Dr. Thomas Sowell on Gun Control

Yesterday, in commenting on gun-control laws, Dr. Thomas Sowell (one of the wisest men I know of) wrote, "....there is no reason why the Second Amendment should be the last word....the Second Amendment can be repealed...."

I believe that repeal of the Second Amendment would make no difference regarding gun rights. The founders worked on the concept that we "are endowed by [our] Creator with certain unalienable rights...." Our rights, coming from God (nature for the non-believers), (including that described in the Second Amendment) pre-exist the Constitution and therefore could not have been created by the Constitution.

The Constitution was designed to create a limited government to protect -- not create -- those rights. While rights in other nations are metered by their governments, most of our founders saw no need to define our rights -- since they come from God.

Some of the founders, however, wisely had little trust in government and insisted on the ten amendments we call the Bill of Rights to ensure that government would honor at least those few enumerated God-given rights. Those who expected and trusted the government to stay within its constitutionally-defined bounds saw no need for those ten amendments. The Constitution would have not been passed without the promise of the Bill of Rights.

We have the Second Amendment only because some of the founders didn't trust the government -- not to grant a new right. They were wise and prescient.

Is it Constitutional?

The founders saw first-hand how a powerful central government could abuse and control the people’s lives to a burdensome level. Consequently, the Constitutional Congress intended for the central government to hold very limited powers.

To ensure the federal government stays in its bounds, the founders added the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution which states, "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."

Thomas Jefferson wrote, "On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

South Carolina Congressman Jim Clyburn told Judge Andrew Napolitano, "Most of what we do is unconstitutional."

Congressman Phil Hare of Illinois defiantly announced, I don't worry about the Constitution...."

When asked whether the recently passed health care bill is constitutional, Speaker Nancy Pelosi responded by asking, "Are you serious?"

Clearly, our politicians don't care about the constitutionality of the bills they pass.

I suggest that the Enumerated Powers Act and the Read the Bills Act both be amended to include the requirement that every bill be subjected to a separate roll-call vote whereby each and every congressman (both houses), having studied both the Constitution and the bill in question, goes on record as certifying that he is satisfied that the entire bill complies with the spirit, intent and word of the Constitution. All bills that not certified as constitutional by at least two-thirds of each house must be null and void.

Questions for Supreme Court Nominee Elena Kagan

Senator Orrin Hatch, a member of the Senate Judiciary committee has asked for constituent input regarding what questions he should ask Obama nominee Elena Kagan. Here is my input:

• You have never served as a judge. Instead, much of your career has been as an unelected political advisor. How will your judicial decisions be based on, or influenced by, politics?

• How will your judicial decisions be based on, or influenced by, your personal beliefs?

• How much room in your judicial decisions will there be for the application of fairness?

• How much room in your judicial decisions will there be for the application of empathy?

• How much room in your judicial decisions will there be for the application of compassion?

• How will your judicial decisions be based on, or influenced by, international law or laws in other nations?

• How will your judicial decisions be based on, or influenced by, judicial precedents?

• How will your judicial decisions be based on, or influenced by, the writings of the founders such as the Federalist Papers and Anti-Federalist papers?

• How will your judicial decisions be based on, or influenced by, original intent of the US Constitution?

Related books:


Men in Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America


Judicial Tyranny - the New Kings of America?


Keeper of the Flame: The Supreme Court Opinions of Justice Clarence Thomas, 1991-2005


Flawed Justice: When Our Unalienable Rights Are Ignored

My day in the state legislature

Today, I joined State Senator Dennis Stowell in speaking to the legislature's joint committee on law enforcement and judiciary. The topic was firearm safety training in schools. Currently, state law says schools and districts may voluntarily teach firearm safety. But, like many other safety issues (ie snowboarding, riding the bus, drugs and alcohol, sex, strangers, poison, etc.) there is no requirement that the schools do so. (I remember when I was in the third or fourth grade, a couple of firemen came to class to teach us about avoiding blasting caps.)

Many youth take the Hunter Education Course and others earn the Boy Scout Shooting Merit Badges. These youth get some formal safety training. But, a majority of youth -- especially children younger than 10 or 12 -- get no formal training. These kids are extremely vulnerable to harm if they find a gun in Grandma's house or if a child brings a gun to school. Every child on Earth needs to know what to do in these events. At least two members of the above-mentioned committee seem to disagree. In the case of guns, political correctness overrides child safety.

