One year on...

The so-called "Assault Weapons Ban" was allowed to expire one year ago.

Gun control groups prophesied unprecedented carnage.

This week the Department of Justice released its crime figures for 2004.

The violent crime rate went down.

The reported rate is the lowest since the DoJ began tracking crime in the early 1970's.

When crime rates go up, gun control advocates shriek that, "It's the guns, stupid".

When crime rates go down, they credit stricter gun control laws.

Unfortunately for these people, but fortunately for the citizenry, gun control laws have been getting less strict, not more, over the past fifteen years.

Reasonable people would conclude that gun control - and by extension, guns themselves, have very little to do with crime rates.

Gun control advocates, however, are not reasonable people.

Gun control advocates think with their hearts, not their brains.

They care, damnit! And, if you disagree with them, it's obvious (to them at any rate) that you don't care and want people to die.

I expect gun control advocates to step up their shrill hysterics in order to drown out - and divert attention away from - the clear recitation of facts that so completely undercuts their position.

Roberts and the left

It is very instructive and more than a little frightening to witness the Democratic senators trying to trap Judge Roberts in betraying some tiny 'conservative' ideology. The great problem is that Democrats know that someone who merely interprets the law, rather than creating it - as has been done since the days of Warren - is a threat to their 'progressive' (read: Socialist) agenda.

When courts start finding rights that exist nowhere in the constitution (Griswold v. Connecticut, Roe v. Wade); when they rule in a manner that betrays personal preference rather than the strict application of the law (Lawrence v. Texas), they usurp the role of the legislature. Striking down laws they disagree with, they invert the roles of the three branches of government and negate the right of the people to govern themselves.

When courts rule in this way, we are subject then to the rule of judges, the rule of men - not the rule of law.

At the end of the day, we have to ask: Who decides? Are the wishes of judges to supercede those of the people?

To allow courts to make up laws and strike down laws as they personally see fit is a large stride away from Liberty and toward totalitarianism, and is so dangerous a situation that I am amazed that we the people tolerate it. I guess that's because the decisions haven't started going against us - yet.

This 'n that...

A good piece by the geek with a .45 here:

http://geekwitha45.blogspot.com

Makes a good point about citizen/police relations. It's a chicken-or-the-egg thing. But, it's a fact that the kindly, friendly, helpful patrolman of yesteryear is gone forever.
Personally, I think that police academies now teach recruits that the populace is the enemy.

On an unrelated topic, it was good news to see that Judge Roberts knows the particulars of 1939's Miller vs. U.S. which many gun-control advocates like to seize upon as proof that the 2nd Amendment is a 'collective' right. He rightly pointed out that the Supreme Court side-stepped the issue of collective vs. individual rights in that case, holding only that the weapon which was at issue in the case was not a weapon that the militia would use. (Interestingly, what Mr. Miller was arrested for possessing was a short-barreled shotgun - many of which were used by U.S. forces in World War I.)

What to think?

It is cliche - and right now somewhat insensitive - to say that in Chinese, the 'word' for tragedy is composed of two characters: Wei - which means, roughly, "danger" and Ji - which is frequently translated as "opportunity".

But despite the horror and loss of Katrina, good things are happening. And, while I expect it to take years, I believe that many peoples' lives will have been improved by this event.

Among the best things to come out of New Orleans' agony are the stories about the successful efforts of Target, WalMart and many other PRIVATE companies to get supplies to those affected, while local, state and federal officials dithered and bickered about authority and jurisdiction.

With any luck, we'll see an "A-ha!" realization among the people that we don't need the federal government as much as they want us to think we do.

What can we learn from Katrina?

The most fucked up (and enlightening) thing about all this is that everyone expects the federal government to fix everything - pretty much before it gets broken.

Why did we fight for 50 years to defeat Socialism abroad - only to fall prey to it here?

De Profundis Clamavi Ad Te Domine!

The NRA's conundrum

Recently, it came to light that the civil authorities, while getting those who remained in New Orleans to leave, began confiscating firearms from everyone. Everyone, except those working as private security for the wealthy or for businesses. The bottom line is that the police have decided that if you're not wealthy, you're a criminal and you will be disarmed.

The cry goes forth, "Where is the NRA?! Why aren't they doing something about this?"

Well, folks, it's like this: The NRA is a political organization first and a defender of rights second.

This is an unpleasant reality. But, it is also a necessary one. In order to win a war, sometimes individual units must be sacrificed. So it is with gun rights. To maintain an effective presence in D.C., the NRA cannot allow itself to be portrayed supporting a grossly unpopular position. Such is the situation now in New Orleans.

As in most of human activity, the 80-20 rule obtains. 80% of the people stuck in New Orleans are decent and law-abiding. 20% are the trouble makers. However, by focusing its attention on the lawlessness, the media has conveyed the idea that all these residents are looters and savages.

For the NRA to stick up for the rights of these people would be seized on by anti-gun forces as "proof" that the NRA wants criminals to have guns. You know that's not true and I know that's not true, but even the appearance of siding with the looters is simply an unacceptable political risk.

