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).
Some of the paranoid-delusional folks of Utah persist in raising a fuss about guns in public whether on the city bus or on the college campus.
Roughly 10% of Utah adults have a Utah-issued permit to carry a concealed firearm. Because their guns are usually concealed, nobody knows what portion of that 10% actually carry on a regular basis. (It oughta be all of 'em! They are, after all, trained to be safe and certified by the FBI as good and decent people.)
Assuming all permit holders carry a concealed handgun all the time they are clothed, all of the hoplophobes in the State must surely be scared to death that a tenth of the adults they see on the bus or in the Walmart are armed. However, the hoplophobes rarely see any of the omnipresent guns and thus happily and ignorantly go about their otherwise paranoid day.
But, let just one of those responsible gun owners carry his/her gun on the outside (yes it's legal Utah and many other States) of his/her sweater instead of inside, the hoplophobes start getting those panic attacks and start reaching for Xanax, Clozaril and 911.
So, is the problem really the gun or is it the twisted perception of the gun by those prone to mental illness -- the people who, when seeing or thinking of guns typically imagine themselves committing evil?
The answer, it seems to me, is simple: Keep guns out of the hands of hoplophobes and other crazy people. Then, leave the rest of us alone!
My little home town, Cedar City, Utah, has a multi-million dollar "aquatics center" it can't afford. The center was ostensibly built to provide a pool for our local high schools whose old pool was razed a couple of years ago. Oddly, none of the four pools in the new center meet the needs of high school competitive swimming!
The aquatics center grew from a dream for a city recreation complex including a gym, a game room, bowling, and billiards. The dream was scaled back to an overgrown hot tub when people realized how expensive dreams can be. Now, there are rumors that the dreamers are back. They reportedly want to start by adding a gym.
If anyone wants to add a gym or otherwise enlarge that already bloated aquatics center project, I [facetiously] demand the center also include an indoor 20-lane 100-yard rifle range, an indoor 20-lane 25-yard pistol range, an indoor skeet range (for when Obamao visits our little town), and an indoor trap range.
The complex must include staff instructors and a range officer on each range (I'm retiring from Atlas Air in December and will need a job), a pro shop with gun rentals, gun/ammo sales, and a reloading room. If we build places for golfers to play, why not for shooters?
Since it's my idea, I expect a lane to be perpetually reserved for my exclusive use on each range. Hunter education classes and shooting clubs, of course, should get scheduling priority on the rest of the lanes.
In other words, dreaming is good. I only ask that people fulfill their extravagant dreamswith their own labors and money -- not mine!
Something like this would be a good start for Cedar City's new indoor shooting complex:
I am troubled by statements Utah's governor continues to make regarding the defense of Utah's gun rights.
Somehow, Governor Gary Herbert seems to think that only emotion drives those who want to protect their right of self-defense. Yet, he doesn't seem to believe that emotion drives those who exploit firearm abuses and crimes to infringe the right of self-defense.
It would seem to me that the governor's perception of the ongoing struggle for the Constitution in general and for gun rights in particular is clouded by the very emotion he condemns. That emotion seems to be fear -- fear that Utah will expect him to stand up against the Feds as a leader for Utah's rights.
Contrary to his apparently emotion-clouded perceptions of the hundred-year-old gun-rights struggle, it seems to me to be perfectly rational and non-emotional to tell the emotional gun-banners to honor the Constitution. Honoring the Constitution starts with those who have sworn an oath to the Constitution -- elected officials like Governor Herbert.
If the governor won't lead the fight against federal violations of the Constitution, I urge him to at least get behind our brave sheriffs and our courageous legislators who are finally pushing back against more than one hundred years of egregious abuses by the "progressive" central government.
As in the past, at only 4 million members, the National Rifle Association (NRA) is virtually powerless to do anything about new gun control except to make compromises -- even though there is no room in the Second Amendment for compromise.
[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The Leftist, anti-liberty organizations, companies, and individuals on the NRA anti-gun list literally overwhelm the efforts of the relatively puny efforts of the NRA to protect the civil rights of an estimated 100 million (and growing by an estimated 4.5 million new gun owners per year) gun owners.
Understand this: The NRA isn't so widely hated because it's powerful -- it's not. It is hated because it is doing the best it can to fight against evil.