The NRA (National Rifle Association) and the NSSF (National Shooting Sports Foundation) both have programs that would achieve the goal in a half-hour or so. Dave Turner of the Davis County schools worked with the NSSF to establish a similar program back in the '90s. The current NSSF program appears to be an update and expansion of the Davis County effort. None of these programs advocate or reject gun rights or ownership -- they are politically neutral. No firearms are used in the training. My recommendation is that every student receive yearly exposure to this training from Kindergarten through grade 12.

What got me involved in this was a letter I wrote to Senator Stowell after the accidental shooting of a 6-year-old Arizona girl visiting Iron County last year. Others contributed some very good ideas and strategies including fellow firearm instructors Clark Aposhian and Curt Oda (the latter is also as member of the State House of Representatives).

On reporting about our presentation to the committee, the Salt Lake Tribune got my name wrong in their report, but that's understandable since my name was spelled wrong on the agenda.



Recommended books & videos:


Gun-Proof Your Children/Massad Ayoob's Handgun Primer


Everything You Need to Know about Guns in Your Home


Guns: What You Should Know

NSSF Firearm Safety Education Videos

Playing It Safe Around Guns (grades 6-9)

It's Your Call: Firearms Safety Depends On You (general audience)

Drug Testing and Welfare

I was pleased to learn that Senator Orrin Hatch plans to introduce legislation to administer drug tests to persons on public assistance. This is a concept I've advocated and written to you about for years.

It is obvious that the way we've fought the war on drugs for the past several decades has not worked. Our approach has largely been to attack the supply side. This approach has made the occupation of producing, distributing, and selling drugs extremely profitable. That profit motive has driven most of the the nation's violent crime. Our drug-trade violence carries over into other nations, such as Mexico.

I am convinced we must attack drug demand through continued education coupled with frequent drug and alcohol testing of the people most at risk for drug abuse: Those who receive
• Worker's compensation,
• Unemployment compensation,
• Earned-income tax credits,
• Government-guaranteed student loans, and
• Unearned government benefits such as Medicaid and Food Stamps.

Those who test positive for drug or alcohol abuse must successfully undergo competent treatment in order to continue to receive any form public assistance.

Drug and alcohol abuse is a major factor in broken families and I suggest that couple that apply for divorce also undergo drug and alcohol testing and treatment before a divorce is finalized.

Some drugs are relatively benign (ie marijuana) and I believe the federal government needs to seriously consider legalizing them for distribution similar to the way we distribute alcohol and tobacco. A tax on these drugs would help fund the rehabilitation program and testing. However, testing positive to these legalized drugs or to alcohol abuse would still be a disqualification for government assistance unless the person undergoes successful treatment.

Many other drugs, like alcohol, steal the soul. The people who get into the really nasty drugs such as meth desperately need help. Identifying abusers though testing of those receiving assistance will improve the odds that they will get the treatment they need to get out of the taxpayer's wallet and become productive citizens. That personal independence and productivity is the most important objective in this testing. Secondary benefits will include reduced violent crime, reductions in the cost of caring for non-productive people, and stronger families.

Even where not required by law, many employers drug-test their employees because they know that it is good for the bottom line. So it is with government programs for those on assistance.

I suggest that Congress set the example by regularly drug-testing all congressmen and their staff. Congress demands drug and alcohol testing of servicemen, government employees, and employees in certain occupations such as pilots. Are the responsibilities of a congressman or his staff so much less demanding that drug testing is unnecessary? I am convinced that much of the nation's political problems stem from the strong likelihood that many congressmen have lost their soul (as described above) either to abused drugs or to prescribed drugs that suppress the moral compass.

We probably ought to test all voters on election day, too. That might be all it takes to purge Congress of all those who are legislating while impaired.

Free Speech and the NRA

Campaign finance laws are written by and for politicians already in office. They make incumbent politicians and the media more powerful, and the citizen less powerful. These laws make it virtually impossible to fire and replace our so-called representatives. They even cripple the ability of citizens to join together with others to fund political advertising campaigns. In spite of these unconstitutional restrictions, campaign finance laws leave media companies free to raise and spend as much money they want to influence public opinion. (They call it "news.")

The so-called "Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections" (DISCLOSE) Act, is a direct response a First Amendment victory in which the Supreme Court overturned the prohibition on corporations and unions using treasury funds for independent expenditures supporting or opposing political candidates at any time of the year. HR.5175 will limit the political speech that was protected and encouraged by the Citizens United decision.