Let's remember another thing as well, we are in a state of emergency and the usual rules simply don't apply. If the government of New Orleans or Louisiana is using extra-constitutional methods to deal with an extra-constitutional situation, what gives the NRA the right to get involved? Would the descent of a flock of NRA lawyers on New Orleans help the overall recovery work?

Make no mistake, what is happening is class-ist at best and racist at worst. It is a gross violation of civil liberties; but in New Orleans right now, clean water is a necessity: civil liberties are a luxury.

What would you do?

Either yesterday or today, the President admitted that the federal government's response to Katrina is insufficient.

This is unusual because the President rarely admits that he or any of his people has made mistakes.

The left constantly points out that the President never admits when he's wrong. They berate him ceaselessly for circling the wagons when things aren't going well.

I agree with them that he does this. And, he does it too much.

However,

They ignore the reasons that he does it.

He does it to limit political liability, sure. But, I ask, why does he feel the need to take such steps on every - or almost every - occasion?

This President is subject to what is, arguably, the most intense political vendetta of recent times. Some of it stems from a desire to pay back Republicans for the problems they caused Clinton. Some of it stems from the "disputed" 2000 election. Most of it, however, stems from a hatred of what the President stands for.

So, if George W. Bush were to admit that he mispelled a word in a note to Condoleeza Rice, he would be pilloried as a cretin and denounced as an Epsilon-minus semi-moron. Of course, he is already subject to this withering denunciation without any pretext whatsoever. Why then would any sane person admit any mistake?

No, it is not sensible or prudent for the President to admit mistakes. The concealment of which is very unhealthy for our republic.

It's a long standing tradition to portray your opponent as less well suited for office than you are - but its extent and severity today is problematic for all of us.

With that said, it is nothing short of amazing that the President admitted that FEMA dropped the ball. But, $100 says his honesty gets him nothing but more hysterical vitriol.

Presidents come and go. Senators come and go. Directors of the various acronymic governmental agencies come and go. But bureaucracies remain. To claim that the President is somehow personally responsible for FEMA's failure is non-sensical. Show me a President who didn't hand out director-ships of organizations like FEMA to supporters, and I'll show you a President who gained the office without having to win an election.

None of this is meant to explain away the failures of FEMA.

Let's just remember that rarely do Bureaucracies end up being able to do what they were designed to do.

Singling out this President is neither helpful, nor intellectually honest.

I hope to remind myself of this when next a Democrat holds the office.

For the man who has everything...

Well, let's be egalitarian - rather than politically correct: For the person who has everything.

I offer for sale, the following:

One (1) Belgian Browning Diana Grade Trap Gun. 12 Ga. 30 inch barrels, fixed chokes IM/F. This gun is NEW IN BOX - UNFIRED.

And

One (1) Belgian Browning Pigeon Grade Skeet Gun. 12 Ga. 26 inch barrels, fixed chokes SK1/SK2. This gun also is NEW IN BOX - UNFIRED.

Pictures will be made available upon request. These are first rate target guns with replacement costs WELL beyond what I'm asking.

The saying goes: you never regret what you buy - only what you didn't buy.

This is a great opportunity.

Looting and the use of force…

I don't see how a situation such as we recently witnessed in N.O. changes anything.

The rules are pretty well understood by most people:

1. You are permitted to defend your, your family's - and your neighbor's - property if someone tries to steal it.

2. If a person employs violent force to effect a felonious taking of property, then the question of appropriate use of force shifts to one's response to assault, battery or attempted murder. Bottom line: Force may be met with force.

3. If the property is such that its loss could reasonably be understood as life threatening, (e.g. food, water, shelter, a generator) then, as above, the situation rises to something akin to attempted murder, rather than theft or robbery. Again, force may be met with force.

4. Lastly, if roaming bands of thugs are committing assault, battery, rape, arson (especially if there is a reasonable chance that such a set fire could spread to one's shelter), etc., then there is no question that force may be used to protect yourself, your family and friends - however you want to define that group.

With that being said, however, common sense ought to warn us that, absent any immediate threat, an individual's appearance, location or even activity, are NOT grounds for opening fire on them.

The only gray area, as I see it, is this: What does the law have to say about defending one's property against a group of looters, which while not using violence, is too big to defend against without using overwhelming, potentially deadly force?

Frankly, in the recent New Orleans trouble, questions of law are moot: there was none. And it's most unlikely that anyone will be required to account for their behavior during this period.

Ingrained morality and common sense are the best we can hope for when situations like this arise.

Some facts that need to be remembered...

1. New Orleans was built - and is - below sea level. The fact that it hasn't been destroyed before now is a FLUKE.

2. We probably ought not rebuilt New Orleans for the reason cited in #1. However, we will because - as a species - we are both arrogant and stupid.

3. The City of New Orleans and the State of Louisiana had plans for emergencies such as we have just seen. No plan was implemented, let alone followed. Because ours is a federal republic, the local and state governments bear the responsibility for initiating evacuations and such. The response of both the city of New Orleans and the state of Louisiana was criminally inept.

4. Ours is a nation of laws, not controls. If certain people in New Orleans erupted into an orgy of looting and lawlessness, it is because they did not and do not possess a grasp on the idea of humanity or community. Those who defended their homes and businesses from such people with lethal force ought to be commended for maintaining at least a vestige of civilization.