If every person who has participated in the current gun/ammo/components/accessory buying frenzy were a member of the NRA, we wouldn't be having this gun-control debate! Feinstein, et. al. wouldn't dare cross their gun-owning constituents by introducing any new gun control!
If universal background checks, gun registration, bans of certain classes of firearms and magazines, or any other new gun-control legislation is imposed on responsible Americans (Does anyone really believe that gun control reduces criminal behavior?), the blame must be placed squarely on the shoulders of gun owners who selfishly don't support the NRA.
I didn't vote for Governor Herbert because I've always thought he's too wishy-washy on the Constitution and Liberty. This is only one of several examples.
Article 6 of the US Constitution says, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land...."
"...in Pursuance thereof..." means that only laws which are constitutional are valid.
There is nothing anywhere in the US Constitution that authorizes the federal government to regulate arms in any way. Lacking that authority in the Constitution, the central government is therefor prohibited from regulating arms. Being unauthorized usurpation of power, ll federal gun regulations are illegal and unenforceable without the cooperation of corrupt or ignorant judges and cops.
The 10th Amendment to the US Constitution says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." In other words, if the Constitution doesn't specifically authorize the central government to do something (eg, regulate arms, Medicare, Social Security, ObamaCare, education, housing, food stamps, etc.) it must keep its hands off.
Governor Herbert took an oath to support and defend the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That includes federal enemies in Congress, federal courts, the Whitehouse, and federal bureaucracies. Utah elected him to not only run Utah's government, but to interpose between the people of Utah and federal tyranny. Governor Herbert has chosen to not protect his constituents against ObamaCare, gun laws, or any other federal overreach. Herbert is a coward.
But, it's not all his fault -- Utah needs smarter voters.
I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground that 'all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people.' To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, not longer susceptible of any definition. — Thomas Jefferson (Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank, 15 Feb 1791)
[T]he several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes,--delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force....but, where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy. — Thomas Jefferson, 10 Nov 1798
The states, then, being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity that there can be no tribunal, above their authority, to decide, in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and consequently, that, as the parties to it, they must themselves decide, in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition. — James Madison’s Report on The Virginia Resolutions (1799-1800)
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which...concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. — James Madison, Federalist #45
If the federal government has the exclusive right to judge the extent of its own powers, warned the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions' authors (James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, respectively), it will continue to grow – regardless of elections, the separation of powers, and other much-touted limits on government power. — Thomas E. Woods
Since the reelection of Barry Soetero (AKA Barrack Obama) and the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School, there has a been a resurgence in the move to ban so-called "high-capacity" magazines (those ignorant, or in contempt, of correct firearm nomenclature call 'em clips):
Here is a photo of two factory magazines for the 9mm P226 pistol made by Sig Sauer. They are dimensionally identical.
The magazine on the left holds 18 9mm cartridges. This is what Sig designed the pistol for. It therefore is properly called a standard-capacity magazine. Hoplophobes (people with an irrational fear of guns) and those who exploit the ignorance of hoplophobes incorrectly call it a high-capacity magazine. In free jurisdictions, such as Utah, this is the magazine that comes with the gun. (Note: The purpose of the short crease in this magazine is to assure feeding reliability.)
Non-free jurisdictions, such as California, arbitrarily limit magazine capacity to 10 rounds -- something that Sig and most other manufacturers would never intend. To comply with the arbitrary and capricious capacity limit imposed by non-free jurisdictions, Sig presses a long, deep crease into each side of the magazine as shown in the right. The sole purpose of the long deep crease is to reduce the internal capacity to the mandated, arbitrary 10 rounds -- almost half! Hoplophobes call this a normal-capacity magazine. It is properly called what it really is -- a crippled magazine.
Responsible Americans in non-free jurisdictions will be imprisoned for the mere possession of the magazine on the left -- even without possessing the gun or ammo! Does any rational person really believe that a thug in California will shun the 18-round magazine because it might mean jail time? Face the facts, hoplophobes: Criminals, by definition are not deterred by your silly laws, let alone by the good laws!
So, who needs 18-round magazines? Hopefully, nobody. Ya gonna bet your life on hope? A law-enforcement officer -- even in the non-free jurisdictions -- with a 9mm Sig P226 typically has a round in the chamber plus a full 18-round magazine in the gun plus two more full 18-round magazines on his belt. That's 55 rounds! Does he really need 55 rounds? Hopefully not. But neither a wise cop nor his wise chief bets a cop's life on hope. Is your life or your child's life less worthy of uncrippled protection than a cop?