HR.5175 seems designed specifically snuff out the influence of many organizations through which the people express their political views. A generous exemption in HR.5175 has been carved out for the labor unions and other large advocacy groups (membership greater than 500k). Therefore, the NRA was exempted to buy their support or at least to avoid their opposition.

There is no room in the First Amendment for Congress to make deals on political speech, whether with (or on behalf of) the NRA or anyone else. The current, and long-standing, approach to campaign finance "reform" has been all about preserving and enhancing power. The NRA leadership seems far too willing to indulge in that power at the expense of the overal freedom of its members.

I proudly post my NRA-ILA Vote Freedom First sign in my yard for every election. I view freedom as encompassing all God-given freedoms that are guaranteed by the US Constitution. I expect the leadership of the NRA and NRA-ILA to also Vote Freedom First. Yet, the NRA-ILA rates political candidates on only one of our countless God-given freedoms. The direct consequence of this myopic policy is unconscionable NRA support for politicians who are extremely hostile to other essential freedoms.

Instead of following the motto, Vote Freedom First, the NRA and NRA-ILA seem to have the habit of compromising on legislation affecting my freedoms. The current HR.5175 NRA betrayal/compromise on my First Amendment freedom is one example. I will not tolerate any compromise on any freedom!

If there is to be any campaign finance reform, let it be legislation that bans all PACs (Political Action Committees) controlled by or on behalf of anyone who holds political office except for the specific purpose of funding that politician's own reelection. We need to stop politicians from buying influence through these PACs.

Another rational form of campaign finance reform would be to ban all campaign contributions and electioneering from any entity other than an individual US citizen.

Repeal all campaign finance laws that protect incumbents, cripple challengers, and rob citizens of their political voice! Congress and the NRA must reject HR.5175.

On licensing journalists and voters

A constitutional midget in Michigan has proposed licensing journalists. I share State Senator Bruce Patterson's frustration with the bias and incompetence that pervades the "news" business. But, I see the fault stemming from a public that tolerates (or expects) National Enquirer-style reporting from mainstream news outlets such as CNN and MSNBC. Fox News is a bit better than most news outlets only because it has responded, to some extent, to a segment of the market that expects objective reporting.

A license is nothing more than a evidence that one has government permission to do or possess something. One should never need government approval to do anything that does not harm another person -- especially to exercise a constitutionally-guaranteed right (in this case a right expressed in the First Amendment).

I would, however, make one concession to licensing journalists: Any journalist who favors the licensing of any human right (ie the right to keep and bear arms) should go through extensive study and testing on the original intent of the US Constitution in order to obtain a journalist's license.

The fact that the idea of licensing journalists, or censoring talk radio or the Internet (Fairness Doctrine), or licensing gun owners shows what a horrid job we voters are doing in electing our "leaders." Our nation's founders must be watching from Heaven with horror!

We have made it far to easy to vote. In fact, I believe that about two-thirds of voters (both parties) are idiots. If you haven't sufficiently studied the issues and candidates to make an informed decision as a voter, please don't vote. You have no business canceling the vote of those who take it seriously!

Hmmmm. Maybe we should license voters -- issue a license only when they understand the Constitution, the issues, and know each candidate's agenda.


Watch CBS News Videos Online

Related books:

Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News


Arrogance: Rescuing America from the Media Elite


Give Me a Break: How I Exposed Hucksters, Cheats, and Scam Artists and Became the Scourge of the Liberal Media

Plug the D#*@ hole!

What's Missing?

What is missing at Barack Hussein Obama's press conference?

No it is not the teleprompters.

See the other president's pictures for a clue.

Barack Hussein Obama (AKA Barry Sotero):

George Walker Bush:

William Jefferson Blythe Clinton:

George Herbert Walker Bush:

Ronald Wilson Reagan:

That's right! No American flags!

Was just an accident? No, it is intentional. So, why is it intentional? He told us he would change America.

This man, whoever he really is, is not an American. He and his ilk want to end the American Free Enterprise System. And we have let them go a pretty good way to doing that.

How will you vote in November? Vote in November like your way of life depends on it! Because it does!

Enforce Immigration Laws!

