My commentary on a variety of issues that interest me including gun rights, individual liberty, illegal immigration, politics, religion, taxes, aviation, judicial activism, journalistic bias and laziness, environmental activism, education, family, health, gardening, history, Scouting, genealogy, etc.
I am a retired international airline captain. In real life, I strike fear into the US Department of Homeland Security as a right-wing extremist (in other words, I believe in God, go to church regularly, own a gun or two, oppose Al Gore and the environmentalist fraud, expect the government to aggressively enforce immigration laws, believe English should be established as the nation's official language, believe the US Constitution says what it says, seek a return to the limited federal government described in the US Constitution, and as a military veteran have sworn to support and defend the Constitution). To quote one of my heroes, Captain Moroni: "I seek not for power, but to pull it down. I seek not for honor of the world, but for the glory of my God, and the freedom and welfare of my country." (Book of Mormon, Alma 60:36) In my spare time, I serve on the local Boy Scout District Training Committee. I coach a 4-H Shooting Sports club (see 4-H link below). I also teach the Utah Hunter Education Course, the Utah Concealed Firearm Course, and various other gun safety classes including most NRA courses (see Firearm Training link below).
New Mexico has announced they will no longer recognize Utah's Concealed Firearm Permit. Nevada dropped recognition of Utah's permit a few months ago.
It's unfortunate that New Mexico and Nevada dropped Utah permit holders because they think our training inadequate. Actually, many Utah Concealed Firearm Instructors provide live-fire training to students who need or want it -- often at no extra charge -- even though Utah does not require it.
I am unalterably opposed to being required to undergo training or permitting of any kind just to exercise a right specifically enumerated in the US and Utah Constitutions. Should people get training? Yes. Should it be required by law? As one who makes a few bucks a year teaching gun safety classes, I say no, we already have more than enough laws to manage criminal and negligent behavior.
Instead of banning Utah permits, Nevada and New Mexico need to follow the examples of the several states with no training requirement whatsoever. People in those states carry guns just as safely -- or more so -- as do citizens in the states with burdensome training and permitting requirements.
Training is important, but a comparison of the various States shows that it does not demonstrably improve safety as it relates to concealed carry by law-abiding citizens. But, more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens does deter criminal behavior (See More Guns, Less Crime by John R. Lott below).
If there is to be mandatory gun safety training of any kind, it needs to be for every student from K through 12. A few hours of age-appropriate gun safety training spread through those 13 years of a child's life will save a lot more lives than New Mexico's imposition of live-fire training that is required only of holders of concealed weapon permits.
The US Declaration of Independence affirms that among man's unalienable rights are, "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" and that our rights are God-given -- not rationed out by an earthly magistrate. Since rights come from the Creator, not Caesar, there is no reason or justification to require that one person pay for another's "rights." No person has any right to unjustly infringe on another person's unalienable rights.
While our rights come from God, we must "pursue" them. For example, I have a right to life. For that to happen, I must make the effort to breath, eat, and fulfill all other requirements necessary to sustain my life. I do not have a right to demand others perform that effort for me nor to demand that they feed me at their expense. I have a right to good health care -- but only I pay for it. I have no right to demand that others pay for my medical care or even that others ensure I have a nutritious diet.
Yet, a substantial portion of Americans seem to believe they have a right to demand that I pay their bills for them. And, in exchange for the votes of those parasites, the vast majority of politicians are more than willing to take take the property of the producers, by threat of force, to pay those bills. Those in favor of this process call this charity. They're dead wrong. Charity is the voluntary, benevolent giving to those in need -- not forced redistribution of property!
It is through true charity that low-income people received (and still receive) health care before it became a major part of our financial planning some 60 years ago. There are many tiny little selfish people in (ie Joe Biden who has a right to be as selfish as he chooses) and out of politics who manifest little charity. These selfish people assume that all people are likewise selfish and exploit the opportunity to buy the votes of the needy with money taken from from others -- even those who already voluntarily give a significant portion of their wealth to those in need.
Good health is not a right or "entitlement"! It is a personal responsibility. Health care is not a right. It is a service to be bought and sold. Health insurance is not a right. It is a financial risk-management tool. Those who try to equate the Constitutional right of "life" with health, heath care, and health insurance have got it completely wrong. The Constitution does not guarantee that the federal government will provide you with life. Instead it guarantees that the federal government will not take life away from you. The same is true of our individual wealth (property).