All these silly restrictions do is cripple the ability of responsible people to protect themselves and the people they love.
On December 14, 2013, a mentally-disturbed young man murdered his mother, then massacred over two dozen innocent children and school staff at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown Connecticut. As expected, this incident inflamed the discussion on gun rights. But, most of the rhetoric does not address the real issue: Mental health.
Mark Walters, host of Armed American Radio, a weekly three-hour radio talk sho that focuses on firearms, gun rights, and self defense. I found this edition of his show to be the best he has ever produced and the best treatment of the issues surrounding the Sandy Hook massacre and other violent crime. I urge all to listen. You will not regret it.
After listening, I'm sure you will conclude that we shooters know how to fix the problem of mass shootings. We've always known. Our response comes from facts and reason -- not hysteria as is so pervasive in the anti-gun crowd, the "news" media, and the misinformed/uninformed public.
Last month, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan gave a speech which included his thoughts about values:
We have common values that go far beyond the Constitutional right to bear arms....we absolutely have to reassess a number of our society's value choices on issues like easy access to guns....
Yes, Mr. Secretary, we have "common values."
We value our lives and the lives of our children enough to say that waiting 20 minutes for the police to stop a massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School is unacceptable.
We value our "easy access to guns" because we know that guns are the only tools that enable our teachers, our children, and us to live long enough for the police to arrive and take over the fight against evil.
Our values are enshrined in and protected by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution -- not in the statist pontifications of elites in government office like you. Please understand that this is why we, and the Constitution, require people like you to swear an oath to "support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic." We require that oath because we know that your values (power of the State) are not our values (value of the individual).
For example, we know the values held by the State and by people like you include the concept that police exist firstly to protect the State (ie enforce mostly arbitrary mala-prohibitum laws) -- not to protect our children, our teachers, and us from deranged murderers. Sure, your law-enforcement officers will come to the aid of our children when they can, but too often they arrive just in time to draw chalk outlines, take photos, do autopsies, and otherwise conduct an investigation. Sandy Hook proved that to us -- again.
Our values, as expressed in the 2nd Amendment, demand that our right and ability to protect ourselves and our loved ones be unimpeded. Your values are threatened by self-reliant people and by the resistance to tyranny posed by those same arms of self defense.
The Constitution says that our values trump yours. Unfortunately, half the voters are on your side. We need smarter voters.
In many cases, the illness that was being treated is likely what triggered the violence. Shockingly, the medications, themselves, used to treat the mental illness have known side effects that also could have triggered the violence! We are giving people who are prone to violence to self and/or others drugs that are known to trigger violence! Who came up with that idea?
There has been a recent surge in talk about gun control. My commentary in this blog is a part of that surge. But, everyone needs to come to grips with the simple fact that, while violence is easier and more efficient with a gun, the gun does not and cannot cause violence. Violence comes from a mind that isn't working right. This is the problem that needs to be addressed because with our without a gun, that mind will continue to be the problem.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. -- Benjamin Franklin
We must always err on the side of Liberty. Liberty comes with risks -- sometimes people get hurt. The risks don't magically go away when we give up our Liberty. That's why frail old guys like me -- and school teachers -- need a gun.
This legislation is long overdue. Why should any responsible adult need government permission to exercise a constitutionally-guaranteed individual right?
Some will fuss over how this legislation will result in wild-west shootouts in Walmart. Well, that hasn't been the result in any other state with "Constitution carry." In fact, probably 10% of the adults you see in a Utah Walmart have Utah carry permits. How badly did they hurt you?
Vermont has never had a permit requirement. They don't have a problem with wrongful shootings.
Alaska, Arizona, Montana, and Wyoming dropped their permit requirements. These four states also do not have a problem with wrongful shootings.
Several states, such as Washington, have no training requirement for their permits. Likewise, no problem with wrongful shootings.
The statistics simply don't show that responsible citizens are in the habit of shooting the wrong guy or shooting when shooting isn't justified.
Should everyone have training? Absolutely! Any truly responsible person will voluntarily seek all the training they can afford. As a Utah Concealed Firearm Instructor, I benefit from a training mandate. But, should it be mandatory? The statistics say no.
Should people who carry be required to have a permit? Again, the statistics say no. In reality, the permitting process is primarily a revenue stream in most jurisdictions.
