control only leads to higher crime rates.  Now this is where I will lose many of those reading this. Most will assume that because of my past, that I am just toeing the party line.  However, I have come to this conclusion based on three key issues statistical facts, common sense, and personal experience.  I encourage all of you to please hold off on forming an opinion until you read the entirety of this article.

Part 1

I am a student of history; I believe that the past holds the answers for the problems of today, if we are smart enough to find them.  In the case of gun control history grants us many examples of past attempts to stem violence by limiting or eliminating the public’s access to fire arms. If gun control is a viable method to reduce or eliminate violent crimes its implementation will result in lower crime rates. The following are examples of those attempts.

Example: In 1976 Washington D.C. passed a law generally prohibiting private citizens from possessing guns, as well as requiring guns in private homes to be kept unloaded and inoperable via disassembly or by a trigger lock. The law went into effect on September 24, 1976.

Result:
From the time the trigger lock law was put into effect, until it was overruled by the Supreme Court in 2008, the murder rate in Washington D.C. averaged 73% higher that it was at the outset of the law. While the murder rate in the nation averaged 11% lower.


Example:
Chicago passed a hand gun ban in 1982.

Results: Now at first it seems as though this ban was effective, as the murder rate in Chicago dropped 17%, while the U.S. murder rate was 25% lower. However, sense the outset of the handgun ban in Chicago, until it was deemed unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court, the percentage of murders committed with a hand gun rose by 40%. In 2005 96% of all murder victims in Chicago were killed by a man using a hand gun.

It appears as though the evidence does not support the theory of Gun Control. However there are many people who will say that the gun bans referenced above were ineffective because the criminals could go a crossed state boarders to acquire a firearm. Therefore, they claim, a gun ban will only be effective if it is done on a national scale. History once again blesses us with a passed example of just such a ban. This time it comes from Europe. However, sense the countries in Europe are the size of states in the United States it would seem that a national gun ban there would suffer from the same weaknesses as a statewide ban in the United Sates. However, one European nation is separated from the rest by a large body of water, the English Channel. I of course am speaking about the United Kingdom of Great Brittan. The U.K. is obviously on an island, so bringing firearms into the country would be a very difficult feat. So a national gun ban here would be an excellent example of their effectiveness.

Example:Great Brittan passed a gun control law in 1967 that made it so that civilians had to get a license from their local police chief in order to purchase a firearm. You also had to provide id numbers for all the guns you owned. In 1997 Great Brittan passed a law that required the surrender almost all privately owned handguns to the police. More than 162,000 hand guns and a million pounds of ammunition were confiscated. Using the records the government began mandating in 1967, the government knew they had all but 8 legal handguns in England, Wales, and Scotland.

Results: Sense 1967 the murder rates have averaged 52% higher than before the law took effect, Sense 1997, the murder rate has averaged 15% higher than before the ban.

Even in the case of an island nation such as the United Kingdom, a gun control law was ineffective at stemming the rising tide of violence. The United Kingdom is an island nation, connected to the mainland only the euro tunnel. That makes it incredibly hard for criminals to smuggle guns to the nation, seeing as they have limited points of access. The data though shows that violent people are committing violent acts, at a much faster rate than before the gun ban. Using the lessons of history it is easy to understand that banning the public from owning firearms will not prevent criminals from acquiring them, or committing evil deeds.

Gun control proponents will rightly point out that Gun Control does not only mean banning the sale of firearms, but it could also mean limiting the sale, or placeing more controls on the sale of fire arms. Many call for longer waiting periods, so the government can do background checks to prevent criminals from acquiring guns. They say that limiting the ability of citizens to carry firearms will lower the crime rates.  Once again history shows us the answer.

In 1976 Georgia and Wisconsin tried two very different approaches to lower crime rates.  Wisconsin tried a gun control style approach. They imposed a 48 hour waiting period to purchase a hand gun. It was thought that this way the government could conduct a background check and prevent criminals from purchasing firearms. Where as in Georgia, the government passed legislation that would make it not only easier to purchase firearms, but also easier to carry them. If the gun control theory worked, crime rates would be higher in Georgia, and lower in Wisconsin. The results of the two plans are quite clear. In Georgia homicide rates dropped an amazing 21%. Unfortunately for those who support the idea of gun control, Wisconsin did not share Georgia’s good fortune, as their murder rate rose 33% in the same time frame.

