Monthly Archives: January 2013

Gun control gets cut down by Occam’s Razor


Gun control gets cut down by Occam’s Razor

In the current debate concerning guns in America, I am always astounded by the twisting of facts, logic and reason that the gun control zealots put forth in order to defend their case.  By all sense and logic, gun control cannot be viewed as anything other than a means to oppress a free people and to disarm the law abiding.

When looking at the pro-rights argument against the pro-control argument one needs to cut through the hyperbole and sensationalism with Occam’s razor.

Occam’s razor, for those of you who don’t know, is a term used in logic and problem solving.  Plainly put, Occam’s razor is the process in which, when you have two competing theories, the one that makes the least amount of assumptions is most likely the correct one.  By using the “razor” to cut away the most assumptions you are left with the correct answer.

To apply this to the gun debate, I argue that gun control, when cut to ribbons by the razor cannot stand.

The argument for the 2nd Amendment.

  1. An armed people are a free people

That’s pretty much the only assumption that needs to be taken into consideration for the 2nd Amendment.  Freedom does not guarantee safety, it does not ensure absolute happiness, it only assumes that if people are armed they will be free so long as they remain so.

The argument for gun control requires a lot more assumptions to be made.

  1. The 2nd Amendment is about hunting
  2. The founding fathers didn’t know what weapons would be available in the future and wouldn’t have written the 2nd Amendment if they had
  3. Gun control will stop criminals from getting guns
  4. The government will never turn on its people
  5. The police are enough to keep you safe
  6. Criminals will follow gun laws
  7. Shall not be infringed doesn’t mean that the 2nd Amendment can’t be infringed
  8. Gun control only fails because we don’t have enough of it
  9. Only the government needs guns, law abiding people don’t
  10. Armed citizenry couldn’t stop tyranny

Those are just 10 assumptions that I have heard the gun control zealots use that come to mind.  I’m sure many of those reading this have heard even more.

The long and short of it is this, you have to make a LOT of assumptions in order to get on board with gun control while the 2nd Amendment only requires you to make 1 assumption.  And that assumption just seems so rational and has been proven in history that it boggles my mind that people still choose to deny it.

So the next time you find yourself in a war of words with some “enlightened” gun control advocate, don’t forget to bring your razor.


Revolution era Assault Weapons


Revolution era Assault Weapons

We are hearing a lot of talk from those who seek to control the American people and limit their liberty, questioning why anyone would need a so called “assault weapon”.  While it is humorously ironic when British blowhard Piers Morgan spouts off criticizing our 2nd Amendment, it is a little more disturbing when American politicians follow suit.

Since many politicians choose to ignore history and walk all over the Constitution, it is good to talk a look back and see where these radical notions of an armed society and liberty came from.

As I have long pointed out on this blog, the 2nd Amendment isn’t about shooting deer, it’s about shooting tyrants.  Our nation was FOUNDED on such a notion.  The only people who would throw off the chains of tyranny and then undercut the ability for future generations to do so would be tyrants themselves.  I do not view George Washington, Ben Franklin or Thomas Paine in this light and I wonder how today’s gun control zealots can twist the history of our founding so cockeyed that they would make tyrants of our founding fathers.

The Colonists during this time had petitioned the King, wrote to Parliament, and took all the peaceful avenues of redress that they could.  Finally, when their grievances were ignored, their property seized, taxes crippled them and they were denied the rights that their English cousins enjoyed they said ‘enough’.

Now, the gun control zealots like to mock American gun owners today by trying and marginalize the 2nd Amendment saying that when it was written they were talking about muskets and that muskets are the only thing that the 2nd Amendment protects.

Of course, that is like saying the 1st Amendment only protects a hand cranked, single page printing press.  But I digress.

The founding fathers were talking about muskets and early rifles.  Why?  Because those were the most advanced weapons of the day and with those weapons a nation was founded.

The colonists had equal, and in many cases,  superior firearms than that of the British.

