Tim Fischer - You're the problem, not the guns

The Ex-Deputy Prime Minister of Australia has something to say about our Second Amendment rights.   He basically said that our constitution is corrupting the world.

I've got something to say to Mr. Fischer.   You're an idiot.

I don't mean that in the insulting, dismissive, and rude way.   I just mean that, as a statement of fact, you're not very bright.

You sir, and others like you, are what is corrupting the world.   This culture of politicians who believe that they live by different laws than the ones they inflict upon their subjects.   This culture of criminality being the norm rather than the exception.   This culture where someone is slapped on the wrist for rape or attempted murder (with anything... not just a gun) and You Politicians think that its OK to cut this guy loose after he's paid his debt to society.

Here's the thing.   He didn't rape society.  He raped a girl.   He didn't put society in the hospital, he put an individual in the hospital.   He didn't murder society, he murdered a child.   So tell me, if he can pay this "debt" by spending a few nights in the pokey, does that mean that maybe we should just let people spend nights in jail so that they can go kill, rape, or steal, in the future - kind of an "I already paid my debt so you owe me one rape" scenario?

You, sir, let these people loose on us.   You, and your politician brothers and sisters, have so little regard for your subjects, that you believe we should tolerate criminals preying on us.   You, and your criminal collaborators, allow and even encourage criminal behavior.

And now you stand there and say that these evils, that you have set upon this world, are our fault for wanting to defend ourselves from these criminals?

That, sir, makes you an idiot.

Source article

New Ink

I really wanted this work to be seen by more than just my facebook friends - read: I want these images to be Googleable.   Full credit of this goes to Jimi at Big Deluxe Tattoo in Salt Lake City (2 July 2013).   Amazing attention to detail and such fine work deserves recognition.

So - back story - I'm having my left arm inked in memory of my father.   I've already had his LAPD badge done on my left shoulder and have other designs (Marine Corps, stock broker, lawyer) in mind.   But the one I just added will be my favorite, even if it probably wasn't one of his life accomplishments.

This one is Picasso's 1955 Don Quixote.   For reference, here's the original (in black and white rather than the original "original" in grey).

For those who don't know the story, Don Quixote was a fictional character of Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra in the classic novel The Ingenious Gentleman Don Quixote of La Mancha.   The upshot is that Alonso Quijano reads too many tales of knights errant and loses himself in the persona of Don Quixote (along with his trusty sidekick Sancho and his horse Rocinante).   The alter ego of Alonso is consumed with doing noble deeds.   

The musical, The Man of La Mancha, is one of my favorites and it was one of the few musicals that my dad really liked.   He particularly enjoyed the title song Man of La Mancha.    I guess the key here is that I don't see my dad as Alonso believing that he's Don Quixote.  I see him as Don Quixote, a noble knight who chooses the right no matter the cost.    If only I were as diligent.

So that's the back fill and here's the art.   I just LOVE this piece!

We just noticed that the date on the signature is wrong - had to laugh about that one because 11/3 (Nov 3) is my birthday but it should read 10/8 (Aug 10th for Europeans).   Minor touch up :)

Don Quixote by Picasso on left inside forearm

The first image is to give a sense of scale.   Just under my elbow on the under side of my forearm.

Don Quixote by Picasso on left inside forearm

This image shows the incredible detail work that Jimi did.  Note that you can even see Picasso's signature in the lower left.

Good guys carry guns

I'm sure it's been said before, but it came to me last night.

The point was brought home to me last night during an episode of Blue Bloods.   A cop who'd had a few drinks (blew .08 - just at the legal limit) intervened in a robbery where civilians could have been killed.   The rationale for not firing him was that, even though it was technically illegal for him to draw his weapon, he did the right thing and that calling 911 and waiting would have put those people at risk.

So many people are afraid of guns - more to the point, civilians carrying guns - for two reasons.

1)  We have been taught/programmed/encouraged - use whatever verb you choose - to believe that the police *will* protect us and to dial 911 in an emergency.

2)  Criminals carry guns.  We see it in the news and on TV.   Good guys (victims) in TV shows are almost always unarmed.

People now perceive that only criminals and cops *should* carry guns and are therefore fearful of good guys with guns believing that they are wolves in sheep's clothing or just irresponsible and trigger happy.

Good guys carry guns.   Good guys who would intervene in a rape, mugging, or murder of another innocent.   You should want someone there for you if (when) you are assaulted.  There's no chance I can draw faster than an assailant who already has me in his site, but I would hope that someone else would be armed that could come to my aid, just as I would theirs.

Most of the good guys who carry train as often or more often than the police who are supposed to protect you; and they do it on their own dime.  Ammo is expensive!

You don't have to carry a gun to be a good guy, but if you don't carry a gun because you're afraid of guns, why in the world would you not want to be saved by a good guy with a gun?  Or why in the world would you not want a good guy with a gun to save your daughter from being raped?   Why don't you want to be saved?

After the dust settles

Now that the senate has killed the gun control bills, can we please focus on the actual problem?

What are we doing to address the issue of violence whether it be from a gun or a fist?

The gun control argument has always been a mirage;  the promise of security without substance.  Calls for banning a type of weapon will still leave weapons available.   The vast majority of crimes involving firearms are with handguns which were never on the ban list.   Lets not re-hash the arguments for or against a ban - lets just all agree that violence will continue as long as people continue.   Do guns make it easier to commit deadly violent crime?  Of course.  Do guns protect the innocent?  Of course.

I wish I were smart enough to propose a plan of action - a plan that people would say "Ya know?  Its so crazy it just may work!", but I'm neither that smart nor (arguably) that crazy.

But can we start with this?

Please, lets prosecute those who break the law.

Everybody makes mistakes.   Lord knows I have.   But when someone breaks a restraining order, for instance, its time to lock them up for the duration of the order.   When someone threatens the life of another in the commission of a crime, why in the world would we think that this person shouldn't be convicted and punished accordingly?   This person was willing to take an innocent life.  Why is that so hard to digest?  When someone is willing and able to do this, why would we put them back on the street??  They will do it again.  Duh.

Please, lets punish those who are convicted.

How, for instance, can someone have "a rap sheet a mile long"?  How is that even possible?   I would say that when it hits 1/4 mile that they are no longer fit to live with the rest of society.   Why do you want to let them go??

Please, lets put down those who egregiously and repeatedly take life, limb, and innocence.

Tell me why, for instance, there are so many people who have "life" sentences?   I know that people are wrongly accused.  I know that you can't bring someone back who is wrongly put to death.  I know that our legal system holds dear Blackstone's premise that "It is better that ten guilty men go free than that one innocent man be convicted."

However, is it better that 10 innocent people die at the hands of a repeat offender than it is to put down that repeat offender?

I would submit that a conviction where subjective evidence (eye witness testimony for instance) is disregarded, and only objective evidence (DNA, video, apprehension during the commission, etc) is used by the jury to determine sentencing, that capital punish be the norm in cases of crimes committed using a firearm, murder, and rape, and that appeals for capital crimes be expedited to prevent lengthy (measured in years) "death row" terms.

I don't have any suggestions on the mental health aspect.  I have no basis to make a judgement.   But, to put society at risk when a person is a danger to others (I honestly don't care, for the purposes of this argument, if they are a danger to themselves) is irresponsible on every level.

Please lets stop grandstanding on what makes us feel safe and focus on what will make us safe.  The prosecution, punishment, and execution of criminals.

Joe Biden and Wiffle Ball - Richard Feldman and Tina Wilson-Cohen take a nap

I know this one is a bit long, but I really hope you read the whole thing.   It speaks to the honesty (or lack thereof) of those who would dismantle our 2nd amendment - all the while telling you that its not what they're doing.   They are lying to you about that just as much as you'll see how they're lying to the public on national TV.

So the other day I saw that Joe Biden would be on Morning Joe (see the video here: NBC Morning Joe: Biden panel on gun control, an NBC liberal discussion show, and that there would be pro 2nd amendment panelists that would be explaining the pro 2nd amendment stance and challenging Mr. Biden, and other anti 2nd amendment panelists, on their assertions of gun control.

In NBC's words "...the panelists engaged the Vice President directly including (named panelists)..."

Engaged I guess is the correct term.  They spoke to him and therefore, they were "engaged".  However, they challenged him about as much as a wiffle ball would have challenged Hank Aaron.   But, before we continue, lets meet the panelists:

Joe Biden: V.P. of The United States of America.  Anti-2nd amendment supporter.   Recommends that a double barrel shotgun is the only gun someone would ever need to defend themselves (and only at home).

Richard Feldmen: President of the Independent Firearm Owners Association.

Tina Wilson-Cohen: Founder and CEO of She Can Shoot (a gun advocacy group for women)

Dr. Cedric Alexander: Police Chief DeKalb Co. GA (The population of the county was 691,893 at the 2010 census. Its county seat is the city of Decatur.) After earning a Phd, built an emotionally-disturbed persons response team in Rochester, N.Y., combining mental health training with enforcement techniques.

Colin Goddard: Survivor of the Virginia Tech shooting.  Assistant Director of Victims and Youth Advocacy and Federal Legislation for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski co-hosts for NBC Morning Joe

Now lets start the segment.

NBC hosts patting themselves on each other's backs for having such a "great" panel.   Too bad they couldn't see the future - it was actually an amazingly disappointing panel.  Kinda like Geraldo opening Al Capone's safe.

Biden: "I think certain weapons of war just don't belong on the street."

OK - weapons of war are already illegal on the street.   Not sure how many times people need to point this out, but the media keeps playing it and the politicians keep saying it.   Its already illegal.  To say that they believe it should be made illegal is to imply that currently legal weapons are "weapons of war".  They are not.   They are semi-automatic rifles.   Period.   He is lying to the american public and ya wana know what our brilliant panelists said about this quote?   Nothin'.  Nada.  Accepted it as fact.

Biden on Sandy Hook: "The police got there in 2 1/2 minutes.  If there'd only been 10 bullets in each clip, he would have had to change the clip an additional 3 to 5 times.  One of those kids would be alive.  Somebody would be alive.  Statistically, the probability is that he just would not have gotten off 150 shots ... (a little Elmer Fudd stutter action)... no one knows....  So even if it did nothing else other than to save one of those kids' lives, what is the inconvenience?  What are we doing?  What are we doing to impact on a gun owner's right if he only has a clip with 10 rounds in it instead of 30 rounds in it?"

First - only 90 rounds came from the AR-15 with 30 round magazines.   That's where Joe's math starts going south.

OK - why do people who know better, insist on using the wrong word?   Its not a clip.  A clip is a completely different thing.  Its like saying "popsicle" instead of "ice cream cone".  They're both frozen and you eat them so therefor they're synonymous?   Again - I digress, but it goes to the point that someone who knows nothing about firearms that is trying to explain to those of us who do, doesn't present valid arguments.

Lets answer the actual question first.  Its the easiest to address.   What are we doing to impact on a gun owner's right if he only has a clip with 10 rounds in it instead of 30 rounds in it?
Well, you're impacting their right to life.  Period.   You cannot guarantee that 10 rounds will be enough to defend myself.  Since you don't know how many rounds I may need, it is my decision to defend myself in the best way that I can.   Since firearms are still legal, to hobble them with an arbitrary limit on number of rounds I can defend myself with, while not hobbling a criminal's firearm (a criminal will not abide by the 10 round law), puts me at risk.  Period.

So, back to his statement.   It takes approximately 2 to 3 seconds to reload (change a clip - sigh) an AR-15.   The assailant would have lost approximately 15 seconds had he reloaded 5 times.   He was actively shooting for approximately 10 minutes.   Now lets apply the 150 shots since Joe is having a bad math day.  That's actually 15 reloads.   That would have eaten 1 minute from the assailant's shoot time.   Gosh that sounds like a lot!  But - he wasn't shooting for 10 minutes straight.   If he was, mathematically, he would have fired approximately (I'm being conservative here) 60 rounds per minute or 600 rounds (including reload time).     Are you getting the point yet?   Reload time is negligible when you have the magazines to reload with.

Now, lets look at a recent news article.   I'm using this because it just came in today and is fresh in my mind.  This is not the exception to how gunfights work, its the rule.
Suspects dead after attempted home invasion in Fayetteville
Armed assailants forced their way into a house.   The gunfight ended when the assailants, being met with armed resistance, fled the scene.   They both eventually died from their wounds - HOWEVER - they didn't stop fighting when the gunfight started.  They got shot.  They ran.  One bullet does not necessarily incapacitate a human being.  Sometimes you have to shoot them several times EACH to make them stop.   That's why police carry 15 round handguns and extra magazines.

So, if we're using the argument that limiting magazines to 10 rounds (or 7 for New York!) is going to save a child's life during a mass shooting, what about the life of the person who's trying to defend themselves, but they only have 10 rounds?  Is their life less important?   Do we need to have magazine pouches stitched into our PJs so that we can adequately defend our homes?   The point here isn't that one life is more or less important than another - the point is that magazine size will not save lives but could actually endanger them.

And what did our distinguished panel have to say?   Nothing.   They went to Collin Goddard - unsurprisingly supported Mr. Biden's view.   He went on to say that 11 kids got away while the assailant was trying to reload.   That could have been a home defender trying to reload and the home invaders taking that opportunity to kill them.   So their life is less important.

Cut to Richard Feldman.   He doesn't challenge Biden on anything other than saying that there are already a 100 million of these "high capacity" magazines in America.   Dude - these are not "high capacity". They are the capacity designed as the standard for that weapon, therefor they are "standard capacity".  When your 2nd amendment advocate can't even get his facts straight, you know its already going sideways.  He goes on to talk about other issues - giving Biden a complete pass on all the misinformation he just spewed.

Cut to Tina Wilson-Cohen.  Gives Biden a pass and starts on another agenda item - mental health.  She goes on to re-enforce the notion of "high capacity" magazines.    She goes on to make a VERY weak 2nd amendment argument against banning of weapons and magazines.