It should be clear by now that the data does not support the theory that Gun Control will put an end to violence in this nation. However, evidence of gun control failure is not enoughto disprove a theory. So far I have proved that past attempts at gun control have failed, but I have yet to disprove the concept behind gun control. That brings me to a controversial topic, and that is Concealed Carry. If the concept behind gun control is a valid one, then allowing people to carry firearms will only lead to increased crime rates.  Once again we must turn to history to show us the answers.

Example: On October 1st, 1987 Florida’s right to carry law became effective. Florida has issued 1,825,143 permits, with 746,430 active.

Result: Sense the law took effect, Florida’s murder rate is down 36% from what it was prior to when the law went into effect. To put that in perspective, during that same time frame the United States murder rate only dropped 15%

Example: In January 1996 Texas’s right to carry law became effective. In 2009 Texas had 402,914 active permits.

Result: Sense the law took effect Texas’s murder rate has averaged 30% lower than it was prior to the law taking effect. To put that in perspective, during that same time frame the United States murder rate averaged 28% lower.

Example: On July 1st, 2001 Michigan’s right to cary law became effective.

Results: Sense the law took effect Michigan’s murder rate has averaged 4% lower than it was prior to the law taking effect. To put that into perspective the United States murder rate averaged 2% lower than.

What does all of this show? It shows that in states that returned the right of their citizens to bear arms, the murder rates went down. In two of the above examples the decrease in the murder rate actually doubled the decrease in the national average. So thus showing that rather than banning guns, or limiting access to guns, that by actually allowing law abiding citizens to defend themselves crime rates went down.

This brings up a valid point worthy of discussion. It is one that naturally would cause some to scratch their heads.  If criminals use guns, how would putting more guns in the market reduce crime rates? The answer can befound by analyzing not only criminals and their behavior, but also the time frame around a crime, and of course history.

To understand how allowing private citizens more access to firearms, rather than limiting them,lowers murder rates we need to understand the time frame surrounding a crime. Such as how long does a criminal typically interact with their victim, how long does it take for police to arrive. The Department of Justice reports that the average criminal interacts with their victim for 90 seconds. Only 90 seconds, a minute and a half, that sounds like a short time, but for a victim those will be the longest 90 seconds of their life.  So while the criminal is only present on the scene for 90 seconds, the average police response time around the country is over four minutes. So odds are that by the time the police show up the criminal will be long gone. So the question that always pops into my mind is what does the criminal have to fear, when seconds count the police are only minutes away.

Before going on, I need to address something that I hear far to often. Many people ask why do we need guns, all we have to do is call the police. While the above information should be enough to demonstrate why you cannot rely soley on the police, many still will believe that we do not need to own firearms, we have the police. It is important to understand that the police are under no obligation to protect you from violent crimes.  In 2005 the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Police have no constitutional duty to protect individuals from harm.

Now, we understand the time frame surrounding a crime, and we have discussed the police’s obligation ssurrounding crime intervention, it only makes sense to look into some of the data surrounding Firearms being used, not by criminals, but rather by people defending themselves.

In 1982, a survey done for a book called Armed and Consider Dangerous: A Survey ofFelons and Their Firearms went to 11 male state prisons acrossed the United States and found:

•34% had been “scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim”
• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they “knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun”
• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been “scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim”

Then there was the a survey conducted in 1994 by the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention that found Americans use firearms to frighten away intruders that are breaking into their home 498,000 times a year.

More recently in 2000 a survey published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology found that U.S. Civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crimes at least 989,883 times a year.

In 2008 a survey from the Department of Justice found that roughly 5,430,000 violent crimes were committed in America.These included simple/aggravated assaults, robberies, rape, sexual assault, and murder. 430,000 or about 8% were committed by a person who was visibly armed with a gun.

We have above evidence showing that guns are not just the tools of criminals, but are also the tools of everyday American’s who just want to be able to defend themselves from violent crime. 