If a burglar breaks into one's home, is the best response to give that home to the burglar? No? Well, that's exactly what Congress and the Whitehouse do with those who have invaded our nation from across our border with Mexico. We have laws against burglary and illegal immigration. Burglary is a local matter and is handled quite well. Immigration is a federal matter and Congress and the Whitehouse both have been consciously and intentionally negligent in enforcing those federal laws.

Consequently, Arizona passed it's own new immigration enforcement bill. Most Americans endorse this bill -- even a majority of US citizens of Hispanic heritage! Unlike Congress and the Whitehouse, the Governor of Arizona, Janet Brewer, gave a very articulate and well-reasoned statement on why Arizona (like all other States) need their new immigration-enforcement legislation. That reason is simply that Congress and the Whitehouse fail to enforce existing and badly needed immigration laws. She explained that somebody has to do it, so Arizona will do what they can to enforce federal immigration laws within their borders.

Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion....

Hey, Congress! Hey, Mr. President! How're ya doin' on that? An estimated 3,000 new invaders cross our borders every day! Eight percent of births in the US are to parents who are here illegally!

Federal politicians think we voters and taxpayers are stupid enough to believe that we need "comprehensive" immigration reform. (Comprehensive means that amnesty is the major part of reform.) What we really need is full enforcement of existing laws with the assistance of local and state law enforcement agencies. The only "comprehensive" reform needed is in the halls of Congress and in the Whitehouse -- a moral and ethical reform that restores the US Constitution and the rule of law.

For decades, Congress and the Whitehouse have been grossly negligent in adequately protecting our borders from an overwhelming invasion of illegal aliens. This negligence has resulted in a situation which is rapidly becoming irreparable. Further delay in courageously attacking the problem will only further exacerbate the problem. If this invasion is allowed to continue, I have serous concerns about which language will be dominant in this nation, which constitution will guide our laws, and which national flag will fly over our government buildings.

• If we can't establish English as the nation's official language now, who will be required to learn what language if we allow 20-30 million illegal workers to become voters?
• If we can't control our illegal immigration problem now, how will we control the problem if we allow 20-30 million illegal workers to become voters?
• If we can't terminate the nation's "anchor baby" scam now, what will life be like in the United States if we allow 20-30 million illegal workers to become voters?
• If we can't eliminate taxpayer-funded education, health-care, benefits, and entitlements for illegal immigrants now, where will the money come from to pay for those programs if we allow 20-30 million illegal workers to become voters?
• If we can't control employers who give jobs and under-the-table wages to illegal immigrants now, what the job market be like if we allow 20-30 million illegal workers to become voters?
• If we can't get Congress, the Whitehouse, government agencies, and even presidential candidates to take down Spanish-language websites now, will politicians need websites in English if we allow 20-30 million illegal workers to become voters?

How bad is illegal immigration? It is estimated that ten percent of Mexico's citizens now lives in the US! Fifteen percent of Mexico's labor force is working in the US! In 2005, Mexico received a record $20 billion in remittances to family members from migrant workers living in the US! That is equal to Mexico's 2004 income from oil exports and dwarfs its tourism revenue! Immigration is out of control, and Congressmen (Harry Reid, D-NV) say we're racist if we citizens are concerned! (Political tactic #1: If you know your position is wrong, call the other side an ugly name.)

The last US president to have any courage whatsoever on the issue was Eisenhower! I expect nothing less from our current president! The mere existence of congressional and Whitehouse websites in Spanish is proof enough that US politicians hold no loyalty to US citizens and legal voters.

Other than restoring the slave class (Didn't we fight a war over that issue?) in our nation, what do congressmen and presidents gain by pandering to those who violate our borders? Votes from an ever-expanding dependent class!

Please remember that past amnesties for illegals -- the "one-time-only" amnesty of 1986 for nearly 3 million illegals and the six subsequent amnesties -- did not solve anything!

Even though an overwhelming majority of American citizens disapprove of granting amnesty 20-30 million illegals, out-of-touch politicians continue to endorse a policy that has already failed in Congress and in the real world.

One intended result of the current amnesty push is that if a person has legal status in the US, no member of that person's family -- regardless of immigration status -- can be deported! This is an open invitation for every illegal who pays the token $500 fine to smuggle in his entire family! Approximately 80 percent of illegals are male. So, if you add a wife and two or three children, a couple of parents and a mother-in-law, we will not increase out population by the few million authorities say are are here now, but by upwards of 50 or 60 million! Every politician knows these staggering numbers. They know the cost is unsustainable. They simply don't care so long as they increase the voting clout of the dependent class.

