Why do we have guns? I’m not talking about hunting. Not talking about fending off the robber or rapist. That has always been a distraction as to why we have guns in the US. Sure... those are all good reasons to possess a firearm. But in the United States the reason we have a guns is not for personal protection or a sport. No, the reason we have guns is to shoot the government. Or actually more artfully put... to keep the government from shooting us.
History is clear, governments will eventually turn on the populace. They will enslave their citizens and remove all freedoms. This tendency isn’t some antiquated norm that society has grown out of. It’s right there everyday. Under the noblest of banners. Protection, security, equality. These are the terms used to extort your liberty from you. Because how can you be against protecting the children? How can you be against securing the nation? How can you deny another man his “equality”?
Our founders knew of this eventuality. They understood that the best way to retard the inevitable was to make it clear that governments did not have the right to disarm the people. Militia’s rather than be maintained now... are abdicated (foolishly) to the Federal government alone. State militia’s exist but only under limited scope and at the ultimate direction of the Federal government.
You see militia’s were to fend off more than just advancing nations, marauders and pirates. They were to fend off tyranny. Our own government tyranny. The firearm is the ultimate check and balance weighted against an ever growing, ever reaching, ever encompassing federal government. Governments turn on their people. But first they must disarm them.
In the beginning they will pick the “low hanging” fruit. “Assault Weapons” which is a media code word used to stir emotion rather than reason. Next it will be all guns with high capacity magazines. Then voluntary buybacks. Finally door to door confiscation once those few who still have guns are demonized as treasonous conspirators by a willing media accomplice.
Why have high capacity magazines and assault weapons? Who needs those? In order to fulfill the admonition of the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution we must be able to raise arms effectively against Tyranny. No one thinks we need to have tanks and missiles. Tyranny isn’t put down by heavy weapons. But it is assumed that some kind of arms parity must exist. The general arms of the day and times. These days the arms are semi auto pistols, shotguns and rifles. A good way to look at it is if you can find it in the armory of your local Sheriff’s office or Police Department it deserves to be in the hands of the citizens as well.
Again, no one is suggestion civilians have grenades, rocket launchers or depleted uranium ammunition. But we must have a level of parity to remain that constant threat to tyranny. This parity ensures to Tyranny that it will at its best inflict mutually destruction on all of us and at worse be vanquished and another government installed.
Politicians and judges are not keen on this undeniable truth. They do not often reference this reality. They prefer to couch the arguments of gun ownership in terms of personal protection from robbers and attackers. Sports and heritage. Rare is the politician that salutes the 2nd amendment for what it is... the ultimate check on his and his colleagues power to limit liberty.
When understood from this important angle it’s easy to extrapolate that one of the many reasons the US has remained as free as it is, for as long as it has, is because of the threat of violence to the government from its people. It’s not hyperbole or bombast to suggest that without the 2nd Amendment and an armed populace that our past might look more like China, Russia or Germany or maybe even Saudi Arabia.
If you look at the atrocities endured in these countries and inflicted on others by these countries it is easy to see that living ones life at the pleasure of Tyranny and government costs way more of those lives than does the cost of civilian on civilian gun crime.
Knowing this doesn’t lessen the tragedy of the Connecticut shootings, or just a few months earlier the Colorado theater shootings. Knowing this isn’t supposed to provide comfort to grieving parents and friends. Knowing this provides the proper perspective in which to view these events. It provides understanding that, like many choices, is not a perfect solution. I’d like to say the US is different. We won’t experience freedomless tyranny and the guns are not necessary. But there is no evidence for that. Rather the evidence is to the contrary. That we are at tyranny’s door. History gives a clear picture of where we are headed. It’s not conspiracy theory. It’s not an overstatement. Our guns in civilian hands has always and hopefully will always provide a needed service to all of us as the last and best defense against the loss of our liberty and freedom.
Saturday, December 15, 2012
Saturday, September 10, 2011
Ten Years After 9/11...
Lessons Yet To Be Learned.
1. Terrorists are not psychopaths or mentally ill. They are not cowards any more than we are. What they are is desperate. They are short sighted. They are misguided. If you set out to fight terrorism by fighting psychopathic cowards you will waste your time and money.