I know that this is a lot of information to digest, especially when you are reading a blog, so I am going to try to sum up what I gathered from this information.  We know that on average a crime is done long before the police are going to arrive, this means that the police are not an effective means of defense from criminals. We know that the police do not have a duty to protect us, again making us greater targets for criminals.  We have seen how criminals can be deterred by armed victims.   We have seen the records of past gun control laws, and compared them to concealed carry laws. It is clear to me, that from the evidence it is impossible to support this idea that passing gun control legislation is going to some how reduce crime rates.

Part 2

I would like to discuss some common sense aspects surrounding gun control. Basically I would like to look at the idea that passing another law is going to stop someone from committing a crime. 

If preventing robberies, rape,assault, or murder was as easy as passing a law, why then haven’t we made these acts illegal? Well, as any child can tell you, it is illegal to steal, illegal to kill someone, hopefully they don’t know what assault and rape are but you get the point.  These horrible acts are already against the law. So why would someone worry about breaking a gun law if they are already prepared to commit another crime.

In the case of the Connecticut Shooting, the shooter was a 19 year old male. He had with him an AR-15, and two hand guns.  He used these weapons to kill 27 innocent people, and himself.  Now let us examine this.

In Connecticut it is illegal for anyone under the age of 21 to own or posses a hand gun.

The shooter had two.

He stole two hand guns and the AR-15 rifle from his mother.

          It is illegal to steal

He took the guns to the school.

          It is illegal to have a fire arm on school property

He broke into the building.

          It is illegal to break into a building

He gave up his humanity and killed 27 people.

          It is illegal to murder.

It was illegal for him to have two of the guns, it is illegal to steal, it is illegal to have guns on school property, it is illegal to break into a building, it is illegal to murder, yet he did all of those things.  It did not matter that he was breaking the law, he was dead set and determined to commit mass murder. One more law would not have stopped him, in fact gun control laws did fail to stop him.

It is a tired old cliché I know, but if you ban guns the only people who will have them are the criminals. Everyone has heard this at some point in time, and most people I think don’treally think about it.  But it brings up a good point, criminals do not care about society’s laws, one more is not going to stop them.  Law abiding citizens agree to follow our laws, for the greater good. Criminals break the laws for their own good.  

Remember earlier how I stated that when seconds mater the police are only minutes away. Those who advocate for gun control misunderstand the purpose of the legal system. It is not there as an active method to prevent crime. The legal system cannot arrest someone before they commit a crime, if that is a world you want God help all of us. The legal system exists to punish those who break our laws.  The legal system prevents crimes not by finding criminals before they act, but rather by demonstrating to the public that actions have consequences, if you break the law you will be punished. What I am saying is that laws do exist to keep us save, but they can only be enforced after a crime has been committed, meaning that someone prepared to commit mass murder will not hesitate to break a law.

I would also like to take the time to consider the government’s success at banning something.  When the government passes a law banning something, the vast majority of these bans have only succeeded in moving the item out of the main stream, driving it underground, and creating a black market to be exploited by criminals. Some examples are:

          Prohibition: banned the sale of alcohol. If my memory serves correctly alcohol did not disappear from the streets of our city. It led to the rise of speak easies, a golden era of moon shining, and organized crime.There was a demand for alcohol, and that demand did not go away just because the government decided that we should not have alcohol. So those who wanted alcohol went to underground to get it. The government then spent millions trying to stop the illegal sale of alcohol. They never did end the illegal sales, and the violence didn’t end until prohibition was repealed, and people could by alcohol legally.

          The War on Drugs: The government made drugs such as weed and crack illegal. They declared a war on drugs, and we are living in that ban right now. Is the use of illegal drugs going down because it was banned? No, people are just going to criminals to acquire it. The government is spending millions upon millions trying to fight the underground drug industry.

          Prostitution: Prostitution is illegal in 49 of the 50 states.  We all know that around the nation there are woman who are being sold for sex.  The industry has gone underground and is in the hands of criminals.