Requiring training and permits doesn't stop criminals from carrying. So, why should any responsible American need government permission to exercise a constitutionally-guaranteed individual right?
Anti-gun paranoids need to come to grips with the fact that responsible Americans won't hurt anyone unless necessary to protect themselves or other innocent persons. This bill will not allow irresponsible persons (eg, criminals, crazy people, addicts, drunks, etc.) to possess a gun nor will it diminish our need to protect ourselves from them.
I urge the Utah Legislature and the Governor to pass this bill immediately. Every other State would be wise to do likewise.
James Alan Fox, criminologist at Northeastern University and an expert on mass shootings, notes that "most mass murderers do not have criminal records or a history of psychiatric hospitalization," so "they would not be disqualified from purchasing their weapons legally." And if they were, he adds, "mass killers could always find an alternative way of securing the needed weaponry, even if they had to steal from family members or friends."
Nevertheless, Barrack Obama, and others, have proposed a "universal background check" be required for all transfers of firearms. There is also a call from some for a background check on all ammunition transfers.
Federal law (18 USC § 922(d)) already prohibits certain persons from possessing firearms and ammunition. These persons include felons, persons adjudicated mentally incompetent, drug abusers, illegal immigrants, etc. It is also unlawful to transfer a firearm or ammunition to these restricted persons.
It therefore is incumbent upon anyone selling, loaning, gifting, or otherwise transferring a firearm or ammunition to another person to take reasonable steps to ensure the transferee is not a restricted person. Failure to do so subjects both persons to severe penalties -- up to 10 years in federal prison.
Because of this already-existing restriction on the transfer of firearms, I see no need to require any form of "universal background check" on firearm transfers between responsible persons.
Mandatory universal background checks would impose unnecessary and unreasonable costs and inconvenience on transactions where the transferor already knows the history and character of the transferee such as a father and son or friend to friend.
Jurisdictions that already impose "universal background checks" do not have a better record of keeping guns out of the hands of violent persons than do other jurisdictions. In fact, jurisdictions with mandatory universal background checks often have higher rates of violent crime!
One argument in favor of "universal background checks" is to close the so-called "gun-show loophole." Most firearms purchased at gun shows are dealer transactions with already-mandated background checks. A few firearms are sold at gun shows in private non-dealer transactions. These latter transactions are generally not subject to background checks. While these transactions are still subject to the above cites prohibition on the sale of firearms to restricted persons, it is very rare for a gun-show firearms to be later used in a crime.
Criminals generally get their guns by theft, from other criminals, through illegal straw-purchasers, and a few corrupt dealers -- very rarely at gun shows or other legal transfers. The persons involved are already committing a crime under current law. They are not, and will not be, deterred by current law nor will their acquisition of firearms be affected by a new and largely unenforceable "universal background check." No reasonable person would believe that criminals would obey any new law mandating a "universal background check" for their black-market trade in firearms. Such a law would only affect responsible persons, so what's the point?
I can foresee that a universal background check requirement could inadvertently (or by sinister design) impose severe penalties on someone like me who serves as an instructor for various gun safety courses including Hunter Education and a 4-H youth shooting club since I often allow my students to borrow and shoot my personal firearms during their training.
Anyone who has ever smoked a joint gives up his right claim that imposing more regulation on responsible gun buyers and gun owners will have any effect on the behavior of violent criminals.
Current law is more than sufficient in managing the legal non-dealer transfer of firearms. Any effort to impose any form of universal background check must be rejected. If such a law is introduced, I demand that it exempt the following (unless there is reasonable belief that the transferee is a restricted person):
· family members and close friends
· temporary use of borrowed firearms by participants in a course of shooting instruction, members of a shooting club, or at an established shooting range
· transactions where the transferee possesses a government-issued firearm permit
· other persons with evidence of a current criminal background check (eg law enforcement officers, school teachers, members of the Armed Forces)
This morning (Jan 20, 2013), in compliance with the US Constitution, Barrack Obama took the oath of office for his second term as President of the United States:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. (US Constitution - Article 2 Section 1)
Tomorrow (Jan 21), he’ll repeat the oath at a public ceremony. A few days ago, newly elected and reelected members of Congress were also sworn in (I also have taken this same oath as a military officer and as a federal law enforcement officer):
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. (US Constitution - Article VI)
Note that both oaths of office require loyalty to one entity, and one entity only: The Constitution of the United States. There is no sworn loyalty to a political party, a political leader, a religious leader, a political agenda, a king, or anything else.