The British standard issue rifle of the day was the Brown Bess


The Brown Bess was in production for almost 55 years before the start of the Revolution.  It, or one of its derivations  was in the hands of nearly every British redcoat during the war.  And talk about an “assault” weapon, the Brown Bess came with a bayonet 17 inches long, used when the British lines would literally assault the enemy position.

While the Americans where made up of militias and were less uniformed in their selection of firearms than those of their enemy, in some senses that gave the American the advantage.  The Colonists, by and large, brought their own firearms to the fight.  While many used derivatives of the Brown Bess, the Americans excelled at precision shooting with the Pennsylvania/Kentucky Long Rifle.  The reason for the accuracy of up to 400 yards was due to the rifling of the bore which made the round fly straighter.


If gun control advocates had their way, the Colonists would have needed to use bow and arrows against the British because using their rhetoric, “who needs to shoot something 400 yards away”.

While revolution should never be the first response, the opportunity to cast of chains of tyranny should be a viable option in order to preserve liberty.  As such, weapons are needed that are on par with those carried by said tyrants army.

If the Colonists were denied the use of arms equal or superior to that of the army of King George, then we might very well still be bending the knee to the Crown.

To limit the 2nd Amendment to something smaller than its intent (such as hunting or personal defense) is to limit the essence of American liberty and freedom.  The 2nd Amendment is the line in the sand, and if it is allowed to be brushed away then the freedom that we enjoy today will exist only by the whims of those in charge.

Let us stand resolute to ensure that the leaders of America serve and never rule.

Hypocrisy…I name thee Feinstein. Exempts self from Gun Ban


Hypocrisy…I name thee Feinstein.  Exempts self from Gun Ban

Feinstein’s list of banned weapons has ballooned to a whopping 157 name brands covering some 2,200 different types of guns.  This has gone beyond a simple so-called “assault weapons ban” to include rifles, shotguns and pistols.

The complete list can be found here:

Not only is Feinstein looking to get the ball rolling on the slippery slope that is the complete removal of the 2nd Amendment from the Constitution, she has the hypocritical audacity to make sure that she and other elected officials are exempt from the legislation.

This type of aristocratic ”do as I say not as I do” bull is one of the things that found a bunch of colonists tossing off the yoke of British oppression some 200+ years ago.  We are not subjects to the whims of our elected officials, to be lorded over by those who believe that there are two America’s.  One in which the rules only apply to those who are not in power.

Where does Dianne Feinstein and her gun control cronies get off thinking that they can pass laws disarming the American people yet exempt themselves to laws they don’t care to follow?

That my friends, is TYRANNY.  And it is the reason we have the 2nd Amendment to begin with.  Who knows how many other laws that the Senator and her cadre of craven controlling con men wish to exempt themselves from once they disarm the people.

We must continue to fight to ensure that never happens lest we become a country of two America’s.  One in which those in power are exempt from the law and one in which those who are not must suffer under it.

Life under despotic rule


Life under despotic rule

A man is walking on what passes for a street in his village.  The ground rocks are jagged and the surface uneven.  The rats aren’t as bad as they usually are, but the smell of human waste and decay still hang in the air. He knows that the odor will be more pungent when the sun rises to heat the day once more.

But the man knows that bad smells are the least of his worries as he tries to go about his business finding bread or flour or rice for his family so they do not starve.  The regional warlord holds an iron grip on the food supply for the mans village and all the neighboring ones.  The warlord chooses who is allowed to eat what, he doles out the amounts yet for him and those who are willing and able to pay him off, they are above his edicts.

In this place, as in many places where tyrants rule, money softens the tyrants grip while it strangles those who cannot pay the rate.  To the poor and destitute he denies them food donations.  To new born babies he denies them formula.

He takes and takes and takes from his people, their choices, their money by adding new “taxes” time and again, and he will not let anyone pry the grip of power from his hands.  When a natural disaster hits his soldiers deny access to outside aid so that another group will not pose a threat to his power, yet his people die from the raiding by bandits in the aftermath.

The man has found some food and drink, it is small yet in this village you do not have a choice for the warlord does not care who goes hungry.