One of the federal government's primary job is defense of the nation. While it is fighting two (probably futile) wars to enable individual liberty in two far-away nations, the "leadership" of this nation is surrendering our own sovereignty and identity to foreign invaders.

Congress and the Whitehouse must stop stalling and act now! I urge Congress and the Whitehouse to support a plan to immediately:
• Enforce all existing immigration and border-control laws. Congress must immediately give the Administration all resources needed to do so.
• Establish an adequate barrier to illegal immigration on our borders and coasts through increased border patrol agents, increased use of technology, formal use of volunteer “Minutemen” monitors (President Bush erroneously calls them vigilantes), and armed military troops. Mine the borders if necessary!
• Stop jailing border guards for doing their jobs!
• Stop so-called anchor-baby citizenship. Stop giving citizenship to anyone born in the United States unless one or both parents are already US citizens. The 14th Amendment was intended to give citizenship to the children of slaves -- not to the children of invaders!
• Provide incentives for employers to verify each employee thorough a computerized database base. Establish felony criminal and civil penalties for employers who hire illegal aliens. Require employers to pay the costs of all government services provided to illegal immigrants in their employ. Without an economic incentive to stay in the US, most illegals will self-deport.
• Establish felony criminal penalties for anyone who offers sanctuary to illegal immigrants.
• Prohibit humanitarian aid (including medical, housing, and food) to illegals other than that which is necessary to expedite their return home.
• Encourage state and local police agencies to help enforce immigration law as Arizona is doing.
• Establish English as the official language of the United States.
• Ban all federal websites in foreign languages except for those dealing with tourism, international commerce, and State Department functions. There is absolutely no legitimate reason for any member of Congress to have a website in any language other than English.
• Ban all federal services and publications (especially ballots) in foreign languages except for those dealing with tourism, international commerce, and State Department functions.
• Abandon the scam known as “guest-workers.” This term has only been developed to obfuscate the fact that our government has been grossly negligent in controlling an invasion by foreign nationals.
• Require the man occupying the Whitehouse provide proof of citizenship.

Every pro-amnesty congressman must reevaluate his lenient position on illegal immigration. We need congressmen and a president with the courage and integrity to immediately do what is right for the future of our national sovereignty, culture, and integrity. These simple steps are long-overdue steps in the right direction.









Related books:

On The Immorality of Illegal Immigration: A Priest Poses an Alternative Christian View


The Immigration Crisis: Immigrants, Aliens, and the Bible


The New Case Against Immigration: Both Legal and Illegal

Homosexuals and the military

As a retired Army officer, I was deeply disappointed to learn that the House of Representatives (including my own Representative Jim Matheson) voted to impose homosexuality upon the nation's armed forces.

Some have likened this move to President Truman's move to integrate blacks into military units. But, this is different. Racial differences are cosmetic. Homosexuality, however, is far more than the way a man or woman looks -- it is a behavior. It is a behavior that is incompatible with nature and God's will. It is a behavior that is profoundly disgusting to people of good character. It is a behavior that is offensive to nearly all my fellow servicemen.

The House (and my Representative) has chosen to cause great harm to the nation's servicemen and to the services. They have, again, bowed to a radical agenda to destroy the moral fiber that made the nation great. This will adversely affect military recruitment and retention as well as unit cohesion.

The House (and my Representative) has again chosen to compromise with evil by pandering to a small, but vocal, radical, and deviant segment of society. A compromise with evil is the same as choosing evil.

2 Nephi 28: 20-21:

For behold, at that day shall he rage in the hearts of the children of men, and stir them up to anger against that which is good. And others will he apacify, and lull them away into carnal security, that they will say: All is well in Zion; yea, Zion prospereth, all is well—and thus the devil cheateth their souls, and leadeth them away carefully down to hell.

The armed forces and our government schools are no place for open acceptance (and even advocacy) of sexual deviancy. Yet, few politicians seem to have the decency or courage to oppose this radical agenda. In November, I will remember this vote, and all other votes that steadily move the nation toward moral and political corruption and toward ultimate collapse.

Every Shooter's Dream Indoor Shooting Range

If Cedar City, Utah (population approximately 30,000) can afford an aquatics park that would make Disney envious, we certainly can afford a nice indoor shooting range such as this:



Considering the royal heritage of shooting sports in Europe, I suppose it's fitting that they have an indoor range fit for a king. Nice!