2. There is nothing the US can do to rid the world of terrorism but it can limit its exposure to their aims by being measured in its responses to provocation and in how it deals with tyrants and dictators that build the farms that grow terrorism and resentment of the West.
3. Terrorism must be measured and responses to terrorism must be measured in two ways. Principally by REAL potential threats on the horizon and what kind of real damage in life and property these threats could cause. Next it must be tempered by ACTUAL damage terrorism has achieved in terms of life and property. (Which is VERY VERY little compared to many domestic forms of loss of life and loss of property.)
4. Finally to limit liberty and freedom in an effort to “fight terrorism” is to give terrorist “a free one”. Because censorship, a loss of privacy and guilty-till-proven-innocent tactics do more to harm our country at its fabric and base than any type of attack on America has historically accomplished or realistically will accomplish in the future.
1. Terrorists are not psychopaths or mentally ill. They are not cowards any more than we are. What they are is desperate. They are short sighted. They are misguided. If you set out to fight terrorism by fighting psychopathic cowards you will waste your time and money.
2. There is nothing the US can do to rid the world of terrorism but it can limit its exposure to their aims by being measured in its responses to provocation and in how it deals with tyrants and dictators that build the farms that grow terrorism and resentment of the West.
3. Terrorism must be measured and responses to terrorism must be measured in two ways. Principally by REAL potential threats on the horizon and what kind of real damage in life and property these threats could cause. Next it must be tempered by ACTUAL damage terrorism has achieved in terms of life and property. (Which is VERY VERY little compared to many domestic forms of loss of life and loss of property.)
4. Finally to limit liberty and freedom in an effort to “fight terrorism” is to give terrorist “a free one”. Because censorship, a loss of privacy and guilty-till-proven-innocent tactics do more to harm our country at its fabric and base than any type of attack on America has historically accomplished or realistically will accomplish in the future.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Friday, May 28, 2010
The SC Republican primary offers some...
The SC Republican primary offers some stark contrasts. On the one hand you have career politicians like Andre Bauer and Henry McMaster who have never known a "real job". Then you have Gresham Barrett and Nikki Haley. Relative newcomers to politics. Why does this matter? It matters because power corrupts. Being in politics is also very jading.
In SC we need fresh eyes on our state's problems. New solutions. What we have done and are doing now isn't working or isn't working fast enough. Mark Sanford despite his "issues" has tried his best to keep the state in the black. But, as long as the state of SC is beholding to the US government (thing education) for so much of its programs and funding, managing the "red" and the "black" is never going to be in our own hands. No party and no person can manage the states finances correctly if we are subject to whims of the Federal Government.
With this in mind, who is our best candidate for Governor of South Carolina? Well it is not Henry McMaster who has been in politics long enough to be best friends with John Spratt! Sure he mustered a little courage to stand up to the Feds this year, but he could and SHOULD have had that stance all along. Which begs the question, why the courage this year... an election year?
Andre Bauer is a career politician like no other. Politics, minus a short career selling sporting goods, is all that Andre has ever known. I have nothing against him as a person, and he might even be a "good" politician. But, he is not Governor material.
This leaves Barrett and Haley. Both qualified, both capable. I personally lean towards Halley because she seems the most likely to ATTACK South Carolina's problems. She also has the benefit of being the opposite of "jaded". From LEGAL immigrant parents she still appreciates the exceptional nature of South Carolina and the USA. She sees the benefits and offerings available to all of us.
As a Post Script, to all the people with Vincent Sheheen signs in their yard? Really? Have you looked around this world? Would another democrat in power anywhere in the world be a good thing right now? Another person who thinks that the Federal government is the best entity to handle problems here at home! When in fact, shipping our taxes to Washington just to have them redistributed as Washington sees fit IS THE PROBLEM. If you are a business owner and support Sheheen then come see me. I want to ask you some tough questions!
In SC we need fresh eyes on our state's problems. New solutions. What we have done and are doing now isn't working or isn't working fast enough. Mark Sanford despite his "issues" has tried his best to keep the state in the black. But, as long as the state of SC is beholding to the US government (thing education) for so much of its programs and funding, managing the "red" and the "black" is never going to be in our own hands. No party and no person can manage the states finances correctly if we are subject to whims of the Federal Government.
