I tell the would-be “under the radar” folks that “They” know who you are.  If you have ever purchased a gun from a dealer, that yellow sheet is almost undoubtedly still on file somewhere.

If you have ever attended a gun show and parked in the parking lot, I believe there is a strong possibility that a federal agent or a police intelligence officer has recorded your license number as a gun show patron.  There was an incident a few years ago in Colorado where vendors at a show noticed an officer taking an exceptional interest in the license plates in a gun show parking lot.

Ever send an E-Mail or talk to someone on the phone about guns?  Ever hear of Echelon and Carnivore?  These are code names for massive electronic surveillance operations that target electronic communications.  Sophisticated computers scan messages and conversations for key words and phrases.  “Guns,” “ammunition,” “hunting,” “shooting,” and “bullets,” would be good guesses on targeted words.

Go to a shooting range or gun club?  Park in the parking lot?  Patronize one of the big box stores that sell guns, ammunition and hunting supplies?  Do you know the background of everyone in your gun club or collectors’ association?  Ever subscribe to a hunting or shooting magazine?

I’m not trying to make you paranoid.  I’m telling you that the chances of you flying “under the radar” are not good, unless you never used a credit card to buy ammunition, never bought cammo through a catalog, or never associated with anyone in “the Gun Culture.”

How do you know that your visit to this Blog hasn’t triggered a trace on your browser?  Are you accessing the net from a library, or from your very own computer in your very own home?  Privacy?  No such thing in the electronic age!

Did you EVER belong to the NRA, GOA, JPFO, RMGO, FCC, or other pro-Second Amendment Organization?  Ever attend a CCRKBA/SAF gun rights conference?  (If those initials don’t mean anything to you, I strongly recommend that you find out about gun rights groups, before “They” pay you an unfriendly visit or send you a letter “requesting” your immediate presence at “Headquarters.”)

OK!  So “They” know who you are.  How do you keep “Them” from coming after you?

You join one or more of the above organizations and support them with your money and your time.  You write letters to newspapers.  You E-mail, write, and call your elected officials and inform them of your opinions on your individual right to armed self-defense against crime and tyranny.  You keep visiting Blogs and Websites that deal with Second Amendment issues.  You talk to your friends about the need for armed citizens and the beneficial effects of guns in a free society.

You save Conservative Talk Radio from the “Fairness Doctrine” and resist any attempt at additional “Campaign Finance Reform.”  You protect the First Amendment with all the zeal that you bring to protect the Second.  Work to keep the UN out of US affairs.

You read the studies from the CDC, the NAS, the Small Arms Survey, and Kates and Mauser, so you can talk intelligently about the scientific basis for the desirability of civilian gun ownership.  You get out and campaign, or campaign more, and give money, or give more money to candidates who will support your natural, fundamental right to self-defense.  You vote for electable candidates who will support your rights better than their opponents.  You will not throw away your vote on a third party candidate with no chance to win.

You go to the range and practice to increase your skill and gain enjoyment from a worthwhile sport.  You live your life one day at a time, realizing that freedom isn’t free and that history hasn’t stopped.  If you hunt, you enjoy the outdoors and the other benefits of being with friends.  You realize that no human being lives forever, but that you can make a positive difference by supporting individual rights.

You never EVER give up on America and its promise of freedom.  If even ten percent of 80 million gun owners in America stand up as one and say not “NO,” but “HELL NO!” to gun control, we will keep our legacy as a sovereign people and will regain some of the rights that we have already lost.

If you try to hide in a hole, or plan to head to the mountains, or move to another state, in the face of nanny state oppression, believe me, “They” will find you.  “They” have ways of dealing mit people like you.  If you don’t work harder than ever to retain your fundamental, natural right to armed self-defense, you will lose it.  You will also contribute to the demise of the greatest experiment in self-government ever attempted on this tiny, spinning ball of mud and water.

The friend of the tyrant is merely his last victim.  Hiding is not an option.  Speak up or lose out!

Def Mech

History is a slippery thing, especially as close as we are to Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait, 9-11, and the destruction of the Iraqi dictatorship in 2003.  It will take decades for all the facts to come out and for scholars to form opinions on what actually happened.  We are still experiencing revelations and debate about World War Two, the Cold War, and Vietnam.

Even so, in order to function in the time in which we live, I believe we must try to understand the complex events that brought us to our current situation.  This involves bringing our individual perspectives to the choice of sources that we trust to provide the most objective information possible about the topic at hand.

My own perspective has been shaped as a child of the Cold War and my service as an intelligence officer with the United States Army in Vietnam and Europe.  I also have a liberal arts background and experience and education in the field of counseling and psychology.  Others will bring their own experiences and perspectives to the debate.