An oath of loyalty to the US Constitution is also required of state and local elected officials; federal, state and local judges; members of the Armed Forces; and of civil servants.
Why did the founders require such an oath from our nation’s leaders? They broke away from a nation where loyalty was sworn to a monarch rather than to ideals of liberty. From sad experience, they knew that accreting loyalty in one individual or group of people, tyranny is almost always the result. Hence, the revolutionary concepts of a declaration that human rights come from the Creator – not by government edict and a Constitution which describes and authorizes a central government with clearly defined and limited powers and a prohibition from infringing the God-given rights of the people.
They knew that majority rule inevitably results in the majority infringing the rights of the minority, so they established a representative government – a republic rather than a democracy. They expected that we would elect men and women of sound character who would live up to their oath to the Constitution. They expected that by demanding loyalty to the Constitution and the principles of Liberty that it enshrines, our government officials would protect the human rights of every American – not merely the members of an aristocracy, a particular party, persons of a certain skin color, or other special interest.
Sadly, our elected leaders, judges, and civil servants have lost with the concept of loyalty to the Constitution rather than loyalty to a person or party. How did this happen? Because the voters themselves do not understand the Constitution and how it would work if followed. Few Americans have read it and consequently fail to elect public officers who have the courage and integrity to follow it.
Voters are willing to be bribed with their own money or, worse, with the money of their neighbors. Voters cast ballots based on selfishness, covetousness, party label, personality, emotion, even skin color -- everything the founders fought against! Voters think that their lives will improve because of government programs -- they fail to understand that their lives only truly improve when they accept responsibility for their own success and only demand of government that it protect their right to succeed.
[I]f the citizens neglect their duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted....If a republican government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the citizens neglect the Divine commands, and elect bad men to make and administer the laws. — Noah Webster (History of the United States)
Yesterday (Jan 23, 2013), Barrack Obama announced 23 initiatives allegedly to stem gun violence. All of his ideas have been tried at the state and/or federal levels and all have failed to reduce violent crime.
While all 23 of his ideas clearly violate the constitutional limits imposed on the central government, one of these power-hungry and misguided ideas involved doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes. It would:
Protect the rights of health care providers to talk to their patients about gun safety: Doctors and other health care providers also need to be able to ask about firearms in their patients’ homes and safe storage of those firearms, especially if their patients show signs of certain mental illnesses or if they have a young child or mentally ill family member at home.
It is preposterous to presume that any medical professional has a right "to talk to their patients about gun safety" or "to ask about firearms in their patients’ homes and safe storage of those firearms" any more than they have a right to ask about the color of their carpets. They have not right to intrude into a patient's life in areas completely unrelated to the quality care he or she does have an obligation to provide.
Medical doctors, nurses, and other staff are trained in medicine. They are not qualified in firearms and firearm safety (unless they also happen to be NRA-certified firearm instructors). To venture outside their professional role and training as a healthcare provider violates an important ethical boundary:
...your doctor may be violating a doctor-patient boundary. Doctors are ethically bound not to use their patients’ trust to advance a personal interest such as a political agenda. And the evidence shows that in almost every case, doctors’ questions to you about guns are motivated by anti-gun politics. -- Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership
If a medical professional becomes aware of a patient's status as a gun owner, it might be wise to advice him or her to seek training from a qualified firearms instructor. Otherwise, it is none of his or her business!
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. -- United States Bill of Rights
What is it about "shall not be infringed" that doctors and politicians don't understand?
This cartoon brings to mind what happened to dissenters in other nations: Hitler's Germany, Mao's China, Stalin's USSR, Pol Pot's Cambodia, etc.
May I live up to the anti-government, pro-liberty standard set by dissenters such as those mentioned above, our nation's founders, and the inspired Constitution our founders wrote.
According to the World Health Organization South Korea has the world's highest suicide rate. Guns aren't readily available to the average Korean -- North or South.
The people of Japan have no guns, yet double our suicide rate.
In fact, guns aren't much of a factor in any of the countries with high suicide rates. So, gun-control advocates, don't you dare blame suicide on guns!
