We Don't "Really need these"...

Things...which no one "really needs";
* A car which exceeds 55 mph
* Schwarzenegger movies, Bruce Willis movies, Chuck Norris movies
* Chocolate milk
* Candy corn
* Grated cheese
* Smart phones which are also a calculator, calendar, flashlight, level and game platform
* Color television
* Frisbees
* Microwave ovens
* Pets
* GPS
* the NFL
* Oatmeal Raisin cookies
* Swimming pools
* Cigarettes
* Hair spray
* Hair gel
* Paint ball guns
* Competitive bows (and arrows)
* Butane lighters
* Chain saws
* Plant fertlizer
* etc etc etc..

Here's my point: how far will the "Elected officials" go to make sure that everyone is protected...from everything? Every one of the items in this list has, at one time or another, been deemed "risky" or "dangerous" or even "life threatening".

Since the horrendous slaughter last week, lots of people have been screaming for "the government" to confiscate legally purchased and legally owned guns, and to enact more gun control legislation (there are currently about 20,000 different state and federal laws in the US which seriously restrict the importation, sale, purchase, possession and use of every type of firearm). So, the obvious question is this: why didn’t the myriad of gun control laws control Adam Lanza’s guns? The guns which he stole from his murdered mother's home were all purchased, possessed and stored legally by Nancy Lanza in her home. Adam Lanza acquired the guns illegally, in spite of the very gun laws which proponents claim "make everyone safer".

See?…gun control laws only affect the people who obey the law. A criminal like Adam Lanza would never be restricted by gun control laws because he simply ignores them. This is the situation with ALL laws, really. For example, the law says that no one can steal your credit card info and use your credit to buy a Blue Ray player. YOU, the owner of the credit card would never steal someone else’s card to buy a Blue Ray player. And yet, someone will steal your card and run up YOUR balance, and ruin YOUR credit. The law was there to protect you—but, YOU were the one who suffered the most because someone else simply ignored the law. That’s exactly what happened to Nancy Lanza, as well as the 25 other innocent people in Newtown. They obeyed the law, Adam Lanza broke the law. So, more gun laws?...Why? More importantly, How?—How would you propose making the new law/laws effective if the existing law/laws have no effect?

The other argument which has been injected into the gun debate--the "Al Capone clause"*, as I call it--is this: "the Founding Fathers never envisioned ammo clips or semi-automatic weapons, therefore, the Second Amendment doesn't cover them." Yeah. Well then, by that reasoning, they never envisioned medical marijuana, or same sex marriage, or billion dollar presidential campaigns, or universal healthcare, or abortion on demand—yet, lots of people will swear that each of these is “a Constitutional right”. (Not a single one is mentioned in the Constitution). However, the right of every American to protect themselves IS:
“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.”  (In the US Bill of Rights)

A “militia”, as defined by our Founding Fathers was a “citizen militia”, consisting of every able-bodied man to serve in times of war. And they were quite specific about the right of the people to keep (in their homes, business, shop, wagon, etc) and bear (on their person) arms.

See?...they wanted to keep the GOVERNMENT in check. They knew that the people would need protection from the GOVERNMENT. Thomas Jefferson put it quite succinctly:  "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
Read that last line again: “..to protect themselves against tyranny in government”

He didn’t say anything about “hunting” or “only for sport shooting”…or limiting the number of bullets a gun could fire. The Second Amendment specifically assures that our government shall always be of, by and FOR The People.
Furthermore, it’s well documented that in countries which not only allow, but also encourage gun ownership and possession, the incidence of crime committed with a firearm is significantly lower than here in the US (think Israel, think Sweden). Back home in the good ‘ol USA, states which permit carrying a concealed weapon also enjoy a statistically safer environment (think Texas, think Florida, think Montana), than states with the toughest gun restrictions (think Illinois, think Michigan, think New Jersey, think New York…think, Connecticut).

But what about all of the feel good gun control gimmicks that we’ve seen over the years? How effective have gun “buy backs” been in cities like Newark, Detroit and Philly? How many tax dollars have been thrown at “smart gun” research? How about the federal “Project safe neighborhoods” program? $2 billion spent in the inner cities since 2000—without any appreciable reduction in crime (PSN has been just about as effective as D.A.R.E, another government boondoggle which does nothing).

So, what do we need to do?   Just these things:

1. We, The People MUST demand better law enforcement and meaningful criminal penalties—including the death penalty for capital crimes. And, we need to vote against the politicians who have softened our criminal laws in favor of the criminals (think Bloomberg, think Obama, think Bushes, think Schumer, think Cuomo, think Buono, think Ricigliano)
2. Better attention must be paid to mental illnesses which affect millions of Americans, and often go undiagnosed and untreated. These efforts need to begin in the schools. We already pay billions of dollars to keep our public schools operating, let’s take some of the big money paid to ineffective teachers and administrators, and re-direct it to our children in need.
3. This is an absolute requirement: we need armed security personnel in EVERY school. If the cost is too high to hire additional people, then 5 to 10 teachers, aides, custodians, coaches or administrators should be trained in the use of firearms and security measures. There should be a ratio set: for example, for every 100 students, you need 2 trained people.
4. States and cities must—this is where some jaws will hit the floor—create a safer environment for the people who DO obey the law. Concealed Carry laws with mandatory annual training for licensees, as well as minimum liability insurance requirements need to be enacted. We need to create  Citizen Militias.  Think about it: if you’re planning to stick up the local WaWa, and you know that there’ a good possibility there will be at least one customer in the store who is armed—in addition to the clerk who is almost certainly armed, would you really pick that WaWa to rob? As stated previously: the safest states are the states with concealed carry laws. Period.
5. All citizens should be encouraged to complete their town’s Citizen Police Academy. There you will get a pretty good understanding of how your local cops operate, what they encounter every day, and how YOU can participate in making your town safer. Maybe there should be tax incentives for people who attend and graduate from the CPA.
6. Finally, all of us need to be more aware. Simply put: keep your eyes and ears open at all times, Know your surroundings. Know where you are at all times, and focus on your own safety. Pay attention to the world around you—rather that to the Facebook updates on your Android.

Thanks for reading this lengthy rant. I understand that many well-intentioned people will take the exact opposite stance on most of my points. And that’s OK. But, you do understand that you’re anti-gun beliefs are shared by a lot of politicians who never go anywhere without their armed security detail?  And, you do know that in some cases, they themselves have a concealed carry permit, right?  Just so you know.

* By the way, I call it the “Al Capone Clause” because, just as the Feds couldn’t nail Capone with any of the actual crimes he committed, having to resort to getting him on tax evasion, the so-called Anti-Gun people will often resort to an alternate argument in an attempt to make their points about guns killing people--the alternate argument often having little or no relevance to the main argument.

FJN 
December 22, 2012