Liberals and some conservatives will undoubtedly find fault with my sources and conclusions.  That is a right they have under what I believe to be the best form of government in the best country yet created on our planet.  I do urge everyone that believes that Saddam Hussein should have been left in power to consider the following.  To disagree with him would have meant an ugly appointment with an electrode, an electric drill, and/or a firing squad, followed by a quick drop into an unmarked grave.

It may be useful to remember that Saddam Hussein’s uncle, Khairallah Tulfah,  was a disciple of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, a rabid anti-Jewish radical who helped Adolph Hitler organize Muslim brigades to fight against the Allies in World War Two.  Saddam Hussein reportedly modeled the governance of his dictatorship after Hitler’s methods.

Hussein rose to power in Iraq after serving an apprenticeship as an assassin in the Baath Party.  He purged some enemies in party congress meetings or conventions.  The unfortunate victims were dragged from the halls to face torture and death at the hands of their Baath Party comrades.  Hussein used chemical weapons in his war against Iran in the 1980’s.  These weapons included nerve gas.

In 1990, Hussein invaded Kuwait, a small oil-rich nation southeast of Iraq on the Persian Gulf.  His troops raped, burned, pillaged, and killed.  The Iraqi dictator also massed forces on the border of Saudi Arabia.

As U.S.-led coalition moved troops into the region under Operation Desert Shield to defend the Sauidis from a possible attack.  Hussein could simply have retreated from Kuwait with his ill-gotten loot, but he doubted the will of the United States and its Coalition allies to dislodge him from his conquest.

In 1991, U.N.-backed Operation Desert Storm threw Hussein out of Kuwait.  The fighting ended with a cease-fire designed to stop the slaughter of Iraqi troops for humanitarian reasons and to meet the political concerns of the Saudis and other Muslim coalition partners.

The terms of the cease-fire included establishment of a “no-fly” zone for fixed wing aircraft over parts of Iraq.  U.S. military commanders hoped that this restriction would help protect Kurds and Shiites in Iraq who had chafed under Hussein’s harsh rule.  (Helicopters were exempt from the no-fly rule so that they could be used for medical missions and supply distribution to the Iraqi People.  The cease-fire also mandated a limit on the range of Iraqi missiles, and the destruction of Iraq’s WMD capabilities in accordance with UN guidelines.

Following the cease-fire, throughout the 1990’s and up to the U.S.-led coalition invasion of 2003, Hussein’s forces fired on allied aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone, used rotary-winged helicopters to attack Kurds and Shiites, and obstructed and spied on UN Weapons Inspectors attempting to monitor the destruction of his weapons of mass destruction.

Saddam failed to provide required records documenting the destruction of his WMD.  He built up huge stockpiles of conventional weapons by diverting UN Oil for Food Program money that had been destined to feed his people.  Hussein corrupted the UN and bought the support of France, Russia, and several other member countries with kickbacks on Oil for Food contracts.

Hussein ignored 17 UN resolutions regarding his refusal to comply with the conditions of the cease-fire agreement.  (Saddam’s terrorist ties and information regarding the status of his WMD programs will be the topics of future posts.)

The most salient point of this post is that the U.S.-led 2003 invasion of Iraq was the continuation of a war started by Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait.  Operation Desert Storm ended with a cease-fire, not a peace treaty.  U.S. and Coalition troops invaded Iraq in 2003 in response to Hussein’s failure to abide by the cease-fire agreement, UN mandates, and the potential threat that he posed by his support of terrorists, including Al Qaida, and his possession of, capability to develop, use, or export WMD. 

Franklin Delano Roosevelt said in a pre-World War Two Fireside Chat on this date in 1941, “When you see a rattlesnake poised to strike, you do not wait until he has struck before you crush him.”  At that point in time, FDR was supporting England with the Lend-Lease Program in the defense of Great Britain against the formidable Nazi War Machine.

In 2003, George W. Bush, virtually every intelligence service in the world, almost every American government official, with the exceptions of State Legislator Barack Obama and other Hard-Left Radicals, saw in Saddam Hussein a coiling snake.  Many high-level officials in Saddam’s own regime believed he had WMD.  (Pages 3 and 13)  In subsequent posts, I will detail why I believe most of the world was right and Obama and the radicals were wrong about Saddam Hussein, his intentions, his ties to terrorists, and his possession/development of weapons of mass destruction.

The Iraq War is important to me, because I served in Vietnam and do not want another 2.5 million or so deaths to occur because of Liberal perfidy and/or incompetence.  Also, interestingly enough, many of the same people who were against the Vietnam War and are against the Iraq War also seem interested in stripping the American People of their right to self-defense against crime and tyranny.