Are guns used in suicides in the US? Yup. Far too often. But, does any rational person really believe that the suicide rate would go down if there were no guns in the hands of responsible people?
Suicide is a spiritual and emotional problem -- not a gun problem. Let's focus on the real problem: The spiritual death of society and the death of the traditional family.
More than 30% of children grow up in broken homes. Children from these broken homes account for:
• 90% of homeless juveniles and runaways
• 85% of behavioral disorders
• 75% of all drug abusers
• 71% of teen pregnancies
• 71% of high school dropouts
• 70% of those in juvenile detention
- 63% of teen suicides
• 57% of all prison inmates
Read that again, 63% of teen suicides come from broken homes!
Suicide is yet another evidence that our respect for life is so shallow that we tolerate, legalize, even endorse, the legal killing of over 3,300 unborn children every day -- most often because the child is an annoying inconvenience! Ya gonna blame that on guns too?
Suicide is still another evidence that our respect for our own bodies is so degraded that we even disfigure our own bodies -- which are the temples and the image of God -- with grotesque tattoos and piercings! Ya gonna blame that on guns too?
If Liberals really want to do something that will make a difference, ban broken homes, encourage parents to take their kids to church, and stop banning God from schools and the public square. It would be much more helpful.
The high cost of training makes learning to fly prohibitive. The low starting pay for airline pilots makes entry into that career field unattractive. Consequently, airlines are facing a shortage of trained pilots. To make matters worse, the FAA is increasing its arbitrary standard of experience and skill (flying hours) for airline new-hires.
A few years ago, the mandatory retirement age for pilots was 60. It was increased to 65 as a band-aid fix for the pilot shortage. Those older pilots are now again reaching the new mandatory retirement age. I hear rumors that the retirement age could be raised again as another band-aid fix. (If Orrin Hatch and Strom Thurmond can serve forever in Congress, why can't a pilot fly forever?) While I support that change for pilots who meet mental and physical fitness standards, I am disappointed that Congress and the FAA are not looking for a better solution.
It seems to me that the best solution for nearly all problems, including this one, is to get government out of the way!
Congress must encourage the airlines, pilot unions, flight attendant unions, and consumers of aviation services to join hands in forming an independent, industry-owned and controlled standards association much like SAAMI (Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute for the firearms industry), UL (Underwriters Laboratories for a variety of other industries), and ANSI (American National Standards Institute). This private aviation organization would establish training, safety, and security standards that would be agreed to and followed by the airlines, pilots, security screeners, etc. (It goes without saying that the airport security screening process (TSA) must be returned to the private sector immediately.)
Such an organization is very likely to be more responsive to the real safety and transportation needs of the public than the entrenched bureaucrats of the FAA and heavily-lobbied congressmen.
Most people seem to be unaware that the "AR" in AR-15 does not stand for Assault Rifle. Instead, the "AR" is an abbreviation of Armalite, one manufacturer of the AR-15. The name "AR-15" was never intended to represent "Assault Rifle"! Since "AR-15" is a trademark of Armalite, it is not even properly applied to similar or identical rifles made by scores of other manufacturers including Colt, Bushmaster, Ruger, Smith & Wesson, and Rock River.
Although so-called "assault rifles" look like military weapons and frighten cry-babies and fraidy-cats with a control fetish such as Senator Diane Feinstein, they function exactly the same as millions of other civilian firearms that don't look like military arms. They fire only one shot per pull of the trigger -- they are not automatic weapons (ie machine guns) and therefore are not used by military forces anywhere.
The "news" media likes to illustrate its commentary on these guns with video in the background of a machine gun shooting and spraying, but that is not how civilian AR-15 rifles operate. Contrary to many claims, civilian firearms, by design, cannot be easily -- or legally -- converted to fully automatic.
Civilian ownership and use of fully automatic weapons (an essential characteristic of a light military "assault" weapon) are severely regulated by the Gun Control Act of 1934 -- an early edition of many unconstitutional gun control laws in the US. That act requires fingerprinting, background checks, and federal approval of anyone who seeks to own any of the scarce fully automatic arms in civilian hands (prices $15k and up for a firearm that costs a few hundred dollars to make). The sale of new fully automatic arms to civilians was completely banned in 1986.
So-called "assault rifles" are used in less than two percent of gun crimes (except for the legally owned ones, which are used in approximately zero percent of gun crimes) including assault.
