For a couple of years now it’s been rather en vogue for a liberal or otherwise anti-gun media outlet to find and publish a list of private citizens with a concealed weapons carry permit.  The latest organization succumbing to this infringement on a person’s right to privacy is out of Memphis, Tennessee.  NRAILA.org reports that CommercialAppeal.com listed Tennessee’s citizens who maintain a right-to-carry permit.

It would be bad enough if the list stopped with a simple first and last name.

Instead, CommercialAppeal.com decided to really violate a person’s right to privacy by listing full name, home address, city, zip code, date of birth, when the permit was issued, and when it will expire.

I won’t touch on the ramifications of such private data listed on the internet; identity theft is so rampant that even the mainstream media acknowledges it’s a huge problem.  There are a number of privacy laws from the local municipality all the way to the U.S. Constitution that CommercialAppeal.com has violated; I won’t speak to this because the laws are well known and should be applied to every law-abiding citizen of Tennessee, and the United States.

The main purpose behind exposing a law-abiding citizen to such a violation of his or her privacy has nothing to do with the citizen and everything to do with the guns.  We are told that guns kill people and should be taken out of our nation’s economy.  It’s a difficult thing to do, really; banning guns in the same country that has relied on guns for its own independence has met with fierce resistance from folk who despise the NRA.  

Hence the recent attempt by various legally-challenged media outlets to shame the law-abiding citizen into giving up his or her Second Amendment rights to self-preservation.

And I think this is a great idea.

Let me throw my whole-hearted support behind such a tactic, in fact, I think there should be more lists like this on the internet.

For instance, we should have a list of every woman who’s ever had an abortion; we should tabulate the list with her full name (married and maiden), home address, city, zip code, date of birth, when the abortion(s) were performed and at what facility.

I mean, guns kill people, right?  And we need to shame the gun owners into stopping their guns from killing people by violating his or her right to privacy to do so.  Or at least that’s what CommercialAppeal.com believes.

Abortions kill people, right?  Last time I checked, abortions killed orders of magnitude more people than guns.  We should have such a detailed list on the internet to help prevent those deaths, too.

What’s a little privacy infringement in the name of social justice?  This list would save lives.

First, let me get the full disclosure out of the way; I believe marriage should be defined as the union between heterosexual partners – that is, one man and one woman; I’m against gay marriage; I think gay marriage is an overt attack on the sanctity of the family. Since the family unit is the bedrock and smallest cohesive unit of society, I view gay marriage as an attack on the American way of life. Now, I don’t care if a gay couple wants to cohabitate and do whatever it is gay couples do; what happens in the privacy of a home should remain private. That privacy does not extend to birthing (in the case of lesbians) or adopting (either gender) children; children are the fruits of a heterosexual union and should remain that way; so you could say I’m against gay couples having children, too. 

Basically, I’ve always felt that each should be true to him or herself; I’ve only asked for that same courtesy in return. But we’ve gone beyond that now. Gays not only want me to tolerate them in their aberrance, but they are demanding I approve of their lifestyle and choices. This I will never do. 

So we have another gross miscarriage of justice in California this week. Voters in California decided that gay marriage was not for them; in 2000 61% of them voted to ban the practice. This week, the California Supreme Court decided to ignore the will of the voters. Instead of sending the law back to the Legislature to be rewritten, four of the seven justices took it upon themselves to not only overturn the ban, but to legalize gay marriage.

Guess those judges were asleep during the civics classes describing the separation of powers. But I stray.

In thinking about this news and discussing it with my girl, it occurred to me that gay marriage, as ugly and disgusting as it is, will actually be a boon to heterosexual divorce. Follow along with me, reader, and you’ll see where I’m headed in a moment.

Traditionally, when heterosexual couples marry and divorce, the wife is given preferential treatment. The treatment is so preferential that some fathers never get to see their children again. But, in the less extreme, courts have forced fathers to give up the majority of their pay to support the children and ex-wife, subjected the father to supervised visitation if the ex-wife even hints there’s something improper about his relationship with his children, and the list goes on. I challenge you to do a little research into it and read with the dismay of millions of fathers who are being treated like criminals – because they are male.

But now, gay marriage will save all that; it will right the justice system in a way that the men’s movement never could; it will end the prejudice against men and fathers and force a judge to award custody and support based on merit instead of gender roles.

How is gay marriage going to do all this? Easy – gay divorce.

It is a sad fact of our society that over half of all marriages end in divorce. I don’t think gay divorce statistics will be much different (not the honest ones, anyway). So when a gay couple stands before a judge to divvy up the estate, custody, who pays how much in child support, he or she will be forced to view the partners based on merit. Merit here means the ability to contribute to the support of the children. In a male gay couple divorce, there is no woman to automatically prefer with ridiculous child support requirements and draconian visitation rules imposed upon the father. The judge will have to drop this blatant sexism in favor of something more fair; from each according to his ability.

