As I learn more about the political parties and processes in the U.S., I am repeatedly struck by the stark differences between the two largest groups, the liberals who are primarily represented by the Democratic Party and the conservatives who are primarily represented by the Republican Party.  In this election season there are pundits and cynical bemoaning how there’s no real difference between the parties, that a vote for either does not represent 'change' but more of the same sort of government 'We the People' have come to loathe.  Right or left, red or blue, there are differences separating the two parties, some minute, others huge.  One of the chief differences between the two camps is the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution in general, specifically the Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights is not an addendum of suggestions to the federal government; it is a list of rights specifically enumerated to protect citizens from tyranny.  Freedoms of speech, religion, and the press; the rights to bear arms and due process; the rights to be free from unlawful searches and seizures, self-incrimination, and cruel and unusual punishments are all delineated in plain English to construct a border between government and the governed.  This border is not to confine the citizen, it is to confine the government, to keep it at bay and from interfering with individual liberty.

The Bill of Rights is an enumeration of fundamental rights.  A fundamental right in more understandable terms are those considered retained by every person simply because he or she exists; we also call these 'natural human rights'.  A natural human right is one that can neither be granted nor revoked by any government or entity; it is a right that each individual has simply because he or she is alive.  Therefore, these rights cannot be legislated, trivialized, or ignored.  Not every country on the planet believes in fundamental rights, but here in America, that was the intent of our Founding Fathers as established in the Freedom Documents upon which our system of government is based.

There is a difference between a natural human right, a fundamental right, and a privilege.  A privilege is something granted or revoked by higher authority, and used usually as a bargaining tool to keep the subordinate in line; a fundamental or natural human right is irrevocable.  A good example of a privilege is a driver’s license.  If a driver shows his or her incompetence behind the wheel, the State can revoke the license under which driving privileges have been granted.  That person would no longer be recognized as responsible enough to handle a motor vehicle.

Another good example of a privilege versus a right is the teen-ager and the telephone.  A teen ager’s main lifeline to his or her friends (and escape from parents) used to be the telephone (which is now supplanted by email and instant messaging).  One of the first things a parent would take away from a teen-ager not living up to his or her responsibilities is access to the telephone (or computer nowadays). 

To sum up, a privilege can be granted and revoked as deemed necessary by some higher authority while a fundamental right, or natural human right, is endowed upon each individual by virtue of his or her existence and is irrevocable which can only be respected by the government.

I went into such detail and definition because there seems to be confusion about our Constitution and the Bill of Rights it contains.  Liberals and Democrats have it wrong, purposely so, I think; how can we have socialism in this country if the Bill of Rights are fundamental, natural human rights? 

Democrats view the Bill of Rights as a list of suggestions, as a list of privileges, a list to adhere to when speaking about patriotism in order to get elected but not actually respected when the governed consent.  Socialism is a Borg-like collective where there is no room for the individual or individual rights which, at its base, is nothing more than tyranny by a diffrent name.  The written documentation outlining our belief in natural human rights must either be ignored, or have its meaning subverted.  Since ignoring the Bill of Rights outright would not lead a socialist very far, we're seeing subversion of its meaning in the modern Democrat / Socialist movement.

For the sake of brevity, we’ll discuss only three examples underscoring my point about Democrats out of the plethora to be found with a quick ask.com search; Hillary Clinton’s socialist remarks on the campaign trail; John Edward’s remarks on the campaign trail; and published remarks made by the liberal columnist, Susan Estrich.

Anyone who’s been following the horse race to the White House for the last year and change knows that Hillary Clinton represents a radical shift to the left for America.  Her socialist rhetoric started in earnest last year and she has been pounding her message since; universal health care (socialized medicine) works only if participation is mandatory (garnishing wages); it takes a village to raise a child (state rights trump parental rights); windfall taxes on firms making a profit (notably "big oil"); and the most socialist remark I’ve heard on international TV from an American citizen, "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."  "Things" can take all manner of forms from taxes to natural rights (such as the "fairness doctrine" which she supports).