She gets immediately trumped by Biden saying how "no one has challenged" the constitutionality of banning weapons or high capacity magazines - when in fact it has been challenged.  The SCOTUS has upheld the laws, but they were challenged and it is NOT a universal truth (see 1939's United States vs Miller re The National Firearms Act of 1934).  Other challenges have been made that the SCOTUS wouldn't or didn't hear.  But to say that it was unchallenged is another lie that Biden knows is a lie.

Then Joe goes on to say that when these rampages occur, that the assailant doesn't borrow or already have these magazines, but that they go out and buy them.   This is utter nonsense.   If you have an AR-15, its going to have 30 round magazines because they're standard.  If they want more, they'll find a way to buy them.  Right now they can buy them online, at gun stores, or at gun shows.  If there's a ban, there will be a lucrative black market for criminals to buy from.   But, if a law-abiding citizen (read: a citizen who has something to lose by committing a crime) is prevented from owning the same firepower as a criminal, then you are putting citizens at risk, not disarming criminals.

It goes on for a bit until the question that always comes up that anti 2nd amendment folks ask, but never understand the answer to: "Why does she (Tina's representative collective women) need to shoot a Bush Master?  Why does that impact your second amendment rights?   I don't understand."

The fact is, Mika Brzezinski will never understand.  No matter how many times the answer is given, it will go in one ear and out the other, then she'll ask the question again of someone else because she still doesn't understand - and get the same answer.   The answer is (drum roll) because it is our right and responsibility to defend ourselves.  Nobody else can tell us how to do this.  If they want to remove our ability to defend ourselves, then they must take on that responsibility to defend us - and they can't.   The fact is that someone doesn't need an AR-15 in every circumstance.  Its a question of "the right tool for the job".   If I'm comfortable, accurate, and proficient with an AR-15 then that is the right tool.  If I'm more comfortable with a Glock 19, then that is the right tool.   Both of these are semi-automatic weapons that can inflict lots of damage.  Both are lethal.   It would be safer for everybody if I was using the right tool for my needs.

What does our panelist have to say? That we don't need a Bush Master to protect ourselves, but that they like hunting and sporting.   OH MY GOD!   What does hunting and paper have anything at all to do with this???   Complete and utter fail on the part of our 2nd amendment advocate.   She tries to salvage the argument by talking about a slippery slope of banning listed weapons, but again, completely fails to gain traction on a weak argument.

Richard Feldman tries to rescue the argument as well by calling it a "red herring", but again, its a weak argument falling on deaf ears and they don't back it up with any sort of fact - instead going on about "its not the gun its the criminal" and, again, not providing any factual evidence.

Joe Biden (i'm going to have to break this up and paraphrase because he's being long winded as usual): "...the thing about, Tina, the weapons.  We have, from the beginning, said certain types of weapons are not able to be owned."

Again - completely factually untrue, unless "The Beginning" was in 1934.   The constitution makes no mention of this, except to say that the second amendment shall "not be infringed" (definition of "infringe" per MacMillan Dictionary: [INTRANSITIVE/TRANSITIVE] to limit or reduce someone's legal rights or freedom).   In "the beginning", as defined by our constitution, citizens could own ANY type of weapon or firearm.   And what did our panel have to say about this fabrication?   Nothing.  Complete acquiescence of another lie.

Joe Biden: "...and no one has challenged it."

(see above.  Challenged and lost for the sake of "the public good").

Joe Biden on previous assault weapon ban: "... I can tell you what the Chief's (city police chiefs who are political appointments by mayors and do not represent the public) say.  34% increase in the appearance of assault weapons since 2004 and in crimes."

This is from a 2010 survey of police chiefs.  This was not a statistical analysis.  Chiefs may have reported a 34% increase, but it wasn't all of the chiefs, it wasn't all of the crime, it didn't account for other issues such as rising crime rates, nor did joe mention that crimes with handguns went up %54 in the same survey.   Violent crime was up and assault rifles were just a tool of opportunity - NOT the cause of the crime.   And our panel on the subject....  I think I heard one or two crickets chirping.

Now - on to what we know and love Joe for.  Completely making stuff up and trying to pass it off as fact (oh wait... wasn't that what he was doing the whole time?)

Joe Biden: "...I can tell you what.  In terms of home protection, you know, they make fun of my saying about 'use a shotgun if someone's invading your home.'   Guess what?  Use a shotgun if someone's invading your home.  You don't kill your kids.  Use an AR-15, it goes through your wall and it can kill your kid in the bedroom."