Unlike in the US, the shooting sports in Europe are generally reserved for the aristocracy and wealthy. It has been so for many centuries. The woods and the game animals were and are all property of the king. Poaching was and is nothing more than a commoner killing the king's deer to feed his family.

I suppose poaching in the US is the same today: Hunting without a license and/or out of season. The game in the US still belongs to the "king."

Say NO to the UN Small Arms Treaty

Our nation is unique in that the people of the United States -- not the government -- established the Constitution. Our Constitution describes itself, federal statutes, and US treaties as "the supreme law of the land" (US Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2). The text establishes these as the highest form of law in the American legal system, mandating that state judges uphold them, even if state laws or constitutions conflict. For this reason it is important to be extremely careful in making treaties with foreign nations and, especially, with the United Nations.

A key safeguard of American sovereignty and of individual rights is the role the Senate plays: all treaties require the consent of the US Senate before they become a part of the "supreme law of the land." The authors of the US Constitution were inspired to delegate this ratification authority to the Senate in order to protect the Constitution, the nation, and its people from a tyrannical or cowardly president who would sell the nation's soul to foreign entities.

The purpose of this process is, in large part, to satisfy the requirements imposed by the oath every Senator takes:

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: So help me God.

Sadly, most senators are mere rubber stamps in confirmation votes on judicial and other presidential appointments as well as on treaties, believing that the president should be privileged to negotiate and appoint whatever and whomever he pleases -- no matter how anti-American-values they may be.

As I predicted when I wrote my Senators concerning her confirmation process as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton's Department of State has expressed eagerness to work with the United Nations on a "Small Arms Treaty." I warned my Senators that I would consider a vote for her confirmation the same as a vote against the Second Amendment. Clearly, I was more prescient than the self-proclaimed pro-gun Senators who voted for her confirmation. As I recall, only two senators had the courage to vote against her confirmation. Because most Senators are cowards, there consequently are no courageous statesmen (such as Ambassador John Bolton) currently in place in the Obama administration to stop the UN's egregious assault on the Constitution and on the people.

Contrary to a widely circulated e-mail, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has not yet signed any UN small arms treaty. She could not have done so, in fact, because no such treaty has yet been negotiated.

However, treaty proposals call for tougher licensing requirements for law-abiding Americans who will be subjected to even more bogus bureaucracy to obtain and use a firearm. Of course, criminals who, by definition do not subject themselves to the law nor to bureaucracy, will not be affected by further regulation of firearms.

The expected "Small Arms Treaty" will likely hijack and destroy all weapons that unaccountable bureaucrats classify as "unauthorized." What exactly classifies a firearm as "unauthorized" will be up to the bureaucrats. If California and Washington DC are any indication, those restrictions could be so absurd as a gun having the wrong color!

Clinton, Obama and their anti-liberty commission are also calling for an international gun registry that would pave the way to eventually disarm every responsible American. Yet, since their black-market and stolen guns will not be registered, criminals will continue to be armed -- as has always been the case since Cain killed his brother. In fact, the courts have ruled that criminals (who are prohibited from possessing firearms or ammunition) are not required to register their guns, since doing so would violate their Fifth Amendment right to not be a witness against themselves!

If history is an accurate guide, banning guns would only embolden criminals and encourage crime. Worse, banning guns emboldens tyrants -- that is why many of the most ardent advocates of gun-ban treaties and laws are third-world dictators who need gun control to keep their boot of power on the throats of their subjects! Why would we Americans want to endorse, participate in, or even adopt, third-world tyranny?

The Senate must reject all anti-gun agreements and every Senator must protect the Second Amendment against the anti-gun United Nations "Small Arms Treaty" and any gun ban agreement that, in any manner or degree, infringes on American individual liberties including the gun rights of responsible Americans.

The Founding Fathers knew exactly what they were doing when they wrote Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution -- they were giving the Senate the responsibility and power to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. And, they knew what they were doing when they added the Second Amendment -- they were clarifying the people's right to defend themselves against all threats -- including the threat of an oppressive government at the State and Federal level -- should the Senate fails to do its job of protecting the Constitution (which it has).