Similarly, in female gay divorces, a judge can’t automatically favor one female over the other – he or she will again be forced to view the case based on the merit of each partner.

We have in our judicial system a preference for previous decisions. The term used is stare decisis, in effect, ‘let the decision stand’. For example, if it was decided in 1967 that ‘separate but equal’ was not Constitutional, any other case that was similar would consider the judge’s decision and usually rule in a comparable manner. 

This is where I bring the tractor-trailer all the way around. Given that merit will be the requirement in gay divorce, it will only be fair and just for heterosexual divorce. No longer will men be treated as a criminal, as nothing more than the gene donor and pocketbook, as nothing more than a dalliance from which the ex-wife can be supported for the rest of her life. True justice will finally – finally – be granted to fathers and ex-husbands, justice that has previously been withheld for a myriad of reasons ranging from prejudice to outright disdain for the male gender. 

I don’t think gay marriage is right for our country or its future and I oppose it in any form it takes. If we are to have this travesty in our society perhaps there’ll be something good borne out of this evil; fathers will once again be respected, sought for more than his paycheck, and put on equal ground as mothers.

It’s about time.

I was reading this article on foxnews.com as a follow-up to the shooting at Northern Illinois University (NIU).  The article is part of the Associated Press syndication that is reprinted on foxnews.com’s website, so there’s no author to source.  Something leapt off the screen while I was reading the piece:

"Steven Kazmierczak, the 27-year-old grad student who bought an arsenal of guns in recent months and used them to kill five people and commit suicide, had been on medication and was said to have spent time in a psychiatric center as a teen in the late 1990s." (emphasis mine)

Of course, being pro-Second Amendment and pro-self-defense, I dug into what exactly constitutes an "arsenal of guns".

According to this article on ABCNews.com, Kazmierczak has three pistols and one shotgun; two of the pistols were legally purchased a week before the shootings; the other pistol and shotgun were purchased in August and December of 2007 (which purchased when was not disclosed by the article).  So we have a fellow who own three handguns and one shotgun.  The Associated Press calls this an "arsenal".

In the movie Lord of War, Nicholas Cage’s character convinces a Soviet officer stationed in the Ukraine to sell the weapons cached at a forward deployed base.  As Cage and the officer walk through the bunker, we see rows and rows of AK-47 rifles, some forty thousand of them; this is what we call an "arsenal". 

It’s rather irresponsible to label what Kazmierczak owned as an "arsenal".  By using that standard, any hunter who has more than one rifle (as most do) would be considered owing an "arsenal".  In fact, I have an arsenal myself were I to apply the Associated Press’ standards to my weapons.

Just like the auto mechanic has a myriad of tools at his or her disposal, a hunter does too.  Why use a high-powered rifle for small game?  Why try to fell a deer or moose with a small game caliber?  "The right tool for the job" is a mantra repeated by anyone who uses tools to do any job.  According to the Associated Press, just owning "the right tools" constitutes an arsenal.

This article isn’t really about guns though; it’s about how the press continues to undermine its own validity and integrity by using cheap, ham-fisted methods to scare folk who don’t understand guns and "just want to do something".

Remember all the published rhetoric surrounding the methods Christians use to recruit new Christians and inspire good behavior?  Secular media always paints (unjustly, I might add) the clergy as fear-mongers using elaborate fictions of Hell and eternal punishment to keep the flock in line.  Criticism is heaped on anyone taking up the call to work in the clergy for being nothing more than a purveyor of fear.  The secular media does this as a way to undermine the validity and integrity of the clergy.

In all things political these days, which none of us can escape for more than a moment, accusations from the secular media fly in all directions surrounding any mention of radical Islam or further terrorist attacks.  Mention 9/11 as a valid reason to shore up our defenses and fight the drooling hordes of fascism and the secular media trivializes the speaker by labeling him or her as a fear-monger or alarmist.   The secular media does this as a way to undermine the validity and integrity of those who would act in the defense of our families.

So I’m calling the Associated Press – and all the rest – on the hypocrisy of their behavior.  If being a fear-monger and alarmist is wrong and the person or entity doing so becomes trivial, then you are as wrong and trivial as the clergy and defenders who you have denigrated.  Don’t you owe it to your readers to prevent such things from appearing in your articles, to take the higher road by simply reporting the facts of a story? 

When you label Kazmierczak’s weapons as an "arsenal" you are as guilty as those you accuse of fear-mongering because it is not even close to what one really is.  At least those who you’ve accused are simply trying to save a soul or prevent another terrorist attack on our soil; you appear to be trying to wrest away the best tools for a citizen’s self-defense and keeping tyranny in check by scaring the guns right out of their neighbor's hands.  Further, you’re trying to force the reader to draw the conclusion – your conclusion – that if a person owns guns – even just one! – he or she is a deviant, mentally unstable, and destined to be in the headlines as a mass murderer.  You are not in the business to force a conclusion; you are in the business to discover, and then report, the facts.  Period.