The man must hurry home now as it is late and he is of a different tribe than the warlord, his skin darker than he who rules.  The man hurries because of two threats he faces.  One is from the bandits that roam around his village looking to prey upon the hapless traveler.  He lives in a poor village and these bandits reap what others sow.

The other threat is worse for at least you can try and fight the bandits.  The warlords men swoop in like wraiths and what little freedom others in the land may have are denied those who live in the warlords region.  If he is caught by them he will be a victim of their oppression.  They will take his dignity by force.  The only hope is that they tire quickly of their sport and do not choose to punish him out of turn.

Tonight the man is not lucky.  A little ways from his hovel and his family the warlords reavers descend upon the man.  They demand to see his papers, demand he explain himself as to why he is there at that hour.  The man says he was simply getting food for his family.  The reavers are unconvinced.  They knock his parcels from his hand and throw him against a wall.  They tell him that if he moves he will be a dead man.

Their hands grope him and grab him.  They tear at pockets and pull at laces.  From the surrounding hovels the people watch.  Some hide quickly lest the reavers turn their wrath on them, others who believe and follow the warlord unquestioningly assume the man’s guilt and are happy to see the reavers stop at nothing in proving it.

The man hangs his head, sorrowful that he is treated in such a way.  He is thankful that he no longer has his gun.  The warlord decreed that they were to be illegal and that anyone other than his reavers or his gilded elite found having one would be tossed in his pits, not to see the light of day until decades pass.

After the reavers have had their fill of crushing the mans spirit and taking his pride, they give him a warning not to cause trouble and let him go.  The man picks up the little food he was carrying and continues on his way.

“Almost home” the man said to himself…almost.

The other kind of danger comes from the darkness.  A group of bandits armed with sticks and pipe, ooze from the shadows.  They demand the mans money and his food.  The man, thinking of his hungry family thinks to call the warlords men back but knows they would not make it in time and that the bandits would beat him all the more severe.

The man tries to rush past and almost makes it until he is knocked down and beaten.  His bones begin to break, blood begins to pour.  There are others who see this as well, but what can they do.  They are like the man, they have no way to stop the beating of these big numerous bandits.

When it is over, the food is gone and all his money.  The man continues his crawl home and hopes for luckier days.  That is all he can do because this is like under despotic rule.  This is life in New York City.


As you can tell I changed some words like calling the outer boroughs a village and the city of New York a region.  I made Bloomberg’s title warlord and his police, reavers.  But this was to help you have an open mind about what life in New York is like.

Bloomberg’s war on food.  He limits the serving size of food even though that targets poorer people the most. Going so far as denying food donations to homeless shelters.

He has ordered hospitals to lock up baby formula and not to offer it to new mothers.

He did not allow the National Guard in the city after Hurricane Sandy to help quell the looting.

He fully supports “Stop and Frisk” which eliminates the 4th Amendment when walking in New York City.

He has all but eliminated the 2nd Amendment in the city, save for those with enough money or connections to circumvent his ban.  This leaves the law abiding defenseless against criminals.

This is life in New York.  You are not free to eat what you want, not free from unreasonable search and seizures, not free to have due process, not free to defend yourself with firearms and not free from tyranny.

I tell you this story because now that New York State has hopped on the Bloomberg crazy train with their draconian gun control, it is important to realize what the future of this country would look like if New York City was made the norm.

The line must be drawn there…no further.

Constitution is not the only important document


Constitution is not the only important document

As gun owners, we put a lot of stock in what the Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights, has to say.  But yet, that is not the only document that the Founding Fathers wrote that was important.  I’m speaking of the Declaration of Independence.  The Declaration was one of the most important things ever written and when signed changed the world forever.

Never had a colony broken away from its mother country.  It was a game changer and those that signed it were trail blazers.  As we look at the signing of the Declaration, perhaps through the fog of time we have lost perspective of what it actually did or says.

This wasn’t some Sunday afternoon folly perpetrating among some old biddies playing bridge.  This was an act of war, a declaration of rebellion and a call to arms.