The most important job the Senate has right now is to protect the Constitution as well as US citizens' Second Amendment rights. The Senate must reject all anti-gun agreements and protect the Constitution and its Second Amendment against the UN "Small Arms Treaty." Every Senator must immediately put the State Department and the Whitehouse on notice that they will not tolerate any compromise of American rights and that any government officer who attempts to do so will immediately be removed from office.

I expect that the NRA will be actively involved in this process and will oppose any treaty that would attempt to impose limits on our Second Amendment rights. In the meantime, I urge gun owners to follow this issue through NRA-ILA's Grassroots Alerts. Most importantly, I urge every gun owner to join the NRA and to vote as if your gun rights depend on your vote.

Related books:

Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control


The Global War on Guns: Inside the UN Plan To Destroy the Bill of Rights


Tyranny of Gun Control

Senator Bennett, enjoy your retirement!

Utah's Senator Bob Bennett was recently booted off the ballot in the Utah Republican Party Convention. However, the senator is not leaving gracefully -- it seems he's quite bitter with the constituents he has ignored in recent years.

After his loss, the senator had an interview with ABC's Jonathan Karl. He ripped the tea party and blames us voters for being too stupid to reelect him. He seems to believe we owe him a lifetime seat in the Senate. That interview confirms everything Utah's conservatives thought about him.

Like Senator Hatch, Senator Bennett only has disdain for us commoners and our opinions. Utah's politicians must come to understand that we will not tolerate representatives who fail to support, defend, and comply with the Constitution.

Although Bennett and Hatch seem to believe we are stupid, most of us Utah Republicans will not perpetually send career politicians to Washington. Unlike other states Utah will not constantly impose corruption, embarrassment, and anti-constitutionalism (Joe Biden, Barbara Boxer, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, Ted Kennedy (RIP), Frank Lautenberg, Carolyn McCarthy, Barry Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Charles Rangel, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, Maxine Waters, Henry Waxman, and many, many more) upon the rest of the nation. We have much higher standards than that. Bob Bennett does not meet our standards. We expect voters in other States to impose higher standards upon themselves -- throw the bums out!

Mitt Romney's endorsement of Bennett is another strike against Romney.

Today, Rush Limbaugh said, "The governor of Arizona, Jan Brewer, and Sarah Palin have ten times the guts of all the combined guts of the male Republicans in the United States Senate." I can't argue with that. And, I include my own male Republican senators from Utah.

Senator Bennett, enjoy your retirement! Senator Hatch, you are warned!

The Usual Suspects: Tea Party Terrorists

In recent news, an immigrant from Pakistan attempted to blow up Times Square in New York. Some "experts" (including mayor-for-life of New York, Michael Bloomberg abetted by CBS news reader Katie Couric) speculated it may have been the work of somebody like me -- a person who is unhappy with the nationalization of health care:





I await (not holding my breath) for Bloomberg's sincere apology to us right-wing extremists who want nothing more than a government that honors the Constitution's limits on governmental power and the individual liberties guaranteed by the US Constitution.



Related books:

Stand For Something: The Battle for America's Soul


Terrorism and Tyranny: Trampling Freedom, Justice, and Peace to Rid the World of Evil


The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness

Mitt Romney, Utah Voters and Mixed-Up Priorities

I live in Utah where Mitt Romney is almost deified. I ask my neighbors, "What about the the issues that concern Utahns the most including abortion, homosexual marriage, government control over health care (and other major parts of the economy) and gun control?" Romney's history is on the wrong side of those issues. He says he's changed. Maybe so, but remember that he's a politician with no proven track record on God's side (and Utah's side) of those issues.

There is no doubt in my mind that of all the 2008 presidential candidates, Mitt Romney was among the best in possessing the leadership skills needed to lead this nation. While there are some religious bigots who would never vote for him regardless of the real issues (there's no point in fighting for their votes), I believe that it is his stand (past and present) and flip-flopping on a few key issues that will damage him most.

During his interview with Tim Russert on Meet the Press on 16 Dec 2007, Governor Romney reiterated his support for a ban on "assault weapons" (whatever that is -- I always though assault is a verb, not an adjective). He also said he "would look at weapons that pose extraordinary lethality...keep weapons of "unusual lethality from being on the street." What does "unusual lethality" mean? As compared to what? Is a firearm Romney deems to have "extraordinary lethality" any more lethal than, say, a 9-inch butcher knife, a quart of gasoline, a nine-iron, a T-Ball bat, or a 54-inch brown shoe lace?