I am sure we can list more, but my point should be pretty clear.  There is no reason to believe that if the government bans firearms that people won’t still be able to acquire them. History shows us that they have failed consistently in the past.  What would be different this time?

Part 3

Whether you are a progressive, conservative, or something in-between we can all agree there is a problem in our country.  The progressives, as is typical, believe that the problem lies in our country granting too many liberties to its citizens, and that more government control is needed.  Conservatives believe that the problem lies not in us not having given the government enough power, but rather in the crumbling of our society.  I am of the second group.  Our country is sick, and I am not talking about our politcal system, I am talking about us as a people. 

We have lost sight of what made our nation great.  We have forgotten what it means to be a nation.  In the past America was a beacon to the world. People came from around the world to come be a part of the grand experiment, to become an American. We were a melting pot where societies collided, were forged together, and emerged stronger than they ever were apart.  Now we exist not as one people, but as a conglomerate of micro-nations, creating mass tensions within the country’s boundaries .

Violent movies, video games, and music glorify violence and murder. Many see this violent entertainment as desensitizing our nation. Blinding us to the true horror a man can unleash with a firearm.  Desensitizing us to the heinous act of taking another’s life.  But blaming video games and violent movies is no different than blaming guns.

The problem goes deeper than simply banning or blaming violent entertainment. The issue as I said is the crumbling of the American Society. The basics of right and wrong are not being instilled in our children. Why? The answer is simple the family is crumbling. The family is the unit that used to raise children, teach them right from wrong. But for some reason that unit has crumbled.  There have been bad families in the past, but back then there was a community to help the children caught up in the chaos. If parents were doing their jobs, then kids would know that a video game or movies aren’t real. That what is happening in those games isn’t real. They would be taught that killing is wrong.

When I was growing up I played first person shooters. I thought they were fun, and I know that they are just games. I should point out that I don’t feel like going out and shooting a bunch of people.  That is because while I was allowed to play video games, my Dad made sure to teach me from a young age the difference between right and wrong.  My Father told me that if I was ever got in trouble at school for fighting there were two things that might happen. If I was defending myself, or someone else, he would not be mad at me, he would be proud. However, if I was ever sent home for picking a fight, there is no punishment the school could cook up that would be worse than what was waiting for me at home. He taught me that there was a difference between justice and getting even. He taught me it was wrong to pick on someone because they were different than you. That if I saw someone picking on someone else and did nothing, then I might as well join in as I was no better than they are.

The other issue is that parents have failed to properly educate their children about guns. There was once a time in this country where guns were not a taboo. They were not some mysterious force, seen only in movies and video games. There was once a time when guns were a real thing to the youth of this nation. My Dad, Uncles, my Scout Master, and many others all told me that they used to take their guns to school all the time. They’d leave them in the trunks of their car. They didn’t bring them for defense or to wipe out their classmates. The reason they brought them was because they went hunting before or after school. Guns were not seen as a way to inflict mass pain and suffering, but rather tools of a trade so to speak.

It has been said that one often meets his destiny on the path they take to avoid it. In this progressive society there has been a push to keep guns a scary issue, a taboo subject that you don’t talk about in public. Guns are supposed to be kept away from children, now I am not talking about keeping them were kids can’t get to them, but rather keeping education about firearms from kids. When I was growing up I was introduced to guns at a young age. I knew where the guns were, how they worked, what they were for, and what they could do.  I was taught about guns before I saw my first PG-13 movie, I knew about guns before I ever played a first person shooter.  I knew what a real gun was, and so while playing games with fake guns, or watching movies with fake shooting I knew that there was a huge difference.  I was taught never to point a gun, even a fake gun, at something I didn’t want to kill. With all of this education, I never thought of shooting someone who wronged me. I knew that was wrong.  I truly think that by parents keeping guns a secret from kids, only introducing young people to the power of the firearm in a situation where you use it to shoot other people, has led to monsters thinking so little of shooting someone with a gun.  So by sensitizing us to guns, and desensitizing us to violence we have created a perfect storm for terror to erupt.