For as left as Clinton is racing, John Edwards tried to outpace her by going even further to the left.  In a single interview, Edwards made up two rights not in the Constitution, and expressed his belief that one of our fundamental rights is a privilege; health care is a right, an illegal immigrant living in the country for a year has rights, and the Second Amendment is a privilege.  Watch a Socialist at work.

I purposely chose someone not in a leadership capacity for my third example because I want to demonstrate how diluted the Bill of Rights has become to the rank and file Democrats.  Susan Estrich is a syndicated columnist and on my short list of blue authors whom I respect.  I’ll read her columns to feel the "pulse" of "regular" Democrats; though her rhetoric is sometimes as shrill as the most bluely liberal blogger, by and large she writes and expresses herself rationally and succintly.  I honestly believe she loves America and wants to solve its problems but I don’t think her ideas are the right ones for the long-term survival of our country.

In Estrich’s column from Sunday, February 24, 2008, she writes:

"Maybe there should be an asterisk in the First Amendment's protection of the freedom of the press making the point that most of us who are parents of teenagers do on a regular basis: that freedom is not simply a privilege but also a responsibility, that just because you have it doesn't mean you need to push its limits, much less abuse it." (emphasis mine)

While I agree with Estrich that there are responsibilities associated and required of every natural human right (e.g. free speech does not mean a person can yell "fire!" in a crowded theater where there is no fire, nor is a fecal-coated statue of the Virgin Mary considered "free speech"), her words illustrate our difference in understanding; to her, the freedom of the press is a privilege, not a natural right.  One the one hand, I am astonished by her position because she makes at least part of her living under the protections of the very right which she seeks to subvert.  On the other hand, I’m not surprised by her position because, as is apparent, the Bill of Rights is merely a Bill of Suggestions to Democrats, a quaint idea with no basis in human rights, improperly ignored when politically expedient to do so.

This is a dangerous ideology that will only serve to bring about America’s destruction, just as it did Rome’s.  Our Founding Fathers wrote extensively and toiled deliberately against a strong, centralized government that did not respect the individual and his or her natural human rights; they purposely designed a system of government that would reflect the will of ‘the People’, providing the smallest intrusion into a citizen’s life the world has ever seen.

It’s clear to me in this simple review that the Democrats don’t believe in our inalienable human rights because those rights stand as guardian and precipice against the form of tyranny we call socialism.  Socialism and individual liberty and freedom are inversely proportional; the more liberty, the less tyranny; the more tyranny, the less liberty.

In Hurricane Election 2008, which will you vote for?  For now, we have a Republic; if we can keep it.

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.

I don’t expect this article to last very long in Google’s search engine because of its content.  I can say this with reasonable assurance based on recent behavior from the internet search giant; though it commands well over 50% of the search activity on the internet it is showing signs that it is not a neutral entity with the public’s best interest at heart.  To be certain, any firm is in business to turn a profit first and foremost with corporate citizenship somewhere on the Form 10-K; the "public’s best interest" is hardly a fiduciary interest but Google is not a regular firm.

Google’s responsibility to the public is much greater than that of, say, Dodge or Wal-Mart because unlike the latter two which peddle in goods and services related to its goods, the former peddles in information which is a much more important and much more dangerous product.  Information has spawned enlightenment, influenced decisions, enabled education, and sparked revolution; Google wants us to accept it as the global peddler of information and until recently seemed willing to be its neutral provider.

So long as Google remained neutral in the transaction between information and seeker, I had no issue with it, even applauding its technology and successes.  The more we learn about Google the more we find it is not neutral; the less neutral Google is means a concerned public should be ever more skeptical of the services it provides.

The first indication I had Google was not a neutral conduit information and is trying to influence and shape policy was the incident outlined in this blog post.  In short, Google targeted Republican Senator Susan Collins from Maine because she was using MoveOn.org as a talking point in her re-election campaign ads at the same time allowing MoveOn.org to sully General David Patraeus in its ads.  Of course, when called on it, Google cited trademark and copyright policies upon which Madam Senator Collins infringed but MoveOn.org did not.  What Google really said by its actions is that it is ok for a very liberal left-wing organization founded and funded by the Clinton’s to advertise ad-hominem attacks against an Army General charged with implementing the Bush Administration’s Iraq War Policy, but it was not ok for a conservative Senator to use that activity as part of her re-election campaign.  To boil that complicated sentence down to something more palatable, Google allowed an attack on conservatives from liberals but blocked a conservative using that attack as part of her advertising campaign.