Romney should learn that so-called "assault" weapons are less "lethal" than a typical hunting rifle. In fact, I tell my Hunter Education classes that "assault" weapons, although legal for big-game hunting in Utah, are not suitable for big-game hunting because they are not powerful enough for an ethical and humane kill. Just because an "assault" weapon has menacing-looking features (ie removable magazine, pistol grip, black stock, etc.) is not a rational reason to ban or restrict it.

As for his term "unusual lethality", Romney would be interested to know that the ancient .45-70 cartridge, developed in 1873 for the US Army, is far more devastating than the puny little .22-calber "assault" weapon round with which our GIs are fighting for their lives in Southwest Asia. In fact, the .45-70 is suitable for hunting any animal on the planet whereas that "assault" weapon round is best suited for woodchucks and prairie dogs. Were I a soldier in Iraq, I'd much rather be armed with a 100-year-old Marlin Model 1895 lever-action cowboy rifle chambered in .45-70 than a modern M4 or M16 "assault" rifle

I think Romney grossly underestimates how much we gun owners are concerned by his statements and actions, past and present, regarding firearms. It appears that he underestimates how much the typical gun owner feels that our liberty is threatened by such statements.

Giving him the benefit of the doubt, I assume that his statements and actions regarding firearms are rooted in inexperience with firearms, and there is nothing wrong with that, even for a "life-long hunter" such as Romney -- if he is open to learning what he needs to know to gain the trust of 80-100 million law-abiding gun owners.

He should learn, for example, that the shooting sports are among the safest of all sports. I lead a 4-H Shooting Sports club. Statistically, the kids in our club are safer on the firing range or hunting than they are on the soccer field. CDC statistics show they are more likely to drown in their bathtub than they are to die from a gunshot.

Romney should learn that "children" killed by gunshots are most likely to be 19-year-old gang members than innocent 6-year-olds. Banning "assault" weapons or "weapons of unusual lethality" is not the answer because these guns simply are not killing innocent children or even gang-member "children".

Romney should learn that "assault" weapons really do have legitimate sporting purposes as well as self-defense. Just come to the Utah Summer Games in June and watch 14-year-old boys and girls compete in rifle matches alongside adults with an AR-15 "assault" rifle. I'm proud to say that a lot of those kids shoot better than I do.

Romney should learn that economist John Lott writes that guns are used to stop a crime about 2.5 million times a year in this country, and usually shots are never even fired in this scenario. Lott's studies reveal that for every life lost to a gun, 65 lives are saved.

Perhaps if Governor Romney took a 4-day defensive handgun course, a tactical carbine course, and a course with full-auto guns, he would have a little more credibility. I wrote him with that suggestion. I suggested he include his family in that training. His time would be well-spent both personally and politically. He and his family would have a lot of relaxing, wholesome fun. He'd gain the respect he desperately need from us gun owners. He did not respond to my letter.

We gun owners would like to be on Governor Romney's side -- if we can only trust him to be on ours. In the meantime, I suggest that the governor keep in mind that there are no mass shootings at gun shows or on the rifle range. Mass murders only happen where guns are banned.

Related books:

More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, Third Edition


Armed-Citizen Solution To Crime In The Streets: So Many Criminals, So Few Bullets


Gun Facts

New Mexico Rejects Utah's Concealed Firearm Permits

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.

Related books:

More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, Third Edition


Armed-Citizen Solution To Crime In The Streets: So Many Criminals, So Few Bullets


Gun Facts

Unalienable Rights vs Government "Charity"

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!


Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism

Reasons why someone might vote democrat

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.

Related books:

A Nation of Sheep


Who Killed the Constitution?


De-Valuing of America: The Fight for Our Culture and Our Children


Stand For Something: The Battle for America's Soul


The Death of Right and Wrong: Exposing the Left's Assault on Our Culture and Values


The Enemy Within: Saving America from the Liberal Assault on Our Schools, Faith, and Military


Freedom in Chains: The Rise of the State and the Demise of the Citizen



Hoodwinked: How Intellectual Hucksters Have Hijacked American Culture


Crazies to the Left of Me, Wimps to the Right: How One Side Lost Its Mind and the Other Lost Its Nerve


The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised As Freedom


Taking America Back: A Radical Plan to Revive Freedom, Morality, and Justice



The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness


How Evil Works: Understanding and Overcoming the Destructive Forces That Are Transforming America