Wow!  Where to begin??   Joe's complete ignorance on the subject has never been in such stark relief.  This is actually my favorite quote of his to date!   I think I need to actually bullet (no pun intended) these to keep them straight.

• They make fun of Joe's "Buy a shotgun" quote.
• There's a reason that we made fun of him.   Because he was not just wrong, but giving advice that was dangerous and, in most cases, illegal.   If you fire a shotgun from your balcony, depending on where you live, you face charges from "Discharging a Firearm in City Limits" (most cases a misdemeanor) to "Aggravated Assault" (felony).   If the aggravated assault takes a life - any life - then the "Felony Murder Rule" kicks in.  That's an automatic charge of "Murder in the First Degree".
• If one fires two rounds from a double barreled shotgun, one is now defenseless (unless one uses the shotgun as a club).   To fire two warning shots from a double barrel shotgun is the epitome of stupidity.   This will most likely get you killed rather than scare off bad guys.
• If one fires a shotgun through the door (and remember he said this one for later), there is NO way to know where your shot is going.   Lets pretend you live in an apartment building.  Now you've just shot through your door and your neighbor's across the hall.  The bad guy may still be alive (and able to break your door with a gaping hole) but your neighbor may be dead.  See bullet 1.

OK - that's enough of re-hashing one of his more memorable blunders.   But what's really funny is that, based on his statement in this round table discussion, he still thinks he's right!   This is really simple folks - wanting desperately to be right does not make it so.   OK - moving on.

I'm still actually stunned by this little sound bite - "Guess what?  Use a shotgun if someone's invading your home.  You don't kill your kids."

Should I type it out again so you get the full impact of it?   No - just read it again.

Apparently, in Joe's World, shotguns are incapable of killing children.  Damn that's a relief!  For a minute there, I thought he was saying stupid things like "shoot through your door" - but now that I know that shotguns can't kill kids, I'm all good with his advice.   (I think I feel a brain tumor coming on).

In Joe's World, double barrel shotguns are loaded with rock salt and walls are made of steel.

In my world, shotguns are loaded with buck shot (or slugs) and walls are made of drywall.   Do you know how big a hole is made with a 12 gauge slug or 00 buck when you shoot it through drywall?  Here's why we can't take advice from Joe.   Every single gun owner who's ever taken any time at all to learn about their weapon learns these 4 rules.  

1. A gun is always loaded.  Always.  Even when you know its unloaded, you treat it as if it is loaded.
2. Never point the gun at anything that you're not willing to destroy.
3. Never put your finger on the trigger until you have your sight picture and are ready to fire.
4. Always be sure of your target and aware of objects in front of and behind your target.

If you're defending your home, you do not fire in the direction of your children's bedrooms.  A shotgun will kill a child just as easily as an AR-15.   Joe's total and complete ignorance of the safe handling of firearms is going to get someone killed.... and then he'll blame the gun.

Now, lets revisit Joe's advice (I told you to remember this).  Apparently, you can fire a shotgun through a door and it will kill your assailant, but you can't, apparently, fire a shotgun through a wall and kill your kid.   Brilliant.

Again - Do not follow Joe Biden's advice.  You will get someone killed.

And what did our panel have to say about this??  more crickets.

I'm going to skip a rather insipid part of the round table, but you can view it and look at the transcript for yourself.  Basically, our 2nd amendment advocates to another stunningly poor job at mental health and law enforcement issues.

Mika Brzezinski:  "Let me come back at you, then (to Richard Feldmen regarding making "intelligent, adult decisions" of enforcement and resources).  What is not intelligent or adult, especially in this society, at the stage that we're at, about trying to restrict a gun that blows up inside the human body and tears it to shreds."

Do I need to say the words?  Guns don't blow up inside the human body and tear them to shreds.  There are no guns produced, that I'm aware of, that have this as its sole method of inflicting damage.  

I'll go out on a limb and assume she was referring to hollow tip rounds.   These, as most of you know, do not "blow up" inside the body, but they fragment.   They're designed to stop bad guys.   If the bullet goes straight through, then energy that could have stopped bad guys is lost when the bullet exits.   Bullets that are actually explosive or armor piercing rounds are already illegal.   Now - on with the irony.  They then imply that assault rifles are the only type of weapon that can fire a round that is this destructive.

Our hero, Mr. Feldmen, tries (lamely) to explain that bullets are bullets... and fails.  He's interrupted by  Joe Scarborough saying

Joe Scarborough: "That's actually not true (concerning all guns fire bullets and they're basically the same from all guns).  If you look at the bullets that were used at Sandy Hook, far different, far more destructive than something that's not coming out of..."

He's interrupted (in his ridiculously silly argument that AR-15s use magic bullets) by our hero stating that a .223 caliber bullet is the same from a semi-auto than from a bolt action.   Immediately this is leapt on by Joe Scarborough.

Joe Biden: If that was a bolt action, a lot of those kids would be alive.

Wow - thank you captain obvious!

Then our hero, Mr. Feldmen, goes on to point out that the assailant at Sandy Hook also used a handgun to inflict the same damage but fails to mention that more than 1/3 of the rounds fired at Sandy Hook was not from the Bush Master.  Again - completely failing the moment and letting them talk about magic AR-15 ammo.

Then Joe Scarborough makes the amazingly idiotic claim that Mr. Goddard is still alive because the assailant at Virginia Tech didn't use a Bush Master.   Because, when you have a Bush Master, you never fail to kill your target!

I'd really like to show them exactly what a hollow point .223 does to ballistics gel, along with a .44 mag hollow point, .357 mag hollow point, 9mm hollow point, 12 gauge slug, 12 gauge buckshot, etc...  There was this crazy idea persisting in this round table that .223 is somehow magic and our heroes let it slide.

The last statement regarding 88% of Americans wanting background checks.  Please don't believe these polls.   100% of Americans want to feel safe.   Politicians are telling Americans that background checks will keep them safe.  18% of Americans don't believe them.   That's what this number means.  Nothing more.

Can I summarize such a blatantly one sided and undefended "round table"?   Not really.   Nobody is surprised when NBC panders to its liberal and anti second amendment audience.   But honestly, Joe lobbed some real softballs to our panel... but they couldn't collectively hit a wiffle ball if it was on a tee and they got 3 swings each.

Poor journalism

I read an article by Mr. Edgar Allen Beem concerning Harry Reid's not putting the assault rifle ban before the senate (Read full article here).  I responded with the following to the author.  As of this writing,  I'm including it here for your review.  I have not had a response.   

-----------------------------------------------

I read your article carefully and found it lacking in both logic and understanding.

I commend you for not misusing the word "clip" as so many of your fellow journalists do. I completely understand your position, though I do not agree with it (your position being that guns themselves should be banned for all except, I'm assuming, law enforcement and military).

What I don't understand, is why a journalist who is paid to think, write down those thoughts, then share that writing with others in an attempt to convey news and/or ideas, would be so haphazard when it came to law, example, history, and process.

Take for example the nefarious politicos who thwart attempts at campaign reform - they're the ones who write the laws that they create *to be thwarted*. One cannot compare that to a an arms manufacturer that obeys the law, even if the outcome of their compliance is different than the intent of the law - that just speaks to either a) poor legislation or b) nefarious politicos who take money from whatever industry to create laws in that industry's favor. Its actually a function of the corrupt political process rather than the industry targeted by journalists (banking, firearms, insurance, whatever).

Lets also address the 2nd amendment. It actually does, in and of itself, mean that one can own military hardware. That's exactly what civilians owned when it was written. Times have changed and the SCOTUS has said that the amendment can be infringed when the general public safety is at risk, such as public ownership of bombs, fully auto firearms, gas, etc... (1934). There is precedent to support a ban on other weapons (such as banning all semi-auto firearms), but I believe that this would create a true infringement for the 2nd amendment that goes against the spirit of the law that SCOTUS would not support.

As to Mr. Reid not putting it to a vote - I agree with you. Just because something *won't* pass, doesn't mean it shouldn't be voted on. I would suggest we have a vote to repeal the National Firearms Act - it would never pass but it would be nice to piss off the liberals. Does that sound like an effective use of our gridlocked congress? Its one thing to be upset that your law isn't voted on, its another entirely to suggest that it should be voted on solely for the purpose of giving the finger to a segment of the population.

Now, lets consider how the pro-gun folks dealt with the anti-gun rage at "assault rifles". They defended the anti-gun attack specifically on "assault rifles" because the bullets that assault rifles fire are, for all intents and purposes, the same bullets that any other gun fires. If the anti-gun folks are going to target a type of weapon, one *should* expect that those in support of that weapon will defend it based on the merits of the argument (of which there were few). Since assault rifles have actually contributed very little to the overall gun violence deaths in the US, and the anti-gun folks target that weapon, then it stands to reason that deaths from other weapons (including non-firearm) is less significant and those who die from them are less important. By targeting only assault rifles, the anti-gun people are minimizing the importance of violence in our country in favor of mass killings.

Also, the size of the magazine is largely unimportant for the purposes of a perpetrator.  Its been proven over and over that someone who goes on a spree will bring whatever ammo and/or magazines that they need to accomplish their goal.   Reloading is too fast and easy to make magazine size a deterrent of any type.   However, it will prevent someone who *could* stop a bad guy from doing so because, as a rule, those who have legal weapons (and carry them legally) don't know if or when they'll be in a firefight, nor the scale of that fight.  They can only prepare for what *they* believe is reasonable.

Now - here's where it gets ugly

To pass a law that makes one "feel better", but that flies in the face of The Constitution (pick your amendment), is to (by definition) reduce our freedoms and liberties with no discernible positive result. Lets not quibble about laws that are already on the books, about how they currently aren't being enforced as they should be, about how repeat violent offenders are let back into society, the list goes on. But lets be clear about passing laws that "feel good" that are potentially unconstitutional. The Constitution is there to limit the power of government. Any time you infringe on it, we give up more rights to the government. History has proven that this can be detrimental and should only be done with absolute surety that the law is in the people's best interest *and* can be objectively quantified. "Feel good" does not pass that litmus test.

Here's the sickness in America. Its that people believe that they can commit a crime, get slapped on the wrist, and go do it again. Its that the mentally ill are free to roam and kill at will without any reliable method of intervention and/or treatment. Its that an old guy like me *needs* to be armed because young thugs will harm me (its happened). Its that women need protection from rapists. Its because we cannot depend on the government to protect us.

Until we address the issue of violence in America, the issue of "gun violence" is completely moot.

Do you have the right to feel safe?

This gun control debate has really polarized the nation.   So many people want the guns gone.   So many people want the guns here.   Who's right and who's wrong.... and more to the point, who has the moral right to impose their will on the other?  Isn't that what its really coming down to?

And lets be clear on one point here before we begin.   If you think that the "assault weapons" ban or "high capacity magazine" ban is a good idea because it saves lives, but that you don't support a "total firearm ban" or the abolition of the 2nd Amendment, then you need to examine exactly what you believe.   These weapons and magazines are protected by the 2nd Amendment that you think you support.  The politicians who want these bans don't want to ban assault rifles.  They want to ban all firearms.  If they tell you otherwise, they are lying so that they don't lose votes.  The irony is that you already know they're lying.   If you think its OK to have firearms, but not assault rifles, then you need to educate yourself on exactly what firearms do.   They're all dangerous in the wrong hands.  All of them.  Every single one.  If you think we need to ban assault rifles, then your logical conclusion will have to be that we need to ban all firearms and repeal or amend the 2nd Amendment.   Coming to a different conclusion demonstrates a lack of understanding of both firearms and the law.

Lets look at The Constitution and Bill of Rights.   For those who slept through civics in high school, the bill of rights is the first ten amendments to our constitution.  The Constitution is a document that defines how we run our country.  Laws have to abide by the rules of the constitution in order to be deemed "constitutional".

Here's The Constitution in text format so I don't have to print it here.

So, lets focus first on The Constitution.

Part of Article 1 Section 8 of The Constitution focuses on the role of the federal government as it pertains to trade between states.

• To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.

So, basically, the federal government has the right to create laws where goods from one state are shipped/sold/purchased/etc... in another.  This could give the federal government the right to prevent any arms trafficking (selling of firearms) between states and force each state to manufacture their own firearms.  It can't, however, prevent a state from manufacturing firearms.  Only the state can do that.

Article 5 states that the house and senate can amend The Constitution.   So the framework can be changed as long as there's enough votes.   This isn't passing a law as such, this is modifying the framework for the law.   For example, if the constitution was modified to allow homosexual marriage, then laws would be written concerning any issues that may arise from this protection.    I bring this up because, if those who would remove our firearms were honest (rather than using smoke and mirrors to accomplish their goals), they could repeal or amend the 2nd Amendment and remove our right to bear arms.

Now lets move on to the most quoted amendment these days; the 2nd Amendment.   I also wish to quote a passage from The Declaration of Independence that, I believe, is the precursor to the 2nd Amendment. 

• Declaration of Independence: ...all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...
• Declaration of Independence: That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...
• 2nd Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Some would say that the right of the people to keep and bear Arms applies to The People and some say it applies to the militias.   Doesn't matter.  The Supreme Court has sided with those who interpret it as The People.

Our Founding Fathers recognized that we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  That's pretty important.  Does my owning a firearm infringe on someone else's right to those unalienable rights?  Does my carrying a firearm infringe upon your right to life when I don't actually take or threaten your life?   Does my ownership of firearms infringe on your pursuit of happiness because you're not happy as long as firearms exist?

Our Founding Fathers also recognized that our own government may someday become so corrupt that we may need to rise up against it; that a vote would no longer change the course of this corruption.  In this eventuality, The People would need to be armed at least as well as the government (in their view).  Now, nobody is advocating nuclear weapons or tanks being sold at Wal-Mart, but the intent of The Founding Fathers is clear - we must be prepared and we must remain vigilant.