Taken by itself one could argue that Google just made a mistake, that it is still a young company experiencing all the growing pains other young companies experience when they have such a sustained period of rapid growth.  I don’t buy it (particularly since Barak Obama was the only presidential candidate invited to speak on the Google campus), but a lot of folk did.  Then today we are met with another clue to the culture of corruption behind the white web form; Google de-listed Inner City Press.

To be honest, I had never heard of Inner City Press before today; had Google not censored the free press I might never have heard of it.  Again, taken by itself, this is not a sign of corruption for Google lists and de-lists as is necessary to maintain its "quality" of service to the public.  If we dig a little deeper, we find an insidious thread that tinges the white web form scarlet.

Inner City Press is an internet news organization that has been reporting on corruption and abuses within the United Nations.  Anyone who knows a whit about the U.N. knows that it is an organization long on rhetoric but short on results because of its incompetence and internal corruption; they also know the U.N. is perhaps the standard bearer for liberalism, socialism and communism in the world.  This is the same organization that seeks to erase the U.S. Constitution and make American liberties something for the history books all the while extolling its own vision for righteousness and humanity.  Clear-thinking folk world-wide know the U.N. for the sham it has become.  Considering its roots and intent, its fall is a terrible shame.

So corruption within the U.N. is not exactly new or unknown and Inner City Press was reporting on every tidbit it could uncover.  Google recently partnered with the U.N. for its anti-poverty initiatives and was called to the carpet for it by Inner City Press’ journalist and editor-in-chief, Matthew Lee.  Lee wondered to a Google representative why it was partnering with the U.N. for anti-poverty initiatives and not human-rights or anti-censorship.  Now, after a single complaint, Inner City Press has been de-listed from Google News.

That’s right, only one complaint was enough to de-list an internet news service from Google News.  I wonder if I complained about MSNBC.com, CNN.com, FOXNews.com, or GOP.com if I could get them de-listed.  I’m sure I couldn’t – in fact, I’m sure Google would ignore my email because I’d be the only complaint.  If it did respond, it would assure me those sources were legitimate news outlets.  Inner City Press is no less legitimate, albeit it is not nearly as large, and has a history of calling corruption where it finds it.  Since Google partnered with a corrupt arm of a corrupt organization one could rightly wonder what sort of corruption would be found within Google.

Again, this singular incident does not a “culture of corruption” make but I cannot help but think there’s more to it.  It seems to me that Google is not just aiming to be the main and best internet search provider in the world; it looks to me like it is actually trying to shape and influence policy.

Part of the reason Google has gained so much ground so rapidly is because it has an aggressive aggregation and indexing algorithm that makes an internet search fast and relevant.  Until this point, we have been able to trust the search results because we believed Google did nothing more than collect and index information, and return it when queried.  It looks like it’s doing more than that when it takes an active part in selective censorship (that is, of conservative outlets or those which could embarrass the firm).  If Google doesn’t already have a culture of corruption its recent activities show us it’s headed in that direction.

Has anyone ever stopped to wonder what will happen if Google becomes so big all other search was rendered irrelevant?  What would stop it from tailoring the news or search results to an [insert singular viewpoint here]?  What would keep it honest enough to provide information impartially without the taint of a political agenda?  Though there are other search providers that can compete (Yahoo’s is very good), Google still opts for heavy-handed censorship of those parties with which it does not ideologically agree; what happens when there are no other players on the field, how much integrity would Google retain? 

Google tells us its search is heavily reliant upon relevance; that is, a site is listed higher or lower in the search results, in part, based on how many other legitimate sites link to it.  How easy would that be to internally manipulate (pretty easy, in fact)?  As a fella that understands databases, indexing, and search, coupled with the way Google has recently been flaunting its power, I am chilled by the implications.

Now, it's fairly obvious from my posts on this blog and elsewhere to which political philosophy I subscribe.  Some of my readers may discount my thoughts in this post simply because my position in political thought.  I submit, however, that it doesn’t matter to which side a firm like Google sways; manipulating and censoring information is dangerous to understanding, liberty, freedom, and life and it should be condemned whenever it occurs.

My mother used to tell me there is always more than one side to every idea; Google would prevent us from hearing any other side but its own.

Trust Google at our own peril.

Simple – the tax-break was not enough.  A mere $200 break on property taxes that have tripled, quadrupled, or exponentially increased is hardly worth praise, hardly worth notice and quite honestly, an insult.  The city, county, and state coffers have overflowed during the last decade because property taxes, as a percentage of property values, have taken a stairway to the heavens.  Seriously, some annual property tax in the county in which I live is as much as the PI mortgage.  And the political hacks want us to praise them for their "generosity"?

Because of this, Amendment One almost never was.  The citizens of Florida are a cynical bunch because we’ve been sold a bill of goods before.  Let me direct your attention to the late 80’s and the fight for the Lotto.  The politicians and other "leaders" promised that any profits made from the Lotto would be applied dollar-for-dollar to Florida’s education system.  Lotto profits inject about $1 billion annually for Florida education.  With numbers like that Florida must have one of the best education systems and well paid teachers in the country!

Wrong.  Every year the budget for Florida’s education is reduced by the amount the State believes it will take in from the Lotto.  So, dollar-for-dollar, the Lotto profits have gone right to the schools and teachers in Florida; dollar-for-dollar, the State has taken an equivalent amount out of the schools and teachers in Florida; net gain -- $0.

Does that $1 billion extracted from education go to something worthwhile like the Hurricane Catastrophe fund?  Who knows?  I can’t tell you where it goes because I’m not smart enough to keep up with the sometimes circular accounting sheets Florida releases to the public.

Keeping the Lotto in mind, it’s no wonder Amendment One almost didn’t pass; Floridians are tired and cranky with their representatives because there is so much double-speak and sleight of hand.

I almost voted NO for Amendment One because of this; I know the State can do better than a mere $200 and it should.  But here’s how it works in Florida:

Politicians:  Do you want a tax break?
Citizens:  Yes!!
Politicians:  Ok.  We’ll give you $200 for something that has gone up 500% in the last two years.  How’s that?
Citizens:  What?!
Politicians:  Hey, that’s a reasonable offer.  You want it or not?
Citizens:  OK!  But you can do much, much better than that!  We’ll take this for now and expect you to do more later.
Politicians:  Ok!  Here’s your check.  Moving on to a bill to protect the Swallow-tail Butterfly from unleashed domestic cats –
Citizens:  Hey!  What about further reducing our taxes?
Politicians:  Look, we reduced your taxes already and generously so, I might add.  You should be happy you got that much or else we'll just take it away.

– or –

Politicians:  Do you want a tax break?
Citizens:  Yes!!
Politicians:  Ok.  We’ll give you $200 for something that has gone up 500% in the last two years.  How’s that?
Citizens:  What?!
Politicians:  Hey, that’s a reasonable offer.  You want it or not?
Citizens:  No!  You can do much, much better than that!
Politicians:  Really?  You don’t want a tax break?  Ok!  Moving on to a bill to protect the Swallow-tail Butterfly from unleashed, domestic cats –
Citizens:  Hey!  What about a <i>real</i> reduction in our taxes?
Politicians:  Look, we asked you already and you said no.  So we’re not going to give you one.  In fact, your ‘NO’ means you must think you don’t pay enough in taxes so we’re going to raise them again next year.

This is why Florida politicians have a bad reputation even among other politicians.  Don’t get me started on the way the State has handled the insurance industry here.  I’m out of a job because of it and still -- still -- insurance rates are going up.

But this is not about insurance, it’s about taxes.  And let me tell you just how childish Florida government has become.

