Via con dios, Jed

Patrick Swayze
1952-2009

Honoring 9-11

I read the below on Breitbart's Big Hollywood blog and thought it was worth re-posting here. A good portion of our crew are current and/or former military, with 3 of them having server in the GWOT and one on his way.

Honoring September 11th: They Wants Us to Forget
by Mark Tapson

“The past is never dead. It’s not even past.” – William Faulkner

“We will write our own future, and the future will be what we want it to be.” – Barack Obama

In a quiet and seemingly innocuous gesture, President Obama has designated 9/11 as “The National Day of Service and Remembrance.” Personally, I liked the ring of “Patriot Day,” and what does “service and remembrance” mean, precisely ? The idea is to get Americans to “engage in meaningful service to create change…in four key areas”: education, health, energy/environment and community renewal. None of these seems to have anything to do with honoring 9/11, but that seems to be the point: in the Huffington Post, Muslim-American playwright Wajahat Ali wrote, “In the US, we are trying to move away from focusing on 9/11 as a day of horror, and instead make it a day to recommit ourselves to national service.” An excellent Spectator article provides a blunter translation: “Nihilistic liberals are planning to drain 9/11 of all meaning.” Why? ”They think it needs to be taken back from the right.”

In other words, they resent the surge of patriotism and righteous outrage stirred up by the attacks, sentiments that empower the political Right. In order to advance the leftist agenda of dismantling American exceptionalism and recasting ourselves as the villain in our history books, they need Americans to put 9/11 behind us, forget the victims, forget that our enemy danced in the streets in celebration, forget that Islamic terror plots on our very shores continue to be disrupted, and forget that our rights and freedoms are under assault by a subversive civilizational jihad.

It seems impossible to believe that that morning could be forgotten – just as it was once impossible to believe that our government could erase “jihad” and “Islamic” and “terrorism” from our national lexicon, preventing us from even naming the enemy, or that an American President could proclaim us no longer a Christian nation, but rather one of the world’s largest Muslim countries. There was a time when screenwriter Cyrus Nowrasteh’s extraordinary 2006 ABC miniseries The Path to 9/11 was going to be shown in schools across this country and be aired every 9/11 anniversary – until the Clinton administration, wanting you to forget their flaccid response to the growing threat of Islamic extremism, and fearing the show would tarnish their political legacy, pulled out all the stops to suppress it; it very nearly wasn’t aired, and today you can’t even obtain it on DVD. (This whole story has been related fascinatingly in John Ziegler’s must-see documentary Blocking the Path to 9/11). It’s impossible to forget that morning only if we fight to keep its memory alive.

Americans can commit themselves to public service any or every other day of the year; 9/11 should be reserved for solemn remembrance and renewed commitment to preserving American security, values and sovereignty. A day of greening your neighborhood? I’m all for planting trees, but what does “green” have to do with 9/11? Only that it’s the color of Islam. But if the President insists, allow me to suggest some service appropriate to the day:

Education? How about this: educate yourself and your children about 9/11 and about the continuing Islamist threat – not only of overt acts of terrorism, but the insidious dangers of “stealth jihad” and “creeping sharia.”

Environment and community renewal? Okay, beautify your block by flying the Stars and Stripes. It sends a simple but unmistakable message to the enemy and their useful idiots that, unlike our post-American President and his fawning media, you are proud to be American; you believe in American exceptionalism; you believe that making this day about installing fluorescent light bulbs trivializes the memory of 9/11’s victims; and you will never let their deaths be in vain or erased from history.

Eight years ago, nineteen fanatical Muslims turned hijacked aircraft carrying hundreds of terrified passengers into missiles targeting symbols of American might. Nearly 3000 innocents died horribly that day, including hundreds of courageous, selfless first responders making a superhuman effort to rescue their fellow citizens. The hijackers are regarded by their fellow Islamists as heroes and martyrs in the cosmic war against the Great Satan America. That war is by no means over, and thus, in the Faulknerian sense, neither is 9/11. We owe it to the victims to keep this day alive in our hearts and national consciousness - and not allow the Left to bury it.

Make no mistake, no matter how the current administration tries to downplay the threat of radical Islam or change the lexicon of the GWOT to make its language more palatable to the PC-minded, what we face is a culture war - the progressive, free-minded, free-markets vs. the last bastions of anachronistic monarchy, oppression, and closed-mindedness.

If you doubt, ask any woman who grew up under the Taliban regime in Afghanistan or Christian expartriates who live and work in the Saudi kingdom.

There is no timetable for a pull-out.

There will be no Paris Accords or effective mutual withdrawal.

We will be fighting this war until the end of time.

April 21, 1836 - The Battle of San Jacinto

The battle of San Jacinto was the concluding military event of the Texas Revolution. On March 13, 1836, the revolutionary army at Gonzales began to retreat eastward. It crossed the Colorado River on March 17 and camped near present Columbia on March 20, recruiting and reinforcements having increased its size to 1,200 men. Sam Houston's scouts reported Mexican troops west of the Colorado to number 1,325. On March 25 the Texans learned of James W. Fannin's defeat at Goliad, and many of the men left the army to join their families on the Runaway Scrape. Sam Houston led his troops to San Felipe de Austin by March 28 and by March 30 to the Jared E. Groce plantation on the Brazos River, where they camped and drilled for a fortnight. Ad interim President David G. Burnet ordered Houston to stop his retreat; Secretary of War Thomas J. Rusk urged him to take a more decisive course. Antonio López de Santa Anna decided to take possession of the Texas coast and seaports. With that object in view he crossed the Brazos River at present Richmond on April 11 and on April 15, with some 700 men, arrived at Harrisburg. He burned Harrisburg and started in pursuit of the Texas government at New Washington or Morgan's Point, where he arrived on April 19 to find that the government had fled to Galveston. The Mexican general then set out for Anahuac by way of Lynchburg. Meanwhile, the Texans, on April 11, received the Twin Sisters and with the cannon as extra fortification crossed the Brazos River on the Yellow Stone and on April 16 reached Spring Creek in present Harris County. On April 17, to the gratification of his men, Houston took the road to Harrisburg instead of the road to Louisiana and on April 18 reached White Oak Bayou at a site within the present city limits of Houston. There he learned that Santa Anna had gone down the west side of the bayou and the San Jacinto River, crossing by a bridge over Vince's Bayou. The Mexicans would have to cross the same bridge to return.