To those that would ask about what words to use when describing his guns, why not just say what was purchased?  Something like:

"Steven Kazmierczak, the 27-year-old grad student who bought three pistols and a shotgun in recent months and used them to kill five people and commit suicide, had been on medication and was said to have spent time in a psychiatric center as a teen in the late 1990s." (emphasis mine to demonstrate the difference)

Isn’t that a more reasonable and responsible way to report on the story? 

The Associated Press and its ilk who peddle in fear-mongering are the least qualified to trivialize or dismiss anyone for doing so (Pot, meet Kettle … ).  The media outlets practicing this hypocrisy don’t seem much interested in reason or responsibility; a fact which makes what they have to say uninteresting to me.

NIU is, like all college campuses in America, a gun-free zone.  College administrators and faculty nationwide contend that there is no place on campus for a firearm because it quells the "free and open discussion" of the classroom and is "unsafe".  How safe was it for the six dead and fifteen wounded?

If we’d learned anything at all from every mass shooting in this country it should be that gun-free zones are synonymous with killing-free zones.  Did Kazmierczak walk into a gun range and open fire?  Did he walk into a police station or bar?  How about breaking into someone’s home – did he do that?  No; Kazmierczak loaded a shotgun and two handguns and opened fire on a known group of disarmed innocents, fully aware that he was the only one with a firearm from the lecture hall to the edge of campus.  The only way he could be shot is if he did it himself, which is exactly what the coward did.  Sure, campus security was armed but what for good since they were not in the lecture hall and wouldn’t arrive in time to stop him?

As this situation unfolded at NIU, students texted warnings to each other that there was a gunman on the loose.  It took twenty minutes for the campus to issue its own warning and lockdown.  Sure, twenty minutes at NIU is two-thirds better than the hour it took Virginia Tech to respond; how many more could have been injured or died in that twenty minutes?  How long after that before the ATF and FBI responded?  How about the local cops?  Where was campus security?

These questions are not a slam on those agencies, agents, or their honorable professions; rather it serves to contrast the lie that’s been fed to every parent and student.  We’ve been told the college campus is one of the safest places in the country because there are no guns except those provided to the 'highly trained' security detail.  The lie is unraveling with every single campus shooting; gun-free zones, such as NIU and Virginia Tech, are nothing more killing-free zones; our children are not safe because they are disarmed.  And outlaws like Kazmierczak know it.

An armed response is only effective if it’s on scene.  Arming a security detail and spreading them out across the campus is ineffective at least and at worst is falsely secure.  Sure, a security guard could have done much to save lives and prevent further injuries – but where were they?  Security details can only do so much and cover so much ground.  There was no laziness or laxness from campus security; it’s a simple fact they cannot be everywhere at once.  This is why it is imperative that the students and faculty – who are pretty much everywhere at once – be allowed to carry concealed on campus.  The right to self-defense should not stop at the campus gates.

Remember Jeanne Assam in Denver, Colorado, the shooting in Pearl, Mississippi or in Grundy, Virginia where there was an armed response from a lawful citizen?  You may not remember them because they didn’t make the news with as much pomp and repetition as does a "rampage".  Look up the facts for each of those – legal firearms were rightly used to save lives.  Those situations would have been much worse had brave citizens who chose to take the defense of self and others personally not stood against those gunmen.  Similarly, NIU, Virginia Tech and all the rest could have been much, much different had there been legally armed citizens in the lecture hall.

Still the left and other fearful will sit back and cluck their tongues that guns are so readily available and easily obtained, lamenting how this tragedy would never have occurred had there not been so many (fearful tones here) guns in this country.  I have a thought for those folk; take a Malox.  This tragedy and all the others have nothing to do with the availability of guns in our country.  In gun-free countries (United Kingdom and Australia to name a couple) outlaws are still quite heavily armed.  They are so well heeled in fact that the United Kingdom is now spending more money arming its police than ever before (try not to think about how this also makes the lawful "citizen" even more powerless).  The national gun resistry database in Canada cost over sixteen times what the politicians promised "citizens" ($119 million v. over $2 billion) and still, thugs, gangs, and outlaws are as heeled as American thugs, gangs, and outlaws; the difference is in Canada, lawfull citizens are disarmed and defenseless.  The facts show taking guns away from lawful citizens does not reduce crime.

We, and the world, haven’t learned anything from history.  There are dozens of examples of tyranny in the world that started with gun-free countries (Nazi Germany and Communist Russia to name but two; see Firearms in America; Right of the People for a more in-depth discussion) so let me discuss a different example, one that might be less offensive to those not willing to rationally discuss gun-freedom; Prohibition.