Now that Amendment One is law, every single issue – without exception – is somehow tied to a reduced budget.  Cities are threatening that they can’t hire or keep enough cops or firefighters because of Amendment One and of those that remain, salaries and benefits will be cut.  Counties are doing the same to sheriff departments statewide.  Wild fires in the middle of the State are blamed on Amendment One.  Teachers are facing pay cuts and we’re told there’s not enough money to properly maintain the school grounds because of Amendment One.  It’s all doom and gloom, fire and brimstone, all because the citizens of Florida want greater fiscal responsibility from their leaders.  Instead of doing so, the "leaders" go after those things considered "core"; police, fire, EMS, and education.  The "leaders" did not want to do the work to reduce those frivolous things; instead they will use Amendment One as an excuse for every mishap, every shortfall, and every moment of their own incompetence in order to punish Floridians for passing this bill.  They’ll push and nag, whine and justify all in a vain attempt to blackmail us to capitulate and reverse our will.

Politicians are wily ones and will get revenue out of taxpayers by hook or by crook.  So we now have a reduction in our property taxes but don’t celebrate yet.  To compensate for the "losses" incurred by the property tax relief, watch for the inevitable utility tax increase.  When the State taxes utilities, the expense is naturally passed on to the consumer.  The $200 returned as property-tax relief will be taken away, and then some, by an across-the-board rate increase.  You saw it here, first.

Three years ago or so I was participating in a forum where a challenge was poised; create or expose an insidious conspiracy, true or false, just to see how X-Files-ish we could get.  The one I wrote about was a trifecta of state, local municipalities, and the insurance industry working in tandem to push real estate property values higher so that tax revenues would increase as well as insurance premiums (a portion of which goes back to the State).  This in tandem with cheap debt (because Greenspan was as much a wizard as was the Wizard of Oz) would fuel a bubble in real estate that would make the tech bubble from the late 90’s look tiny.  Citizens would be taxed right out of a living wage while the politicians and insurance industry got rich.

Now, I don’t believe there is or was a conspiracy – there was no collusion between so many different folk; it was a simple, fun creative exercise.  Conspiracy or not, the result is the same.

The State of Florida says it's going to reduce the tax burden and provide tax relief to its citizens but then touts this crepe-thin package and expects accolades and praise?  Voters in Florida have had enough; we have taxation with representation but you representatives are as deaf to us as King George was to the original colonists; we want you to do what we hired you to do; represent us properly, justly, and honestly.

Otherwise, you’re fired.

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.

I’ve mentioned in a couple of other posts (here, here, and here) my opinion about the political climate in this country and, because it is moving in a dangerously socialistic way, why it’s important to arm ourselves now.  This year, I am putting my money where my mouth is.  Though money is going to be tight with all the goals I’ve set for myself, this is something for which I feel is worth sacrificing, something for which is worth rearranging priorities.  I’ve recently purchased my first AR15.

For those of you that know me, you’ll recall I am sold out on a few hunting rifles and of course two particular calibers of pistol and revolver for self-defense (and backup).  One of the best tools a citizen has at the moment is an AR15.  It is a no-nonsense thirty round response to an aggressor who’s trying to steal, maim, murder, or socialize and, in my opinion, worth every penny of security it’ll bring.  In addition to the weapon itself, I purchased one thousand rounds of ammunition (for starters); obviously, I don’t need that many rounds for a single aggressor but will come to find them valuable when the time for preparation has passed.

My girl was as excited about the new weapon in the house as she was the new refrigerator.  When she told her friends of my purchase she was met with varying opinions ranging from fear to outright disdain.  Not a single one of them appreciated the need for such a tool or supported my decision.  I’m ok with that.  One thing the military reinforced was my old Boy Scout training; be prepared.

To that end, I have re-evaluated my decisions and priorities for the year as well as what direction I’m going to take my battery.  Though I intended in an earlier post to keep to two calibers of weapons, I have learned it is unwise to do so; however suited to home and personal defense, neither of the calibers I mentioned are good for hunting or greater than in-your-face defense.  Too, as I’ve done my research, I’ve found the handguns I currently own are not viable because I cannot find spares and parts are more difficult to obtain.  Fortunately, my shotgun is a standard model that is still in production so I’ll be adding to what I already own (in .12 for the heavy work and .20 gauge for the light).  One of the results of that re-evaluation is the decision to add AR15’s to the battery.

