Monthly Archives: September 2012

Human nature demands the right to keep and bear arms


Have you ever heard those anti gun people say: “Why would I need a gun, it’s safe where i live?”  Well, let’s put aside the 2nd’s inherent stance against tyranny for a moment and focus on the “safety” these people enjoy.

The next time you hear something along the “it’s safe where I live” jive, ask them if they lock their doors at night.  Ask them also if they leave the keys to their car in the ignition when they are out and about.  I mean, if its such a safe area that they live in and people are so good, why wouldn’t they be able to leave the key in the ignition all the time.  Why do they feel the need to lock the door when they leave the house?

The why is simple, even if they want to bury their heads in the sand and ignore it;  it is the nature of human beings.  There are two ways to look at human nature, illustrated by a pair of philosophers from the 17th and 18th centuries, Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacque Rousseau.

Hobbes contends that we, as people, by nature are rooted in self interest.  That at the core we will do what is best for us, even altruism can be explained by the fact that we derive a sense of self worth from being charitable.  Now, while most people do not feel it is in their best interest to chance the possibility of failure in crime, there are plenty of people who do.  Furthermore, the easier you make it to get away with a crime the more likely it is to happen.

Rousseau took a slightly more naive look at things.  Rousseau believed that people are generally good when they are allowed to exist as a “natural man” (man being the contraction of human).  In this Rousseau believes that it is societies fault that crime and evil things are done. Apparently people have been bucking the blame onto society for a while now.  Rousseau says that if it wasn’t for societies negative influence we wouldn’t have crime and evil and that mankind would live in a utopia.  Unfortunately, to achieve Rousseau’s utopia we as a society would have to pretty much give up everything that makes us one.

But before I digress to much, while Hobbes and Rousseau disagree on the reasons, both agree that human nature will lead to self interest and doing what the individual feels is best for them.

This is why we need the right to keep and bear arms.  If we are denied them, then we forfeit our right to dictate the events around us.  Be they a response to a directly personal event such as a carjacking, burglary or rape.  Or to a larger scale in the defending against tyranny.

Because, have no doubt, the part of human nature that facilitates a criminal’s belief that they can get away with it also fuels anyone with ambition, especially politicians.  If the government (run by individuals) does not fear its populace then it has no reason to restrict itself from doing whatever it wants.  While that may be fine when the government is altruistic because it wants to be, it can turn horrible very fast when it decides to be tyrannical instead.

I guess I can sum up the entirety of this article recounting a story from my youth.

When I was a child, my father had a small lock on a shed in our back yard.  Not that their was a ton of stuff worth stealing in it mind you, but it had a lock.  Not a impenetrable fortress, just a little lock that anyone who wanted to get through would only need a little bit of effort to circumvent.  I asked my father why bother putting on the little lock if it’s not going to stop a criminal.

His response was: “To keep honest people honest”.

My father didn’t realize it, but he spoke with the true understanding of a philosophy that people spend thousands of dollars to learn in Universities the world over.

So why do we we need the right to keep and bear arms?  To keep honest people honest…and to defend against the dishonest ones. Be they the thugs on the streets or the ones in DC.


The absurdity of Gun Buyback programs


An idea that the gun control crowd likes to promote from time to time are so called “Gun Buy Backs“.  Basically, they take tax dollars to “buy back” guns from people, no questions asked. (Though I have heard that some places, like Long Beach NY using seized cash in order to fund the program.)

Theoretically you could be a criminal, use a gun for a series of murders and then turn it into the police for a reward.  I’ve seen these rewards range from a $50 gift certificate to $200 cash.

Now, the gun control zealots say that this is a great way to get illegal guns off the street.  I say that only 2 kinds of people actually go to these buy back programs.  Those with useless broken rusted out pieces of gun that at one time fired bullets but is barely worth the price of its scrap in order to get more for it than its worth, and those who have inherited a gun collection worth THOUSANDS of dollars but are too ignorant to realize it.

For the former, I say good for you.  If your tax dollars are going to pay for such an idiotic program you might as well do what you can to recoup some benefit for yourself.