In 1934 The National Firearms Act infringed on the 2nd Amendment.   It passed because the type of weaponry available to the public was pretty bad stuff and the federal government said that it put too many people at risk.  Mobsters with machine guns, sawed off shotguns, etc... were shootin' up big cities.   Bonnie and Clyde were robbing banks.   The act included, not just sawed off shotguns and machine guns, but poison gas, grenades, bombs... really bad stuff; the first incarnations of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs).  Do I personally agree with it this law?   No.   Does that matter?  No.  The Supreme Court has upheld the infringement as being in the best interest of public safety.   I believe it actually flies in the face of the 2nd Amendment because it weakens our ability to protect ourselves from a government that is armed with these weapons.  But my opinion is only that; my opinion.

Today, there is lots of data supporting both sides of the argument.   There aren't many studies because the government is prohibited from funding studies concerning "gun safety".   There's a reason for this.  The people who want the studies want to ban guns and there is not enough data on the subject to come to a conclusion that isn't heavily weighted in the favor of those who wish to ban guns.   For example, I have a friend who has needed a firearm to protect himself, his property, and his family, on three separate occasions.   No shots were fired, and the police weren't called.    If he had been unarmed, he would not have been able to defend himself against multiple perpetrators and the story may have ended differently; he might have become a statistic in the "victim of violent crime" column.   So since there was no record of the event, how can it be taken into account when doing a study on "gun safety" and the value of firearms for citizens?  Short answer, it can't.

There is, however, a lot of data concerning "violent crime".  In the U.S., violent crime includes a lot of crime with guns - and a lot without.   People who would feel safer if we were unarmed aren't interested in this data though.   They're interested in what they see on the news.  Sandy Hook, Columbine, Aurora, etc...  They're interested in those criminals who have guns and what it means to their feeling of safety and security when those criminals are shooting other people.   The argument goes that if we confiscate guns, then nobody will be able to shoot anybody else; they will feel safer.

This is the problem with the debate.   People cloak themselves in the data sets of their choosing to support their feeling of safety - whether that safety is to carry a firearm or to ban them.   For example, roughly 30,000 people will be killed by firearms this year in the U.S.   That is a scary number.... no matter how you look at it.   It makes you want to ban guns to save 30,000 lives!   However, half of those are suicides.  Does it make you feel safer to ban guns to prevent suicide?  That makes no sense.  If you're trying to save lives, then treat the victim before he/she is suicidal.  Preventing someone from killing themselves with a weapon won't make you safer, unless you're contemplating suicide, then maybe you should seek help rather than pull the trigger... or swallow the pills... or jump off that bridge; my point being that lumping suicides into the "gun violence" metric is disingenuous.  So how many lives are saved each year with firearms.  We don't know.   Maybe its none.  Maybe its 2,000,000.   If the number of lives saved is greater than the number of lives lost, then shouldn't we be armed?   The question itself can't be answered because there is not enough data to support the hypothesis either way.

Since there is no complete and reliable method of accounting, any data used to prove the point either way will be incomplete and therefore the conclusion will be flawed.   Either way.   So, baring actual data that supports either stance, what is our course of action?   Some would say that because they would feel safer without guns, that all guns should be banned.   However,  feeling safer and being safer are not always the same thing.   Think of the child hiding in a closet during a house fire.  Or the child who's afraid of the monster under the bed.   In both cases the feeling of fear and security are completely misplaced.

Since we cannot rely on our feeling of security to protect us, we will rely on the law.  Currently, the law is that, supported by The Constitution, we may keep and bear arms.   There is a massive effort to make firearms illegal.  This is led by people who are afraid of the monster under the bed; that somehow, if we get rid of the bed, the monster will be effectively dealt with.   One could argue that those who carry weapons are like the child hiding in the closet during a house fire; that they feel protected when in fact they are in great danger.

My point in all this is simple.   This debate is all about fear and feelings; not about facts.   

It will do no good to attempt to argue a gun owner into believing that they will be safer without a firearm.  It will do no good to attempt to argue an anti-gun advocate into believing that they will be safer with a gun (or in the proximity of someone with a gun).   The only way to convince people is to educate the fear from them. In my case, its to take my anti-gun friends to the range and teach them.   Let them see that firearms are tools and not inherently evil.   Teach them that there is a safe way to handle, store, and use firearms.  Teach them that criminals want soft targets; people who will not oppose or threaten them.  Teach them that criminals don't care if the victim lives or dies.  Teach them that they are responsible for their own safety.   If they choose to be a soft target, that this is their choice.   If I choose to defend myself, that it is my choice.

Because The Constitution says that I have the right to keep and bear arms, then I have that right regardless of others' feelings until such time as the criminals win and have these firearms banned.  After all, who stands to gain the most from a ban?   Those who would take advantage from the defenseless.