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, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The Right of the People to alter or abolish it.  But this isn’t to be taken lightly, so that every time the government says something minor you disagree with you break out the torches and set DC aflame.  The Founding Fathers understood that this was a serious undertaking.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

But I ask you, how exactly can one to throw off such a government?  Only through the use of Arms.  For a a tyrannical government will not yeild to fair and honest elections, and the Peoples freedom of speech ends at the point of a the Governments rifle.

So, in understanding that they were forming a nation by overthrowing tyranny, the Founding Fathers realized that history may have need to repeat itself in the future.  And should it come again that:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

The people would have the means in which to enact such a separation.  The Declaration of Independence led directly to the need of enumerating the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in the Bill of Rights.

One cannot be free if one is not able to defend themselves from tyranny.

Martin Luther King Jr. – Man of peace but no pushover


Martin Luther King Jr. – Man of peace but no pushover

In 1956 Martin Luther King Jr. applied for a concealed carry permit in Alabamasince he was getting so many death threats.  As you can imagine, since gun controls roots were founded in racism and keeping blacks unarmed was the point of gun control, King was denied.

Now, some of you may think that MLK Jr wanting to carry a gun is incongruent with him being a non violent civil rights activist.  It’s not and here’s why; just because you preach non violence does not mean you need to be a sacrificial lamb to anyone who is going to harm you or your family.

Dr. King believed that through non-violence interaction with the government his dream of equality could be realized.  But he was not naive nor stupid and did not believe that non violence would protect him or his family from those with evil in their hearts.

So Martin Luther King Jr, a black Republican pastor who preached non violence and who had quantifiable reasons to be allowed to carry concealed (the multitude of death threats) was denied a permit.

If we allow gun control to force us to ask permission in order to exercise our rights, then we leave the door open for the government to say no.  And if Dr. King wasn’t good enough to get a concealed carry permit, then what hope do the rest of us have.

A snapshot of the world where gun control wins


A snapshot of the world where gun control wins

In a rash of crime criminals are proving that they don’t need firearms in order to commit their acts of brutality.

In a recent trend another person was beaten and thrown onto subway tracks, this time in Philadelphia.  Philly, I remind you is a den of anti-gun sentiment with Mayor Nutter leading the charge.  Hmmm…i wonder what could have helped this woman stop a larger more physically imposing male assailant from beating her and tossing her onto the subway tracks?  According to the gun control zealots it was better for her to nearly die than to have the ability to defend herself with a firearm.

A woman in New Jersey, one of the most restrictive states for the law abiding to get a firearm to defend themselves, was brutally stabbed repeatedly while she was with her baby inside a Bed Bath & Beyond.  Could a woman defend herself and her baby with a firearm against an attacker with a knife?  Gun Control zealots would in New Jersey would prefer you not find out.

In a Dallas Hardware Store, a clerk had his throat slashed and was beaten with a hammer and left for dead.  I wonder if the gun control zealots would think the perpatrator of this attack would be easily found if only his hammer was registered.

A woman had her face slashed at the Fayette Mall in Lexington KY.  I’m not sure how this happened because Fayette Mall lists as number 20 of their Code of Conduct that weapons are not allowed in the mall except by police officers.  This is not only a Gun Free Zone it is a Weapons Free Zone.  Of course, only the law abiding listen, so this group of slashers gets to have a pick of unarmed targets to attack.

Everyone of these situations occurred when a smaller, weaker, or outnumbered victim was violently attacked.  A gun in their hands would have been an equalizer to the roving animals of this world that walk upon two legs.

Yet, the gun control zealots see these four stories as a victory.  So some people got stabbed and were put into a hospital, a pretty girl has her face scarred for life, a man is beaten so badly he can’t even speak to the police to tell them what happened…none of the attackers got shot.  And at the end of the day that is what the Brady Campaign and Mayors Against Illegal Guns must want because every law that they have suggested, pushed for, and/or implemented creates a world where only criminals benefit.