To the second group I implore you, do a little research, who cares if you don’t like firearms, do you like being a sucker?  A little research and a trip to a gun store could possibly net you thousands of dollars in returns which will trump a 50 dollar gift card any day.

Plus, while many of those guns bought back are junk, I have heard horror stories of beautiful antique heirlooms being given up for a pittance only to meet its end at a buzz saw and smelter.  That of course is if it actually is destroyed and doesn’t make its way into a private collection of one of the people running the program.

But let’s think about the efficacy of these programs for a minute from a criminals mind.  You have a gun, its could be stolen, have been used in a murder, illegal to possess in general etc.  Is $50 or even $200 worth the risk of walking up to a police officer at this buy back and handing him your gun, “no questions asked”?

And even if a criminal was willing to sell his gun to the officers, what is going to stop him from taking the $200 cash and buying a new gun?  Its like a game of Musical Guns.

Basically, the programs tenet is that ciminals with “hot” weapons will walk up and hand them in believing that they will face no consequence for that action or crime.  They are actually expecting criminals to BELIEVE IN THE GOVERNMENT!!!

Yeah, I can see all the gang bangers and murderers lining up to hand in their bloody guns right now.

Like I said…absurd.

Don’t be a sucker…if you have a nice gun you don’t want, find it a nice home. The reward will be greater, I assure you.

Open Carry in the News: Utah, Kansas & Oklahoma


As many of you know from reading some of my earlier posts that I am an open carrier and believe that it is one of the best ways to passively dispel the scare tactics and hysteria that the gun control zealots like to stir up in the imaginations of those who are neutral to the Second Amendment.

In that, if a person who doesn’t know any better and never sees their neighbor, or some law abiding citizen out and about with a gun on their hip then they may fall for the racist and fear mongering tactics that only criminals and bad people have guns.  By open carrying in your daily lives you normalize not only the practice, but firearms in general so that when the gun control zealots want to start talking about how only criminals and maniacs have guns, that little old lady you held the door open for, or the mom holding the baby you let in front of you in the store, or the guy in the Prius who you helped fix his flat, remembers you and realizes that the Brady Campaign or Bloomberg and his illegal mayors are really just pedaling lies.

With that being said, a few Open Carry stories in the news.  Utah is considering legislation to remove the ability of police to trump up charges for open carriers such as disorderly conduct just for the legal practice of open carrying.  The bill would clarify that open carry is legal and allowed in public and no such charges can be levied upon them so long as they are not doing anything threatening.

Just because an officer doesn’t agree or like something a person is doing, does not give them the power to charge them with a crime; colloquially known as “contempt of cop”. Charging an OCer with a crime because it goes against what an officer believes would be akin to charging someone with a crime for wearing white after labor day.  In both situations, someone may not like it but its still legal to do both.

Of course in opposition to this sensible legislation is Gary Sackett, a Gun Violence Prevention Center of Utah board member.  Sackett states that:

“It makes people concerned. It makes people fearful. The kind of people who think this is an appropriate thing to do are either paranoid or they want to somehow establish they’re alpha males.”

Mr. Sackett doesn’t seem to have an issue with the irony of his statement.  That he wants to protect the people that open carrying makes fearful while disparaging open carriers as being paranoid.  And when his flawed logic doesn’t work he goes with Markley’s law, stating that open carriers feel inferior and want to establish some alpha male stance.  I won’t even delve into how sexist and bigoted Mr. Sackett is to all the women who open carry in order to protect themselves.  I guess Mr. Sackett prefers women reside in a state of fear instead of living with confidence.

In Overland Park, a suburb of Kansas City, KS, the city council has passed an ordinance (11-1) allowing open carrying of firearms on all public spaces.  Now, while the 2nd Amendment would stipulate this as a “no duh” situation that doesn’t need an ordinance, it is better to pass pro gun ordinances than to pass gun control ordinances.

While Kansas is one of the 44 states that allow open carry, it does not protect its citizens with statewide preemption in that regard.  Therefore, local municipalities can infringe on the rights of its citizens and travelers to whatever degree they can get away with.  To see a suburb of Kansas City heading in the right direction by removing one such infringement is a good thing.