For every job there is an appropriate tool and the AR15 is the right tool for preparation-minded folk.  Unfortunately, there are those in this country vying for absolute power which do not want us to prepare ourselves.  Just look to the aftermath from Hurricane Katrina; the local governments did nothing to help its citizens and in fact tried to disarm them!  The folks in charge (especially Ray Nagin and Kathleen Blanco) fully expected the federal government to rescue them (and then, to cover their own incompetence, loudly and repeatedly blamed the federal government for its lack of action).  Why make a plan, live properly, prepare ourselves or community for disaster or collapse when the federal government will be right there with a handout and salvation?  Three days later the country sat rapt as images of military trucks bearing the necessities of life drove through flooded streets; what was the armament of choice for securing those supplies?  The AR15.

I am by no means an expert.  There’s a reason our military and various law enformcement agencies (at all levels from local to federal) use variations of the AR15 – even to this day and after so rocky a start with the original M16 A1’s in Vietnam (the military designation for the AR15 is M-16; the first generation configuration of these weapons is categorized as A1).  Though I don’t know that reason the fact that it’s been our service weapon of choice for nearly forty years speaks highly of its design, reliability, functionality, utility, maintainability, and longevity.  Our soldiers in the Middle East and around the world are using a variable of this weapon with as much success as our do-nothing, fear-citizen Congress has allowed.

For the painfully naïve I am well aware of the responsibility that comes with owning a firearm of any stripe.  This rifle is no exception.  The security an AR15 provides is not in its show but in its use.  I will have ample opportunity to practice such this year; it won’t take too long to brush the cobwebs away from my military training and I’m looking forward to putting this new weapon through its paces.

It is the first of four I will purchase this year.  In my way of figuring, it is worth the expense to have spare parts available should my primary weapon fail; it is worth even more to have a fully functioning spare, ready for service at a moment’s notice.  I’ve chosen four as a sort of magic number; one for me plus spare, one for my girl plus spare.  I’d like to have a total of eight and may have the time to procure them before the democrats try to take them all away.  Unfortunately, there are many like me who share a sense of urgency in this election year; all the front runner candidates from both sides are soft on the Second Amendment (Ron Paul, for as much as I like him, is not considered a front-runner).  With four to begin with I’ll be able to do some of the other things I need to in order to keep my house running, plus fill out my battery with a minimum of ten magazines per weapon, enough ammunition to go around, maintenance kits, tools, and so on.

For those interested, I settled on Smith and Wesson M&P15.  It’s not a Colt (the originator of the AR15), but then it doesn’t have to be.  I went with the base model because I’m not a big fan of weapon-mounted accessories and the encumbrance they bring.  I’m an old fashioned shooter that prefers not to rely on anything more than iron sights and a well placed flashlight to illuminate the bad guy.  I’ve always been this way and probably will (though I am warming up to laser dots).  S&amp;W ranks with the best of them.  Except for the betrayal during the socialist-Clinton years (does that name ring a bell for any of you?) S&amp;W has enabled Americans to preserve the ideals which made this country great; individualism, preparedness, and reverence for the principles of liberty and freedom.

I will close this post with a word of encouragement and a word of warning.  First, the encouragement.  Those of us who would protect and defend the Constitution and Declaration of Independence from the power hungry and tyrannical as well as provide safety and security for our families should go to our local dealers and buy an AR15, train ourselves in its use and maintenance, and prepare ourselves for the coming storm.  Some folk will think you daft and irresponsible to spend your money and time on such things, but then the grasshopper spent a lot of its energy criticizing and mocking the ant?  There is no harm or foul in taking your preparations seriously enough to stop talking, and start doing, irrespective of your family’s or friend’s opinions, the trivializing and sneering from the mainstream media, or the platitudinal assurances from the liars competing to be in charge.  It is the right thing to do.

Now the warning.  I’ll give you the warning in the form of a quote and I hope it hits you as squarely in the jaw as it did me.  On Page 3 of the January 1994 issue of The National Educator, Sara Brady said the following to Senator Howard Metzenbaum; "Our main agenda is to have all guns banned.  We must use whatever means possible.  It doesn’t matter if you have to distort the facts or even lie.  Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed" (emphasis mine).

Be prepared; go get your AR15.