Def Mech 

Much is often made by Left-wing “pacifists” about the fact that Gandhi was successful in ending British rule in India through the use of non-violent protest. If the game is Gandhi versus Great Britain with the world press looking on and sympathizing with the anti-colonials, Gandhi wins. But what would have happened, if Gandhi had been dealing with Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Saddam, Castro or their successors? I believe that non-violence would have miserably failed and any one of the dictators would simply have murdered Gandhi, Nehru, and anyone else associated with the anti-colonial movement in India. Why have I reached this conclusion?

First, modern dictators have largely succeeded in destroying, buying, bribing, expelling, seducing, or otherwise controlling both the indigenous and foreign press in their countries. The Communist dictators were able to take advantage of dupes, fellow travelers, and paid agents.

Stalin and Company had Lincoln Steffens to trumpet after visiting the USSR, “I have been over into the future and it works.” Steffens later reportedly lost his zeal for Communism.  I.F. Stone was apparently a paid agent of Moscow.  He also became disillusioned with Stalinism, much too late for many of the dictator’s victims. 

In spite of the howls of Hollywood and movies to the contrary, e.g., The way we were, and Good Night and Good Luck, there were Communists in the American Entertainment Industry at a time when the Communist Party of the Soviet Union was advancing its goal of world domination. Lillian Hellman didn’t repudiate Stalin until 1956.  Pete Seeger didn’t come down on “Uncle Joe” in song until well into the 21^st Century, although according to a New York Times article, Seeger first denounced Stalin in 1993, just a few years too late.  Seeger, interestingly enough, mentioned non-violence in his interview for the article.

The North Vietnamese Dich Van propaganda program paralyzed the U.S. Government’s ability to defend South Vietnam by cleverly using the Mainstream American Media, university professors and students. They managed to change American Public Opinion against the conflict, even though the UN mandated the original partition of Vietnam and the U.S. won every major battle in the military arena.

Pictures of Castro’s Cuban Revolution and the Vietnamese Conflict were extremely telling of the Left-wing orientation of most American TV, newspapers and magazines. Look at the pictures of the insurgents. Virtually all photos and film show resolute, handsome and beautiful young men and women with their shining faces directed toward the hated enemy as they advance resolutely to victory. Compare that coverage to pictures of exhausted, wounded, or dead American military personnel or allies and civilian casualties attributed to friendly action. There is virtually no difference between enemy propaganda and American media coverage in many cases. You didn’t have to guess which side the U.S. Media was on.

(By the way, check out the coverage of the war against Islamofascist Terror. Any doubts?)

Saddam Hussein solved the press problem by making deals with TV networks. They either self-censored their reports to minimize criticism of his regime, or he denied them access to Iraq.  Read the story here on how CNN “modified” its reporting to stay in the country.  “…simple and beautiful as all truly great swindles are.” O’Henry was “right on,” to quote a popular 1960’s expression.

Saddam also corrupted the UN with his oil for food kickback scheme, but that is another story.  No wonder France and Russia opposed the 2003 invasion.

Second, remember what Mao said about political power and gun barrels? The above mentioned dictators disarmed “ordinary” citizens and vested recourse to force exclusively with their henchmen. You want to stage a peaceful demonstration? Ask the few survivors of the Warsaw Ghetto and the Czechs who survived the Russian invasion following the Prague Spring, how large groups of political opponents were dealt with by the dictators. (Hint: resolution of the situations usually involved tanks and heavy machine guns.) 

Adolph Hitler and his associated developed a handy technique for dealing with dissidents called “Nacht und Nebel,” night and fog. The Gestapo came at night in the Nazi version of no-knock raids and arrested/abducted political opponents, who were never seen again. This proved to be quite an effective deterrent to non-violent protest.

Finally, the Indian version of Hitler’s death camps, Castro’s Isle of Pines, and Stalin’s gulags would have been the final destinations of hundreds of thousands or millions of persistent pacifist protesters not senior enough to be given the individual attention of Nacht und Nebel. Ghettos would have been created and “cleansed.” India would have been scientifically subjugated according to the tried and true formulas of media control and disarmament employed by modern statist dictators of whatever stripe. QED.

How does this little historical expose relate to us sophisticated, post-political, post-modern Americans? Protect the First and Second Amendments and the rest of the Bill of Rights as though your life depended on it, because it does. Stop the “Fairness Doctrine” and other attempts to muzzle free speech.  Stop gun control, before an increasing socialist state mentality assumes a monopoly on armed force and destroys our legal right to self-defense against crime and tyranny.

Vote Republican, because they are the only ones with a chance to win with whom we have any influence.  Sarah Palin, the Governor of an unrestricted concealed carry state could be the future of the GOP, or she could be an also-ran defeated by third-party, stay-at-home, or write-in voters.

“Ask not for whom the Bell Tolls…”

Def Mech

(Don’t blame me for the capitalization anomalies re: unicef/UNICEF.  It’s unicef on their letterhead and UNICEF in the texts of their letters and web pages.  I think it’s probably reflective of the confusion and indecision that seem to be the hallmarks of the UN, but then, I could be mistaken.) 

Since those days of innocent youth, I have become more and more suspicious of the United Nations’ motivations and tactics.  On June 5th of this year, the unicef Press centre issued a News note to the effect that Gun control is an “urgent priority for Jamaica.”

Since I am one of those people to whom gun control is a good eye and a steady hand, I was “interested” in their press release. It seems that the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and UNICEF issued an appeal to all “stakeholders to stem the illegal flow and use of small arms in Jamaica, saying gun control-combined with long-term social interventions-are critical to curb the armed violence that has enveloped the country.”

“UNDP and UNICEF expressed deep concern for the effect of the spiraling murder rate on children and their communities…  The agencies said small arms, which include machine guns, shotguns, assault rifles and other deadly firearms are the dominant weapons used in the violence sweeping the island.”

Why am I shocked (and somewhat bitter) over the apparent need for more gun control in Jamaica?  Because Jamaica has had draconian anti-gun ownership laws since the 1970’s!  And, like virtually everywhere else where local civic education, moral values and religion have broken down under nanny state meddling, gun control has been an abject, catastrophic failure.

David Kopel, a preeminent scholar in the field of Second Amendment issues detailed Jamaica’s gun laws in his landmark book, The Samurai, The Mountie, and  the Cowboy, Should America Adopt the Gun Controls of other Democracies?, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY, 1992.  Pages 257-277.

In 1974, the Jamaican Government licensed gun owners and allowed no new guns to be introduced onto the island.  The government conducted warrant-less searches for guns and essentially outlawed private ownership.  They set up a “Gun Court” to try firearms’ offenses.  Violators could, in theory, be sentenced to life in prison for possession of one illegal bullet.  (Pages 260, 261)

Violence went down in 1974.  In 1975, violence went up.  In 1978, one in three adults in Kingston, Jamaica reported having been robbed. (Pages 263, 265)  By 1998, the situation had not much improved.

Apparently, despite 34 years of strict gun control, there is still violence in Jamaica that is “sweeping the island.”  I am shocked!  Jamaica isan island!  It is not a big island.  Don’t they have enough patrol boats to guard every small beach and inlet?  Don’t they have enough police to conduct warrantless searches of every house on every street?  Don’t they have enough prisons to house the offenders?

The answer, of course, to all those questions is, “No.”  No country that turns itself into a prison by disarming its people has enough police, coast guard, air force, army, secret police, gestapo, or other security forces to establish and maintain a relatively civil order.  Once a government loses the confidence and respect of the people it supposedly serves, the society descends into warfare against itself.  It happened in this country during Prohibition.  “Ordinary” citizens (to use a Liberal term) decided that the government was off the rails in banning liquor.  Bootlegging, moonshining, corruption, and a cosmic rise in organized crime followed the ban in natural succession.

There is an old story about a European who visited Colonial America.  He was strolling with an American friend, when they saw George Washington walking alone on the street.  “But where is his guard?”  The European asked.  “Who protects him?”  The American slapped his chest and replied.  “I do!”

It is not armored vests, armored cars, and more and bigger guns that ultimately protect law enforcement officers and public officials in a free society.  If they are to be relatively safe, they are protected by the trust and the positive moral values of the people that they serve.

Jamaica is a member state of the United Nations, which we should remember is made up of precious few countries with remotely representative governments.  Oh yeah!  And the Sudan, where Darfur is located, was on the UN Human Rights Commission.  Things were so bad on this commission that the name was changed to protect the guilty.  The new name of the group is the Human Rights Council. 

Somehow, I don’t think I’ll be sending money to either the Democrat Party or unicef this year.  The Dems want the UN to have greater influence here.  I have serious doubts about the desirability of UN influence anywhere.  The UN experiences in Darfur and Jamaica inspire confidence in neither their competence nor their motives.

Def Mech

Steve opines that Obama and McCain are part of the Left-wing “boiling the frog” analogy, and that our freedoms are being incrementally taken away in such small segments that we won’t notice until the water reaches a boil and we are literally and Liberally cooked.  He believes that if McCain wins, we will face an even more radical candidate in 2012.  If Obama is elected, Steve is hoping for a backlash against Left-wing socialist excesses a la 1980 and 1994.

Steve is willing to ride out the “hard times” that an Obama Presidency would surely bring.  While I agree that we face a serious incrementalist threat, and that John McCain is a less than perfect candidate, I disagree with Steve’s position on trying Ali’s boxing ring “rope-a-dope,” taking the Obama “punch,” and trying to fight our way back in the next round.  There may not be a next round.  Setting aside what I believe to be Obama’s disastrous plans for the War on Terror and international diplomacy, there are other reasons to vote for McCain.

I believe the Hard-Left Socialists that control the Democrat Party operate like the AIDS Virus.  AIDS attacks the “Killer T Cells” that protect the human body from outside infection.  Once the T Cell defenders have been neutralized, the way is open for all types of invaders to ravage and destroy the body itself.

The U.S. stands in the way of the “Progressive” Globalist Vision of One World without national boundaries or evil “nationalism,” itself.  Liberals are crusaders for a world without weapons (except in the hands of the U.N. “Peace Force.”)  The Hard Left wants a world where the ignorant masses are guided to ultimate enlightenment by the Liberal Intellectual Elite.

When the Democrats take over a city, a state (or potentially a country), they make it difficult, if not impossible for Republicans to ever recapture the area.  The Dems gerrymander congressional districts to favor their candidates, e.g., the Seventh Congressional District in Colorado was gerrymandered by a liberal judge after the State Legislature failed to agree on boundaries.  Republican Bob Beauprez squeaked out a victory in 2002 by 121 votes.  A Republican legislative counter-gerrymander was thrown out in court and a “competitive” district was created.  See the “unbiased” New York Times article extolling the virtues of this drama from the Democrat point of view. 

Democrats promote public and private sector unions that give most of their money to Democrat candidates.  (Liberals are now trying to eliminate secret ballots in employee elections to increase the ability of unions to intimidate would-be voters.)

In Colorado about3/4 of state employees are now unionized, thanks to Democrat Governor Ritter and the fact that only about 1/3 of the employees eligible to vote actually voted in the election.  As public sector unions become more entrenched and powerful, their members will evolve into election block workers for the Democrat Party.  (Look at any number of eastern or mid-western states where it would take a certified miracle for a Republican to win an election in the face of the solid Democrat machine.)

Eventually, the political machines control the civil service systems and the self-serving loop, or rather noose, is complete.  I knew a man who wanted a job in New York State with a city government.  Did he go down to City Hall and apply with Personnel?  No.  He went to his local Democrat Ward Heeler and said that he wanted a job.  His family checked out OK with the party, and he was hired.  The civil authority was reduced to rubber stamping his political patronage appointment.

When the Democrats get into power, they traditionally increase the welfare roles in the name of “compassion.”  This activity builds a constituency of voters dependent on the public dole.  These folks are reliable Democrats; and, since some of them don’t have to work outside the home, they have a lot of time to walk precincts, stuff envelopes, and attend rallies for, you guessed it, Democrat candidates.

A few years ago, I lived in a rural county in eastern Colorado where going on welfare was like joining the Mafia.  About the only way to get out of the system was to die.  The county social services department needed big caseloads to justify their large staff.  Naturally, both staff and clients made for a powerful Democrat voting bloc.

Democrats already control most public education through the teachers’ unions.  They run most university social science and liberal arts departments through restrictive hiring practices and peer pressure to conform to “progressive” ideas.  At Colorado University, recently, there was talk of hiring a conservative professor in the name of “diversity.”  Of over 800 faculty members in arts/sciences, business, education, journalism and law, there are apparently 23 registered Republicans in the C.U. system.

The Dems are poised to reinstate the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” to “level the playing field” in talk radio, the only part of the traditional media that they don’t control.  If the Left succeeds in silencing conservative voices here, I would look for them to try to regulate, tax, or otherwise suppress free speech on the Net.   Constitutional guarantees be damned!  (China seems to be able to control things pretty well, using I understand, software from U.S. companies.)

In what I believe to be outright defiance of the Heller Decision striking down their gun ban, the Liberal masters of Washington D.C. continue to ban ”machine guns” (any semi-auto firearm with a magazine well), and continue to require that guns be kept locked or disassembled, except in the event of imminent danger.  See my post in favor of crystal balls as warning devices, “New D.C. gun regulations seem to flout Supreme Court decision,” 07-17-08, under the category of “Courts” on this site. 

I believe an Obama Presidency with a potential 60-vote supermajority in the U.S. Senate would be devastating to our newly reaffirmed right to keep and bear arms.  Short of continued outright bans at the state and local level, I think we would have restrictive licensing; roll-back of concealed carry; ammunition restrictions, including “microstamping” requirements; mandatory “smart gun” legislation with eventual bans on “dumb” guns; arbitrary range closures; environment-related harassment of hunters and shooters regarding lead pollution; and government-sponsored campaigns against gun owners modeled after the work of Mothers Against Drunk Drivers.  The Dems would like to implement more restrictions on the transportation of weapons and increased regulation/destruction of gun shows.  There is no end to their creativity on restricting the use and enjoyment of firearms.  (Liberals particularly dislike gun shows, because the shows provide a forum for gun owners to assemble and discuss Second Amendment issues.)

An Obama Administration supported by a Left-wing Congress would encourage and probably fund the Centers for Disease Control and the National Academy of Sciences in their continued quest for a gun law, any gun law, that can be proven to prevent crime or reduce violence.  We don’t need to waste additional taxpayer dollars in what has proven to be a fruitless crusade to destroy our constitutionally recognized right to self-defense.  No doubt these folks will continue their research until they get the results they want.  Those results will then be given as “proof” that we need more gun “control.” 

An Obama Administration would be likely to increase the power of the U.N. over U.S. internal affairs and international diplomacy.  Under Obama, the courts would be more prone to use international law, rather than U.S. precedents to decide cases.  Liberal Justice Ginsberg has already advocated use of  international standards in U.S. courts.

Obama would, in my opinion, push farther and faster than McCain to naturalize tens millions of illegal aliens and turn them into newly minted Democrat voters in time for 2012.  Dems want to increase the voting rights of convicted felons, most of whom seem to vote Democrat.  In 2,000, Democrats moved to reduce the voting rights of active duty military personnel, who tend to vote Republican.

While the GOP seeks to govern, the Democrats want to rule.  I believe almost everything they do politically is designed to increase their hold on the political and social processes of this country.  Democrat control of the Legislative and Executive Branches at all levels of government in 2008 could mean decades of Hard Left autocracy, assuming the country lasts for decades beyond a Democrat victory.

If we allow Obama to be elected in 2008, a political “backlash” may not be possible in 2012, because the Democrat “AIDS Virus” will have destroyed most of the checks and balances put into place to prevent autocratic, one-party rule in America.  With massive tax-based income redistribution to a welfare state constituency, with decisive political advantages bestowed upon unions, the silencing of talk radio, the introduction of tens of millions of illegal aliens into the ranks of Democrat voters, and near total control of the mainstream media and educational systems, it would be very difficult for a revitalized Conservative Movement to gain political traction. 

“If you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on the support of Paul.”  New social programs, “universal” health care, “soak the rich” tax schemes; what’s not to like about the “Big Rock Candy Mountain” in the new People’s Republic of North America from the standpoint of the welfare-dependent proletariat?

The Democrats are masters at using tax money to forge the change (chains?) leading to Socialist hegemony.  Welfare is a classic example, as is the recent case of tax-free City and County of Denver gasoline used to fuel vehicles associated with the Democrat Convention.  After they were exposed on the gas scam, the Dems agreed to ante up.  They always say they are sorry, after they get caught with their hands in our pockets.

In conclusion, I believe that a Sweeping Democrat victory in 08 and four years of Barak Hussein Obama would be so devastating to the republican institutions of this country and to the GOP that it would be next to impossible to politically recover from the “hard times.”  I don’t think there would be a “next round.”  I also wonder who the Dems could run in 2012 that could be more radical than BHO?  Mao, Che, and Stalin are too dead to be on the short list.  Vote McCain.

Def Mech

While it may be true that Heller  makes American women nervous about Roe v. Wade, I would submit that had the decision gone the other way, the outcome could have been either heavenly or catastrophic for the Republican Party.  If around 80,000,000 U.S. gun owners, including many women, had been demeaned and marginalized by a finding of no individual right in the Heller decision, it might have energized them into a hammer that would have politically smashed the Democrat Party into pieces for years.

A decision against the “Standard Model” could have as easily so demoralized and angered the “Community of Honest People Who Own Guns,” that they would defect en masse to a third party candidate, dooming the GOP to second class status for decades.  As it stands, as flawed as John McCain is on the issue of the individual right of self-defense against crime and tyranny, he remains head and shoulders above Barack Obama, who has said that he wants to ban handguns and semi-automatic weapons.

As for Mr. Morris’s “schizophrenia” about gun control saving lives and reducing homicides, let us again summarize the scientific evidence.  Three powerful anti-gun rights research organizations affiliated in two cases with the U.S. Government and in one Case with the U.N. have studied the findings in the field of gun control and violence.  These organizations, sometimes funded by grants from anti-gun foundations, such as the Joyce Foundation, have reviewed, assuming no duplication of effort, almost 450 studies, journal articles, books and publications.

According to these unfriendly organizations, there is no scientifically significant evidence that gun ownerhship promotes crime, or that gun laws reduce violence.  There is one indication, to be completely fair, in CDC research, that waiting periods for buying a gun may reduce the gun suicide risk among persons over 55, although it does not seem to reduce the overall suicide risk for this group.  (I don’t believe this questionable benefit justifies the 22,000 federal, state, and local gun laws that we have in this country.)  (See my post, “Gun suicide article typical ‘advocacy journalism,” below on this site.) (See The National Academy of the Sciences Executive Summary on Firearms and Violence-A critical review-2004, here) (See Small Arms Survey results here.)

At its most basic level, the pro-self-defense argument runs something like this.  If a person plans to commit suicide, he or she will find a way.  Many unhappy women in the Third World kill themselves by ingesting agricultural pesticides. In “gun-free” Japan in 2006, 32,155 people killed themselves. (”4 commit suicide by inhaling fumes, rate high in Japan,” Rocky Mountain News, Denver Newspaper Agency, 04-26-08) This is roughly the same number of persons who are the annual victims of “gun” violence in the U.S., even though America has a much larger population. Suicide seems to be a particular problem among the elderly in Japan.

If a felon is intent on committing a capital crime, a misdemeanor gun law is of little deterence.  In the absence of guns, knives, clubs, broomsticks, ball bats, barstools, shoestrings, neckties, cars, and bathtubs work about as well and don’t make as much noise.  A gun used in the defensive role, up to 2 to 2.5 million times a year, according to Kleck, gives a smaller potential victim an advantage over a larger, stronger attacker.  According to Kleck, Kates and Mauser, Wright and Rossi, and Lott, the overall impact of guns in a society would seem to be positive.  See my post, “Gun suicide…,” as above.

The Left makes much of “acquaintence homicide.”  See my 06-30-08 post, “Stay safer, avoid criminal behavior and criminals,” on this site, regarding the higher incidence of homicide among persons with criminal records.  Very few people “snap.”  Most spree killers and killers in general have mental health histories that have been ignored or minimized by civil authorities and the courts.

America has 22,000 gun laws and regulations, many of which may not be affected by Heller.  These laws include the unfortunate creation of “gun-free zones” (actually upheld by Heller ) in schools and some other places.  These zones should actually be called “criminal-safe free-fire zones,” since felons benefit from the governmental disarmament of honest citizens, creating a “target rich” environment of helpless victims.

Robberies and spree killings in Northfield Minnisota, Coffeeville, Kansas, Pearl Mississippi, Colorado Springs, Colorado, and the Appalachian School of Law were all disrupted or stopped by armed citizens, some of whom were in law enforcement or had law enforcement backgrounds.

Why are there no spree killings at gun shows?  I would opine, because the life expectency of a shooter would be about one minute, even though ammuniton boxes are routinely sealed and gun actions are rendered momentarily inoperable.

Suzanna Gratia Hupp’s parents died in the Luby Cafeteria Massacre in Killeen, TX.  Her handgun was locked in the car in accordance with TX state law at the time.  Anti-self-defense laws had created a perfect criminal free fire zone.  She vowed, “Never again!” and worked to reform Texas law regarding concealed carry.

Gun laws don’t prevent crime and may very well enable it.  Thomas Jefferson echoed the ideas of Italian criminologist Caesare Beccaria.  “The laws that forbid the carrying arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…they” (the laws) “serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides…”

 In conclusion, Heller  affirmed the “Standard Model” of an individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment.  Guns in the hands of honest citizens prevent, rather than cause crime.  “Schizophrenia” or “hoplophobia” (fear of weapons) are unnecessary psychological burdens for a free citizen of the United States of America.  I believe Mr. Morris can rest easy in his belief that the Second Amendment recognizes an individual right.

Def Mech

I also appreciate the idea that “True insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.”  (I think this quote has been attributed to Einstein.)  The problem that I have with third party candidates is that their history is one of throwing elections to the opposition party.  Perot gave us eight long years of Bill Clinton.  Nader (thankfully) saved us from Al Gore.  I’m not personally anxious to emulate either of these historical precedents and put BHO in the White House by doing the same thing again and expecting a different result.

I don’t share Dan’s opinion that the two major parties are the same.  Under Bill Clinton, we got the so-called “Assault Weapons” ban and a devastating assault on the number of citizens holding Federal Firearms Licenses.  Under the admittedly imperfect George W. Bush Administration, we got the sunset of the “Assault Weapons” ban, The Lawful Commerce in Arms Act that protects the gun industry from predatory lawsuits, an Attorney General opinion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, the possibility of concealed carry in national parks, and the blockage of 14 anti-gun bills now pending in the U.S. Congress.

I am concerned about the potentially disastrous effect that a BHO Presidency with a 60 vote supermajority in the U.S. Senate would have on judicial appointments and U. N. interference with the rights of our citizens.  I believe we can not afford to do a “Perot” or a “Nader” and hope to survive as free citizens for even one four-year term, if BHO becomes President.

BHO voted to allow reckless lawsuits against gun makers; wanted to re-impose the Clinton gun ban; voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition; has endorsed a ban on handgun ownership; supports gun owner licensing and gun registration(often a prelude to confiscation); opposes right to carry laws; supported a proposal to ban gun stores within 5 miles of a school or park(no more gun stores); supports one-gun-a-month sales limits; and is associated numerous other draconian anti-gun measures.  (See NRA-ILA information sheet in NRA Magazines or on the NRA website for source documentation of the above facts.)