Unless the government has done something to your health that resulted in the loss of your life, health, or safety, then you have no claim against the government (and by extension, the taxpayer), or a right to its monies (which come from taxpayers).
There is no question that there are problems in the health care and health insurance sectors of our economy. It is important to recognize that those problems are the direct result of excessive and unwise government intervention in the free market coupled with the consequences of unbridled litigation.
There seems to be a pervasive notion that anyone (ie physician or insurance company) who makes a profit is evil and is unjustly exploiting the innocent and vulnerable consumer. The truth is, however, that in a truly free market, nobody can make a profit unless he provides goods and services that consumers want and need at a price they can afford. Should the producer ever charge too much for his goods or services, he attracts competition which promptly drives the prices back down.
There are people who are horrified and angered by the idea that drug and medical equipment manufacturers make a profit! But it is only the desire to make a profit in a free market that drives the innovation that gives Americans the best health care in the world and exports that technology (often charitably) to the rest of the world. In fact, due to trade restrictions and drug counterfeiting, only American consumers shoulder the costs of the research and development while that technology benefits health care consumers in other nations.
Government has introduced barriers to this free market including a ban on interstate purchase of health insurance and requiring insurance policies to provide services the consumer doesn't need (ie, in many states, a couple in their 80s must pay for health insurance that covers birth control).
The recently-passed health bill must be repealed in its entirety for several reasons: It exceeds the limits on government imposed by the Constitution, it violates the right of the people to use their property (wealth) as they choose, it further interferes with free enterprise, we cannot afford it, and it simply will not fix the problems government has already created in the health care sector of the economy. Like most other legislation, the primary goal is governmental control over the people. It must be stopped!
I didn't write this (author is unknown), but I just had to share.
Reasons why someone might vote democrat
When someone can't explain why they voted for Democrats, give them this list. They can then pick a reason.
10. I voted Democrat because I believe oil companies' profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn't.
9. I voted Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.
8. I voted Democrat because Freedom of speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.
7. I voted Democrat because I'm way too irresponsible to own a gun, and I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers and thieves.
6. I voted Democrat because I believe that people who can't tell us if it will rain on Friday can tell us that the polar ice caps will melt away in ten years if I don't start driving a Prius.
5. I voted Democrat because I'm not concerned about the slaughter of millions of babies through abortion so long as we keep all death row inmates alive.
4. I voted Democrat because I think illegal aliens have a right to free health care, education, and Social Security benefits.
3. I voted Democrat because I believe that business should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as the democrats see fit.
2. I voted Democrat because I believe liberal judges need to rewrite the Constitution every few days to suit some fringe kooks who would never get their agendas past the voters.
1. I voted Democrat because my head is so firmly planted up my backside it's unlikely that I'll ever have another point of view.
I'm often asked for advice about what to look for when buying a self-defense handgun. I'll share a few of my thoughts here.
Before you make the investment in a gun, it's wise to shoot that model if you can (or something similar). Some commercial ranges have several guns you can rent. I did this once before buying a particular gun. I suggest you take a pistol or personal protection course from an NRA-certified firearms instructor. When sifting through the available courses and instructors, ask each instructor whether he has several handguns you can try. Many NRA instructors do and will let you shoot several different guns so you can find one you like. I'm so concerned about people buying guns that aren't suited for them, that my business card says I'll take first-time gun buyers to the range for free so they can shoot my guns before buying.
Your local gun dealers sell handguns of many sizes and weights. The guy behind the counter at your local gun dealer usually is not a good resource -- there are exceptions. I am annoyed by the many salesmen who sell small guns to women because they're "women's guns." I am concerned that many women buy them because small guns are "cute" -- especially in pink. The thought process goes something like this: "I’m a new shooter and I'm not confident I can really control a 'big' gun. I should start with something smaller and easier to handle." Many of the people behind the gun counter have the same mindset. But, it's a huge mistake!
Many people seem to think one needs a small gun for concealment. But, you really don't need a small gun. Sure, an LCP or a Keltec is easier to conceal, but even a big gun like a 1911, a standard-size Glock, or Ruger GP-100 are easy to hide with careful wardrobe selection and a good holster. It can be done without gimmicks such as fanny packs (Who wears a fanny pack? Only people with guns and Japanese tourists.) and vests (Who wears a vest in August in Phoenix? Only people with guns.). I carry a standard-size Springfield XD in .40 caliber year 'round and have no problem with concealment. A couple of my friends make a game of looking for my gun when they see me in public. An experienced eye might pick it out, but the general public will never know. (You'll never hide a monster like a S&W 500.)
A small light-weight gun with an alloy or polymer frame is comfortable to carry, but the sights are often difficult to use (short sight radius, and typically horrible sights) and the recoil can be uncomfortable. This is true for both small semi-autos such as the Ruger LCP, Keltec, and the Kahrs as well as "airweight" and "snubby" revolvers. A larger, heavier gun usually has much better sights and the gun's mass absorbs much of the recoil. Too many gun buyers buy a small light-weight gun because it's easy to carry and conceal. But they rarely shoot it because it's unpleasant to do so. Small guns are best described as expert's guns. Larger guns are much easier to shoot and to shoot well. Unless you are an experienced shooter, you're generally far better off with a larger, heavier gun -- which also can be easily concealed. People who shoot regularly generally do fine with small guns -- most people become accustomed to the recoil.
If you're worried about recoil in a small gun, you might consider an all-steel gun such as a Walther PPK or a S&W J-Frame all-steel revolver or a Ruger SP-101. My wife used to carry an "airweight" S&W J-Frame, but switched to a S&W Model 60 (pictured above, also a J-Frame) because it is all steel, has better sights, and a better grip. That switch to a heavier gun, even though is is the same frame size (slightly longer barrel), gave her something that is fun to shoot -- not punishing.
The most important consideration in gun selection is reliability. You're betting your life on whether that tool works when you really need it. There are a lot of good manufacturers out there, both imported and US-made. I suggest you avoid 3 brands: Hi-Point, Taurus, and Charter Arms. You might be able to buy a new Hi-Point for only $129, but you are likely to be disappointed with reliability and durability if you shoot it much. Taurus and Charter Arms make good guns, but they seem to have quality-control problems. Far too often, buyers need to send their new guns back to get them working right. For example, I've seen two Taurus revolvers with an out-of-the-box double-action trigger pull of over 40 pounds! After a couple of trips back to the manufacturer, they worked well. Nobody should ever have to send a new gun back to the factory because it isn't working right!
You need to consider ammo availability (you don't want a gun that shoots exotic, hard-find ammo such as the 9mm Largo), the availability of accessories such as holsters and spare magazines, and the availability of service and parts.
As for caliber selection, you should carry the most powerful cartridge you can comfortably and accurately shoot. Most experts recommend a minimum of the 9mm Parbellum (Luger) or the .38 Special (although some of the .380 Auto ammo is getting pretty good for self defense).
Pick a caliber that is common so you can easily and cheaply get ammo. In this regard, 9mm Parabellum is at the top of the list. Other popular calibers are .40 S&W, .45 ACP, .38 Special, .44 Special, and .357 Magnum. There are many other good calibers, but availability and price can be problematic. Some people worry about recent shortages in most calibers. I know .380 Auto ammo in particular has been more scarce than other calibers since the last presidential election. But, that will pass. I wouldn't make the decision based on transient ammo availability. If you shoot a lot, you can take up reloading, as I do, and never worry about shortages.
One nationally-known firearms trainer, Rob Pincus -- whose opinion I regard highly, is switching from the .40 S&W cartridge to 9mm Parabellum. He correctly argues that no self-defense handgun cartridge can be considered a one-shot stopper. In fact, wound characteristics are very similar among all of them. Therefore, he now prefers the more controllable 9mm. It enables one to carry more ammo and the lighter recoil enables faster follow-up shots. And, 9mm is usually the cheapest center-fire ammo you'll find for practice.
Some jurisdictions, such as California, limit the available firearm choices -- even the color of the gun seems to frighten some of the State's bureaucrats! So, make sure the gun you buy is legal where you live and where you will use the gun.
The most important thing about a self-defense gun is training. Get some training from a good NRA instructor and/or from one of the shooting academys such as FrontSight, GunSite, and Thunder Ranch.
"I was shooting the markers at the front of the board," Taylor Trostle said. "It was just like this and I was like ‘pow pow’ and then she just turned around."
Taylor was sent to the principal's office and immediately suspended for three days. Her write up says the finger gun was pointed in the teacher’s direction.
"That was considered a terroristic threat because the teacher feared for her life," Taylor's mother said.
What is this world coming to?
If an alleged adult is "threatened" by some kid making a gun with their finger, then that "adult" should be the one taking a break from school and getting some help. It is unconscionable that the school’s code of conduct is supporting the teacher in this ridiculous claim.
These are examples of what any reasonable person would categorize as harmless incidents that are repeatedly blown out of proportion over and over again in our schools.
The National Center for Education Statistics says that no evidence exists that proves that Zero Tolerance laws lower school crime rates. Of course not! All this policy does is target innocent children, branding them as criminals and terrorists!
The kids aren't stupid. They know the school adminstrators and teachers who impose and enforce these silly Zero Tolerance rules are fools.
There is really something wrong with our country. And what's wrong seems to originate and fester in our government school system!
It seems to me that the real agenda is to acclimate our children to living in a police state!
How about Zero Tolerance for stupidity in the ranks of our educators?
Obama economic adviser Paul Volcker told the New York Historical Society that a Value Added Tax (VAT) should be considered to get the deficit under control. For good measure, he threw in taxes on carbon and energy. He said getting entitlement costs and the US budget deficit under control may require such moves.
The VAT concept was born in France in 1954. More 100 money-hungry governments around the world have adopted variations of the VAT. Basically, it is a national sales tax imposed on virtually everything sold, with collections at every sales point (where value is added) from origin to ultimate consumer. Like a traditional sales tax, it is relatively efficient and inexpensive to collect. A VAT is easy to increase as desired with little notice by the consumer.
Perhaps the most egregious characteristic of a VAT is that, unlike a traditional sales tax, most of it is hidden in the ultimate cost of the goods. The final purchaser does not know how much he's paying in taxes when he buys a product. I oppose any form of a VAT because it hides the cost of government from the governed. And, it goes contrary to Obama's promise of an open and transparent government.
A billion here, a billion there, sooner or later it adds up to real money. — Everett Dirksen
I have a better idea: Eliminate all federal programs that are outside the authority granted to the federal government by the Constitution! That includes sunsetting all so-called "entitlement" programs that dish out billions in unearned payments and benefits to people who have done nothing to earn them!
Any form of a VAT is unacceptable either as a substitute for current taxes or to augment any other tax. All we need is a Congress and President with the courage and integrity to oppose any form of a VAT and cut government size and power instead!
Government is like a baby: An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other. — Ronald Reagan
A government which lays taxes on the people not required by urgent public necessity and sound public policy is not a protector of liberty, but an instrument of tyranny. — Calvin Coolidge
Before we give you billions more, we want to know what you've done with the trillion you've got. — Les Aspin
Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. — PJ O'Rourke
After a decade of profligacy, the American people are tired of politicians who talk the talk but don't walk the walk when it comes to fiscal responsibility. It's easy to get up in front of the cameras and rant against exploding deficits. What's hard is actually getting deficits under control. But that's what we must do. Like families across the country, we have to take responsibility for every dollar we spend. — Barack Obama, 2010
I am convinced that a substantial majority of the leadership of both major political parties as well as most members of Congress (including Obama's oponent, John McCain)know Obama is not legally qualified to be president. The simply don't care what the Constitution says about this or any other issue.
About a year ago, I wrote concerning the disposal of military surplus fired, but usable, ammunition cartridge cases (AKA brass). Historically, this brass was purchased by companies that reloaded the brass for sale to civilian and police markets. The primary end use of this reloaded ammunition has historically been for training and practice. I, myself, have bought and used this reloaded ammunition and I have been very satisfied with it.
However, for a brief period last year, much of this serviceable brass was either "demilitarized" by the military or the military required the buyer to "demilitarize" the brass. This "demilitarization" substantially reduced the value from that of serviceable cartridge cases to the value of junk scrap metal. This resulted in a significant loss to the taxpayer as well as to the ammunition consumer (including police agencies that rely on ammuntion made from recycled components to lower training costs).