In 1919 the U.S. ratified the Eighteenth Amendment to its Constitution prohibiting "intoxicating liquors" (and began enforcement in 1920).  Prohibition showed us that these sorts of laws are not about controlling a substance or item, such as alcohol; it is about controlling people.  Instead of enforcing the laws designed to discourage public drunkenness and driving while intoxicated, politicians and the ruling class banned alcohol.  Who did this Amendment really punish, the lawless and drunkards, or the law-abiding citizen having a nightcap at home?  Did Prohibition actually curtail consumption of alcoholic beverages or did it enrich the outlaws who produced it, shipped it, and sold it?  History provides clear answers; the only thing Prohibition did was further reduce the liberty of law abiding citizens and multiply the power of organized crime to a point which was almost uncontainable.  The federal government in collusion with the several states did nothing with Prohibition but punish the citizen and empower the scofflaw.  It is the same thing with guns.

On a grander scale, think for a moment about the repercussions of a gun-free America.  One wouldn’t have much to think because there are innumerable examples of abuse, harassment, and liberty-infringement world-wide; one only need look in those ‘gun-free’ countries to find it.  The college campus and other gun-free zones are microcosms of how it would be nationwide – only the tyrannical would be armed and everyone else a target.

The saddest lesson from today remains that this could have been avoided and Kazmierczak could have been stopped as soon as he fired the first round had there been a student or faculty member in that lecture hall with a concealed firearm.  Until we allow students and faculty to carry concealed on campus we should expect these sorts of tragedies to continue.

And they will.

With the “Fairness Doctrine” the liberals and Democrats will try to make illegal the ideas against which they cannot compete, the values under which they cannot live, the freedom (of us) for which they cannot stand.  Arrogantly, they tell us it’s not about conservatism’s primary, remaining voice in talk radio, and they expect us to believe it.  Just like the bully who picked on the wrong person to fight, the Democrats and liberals are running to the teacher to falsely accuse the victim.  The gun-grab has been going on for decades and now, free-speech is under fire. 

It would be one thing, I think, if the fairness doctrine were to be evenly applied to all media.  Can you imagine MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MoveOn.org, and others being compelled to share opposing views?  The fact is, they wouldn’t.  The “opposing views” would be nothing more than a paper suit filled with a media opportunist looking to advance his or her career instead of actually standing for what’s right.  That person’s opposing view would be feeble, purposely fallacious, and made to appear weakly inadequate in the face of “complicated” issues.  The real enforcement would be against the giants of conservative radio.

Not to put too fine a point on this, but what would happen to those of you reading this blog?  Do you think the Democrats would stop at the old media with its “Fairness”?  Townhall and other conservative websites, user-groups, and blogs would be compelled by federal oversight to provide opposing views.
 
Much along the lines of my last post and a comment by trespasser williams, when only one side of an argument is presented, there is no debate, no embarrassing snares by a vigilant opponent, no outcome other than the singly presented side.   The socialist-fascists in the country want to quell all debate and silence any opposition to their views.  For decades, they have operated as though they are above the law and the little people to which it applies, demanding we give up our firearms while flagrantly carrying their own and surrounding themselves with heavily armed security guards; now they are going to try to push all debate aside and take away our First Amendment-protected speech in the process.   Indeed, there are two Americas here; there's the socialist-fascist cabal who wish to rule and preside, making laws that apply to everyone but themselves, and there's the real America.

Remember your U.S. history class; the First Amendment was created to protect political speech and press, not pornography and rap music.  Though the First Amendment shields these things also, its intent was to allow citizens the freedom to say as they pleased without repercussions from a tyrannical government.  What are the signs of a tyrannical government?  There are two:  1) a tyrannical government disarms its citizens and makes outlaws of those who choose to self-defend, and, 2) a tyrannical government punishes speech contrary to its central message or with which it doesn’t agree.  Oh, there’s a third sign; a tyrannical government tells you that its not taking these things away from you, pointing to its lapdogs as indicator of its truth, all the while carefully plucking liberty from your grasp.
 
It occurs to me as I wrap up my notes for this article that the Democrats' thirst for power is irrespective of the people over who they preside; if it's bona fide Americans, fine, if it's illegal aliens living within our borders, fine.   What matters is that the Democrats are the powerful elite standing on the shoulders of the oppressed, and it doesn't matter on who's shoulders they stand.  The liberals and Democrats have but one purpose; tyranny.
 
In my estimation the Democrats' goal is the invalidation and irrelevancy of the U.S. Constitution, the people it defends, and those who defend it.  They attack our principles and double-speak the meaning of the text into something that's not true, they put things into it that are not there (show me the Article or Amendment where abortion is protected), and they flatly ignore our wishes to return to what's there.
 
Thomas Jefferson said, “All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.”

What was that?  I couldn't hear you.