Please also review my post of 05-13-08, “McCain can win.  Barr and Paul can not,” under the category of “Elections” on this site.  There are some interesting comments with opinions different from my own.

I believe that politics is the art of the possible.  If gun owners and civil libertarians support an electable candidate, a Reagan-type “big tent” coalition may be able to keep the most left-wing junior senator in the country out of the White House.  If we indeed fragment our efforts in this election, we may become footnotes to history like the Samurai, the European knights, and Native American warriors, who were great fighters in their own right, but who were overcome by the superior numbers of a less-able, but better organized opposition.  Remember those Moveon cookie sales.  The Democrats will be unified.  As Benjamin Franklin said with regard to the initiation of the great American experiment in Republicanism, “We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.”  I believe a third party vote almost certainly condemns gun owners to the latter fate.

Def Mech

I wanted to respond to Steve’s comment on my post “Is John McCain considering Bloomberg as VP?  Say it ain’t so.”  If the post is not on the front page of this site, you can find it by searching the category “Elections.”

Steve opined that I hold “very extreme views” and that I would vote for McCain regardless of his running mate, because I would not want Obama to win.  Steve also wondered why I would not consider a candidate who backs the “entire constitution,” rather than just a part of it.

If someone thinks my views are extreme, check out Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, and Gun Owners of America.  Because I generally support the more “moderate” positions of the National Rifle Association, I would consider the above groups to be somewhat more strident in their views than I am with regard to the Second Amendment.  JPFO, RMGO, and GOA certainly have their places in the big tent of defenders of individual liberty.  I do agree with them on many issues, while perhaps disagreeing on tactics and the appropriate language of the debate.

I support a strict constructionist interpretation of the Second Amendment.  I am attached to this amendment, because it is the defender of all the other freedoms that we enjoy as citizens.  It is this amendment that sets us apart from the subjects of the United Kingom and other countries where the right of the people to arms is subject to the whims and permission of the government.  Jefferson and the other founders wisely respected the rights of the people to self-defence against crime and tyranny.  As a matter of principle, I support the rest of the Bill of Rights, but it is the Second Amendment that is the cornerstone of American liberty.

When people talk about discarding parts of the Bill of Rights, I am reminded of the old story about the Zen master who was told by a monk that all the preparations for an important meeting were finished except for a few details.  “But,” the Zen master exclaimed, “there are nothing but details!”

The Bill of Rights, in my “very extreme” opinion is a collection of sacrosanct details that is deconstructed, interpreted away, or diminished only at our great peril.  To quote Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black: “It is my belief that there are ‘absolutes’ in our Bill of Rights, and that they were put there on purpose by men who knew what words meant and meant their prohibitions to be ‘absolute.” (Interview before the American Jewish Congress, April 14th, 1962.  Bartlett, John, Familiar Quotations, Fourteenth Edition, Little, Brown and Company, Boston and Toronto, 1968, Page 991b.)

As to whether or not I could be persuaded to abandon John McCain, because of his choice of a VP, I hope and pray I will not be faced with that decision.  On another level, I am working very hard to bring other gun owners into the McCain fold, and trying to convince them to get to the polls and avoid throwing away their votes on third party candidates.  McCain’s VP pick is critical to his support by many gun owners, who rightly or wrongly, may choose to stand on principle and lose, rather than go with a less than perfect candidate. 

Clinton and Gore claimed that gun owners were decisive in the 1994 and 2000 Election Cycles.  I believe that we can play a role again.  Given the hard realities of potential Supreme Court appointments, Redistricting in 2011, and the anti-gun stance of the United Nations, I believe we must vote our self-defense rights in a realistic manner or we will lose our legacy of freedom left to us by the founders.  If these views are extreme, then I am indeed an extremist.

Def Mech

Bolton presented at a Hillsdale College Seminar in February. His speech, “America’s Interests and the U.N., is in the April 2008 issue of Imprimus. Bolton specifically mentions U.S. gun control as a major U.N. objective, in line with their intent of “norming” all national laws to conform with the “international consenus” on a given subject. The U.N. wants to end all private ownership of firearms.

The U.S. Senate and the President could ratify a U.N. treaty that could cause us major headaches. There are Constitutional guarantees, but the wrong Senate and the wrong President might try to brush them aside.

It is not enough to vote this time. If you do not get out and campaign for friendly, electable (generally Republican) candidates,
you could lose your legal right to own a gun.

(Apologies for the formatting. I’m still trying to get a toolbar with format capability and spell check, etc. I feel a little like Archie the cockroach, who, in the stories, had to type on one key at a time and couldn’t use the shift key.)

Def Mech