Hopefully, Kansas as a state will work on preemption so that no city or town in its states will be allowed to arbitrarily violate the civil rights of its people.

Finally, Oklahoma will be becoming an open carry state on Nov. 1st bringing the total number of states that allow some form of OC to 45. (25 states have laws for OC, 20 don’t have laws against OC) While unfortunately in OK one will still be required to have license in order to do so it is still heading in the right direction. With continued pressure, hopefully that requirement will soon be removed as well and all citizens and travelers legally allowed to own a firearm will be able to carry in Oklahoma without asking permission from the government.

After all, we don’t have to ask the governments permission to speak or to go to church…why then must we ask permission to practice our other rights?

Regular folks at Police qualifications plus the murder of a double amputee armed with a pen by a Houston LEO


In a piece done by a fellow gun rights blogger Joe Huffman, he and some everyday average law abiding citizens recreated the LAPD firearm qualification course.  The argument from the gun control zealots is that since regular folk aren’t trained and qualified like the Police are they shouldn’t be allowed to carry guns in public.

Suffice it to say, the results weren’t very surprising.  Gun owners in general tend to have more practice with their firearms than police officers are required to with theirs so the 90% pass rate for the regular folk isn’t that surprising.  The fact that one guy did it with his left arm in a cast and that Joe increased the difficulty of the test overall and still had over 90% pass might be a little surprising.

Here’s the video of the qualifiers in action with some commentary on what they are doing and how it is structured to be more of a real life situation than what the LAPD requires.

I often think of the “only police are qualified” argument whenever I hear a story of an officer seemingly being anything but.  I think about it often.  And not only with the NYPD shooting 9 innocent people at the Empire State Building but also when there are times when the officer shouldn’t have shot at all.  A situation that, if a regular citizen were to shoot, they would be going to jail for murder.

I’m talking specifically about the recent shooting of a double amputee by a Houston officer Matthew Marin.  Officer Marin said that his partner and he felt threatened by this man (Brian Claunch) in a wheelchair waving a pen at them.  The man was threatening to stab them with this pen.

At this point, even if you cannot see that it is a pen you should be able to tell its not a gun and if you cannot separate yourself enough from a one armed one legged man confined to a wheelchair than you shouldn’t be a police officer.  If nothing else, isn’t this what they issue tasers for?

And this isn’t second guessing a shootout or a shooting someone in a wheelchair armed with a gun.  This man was a patient at a personal care home, who, being a schizophrenic, was prone to acting out.  I question how dangerous this one armed, one legged man was that he deserved to die.

What I don’t question is that if a regular citizen were to do the same they would be going to jail, stand your ground or castle doctrine would not hold up to you shooting a ONE armed, ONE legged man in a WHEELCHAIR armed with a PEN.

So, not only do gun owners in general practice with their weapons more than is required by police departments, gun owners are less likely to shoot relatively unarmed double amputees in wheelchairs because there are consequences to our actions.  Officer Marin on the other hand will be put on desk duty for three days.  I hope the good people of Houston demand a deeper investigation into this and call for justice for Brian Claunch.

Weekend Hodgepodge


Am I the only one who finds NFL football on a Thursday other than Thanksgiving wrong?

I understand the NFL trying to bleed every last cent from it’s viewing public but come on.  Not to mention that a team sometimes has to play 2 games in 5 days.  For anyone who has played the sport you can understand how grueling that might be.

This year games will be played on 5 out of 7 days.  With only Tues and Fri left open.  I don’t know…just seems wrong.


Yes Virginia, there is a Second Amendment


On this day, Sept. 21st 1897 The New York Sun wrote a timeless editorial in reply to an 8 year old girl ,named Virginia, who asked if there was a Santa Claus.  As someone who still believes in the answer that the Sun wrote over 110 years ago (yes, there is a Santa Claus), with respect I submit that yes Virginia, there is a Second Amendment despite what  your gun control zealot friends may think.