With this in mind, who is our best candidate for Governor of South Carolina? Well it is not Henry McMaster who has been in politics long enough to be best friends with John Spratt! Sure he mustered a little courage to stand up to the Feds this year, but he could and SHOULD have had that stance all along. Which begs the question, why the courage this year... an election year?
Andre Bauer is a career politician like no other. Politics, minus a short career selling sporting goods, is all that Andre has ever known. I have nothing against him as a person, and he might even be a "good" politician. But, he is not Governor material.
This leaves Barrett and Haley. Both qualified, both capable. I personally lean towards Halley because she seems the most likely to ATTACK South Carolina's problems. She also has the benefit of being the opposite of "jaded". From LEGAL immigrant parents she still appreciates the exceptional nature of South Carolina and the USA. She sees the benefits and offerings available to all of us.
As a Post Script, to all the people with Vincent Sheheen signs in their yard? Really? Have you looked around this world? Would another democrat in power anywhere in the world be a good thing right now? Another person who thinks that the Federal government is the best entity to handle problems here at home! When in fact, shipping our taxes to Washington just to have them redistributed as Washington sees fit IS THE PROBLEM. If you are a business owner and support Sheheen then come see me. I want to ask you some tough questions!
The SC Republican primary offers some...
The SC Republican primary offers some stark contrasts. On the one hand you have career politicians like Andre Bauer and Henry McMaster who have never known a "real job". Then you have Gresham Barrett and Nikki Haley. Relative newcomers to politics. Why does this matter? It matters because power corrupts. Being in politics is also very jading.
In SC we need fresh eyes on our state's problems. New solutions. What we have done and are doing now isn't working or isn't working fast enough. Mark Sanford despite his "issues" has tried his best to keep the state in the black. But, as long as the state of SC is beholding to the US government (thing education) for so much of its programs and funding, managing the "red" and the "black" is never going to be in our own hands. No party and no person can manage the states finances correctly if we are subject to whims of the Federal Government.
With this in mind, who is our best candidate for Governor of South Carolina? Well it is not Henry McMaster who has been in politics long enough to be best friends with John Spratt! Sure he mustered a little courage to stand up to the Feds this year, but he could and SHOULD have had that stance all along. Which begs the question, why the courage this year... an election year?
Andre Bauer is a career politician like no other. Politics, minus a short career selling sporting goods, is all that Andre has ever known. I have nothing against him as a person, and he might even be a "good" politician. But, he is not Governor material.
This leaves Barrett and Haley. Both qualified, both capable. I personally lean towards Halley because she seems the most likely to ATTACK South Carolina's problems. She also has the benefit of being the opposite of "jaded". From LEGAL immigrant parents she still appreciates the exceptional nature of South Carolina and the USA. She sees the benefits and offerings available to all of us.
As a Post Script, to all the people with Vincent Sheheen signs in their yard? Really? Have you looked around this world? Would another democrat in power anywhere in the world be a good thing right now? Another person who thinks that the Federal government is the best entity to handle problems here at home! When in fact, shipping our taxes to Washington just to have them redistributed as Washington sees fit IS THE PROBLEM. If you are a business owner and support Sheheen then come see me. I want to ask you some tough questions!
In SC we need fresh eyes on our state's problems. New solutions. What we have done and are doing now isn't working or isn't working fast enough. Mark Sanford despite his "issues" has tried his best to keep the state in the black. But, as long as the state of SC is beholding to the US government (thing education) for so much of its programs and funding, managing the "red" and the "black" is never going to be in our own hands. No party and no person can manage the states finances correctly if we are subject to whims of the Federal Government.
With this in mind, who is our best candidate for Governor of South Carolina? Well it is not Henry McMaster who has been in politics long enough to be best friends with John Spratt! Sure he mustered a little courage to stand up to the Feds this year, but he could and SHOULD have had that stance all along. Which begs the question, why the courage this year... an election year?
Andre Bauer is a career politician like no other. Politics, minus a short career selling sporting goods, is all that Andre has ever known. I have nothing against him as a person, and he might even be a "good" politician. But, he is not Governor material.
This leaves Barrett and Haley. Both qualified, both capable. I personally lean towards Halley because she seems the most likely to ATTACK South Carolina's problems. She also has the benefit of being the opposite of "jaded". From LEGAL immigrant parents she still appreciates the exceptional nature of South Carolina and the USA. She sees the benefits and offerings available to all of us.
As a Post Script, to all the people with Vincent Sheheen signs in their yard? Really? Have you looked around this world? Would another democrat in power anywhere in the world be a good thing right now? Another person who thinks that the Federal government is the best entity to handle problems here at home! When in fact, shipping our taxes to Washington just to have them redistributed as Washington sees fit IS THE PROBLEM. If you are a business owner and support Sheheen then come see me. I want to ask you some tough questions!
The Physics of Personal Defense
The Physics of Personal Defense
In previous posts we have covered some of this. But I want to be a bit more specific and make some recommendations.
So what does this mean in terms of Personal Defense.
In previous posts we have covered some of this. But I want to be a bit more specific and make some recommendations.
- Newton's Third Law of Motion. Basically, for ever action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Two people on roller skates pushing off of each other will depart each other in an equal and opposite way (other factors being equal). Think of your bullet (projectile) as skater 1 and your gun as skater two pushing off of each other. Of course mass and a few other factors weigh into the effect, but basically you bullet will impact with similar force to what you felt when firing the projectile.
This factors into my previous posts on the Myth of knock down power. Generally handguns have either NONE or very little. Hollywood has done us no favors here. When targets go down from being shot with a handgun it is because it was a "good" shot landing in a critical area incapacitating the target, or it was because of a mixture of physical and psychological factors associated with being shot. Factors like fear and pain. Even modeling behavior. You are supposed to stop and fall when you are shot... so you do! - Kinetic Energy. Or as we like to say... damage or knockdown power. Mass times Velocity Squared. The energy imparted on the target is the mass of your projectile times the speed/velocity of your projectile. The heavier the projectile (mass) the more damage. The faster the projectile (velocity) the more damage.
This means that given a choice you GENERALLY will always opt for more speed to gain more damage. Why?? Because Velocity is Squared. It follows that more speed adds an exponential increase in damage. The exception being pistol rounds. A good rule of thumb would be 2000 ft per second.
Until your projectile is traveling MORE than 2000 ft/s you should opt for a larger and heavier bullet to do more damage. Why? Until you are traveling around 2000 ft/s the secondary wound channel will be too small to produce significant damage. There are two wounds a bullet makes. The primary wound channel is roughly the size of the projectile entering the target. The secondary wound channel is based on the speed the bullet is moving through the target. It is like waves coming off of a boat. Or a rock thrown into a pond. The faster you throw it the bigger the ripple or waves.
This "wave" is your second wound channel that in high velocity does so much damage.
So what does this mean in terms of Personal Defense.
- be able to accurately fire your handgun. An accurate shot will do more good than two or three that get no where near a critical area.
- shoot as much gun as is prudent. If you can handle a 45 acp and it is practical to have it with you... have it with you. If it is going to be a "left-it" gun, drop a caliber and use a gun you will tote. (left-it in the house, left-it in the car, left-it on the night stand)
- if possible and prudent always opt for a high velocity rifle. If you live in an apartment surrounded on three sides by neighbors, I am not sure a rifle is best. If you have children, and in a home defense situation you would need to move from your location to their's, a shoulder fired gun might not be best. This depends on you, your situation and aptitude with a rifle.
- no matter what gun you use practice and expect to put multiple rounds on target. In terms of stopping power... more is better. Accuracy is best.
Friday, May 21, 2010
FEDS: We may not process illegals referred from Arizona...
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/21/official-says-feds-process-illegals-referred-arizona/
Really... then AZ should deport them.
When the US federal system isn't doing its job then the states are left to do it.
That is what is going on in AZ. I am actually pro-immigration. I don't want a wall or mass deportations. But I am also a federalist. AZ is within its rights to do what it is doing. IF the federal apparatus doesn't do its job then AZ can do it for them!!!
Really... then AZ should deport them.
When the US federal system isn't doing its job then the states are left to do it.
That is what is going on in AZ. I am actually pro-immigration. I don't want a wall or mass deportations. But I am also a federalist. AZ is within its rights to do what it is doing. IF the federal apparatus doesn't do its job then AZ can do it for them!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