Thanks to the leadership of Senator Max Baucus of Montana, this matter was quickly resolved last year. Congress issued a directive to the military that no Congress-appropriated funds may be used to destroy brass. Here's the excerpt from the 2009 Department of Defense appropriation by Congress:
None of the funds available to the Department of Defense may be used to demilitarize or dispose of M-1 Carbines, M-1 Garand rifles, M-14 rifles, .22 caliber rifles, .30 caliber rifles, or M-1911 pistols, or to demilitarize or destroy small arms ammunition or ammunition components that are not otherwise prohibited from commercial sale under Federal law, unless the small arms ammunition or ammunition components are certified by the Secretary of the Army or designee as unserviceable or unsafe for further use.
Now, it is being reported that some military installations are apparently falling to sales pitches from at least one company which believes it has devised ways to circumvent the will of Congress.
Once again, Senator Baucus is taking the lead to stop this defiance of Congress and this effort to emasculate the Second Amendment by increasing the cost of ammunition.
I urge every congressman and the president to immediately join Senator Baucus to stop the "demilitarization" of any and all surplus items, including ammunition components, that are suitable for police and civilian use.
All civilian and military personnel in supervisory or command positions who had a role in this defiance of Congress must be punished.
Any company that encouraged or that has directly profited from this defiance of Congress must be banned from doing business with the federal government.
I start every one of my concealed firearm classes by saying that it's a basic course. There's only so much I can teach in 7-8 hours: the basics including the laws that apply to personal defense. It might be enough to deal with a rookie crook. But, to ensure coming out on top, we all need a lot more training in all aspects of fighting.
We must understand that the bad guys have no rules. We good guys have two rules: 1 - Use lethal force only when justified - your assailant must have all of the following: • Ability (weapon or disparity of force) to kill us or cause serious bodily harm. • Opportunity (close enough) to kill us or cause serious bodily harm. • Intent to kill us or cause serious bodily harm. 2 - Win (The attitude to merely survive is not enough): • As long at rule number 1 is satisfied, there are no more rules -- cheat in every way possible to win -- spit, bite, kick the groin, curse, etc. • We stop fighting only when his attack ceases and rule #1 no longer applies. At that point, we are no longer justified in using lethal force.
The idea that an attacker will toy with you at gunpoint for hours is only for movies. That never happens in real life. Lethal encounters are almost always extremely violent, chaotic, and last only seconds. In order to prevail in a lethal encounter must have adequate knowledge, skill and attitude (KSA) to respond instantly to a threat. So, we must always be building our KSA: • Get advanced training in all aspects of fighting from someone more qualified than me. • Practice regularly so that employment of KSA and tools is automatic -- requiring no high-level thought because, when faced with a threat, you will experience tunnel vision, fail to hear things you normally would, loose fine motor skills, and loose the ability to reason. • Role-play and visualize attacks and responses thereto.
Nobody ever knows how much KSA will be required until the fight is over. So, get all the training you can now, before you need it.
Click here for a good article on the "missing ingredient" in self-defense.
Starbucks saved my life a few months ago: I checked out of a hotel in Okinawa, Japan too early to have breakfast. My plan to get something to eat in the Naha Airport Terminal was thwarted because all that was available was fish bait (AKA sushi AKA raw fish heads). Compounding the problem was being booked on a flight with no meal or snack service. I did, however, find a Starbucks in the terminal and bought a half-dozen donuts. Those Starbucks donuts kept me alive until I arrived at my destination several hours later.
A couple of months later, some gun-banners got themselves into a frenzy when they found that some gun-rights activists were safely, lawfully, and peacefully carrying guns in a Starbucks in California. (Yes, California still allows people to have guns.) Here is what the gun-banners seem think is going on in Starbucks:
The anti-rights folks demanded that Starbucks ban guns in their stores. Starbucks bravely responded that they will continue to honor laws which allow citizens to carry firearms.
I hereby thank Starbucks for their courage and their respect for the rights guaranteed by the US Constitution and most State Constitutions. Although I am not a coffee drinker, I pledge to patronize their stores from time to time to buy more donuts to thank them for honoring our constitutionally human rights and for saving my life.
Posts