Conclusion

The attack in Connecticut is a tragedy, and my heart goes out to those who lost someone. I could not imagine what they are going through.  However moving forward we must keep our heads not let our emotions drive us into make a poor decision.  The plain and simple fact is that Gun Control will not prevent violent crime. We must fix the problems that have lead to this tragedy, but guns are not one of them. Our crumbling society is the cause. We must once again become members of a strong family. Reach out to those around you who need help. Be a role model for those around you.  It doesn’t matter what you ban, what you limited, unless we fix the root of the problem, the government can steal every right they want, and it wouldn’t fix the problem.

COLUMBINE STUDENT’S FATHER 12 YEARS LATER !!

Guess our national leaders didn’t expect this. On Thursday, Darrell Scott, the father of Rachel Scott, a victim of the Columbine High School shootings in Littleton, Colorado, was invited to address the House Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee. What he said to our national leaders during this special session of Congress was painfully truthful.

They were not prepared for what he was to say, nor was it received well. It needs to be heard by every parent, every teacher, every politician, every sociologist, every psychologist, and every so-called expert! These courageous words spoken by Darrell Scott are powerful, penetrating, and deeply personal. There is no doubt that God sent this man as a voice crying in the wilderness.. The following is a portion of the transcript:

“Since the dawn of creation there has been both good & evil in the hearts of men and women. We all contain the seeds of kindness or the seeds of violence. The death of my wonderful daughter, Rachel Joy Scott, and the deaths of that heroic teacher, and the other eleven children who died must not be in vain. Their blood cries out for answers.

“The first recorded act of violence was when Cain slew his brother Abel out in the field. The villain was not the club he used.. Neither was it the NCA, the National Club Association. The true killer was Cain, and the reason for the murder could only be found in Cain’s heart.

“In the days that followed the Columbine tragedy, I was amazed at how quickly fingers began to be pointed at groups such as the NRA. I am not a member of the NRA. I am not a hunter. I do not even own a gun. I am not here to represent or defend the NRA – because I don’t believe that they are responsible for my daughter’s death. Therefore I do not believe that they need to be defended. If I believed they had anything to do with Rachel’s murder I would be their strongest opponent

I am here today to declare that Columbine was not just a tragedy — it was a spiritual event that should be forcing us to look at where the real blame lies! Much of the blame lies here in this room. Much of the blame lies behind the pointing fingers of the accusers themselves. I wrote a poem just four nights ago that expresses my feelings best.

Your laws ignore our deepest needs,
Your words are empty air.
You’ve stripped away our heritage,
You’ve outlawed simple prayer.
Now gunshots fill our classrooms,
And precious children die.
You seek for answers everywhere,
And ask the question “Why?”
You regulate restrictive laws,
Through legislative creed.
And yet you fail to understand,
That God is what we need!

“Men and women are three-part beings. We all consist of body, mind, and spirit. When we refuse to acknowledge a third part of our make-up, we create a void that allows evil, prejudice, and hatred to rush in and wreak havoc. Spiritual presences were present within our educational systems for most of our nation’s history. Many of our major colleges began as theological seminaries. This is a historical fact. What has happened to us as a nation? We have refused to honor God, and in so doing, we open the doors to hatred and violence. And when something as terrible as Columbine’s tragedy occurs — politicians immediately look for a scapegoat such as the NRA. They immediately seek to pass more restrictive laws that contribute to erode away our personal and private liberties. We do not need more restrictive laws. Eric and Dylan would not have been stopped by metal detectors. No amount of gun laws can stop someone who spends months planning this type of massacre. The real villain lies within our own hearts.

“As my son Craig lay under that table in the school library and saw his two friends murdered before his very eyes, he did not hesitate to pray in school. I defy any law or politician to deny him that right! I challenge every young person in America , and around the world, to realize that on April 20, 1999, at Columbine High School prayer was brought back to our schools. Do not let the many prayers offered by those students be in vain. Dare to move into the new millennium with a sacred disregard for legislation that violates your God-given right to communicate with Him. To those of you who would point your finger at the NRA — I give to you a sincere challenge.. Dare to examine your own heart before casting the first stone!
My daughter’s death will not be in vain! The young people of this country will not allow that to happen!”
– Darrell Scott
 

Spread this to everyone you can.