Viewing this strategic situation on the morning of April 19, Houston told his troops that it looked as if they would soon get action and admonished them to remember the massacres at San Antonio and at Goliad. On the evening of April 19 his forces crossed Buffalo Bayou to the west side 2½ miles below Harrisburg. Some 248 men, mostly sick and ineffective, were left with the baggage at the camp opposite Harrisburg. The march was continued until midnight. At dawn on April 20 the Texans resumed their trek down the bayou and at Lynch's Ferry captured a boat laden with supplies for Santa Anna. They then drew back about a mile on the Harrisburg road and encamped in a skirt of timber protected by a rising ground. That afternoon Sidney Sherman with a small detachment of cavalry engaged the enemy infantry, almost bringing on a general action. In the clash Olwyns J. Trask was mortally wounded, one other Texan was wounded, and several horses were killed. Mirabeau B. Lamar, a private, so distinguished himself that on the next day he was placed in command of the cavalry. Santa Anna made camp under the high ground overlooking a marsh about three-fourths of a mile from the Texas camp and threw up breastworks of trunks, baggage, packsaddles, and other equipment. Both sides prepared for the conflict. On Thursday morning, April 21, the Texans were eager to attack. About nine o'clock they learned that Martín Perfecto de Cos had crossed Vince's bridge with about 540 troops and had swelled the enemy forces to about 1,200. Houston ordered Erastus (Deaf) Smith to destroy the bridge and prevent further enemy reinforcements. The move would prevent the retreat of either the Texans or the Mexicans towards Harrisburg.

Shortly before noon, Houston held a council of war with Edward Burleson, Sidney Sherman Henry W. Millard, Alexander Somervell, Joseph L. Bennett, and Lysander Wells. Two of the officers suggested attacking the enemy in his position; the others favored waiting Santa Anna's attack. Houston withheld his own views at the council but later, after having formed his plan of battle had it approved by Rusk. Houston disposed his forces in battle order about 3:30 in the afternoon while all was quiet on the Mexican side during the afternoon siesta. The Texans' movements were screened by trees and the rising ground, and evidently Santa Anna had no lookouts posted. The battle line was formed with Edward Burleson's regiment in the center, Sherman's on the left wing, the artillery under George W. Hockley on Burleson's right, the infantry under Henry Millard on the right of the artillery, and the cavalry under Lamar on the extreme right. The Twin Sisters were wheeled into position, and the whole line, led by Sherman's men, sprang forward on the run with the cry, "Remember the Alamo!" "Remember Goliad!" The battle lasted but eighteen minutes. According to Houston's official report, the casualties were 630 Mexicans killed and 730 taken prisoner. Against this, only nine of the 910 Texans were killed or mortally wounded and thirty were wounded less seriously. Houston's ankle was shattered by a rifle ball. The Texans captured a large supply of muskets, pistols, sabers, mules, horses, provisions, clothing, tents, and $12,000 in silver. Santa Anna disappeared during the battle and search parties were sent out on the morning of the 22. The party consisted of James A. Sylvester, Washington H. Secrest, Sion R. Bostick, and a Mr. Cole discovered Santa Anna hiding in the grass. He was dirty and wet and was dressed as a common soldier. The search party did not recognize him until he was addressed as "el presidente" by other Mexican prisoners. One of the eight inscriptions on the exterior base of the San Jacinto Monument reads: "Measured by its results, San Jacinto was one of the decisive battles of the world. The freedom of Texas from Mexico won here led to annexation and to the Mexican War, resulting in the acquisition by the United States of the states of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, California, Utah, and parts of Colorado, Wyoming, Kansas, and Oklahoma. Almost one-third of the present area of the American nation, nearly a million square miles of territory, changed sovereignty."

From The Handbook of Texas Online

Some perspective

Texas Independence Day - March 2, 1836

One of the most important documents in Texas history is the Declaration of Independence, adopted in general convention at Washington-on-the-Brazos, March 2, 1836.

Declaration of Independence of the Republic of Texas

UNANIMOUS
DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE,
BY THE
DELEGATES OF THE PEOPLE OF TEXAS,
IN GENERAL CONVENTION,
AT THE TOWN OF WASHINGTON,
ON THE SECOND DAY OF MARCH, 1836

When a government has ceased to protect the lives, liberty and property of the people from whom its legitimate powers are derived, and for the advancement of whose happiness it was instituted; and so far from being a guarantee for the enjoyment of those inestimable and inalienable rights, becomes an instrument in the hands of evil rulers for their oppression; when the Federal Republican Constitution of their country, which they have sworn to support, no longer has a substantial existence, and the whole nature of their government has been forcibly changed without their consent, from a restricted federative republic, composed of sovereign states, to a consolidated central military despotism, in which every interest is disregarded but that of the army and the priesthood – both the eternal enemies of civil liberty, and the ever-ready minions of power, and the usual instruments of tyrants; When long after the spirit of the Constitution has departed, moderation is at length, so far lost, by those in power that even the semblance of freedom is removed, and the forms, themselves, of the constitution discontinued; and so far from their petitions and remonstrances being regarded, the agents who bear them are thrown into dungeons; and mercenary armies sent forth to force a new government upon them at the point of the bayonet. When in consequence of such acts of malfeasance and abdication, on the part of the government, anarchy prevails, and civil society is dissolved into its original elements: In such a crisis, the first law of nature, the right of self-preservation – the inherent and inalienable right of the people to appeal to first principles and take their political affairs into their own hands in extreme cases – enjoins it as a right towards themselves and a sacred obligation to their posterity, to abolish such government and create another in its stead, calculated to rescue them from impending dangers, and to secure their future welfare and happiness. Nations, as well as individuals, are amenable for their acts to the public opinion of mankind. A statement of a part of our grievances is, therefore, submitted to an impartial world, in justification of the hazardous but unavoidable step now taken of severing our political connection with the Mexican people, and assuming an independent attitude among the nations of the earth.

Full text.


TEXAS DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE . . . . The Texas edict, like the United States Declaration of Independence, contains a statement on the nature of government, a list of grievances, and a final declaration of independence. The separation from Mexico was justified by a brief philosophical argument and by a list of grievances submitted to an impartial world. The declaration charged that the government of Mexico had ceased to protect the lives, liberty, and property of the people; that it had been changed from a restricted federal republic to a consolidated, central, military despotism; that the people of Texas had remonstrated against the misdeeds of the government only to have their agents thrown into dungeons and armies sent forth to enforce the decrees of the new government at the point of the bayonet; that the welfare of Texas had been sacrificed to that of Coahuila; that the government had failed to provide a system of public education, trial by jury, freedom of religion, and other essentials of good government; and that the Indians had been incited to massacre the settlers. According to the declaration, the Mexican government had invaded Texas to lay waste territory and had a large mercenary army advancing to carry on a war of extermination. The final grievance listed in justification of revolution charged that the Mexican government had been "the contemptible sport and victim of successive military revolutions and hath continually exhibited every characteristic of a weak, corrupt, and tyrannical government." After the signing of the original declaration by fifty-nine delegates, five copies of the document were dispatched to the designated Texas towns of Bexar, Goliad, Nacogdoches, Brazoria, and San Felipe. The printer at San Felipe was also instructed to make 1,000 copies in handbill form.

More.

2009 Texas Gunshow List - Now Updated!

The Texas Gunshow List on Orion Woods Brigade has just been updated for 2009.

Go check it out. And then go check them out.

Texas' Original Sin

December 29, 1845

U.S. Congress approves annexation of Texas

On this day in 1845, the United States Congress voted to annex Texas. Statehood was first proposed in 1837, but was rejected by President Martin Van Buren. Constitutional scruples and fear of war with Mexico were the reasons given for the rejection, but antislavery sentiment in the United States undoubtedly influenced Van Buren and continued to be the chief obstacle to annexation. Under President James Polk the United States Congress passed the Annexation Resolution in February 1845. Texas president Anson Jones called the Texas Congress into session on June 16, 1845, and a convention of elected delegates met on the Fourth of July. Both the Texas Congress and the convention voted for annexation, and a constitution was drawn up. The document was ratified by popular vote in October 1845 and accepted by the United States Congress on December 29, 1845. On February 19, 1846, President Jones of the Republic of Texas handed over control of the new state government to Governor James Pinckney Henderson.

http://www.tshaonline.org/

Hunter-Killer Watch - Drone lands in ND

Ok - yes, economic woes aside, we are still heading towards The Singularity and all of the interesting changes and shifts that includes.

A predator drone has been moved from Arizona to North Dakota to patrol the northern border between the U.S. and Canada.

Here are some details:

After two failed tries, an unmanned aircraft expected to be the first to patrol the northern U.S. border completed a flight from Arizona to North Dakota.

U.S Customs and Border Protection officials said the Predator B drone touched down Saturday at the Grand Forks Air Force Base after a six-hour flight from Libby Army Airfield in Sierra Vista, Ariz.

Is it me, but isn't a little unnerving to think about unmanned aircraft flying across our skies? I wonder how many of these flights that we don't know about.

More details on the Predator:

The Predator weighs 5 tons, has a 66-foot wingspan and can fly undetected as high as 50,000 feet. It can fly for 28 hours at a time and will be equipped with sensors and radar.

They can also be equipped with Hellfire missiles and other nasties for offensive work.

Yikes!

$1000 is the new $500

I went to the SAXET gunshow this morning with some of the crew and was pretty put-off by the amount of price gouging going on with some of the more shady dealers. I expected a little bit of shenanigans due to the recent election, but a quick browse through Shotgun News will show that recent reports of the end of gun ownership in America are a bit premature.

I saw a $700 Golani going for $1100. An Armalite AR-180 selling for $2,599 (not a typo). Wall-to-wall crowds of sorry looking hopefuls trying to find their last chance to get a (gasp!) assault rifle before the laws get passed (no new laws have been suggested).

But the belle of the ball was a Mak-90 (yes - that Mak-90) selling for $1600. The best part was the "faux operator" behind the table (thigh rig, cropped hair cut, 80's aviator glasses) assuring all of the unwashes masses that these were the absolute last ones they could ever hope to get and the The Man was going to come to the show personally by the end of the weekend and collect up anything that hasn't sold.

Sort of a reverse Santa, I suppose.

For shame.

Banning Assault Weapons Because of . . . Mexico?

I've been struggling over the past few weeks, trying to figure out how exactly the Libs are going to take their next step in the war on firearms rights in America. You know it's big on their wish lists and with all four branches of the government now being Democrat (the House, the Senate, the President, and the Media), it seems high time for them to come in together for the Big Win.

Unfortunately, it's not exactly a great time to try to introduce gun control legislation. There's that whole economy thing that us working stiffs want the government is fix. Gun ownership is also on the rise. Crime isn't out of control. And because of the realities of the post-911 world and the really choice way the government handled Katrina and Rita, a lot of people who would have never considered gun ownership in the past have stocked up on arms and ammunition.

Despite getting the Big O elected into office, things were looking pretty good for gun rights in America, especially with the recent DC vs. Heller decision, so you can imagine one might be inclined to let his guard down.

In fact, just last week I was talking to one of my friends at a local gunshow about how Obama never really introduced any new gun control legislation, and since he told Field and Stream he was really interested in any new gun laws, I was feeling pretty good about how we'd do over the next four years.

Then . . . wham! I saw it in this morning's Express News.

Gunrunners' land of plenty

A giant, front page headline. Even more relevant than the recent terrorist attacks in India, more alarming than our nation's financial crisis. All other stories bested by the news that over 1000 guns that were sourced in Texas have been used in crimes in Mexico.

I can see it now . . . since the primary "reason" assault rifles were banned in the 90s - the super crime wave hyped by the media that never came to fruition - is no longer a viable excuse, we are supposed to give up our gun rights because there are criminals doing horrible things in other countries.

Wow. I am just glad Texas doesn't export machetes to Africa!

Wait, I have an idea. Maybe since there are so many problems in central and south America due to America's drug habits, we should ban drugs here. Yes - more laws! That should stop the problem. Criminals will suddenly stop being criminals when they realize there are more laws against their crimes.

Oh wait. That didn't work so well, either.

Here's the crux of the article:

Last year, Texas sellers were the source of 1,131 guns found discarded at shootings in Mexico or confiscated from the cartel gangsters, according to the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. That’s more than twice the number of runner-up California and more than the combined total of 13 top other states.

I am not sure that's altogether too amazing considering the fact that you can't really buy guns in California and there are MILLIONS of gun owners in Texas.

It goes on to describe the nature of the weapons that these thugs in Mexico are so eager to get their hands on:

[Assault Rifles] are so prevalent these days that Mexico authorities have seized 13,000 of them in the last two years, along with thousands of other guns and 3 million rounds of smuggled ammunition, much of it also bought from U.S. retailers.

But wait a minute, I thought they said this was all coming through Texas and the US? I added up all of the numbers on their pretty chart and it totals 4,180 weapons for all of the United States (and BTW - remember that California - land of some of the strictest gun laws in Amercia was in 2nd place with 1006) - this means that the other 8,820 weapons are coming from somewhere other than the US.

In fact, the article also mentions:

Some of the hardware is military grade — rocket launchers and grenades coming into Mexico through Guatemala.

So maybe we need to have Guatemala get on board and get some of these gun laws going there, too?

Here's the deal, folks.

1) Despite what Hollyweird would have you believe (and I am not going to even bother listing all of the movies where this has happened), you can't just wander into a gun store or army-navy store and pick up machine guns and grenades and related military-grade ordinance.

2) Mexico is a corrupt, corrupt country where the almight peso (dollar) can make any of your dreams come true - regardless of what the laws say.

The problems that Mexico is having with gun smuggling isn't because gun laws are so lax in US, but because we have a completely porous border between us and Mexico. I know it isn't popular or hip to say that, but its a choice we're going to have to make as a society - open border (crime, illegal imigration, gun and human smuggling, TB, polio, etc) or closed border (social/political quagmire).

The article even states:

Someone would only have had to drive the guns over the international bridge and then 12 hours to Aguascalientes.

No mention or a search, scan or any type of countermeasures. Just driving over a bridge.

Guns that criminals use are almost always either stolen or purchased for the criminal by a family member. Or bought from some cash-strapped brothel owner at a shooting range. Seriously? That sounds like a judgement call to me and laws don't really do a lot of good to make folks have better judgement.

I think one of the respondents to the article said it best:

We had the assault weapons ban for 10 years. It didn't result in any reductions in crime. I have been in LE for over 30 years. Most of the guns we find in criminal situations are stolen! NOT BOUGHT ACROSS THE COUNTER OR AT GUN SHOWS! Criminals don't usually spend much money on their guns. They prefer buying stolen ones from druggies who need to support their drug habits. A Glock sells across the counter for $500 or more most places. The last one I came across was sold for $50 on the street. It was stolen from an apartment here in SA.

Lastly until Mexico decides it wants to be more then a Third World country they have to deal with their own problems. The article even points out that military armament is coming from Guatemala. I guess we're going to stop that too? With the money being generated from the sale of illegal drugs I would bet that they can buy any guns they want, any time they want. Who's going to stop them? Also please note that they aren't mentioning the AK47 that is coming from China and all parts of the far East by the hundreds of thousands. And sells for pennies compared to the American made AR15s. But then again we wouldn't expect the truth from the media. Just look at the last election for evidence of that.

Here. (San Antonio Express news - 11/30)

And here. (Houston Chronicle - 11/29)

Rest assured this is only the beginning of the "anti-gun" sentiments in the media and the first salvo in the latest war against our gun rights.

Obama's Question #59

A few stories have covered the ridiculously invasive list of questions posted by the New York Times as the official questionnaire being used to qualify folks for a top-level position in the Obama Administration.

After wading through question after question involving potential conflicts of interest, involvement with AIG and Freddie May/Fanny Mac, illegal immigrant nannies and/or servants, potentially damaging past associations, online habits, and controversial and/or candid diary entries, one would think that this would not only disqualify most folks currently living and/or working in Washington DC, but also most everyone living in America over the age of 10. I know we are all looking for the Big Change, but these questions could even disqualify The Man himself.

Of particular interest to our demographic, was one asking specifically about gun ownership of the would-be applicant:

(59) Do you or any members of your immediate family own a gun? If so, provide complete ownership and registration information. Has the registration ever lapsed? Please also describe how and by whom it is used and whether it has been the cause of any personal injuries or property damage.

Some interesting conjecture can arise from this question, most notably the inclusion of gun registration (which differs significantly in meaning and severity depending on geographic locale) and use of firearms in accidents that caused injury to people and/or property. Asking how it is used can also be used to differentiate from "approved" firearms usage - i.e. sporting clays, antique collections, etc. - from "unapproved" uses - like to protect one's family from violent criminals and misguided civilian national security forces gone wild.

Don't be surprised if this is a potential foreshadowing of the aforementioned change to our national gun registration policies, as well as opening up firearms manufacturers to more of the ridiculous litigation that Obama and his ilk are so fond of.

Here's the full list of questions.

More Obama Gun Fun

No sooner had I pulled the trigger on my last post then I realized that there was a veritable full magazine of online articles discussing everyone's fears about gun rights under an Obama presidency.

Gun sales surge after Obama's election

"I have been in business for 12 years, and I was here for Y2K, September 11, Katrina," Conatser said, as a steady stream of customers browsed what remained of his stock. "And all of those were big events, and we did notice a spike in business, but nothing on the order of what we are seeing right now."

Weapons dealers in much of the United States are reporting sharply higher sales since Barack Obama won the presidency a week ago.

Buyers and sellers attribute the surge to worries that Obama and a Democratic-controlled Congress will move to restrict firearm ownership, despite the insistence of campaign aides that the president-elect supports gun rights and considers the issue a low priority.

"I believe the Second Amendment means something. I do think it speaks to an individual right," Obama said in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, in February.

With the U.S. economy in a tailspin, however, the president-elect's advisers say gun legislation is not a high priority.

The October '08 issue of Field and Stream had extensive interviews with both Obama and McCain detailing their opinions on hunting and fishing, gun rights, and conservation. The message from Obama was pretty clear,

"I'm more interested in enforcing the laws that we do have - for example tracing guns that are used in crimes back to people who have been using them. I don't anticipate that there's going to be a whole slew of efforts at the federal level when it comes to gun control. "

However this still hasn't dissuaded anyone from considering him an anti-gun politician, and his record of past votes lies in stark contrast to his election promises.

Apparently, no one is convinced that "common-sense measures" aren't a thinly-disguised metaphor for yet another round of new legislation on "ugly guns."

The good news is that none of this legislation ever happens quickly - and the national economy is a far more pressing issue at this time - but one thing that is apparent is shooters generally aren't getting the warm and fuzzy from Obama on gun rights - despite everything he has said to the contrary.

I understand the reason why everyone is running out and arming up - there are more cool innovations in modern weapons technology available now then ever before:

• Civilian legal FN P90s
• Mad amounts of AR upgrades (Go LaRue!)
• USCM-inspired HK G36-clones
• 37mm flare launchers - oh, my!
  

But it is important to also realize that the focus must remain on preserving our rights - not just so we can go to gun shows and exercise the right our Constitution guarantees, but to fight to preserve these rights so that those who haven't yet gone to gunshows or been to a shooting range - will get the same opportunities that we did.

Get involved!
Gun Owners of America
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
The National Rifle Association

Couldn't see this one coming . . .

Ok - so I am trying to not get a whole mess (literally) of politics into this blog, but this one is notable for the gun show culture. We've all been taking about the inevitability of Obama and what that has to do with 2nd Amendment rights - and apparently this is a sentiment shared fairly generally with gun enthusiasts.

Run on Guns After Obama Wins



Full article.

And another from before the election.

In honor of the upcoming election . . .



Check out Part 2 here.

Ban Guns and the Loonies Will Find Something Else

I saw this little tidbit on Drudge today and it again drives home the proven fact that banning guns doesn't make people safer, it makes law-abiding citizens less able to defend themselves:

Six dead in South Korea fish knife frenzy

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) -- A financially strapped South Korean man went on an arson and stabbing rampage in Seoul on Monday, leaving six people dead and seven others wounded, police said.

The 31-year-old suspect, identified only by his surname, Jeong, first set fire to his room in a low-cost lodging facility in southern Seoul and then stabbed other residents with a sashimi knife while fleeing the fire, police said.

Five people were stabbed to death and another died after jumping out of a window to escape the blaze, police said.

Seven others were wounded, including four seriously, and the death toll could rise, according to police.

The suspect, arrested at the scene, told police he did not want to live because "everybody looks down on me," Kim Kap-shik, chief detective at Seoul's Gangnam Police Station, told reporters.

Yonhap news agency and other media reported that Jeong has been convicted of crimes eight times in the past. Police were not immediately available to confirm Jeong's criminal record.

More.

Once again a career criminal with a history of mental illness goes off and engages in violence against the citizenry. That is so bizarre. And unpredictable.

If they'd had a way to defend themselves, then someone wouldn't have had to jump out of a window to get away from the attacker. On second thought, anyone who jumps out of a multiple-story window to avoid a knife attack may not be the most tactically minded person in an emergency situation.

Britain has a law now banning "assault knives" as the number of people using knives and swords in crimes has exploded. Taking away guns didn't make England safer (ask the Home Guard veterans about this, if anyone over there is still alive that remembers) , but instead forced criminals to find a new way to conduct their nefarious deeds. The citizens - now unarmed - are left to their own devices and must rely on random chance to not become the victims of crime.

Banning guns does nothing to reduce crime. Reduction in crime comes from taking a long look at what causes the problem (unemployment, ridiculous drug laws, disenfranchisement with society, a lack of opportunity or hugs/love from parents) - versus trying to stop it by taking away people's rights.

We have enough laws, statutes, provisions, and acts to restrict us in every aspect of our lives from now until The Judgment. What we need is to punish the hell out of folks who use guns in a crime - mandatory sentences - and get these violent ne'er-do-wells off of the streets and away from giving gun haters the ammunition they need for their ultimate goal of banning private firearms ownership.

You Don't Agree With Me - You Must Be A Racist!

Ah, the good old days.

I remember back in my college days when I would get involved in debates/yelling matches on the West Mall at UT. It was the standard post-high school goodness - you remember these times - you had just left mommy and daddy's house and you claimed you knew everything.

Years later - 10 years into my career and knee deep in families, mortgages and 'real life' action - now I claim I know nothing. :)

Anyway, back in those days, being a young, semi-conservative Christian at a very liberal school, I was assured by my erudite college mates, homeless folks, and other questionable adults who for some reason had the ability to spend all day arguing with kids (still trying to figure out what job that was) - that all of the beliefs that I held dearly were wrong.

The Bible was wrong. Gun ownership was wrong. The right to self-defense was wrong. The Civil War was all about slavery and had nothing to do with the long-running battle over states rights vs. federal rights. For God sakes, even being a "real man" was wrong. Everything I stood for. Challenged, crapped on, spat on - because my rules for living came from a 2000 year-old-book* - not from whatever the latest word was from Hollywood celebs and the MTV-culture set.

The arguments were pointless. It was two perspectives with such a wide delta between them that there was no way we would reach common ground. My basis for belief was scorned (even though most of these folks would also claim to support 1st amendment rights - but not for all beliefs, apparently), but because I wouldn't accept their perspective as dogma, I was stupid.

Here is how a typical "debate" went down:

Angry Man #1: "There is no Jesus."

Me: "Yes, there is"

Angry Man #1: "How can you believe such mythology?"

Me: "Because of faith, and the Bible"

Angry Man #1: "The Bible is wrong. And bad."

Me: "I don't agree with that."

Angry Man #1: "Then you are STUPID!"

That was it - I was stupid. College scores, SAT scores, IQ tests - useless in the face of my inability to turn my back on my beliefs and my God.

But at least back then, I was only called "stupid."

Now, I would be considered racist for not agreeing with the liberal intelligentsia.

Because surely, if I don't agree with the supposition, that in this time - certainly the greatest moral, political, ideological and economic crisis this country has ever faced - if I don't buy their hype and support their ridiculous policies, then it is not because their candidate is unqualified, it is not because I happen to not agree with his politics or his charisma, it is because I am racist.

Calling me racist is an unacceptable lie that denies the legitimacy of my right to take part in the political process - and makes them look like fools in the process.

Please go back to just calling me stupid for not thinking the way you do.

* BTW - Christianity is based on the concept of freewill - the only major religion to do so. Freewill also happens to be the entire basis of Western Culture and democracy.

And just like that . . . the commies won!

As an ardent supporter of a free market economy, I - like many other Americans (98% of emails to the White House over the past week or so - according to some sources) - have been appalled by the lack of perspective in some of the government bailout nightmares that have been taking place in the last few weeks.

Some of the recent policies are so socialist in their application that they are making FDR look like an ardent conservative.

Here's the latest piece of hogwash to cross the radars:

US government may take part ownership in banks

WASHINGTON (AP) - News that the Bush administration is considering taking part ownership in a number of U.S. banks helped restore a relative calm over global financial markets Thursday.

The aim of such a move would be to thaw the lending freeze that threatens to push the world's economy into recession. It comes after rampant fear about the global economy sent investors scurrying on Tuesday for safety in U.S. government securities despite an orchestrated round of rate cuts by the world's central banks.

Investors also were hoping that selling, which gave the Dow its ninth straight day of losses, was overdone. Wall Street began the day higher, but then slid after declines in some blue chip names like General Motors Corp. weighed on the markets.

An administration official, who spoke late Tuesday on condition of anonymity because no decision has been made, said the $700 billion rescue package passed by Congress last week allows the Treasury Department to inject fresh capital into financial institutions and get ownership shares in return.

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson told reporters that Treasury was moving quickly to implement the $700 billion rescue effort and he specifically mentioned reviewing ways to bolster the capital of banks.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D93N27U01

Not to be conspiratorial here, but what the hell is going on?

I don't know where we lost our way (but I think it may have happened sometime in the 1960s), but we are not the country we were when we set-off to defeat fascist nationalism in Europe during the 1940s.

Let's take a look and see where we are in the process:

10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto

(My emphasis in bold)

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all right of inheritance

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c., &c.

From wikipedia.

I am not smart enough to know exactly what the hell items 7, 8, and 9 mean, but I can tell there is a general movement in this country to change the culture of America - from the cradle of the industrial revolution and the envy of the world, to the a shadow of its past greatness - where the political focus has moved from being a beacon of light for the rest of the world - to being a giant hand-out machine to everyone who thinks they need to have a suck at the big government tit.

What a world we live in where the Russians are the capitalists and the Americans are becoming the communists!

Some of my more left-leaning friends would have you believe that communism is the most equitable system of government . . . it just has never worked in modern, non-nomadic societies because it hasn't been hasn't been their whiny, disenfranchised version of it.

Ron Paul's Perspective on the Economy

Dear Friends:

The financial meltdown the economists of the Austrian School predicted has arrived.

We are in this crisis because of an excess of artificially created credit at the hands of the Federal Reserve System. The solution being proposed? More artificial credit by the Federal Reserve. No liquidation of bad debt and malinvestment is to be allowed. By doing more of the same, we will only continue and intensify the distortions in our economy - all the capital misallocation, all the malinvestment - and prevent the market's attempt to re-establish rational pricing of houses and other assets.

Last night the president addressed the nation about the financial crisis. There is no point in going through his remarks line by line, since I'd only be repeating what I've been saying over and over - not just for the past several days, but for years and even decades.

Still, at least a few observations are necessary.

The president assures us that his administration "is working with Congress to address the root cause behind much of the instability in our markets." Care to take a guess at whether the Federal Reserve and its money creation spree were even mentioned?

We are told that "low interest rates" led to excessive borrowing, but we are not told how these low interest rates came about. They were a deliberate policy of the Federal Reserve. As always, artificially low interest rates distort the market. Entrepreneurs engage in malinvestments - investments that do not make sense in light of current resource availability, that occur in more temporally remote stages of the capital structure than the pattern of consumer demand can support, and that would not have been made at all if the interest rate had been permitted to tell the truth instead of being toyed with by the Fed.

Not a word about any of that, of course, because Americans might then discover how the great wise men in Washington caused this great debacle. Better to keep scapegoating the mortgage industry or "wildcat capitalism" (as if we actually have a pure free market!).

Speaking about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the president said: "Because these companies were chartered by Congress, many believed they were guaranteed by the federal government. This allowed them to borrow enormous sums of money, fuel the market for questionable investments, and put our financial system at risk."

Doesn't that prove the foolishness of chartering Fannie and Freddie in the first place? Doesn't that suggest that maybe, just maybe, government may have contributed to this mess? And of course, by bailing out Fannie and Freddie, hasn't the federal government shown that the "many" who "believed they were guaranteed by the federal government" were in fact correct?

Then come the scare tactics. If we don't give dictatorial powers to the Treasury Secretary "the stock market would drop even more, which would reduce the value of your retirement account. The value of your home could plummet." Left unsaid, naturally, is that with the bailout and all the money and credit that must be produced out of thin air to fund it, the value of your retirement account will drop anyway, because the value of the dollar will suffer a precipitous decline. As for home prices, they are obviously much too high, and supply and demand cannot equilibrate if government insists on propping them up.

It's the same destructive strategy that government tried during the Great Depression: prop up prices at all costs. The Depression went on for over a decade. On the other hand, when liquidation was allowed to occur in the equally devastating downturn of 1921, the economy recovered within less than a year.

The president also tells us that Senators McCain and Obama will join him at the White House today in order to figure out how to get the bipartisan bailout passed. The two senators would do their country much more good if they stayed on the campaign trail debating who the bigger celebrity is, or whatever it is that occupies their attention these days.

F.A. Hayek won the Nobel Prize for showing how central banks' manipulation of interest rates creates the boom-bust cycle with which we are sadly familiar. In 1932, in the depths of the Great Depression, he described the foolish policies being pursued in his day - and which are being proposed, just as destructively, in our own:

Instead of furthering the inevitable liquidation of the maladjustments brought about by the boom during the last three years, all conceivable means have been used to prevent that readjustment from taking place; and one of these means, which has been repeatedly tried though without success, from the earliest to the most recent stages of depression, has been this deliberate policy of credit expansion.

To combat the depression by a forced credit expansion is to attempt to cure the evil by the very means which brought it about; because we are suffering from a misdirection of production, we want to create further misdirection - a procedure that can only lead to a much more severe crisis as soon as the credit expansion comes to an end... It is probably to this experiment, together with the attempts to prevent liquidation once the crisis had come, that we owe the exceptional severity and duration of the depression.

The only thing we learn from history, I am afraid, is that we do not learn from history.

The very people who have spent the past several years assuring us that the economy is fundamentally sound, and who themselves foolishly cheered the extension of all these novel kinds of mortgages, are the ones who now claim to be the experts who will restore prosperity! Just how spectacularly wrong, how utterly without a clue, does someone have to be before his expert status is called into question?

Oh, and did you notice that the bailout is now being called a "rescue plan"? I guess "bailout" wasn't sitting too well with the American people.

The very people who with somber faces tell us of their deep concern for the spread of democracy around the world are the ones most insistent on forcing a bill through Congress that the American people overwhelmingly oppose. The very fact that some of you seem to think you're supposed to have a voice in all this actually seems to annoy them.

I continue to urge you to contact your representatives and give them a piece of your mind. I myself am doing everything I can to promote the correct point of view on the crisis. Be sure also to educate yourselves on these subjects - the Campaign for Liberty blog is an excellent place to start. Read the posts, ask questions in the comment section, and learn.

H.G. Wells once said that civilization was in a race between education and catastrophe. Let us learn the truth and spread it as far and wide as our circumstances allow. For the truth is the greatest weapon we have.

In liberty,

Ron Paul

Check out - http://www.campaignforliberty.com/

September 11, 2008

Woo-hoo, the Olympics!


Fun for everyone . . . . except Christians, those who speak out loud, parents, Zhang Zhixin, press folk, fringe religions, Tibetans, rural villagers, minorities, any religions and free thinkers.

Go USA Badminton!

That's What's Up - Some Freedom!


Supreme Court finds individual right to own guns

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Thursday, for the first time in the nation's history, that individual Americans have the right to own guns for personal use, and struck down a strict gun control law in the nation's capital.

The landmark 5-4 ruling marked the first time in nearly 70 years that the high court has addressed whether the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, rather than a right tied to service in a state militia.

Here.


Court rules in favor of Second Amendment gun right

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.

Here.


Court: A constitutional right to a gun

Answering a 127-year old constitutional question, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to have a gun, at least in one’s home. The Court, splitting 5-4, struck down a District of Columbia ban on handgun possession.

Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion for the majority stressed that the Court was not casting doubt on long-standing bans on gun possession by felons or the mentally retarded, or laws barring guns from schools or government buildings, or laws putting conditions on gun sales.

In District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290), the Court nullified two provisions of the city of Washington’s strict 1976 gun control law: a flat ban on possessing a gun in one’s home, and a requirement that any gun — except one kept at a business — must be unloaded and disassembled or have a trigger lock in place. The Court said it was not passing on a part of the law requiring that guns be licensed.

Here.


Court rules in favor of Second Amendment gun right

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court says Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.

The court's 5-4 ruling strikes down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision goes further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.

Here.

The Death of the Omega Man


"Political correctness is tyranny with a happy face."

- Charlton Heston, 1923-2008

Get your hands off my guns, you damn dirty Apes!

Everyone has their day in court, or so the saying goes. For those of you who have been living in a cave, on Mars - with your eyes closed and your fingers in your ears - The Supreme Court began to hear arguments today in a Washington DC case that challenges the classic question of the Second Amendment - whether the right to own a weapon is a individual or state right.

Overall the news I have heard so far is fairly positive on the pro-gun side, but knowing how screwy things are right now, I am sure that can change fairly quickly.



In either case, and in honor of this momentous occasion, I have to give a plug for the controversial and wonderful Unintended Consequences by John Ross. It was recommended to me by one of my hunting buddies and its a great novel about how gun control got started in America and where it can lead if it goes out of control.

Here's an overview. I am sure some would consider it to be fairly alarmist, but it gives some background on how gun control started in this country (post-reconstruction to keep guns out of the hands of the recently freed slaves) and how ridiculous some of the gun control laws are vs. the amount of crime they are actually preventing.

I think it stands with Boston' s Gun Bible as two of the best books for the shooter who is interested in self-defense and wants to know more about

Also - while researching the web today to get the latest on the case I found this great deconstruction of the most common arguments against the Second Amendment.

The article breaks down 5 arguments against the individual right to own a firearm - even getting into the details of what it would actually mean if we limited private ownership of firearms to the actual weapons around at the time of the Constitution.

I won't spoil the fun, but let's just say we'd be limited to around 1820 or so, when the percussion cap replaced flintlock ignition as the new standard. High tech!

Here's an excerpt:

The Second Amendment’s basis lies in the natural right of self-defense. For the Founding Fathers, the Second Amendment was not a dispensable exercise in “what if?” They had confronted an oppressive government with personal armaments and succeeded in securing liberty. The Second Amendment is a provision ensuring that citizens would always have the necessary tools for physical resistance to future tyranny.

Whether or not you are a gun owner, hunter or recreational shooter, pay attention to the news and watch what happens with this case. The old Chinese proverb May You Live In Interesting Times will go double for the next few months as we'll not only be deciding which two shysters will be running for President in the fall, but also seeing how the Supreme Court does at deciding a real case - with ramifications that could shake our Republic down to its very core.

Ok - too dramatic?

Does this put it into perspective?



More information
Gun Owners of America
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
A Human Right

The Experience of Office?

I am not a huge fan of Rudy Giuliani. I am more or less a single issue voter and I would have to say his treatment of my issue has been overall pretty crappy.

However, despite my misgivings about him, I am downright frightened of Hillary Clinton. Giuliani made a great point about her experience in a news flash I read on Drudge and I am wondering why more folks aren't picking up on this:

R. GIULIANI: "Honestly, in most respects, I don't know Hillary's experience. She's never run a city, she's never run a state. She's never run a business. She has never met a payroll. She has never been responsible for the safety and security of millions of people, much less even hundreds of people.

"So I'm trying to figure out where the experience is here. It would seem to me that in a time of difficult problems and war we don't want on the job training for an executive. The reality is that these areas in which - maybe there are
some areas in which she has experience but the areas of having the responsibility of the safety and security of millions of people on your shoulders is not something Hillary has ever had any experience with."

Truth be told, Hillary basically came into office off name recognition and really doesn't have any experience running anything. She was an associate at a law firm in Arkansas. We all saw how wonderfully that worked out for the country.

However, no one is talking about this. But then again - when is the last time someone did have relevant real-world experience and wasn't just another wishy-washy politician saying whatever they thought would get them elected?

I don't really pay enough attention to really comment, but I think most of the candidates are pretty bad in this race and it's amazing how close the 'politics' are on these supposedly different sides of the political fence. Pro-war Democrats? Anti-gun Republicans?

Be that as it may, I refuse to fall into the vote for this person, so this person doesn't get elected mindset that has plagued American voters for the past generation or so.

If we really do want change for the better, we'll have to support real people that are outside of the Establishment's political machine.

Power to the People . . . Tech People

TenSix Redz sent me over this great bit about the libertarian nature of folks in the technology sector and how a more distributed model of government may soon be on the horizon.

Technology Will
Change Politics From Top Down To Bottom Up
from the but-it-won't-be-pleasant-in-the-meantime dept

Sometimes people wonder why so many people in the tech industry tend to fall into more of a "libertarian" viewpoint on things. Perhaps it's because they realize the empowering nature of technology to do away with the need for many more centralized top down structures. The reason that we often have big top down structures is because there was no efficient way to spread the control outwards, so you consolidate power at the top allowing someone else to make decisions for a large group of people as their "representative." However, technology erodes some of that, by creating more efficient means of communication, breaking down the need for such top down control. We see it many different aspects. Companies today are more fluid, with a much more bottom up approach. Products and services that involve a bottom up approach are becoming more popular (and more useful) every day. So it's only a matter of time until the same thing happens to the government.

It's almost surprising to find out that there's a high ranking politician who recognizes this. Apparently the UK's Tory leader David Cameron made exactly that point, noting that politicians need to let go, and let the technology distribute tasks out to citizens, rather than trying to control everything centrally. Of course, it's one thing to say it and another thing altogether to do it. Those who came up through the "old" way, which grants more power and control at the top freak out at the idea of giving up that control. You see it today with the way Microsoft reacts to open source, the way the RIAA reacts to Napster, to the way newspapers react to citizen journalism. They close up, circle the wagons and talk about how important that control is -- though, not in those terms exactly. Instead, they trash the quality of the more chaotic bottom up system, missing the point that it's not about the average quality, but the the abundance of options that make quality more personalized. The same thing will happen in politics as well. Many people get into politics (or get hooked on politics) because of the power that comes with it. Getting them to give up that power won't be easy by any means. But it will happen. It'll just mean a period of rather painful adjustment.

His emphasis above.

All and all I think that the power of technology to allow different voices to be heard and express themselves is a great thing (well, duh!). Unfortunately also I think the downside of all of this is that The Man is probably not be very excited about these changes to their tradtional hold on things. Though I think this will be a time of great opportunity for freedom, but there will be an equal opportunity for the rights of the people to be stomped about in the name of preserving order, tranquility, right of the landowners, etc.

Ahem . . . I digress.

I think the "age of the Internet" hasn't even really begun.

Just keep an eye out for the hunter-killers.

A liberal's lament: The NRA might be right after all

By Jonathan Turley

This term, the Supreme Court may finally take up the Voldemort Amendment, the part of the Bill of Rights that shall not be named by liberals. For more than 200 years, progressives and polite people have avoided acknowledging that following the rights of free speech, free exercise of religion and free assembly, there is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." Of course, the very idea of finding a new individual right after more than two centuries is like discovering an eighth continent in constitutional law, but it is hardly the cause of celebration among civil liberties groups.

Like many academics, I was happy to blissfully ignore the Second Amendment. It did not fit neatly into my socially liberal agenda. Yet, two related cases could now force liberals into a crisis of conscience. The Supreme Court is expected to accept review of District of Columbia v. Heller and Parker v. District of Columbia, involving constitutional challenges to the gun-control laws in Washington.

The D.C. law effectively bars the ownership of handguns for most citizens and places restrictions on other firearms. The District's decision to file these appeals after losing in the D.C. appellate court was driven more by political than legal priorities. By taking the appeal, D.C. politicians have put gun-control laws across the country at risk with a court more likely to uphold the rulings than to reverse them. It has also put the rest of us in the uncomfortable position of giving the right to gun ownership the same fair reading as more favored rights of free press or free speech.

The Framers' intent

Principle is a terrible thing, because it demands not what is convenient but what is right. It is hard to read the Second Amendment and not honestly conclude that the Framers intended gun ownership to be an individual right. It is true that the amendment begins with a reference to militias: "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." Accordingly, it is argued, this amendment protects the right of the militia to bear arms, not the individual.

Yet, if true, the Second Amendment would be effectively declared a defunct provision. The National Guard is not a true militia in the sense of the Second Amendment and, since the District and others believe governments can ban guns entirely, the Second Amendment would be read out of existence.

Another individual right

More important, the mere reference to a purpose of the Second Amendment does not alter the fact that an individual right is created. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is stated in the same way as the right to free speech or free press. The statement of a purpose was intended to reaffirm the power of the states and the people against the central government. At the time, many feared the federal government and its national army. Gun ownership was viewed as a deterrent against abuse by the government, which would be less likely to mess with a well-armed populace.

Considering the Framers and their own traditions of hunting and self-defense, it is clear that they would have viewed such ownership as an individual right — consistent with the plain meaning of the amendment.

None of this is easy for someone raised to believe that the Second Amendment was the dividing line between the enlightenment and the dark ages of American culture. Yet, it is time to honestly reconsider this amendment and admit that ... here's the really hard part ... the NRA may have been right. This does not mean that Charlton Heston is the new Rosa Parks or that no restrictions can be placed on gun ownership. But it does appear that gun ownership was made a protected right by the Framers and, while we might not celebrate it, it is time that we recognize it.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors.



From -

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/10/a-liberals-lame.html



Check the original posting to see all of the comments.



It gives me hope yet for America.