Virginia, your little friends are wrong.  They have been affected by the skepticism of a skeptical age.  They do not believe in defending themselves except what protection they can get from the government.  They think that nothing should be allowed that is not comprehensible in their little minds.  In this great country of ours a true American is a lion at heart, as industrious as an ant, with the knowledge and intellect to see what the founding fathers envisioned for this land.

Yes, Virginia, there is a Second Amendment.  It exists as certainly as freedom and liberty exist and you know that they abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy.  Alas, how dreary would this country be if there were no Second Amendment guaranteeing liberty?  It would be as dreary as if there were no patriots.  There would be no recourse, no defense, no protection from the intolerable existence of tyranny.  We would have no freedom except in what the government would allow us.  The external light, that this country has shone out to the world would be extinguished.

Not believe in the Second Amendment?  You might as well not believe in speech.  You might get your Papa to buy a gun to watch over and protect you, and then buy you a gun to protect yourself.  But even if you never needed to use it, what would that prove?  Nobody needs to face down evil and tyranny in order to know it exists.  The most real things in the world are those that neither children nor men can see.  Did you ever see the George Washington lead the colonials to victory in the Revolutionary War?  Of course not, but that’s not proof that they were not there.

You may tear apart the  baby’s rattle and see what makes the noise inside, but there is a veil covering the unseen world where ideas of liberty and freedom exist, and in that place, where brave men and women are willing and able to fight to maintain that world, no tyranny can tear it asunder.  Is the Second Amendment real?  Ah, Virginia, in all this world there is nothing else real and abiding.

No Second Amendment?  Thank God it lives, and lives as long as patriots stay vigilant. A thousand years from now Virginia, nay, ten times ten thousand years from now, it will still continue to keep tyranny at bay and continue to make free the hearts of childhood.

Intoxication and guns shouldn’t mix…nor should intoxication and driving


So then why are their parking lots at bars?  There are states around the country that have prohibitions on having a drink while carrying firearm.  Yet, while they are more than happy to infringe on the Constitutional Right of bearing arms, somehow, regulating the privilege of driving is somehow more protected.

If things were equal (though in truth they shouldn’t be because rights should have more protections than privileges) then you would either have to leave your car at home and walk to the bar or you would have to be a designated driver and not drink at all, by LAW.

But since most gun control zealots hate equality and rationality (i.e. everyone is free to think what they will, as long as you agree with them) the idea of prohibiting drivers from being served alcohol seems completely ridiculous yet banning a gun owner from the same is completely logical.

Statistically, 31% of all fatal car crashes occurred with a drunk driver.  Over 10,200 deaths.

The accidental firearm deaths was about 600.

Even if I factor in ALL gun deaths, to include murders, gang wars, suicides etc, the number is only about 8,200.

Driving drunk kills 25% more people than every kind of firearm death yet where is the outrage to ban drivers from bars?  Where are the Mayors Against Illegal Drivers?  Why isn’t Bloomberg at the head of this crusade?

Hypocrisy, that’s why.  The idea of drinking and driving doesn’t morally offend people the way that a gun owner does.  And if there is any way that a gun owner can be inconvenienced, hassled or otherwise have his/her rights infringed the gun control zealots will attempt it.

But, finally, it seems as if common sense is breaking through.   In 2010, Georgia removed the prohibition of firearm owners from drinking while in a bar or restaurant.  In the past 2 years, blood has not run in the streets, shootouts haven’t become a daily occurrence at the local watering holes and business has gone on as usual.

I’m not surprised.  We are Americans and as Americans we should hold ourselves up to a certain amount of personal responsibility.  We do not need a government to tell us how to properly behave.   We do not need a Nanny state tyrant like Michael Bloomberg dictating our eating portions or salt intake.  We are the country of “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” and it should remains so.

If you do something stupid when you are drunk and something bad happens you should be punished.  But we cannot tolerate the continual disassembling of personal responsibility lest we become a nation of weak willed government sycophants.

In summation…don’t drunk drive, don’t drunk gun…and generally reconsider drunk texting.  If you can’t drink and not get intoxicated then have a designated gunner with you.    Other than that, carry on.