5. Bureaucracy kills. It is the efforts of PRIVATE citizens via PRIVATE organizations such as the Salvation Army and the Red Cross that will make the most difference in the recovery from Katrina. We must remember that save for the armed forces, no publicly funded organization(s) has/have done anything to justify the tax dollars we have spent.

7. Dependence upon 'The State' is a recipe for anarchy. Since 1933 we have fostered the idea that 'The Government' can and will fix all problems. The result? No one feels any responsibility for themselves or their condition. We the people have allowed this condition to fester until a huge group of people in this country WILL NOT think for themselves because they've been taught not to. The result is a literally religious faith in a government which will always fail to uphold the impossible requirements of its worshippers. And, when failed by their God, the faithful erupt in unthinking violence. Since just 1964 we've spent TRILLIONS of dollars to alleviate poverty. Have we succeeded? Why then do you think that a federal governmental organ is going to prevent terrorist attacks or respond appropriately to a catastrophe? Even as we help them, the lower classes in this country must constantly be reminded that the government owes them NOTHING. In this way, perhaps, many of them can be weaned from the federal 'teat'.

These are the most rudimentary facts of which the Katrina catastrophe has reminded us. Others will become plain as time goes by.

The Judgment of History…

I believe that twenty-five years from now, when historians look back upon the presidency of G.W. Bush, they will judge his greatest mistake to have been the creation of the Department of Homeland Security.

History demonstrates to us convincingly that the efficacy and efficiency of any bureaucracy is inversely proportional to its size.

Thus, the notion that our security and emergency response organs would be streamlined and improved by gathering them all under the umbrella of a new, über-Bureaucracy has tragically proven to be as mistaken as the notion that monumental government transfer programs would eliminate poverty.

To the degree that he has increased, rather than decreased the federal bureaucracy, George W. Bush bears responsibility for the inertia displayed by federal agencies in the wake of Katrina.

Is there anyone in the United States, with even a room temperature IQ, who believes that we are safer or better prepared to deal with a terrorist attack today than we were on 9/11/2001? An argument can be made that we’d be safer and better prepared without DHS.

I urge the President and Congress to dismantle the Department of Homeland Security as soon as possible.

Of course, I know that even if I live to be 100, it will outlive me and remain with us as a testament to the folly of collectivism.

The sickness of the Left

Let me just say that I cannot bring myself to completely believe some of what I am hearing. I would expect more reason from a three-year-old.

I am beyond outrage. I am beyond anger. I am just depressed by the assertions made by some Democrats that the destruction of New Orleans and the misery currently being experienced by its residents is the President's fault.

There is no longer any political discourse in this country. No matter the situation, there is only accusation, vitriol, hatred.

Was it this bad during Vietnam? I'm too young to really remember that period, but I have never seen the like of this in my 40 years. Even if the divisions were deeper thirty years ago, I can't imagine that the kinds of unhinged, irrational, even psychotic things I'm hearing today would have made it into the pages of 'reputable' newspapers or onto the evening news.

Go here to see a list of the truly deranged accusations being hurled against the President:

http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/

(keep scrolling down)

The truth will out...

With ever increasing rapidity, stories of people defending themselves, their families, friends and property are rolling in from New Orleans.

This graphic demonstration of personal defense against animal lawlessness is an utterly irrefutable argument against gun control.

To those who would argue that if people weren't allowed to have guns, then the bad guys wouldn't be able to use them, I point you to the experience of Great Britain - where hand guns were made illegal and confiscated - and where, now, the ONLY people with them are the criminals.

Between the experiences of Los Angeles in 1992 and New Orleans today, no rational person can argue that guns have no place in private hands.

When we are finally able to hear the complete story of Katrina, we will hear the story of the right to keep and bear arms being vindicated for the umpteenth time: not that gun-control proponents will listen, of course.

Some thoughts on looting

First off, it's not a 'black' thing. It's a cultural thing. The lower socio-economic classes see wealth around them and conclude that it's unfair for this inequality to exist. A sizeable portion (not a majority, mind you) of poor, uneducated and largely hopeless people have always - and will always - seize ANY opportunity to help themselves to things which they see others with, but cannot themselves afford.

With that said, I believe that the 'black' community in this country feels this "inequality" and "unfairness" more acutely than does any other. Indeed, they have been indoctrinated to believe that they have no chance and cannot raise themselves up because of 'racism'. Thus it is not surprising that they make up arguably the largest percentage of that group which is now engaged in lawless behavior in New Orleans.

Why do I stay?

How can I justify supporting a nation this stupid:

This morning I read in the WSJ that members of the 48th Brigade Combat Team, leaving on a chartered flight from Georgia to Iraq, were forced to surrender their nail clippers and pocket knives by airport security - but were permitted to keep and take onto the plane with them their M16 battle rifles, M4 carbines, M9 pistols and squad automatic weapons.

I pray that this is either a joke or a mistake. Sadly, I expect it is not.

If I find out that they pulled some of these people out of line for searches - I will lose my everlovin' mind.

YAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRGGGGGHHHHHH!