Elkhorn Creek Lodge

Now for a Real ‘Conversation’ on Guns

Posted in second amendment, us constitution by Eugene Podrazik on April 21, 2013

This is the best of various outcomes.  A complete crash and burn of the latest gun control push in the Senate last week.  Because, there was never a real dialogue, a real two way conversation.  The very legislation again played into the fundamental dishonesty of the gun control forces; a never settled, always expanding net of laws, rules and regulations with intent, little by little, to strangle the Second Amendment.

The Toomey-Manchin background check compromise is a prime example of that dishonesty.  The proposed bill was better only by being less bad that the original bill, authored by Senator Schumer, that it replaced.  For all of its high minded protection of the Second Amendment, it was riddled with loopholes that could at a later date be exploited into creating a de facto registry by compiling any and all information already in the hands of the Federal government.

And, in the states, where Democratic Party control stood unchecked, laws have been passed with wild abandon that utterly render the original intend of the Second Amendment entirely meaningless.  Laws that make it a felony to possess heretofore perfect legal firearms.  Bans on firearms and accessories that have caused whole companies to move with wholesale loss of jobs, manufacturing jobs, in those states.

In Colorado, we have the example of Magpul, whose biggest business, is making standard 30 round magazines.  Yet, at the stroke of a pen, Colorado’s governor has make that business illegal.  This from a man, who prior to entering politics, made his money making and selling beer.  A product that once too was made illegal at the stroke of a pen during the prohibition.  Irony proof.

But, let’s have a real conversation.  First is the purpose of the Second Amendment.   It’s purpose is not about sport or hunting.  The purpose of the Constitution and Bill of Right was to build a country, not a country club.  It was about having an individual right to access to up-to-date weaponry to give the individual parity in acting in concert to repel an invasion or insurrection.  To repel criminal agents in the pay of a tyrant.  To repel criminal agents who would attempt to harm you or kill you, attempt to invade your home or business, attempt to harm or kill your family.

In fact, the greatest threat to life from criminal activity is an armed government against an unarmed civilian populace.  Over 100 million unarmed civilians have been killed by the likes of Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot over the twentieth century.  Above and beyond the casualties of war by armed combatants in that era.  Horrors never visited upon our country by virtue of an armed civilian populace.

Let’s have a conversation about the stupidity of the ‘gun free’ zone; the very cause of these sensationalized mass murders.  For the Aurora, Colorado mass killer, there were ten such movie theaters between his residence and ultimate venue for his outrage.  The theater he picked was the one that specifically had a ‘gun free’ policy.  Ditto just about every school in this country; except Utah which allow concealed carry on campus by its teachers.  Been working well now for several years.

A gun free zone is an unrestricted kill zone.  The only way to prevent these mass shootings from happening is to immediately meet that threat with lethal force.  Where this happens by virtue of an armed citizen (usually concealed carry), the causality rate is kept to about two victims.  Where the armed citizen isn’t present (or prohibited) the causality rate rises to an average of 16 victims by the time the police arrive.

Then too is a conversation over the so-called ‘assault weapons’ ban.  There is a reason our police and soldiers are armed with AR15 variant rifles, standard 30 round magazines, semi-automatic pistols and their attendant 15 round magazines.  Those reasons also apply to the armed citizen.  First, the citizen will need firearms of military utility because of the expectations of militia duty–namely, being expected to come forth in time of emergency armed with weapons, furnished by themselves, in common use.  The AR15 rifle is becoming the preferred home defense weapon.  It is light, with a light recoil, making it accurate and easy to control thereby minimizing the risk of collateral damage.  The telescoping stock makes the rifle adjustable for use by a 6’4″ man or this more diminutive wife.  The 30 round magazine helps minimize weapon manipulation allow a single defender to stand and survive against multiple assailants.

On second thought, let’s not have a conversation.  Fresh from some sort of electoral ‘mandate’ last November, with a really sensational mass murder to flog, the Democratic Party stripped off its mask and showed it true intentions.  Not ‘reasonable’ controls, but a mad rush to pile on every regulation imaginable.  Laws written behind closed doors, no hearings, no debate or reflection.  A real conversation, is first of all, undergirded by good faith.

Advertisements

Boston and the Police State

Posted in second amendment, terrorism, us constitution by Eugene Podrazik on April 21, 2013

Though not particularly articulated as such, I think that American’s reluctance to wage war is the fact that the use of force is done in the absence of due process.  But, saying that, when Americans to wage war, a successful war, it is best done in the American style of warfare–to take the battle to the enemy and take the enemy apart.  One of the distinct advantages of this style of warfare is the fact, by virtue of distance, the rule of law can be preserved at home while the violation of such occurs on the enemy’s territory.

Which brings us to the manner in which the manhunt for the two Muslim terrorists was conducted in Boston.  In some respects, the response should be frightening.  A whole city shut down by a literal army of militarized police forces, all with weapons unholstered and at the ready.  Door to door searches by these same government agents against an essentially unarmed civilian populace.  Massachusetts’ gun law make it so; if these gun laws existed in 1775 there’d be no Lexington or Concord and we’d all be speaking Canadian (ht: P.J. O’Rourke).

This brings into direct relief the wisdom of the manner in which our last President chose to fight.  That is, taking the battle to the enemy.  It had the advantage of keeping the enemy so busy that they had to time to take the initiative to our shores.  It avoided having to fight a battle in the midst of your own civilian population with all of the attendant problems of stretching the Bill of Rights.  With a city essentially under martial law, complete with police forces essentially indistinguishable for infantry soldiers, where were the limits?  Could they enter a house against the owner’s wishes?  What questions could or did they ask?  “Did you see anyone that looked like the two bombers?”  Or, “Are you hiding someone here?  We’ll need to come and check.”  “Do you have any guns, we’ll need to make sure.”

Not paranoia.  With out any warrants, the police entered multiple homes in New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and seized guns.  Guns to this very day that haven’t been returned.

First, is the problem of blowing the problem up out of proportion.  Let’s face it, two terrorists against a city of millions and the whole city shut down.  In some less ‘enlightened’  cities in fly-over country, the minute those two came up for air, it would have been all over before the police arrived.  The shoot out at the Seven-Eleven that left the older of the two dead, would have ended with both of those two dead or captured in the hands of armed citizens before the police arrived.

But, like Mumbai in 2008, a terrorist plot paralyzed an entire city because the extinction of a gun culture, so it is with Boston.  A population totally habituated to letting the ‘experts,’ the ‘authorities’ handle it.  A entire city unable to two isolated losers because only the authorities should handle guns.  In my hometown of Casper, where essentially every household is armed, these two fugitives wouldn’t have a chance.  Yes, they might still set off a bomb.  But, after that, they better be miles out of town if they want a chance to survive.

More to the point is the fact that by creating a conditioning of someone else handling the problem, we create bigger problems than if we trusted our own citizens to use their judgement and handle the problem on a ‘retail’ level.  Think back to September 11, 2001.  What if the eight pilots and copilots were armed?  (And, don’t give me the shocked response of ‘guns on an airplane, they’ll go off and we’ll crash!’.  The planes crashed anyway.)   What if the common ‘wisdom,’ going back to the first hijackings in the 60’s to Cuba of sitting by passively had not applied and the passengers rushed the hijackers.  How much different the fundamental history of the last decade would have been.

Then, there is the conditioning that placing an entire city under essentially martial law is now the norm.  Maybe it was, in this case, justified in the name of public safety.  But, what about the future, will the deployment of an army in a major city be done for baser reasons?  Rooting out undesirables?  Confiscating guns?  Searching to ‘incriminating’ contraband?  Public safety or dry run for a police state?