So, let's get this definition straight: Assault is a crime. Assault is a verb. It is not an adjective to be applied to anything owned by responsible people.
A related issue: Many have grown accustomed to the term, "high-capacity" magazines. "High-capacity" is not an appropriate term for the capacity of a magazine that the manufacturer intended to be used with a particular firearm. What is commonly called a "high-capacity" magazine is more properly called a normal-capacity magazine. On the other hand, a magazine that holds less (ie 10 rounds) than the manufacturer's design is properly called a "limited-capacity" magazine. Restricting the capacity of magazines does not somehow make a person with criminal intent less lethal, but it does impair the ability of the rest of us to respond to an attack on our lives.
I'd like to know what is it about "shall not be infringed" that politicians and other hoplophobes can't or won't understand? Those four simple words make it very clear that there is no room in the Constitution for compromise on the issue of the right to keep and bear arms. Yet, politicians have already compromised far to much on this issue. It is past time to push back on those compromises -- hard!
The anti-gun politicians and members of the so-called "news" media exploit the public ignorance of the meaning of "AR" to the disadvantage of responsible Americans. People need to get better educated so that they can't be pushed around and indoctrinated by those who are eager to obliterate your rights and the rights of your neighbors and family. Don't count on the "news" media or politicians to do that educating.
Unfortunately, even many gun owners, including owners of so-called "assault rifles" allow the anti-gun crowd to misname their guns and even wrongly use the term themselves.
All that said, I really see nothing wrong with civilian ownership of fully-automatic firearms. If somebody can afford to feed a machine gun, what's the harm? People need to understand that causing harm to another is the crime. Not possession of an inanimate object that cannot possibly harm anyone when used responsibly -- unless someone needs harming (eg an attacker).
A New Hampshire police captain and trainer, Massad Ayoob, has some more thoughts on so-called "assault weapons": Part One
This was an act of hate and selfishness -- not journalism. To be fair, these miscreants aren't the first "news" outlet to do this sort of thing to law-abiding gun owners.
The Journal News has unwittingly reinforced yet another reason to oppose gun registration and even licensing of responsible adults who carry concealed firearms.
My employer's headquarters is near White Plains. I checked the maps for names of my fellow employees. Sure enough, their status as a handgun permit holders shows up on this new map. Now, every burglar in the world knows their homes are likely to have at least one handgun. That could be a deterrent -- if they're home. If they're not home, it's a magnet for anyone who wants to steal a gun and then do what ever they want with my coworkers' wives and children.
Can you imagine being a cop or judge who has locked way some evil people who want revenge? Or imagine being a woman trying to hide from her ex who wants to kill her? This website tells the bad guys exactly where to go! Unconscionable! Just how low is the so-called "news" media willing to go to create "news" and foment hysteria?
People are not inherently evil simply because they have a gun or a gun permit. But "news" people who do this to innocent, law-abiding fellow Americans meet my definition of evil.
If you have a pastime or religion or occupation or national origin or favorite sports team or political opinion or lifestyle or blog or skin color or book or car/truck or alma mater that isn't politically-correct, beware! The next map might have a dot with your name and address on it!
First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a catholic.
Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.
-- Attributed to pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984)
Every employee and officer of The Journal News should be ashamed. But, the fact that their maps are still up indicates they have no conscience or soul. I pity them.
Scott Adams, creator of Dilbert, has proposed a new political party -- the Anti-Incumbent Party. His idea has much merit in a nation where nearly everyone is unhappy with government, yet we somehow reelect over 90% of incumbents with the notion that everything will change.
Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. -- Albert Einstein
I have an idea somewhat similar to Scott's. I've long thought that each ballot should include a line for "None of the above."
• If a majority of voters select "None of the above," or
• If the number of "None of the above" voters plus the number of people registered to vote but who don't vote is greater than the sum of voters for all candidates in that race,
• Then that entire branch of government would be disbanded including all politicians and bureaucrats therein who have "served" longer than 2 years and their retirements and other benefits forfeited.
That would followed by a new election to fill the vacated political positions. Anyone who has served in any political or bureaucratic office longer than 2 years would be forever banned from elected office, government employment, or employment as a lobbyist.
After the new politicians are seated, they would conduct a full audit of all government agencies, programs, laws, etc. to purge everything they deem unworthy. Only then could hiring of fresh government employees begin to staff the newly reorganized bureaucracy.
Posts
